Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really useful—thank you.

I would like to start with Kate Sanger. You mentioned that a lot of teachers and school staff end up using restraint and seclusion because they feel that they have no other option. If I picked you up right, in your view, that is because they have not been trained and supported to understand what the other options are.

Will you expand on that a bit and explain what other approaches could be taken that would mean that the instances in which restraint might be inevitable could be reduced to almost zero? What is it that teachers and other school support staff are not being supported and trained to do?

That is great. I am conscious of the time. I ask Simon Webster to set out Enable’s position on the positive alternatives to restraint and seclusion. What can teachers and school staff be trained and supported to do that would avoid restraint and seclusion?

It would be quite formal, rather than the softer approach that you are indicating.

That is helpful, specifically what you said about the report. It points to the wider issue that you indicated: there is a lot of detail about how the meeting should take place but there is more ambiguity about what impact it will have on the rest of the process. Would it be helpful for the legislation to go into further detail about the purpose of the report and what it can and cannot be used for?

Some of what you said makes me think that we need amendments to clarify what the point of the process is and what the product is. There is a tension between that and your point about the preference for an informal approach, because the more detail we put in legislation, the harder it is to take an informal approach.

Thank you, convener—I was almost going to say good afternoon; it feels like that, but it is still morning, so, good morning all.

I want to tease out some issues. There has been quite a lot of consensus this morning, but in the SCRA’s written submission there were definitely points of difference. In particular, a lot of other organisations have welcomed the enhanced role for the reporter, but the SCRA flagged up issues to do with power imbalance.

We have touched on that a little bit already, but perhaps Alistair Hogg could draw out some of those concerns for us.

I have quick questions for Elaine Morrison and Lesley Jackson, both of which are on the theme of how to get best value for public money.

Elaine, if I recall correctly, it was four years ago this month that Scottish Enterprise added conditionality on a real living wage to grants that it issued. I would be interested in your reflections on the impact of that. Has it just resulted in more money going to businesses that were already paying the real living wage, or has it resulted in some businesses that you are working with deciding to sign up and become real living wage employers? Has it tangibly boosted wages in the way that it was intended to do?

Lesley, I absolutely sympathise with the financial situation of the universities sector, which I recognise is not sustainable. Part of the challenge for me is that universities are not frank enough in understanding the political difficulties. Quite understandably, they come to the Government and the Parliament to ask for more funding, but they very often bristle at the suggestion that there should be any conditions attached to that funding. Are there any conversations taking place in the sector about being more open to the fact that, if you come to ask for more money from the Government—quite justifiably, given the state of the sector—it is pretty hard to do so when you have bloated, extremely highly paid senior management teams at one end and, at the other end, graduate teaching assistants who are being paid less than the real living wage and are on zero-hours contracts and so on? Realistically, if the sector is to expect more public funding, it perhaps needs to concede that there will be more conditions attached to that funding.

I was about to say good morning, but it is no longer the morning. Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. I will go back to the question about the recovery of incorrect payments. You and I have had discussions about the Housing (Scotland) Bill and council tax arrears—a different area but with similar principles. We talked about the tipping point: that is, the point at which it is not viable or good value for money to try to recover money. That can be due to the immediate cost of recovery but also to situations where recovering money would push an individual or a family further into crisis, which is morally wrong but also brings further cost to the state due to its consequences. I would be interested to hear you briefly expand on how that is taken into consideration in the recovery of incorrect social security payments. What is the tipping point at which it is no longer value for money to try to recover those incorrect payments?

A moment ago, you mentioned the review work that found that the Scottish child payment is not acting as a disincentive for parents and carers to enter employment. I might not be aware of it, but is any equivalent work being done on the adult and child disability payments? They are not connected to employment. There is a cost to being disabled whether someone is in work or not, and that is an important principle for those payments, but I am interested to know whether any work is being done on that, particularly because of the committee’s interest in getting more economically inactive people who are able to work and want to work into work. Has any analysis been done of whether those two payments have had an impact on family employment prospects?

I have quick questions for Elaine Morrison and Lesley Jackson, both of which are on the theme of how to get best value for public money.

Elaine, if I recall correctly, it was four years ago this month that Scottish Enterprise added conditionality on a real living wage to grants that it issued. I would be interested in your reflections on the impact of that. Has it just resulted in more money going to businesses that were already paying the real living wage, or has it resulted in some businesses that you are working with deciding to sign up and become real living wage employers? Has it tangibly boosted wages in the way that it was intended to do?

Lesley, I absolutely sympathise with the financial situation of the universities sector, which I recognise is not sustainable. Part of the challenge for me is that universities are not frank enough in understanding the political difficulties. Quite understandably, they come to the Government and the Parliament to ask for more funding, but they very often bristle at the suggestion that there should be any conditions attached to that funding. Are there any conversations taking place in the sector about being more open to the fact that, if you come to ask for more money from the Government—quite justifiably, given the state of the sector—it is pretty hard to do so when you have bloated, extremely highly paid senior management teams at one end and, at the other end, graduate teaching assistants who are being paid less than the real living wage and are on zero-hours contracts and so on? Realistically, if the sector is to expect more public funding, it perhaps needs to concede that there will be more conditions attached to that funding.