Official Report 384KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20519, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call Daniel Johnson, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
14:40
It is a huge privilege to move the motion in my name, which seeks the Parliament’s support for the purposes and general principles of my bill. I begin by thanking the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its diligent and detailed report. The insights that it has provided the Parliament with will strengthen the legislation. Likewise, I thank the Government for the on-going dialogue, particularly with Jenny Gilruth. That dialogue has been constructive and extremely useful. The non-Government bills unit is a jewel of this Parliament and must be acknowledged, as must my office team—in particular, Philip Miller.
However, the greatest acknowledgement must go to Beth Morrison. Her tireless campaigning on the issue began when her son Calum returned home from school in 2010, covered in bruises. He had been pinned down by four adults, face down in a prone restraint, simply because he did not want to get off a bike. In 2015, she lodged a petition, which urged the Parliament to create Calum’s law to deal with the issue.
When, in 2022, Beth asked me whether I would take that proposal forward, I was pleased to do so, because I knew that Beth’s and Calum’s experiences were not isolated ones. In 2018, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland published a report, “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools”, which identified 2,674 incidents of restraint and seclusion related to 386 children. It also found that only 18 of the 32 local authorities were recording that information and that even fewer were doing so comprehensively at the level of the child. Those findings have been reinforced by several subsequent reports from many trusted organisations, such as Enable, Positive and Active Behaviour Support Scotland, Children in Scotland, the National Autistic Society Scotland and Scottish Autism. They were also raised in the Morgan review on additional support needs, which was commissioned by the Government.
Through the last parliamentary session, I listened to many parents’ anguish and pain as they told stories about how they had struggled to find out why their children had returned home with bruises—children who were overwhelmingly of primary school age; children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning difficulties; often, children who had diminished communication. I felt compelled to act and to do what I could to make Calum’s law a reality. That is why I bring this bill before the Parliament today.
Let me set out the bill’s four key provisions. First, it would create a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, refreshing the existing non-statutory guidance. That is not to create something new; it is simply to put the guidance on a statutory footing and to ensure that long-standing inconsistencies are eradicated by ensuring that we have clear and consistent practice across Scotland.
Secondly, it would create a duty on schools to inform parents and carers promptly if their child has been restrained or secluded. We have to end the anguish and frustration that is experienced by so many parents who face that situation. Schools act in loco parentis, and if physical interventions or seclusion take place, it is vital that parents and carers are informed promptly.
Thirdly, it would require recording and reporting on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Despite their being part of Scottish Government guidance for almost a decade, we still do not have consistency of recording or a clear national picture of the frequency of, or variation in, those practices.
Fourthly, it would create a duty on the Scottish Government to maintain a list of approved training providers, to ensure safe practice. The bill does not seek to stop the use of physical interventions, but we must ensure that, when they do occur, the best possible practice is used and support is provided to those practitioners who need to use them. Overall, however, we should seek to minimise the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and to ensure that it is used only as a last resort and where there is an immediate risk of harm.
I acknowledge that there are concerns about the proposals that are set out in the bill, but I make it clear that the bill simply puts on a statutory footing what should already be happening. Its obligations will rest with local authorities and schools, not individual teachers. It is vital that those practitioners who may need training get the best possible training. My bill will certainly not require all teachers to be trained.
That is what my bill will do. It should improve matters for practitioners, parents and, above all, children.
In articulating his points, would the member in charge of the bill like to address the campaign email that MSPs have received from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which urges us to oppose the bill? He articulated his views on that very well in an email to MSPs, but it would be useful to get those on the record.
I am afraid that I have only six minutes, and I would also like to address the points that the committee made.
Essentially, what I am proposing is not new—the bill seeks to reinforce what should be existing practice. The obligation will be on local authorities and schools. Above all else, I would say that the use of physical intervention is a very serious matter, and it is vital that we have the most robust framework around it.
I will turn to the committee’s recommendations. I do not have time to go through all of them, but I think that the most important one was about definitions. It is important to be clear that the definitions primarily set the scope for guidance. However, I note the committee’s highlighting of concerns about potential ambiguity, particularly in relation to what should be reported and recorded, so I commit to lodging amendments at stage 2 to address those specific concerns about the definitions of recording and reporting.
I will close with this observation. All parents will be familiar with the slips of paper that come home with their child when they have done something such as grazing their knee after falling in the playground. If that is the level of recording, monitoring and reporting that is required when a child is injured accidentally, surely, if an injury occurs because of a deliberate physical intervention, we need just as robust a framework to sit around that.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.
14:47
I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I begin by thanking the member in charge of the bill, Daniel Johnson, for introducing such an important bill. I also apologise for intervening on him five minutes into his speech—I did not realise that he had only six minutes.
Daniel Johnson’s proposal gave the Education, Children and Young People Committee, as the lead committee, the opportunity to discuss the important issue of how to ensure that restraint and seclusion are used only as a last resort in schools. I thank my committee colleagues for their work on the bill and everyone who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views. In addition, I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their scrutiny of the bill.
I put on record the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s thanks to everyone at the Donaldson Trust who generously gave their time and shared their thoughts and insights on the bill when the committee visited the campus in Linlithgow last year.
However, the biggest praise must go to two individuals without whom we would not be here today. Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have been campaigning for more than a decade for a change in the law on restraint and seclusion. I know that Kate cannot be with us today because she is attending a family funeral, but I saw Beth and Calum coming into the public gallery. Without doubt, Kate and Beth are the most determined, passionate and articulate campaigners for change, and this Parliament has an opportunity to reward their hard work by voting for the bill tonight. I believe that we simply would not be here today were it not for their efforts.
We must think about the fact that Kate and Beth got involved as a result of terrible circumstances in their families. In dealing with the issues that Laura had to face, Kate, as a mother, could have tried other routes to get answers and not embarked on a campaign that has taken years to get here. When Calum came home from school that day, unable to articulate what had happened to him, Beth could have sat there and thought about what she could do. She could have complained or done various other things, but she tried to get change. When that did not happen, she lodged a petition. When the petition did not work, she put forward the bill, along with Daniel Johnson. It is that type of tireless effort that makes me very proud to be standing in Parliament today, supporting the bill.
