Official Report 940KB pdf
We move to our next agenda item. The committee will continue our evidence taking, which we began last week, on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.
This is our third panel of witnesses today. Dr Lynne Binnie is service lead for inclusion at the City of Edinburgh Council and co-chair of the inclusion network at the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland; Tom Britton is Edinburgh local association assistant secretary at the Educational Institute of Scotland; Dr Pauline Stephen is chief executive and registrar at the General Teaching Council for Scotland; Mike Corbett is national official, Scotland, at the NASUWT; and Gavin Calder is chief executive officer of Harmeny school and a board member of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.
I am very grateful to you all for bearing with us, as we have overrun today. I know that a couple of you have to be away by the designated time, so we will try to be direct with our questions. If you can be direct with your answers, we will get through as much as we can.
I will kick things off. It is fair to say that the two panels that we have already heard from on the bill were generally supportive of it. There is more concern among some of today’s witnesses, who will perhaps want to discuss some of their concerns.
I have raised this point before. As the father of two boys in mainstream education—one at nursery and one at school—I get a phone call as soon as anything happens, even if it is extremely minor. However, parents of children who have been restrained or secluded say that they do not get the same notification. Is that correct? If so, why?
Good morning—no, good afternoon; my apologies.
I suspect that, of the people on the panel, I am not the closest to current school practice, but I can answer more directly as someone who is also a parent. I do not think that it is right that parents are notified in some circumstances but not in others. The current language about the restraint, or physical intervention, that schools use makes reference to reporting and to the timescales for doing so, so there are already rules in place.
What is missing at a national level is coherent data collection and oversight. What are the checks and balances to ensure that parents know about all the circumstances that you have described? There is work to do on developing coherent policy in association with data collection.
Mr Britton, are your members saying that the evidence that we have received is incorrect, or is there underreporting or a lack of reporting in schools?
We generally support parents being told as soon as possible. I taught in a special school for almost 20 years and now represent members who work in special schools. The issue is fundamentally about relationships and resourcing, and parents are a crucial part of those relationships.
Like you, convener, I am the parent of two children and would want to be informed immediately. I cannot talk anecdotally about when things are being reported but I can certainly reflect on my own experience. If there was ever an incident or if a young person became dysregulated, I would see it as my duty to tell the parents as soon as possible.
Does anyone else want to question the evidence that we have heard? Dr Stephen and Mr Britton are saying that reporting should be, or is, happening, so why are we getting parents demanding legislative change because they feel that it is not happening at the moment? We have heard some harrowing examples in our evidence sessions and have seen examples in the written submissions. We were told last week that significant numbers of pupils have been restrained and secluded in their schools just since the start of this school term, but that not all of those incidents have been reported.
We do not have figures and I do not think that our members would necessarily get in touch with us about that. I understand why parents, who are at the sharp end, would be getting in touch to say that they think they should be hearing about those events, but are not.
In principle, we absolutely agree that parents and carers should be informed, but we have a slight hesitation, based on casework from across the UK. There are certain cases where contact may not be appropriate. For example, if a pupil is at risk, their social worker might say that when the school advises the parent or carer that restraint has been applied, that parent or carer might blame the child and ask what they have done wrong. There is that need for caution in some individual cases.
That example touches on some of our wider concerns about giving this statutory force. If you dig down, there can sometimes be difficulties behind something that might seem, on the surface, to be very simple.
Ms Binnie, you know what came up in response to our call for written evidence and in the evidence that the committee has heard already. Has the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland looked into the issue? Can you tell us whether notification should be happening on the ground but is not? I find Mr Corbett’s example quite extreme and think that such a situation would be fairly rare, but we have been told of numerous occasions of children going home from school and being petrified to speak about what happened, with the parent not finding out what actually happened until days or weeks later, following demands. That cannot be acceptable.
12:30
It is not acceptable. ADES is very clear in the principles that are outlined in the current guidance. Parents and carers should be informed within 24 hours—in practice, that should happen immediately—of any instances of physical restraint or seclusion. A process is in place.
You are very clear about that. However, is it happening?
