Chamber and committees

I have no further questions on that, but when I meet the EIS-FELA at City of Glasgow College in a week or so, I will be asked those questions, so I am sure that you will understand why I am asking you those questions.

I want to ask about the £26 million. We were all pretty shocked when that was taken off the table; indeed, I was involved in representations to get the Government, and your predecessors, to signal that that £26 million would be embedded in the core settlement. As I understand it, if it had been, we would be looking at fewer redundancies—and any redundancies would, we hope, have all been voluntary severance—and fewer course mergers and amalgamations. As we speak, colleges are finishing five-year forward plans. If that £26 million had been embedded in each and every year, we would have more lecturers, more associated staff and more courses. They were really disappointed in that respect. Although one year of £26 million might not have impacted on courses, lecturers and numbers, do you acknowledge that, had the money been embedded, it would absolutely have had an impact?

I have said for a number of years now, including in submissions, that the regional board should go. Would the £675,000 that you mentioned—every penny of it—be retained by colleges in Glasgow, should the board be abolished?

I am content to agree, convener.

At the moment, young people of 16 or 17 years, depending on whether they are already part of the children’s system, do not have the same rights in police custody as younger children do. The bill extends additional rights to young people in relation to police custody. Can you say a little about what those rights are and how they will benefit young people?

Thank you. I will not dwell on this aspect, as it is a pretty uncontentious part of the bill, but I note that the bill provides that young people will not be able to waive their right to legal representation, which is an additional protection.

At last week’s meeting, I nudged witnesses on the issue of whether young people should ever be detained in a police station. I am not saying that this is necessarily my view, but it has been suggested that a “place of safety” should never be a police station, unless that is—I am stumbling to say it—impractical. Do you think that there is a case for saying that it should be set out in the bill that no young person should ever be detained in a police station? If not, in what circumstances do you think that that would be unavoidable?

I have a couple of brief questions, minister. The bill includes a number of provisions that seek to enhance the rights of children who have been detained in police custody with rights that they currently would not have. Could you expand on what those provisions are and how they will benefit young people in those situations?

That is helpful, minister. I have no further questions.

The more I hear, the more the convener’s question about how that will be monitored becomes pertinent. In evidence sessions, witnesses have said that we do not want to set young people up to fail by putting in place an MRC that they will find really tough to comply with.

You mentioned that, should there be breaches of MRCs, there would be a review of the order that is in place and a fresh children’s panel would be held. If MRCs were used instead of a secure accommodation disposal by the children’s panels, that review would have to be done in short order. What reassurances can you give us, either today or by following up in writing, about how quickly children’s panels can be set up to carry out that review and to decide whether the MRC needs to be reviewed or kept in place, or whether the young person needs to be moved on to secure?

Thanks, minister.