Chamber and committees

I just want to put on record a conversation that we have been having as this committee meeting has gone on. A lot of young people are looking to that trusted person to be almost a facilitator in accessing services. I would not want to take away from what Jackie Dunbar has been highlighting with regard to the person in question being the trusted person whom the young person would want to be their advocate, but there is a conflict of interest issue to take into account, too.

I think it wise that we agree to amendment 147 today, but its definition of “independent”, and who the individual in question could be, could still be looked at in terms of that facilitator role. That will be for stage 3, though, and we could also reach out to the sector to see what it thinks. We have all heard the voice of care-experienced young people, and the fact is that they want that individual, even if there is a conflict of interest.

The committee has just considered the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. I am very sympathetic to the member’s amendment, but what does he envisage being provided by the guarantee that he has referred to, if there is no guarantee of an apprenticeship opportunity or further education? I am just a wee bit concerned about the word “guaranteed” in the amendment and what it would look like in reality if something is not going to be delivered.

Will the minister give way?

I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for the work that he and his office have undertaken on his member’s bill. Having taken forward two consultations, I know just how much pressure that work will have put on his office. I want to use this opportunity, as other members have, to pay tribute to the member for getting the bill to where it is today.

It is a few years ago now that I had the pleasure of meeting Beth, Peter and Calum Morrison in Parliament at a round-table event that Daniel Johnson held so that Parliamentarians from across the chamber had an opportunity to hear what the issue was. I remember keeping a document that Beth gave us, which outlined the experience that Calum had, and that takes me back to why we are here today.

On Friday 24 September 2010, when the school bus dropped Callum home at 3.25 pm, his face was ashen, his lips were blue and he was wearing different clothes from those that he had left in the morning—a thin T-shirt, shorts and plimsolls, no underwear and no coat. His own clothes were soaked in urine and stuffed in a plastic bag. That should not be happening in Scotland in this day and age and I hope that, through the opportunity that the bill presents us with today, we will ensure that no parent or carer in our country ever faces a similar situation.

A number of constituents have told me of their children’s experiences. In every case, they have not been able to get answers from those who they trust with their children’s education, safety and wellbeing. A number of parents have highlighted to me the current postcode lottery not only in how schools use restraint but how they record incidents and communicate with parents what has gone on in the school day.

As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee has already put on record, we need to understand and learn from the concerns that the EIS is expressing. The committee did not shy away from trying to probe those because the concerns that have been highlighted cite workforce pressures and the legal standing of the bill. There will be cross-party support for the bill, but we have an important role as parliamentarians at stage 2 in the committee and at stage 3 before the election to ensure that the EIS’s questions are answered. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consideration of, and unanimous support for, the bill has provided that critique as well.

It is unacceptable for children to return home having been restrained and for their parents and carers to be provided with no information that an incident has taken place. It is unacceptable that such incidents are not recorded and that, when we are often talking about non-verbal children, we do not know what restraint has taken place. Calum was restrained at age 11 by four adults. The training is also not being recorded and we do not know what level the training providers are training people up to. De-escalation should always be the first point of call.

I acknowledge that Scottish National Party ministers have looked to improve guidance. That alone was never going to be good enough to protect children, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to support the bill and ensure that it passes through the Parliament. A legal framework should establish not only lines of responsibility, training standards and a reporting requirement but the safety that every one of us expects children in our schools to enjoy. For that reason, Scottish Conservatives will support the general principals of the bill at decision time.

15:02

I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for the work that he and his office have undertaken on his member’s bill. Having taken forward two consultations, I know just how much pressure that work will have put on his office. I want to use this opportunity, as other members have, to pay tribute to the member for getting the bill to where it is today.

It is a few years ago now that I had the pleasure of meeting Beth, Peter and Calum Morrison in Parliament at a round-table event that Daniel Johnson held so that Parliamentarians from across the chamber had an opportunity to hear what the issue was. I remember keeping a document that Beth gave us, which outlined the experience that Calum had, and that takes me back to why we are here today.

On Friday 24 September 2010, when the school bus dropped Callum home at 3.25 pm, his face was ashen, his lips were blue and he was wearing different clothes from those that he had left in the morning—a thin T-shirt, shorts and plimsolls, no underwear and no coat. His own clothes were soaked in urine and stuffed in a plastic bag. That should not be happening in Scotland in this day and age and I hope that, through the opportunity that the bill presents us with today, we will ensure that no parent or carer in our country ever faces a similar situation.

A number of constituents have told me of their children’s experiences. In every case, they have not been able to get answers from those who they trust with their children’s education, safety and wellbeing. A number of parents have highlighted to me the current postcode lottery not only in how schools use restraint but how they record incidents and communicate with parents what has gone on in the school day.

As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee has already put on record, we need to understand and learn from the concerns that the EIS is expressing. The committee did not shy away from trying to probe those because the concerns that have been highlighted cite workforce pressures and the legal standing of the bill. There will be cross-party support for the bill, but we have an important role as parliamentarians at stage 2 in the committee and at stage 3 before the election to ensure that the EIS’s questions are answered. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consideration of, and unanimous support for, the bill has provided that critique as well.

It is unacceptable for children to return home having been restrained and for their parents and carers to be provided with no information that an incident has taken place. It is unacceptable that such incidents are not recorded and that, when we are often talking about non-verbal children, we do not know what restraint has taken place. Calum was restrained at age 11 by four adults. The training is also not being recorded and we do not know what level the training providers are training people up to. De-escalation should always be the first point of call.

I acknowledge that Scottish National Party ministers have looked to improve guidance. That alone was never going to be good enough to protect children, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to support the bill and ensure that it passes through the Parliament. A legal framework should establish not only lines of responsibility, training standards and a reporting requirement but the safety that every one of us expects children in our schools to enjoy. For that reason, Scottish Conservatives will support the general principals of the bill at decision time.