The committee unanimously agreed to the general principles of the bill and welcomed the aim of putting the current guidance on a statutory footing. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government accepted all of the report’s recommendations, some of them in part. We were concerned to hear of instances of inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion in Scotland’s schools, particularly in relation to children and young people with additional support needs or a disability.
As with all of the committee’s scrutiny, the devil is in the detail, and there were a number of areas that we felt needed to be addressed should the bill progress further today. First, consideration needs to be given to the definitions of restraint and seclusion. Although those definitions are broadly similar to the definitions in the current non-statutory guidance, we shared the concerns of witnesses that those broad definitions could lead to legal ambiguity or unintended consequences. Teaching staff, parents and carers all need clarity, and it is important that physical interventions that are not of obvious concern are not captured by the bill.
As our report makes clear, communication with parents and carers is key, and the bill would create a duty on schools to inform parents and carers when their child has been subject to restraint or seclusion. Like the member in charge of the bill, we were disturbed to hear that that was not happening already. In some cases, parents and carers were not told when their child or young person had been restrained or secluded. Given that, we said that such notification must take place on the same day and that a report should be made on any intervention no later than 24 hours after the incident occurred. The bill’s recording and reporting provisions are welcome and will provide an opportunity for school staff to conduct post-incident reviews and establish any lessons learned following an incident.
Finally, although the bill does not include provisions on mandatory training in the use of restraint and seclusion, it says that the guidance must include details of training for school staff. It also provides that the Scottish Government will maintain a list of approved training providers.
The Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, as I have set out today, there are issues that need to be addressed, and we have had an assurance from the member in charge that he is keen to address them. I say that on behalf of the committee.
On a personal note, I will end by saying that, when I vote yes to the bill tonight, I will be doing so to progress an important piece of legislation. More important, it will be my individual way of thanking and recognising Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger and the many other families they have represented on this long journey. At decision time, their efforts will, I hope, see the bill take a step forward towards bringing about improvements for our children and young people for which we have been waiting for so long.
14:52
I congratulate Daniel Johnson on the progress that he has made thus far in legislating on restraint and seclusion. Mr Johnson and I have been engaged over the course of this session—for months and probably years—and I am grateful to him for the extremely collegiate way in which we have been able to discuss and debate the issues that are pertinent to this stage 1 debate. For clarity and, again, for the record, the Scottish Government will support the general principles of the bill.
As we have heard, there are a number of others to thank, by no means least the families of those children who have experienced restraint in distressing environments. As we have heard from Douglas Ross and Daniel Johnson, Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger are to be applauded for their tenacious efforts in driving the changes that come before Parliament today. I am very pleased that Beth and her son Callum are with us in Parliament today, and I look forward to meeting them again following the debate.
I am grateful to the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee for its instructive role, and also to stakeholders, families, campaigners and practitioners for their support thus far. I am sure that members of the Scottish Parliament across the chamber will agree that our collective understanding of the issue and its impact has been strengthened by the willingness of parents of young people to share their personal experiences.
The Government is clear that restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort, to prevent injury. As members will be aware, in November 2024 we published our non-statutory guidance for schools on physical intervention, which reinforces that position. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of that guidance. Although the Scottish Government’s intention was to conclude a review of the guidance before considering legislative options, I have nonetheless engaged constructively on Mr Johnson’s bill since it was introduced in March last year. In June last year, I wrote to the committee to confirm the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill, while reserving the right to seek to amend any provisions where necessary. That remains the Government’s position. I very much share the committee’s clear commitment to ensuring that all children in Scotland’s schools are supported in ways that uphold their dignity, rights and safety, and I welcome the committee’s stage 1 report and its conclusions.
I was pleased to meet Mr Johnson earlier this week. As ever we had a productive discussion on areas where we would like to work together and strengthen the bill at stage 2. This is a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson will retain responsibility for its passage through Parliament. However, I agree with committee members that the statutory definitions of restraint and seclusion need to be workable, clear and aligned with children’s rights.
As the committee stressed, it is important that a distinction is made between restraint and physical interventions that do not raise wellbeing concerns. Such distinctions will help to reduce the risks of overreporting and overburdening on our school staff. I have agreed to work with Daniel Johnson to develop stage 2 amendments to address the concerns on that.
The committee also raised important points regarding national reporting routes and the avoidance of duplication. I accept the recommendation that further, joint work is needed, particularly on approaches for independent and grant-aided schools and for situations involving care settings. Accordingly, Mr Johnson and I have agreed that an amendment should be lodged at stage 2 to allow independent and grant-aided schools to report directly to ministers rather than via local authorities, which will help to ensure clarity and proportionality.
I have discussed the financial implications of the bill with Mr Johnson, and he shares my desire for the associated costs to be kept to a minimum. Should Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill today, I commit that the Government will lodge a financial resolution during the coming weeks.
The bill will place a duty on the Government to produce statutory guidance. As I alluded to, the Government produced our 2024 guidance, and that guidance will form the backbone of the statutory guidance that will be required under the bill. I therefore welcome the alignment that Mr Johnson has sought with our existing guidance in many areas.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her kind words. Does she agree that it is important to stress that, although that guidance was published in 2024, the 2017 guidance also made clear the requirement to record and monitor, and said that training should be provided? Therefore, those requirements are not new, and they were not introduced by my bill or the 2024 guidance.
I am happy to support the points that Mr Johnson made. The guidance will be familiar to teaching staff and those who work in our schools. It is important to remind colleagues and stakeholders that, for many staff who work in our schools, the approaches that are being taken will not be new. The differentiation is that the guidance will become statutory through legislation.
I welcome the committee’s acknowledgement of the importance of trauma-informed training being grounded in clear national standards. Training is key to the successful implementation of the bill and the guidance, but, as the committee has acknowledged, restraint is not a practice that the vast majority of our school staff will need to use. Therefore, restraint training will be necessary for only a small number of our school staff. That is an important point, which we discussed at committee during stage 1.
On national data collection, the committee is absolutely right that the reporting system must support transparency, accountability and learning. However, as the committee has acknowledged, the creation of league tables of restraint data needs to be avoided at all costs. I therefore welcome the committee’s agreement with the Government’s position that the publication of school-level data would not be appropriate.
