They could be in that situation, but they might not have had training and might be reticent. It is difficult for me to comment on individual examples but, in my experience, teachers are very reticent ever to involve themselves physically in any debates that may ensue in school, because—responding to the points that the convener made at the start of the evidence session—they are fearful of what may happen as a result. That is also part of the trade unions’ position. We need to be careful about that.

The bill stipulates an approach that does not mandate training, although it does provide for a national list of providers, which we are supportive of. We have provided further detail in that regard in our guidance. I think that the approach that Mr Johnson has taken is the right one, and we will work with him further on training. The training that is required of staff can take a number of days, as I understand it—I think that the committee took evidence on that. We are talking about staff going out of school for quite a long time. We need to think about the costs that that will incur in terms of school budgets and what it might mean for people being out of school and for staff cover. All those things will need to be resolved at stage 2.

To my mind, training on restraint is not something that all teachers will want to take part in. In fact, many teachers will not want to be part of it, because it is for teachers who work in specialist provision or perhaps in ELC.

I am always sympathetic to having more money provided to my budget. I have seen the evidence from the EIS and the NASUWT. That is a routine ask from the trade unions—that will not surprise the committee. I accept that pressures on our schools in relation to additional support needs have increased, particularly in recent years. Last year’s budget included £28 million of extra money for additional support needs, which complements the additional £1 billion of spend in the previous financial year.

There is extra money going into the system, but I am sympathetic to the points about resourcing. We need to consider those issues with regard to the financial memorandum. We have raised some challenges in relation to inflation, which has not been accounted for and which I know that the committee will be keen to consider. We need to look at that. If we are looking at a need for extra resourcing, we must consider where that will come from. Of course, we are approaching the budget, so, if members have views on where extra money for education should come from, I am all ears and will engage on a cross-party basis, because I would be supportive of more funding coming to the education portfolio.

No.

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.

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

I sat in the stage 1 debate, which Mr Macpherson was thrown into in his first week after being appointed as the Minister for Higher and Further Education. There are a lot of things happening in tertiary education, which Government needs to reflect on and respond to as a result of the stage 1 debate. I am not going to answer the specific points that Mr Greer made, but we are considering those things in the round. I cannot think of where there has been a legislative block to ministerial action in relation to what has happened at Dundee, but I think that there is a need for greater reassurance.

The issue is that these are independent and autonomous institutions, and we need to be mindful of the Office for National Statistics classification and what bringing any institution closer to Government might do to those institutions. In my view, it would be extremely dangerous if that were to take place; I am sure that Professor Seaton and others will have a view on that when the committee hears from them shortly.

We need to be careful about the role of Government and the role of our independent institutions, but we also need reassurance. That is the point that Mr Briggs was pursuing, and I am in firm agreement with it. We have been raising these issues with the SFC, and the outcome of the Gillies review gives us some pause for thought about how there can be better transparency with regard to some of the financial issues that arose at Dundee university.

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.

Look, it has been challenging, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

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

We have not yet reviewed the guidance, so it would be pre-emptive of me to say that we have learned lessons from it. The guidance has not even been in place for a year, so the review will allow us to learn lessons. It is important that we allow the review to be conducted, regardless of the passage of this legislation.

I am live to the concerns that have been raised by the NASUWT. However, the committee also heard from Mike Corbett—I discussed the issue with him only last week—that his preference is that we look again at the guidance and, for example, at the approach that we have adopted in relation to the national behaviour action plan, on which the NASUWT has played a key role. The NASUWT was also involved in the publication of the guidance. I know that it was critical of the guidance, but it was also involved in its formation.

As I understand it, the view of the NASUWT is that we should look again at the non-statutory guidance and make improvements to it, working with the professional associations, parents, carers and others, as opposed to putting it on a statutory footing. I am sure that Mike Corbett will correct me if I am wrong in that interpretation. We discussed the guidance last week, and he is critical of it, but his view—certainly, the view that was expressed to me—is that the preference of the NASUWT is that the guidance be improved, as opposed to moving it on to a statutory footing.

To go back to the points that I made to the convener, Mike Corbett has concerns about teachers and there are fears in the profession about what the guidance might say if it were to be put on a statutory footing.