Seòmar agus comataidhean

Right. That is fair enough. It is just that, because there is such an element of divergence there, I was not 100 per cent sure. Maybe it is not as wide as has been presented, but there will be discussion about it.

That is useful. Thank you very much for that.

I thank the witnesses for their responses, which have been very helpful.

Section 5 of the bill would abolish the requirement to find caution, save in exceptional circumstances. One policy justification for that is that, when a professional is appointed as a judicial factor, they will have professional indemnity insurance. However, in response to your discussion paper in 2010, the Accountant of Court said that she thought that the scope of accountants’ professional indemnity insurance might not be as broad as is generally thought, and that it might not cover embezzlement by accountants. If you remember that—I know that that is going back a bit—did the commission resolve that concern when it was raised when developing its policy on section 5?

That would be useful; we could perhaps delve a bit deeper into that.

Staying on caution, in response to the committee’s call for views, the University of Aberdeen and R3 said that they thought that the threshold for requiring caution in section 5 is now too high. Do you have any comments on that? For example, does the phrase “exceptional circumstances” fit with the general policy desire to make judicial factors a solution for the families with missing relatives? Do you see the link there?

My question is about the Accountant of Court, a role that you have talked about quite a wee bit this morning. There seems to be a differentiation between the SLC’s draft bill and the current draft bill that is not so much about the role but about who and how qualified that person is. In relation to sections 35 and 36 of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland commented on what it regards as a significant departure from the commission’s draft bill and a watering down of the level of legal and accountancy knowledge that is required for the accountant and the deputy accountant roles. The SLC’s draft bill said that they were to be

“knowledgeable in matters of law and accounting”.

However, in the current draft bill, they must be, in the opinion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service,

“appropriately qualified or experienced in law and accounting”.

The policy memorandum to the bill also makes it clear that formal qualifications are not necessarily required.

What does the commission think about that approach to sections 35 and 36? Do you share the Law Society of Scotland’s concerns about that differentiation?

I have a wee follow-up question, but it might prove to be a touch tricky. What are your and the Government’s views on the flexible or hybrid learning model, which could see either pupils or their parents—or both working together—choose whether the pupil learns from home or in school? From what you said, it sounds as if your wish is that more people attend school more often, in order to socialise them better, if nothing else.

As you say, the Scottish Government supports local authorities by providing them with funding to design, develop and build schools, but decisions are made by the local authorities. Does that mean that there is no overarching approach to changing school design when that might not be beneficial to all children?

In joint evidence that was given to us by Enquire and My Rights, My Say, they said that they continue

“to hear about many of the long-term negative impacts”

of the pandemic. Has there been enough focus on and investment in supporting children, particularly those with anxiety, to re-engage with learning following the pandemic and the isolation that took place due to that?

That is the best direction. Thank you.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her replies, which will be very useful to us.

Before I ask my question, I am going to have a wee ramble about the physical environment of education, if that is all right. You have already mentioned some elements of that, cabinet secretary, but I would point out that, three weeks ago, the committee explored how physical environments can contribute to inclusive education. On that note, I want to give you three wee quotes from some of our witnesses, if you do not mind. Suzi Martin of the National Autistic Society Scotland said:

“The trend towards superschools is potentially unhelpful and quite harmful, depending on what those superschools look like.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 28 February 2024; c 19.]

In its submission, the Govan Law Centre said:

“it perplexes us as to why schools are becoming bigger, meaning more sensory and social stimuli to navigate”,

while Dr Lynne Binnie of ADES told us:

“The design of buildings is often determined at local authority level through different approaches, perhaps involving professionals such as architects, who might not always understand or know about the complex needs of the children we see in the current system and project in the future of our buildings.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 13 March 2024; c 54-5.]

Those are some of the views that we have heard, and they tend to suggest that, in the buildings that are replacing new-build schools—and even in those in the existing estate—the learning environment can be damaging for pupils with additional support needs. How is the Scottish Government supporting local authorities to ensure that those schools are suitable for all children?