I commit to continuing to work constructively with the member in charge and, of course, with the committee to strengthen the bill at stages 2 and 3 and to ensure that its implementation leads to meaningful and positive change for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children, young people and their families.
14:58
I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for the work that he and his office have undertaken on his member’s bill. Having taken forward two consultations, I know just how much pressure that work will have put on his office. I want to use this opportunity, as other members have, to pay tribute to the member for getting the bill to where it is today.
It is a few years ago now that I had the pleasure of meeting Beth, Peter and Calum Morrison in Parliament at a round-table event that Daniel Johnson held so that Parliamentarians from across the chamber had an opportunity to hear what the issue was. I remember keeping a document that Beth gave us, which outlined the experience that Calum had, and that takes me back to why we are here today.
On Friday 24 September 2010, when the school bus dropped Callum home at 3.25 pm, his face was ashen, his lips were blue and he was wearing different clothes from those that he had left in the morning—a thin T-shirt, shorts and plimsolls, no underwear and no coat. His own clothes were soaked in urine and stuffed in a plastic bag. That should not be happening in Scotland in this day and age and I hope that, through the opportunity that the bill presents us with today, we will ensure that no parent or carer in our country ever faces a similar situation.
A number of constituents have told me of their children’s experiences. In every case, they have not been able to get answers from those who they trust with their children’s education, safety and wellbeing. A number of parents have highlighted to me the current postcode lottery not only in how schools use restraint but how they record incidents and communicate with parents what has gone on in the school day.
As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee has already put on record, we need to understand and learn from the concerns that the EIS is expressing. The committee did not shy away from trying to probe those because the concerns that have been highlighted cite workforce pressures and the legal standing of the bill. There will be cross-party support for the bill, but we have an important role as parliamentarians at stage 2 in the committee and at stage 3 before the election to ensure that the EIS’s questions are answered. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consideration of, and unanimous support for, the bill has provided that critique as well.
It is unacceptable for children to return home having been restrained and for their parents and carers to be provided with no information that an incident has taken place. It is unacceptable that such incidents are not recorded and that, when we are often talking about non-verbal children, we do not know what restraint has taken place. Calum was restrained at age 11 by four adults. The training is also not being recorded and we do not know what level the training providers are training people up to. De-escalation should always be the first point of call.
I acknowledge that Scottish National Party ministers have looked to improve guidance. That alone was never going to be good enough to protect children, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to support the bill and ensure that it passes through the Parliament. A legal framework should establish not only lines of responsibility, training standards and a reporting requirement but the safety that every one of us expects children in our schools to enjoy. For that reason, Scottish Conservatives will support the general principals of the bill at decision time.
15:02
I join colleagues from around the chamber in thanking my friend and colleague Daniel Johnson for his work on the issue and the bill. It is no small feat to bring together a member’s bill. Given his success with the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in the previous session of the Parliament, he knows that more than most. I also pay tribute to his staff, who have carried out the work with great aplomb and good humour in the Labour corridor even when they have been busy preparing to get to this day.
As Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson, I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the general principles of the bill at decision time—much, I am sure, to the relief of my colleague Daniel Johnson, who sits beside me on the front bench.
We have heard already about the tireless work of campaigners that has brought us to today. I declare an interest: looking at the public gallery is, for me, to look at a group of old friends because, as colleagues who are in the chamber know, for seven years prior to coming to the Parliament, I worked for Enable Scotland. I am still a member of Enable Scotland. That is where I first got to know Beth, Peter and Calum and to work with some extraordinary people on these issues.
As we have heard already, Beth is a ferocious campaigner. She is tenacious but she has compassion and her family brings her much joy in her life. That is her motivation in the campaign. Not only does Beth campaign and not only has she worked on the issues to bring us to this point but she educates. That is important. Everything that I know about the issues and about the alternative interventions that can be provided I probably know through her work. I associate Kate Sanger with that as well. She has worked closely with Beth and others in this space. That is the reason why we are here and why Daniel Johnson introduced the bill.
In some ways, becoming shadow education spokesperson just in time to lead on the bill for Labour was probably meant to be, given my association with the early parts of the campaign.
Today, we build on work by organisations such as Enable Scotland and the National Autistic Society, and by people who have supported the campaigners to drive forward these issues and ensure that they do not disappear off the agenda and, with the coming elections and changes in Parliament, are not forgotten about somehow.
The bill is built on the substantial work that has been undertaken, such as the children’s commissioner’s “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” report and Enable Scotland’s “In safe hands?” work. There is a myriad of data and reporting that share people’s experiences of some of the dreadful things that have happened to our children in school settings and other settings across Scotland.
In concert with colleagues, I recognise that we have an opportunity today to make a legislative change that will be a turning point. It can be a moment when we say that this sort of seclusion and restraint is no longer acceptable, and that the recording and the duty of candour that will exist will be put on a legislative footing, which is important.
Like colleagues, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by the EIS and others. Daniel Johnson will very clearly outline his response to that. He is very willing to engage and has engaged throughout the process, and stages 2 and 3 will allow us to do more of that.
I recognise at the outset of the debate that there is a genuine will across the Parliament to ensure that we get this right by putting it on a statutory footing that no young person will have to experience the situation that Calum and other young people have experienced. We must make a statement from this Parliament that says that children will be protected and equally safe under the law.
15:06
I begin by thanking and congratulating Daniel Johnson on his bill and all the work that he has put into it. I thank the committee for its meticulous scrutiny during stage 1, and I want especially to recognise Beth Morrison. We would not be here without her tireless campaigning to prevent anyone else from going through what she and her son Calum went through.
The bill responds to the very real experiences of children and families who have told us time and again that restraint and seclusion can be frightening, humiliating, deeply traumatic and, most importantly, often avoidable. It should be a rare occurrence and a last resort, but it is used in some cases on a daily basis.
This Parliament is on a journey towards enshrining and protecting the rights of children and young people. With the United Nations convention on the rights of the child now part of our laws and my Green colleague John Finnie’s bill ending legal physical punishment of children, it is a natural next step to ensure that restraint of children and young people becomes a thing of the past, except in the rarest of circumstances.
