Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments in the group, all of which were lodged with the aim of exploring how we can create a strong duty of care to students on educational institutions in the higher and further education sectors. The duties that organisations have to students are very different from those that they have to their workforce—where duty of care is contained in the employment contract—and from the types of duties that exist in the school system.

I have come to the committee as a result of work around violence against women and girls—there are a number of cases in which there have been significant failures in the education setting—and the work of campaigners such as Fiona Drouet, which many committee members will know of.

My amendments relate to how we can try to ensure that there are greater obligations on institutions in relation to students. We have to remember that many young people leave home for the first time to go to college and university, which are very different kinds of environments from the ones that they have been in before. As a society, we need to ensure that we provide a strong framework and that there are appropriate duties of care to students in such situations.

All my amendments relate to the mental health and wellbeing of all students in further education and higher education and those who are studying for teaching qualifications, for example, under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework.

We know that being a student, and, indeed, taking part in those forms of training, can be a very stressful experience for many. A survey from the Mental Health Foundation in 2021 showed that 19.6 per cent—nearly 20 per cent—of university students in Scotland reported either having had suicidal ideas or making a suicide attempt in the previous six months. There will be other data and we know, generally, that this is a very stressful time for many. Trade unions in the further and higher education sector have also reported that there are high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and other mental health issues among staff, and that those issues can exist on campus.

Clearly, we need robust and codified support for both those who are learning and those who are teaching under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework. All my amendments aim to open up that discussion and consider how we can—

That intervention from Martin Whitfield is extremely helpful, particularly its focus on age. I would argue that some barriers are artificial, including, perhaps, around the different levels of legal responsibility towards different students, depending on how they are categorised.

I am arguing that institutions should have a general duty of care, which would be a helpful development in terms of Scots law. The detail of what that might look like may be something for discussion, but I do not think that it necessarily needs to be outlined in legislation. The aim is to improve overall standards and the overall legal requirements. Although I am happy to focus on specific amendments, the general concept is that institutions should have a generic duty of care in the way that they have duties in relation to many of the contracts that they are involved in as universities or colleges.

Amendment 224 would require there to be a dedicated member of staff to ensure that qualifications Scotland was meeting its obligations in relation to a duty of care. I was not in any way suggesting that that would necessarily mean recruiting a new member of staff; it was more that there should be someone in the organisation who would have specific responsibilities to ensure that those obligations were met. That might require another member of staff, but I do not believe that that would automatically be the approach taken. It would be more likely that the organisation would have somebody with a role in driving that piece of work.

Amendment 241 would require that, in exercising its functions, qualifications Scotland owed a duty of care both to students and to those taking part in training for a qualifications Scotland qualification. The suggestion covers a number of cases where there has been concern about the experience that students have had. There would be a responsibility to act in the aforementioned parties’ best interests and to have regard to their mental and physical wellbeing.

Amendment 288 sets out a duty of care for educational and training establishments. At the most basic level, that duty of care would involve the establishment attempting to act in the best interests of teachers, practitioners and learners. That relates to a wider health and wellbeing agenda, and it would ensure that teachers, practitioners and learners were entitled to access support from education and training establishments and to have that codified to ensure that learners who faced additional barriers were able to achieve their fullest potential.

Amendment 333 details an inspection plan, which would be set out by the chief inspector as soon as it was practical to do so. The plan should include details of how an assessment would be conducted to ensure that establishments were upholding their duty of care and that groups were having their needs met. That perhaps picks up on some of the points that Miles Briggs made in his intervention about the practical implications for institutions. Would it mean them considering providing a service that they currently do not?

Of course.

Yes—exactly.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether the reported increased annual cost of Scotland’s prisons to over £77,000 per prisoner represents good value for public money. (S6F-03996)

As the First Minister knows, Scotland has the highest number of prisoners in western Europe, per head. If we want to reduce prison costs, we must reduce the number of people in custody and the levels of offending. Some people must be kept in custody but, as a country, we spend comparatively little on community justice. Does the First Minister accept that we need to shift resources significantly to robust alternatives to custody, which the evidence suggests are more effective at reducing offending for many prisoners?

I believe that my amendments have been overtaken by events. On the basis that the cabinet secretary is proceeding with her amendments, I do not intend to proceed with mine. For the purpose of the debate, I move amendment 65, which I will then seek to withdraw.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s points about drafting, but the principle is about communication from the prosecution and the Crown, whether that is the advocate depute or procurator fiscal. Does she support that principle? It is very much being introduced now, as she will be aware.

Will the cabinet secretary outline how the pilot will differ from the proposal in amendment 68? I appreciate that the pilot would not have a statutory footing, but would all the principles that are outlined in amendment 68—including the evaluation and the approach—be incorporated in the pilot?