Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. I have a question about college funding, which is an issue that other members have brought up. You have said that the college sector has not experienced the same unpredictability as the university sector. However, there is a long-standing feeling in the college sector that it has not had the same funding flexibility and that, over time, that makes it more difficult for colleges to make strategic decisions. If colleges are under significant financial pressure from day to day, it is more difficult for them to reshape matters. Do you accept that, given the Covid pandemic, it is not fair to expect colleges to react nimbly and quickly when they do not have the funding capacity or reserves to reconfigure their offer?

We have already heard that more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money has been put into the pupil equity funding scheme. You have talked a lot about the importance of being clear about the policy objectives. On a number of occasions, the Scottish Government has attempted to position the policy as being about giving headteachers greater autonomy at the same time as enhancing equity. Have you reflected on that and on whether it is possible for one policy to have two different aims?

Thank you. Would you be open to sharing the advanced drafts with the committee, to allow us to see where the discussions have got to? As you point out, the contributions are key to confidence in the scheme. It is difficult to find the right word to describe the arrangement, but one of the trade-offs in going down the redress route is that people should have confidence that the contributions are meaningful.

I listened carefully to what you said, Deputy First Minister. Because of the passage of time, it will not be immediately obvious how some short-term placements came about. Through my constituency work, I am aware of families that are really struggling, and it is often social workers, healthcare workers or other Government-funded professionals who step in and suggest that they should think about respite to avoid going down a different route and as a way of giving the family a chance to reset.

I wonder about the detail of some of the cases. I cannot imagine that accessing short-term placements was necessarily presented as a choice to all parents. What would happen in such circumstances? How would you weigh that up?

It is important to note, as a point of fact, that there are survivors who continue to have concerns in this area. I do not propose that the committee make any further comment in that regard, but it is important to put that on the record.

Thank you.

That is helpful. It will not fully satisfy everyone, but it is a step forward from where discussions were previously.

On the issue of seeking an enhanced payment, will those individuals who found themselves in that situation be entitled to the same advice and support as anyone else who accesses the scheme? Will they be able to seek some basic legal advice?

I recognise the policy reasons for the Government going down that route, but I still think that there will be a number of cases where orders are not progressed because families had taken advantage of short-term placements. Sometimes those were repeat placements, and individuals could have been subject to multiple, repeated incidents. It is a wee bit complicated in places, but I am happy to accept the explanation that has been given.

However, my real question is why you went down the exclusionary route and did not opt for a model that would allow each individual case to be considered. It is legitimate to be clear about the limits of the scheme and what the expectations are, but my point is about creating a space for people with exceptional circumstances, such as multiple short-term placements with the same abuser over a number of years. Such placements were probably encouraged by the state. Why would there not be provision for those people to have their individual circumstances looked at? Why did you go down the route of exclusion?

I will leave it there, convener. I appreciate the further detail.

I was on the committee that considered the bill, and there is no doubt that the situation is extremely challenging and complex. Is there an update on the criteria for determining what is a “fair and meaningful” contribution to the waiver scheme?