The strong backing of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland should give Parliament confidence that the bill is both necessary and proportionate. It sets a clear expectation that restraint and seclusion are measures of last resort used only to prevent harm, and never as punishment, for the shortest possible time and within a transparent rights-based framework that protects children and staff. No more must parents and guardians find out about restraint from seeing the bruises on their child, as the committee heard. The bill provides a guarantee that parents must be informed within 24 hours—that is crucial.
Many children and young people who are restrained have additional support needs. When those actions prove necessary, it is not because the child or young person is at fault but because their needs have not been met. That is often because we have nowhere near enough support in our schools for children with additional support needs.
I was struck particularly by Kate Sanger’s evidence. In many cases, a child’s scream is not aggression but communication. Understanding why a child vocalises the way that they do seems so obvious. Her communication passport should be commonplace.
I want to address directly the concerns raised by the EIS, in good faith, given its commitment to the wellbeing of its members and the young people it teaches and supports. However, I do not accept that a statutory framework inevitably creates a blame culture. On the contrary, inconsistency and unclear expectations are what leave staff exposed. A framework reinforces that restraint is about safety and that staff acting within guidance should be supported.
Concerns have also been raised that the definitions could be too broad and inadvertently capture ordinary caring physical interactions, as we have heard this afternoon. I support the refining of the definitions at stage 2 so that restraint is clearly understood as a serious physical intervention.
The bill will not require all teachers to undergo training in physical intervention techniques. What it will require is statutory guidance on training and an up-to-date list of approved providers—things that already exist on a non-statutory basis. Decisions about who needs specialist training will continue to be made, sensibly, by front-line professionals, but with the support of guidance and a strong emphasis on de-escalation and prevention.
I understand the EIS’s concerns about workload but, given the seriousness of restraint and seclusion, recording cannot be optional. Evidence to the committee showed that recording and parental communication are currently inconsistent across local authorities, and a proper system of recording is necessary to address that.
On resources, I whole-heartedly agree with the EIS that reducing restraint depends on investment in staff, specialist support, time for relationships and early intervention. The bill should not be a substitute for that investment, but is a necessary foundation for it.
The bill is about rights, transparency and support. It is about keeping children safe and ensuring that the workforce that cares for them is properly guided and protected. The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, and we look forward to improving it as it progresses.
15:11
I congratulate Daniel Johnson on getting this far with the bill. He has done a very professional job in convincing all sides of the bill’s merits, and it has lots of merits. However, if anybody has any doubt about the bill, I would advise them to go and meet Beth Morrison. Anybody who wants to go up against her should think again. She is an effective and forceful campaigner, and that is in part why Daniel Johnson has been so successful.
I am an original supporter of the bill, which I signed up to, but that did not prevent me from asking difficult questions in committee, because it is our role in committee to ask those difficult questions. I welcome the Government’s support for the bill. It was cautious in the early days, so it is even more significant that it is now prepared to support the bill.
In one respect, the bill is simple. As Daniel Johnson said, it seeks to move the guidance that already exists from its current status on to a statutory footing. It also covers training and recording. However, we should always be careful when guidance is put on a statutory footing. Although that gives it extra priority and means that it is considered with extra seriousness, it also has the potential to introduce greater caution, which can be unhelpful at moments when clear and decisive decision making is required. I will return to that.
Like others, I am grateful to the EIS for raising the issues that it is concerned about, because that is part of the accountability process. Issues of culture, resources, timing, workload and training were raised in the evidence sessions, and two of those are particularly important.
First, at a critical moment when a decision is required about the safety of a child, what we want is not caution but clarity about what is required to happen. If a member of staff is too cautious because the matter is covered in statute, a child could be harmed as a result. We must be mindful of that when we are considering the matter.
Secondly, it is easy to work out what great practice is and what dreadful practice is. It is the bits in the middle that are really hard to determine. We need absolute clarity—that feeds into the first point—about what the right thing to do is, and that is why putting the guidance on a statutory footing is essential. We have had guidance for years, but it has not been given the emphasis, priority or seriousness that it deserves. Putting it on a statutory footing will help to bring clarity and decisiveness at critical moments.
We have to be clear to the teaching profession and to staff, because this is not just about restraint. There are wider debates about behaviour, about violence in schools and particularly about additional support needs. The percentage of young people with such needs is now over 40 per cent. There is a debate about inclusion and how we manage young people and give them specialist additional support in schools.
I am thinking about Mr Rennie’s points in relation to behaviour by pupils with additional support needs. Is it his view that the Government should, in future, consider putting other pieces of guidance on a statutory footing? I am interested in that point because we have legislated in a number of areas during this session of Parliament, not least in our passing of Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, and we now have Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill on restraint before us.
To my mind, taking that approach would change quite a lot of the way in which educational governance is provided for in this country, so I am interested in how guidance could be strengthened. There are issues at the moment about the way in which national guidance percolates into our schools when it is not on a statutory footing.
I can give you the time back, Mr Rennie.
The children’s commissioner raised that point during her evidence. She said that she was in favour of putting the current guidance on a statutory footing but that much of the landscape is not an statutory footing and should be considered. The more that we legislate, the more complicated those interactions become, so we must look at how to take a whole-system, considered approach across the landscape.
That is also part of the wider debate and discussion about behaviour, violence and additional support needs. We must be crystal clear in what we say to staff and teachers about what we expect of them, because contradictory messages sometimes come from here and from the Government. I would be sympathetic to taking a look at the legislative landscape.
In conclusion, the real benefit of the bill is that it will bring clarity and a sense of priority and will give staff confidence about what we expect them to do and how they should conduct themselves as professionals. For all those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will support the bill today.
We move to the open debate.
15:16
I, too, congratulate Daniel Johnson and thank him for bringing the bill to the Parliament. I also thank my colleagues on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, our clerks and those who gave evidence to us. As other members who have already spoken have said, our particular thanks should go to Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger, who have worked tirelessly on the issue of restraint and seclusion in Scotland’s schools.
