Chamber and committees

I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that you are not able to go into detail. What I am looking for is an assurance that we can demonstrate colleges’ value by acting promptly on this and giving them those flexibilities.

In line with that, the other area that I want to ask about is the value of colleges in the work that they do for people who are furthest away from education. You will recall that we have spoken about that previously. Such work takes a fair bit of investment as regards both staffing and money. I want to highlight that and also seek your agreement on it in principle. Although that work is of great value to our communities and our learners, it is more expensive, so it is the type of area that can often be cut when budgets are tight. That adds urgency to ensuring that we get a bit of flexibility and sustainability for our colleges.

Are you confident that our colleges will be able to continue delivering high-value but high-investment courses for citizens who need that additional support?

Okay. Thank you.

The other change relates to criteria and a move to a consideration of what is described as psychological “harm”, which is a pretty subjective test—actually, it is a subjective test, not a “pretty subjective” test.

What consideration has been given to that in relation to children’s rights, and what specific safeguards would you put in place to ensure that MRCs are used only in the appropriate circumstances?

I do not want to interrupt. I just feel that it is quite an important point. I appreciate that you are newer to the bill.

The evidence that we have heard is that there is concern that it is a move to a subjective test rather than having the objective safeguard of reasonableness in there.

You say that the bill builds on what is already there. I find it interesting that you have said that you feel that there is no change when, clearly, the bill widens the criteria. I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I think that it is important to be very clear about any potential risks or benefits of broadening those criteria. It is not more of the same; it is different.

That is helpful, thank you.

My final question is about the effectiveness of MRCs. The policy memorandum says that no evaluation of the effectiveness of MRCs has been carried out. How will their effectiveness be evaluated going forward?

Forgive me, minister, but the change that I am asking about is a move from something that has a—I am losing my words now. Give me a second.

The change to a consideration of psychological harm is a subjective test. There was perhaps some objectivity in relation to “reasonable person”. I might be getting that wrong; if I am, forgive me. That is the specific change that I am looking for your reflections on.

For clarity, the specific concern was around an MRC being decoupled from secure care such that the support package would not go with it. Are you being absolutely clear that there will be a package of support for a child who has an MRC?

You rightly highlighted in your statement the intensive support that accompanies MRCs. Can you give assurances that there will be intensive support whenever an MRC is imposed? Can you also talk a little about the additional resources that will be required to do that?