Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is helpful.

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 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.

Just to check, are the payments covered by the debt write-off rules? Forgive me, I cannot remember the underpinning legislation. Council tax debt in Scotland has a 20-year limit. Lots of other forms of debt and public sector repayments have a five or six-year cut-off point. Are social security payments covered by any of that? Is there a point at which they time out—after five or six years, for example—regardless of the circumstances under which they have been accrued, even if those circumstances involve fraud? Such a principle operates on the basis that, even in situations where there has been fraud, if it is not paid off within six years, it is very often because the individual is in circumstances where, realistically, they are never going to pay it off and trying to recover it will cost the state more than the figure to be recovered.

Thanks very much. I am uncomfortable even using the language of value for money when we are talking about giving people basic dignity in their lives. They are often very vulnerable people who are really struggling. However, to take a wider view here, we can all recognise that poverty costs a huge amount of money—to the individuals who are in poverty, to the state and to the wider economy. It has an impact on the health service and on criminal justice, and it leads to loss of productivity and so on.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned Professor Linda Bauld’s report in your opening remarks. I am interested in whether you are using that report or other sources for your part of the spending review. How do you strike the balance in deciding what is an appropriate amount of money to invest in social security from a limited public sector pot, given that, if that money was invested elsewhere, there might be an immediate saving—for example, if you take billions and put them into colleges, as we were discussing earlier—but there could be more long-term, significant costs? How does all that factor into the exercise that you are undertaking with the spending review? Is Professor Bauld’s work the north star that is guiding you, or are you using other sources to make those value for money calculations?