Chamber and committees

I dare say that that will be on the agenda for the Parliament in the next session, and perhaps for our successor committee. It is useful to have that on the record this morning.

We had a discussion with the previous panel about the purpose and role of sixth year. I do not know whether you caught any of the discussion, but Dr Bloomer was reflecting that sixth year has evolved as an experience for learners, and he said that it is probably in a better place than it was previously. He noted that there is a range and depth to the experience that did not exist many years ago. Dr Bloomer argued that, if we have four-year degrees plus a sixth-year experience, there may be a need for better synergy. Is it your view that we need to look at reform of the very senior phase, if I can use that expression? I ask Kirsty Ayed to respond first, as she is engaged with school life.

That is interesting. Two decades ago, a sixth-year student who shall remain nameless had exactly that experience in that he received an unconditional offer midway through the year. He was doing two advanced highers that he did not require, and he was also head boy, which took up his time. Many of us around the table who experienced sixth year, even if it was two decades ago, would probably say the same thing. It is interesting that Dr Bloomer felt that it had advanced, but perhaps it has stagnated. Is it fair to say that?

I appreciate that other panellists want to come in. We will have a framework review of universities, which will focus on structural issues, predominantly funding. Do you think that it will be important for many of the people we are speaking to in the meeting to be part of that conversation? If we are going to look at all the issues and put them on the table, does this conversation have to be part of that?

There is a lot of merit in it, given the development opportunities that we now afford young people in sixth year and the experiences that they have, which we know to be very important in that wider context. It is not all about preparing people for university, because not everyone goes.

Based on what you said, Professor Hayward, could we focus a lot more on the transferable skills that people will require for the next stage of their journey? Is it your sense that sixth year could be used more meaningfully—not only to provide the qualifications that enable someone to move to the next phase, but also to prepare them for life more broadly?

I will follow on from the point about teachers’ views of the curriculum improvement cycle. We have heard a lot this morning about what teachers feel that they need in order to engage properly, and we have covered in detail the point about INSET days and so. However, I have spoken to some teachers who feel some trepidation about ensuring that we get this right. I spoke to a number of religious, moral and philosophical studies teachers, particularly about the Es and Os and some of the challenges in the denominational and non-denominational sectors. There is a sense of anticipation about the opportunity but also some trepidation. Does Mr Harvey want to reflect on that and say what more we can do to give confidence to rank-and-file teachers about their role in this?

Do you think that teachers are scunnered?

Does anyone else want to offer a reflection on any of that?

We must also reflect on the work of college partners, as well as Professor Hayward’s work, because we do not want to exclude that from the broader conversation. Perhaps Professor Hayward will comment on that, but do you want to comment first, Donna?

I do not intend to say too much about my amendment 156, because my points have been largely covered in colleagues’ amendments. A number of amendments in the group seek to do the same thing: mandate that regulations are laid on the training to be offered to medical professionals to identify

“coercion, undue influence and coercive control”

and

“situations of dependency arising from illness, disability, age, social care needs or caring arrangements.”

Those are the words of my amendment.

In the debate on the previous group, in the wider debate that we had on coercion and coercive control and in the debate on this group, we have identified that medical practitioners do not always have the specialist training that is required to recognise the complex and often conflicting issues that arise in cases of abuse and in the patterns of behaviour that are associated with coercive control. Such patterns have to be monitored over a longer time. Colleagues have highlighted the challenges that arise from the fact that a patient’s relationship with their general practitioner is not what it was many years ago, when patients were more likely to see the same practitioner consistently. That issue has to be looked at more broadly.

That is why I have raised the need for wider multidisciplinary input, including from social workers and other professionals, which will help to identify coercive control much more easily.

Looking at the evidence that has been provided on other jurisdictions, I note that the Jersey review panel’s recent examination of assisted dying safeguards concluded that assessments should draw on as broad a range of professional expertise as possible. It acknowledges that medical training alone cannot provide what is required to identify coercion or coercive control. I say that to back up my previous point about social work, but also to make it clear that training is important and it is going to be required. It will allow us to deal with some of the issues that have been raised about the capacity of medical professionals to identify these pernicious issues.

As I said, I do not intend to labour points that have already been made. I am grateful for the time that I have had to add to the debate.