Local authorities have policies and procedures in place. They have all been updated, across the 32 local authorities, since the current guidance was put in place.
Significant work is happening in local authorities to ensure that the policies and procedures are communicated to school staff. I encourage any parents who find themselves in that unfortunate position to contact someone in their local authority immediately.
Are you confident that policies and instructions are being implemented by staff?
In relation to ADES members, I am confident that policy and procedures have been updated in light of the new guidance, and that procedures are in place to ensure that parents are informed of every incident of seclusion and restraint.
There may be cases across Scotland of which I would not necessarily be aware. Some of the challenges in implementing the current guidance are around the definitions of seclusion and restraint.
We will come on to definitions. I know that certain members have questions on that.
Those challenges might lead to instances in which parents are not automatically informed.
Mr Calder, is there anything to add from the perspective of independent schools?
I will say two things.
My background is in independent special education schools, not just mainstream education.
The important point is that it is not automatically the parents who should be informed, but whoever is responsible. In such a situation, I would want the social worker to be informed. The important thing is to have scrutiny of the fact that an incident has happened. If a social worker is involved, as is the case with many of the young people I deal with, we would advise the social worker. Someone has to be advised of these things when they happen.
I suspect that there is a mixed picture in independent schools. There has been a presumption towards mainstreaming, which is also the case in independent schools. There are more and more young people in independent schools who have identified special educational needs.
Seclusion and restraint will be taking place. In the majority of cases, parents are told straight away, but I have heard of some instances where they were not.
Good afternoon. The committee has just started taking evidence on the bill, but we are already being told that restraint and seclusion are commonly being misused and are causing harm, mainly to disabled children. We hear from teachers and local authorities that the techniques are being used appropriately, and only as a last resort. One side is saying that it is often used as the first resort, and the other side is saying that it is used as last resort. Why are we getting different stories from each side? Is this an urgent issue that needs to be addressed?
The report “No Safe Place” by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland was the catalyst for significant work in this area. Local authorities have been working in this space to improve policy, procedures and training.
I was the chair of the working group on the Scottish Government guidance, and the guidance has enabled clarity in relation to definitions and processes. I ask committee members to recognise that that guidance has only recently been implemented. It has been about 12 months since its publication, and I think that we have seen further improvement in the area since then.
I would expect there to be significant improvement and reports from parents and from children and young people since the introduction of the guidance and over the implementation phase. There would be more cognisance of what local authorities have in place and the experiences of children, young people, parents and teachers on the ground.
Are you finding that the experiences of parents and children are different from what is being said by local authorities? I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
I am trying to convey that I hope that improvement has been made since the implementation of the guidance, and that that is the information that I have been provided by local authority ADES reps.
Things are clearer and local authorities have updated their policies and procedures. I hope that there is much more understanding of the issue and better recording at the local authority level since the implementation of the guidance. I cannot fully comment on what went on before the implementation of the guidance, but I expect that the process was not as robust as it is now in local authorities.
Will you remind me when the guidance was put in place?
I think that it was 2023. No—it was 2024. We are nearly 12 months on since it was issued.
So we should be starting to see—
You should start to see improvements in reporting of incidents and parents and carers being informed.
The issue is that we cannot say whether there has been improvement. I work in residential care and education. For residential care, I am sure that the Care Inspectorate or the Scottish physical restraint action group—SPRAG—could tell you that there has been improvement. There has been a massive reduction in safe holds in the past 10 years, and particularly since “The Promise” came out.
The issue is that, in education, we do not have the national scrutiny that we have in residential care. If any child is held in residential care, we know about it and can be questioned on it. In education, that is not the case, so the figures do not exist. That is one of the main reasons why SCIS is so behind the bill. There should be scrutiny of the situation so that we can answer the question.
I am asking why two different sides say two different things. Are you saying that you do not see that at all?
No, I am not saying that. As I said, I work in special education and everything is documented. I see a drop in incidents, but you must remember that I deal with a specific group of young people and I cannot comment on your question. My comment was more a general one that it is difficult to prove or disprove what either side is saying because we do not have a means of collecting that data in the way that the Care Inspectorate has within the care sector.
