Chamber and committees

I will be brief, because Mr Whitfield has laid out the rationale for the need for a review. Therefore, I suppose it is a question of what kind of review we are looking for and whether we can reach a level of consensus at this stage, or, as I think is more likely, whether there is broad agreement at this stage on the need for a review that will allow us to agree to more than one of the amendments now and then come back at stage 3 to resolve any potential differences.

In terms of those differences, my amendment 219 would put the onus to conduct the review and to prepare a report on ministers rather than on the Parliament. There is an argument for both approaches. I instinctively come at this from the position of being perfectly comfortable binding future Governments but less comfortable binding future Parliaments on what they should and should not do. I am interested to hear colleagues’ views on that.

My amendment 219 would require ministers to include in the report, subsequent to having completed the review, a statement about any further action that they believe is necessary to meet the Promise.

On the issue of timescales, which John Mason raised, I think that two years is probably right. With an 18-month timescale, I would be slightly concerned that some elements of the bill would not have bedded in by that point, particularly given the difference between whatever the commencement date is and financial years. However, we are in broadly the same territory. I therefore hope that there is broad consensus on the need for review and that it is just a question of exactly what direction we want to go in. I am particularly interested to hear from the minister on that. One possible significant difference is whether we put the requirement on ministers or on the Parliament. As I said, I am keen to hear from colleagues on that.

This is definitely where I begin to struggle, because the IFS has laid out its methodology for that. Have you challenged it on that question? To me, it looks like the IFS’s maths works—it has demonstrated why the marginal cost is lower based on the demographics of the independent sector versus the state sector.

You have made a clear case this morning that there is a distinct difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK—or rather, England, as we are talking primarily about the difference between Scotland and England. You have repeatedly made the point that a lot of the political rhetoric has been about Eton, Harrow and so on, and Scotland does not have those schools. However, we have some very elite schools. For example, Glenalmond is now owned by the former Qatari foreign minister. I was looking just this morning at school fees—they were for 2023-24, so they will be a bit higher now. Gordonstoun’s boarding fees were about 50 grand a year; Merchiston’s were 40 grand; and Strathallan’s were 41 grand. Those are elite schools, are they not? They are, overwhelmingly, elite schools for the children of by far the most privileged people in society.

That would be great—thank you.

Do you accept the point that the IFS has made that the marginal cost of a fee-paying pupil—if we filter out the parts of the independent sector that are special schools, where the pupils who attend are largely state funded but through a separate method—moving into the state sector is actually lower, because they are disproportionately far less likely to have the type of complex additional needs that would result in significant additional costs?

I am conscious of time, but I would love to have a wider discussion with you on that point, because I think that the net impact of private fee-paying education in Scotland is a contested space. Obviously, I come at it from a different perspective, but it is a helpful discussion to have. I am conscious that we probably do not have time for that this morning, so I will ask just one final question.

I think that John O’Neill mentioned parents’ choice and not inflicting harm on children as a result of choices made by others. There is a fair argument to be made there but, ultimately, the underlying philosophy of your sector is that parents should be allowed to make choices. As adults, though, we make choices, recognising that there are risks attached to any choice. A parent may choose to send their children into a form of education that is dependent on ability to pay, while the alternative is state school. I recognise that there will be some people for whom that alternative has not worked but, for the vast majority, that alternative of state education is not dependent on the person’s life circumstances; the state will continue to educate their child no matter what. If the parent has chosen to take an alternative path, should they not just accept that there are risks attached, and that circumstances can change?

You have mentioned a couple of times that, with regard to the previous decision in Scotland, you do not believe that the UK Government took into account non-domestic rates and charity relief. That brought back to mind a debate that I had with Lorraine Davidson’s predecessor, John Edward, on Radio Scotland. Has the sector reflected on the fact that a lot of the warnings that it made at the time just did not materialise? That is where I am struggling.

Now that the policy has been in place for some time, you are able to come and show us a reduction in your roll, but when I think about a lot of your projections at the time—for example, the 20 per cent figure—and the weight that was put on what would have been a significant impact, and I think back to the debates that I had with John Edward and the claims that were made about the catastrophic impact to your sector as a result of the NDR changes, the fact is that that impact did not really happen.

The same arguments were made and, as far as I am aware, no parent has been prosecuted for pulling their child out of the way of a moving vehicle.

That being said, you got into some really granular points, such as the distinction between holding a child for seconds or for minutes and the issue of on-going restraint. That all makes sense, but I am immediately struck by the fact that it would be impossible to put that level of detail in the bill and that it will have to be in the guidance and that, in turn, takes us back to the core argument about whether it is necessary to take a statutory approach via a bill when guidance already exists.

Some of the witnesses we heard from, particularly teachers, expressed concerns and fears about the fact that there will be something in law but that what will be in the law will not be specific enough to tell them what they should, or should not do, because that will be covered separately, in the guidance. Can you say a little bit more about how we can provide absolute clarity and confidence, particularly for teachers and other school staff, that they will be acting in compliance with the law even if there is quite a difference between what is in statute and what is in the guidance that is produced as a result of that?

Good morning. I will follow on from George Adam’s line of questioning in relation to the concerns, particularly about definitions, that the Government expressed in its memorandum on the bill. It is fair to say that quite a lot of the witnesses who have given evidence have also struggled with that issue. As you will be aware, the Government’s concern is that a very broad definition could capture things such as holding on to a child’s hand to cross the road safely and some of the support that is required for children with particularly complex needs. There is always a challenge in balancing how much detail we put in a bill with what we leave to regulations and guidance. I am keen to hear your response to the concerns that the Government has raised about the definition in the bill.

I am reflecting on a member’s bill from the previous session of Parliament: the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill. A lot of the same suggestions were made at that point, particularly regarding holding a child’s hand or pulling them out of the way a moving vehicle if they jumped on to the road.

That last point concerns exactly the question that I was about to ask. Other committee members are certainly considering whether the Dundee situation has raised issues that we could resolve by amending the bill in relation to the SFC’s functions. From the Government’s perspective, and from your experience of engaging with the process, have you found limitations in the role of the SFC? Have you wanted the SFC to do things and discovered that legislation as it currently stands makes that impossible? Have you identified potential amendments to the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill in relation to the role and functions of the SFC that the Government could lodge at stage 2?