Chamber and committees

Anyone else? As he grasps at straws.

Good morning, everyone. It is nice to see Professor Tomkins, and unusual to see him at the other side of the table instead of here with the rest of us.

Ironically, as a former minister who was in charge of referenda and participatory democracy, I agree with Professor Tomkins that our two citizens assemblies were too vague and our questions were too big and could have been broken down. Assisted dying is a perfect example. When I came in as minister, I asked, “Why don’t we have a citizens assembly on a difficult question such as assisted dying?” I cited what Ireland did with some of the difficult questions that it faced. However, that is entirely different from what we are talking about today.

When I was a minister, I would talk to people who, like me, were pro-independence, and they would say, “You’re in charge of referenda, George. Just do it.” I would cite many of the arguments that have been made today. I would say that we would not gain anything, we would not be any further forward and we would be in the Catalonian situation.

I take on board what Professor Tomkins said about being careful what we wish for and the idea that the flexibility of the UK constitution might be helpful. Our advisors have talked about the Canadian paradox, whereby the UK Supreme Court took on one aspect of the question, whereas Quebec could not enable a referendum on its own—that would be for the Canadian Government. We did not get to the next part, however—that, if there was a clear process and reasoning, and if the political process got to the stage where a referendum could be held, there would be open dialogue and everything would be done in good faith. Would that kind of aspect have helped us here, so that we were not almost in a no-man’s-land? As every one of you has said, when the act happened and everybody knew that we were moving forward politically with the argument, the UK Government had the right to negotiate in good faith, rather than just saying, “Now is not the time.”

But we cannot even get to that stage politically, although we know that a majority of Scots believe in independence. That is where the frustration comes in: there is not the ability for us to go forward.

How would the bill support teachers to make sure that they are aware of what they can and cannot do in that scenario? That is still a major concern—we just received some details from the Educational Institute of Scotland with regard to the bill. How can teachers feel secure that they are still in a safe place to be able to manage their classes?

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Johnson. You said that you understood the difficulties and challenges that teachers deal with in a classroom environment. However, many of them have been asking when seclusion becomes seclusion after a child has been disruptive in class and, I dare say, needs classroom management. Teachers have said that your bill would not make a difference as it does not make the definition of seclusion clear to them. The environment is challenging, and things happen in the classroom in the moment. How can your bill make teachers feel better about that?

I will pick up on the meetings and who you met and when. With your officials engaging as regularly as they do, you have a note on what the officials have attended and what has happened at the meetings. Have I picked you up correctly that the whistleblower was the only reason you heard of the allegations and that they never came through the engagement from the Scottish Government?

I will focus on the governance issues in particular. We are all aware of how important Historic Environment Scotland is to the Scottish economy and what it contributes. With Sir Mark Jones now in place, you have already hinted at various support that you will give him. What will you be giving him to make sure that he does exactly what he wants to do, which he said to me when I asked him questions last week, and exactly what you need him to do?

When answering one of Mr Bibby’s questions, Mr Hogg said that there is not a widespread issue and that the problems are not happening in other parts of the cultural sector. What is the Government learning from what has happened in HES to ensure that that is the case and that we do not end up in a similar situation with other parts of the cultural sector that the Government supports?

Good morning. Paul McLennan brought up the main issue in his usual very quiet and dignified way, which is the fact that children and young people are the most important people with regard to this bill. Various people have told us that the bill is a starting point and that it is not the main delivery mechanism, because local authorities and other areas do a lot of the work. As the bill is just now and with the work in partnership with other authorities and organisations to deliver the Promise, do you believe that the bill will be the starting point—the jumping-off point—to ensure that we deliver it?