Is the Care Inspectorate asking the appropriate questions to get those answers?
Within care, yes, but it has no jurisdiction in education and, at the moment, there is no education body that is asking those questions and has the power and wherewithal to ask them. From the point of view of mainstream and specialist independent schools, local authorities are not the right body to gather that information either. There should be, and SCIS is strongly behind there being, an equivalent of the Care Inspectorate to gather that data; alternatively, the functions of the Care Inspectorate or HMI should be beefed up to gather it.
My response is similar. I will sound like a broken record in this evidence session. As has been described, there is an absence of checks and balances. Given that there is such an absence, it is really important to listen to the stories of people who have been deeply impacted by the situation.
I have a unique perspective. I do not claim that I have the world view on the matter but the GTCS is the regulator of teachers and we see the most serious concerns about teachers through our fitness-to-teach work, so our world view is specific. We hear the individual stories of teachers who have been involved in, let us say, issues of restraint and seclusion when things have gone wrong. That is my world. At the same time, I have been listening to the evidence that you have had through the committee and in other places from parents telling their stories about their own children and the impact that restraint has had on their family lives.
Those individual stories from teachers and children would be better understood through a more coherent policy and system of checks and balances such as Gavin Calder described. We would better see what the issues are—they would be more visible. We are missing the capacity to see that and give the public more confidence and assurance that such situations are being dealt with appropriately.
We have the guidance, so the question is really whether we put it on a statutory footing. Some people have expressed to me the concern that, whenever you put guidance on a statutory footing, it gains extra power and, therefore, individuals perhaps overreach or are more cautious. My concern is that, as a result of it being on a statutory footing, some staff might decide to hold back at those crucial and critical moments when intervention or restraint might be the right thing to do.
I have been supportive of the bill—I signed up to the initial proposal—but I would like to know how, in that critical moment, staff decide where the invisible, moving line is between acceptable and unacceptable intervention.
I will provide some context for that, from my background working in special schools. In an ideal scenario, you would have a maximum class size of six, with a staff team of three, who would be well resourced, highly trained and know the young people well. Bear in mind that, for a young person to have their education in a special school, they will have multiple complex learning needs. An autistic young person might have various other medical syndromes. They might present as non-verbal or need to be changed for toileting. It is a complex situation. Everyone has to communicate—it is a basic human function. When a young person is non-verbal, it can take more time and effort to understand how they communicate and respond.
Ideally, you would have a dynamic, resourced and well-functioning team around all the young people. The reality is that, in a lot of special schools, and among the members whom I support, there are a huge number of staff vacancies. Everyone agrees that the pay for pupil support assistants is not adequate for the job that they are doing. At a meeting with our members a few weeks ago, they told us that they had 17 staff absences. That has a monumental negative impact on how a staff team functions.
In an ideal scenario, a well-resourced and experienced staff team would recognise the signs of dysregulation in a young person before it happens. That is fundamental. However, if a well-supported and well-resourced team is not there, and if adults are coming in on a daily basis so that there is another adult in the room, that will be a source of dysregulation for the young people in the class. When it gets to that critical moment that you talked about, it is a huge and challenging situation, and restraint must be the last possible action to be taken.
In light of what I have read in the bill and the potential for league tables of how often restraint is being used, without a framework of context and understanding, my members would hesitate and they would stop. There would be fear about the bureaucracy and whether they would end up getting not only a complaint but a charge made against them. People are not going to use restraint.
The fear is about the options for intervening if the use of restraint stops. It is a terrifying moment when a young person reaches incredibly distressed and dysregulated behaviour, and the options for helping them, supporting staff and pupils, and keeping everyone safe, become far fewer. My fear is that we will see more distressing incidents, more young people getting dysregulated and more people getting hurt.
To be clear, you are saying that you would be against putting the guidance on a statutory footing.