This is a good bill. There is widespread recognition of the need to do more about restraint and seclusion in schools, and the bill is largely helpful on that. I fear that its timing might prevent the bill from being the best that it could be, but that does not mean that I am against it.
A few months before the bill was introduced, the Scottish Government published guidance on the use of physical intervention in schools, and there is a fairly substantial overlap between that guidance and the bill’s provisions. The guidance was introduced in November 2024 and its one-year review is currently under way, with the final report expected in March.
Clearly, the bill intends to go further than guidance would, but, in an ideal world, and given the overlap in the subject matter, we would want to see that report before proceeding with, or completing, our work on the bill. The bill would be stronger for it, and the results for young folk would be better, but our timelines will not allow for that before the Parliament dissolves for the election. If we were to wait, the bill would be pushed into the next session of Parliament to restart its progress, and so we would be pressing the pause button on much of the good that the bill seeks to achieve.
The idea of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good probably sums up where I am on the issue of timing. The bill could be made better if the review had been completed by now, but it has not, and I cannot justify pausing the bill until that happens. I am pleased that the committee recommended that, if the bill should pass, its provisions should not commence until after the review is finished.
Thankfully, other reports are available to inform any changes to the bill, one of which is the stage 1 report from the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I will use my remaining time to highlight some of the changes that we are keen to see.
We would like to see the definitions of “restraint” and “seclusion” being tightened up and refined, because there is a fear that the bill’s current broad definitions of those terms could cause legal ambiguity and unintended consequences.
Some of our witnesses were keen to see examples being included. Such an approach cuts both ways, because examples can also make clear what is not included in a definition—for example, that giving someone a bosie is not restraint—but we maybe need to make that part of the bill clearer.
The other key change that I fully support is ensuring that parents and carers are informed on the same day—or within 24 hours—that restraint or seclusion has taken place. Ben Higgins from the Restraint Reduction Network summed that up pretty well:
“I think it is good practice that when a child falls over and gets a scratch, a mark, a bump or a bruise, the parents are informed. Why would that not apply in the case of restraint or seclusion?”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 24 September 2025; c 44.]
There is broad agreement about the principles of this bill and the changes that we want to see, so let us get it moving forward and continue our efforts to make Scotland the best country in the world in which to grow up—for every child.
15:20
The background to the bill has been well set out this afternoon by Daniel Johnson, and I congratulate him on its reaching stage 1.
The issue of restraint and seclusion has been a topic of discussion for some time. Like other members, I have met parents and campaigners and heard why they feel that legislation is necessary. I have listened to their concerns about incidents of inappropriate restraint, and I recognise that many of them have shared personal and upsetting stories of their children’s distress in order to inform the bill’s progress. As Daniel Johnson did, I acknowledge the roles of Beth Morrison and Calum, who represented other families and their children in the pursuit of this legislation.
I recognise that some people, including in the teaching profession, have concerns about the bill, which I will come on to. However, I note that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has scrutinised the bill and is in unanimous support of its general principles. I also welcome the briefing from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which sets out its support in line with the UN’s recommendations.
I know that the member in charge of the bill has indicated that he will be happy to work with the Scottish Government and others to reach agreement on a definition of “restraint” that is suitable without encompassing everyday interactions. I also welcome the fact that work is being undertaken to develop a human rights law-compatible definition that would apply across education, care and health service settings, so that we can ensure a consistent legal framework.
Some teachers in my region have raised practical concerns, particularly around unintended consequences and staff confidence. They are right to highlight the pressures that the profession already faces. The EIS is clear that restraint and seclusion should be measures of last resort. It is concerned that proposals to introduce statutory guidance could negatively impact the need for open discussion of intervention, which could lead to a culture of fear and anxiety for teachers and staff who are worried about potential consequences.
To be clear, placing existing guidance on a statutory footing is about achieving consistency, clarity and accountability, so that the guidance is consistent across local authorities, is clear to pupils, teachers and parents, and is in line with the promotion of positive relationships and behaviour and of early intervention. The bill aims to underline the preventative approach while providing clarity around processes that should be followed. All those principles are already in the current guidance.
The impacts of additional training and the recording of incidents have also been highlighted, including the implications for workload and training for staff who are already under significant pressure. It is always worth underlining the vital role that teachers and their educational staff play, and the consequences for individuals in the teaching profession of the increasing workload demands that they continue to face. The lack of sufficient time, staffing and resources in teaching is a recurring issue that is much broader in scope than that of the bill. We know that investment in education is needed. I accept that the legislation could introduce some additional workload on recording and reporting requirements, but there seems to be an acknowledgement that that is necessary and achievable. Wider failures in resourcing education cannot be used as a reason for avoiding necessary reform of pupil safeguarding measures.
The recording of incidents and the provision of high-quality training in physical intervention for teachers are important measures. We know that part of the reason for the bill was the inconsistency that exists across local authorities in recording and communication. The guidance in this area would need to ensure a balance between consistency and practicality.
My colleague Daniel Johnson has been clear that not everyone in the profession would require training in physical intervention. The bill would require the Scottish Government to publish statutory guidance on the training of staff—something that has already been done on a non-statutory basis—and for it to maintain an up-to-date list of approved training providers.
The bill is all about achieving clarity, consistency and child protection. If, at the next stages, work could be done on definitions and the management of practical impacts, it could deliver strong safeguards for children while supporting staff. For those reasons, I support the bill’s principles and its progression.
15:25
I will start my remarks where the public conversation on the bill started, which is with the parents and the carers who have had to live through something that we should never normalise in any school setting—not for any child, and not in any part of Scotland. I pay tribute to campaigners Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger for their strength and determination, to Daniel Johnson for believing in them and in their plight, and to the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its measured and thorough report.
Restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, to prevent injury. That is the Government’s position, which I support. Use should be rooted in children’s rights, safety and basic human dignity. For too many families, harm has been caused not just by an incident itself but by what comes afterwards—the uncertainty, the delay in getting answers, the lack of clarity and, sometimes, the feeling that they are being kept at arm’s length from information about their own child. That is why parents and carers have pushed for consistency, transparency and change that are real, and not just well meaning.
