That creates challenges for us. We think that those things can be resolved, but I am being honest with the committee, and I have set out in correspondence that those are the issues that we need to resolve with Mr Johnson. He has been very open to doing that, so, to respond to Mr Rennie’s point, I do not think that those issues are insurmountable.

Officials can correct me if I am wrong on this, but the bill was introduced in March, I think—

I read Pauline Stephen’s evidence. She made the point about child protection services, which I think that I mentioned previously, because that would create a situation in which this guidance was on a statutory footing and then, behind that, there would be a child protection service and systems that are not provided for in the same way. She raised a very important point.

If we were to do what Pauline suggested—what I think that she said that she would do if she ran the world—the bill would become something that it is not currently. It would be a far more extensive piece of legislation. We talk about legislative timescales, and we are all aware of how close we are to dissolution now, so I suspect that that might become a much more unwieldy piece of legislation. That is not to say that it is not important, because, in principle, I agree that there is an opportunity to look across the piste, but the bill is quite focused.

I am sure that you will want to put these points to Mr Johnson to get his views. My view is that we should look at it, but I am not necessarily convinced that the focus of the bill currently lends itself to that approach. However, if the Parliament decides that that is where it wants to go, that is, of course, in the gift of the Parliament.

I have said to Mr Johnson that we will work with him on his member’s bill. I am not going to be more definitive than that today, Mr Rennie, because these are discussions that we would have at stage 2. However, I have said that we will work with him, and we have had a very positive working relationship thus far. I hope that that provides the member with some reassurance.

We will have to agree to disagree with my caveats, Mr Rennie.

Yes. I have written to the committee on that. Mr Johnson’s approach is quite focused on education settings. I completely understand why he has done that, which is not to take away from the approaches that are used in other settings. We think that there is a way in which they could complement each other, and that is the approach that we suggest should work.

However, there are issues in relation to the policy memorandum and why the bill needs independent and grant-aided schools to report restraint to the education authority in which they are situated. That needs to be looked at. There are issues in relation to the role of the inspectorate, and there is an ask that the inspectorate is involved in national reporting. We look at the financial memorandum in that regard to consider whether this approach will drive more costs. These issues need to be flushed out during stage 2 deliberations, but I do not think that they are insurmountable.

I think that some of the asks were set out in correspondence from the SFC to the university directly, and I think that the committee received a copy of that letter back in August.

The SFC obviously supports ministers, so you cannot imagine that there would be divergence in our views on these things. However, with regard to the conditions themselves, I have not yet received that information. I met with officials on this matter yesterday, and I am meeting with the SFC later today. I would have expected to receive the conditions perhaps sooner than I have. Dundee university management has been involved in a number of workshops, along with the SFC. I think that the committee heard evidence on that from Richard Maconachie. There have been three workshops, which have helped to inform some of the thinking behind the conditions, but the conditions have not yet been presented to me, so it would be remiss of me to suggest otherwise today.

I have had a lot of engagement with the trade unions. As the committee might be aware, I have done that deliberately over a number of months to ensure that we had a ready flow of information coming from the staff in relation to their experience of what was happening in the institution, because not knowing what is happening continues to cause an inordinate amount of stress to staff and students, and, as cabinet secretary, I am very mindful of that. That being said, the recovery plan does not belong to the Government; it belongs to Dundee university, so the university has to engage with staff and students, and it is a matter for the current management team to undertake that.

With regard to the conditions, I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy said that she understands that one of the conditions is that the university will engage with staff and students. I think that that was an ask from the SFC in the correspondence, but in relation to the conditions that the Government will attach directly to the funding, I have not yet been provided with that advice from the SFC. I suspect that I will hear more after this meeting.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of your engagement with the University of Dundee. I will say that the university is at a critical crossroads, and I know that the committee is mindful of that. We need to ensure the institution’s future, and that it is financially stable. The Government has been working on the issue for a number of months, and, as the committee also knows, the Scottish Funding Council is preparing conditions for funding that will support the institution to become financially stable.

I do not want to prejudge the evidence session. I await its outcome, and I am more than happy to continue engagement with the committee.