Seòmar agus comataidhean

On Miles Briggs’s point about the tertiary education and training bill, finance was the big issue for the committee. It came up repeatedly at the stage 1 debate last Thursday. You gave a commitment to further discussion, dialogue and interrogation of the updated projections of the costs of that bill. How do you envisage that happening? Would it be through the committee, discussions with the parties or further debates in the chamber? What is your view on that?

Mr Mason might want to raise some more points on that later, after Pam Duncan-Glancy asks her questions. The Finance and Public Administration Committee did not look at the financial memorandum for the bill because it did not have time. This committee has raised serious questions about it. Mr Greer, who supported the bill at stage 1, raised significant concerns about the IT element. It would be useful for the Government to consider how Parliament and parliamentarians will be able to delve into the figures even more, given the concerns that have been raised throughout the process.

Your predecessor gave a more encouraging response in the chamber when I raised it with him, because he accepted the concerns of colleges. The fact is that a number of UHI colleges are struggling financially and the quantum that the UHI central body takes to fund its executive office is probably enough to wipe out some of the financial challenges that those regional colleges are facing.

I have recently been told that senior bosses at UHI want people to stop mentioning top slicing, because it is an outdated concept. However, it still seems to be an in-date practice; they are happy to take the money, but they do not want colleges to call it that. Could the minister take the matter away, reflect on it and perhaps look at what his predecessor was considering in that area? The local colleges are losing a large chunk of money to an executive office function from which they see no return.

Do you accept the concept that, if the Scottish Funding Council has not approved the recovery plan, it has rejected it and has asked for more?

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. We have received apologies from George Adam. Ross Greer will join us at the start of panel 2. I welcome Maggie Chapman, who joins us for today’s meeting.

Under the first item on our agenda, we will take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27 from two panels of witnesses. I welcome our first panel of witnesses, who are all from the Scottish Funding Council: Jacqui Brasted, who is the director of access, learning and outcomes; Tiffany Ritchie, who is the acting director of finance; and Richard Maconachie, who is the director lead of the Dundee recovery team.

Ms Ritchie has an opening statement, so I will hand over to her.

Looking at what you highlighted in your report from last week and at the timeframe to take us up to summer next year, which is not a million miles away, do you think that those colleges will fail and we will lose colleges, or is there time for them to recover before next summer?

That is a long-term issue, and it is recognised. Are you saying that, if the four colleges that you identify are to survive past next summer, it will take cash injections from the Scottish Government to keep them afloat?

I understand that, and I understand that you give privileged information to ministers. Are you telling us that you know a figure, but you cannot tell the committee, or that the Scottish Funding Council does not know how much money Scottish colleges would need to get them over the very difficult period that will come by the end of the 2025-26 academic year, which is summer next year?

We move to our next agenda item. The committee will continue our evidence taking, which we began last week, on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.

This is our third panel of witnesses today. Dr Lynne Binnie is service lead for inclusion at the City of Edinburgh Council and co-chair of the inclusion network at the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland; Tom Britton is Edinburgh local association assistant secretary at the Educational Institute of Scotland; Dr Pauline Stephen is chief executive and registrar at the General Teaching Council for Scotland; Mike Corbett is national official, Scotland, at the NASUWT; and Gavin Calder is chief executive officer of Harmeny school and a board member of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.

I am very grateful to you all for bearing with us, as we have overrun today. I know that a couple of you have to be away by the designated time, so we will try to be direct with our questions. If you can be direct with your answers, we will get through as much as we can.

I will kick things off. It is fair to say that the two panels that we have already heard from on the bill were generally supportive of it. There is more concern among some of today’s witnesses, who will perhaps want to discuss some of their concerns.

I have raised this point before. As the father of two boys in mainstream education—one at nursery and one at school—I get a phone call as soon as anything happens, even if it is extremely minor. However, parents of children who have been restrained or secluded say that they do not get the same notification. Is that correct? If so, why?

Does anyone else want to question the evidence that we have heard? Dr Stephen and Mr Britton are saying that reporting should be, or is, happening, so why are we getting parents demanding legislative change because they feel that it is not happening at the moment? We have heard some harrowing examples in our evidence sessions and have seen examples in the written submissions. We were told last week that significant numbers of pupils have been restrained and secluded in their schools just since the start of this school term, but that not all of those incidents have been reported.