I come to this debate not just as an MSP but as a parent of children with additional support needs. I have witnessed restraint and seclusion being used on my own children in primary school. Even now, that memory causes frustration. I send my whole-hearted support to parents, children and young people affected by this issue. I share their frustration, and I understand.
The petition that was lodged in the Parliament back in 2015, and another lodged with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in 2018, highlighted inconsistent practice across local authorities and a lack of monitoring. Those are not small issues. If practice is inconsistent, rights are inconsistent. If monitoring is weak, learning and trust are weak—and trust is what families need most.
I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s guidance that was published in November 2024, which is built around relationships and rights, prevention, de-escalation and post-incident support. That guidance matters, and it was developed with the engagement of stakeholders, including parents, education staff, local government and unions, which is really important. I am glad to see that the one-year review is now under way, with a final report expected in March 2026.
I do not see this as an either/or situation. The bill would put key expectations on a statutory footing. I note that the Government will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, while being honest about the amendments that might be required. I think that that is a responsible approach, because it respects the complexity of the matter while giving us the chance to get the detail right at stage 2.
What I hear from parents and carers is not a desire to punish staff; it is a desire to be treated as a partner, to be informed promptly, to have an accurate record, to know that there is clear national expectation, and to ensure that children’s rights are not optional or dependent on a postcode.
I also note and understand that schools are operating in really tough conditions. Distressed behaviour has increased, workloads are heavy and staff safety matters, too. That is exactly why we must get our approach right for everyone involved. I believe that we can both protect children’s rights and support staff with clear, workable expectations, training and a culture that learns rather than blames. We must refine definitions to avoid ambiguity and we must ensure that the practical operation strengthens relationships rather than weakens them.
I support the motion to agree to the bill’s general principles at stage 1, with parents and carers at the very forefront of my mind and with a clear expectation that definitions can be tightened at stage 2. Families deserve consistency, children deserve dignity, and staff deserve a system that supports them in keeping everyone safe.
George Adam is the final speaker in the open debate.
15:29
This has been a difficult bill to fully get my head around, not because the problem that it seeks to address is unclear but because we must be honest about how it would work in the real world—in our classrooms, on the toughest of days for teachers and staff who are already under immense pressure.
I am also the grandparent of a wonderful young woman—if I can call an 11-year-old a young woman—with autism. We must take in her toughest days and the pressure that she feels and undertake to understand what she is feeling at that time.
For me, one of the most important parts of our committee’s evidence taking on the bill was hearing from parents and carers who have campaigned tirelessly for it. They talked about real harm, trauma and failure in the system. The evidence that we heard was heartbreaking. Families spoke of their children sustaining broken bones, severe bruising and deep psychological scars. One mother told us that her daughter was restrained on her first day of secondary school and that, 20-odd years later, she still cannot tolerate closed doors. That should worry every one of us.
My colleague Karen Adam spoke about the need for understanding of young people and children with additional support needs. It came out in the evidence that some teachers were under pressure or did not have that understanding. As a grandparent, I know how that can be difficult. My daughter, Jessica, seems like a superhero to me as she deals with Daisy and some of these issues. We have a three-year-old in the family who is being looked at to see whether she is on the spectrum, too, so we have a rather nice, neurodiverse family unit in our family. We need to understand.
It can be difficult for people when they see a young person who is like that. I remember seeing some of my grandchildren’s first breakdowns related to autism. It can be scary and frightening at times, so I can understand why it would be difficult for teachers in a professional position.
However, ignoring the very serious concerns that the EIS has raised is not an option. During stage 1, the EIS’s evidence was clear and consistent in its message, and Tom Britton of the EIS told us something that we cannot brush aside:
“Without the context of more funding and more staff, it is difficult to get beyond that.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 1 October 2025; c 102.]
He is absolutely right. We cannot legislate as if staffing levels, workload and resources are abstract issues. To make the bill work properly and safely, we will require more staff. That raises very real questions. Are we talking about additional teaching staff, specialist support staff or administrative staff to handle reporting and monitoring duties? Those decisions will land squarely at local authority level, and they cannot be ducked.
Our teachers are already working in a very challenging environment. They are managing increasingly complex additional support needs and growing administrative burdens. The EIS warned us that, if the bill is poorly implemented, it will risk creating a report culture that is based on fear rather than learning. That is not scaremongering; it is a legitimate concern from a workforce that wants to get it right. We should be clear that our teachers are not the problem.
For the bill to deliver on its aims, several issues need to be addressed at stage 2. First, as has already been said, the current definition of restraint is so broad that it risks capturing ordinary, benign interactions with children.
Secondly, seclusion is the most difficult and sensitive issue in the bill. Many witnesses described seclusion as deprivation of liberty and potentially of human rights. We need to get that definition right. Data reporting is also an important concern, because we do not want to be in a situation in which data, rather than being used as a tool to make things better, is used as some kind of league table.
We must protect our children’s rights and support teachers without creating fear, bureaucracy or unintended consequences. There is a lot of work still to be done on the bill, and I am happy to work with others to ensure that we make the bill the best that it possibly can be.
We move to closing speeches.
15:33
I will begin by picking up on what we have heard this afternoon, starting with the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s work, which has been very important. We have heard it referred to throughout the contributions, including those from members of that committee. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence on the bill. However, it is clear to me—particularly now that I have been inducted into the committee’s lengthy meetings on Wednesday mornings—that the committee spent a lot of time looking forensically at the detail of the evidence that was presented, and that is reflected in the report. We also heard about that work from Willie Rennie, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the committee’s convener.
That was about ensuring that there was strong scrutiny of the bill—Daniel Johnson was put under that scrutiny so that he would explain how he felt the bill would progress—and that the voices of campaigners were heard, as we have heard already, as well as those of teachers and other school professionals who have concerns. I know that Daniel Johnson will turn to those points in his closing speech, but we also have an opportunity, as the bill progresses, to address some of those points more fully.
In reflecting on some of the process that sits around the bill, what Daniel Johnson said about the non-Government bills unit was correct. That unit is the unsung hero of Parliament in ensuring that bills are well drafted and well considered and that they can be brought to Parliament for scrutiny and for us to discuss the issues, decide on the general principles—as we will this afternoon—and then move forward into the subsequent stages.
