Seòmar agus comataidhean

I saw the reports at the time and, like you, I shared some of the concerns. As I understand it, at that point, the SFC had undertaken to work with Deloitte but Deloitte had not, at that point, undertaken to look at the plan, because the plan was not acceptable to the SFC. That was dealt with in correspondence. The requirements from the SFC were sent back to Dundee, and it was my understanding that Deloitte was then to look at the updated plan.

Oversight will be hugely important—this is public money—and there will be a role for the SFC in that regard and a role for ministers. We will have oversight of the public money and the conditions, but the university is independent, and we need to be careful about the interplay in relation to the section 25 agreement, which allows us to award money to the institution—or rather to provide it with financial assistance—because of the unique set of circumstances in which it found itself.

There are two points to make in that regard: first, that we have certainty in relation to the conditions and that the SFC will ensure, on behalf of ministers, that those are adhered to; and, secondly, that the institution itself has to run independently. In the future, that is where Dundee university needs to get to, and we have a contribution to make in relation to the public money that is being provided.

Is it better? We need to go back to what happened. Dundee university—

Officials can correct me if I am wrong on this, but the bill was introduced in March, I think—

I read Pauline Stephen’s evidence. She made the point about child protection services, which I think that I mentioned previously, because that would create a situation in which this guidance was on a statutory footing and then, behind that, there would be a child protection service and systems that are not provided for in the same way. She raised a very important point.

If we were to do what Pauline suggested—what I think that she said that she would do if she ran the world—the bill would become something that it is not currently. It would be a far more extensive piece of legislation. We talk about legislative timescales, and we are all aware of how close we are to dissolution now, so I suspect that that might become a much more unwieldy piece of legislation. That is not to say that it is not important, because, in principle, I agree that there is an opportunity to look across the piste, but the bill is quite focused.

I am sure that you will want to put these points to Mr Johnson to get his views. My view is that we should look at it, but I am not necessarily convinced that the focus of the bill currently lends itself to that approach. However, if the Parliament decides that that is where it wants to go, that is, of course, in the gift of the Parliament.

I have said to Mr Johnson that we will work with him on his member’s bill. I am not going to be more definitive than that today, Mr Rennie, because these are discussions that we would have at stage 2. However, I have said that we will work with him, and we have had a very positive working relationship thus far. I hope that that provides the member with some reassurance.

I think that part of the issue—this does not apply only to restraint—is that there might be reticence on the part of teachers to report, as they might be concerned about or fearful of doing so. We hear that quite often in relation to behaviour in schools, and we have debated some of those issues. In my time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I have been clear in calling for better and more consistent reporting, which I think has helped to shift the dial a bit.

However, fundamentally, teachers are often scared to report. The committee heard evidence from the NASUWT to that end—I spoke to Mike Corbett about that last week—and the Educational Institute of Scotland. Committees therefore need to be mindful of that and provide reassurance to the teaching profession, because they might be fearful about how reporting comes across.

As I think that the committee has also heard evidence on, local government is fearful that, were we to have greater reporting, that might lead to the creation of league tables, for example, and it is fearful of what that might mean for individual schools. I think that those issues can be dealt with more sensitively in the round. For example, the NASUWT has asked that we do not publish school-based data, which would certainly be a position that I would support. We need to be careful about how that is done.

However, in my experience, there is a reticence, and perhaps a fear, in the profession when it comes to reporting and what the use of restraint says about them. We need better reporting across the board. That is not true only in relation to restraint; I would highlight that we also need much better reporting on and recording of additional support needs.

My view on the bill is that it speaks to the relationship between local government and national Government in carrying out their responsibilities on education. There is an opportunity for us to learn from that experience and provide for better accountability and transparency, which is an issue that the committee has been pursuing in evidence sessions.

Yes, I do, because I have asked the SFC to undertake that work, and it is in train.

That creates challenges for us. We think that those things can be resolved, but I am being honest with the committee, and I have set out in correspondence that those are the issues that we need to resolve with Mr Johnson. He has been very open to doing that, so, to respond to Mr Rennie’s point, I do not think that those issues are insurmountable.

Colleagues will have looked at the financial memorandum; the concern that has been raised is not our understanding of how the provisions will operate in practice. It is worth saying that, in effect, the changes will align legislation with the existing guidance. To our mind, the current guidance does not provide that protection; that is why we are amending the legislation. However, we do not expect there to be an increased workload as a result.

I remind members—I know that you have taken extensive evidence on this—that we are not removing the parental right to withdraw. We are introducing a child’s right to opt back in. If anything, we will see more young people opting back into religious observance and RME, for example, so we do not expect that the bill will drive a workload in that regard, because we could have fewer young people opting out than has been the case in the past.

However, I link the member’s point to the points raised by Mr McLennan, because I am pretty sympathetic to the view that has been expressed to the committee that not all parents are aware of their legal rights under the 1980 act. Taking the bill through will help to draw attention to those rights, as will the updated guidance, and that will help to inform different approaches to policy and practice in schools and communication with parents.

The committee heard evidence on that point from Connect, which is the national parents organisation that the Scottish Government funds. I am happy to engage with Connect on those issues, because parents being aware of their rights around withdrawal is important.