The Scottish Government guidance talks about the relationships at the heart of the process. Parents would be an equal partner in that process. My understanding of the bill is that it talks about a complaints procedure. Do not get me wrong: parents have a right to ask questions. However, if you have a relationship in which everyone knows the possibilities—if you are talking about a young person and their needs, what their potential triggers are and what will cause dysregulation and distressed behaviour—the parents would be involved in that process.
12:45
We have some frustration with the physical intervention guidance that came out in August 2024. We were involved in the working group on that guidance. Although much of it is commendable, it offers very little to teachers in terms of specifics about what they should or should not do in certain circumstances. From our point of view, it would be far better to improve that guidance than to go ahead with the proposed statutory guidance.
I want to highlight that, although much of the focus here is, understandably, on specific sectors where kids have special needs and are in specialist provision, which is where most incidents appear to occur, almost 50 per cent of pupils in mainstream schools have an identified additional support need. Many of our members would say that some of those pupils are not thriving in a mainstream environment, but that is where they are. It is important to remember that incidents occur in mainstream schools as well. If you are pushing for the guidance to have a statutory footing, it should apply to all schools and to all teachers.
If that were to be the case, much more debate would be needed, and our members would need much more reassurance about what they could and could not be expected to do in certain circumstances. For example—we have seen such examples—do you intervene in a fight between pupils who might be at risk when doing so might put yourself at risk? We have casework from England and Wales in which members intervened in one situation and did not in another. In both cases, the members ended up facing a disciplinary investigation. That is the kind of thing that our members are concerned about and why they feel that they need more clarity. That clarity could come from a revision of the 2024 guidance rather than placing the proposed guidance on a statutory footing.
Having had experience of the training, I agree. There is a presumption towards mainstreaming, which is right, so all schools are included in this. Part of the bill is about making sure that there is adequate training. The CALM physical intervention course is the training that I know of. A big part of that is about de-escalation techniques—in other words, how you de-escalate when children are dysregulating so that intervention becomes the last possible resort.
It is a three-day training course that is done annually, two days of which—a huge amount, which I absolutely understand—is about the theory behind why you de-escalate so as not to get to the point of intervention in the first place. The training is important as a reassurance to teachers. It not only informs them as to when they should decide whether to intervene, including by physically holding someone. More important, it deliberately teaches them regulated techniques so that they can do their absolute damnedest to ensure that they do not hurt a child, given that they might face a lawsuit if they do. We heard stories in previous evidence of children being hurt in such situations, mainly in special education.
I broadly agree with the other representatives on the panel. Speaking from my experience as head of education within the City of Edinburgh Council, I will say that we have started to report and collect data over the past 12 months. That data shows that the majority of incidents happen in primary schools, so they are not exclusive to the special school sector, although the second-highest number of incidents is within the special school sector. That needs to be taken into account in the discussion.
As our data from last year shows, the main reasons for physical intervention and restraint—I use both terms as there are challenges around the definitions—involve staff intervening to stop peer-on-peer aggression. That is why such incidents sometimes take place. ADES is looking at such instances at a local authority level across the whole of Scotland, and, as a result of the guidance, we have much more information over the past 12 months than we have ever had.
We are looking at trends and themes and are trying to consider the learning strategy that aligns with those to ensure that staff in our schools have the right training and support so that, when incidents happen, they can make a professional decision on intervention.
Guidance can never give clear scenarios, because every scenario and situation is different—school contexts are different and our learners are different. There will always have to be a degree of professional judgment in those moments on whether to intervene and restrain. The training that needs to take place is to support and enable members of staff to make an informed decision at that point while de-escalating prior to that. There also needs to be support and processes in place following an incident, which should involve parents and support for the members of staff.
The question was about there being a moment of hesitancy as a result of moving from guidance to statutory guidance. I am bearing in mind all the stuff about best practice, staff ensuring that they prevent incidents if at all possible, being well resourced and all the rest of it. However, in those critical moments, would your staff hesitate?
No, because we are supporting our staff to understand that, to avoid harm, intervention is required as a last resort.
Are you content for the guidance to go on a statutory footing?
Yes.
Okay. Dr Stephen?
