Seòmar agus comataidhean

The permanent principal appointment is challenging. Mr Gillespie left in December last year, so, to my mind, that process should have been undertaken long before now. However, that is not the position in which the university finds itself. I also direct the committee back to Pamela Gillies’s report, which addressed the issues around governance in the institution and the lack of a permanent leadership team. As I understand it, that remains the position in the university today. I am sure that the committee will want to put those issues to the current management team, but we expect the SFC to pursue them on behalf of ministers, and, since March, I have been engaging with the SFC on all these matters, along with Mr Dey—and now with Mr Macpherson, of course.

If individuals are not being informed, it is the local authority that is accountable. The headteacher has a responsibility in that regard, too, but statutory responsibility is with the local authority. Therefore, the local authority should have practices in place. I think that the committee has taken evidence on that from ADES and others. Local authorities should have policies in place, and individual schools should be working with parents and carers. The committee has heard evidence that, sometimes, parents are not informed and things go wrong. In my experience, parents are informed. However, we are here talking about how we can ensure that things do not go wrong in the future.

The national guidance sets out the Government’s expectation that parents are notified by the end of the school day, so if a school did not do that, that would run contrary to the national guidance. However, the guidance is not statutory, which is why we are discussing legislation.

That question speaks to the point that Mr Rennie was pursuing in relation to our role in opening up the discussion. Mr Johnson’s bill is focused on education settings because, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has alluded to, we have different approaches in care settings and in ELC settings, where the Care Inspectorate has a role. If we were to take a similar approach in education, we would need to be mindful that that would completely alter the nature of the bill. I think it is fair to say that that would elongate its passage, because it would be asking much bigger questions. That is not to say that the issues are not important but, currently, we do not have the national data that we need on those incidents. I agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s intention in that regard.

There has been a suggestion that the inspectorate would have a role in gathering the data. When the committee is considering the bill at stage 2, I am sure that it will want to hear from the inspectorate with its views on how that would operate and how local government in particular would co-operate. It would depend on local reporting and recording practices, and we would need there to be much greater consistency across the piece. The Care Inspectorate’s approach is quite different from the approach that is taken in education, where there is no statutory requirement to record incidents. Ms Duncan-Glancy makes an interesting point. However, if we were to follow that approach, it would change the nature of the bill that we are discussing. I understand why Mr Johnson has focused on education settings.

That has been part of the challenge facing the Government for a number of years. Indeed, the point was pursued by one of the trade unions when it raised concerns about individual school-based data. I think that that sort of thing would need to be undertaken in a very sensitive way. I do not think that the issue is insurmountable, and of course it is part of the bill, which we are supportive of. We will continue to engage with Mr Johnson on this at stage 2, because we need to reassure local government that authorities are not going to be measured against one another and that national data will help inform better practice.

I suspect that you are right.

I have received quite a lot of correspondence about the school that the member mentions. In my original correspondence with members, I said that the legislative landscape means that responsibility for the school rests with Highland Council, not with the Government. However, given the quantity of correspondence, I am keen to meet parents and carers and to listen to them directly. I do not want to prejudge that meeting before it takes place and it is difficult for me to comment on individual circumstances, but, given the strength of feeling from parents and carers, my view as cabinet secretary is that I should meet and listen to them. I will allow that meeting to take place and, given his interest, I am more than happy to meet the member and other members.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of your engagement with the University of Dundee. I will say that the university is at a critical crossroads, and I know that the committee is mindful of that. We need to ensure the institution’s future, and that it is financially stable. The Government has been working on the issue for a number of months, and, as the committee also knows, the Scottish Funding Council is preparing conditions for funding that will support the institution to become financially stable.

I do not want to prejudge the evidence session. I await its outcome, and I am more than happy to continue engagement with the committee.

I sincerely hope that the university is happy with the Scottish Government. We are providing a large amount of public money to help it, given the challenges that it has encountered as a result of the financial decisions that were taken by the previous management team.

I am going to a meeting with the Scottish Funding Council after this evidence session, so I will interrogate the point that you have made. I am not necessarily sure that I agree with the point about impartiality, but I am more than happy to continue my engagement with the SFC in that regard.