15:02

I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for the work that he and his office have undertaken on his member’s bill. Having taken forward two consultations, I know just how much pressure that work will have put on his office. I want to use this opportunity, as other members have, to pay tribute to the member for getting the bill to where it is today.

It is a few years ago now that I had the pleasure of meeting Beth, Peter and Calum Morrison in Parliament at a round-table event that Daniel Johnson held so that Parliamentarians from across the chamber had an opportunity to hear what the issue was. I remember keeping a document that Beth gave us, which outlined the experience that Calum had, and that takes me back to why we are here today.

On Friday 24 September 2010, when the school bus dropped Callum home at 3.25 pm, his face was ashen, his lips were blue and he was wearing different clothes from those that he had left in the morning—a thin T-shirt, shorts and plimsolls, no underwear and no coat. His own clothes were soaked in urine and stuffed in a plastic bag. That should not be happening in Scotland in this day and age and I hope that, through the opportunity that the bill presents us with today, we will ensure that no parent or carer in our country ever faces a similar situation.

A number of constituents have told me of their children’s experiences. In every case, they have not been able to get answers from those who they trust with their children’s education, safety and wellbeing. A number of parents have highlighted to me the current postcode lottery not only in how schools use restraint but how they record incidents and communicate with parents what has gone on in the school day.

As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee has already put on record, we need to understand and learn from the concerns that the EIS is expressing. The committee did not shy away from trying to probe those because the concerns that have been highlighted cite workforce pressures and the legal standing of the bill. There will be cross-party support for the bill, but we have an important role as parliamentarians at stage 2 in the committee and at stage 3 before the election to ensure that the EIS’s questions are answered. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consideration of, and unanimous support for, the bill has provided that critique as well.

It is unacceptable for children to return home having been restrained and for their parents and carers to be provided with no information that an incident has taken place. It is unacceptable that such incidents are not recorded and that, when we are often talking about non-verbal children, we do not know what restraint has taken place. Calum was restrained at age 11 by four adults. The training is also not being recorded and we do not know what level the training providers are training people up to. De-escalation should always be the first point of call.

I acknowledge that Scottish National Party ministers have looked to improve guidance. That alone was never going to be good enough to protect children, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to support the bill and ensure that it passes through the Parliament. A legal framework should establish not only lines of responsibility, training standards and a reporting requirement but the safety that every one of us expects children in our schools to enjoy. For that reason, Scottish Conservatives will support the general principals of the bill at decision time.

15:02

::I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for the work that he and his office have undertaken on his member’s bill. Having taken forward two consultations, I know just how much pressure that work will have put on his office. I want to use this opportunity, as other members have, to pay tribute to the member for getting the bill to where it is today.

It is a few years ago now that I had the pleasure of meeting Beth, Peter and Calum Morrison in Parliament at a round-table event that Daniel Johnson held so that Parliamentarians from across the chamber had an opportunity to hear what the issue was. I remember keeping a document that Beth gave us, which outlined the experience that Calum had, and that takes me back to why we are here today.

On Friday 24 September 2010, when the school bus dropped Callum home at 3.25 pm, his face was ashen, his lips were blue and he was wearing different clothes from those that he had left in the morning—a thin T-shirt, shorts and plimsolls, no underwear and no coat. His own clothes were soaked in urine and stuffed in a plastic bag. That should not be happening in Scotland in this day and age and I hope that, through the opportunity that the bill presents us with today, we will ensure that no parent or carer in our country ever faces a similar situation.

A number of constituents have told me of their children’s experiences. In every case, they have not been able to get answers from those who they trust with their children’s education, safety and wellbeing. A number of parents have highlighted to me the current postcode lottery not only in how schools use restraint but how they record incidents and communicate with parents what has gone on in the school day.

As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee has already put on record, we need to understand and learn from the concerns that the EIS is expressing. The committee did not shy away from trying to probe those because the concerns that have been highlighted cite workforce pressures and the legal standing of the bill. There will be cross-party support for the bill, but we have an important role as parliamentarians at stage 2 in the committee and at stage 3 before the election to ensure that the EIS’s questions are answered. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consideration of, and unanimous support for, the bill has provided that critique as well.

It is unacceptable for children to return home having been restrained and for their parents and carers to be provided with no information that an incident has taken place. It is unacceptable that such incidents are not recorded and that, when we are often talking about non-verbal children, we do not know what restraint has taken place. Calum was restrained at age 11 by four adults. The training is also not being recorded and we do not know what level the training providers are training people up to. De-escalation should always be the first point of call.

I acknowledge that Scottish National Party ministers have looked to improve guidance. That alone was never going to be good enough to protect children, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to support the bill and ensure that it passes through the Parliament. A legal framework should establish not only lines of responsibility, training standards and a reporting requirement but the safety that every one of us expects children in our schools to enjoy. For that reason, Scottish Conservatives will support the general principals of the bill at decision time.

15:02

That is very helpful. We have been concerned about that transparency issue.

There was a lot of useful information there. My real concern, and where I think that the Scottish Funding Council should be around the transparency issue, is live information around institutions’ finances, rather than annual reporting. A lot of the work that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator does with charities in that regard is much more transparent. I think that a piece of work on that needs to be done in the next session of Parliament.

I want to move on to the Scottish Government and Universities Scotland’s launch of the framework for sustainability and success of Scotland’s universities. What engagement have the unions had on that to date? If they have not had such engagement, what would you want that to look like?

Perhaps Stewart Forrester can start.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. A number of my questions have been covered, so I will not go over senior management pay and other issues.

How effective do you think your courts are with regard to knowing what is going on and leading decision making rather than just following?