In opening, I reflected that I worked for Enable Scotland for seven years. In my time there, we produced a number of important pieces of work and reports on seclusion and restraint in schools and the abuses that have happened, which we have heard reference to this afternoon. However, Enable tried to look more widely at the school experience of children and young people who have a learning disability, autism and neurodivergence. We tried to reflect on their experience and, crucially, how we could make it better for them and for their parents.
I remember a statistic that came from the report “#IncludED in the Main?!” At that point, the hundreds of parents and carers of young people with a disability whom we surveyed said that they found their experience of the school system stressful and a battle—those were the words that were used—and that they felt alone and cut off from decision making. That is probably what has been reflected most in this afternoon’s debate.
We are trying to set things right for children and young people who have experienced the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint, but we are also trying to support parents and carers who face daily challenges and often find it hard to get to the truth of what is happening to their children and young people and to move beyond that to build a strong relationship with those who, as Daniel Johnson said, are in loco parentis.
I hope that, as a result of agreeing today that the bill should proceed and as a result of the work that we will do to progress the bill to stages 2 and 3 and put it on the statute book, when we return to Parliament in the next session, we can look back and reflect on the work that will be carried out in our local authorities, in the hope that we will have reduced the burden that parents have felt. We hope that there will be fewer parents who describe their school experiences as stressful or a battle or who feel alone or cut off.
15:38
I add my congratulations to Daniel Johnson on doing the wheen of work that goes into bringing a bill to this stage. I also congratulate, as many members have done today, Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger, who have also done a wheen of work. It is important to mention that it is incumbent on all of us in this place to take this forward, to look at where we are now, to progress and to make sure that we make the bill the best that it can be for them. This is not the end of the road—it is just halfway along.
This debate has made one thing abundantly clear. Although the majority of our teachers and school staff act professionally and with the utmost care and compassion every single day, the system of restraint and seclusion in Scotland is not working as it should. We must be clear that restraint and seclusion should never be a routine practice. That was mentioned in the submissions by Miles Briggs and Karen Adam regarding de-escalation, and that has to be the first port of call. Restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort in circumstances in which there is an immediate risk of harm to the child and to others, and it should always be used within the framework that prioritises dignity, rights and wellbeing, with relevant staff and support for the child involved.
It is consistency that matters here, not only for pupils and families but for staff. Teachers and support staff deserve clarity. Willie Rennie made a good point when he talked about the middle-of-the-road circumstances that do not fit. However, I think that it is the other way round. It is the more extreme circumstances that the guidance does not quite match, and that is where we have the problem.
The fact is that clarity is required, regardless of how we look at it, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We need clarity, training and robust guidance so that teachers and children are supported proportionately and with confidence in the most challenging of situations.
Kate Sanger said to the committee:
“The reasons that are given for restraint include non-compliance, children making poor choices, sensory overload, bad language and screaming.”
She went on to explain that some children and young people
“do not have language skills or verbal skills, and screaming is a way of communicating their needs.”—[Official Report, 24 September 2025; c 2-3.]
Imagine being restrained for trying to explain yourself. That is just not acceptable.
There is clear evidence that the use of restraint and seclusion is inconsistent across Scotland’s schools. Practices vary widely between local authorities and between individual schools. It is not acceptable that parents are not informed when serious interventions are used. We have all heard in our casework of circumstances where that has happened. No parent should discover that their child has been restrained or secluded because their child has come home distressed, withdrawn, unable to explain what has happened to them or covered in cuts and bruises or with broken bones.
It is that lack of transparency that causes real harm. It can compound trauma in children—particularly those with additional support needs, who may struggle to communicate their experiences or to process the distressing events. For families, being kept in the dark undermines trust and makes it harder for them to advocate for their child or to work constructively with the schools to put the right support in place. We need clear safeguards, proper recording and meaningful parental involvement.
As has been mentioned by Daniel Johnson, Maggie Chapman and Willie Rennie, the bill affords us the opportunity to move support on to a statutory footing, and that is what we are trying to achieve. It recognises that relying on non-statutory guidance has not been enough. It acknowledges the living experiences of children, young people and families who have raised concerns over many years, and it signals a commitment to learn from those experiences and to do better.
The Conservatives support the general principles of the bill. We do so in the spirit of constructive engagement, and we will work with the Government and stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, proportionate and effective in practice. Every child in Scotland deserves to feel safe, respected and protected in their school, and every family deserves honesty, transparency and confidence in the system that is meant to support them.
15:43
I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to today’s debate, which has been remarkable for the conciliatory tone that we have had across the chamber so close to dissolution and for being on a topic on which we all agree. I also thank our partners in local government; our teaching trade unions; all education staff; and, of course, parents, who, as we heard today, have supported our work in this area. The Government will continue to engage with all those partners, and more substantively with Daniel Johnson, on the bill and its progress at stages 2 and 3.
Today, we have heard the will across the Parliament to build on the actions that have already been taken by the Government. Our long-standing position, as is known, is that restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, and we are committed to protecting Scotland’s children and young people.
I will address some of the comments that were made by colleagues across the chamber this afternoon, although I am aware that time is short. Miles Briggs reminded the chamber of Beth Morrison’s son, Calum, and Douglas Ross said that we would not be here were it not for Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger. Paul O’Kane spoke to the dreadful things that have happened to families, which highlights the necessity of the debate that we find ourselves having today. As Maggie Chapman rightly reminded the chamber, there has been a tireless campaign, which, I observe, has been largely led by mums—mums whose experience of our education system has not been what it should have been, and mums who have had to fight.
There are many parallels between the legislation that is before Parliament today and parental experiences—for example, of local support for additional support needs. In listening to colleagues’ contributions, I reflected on my constituent Niamdh Braid and the fight that her mother and father had to lead against Fife Council to obtain the support that she required as a British Sign Language user in school in Fife.
Willie Rennie spoke to the need for the guidance to be put on a statutory footing to bring decisiveness and clarity. I note the concerns of my former trade union, the EIS, which has been mentioned in the debate today, about the issue. I have already written to the EIS and I have committed to further engagement with it ahead of stages 2 and 3. I know that the member in charge has engaged with it, too, and I look forward to working with him on that topic. It is worth saying that the teaching trade unions were involved in the development of the Government’s guidance, and we will continue to engage with them in relation to the review and, of course, stages 2 and 3, working with the member in charge.
Jackie Dunbar spoke to the interplay between the national guidance and the bill that is before the Parliament. I am pleased that the review, which is well under way, will report in March. She was right to talk about commencement dates—a matter on which I have already engaged with Daniel Johnson—and we are in agreement that lessons from the review must inform how the act is delivered in practice in educational settings.
Claire Baker was right to talk about inconsistencies in recording practices, which I think Roz McCall touched on, too. We see that issue across our educational landscape, and the bill will have a key role to play in strengthening the quality and consistency of data, which we have already actively started to consider in relation to additional support needs, as colleagues will know from the update that I provided earlier this year.
Karen Adam spoke about the need for parents to be treated as partners. To that end, I very much agree with the committee’s approach to reporting on the same day. Families, staff and children deserve dignity, and much of that has to be about better communication.
George Adam spoke of the heartbreaking experiences that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard from families, which I know will be familiar to colleagues who sit on the committee. His observations on additional support needs are salient to our recent debates in the chamber and are another reason why the review of initial teacher education provision, which I spoke to earlier this year, is so important. Teachers need support, but we must recognise that needs in our classrooms are changing, and the way in which we support the profession is required to adapt accordingly.
George Adam was correct to guard against the creation of league tables. We often see that issue in relation to behaviour in schools, with schools and teachers fearful to report and concerned how that might reflect on their practice or their school. However, if we do not have accurate data, whether on behaviour, ASN or the use of restraint, how can any Government target support to where it is needed most? We need far greater transparency in all those matters, less protectionism and far more engagement and support for the teaching profession.
I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing the bill before the Parliament. I pay particular tribute again today to Beth Morrison, Kate Sanger and all the other parents, children and young people whose lives have been impacted by these issues. No family should have to endure the experiences that members have heard, some of which have been narrated in the debate, but we have an opportunity today to change lives and to create positive, inclusive and safe school environments. The Scottish Government is therefore happy to support the general principles of Daniel Johnson’s bill.
15:47
I almost do not know how to respond to the overwhelming and universal compliments that I have received this afternoon. I cannot claim not to occasionally use a theatrical flourish in the Parliament, but I try to approach my work in a collegiate way, to deal with things matter-of-factly and to work with people from right across the chamber, and I hope that some of that is reflected.
I, too, reiterate my thanks to Beth and Calum Morrison and Kate Sanger. Kate and Beth are a dynamic duo and a dream team. I will just reflect on something that Douglas Ross touched on. I believe in the Scottish Parliament, because it brings power closer to people and makes the possibility of change much more realistic for people. If we pass the bill, the process will demonstrate to Beth and Kate that it is delivering on that promise to Scottish people.
We should always be clear on what we are talking about. Restraint and seclusion, in the most serious instances, are about children—often vulnerable children—being pinned down and held in stress or prone positions. We are talking about seclusion and being put in a locked room, which is sometimes called a chill-out room but is not—it is a cupboard with a lock or, sometimes, a padded room. That is not right—not in this day and age. If that has to happen, we need the most robust procedures around it. Whenever the state intervenes physically, using force, we rightly expect and demand that that has robust monitoring and supervision. Why would we not have that expectation for our children?
We must acknowledge the EIS’s concerns. Maggie Chapman did an excellent job of dealing with them, but let me reiterate its key concerns, which were around timing, legal questions for individual teachers, training, workload and league tables.
In relation to timing, it is not true that the provisions of the bill are new and were only introduced in the 2024 non-statutory guidance. The 2017 guidance made it clear that local authorities should have clear procedures and training available for teachers and went on to say that all instances of the decision to use physical intervention
“must be recorded and monitored.”
That was in 2017—it is not new. I reflect that, often, we legislate without having detailed guidance to implement the measures in the legislation until after the passage of the bill. We have an advantage here in that a decade or more of guidance to build on, so we know what we are talking about.
On the legal question, let us be clear that the obligations will be for local authorities and for schools, not for individual teachers. That is not to say that individual teachers will not be asked to play their part but, critically, the obligations rest at a different level. Likewise, on training, the bill restates what is already in guidance about the training being made available. There is no point in this legislation at which it says that all teachers must be trained.
On workload, I am clear that there should be no additional workload. If, as the EIS agrees, such incidents should already be recorded, there should be no additional workload. Critically, we know that accidental injuries are recorded in a comprehensive way—that is part of current practice and, if the recording is being omitted when the interventions are deliberate, there are bigger questions for us to ask.
Finally, on the matter of league tables, the legislation sets out that the information will be gathered at local authority level and passed on to the Scottish ministers. There are two safeguards there: first, the information will be provided to ministers not on the basis of the school but on the basis of the local authority. Secondly, I deliberately left it to the discretion of ministers to decide how that would be detailed, because we need to take care about it and jigsaw identification must be avoided.
We should note that not only was the General Teaching Council for Scotland broadly supportive of the bill, it made the point that perhaps we need to go further. That reflects on many of the points raised by the cabinet secretary. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has also taken a constructive approach.
I am almost out of time—as the member in charge of the bill, between the six minutes for my introduction and the five minutes to conclude, I have a lot to pack in.
On definitions, we need to ensure that, particularly in recording and reporting practice, we are not inadvertently capturing other things. As some members pointed out, hugs are not restraint. A supportive hand on the shoulder is not restraint. Although the definition in the bill talks about removing the ability to voluntarily move, we can tighten that definition. I will look at that—things such as the deliberateness of the use, the length of time, the risks involved and the nature of the intervention need to be captured, particularly in relation to the recording and reporting, so that we do not create unnecessary work. That is doable.
I am keen to work with the trade unions, other relevant bodies, the Government and everyone in this chamber to make sure that we get those definitions right and on other points that have been raised. I think that all the points raised by the committee are right and I hope to work on amendments, either directly myself or with others, to ensure that we improve this bill.
I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon.
That concludes the debate on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on the front benches to change over.