I am broadly supportive of the guidance being placed on a statutory footing, because we need to talk together about the approach and to get better at it. However, we believe that there are likely to be some consequences of putting one aspect of keeping children safe in school—restraint and seclusion—on a statutory footing when the overarching policy on child protection is not on a statutory footing.
Our overarching guidance is multi-agency guidance, so it is not specific to the context of education or even to schools. The physical intervention guidance that we are talking about is specific to schools, non-statutory and sits under non-specific, non-statutory guidance—let me know if you are not keeping up with this—so we would be putting one component part of keeping children safe at school on a statutory footing while broader aspects of child protection are not. We believe that that is likely to create some unintended consequences, even though we all intend to do good. It would probably also miss an opportunity to look holistically at the child protection landscape. That is not a popular answer, but there is an opportunity to explore that landscape.
To be clear, do you support the bill as a first step to putting everything on a statutory footing, or would you want to wait until there is a whole-system approach?
If I were to be in charge of the world, I would suggest that the overarching child protection policy should be made specific to the universal service that the majority of our children and young people experience by going to school. Currently, schools, local authorities, employers and independent schools—whichever it may be—are looking at national, non-specific and non-statutory child protection guidance and working out what that means for them in their context. They are doing their absolute best to develop good processes, to train their staff and so on. However, given that, it is not surprising that there are many variations of how that looks across the country.
There are other jurisdictions in which the advice that is given to schools about child protection is specifically focused on how to keep children safe in the universal service of education. We think that that is where time would be best spent, and that restraint and seclusion should be considered as a component feature of keeping children safe at school.
That is fine. Thank you.
Even on a normal day with a five-member panel, we cannot have everyone answering every question as we will not be able to get through everything. I appreciate the answers, but I need to bring in members. I know that a couple of the witnesses will need to leave in 20 minutes and I want to get your information on the record before that. We will move on to questions from Bill Kidd.
Seclusion sounds like a nice thing—it sounds like safety, being away from problems and stuff like that. However, this is an instance in which that is not exactly what it means. When is it lawful to use restraint and when is it lawful to move to seclude a child in schools? Does anybody know the answer to that?
I am hesitant, because you mentioned the word “lawful” and I do not come from a position of fully understanding the law.
I am reluctant to respond with a legal position, but I can talk about the special school context. It sometimes benefits a young person who shows signs of dysregulation if they have a bit of time out and an opportunity to self-regulate and bring themselves back in.
In the context of relationships and resourcing that I talked about, the action would be taken based on the child’s plan. You would talk about what works for the child, which would be discussed with parents. That could involve the child going out for a walk in the playground with an adult. If agreed, it could involve putting the child in a separate space to play with toys or do activities that they like. We describe that as child-led seclusion, because they choose to opt out. However, I am not confident that I could answer your question from a legal perspective.
No problem. Earlier, it was mentioned that you have to ensure that the parent, guardian or whoever is involved is not only informed if something happens but informed about their rights before something happens or could happen, so that they can have some say in the way that things are carried out.
On that basis, does seclusion work differently in different school settings? Mr Calder said that there are elements of seclusion in the schools that he talked about, but is that the case across the range of schools? Does seclusion even continue into secondary school? We always think about it in relation to children who are about eight years old, but can it go on when they are aged 14 or 15?
It would be much more challenging in a mainstream school context. The special schools that I have worked in have purpose-built spaces and offer immediate access to the playground, which provides a lot of the context for choices and activities. In a mainstream school setting, whether primary or secondary, it would be hugely challenging due to the sheer number of pupils in a room.
Before going into the sector that I am in now, I was a senior leader in mainstream schools for 25 years, and I agree with that.
Yes, the parents have a right to be informed, but the thing that probably none of us has touched on yet is that the children have a right to be a part of the discussion. I have spoken with some of the special schools that have children in wheelchairs, and they have seclusion in place. If the guidance is to be made statutory, it is really important that such children are included in the bill, because seclusion is not just being sent away to a quiet room. Turning a wheelchair around to face a wall or putting a restraint on the wheelchair—unless the child wants that—also counts as seclusion.
In the debrief, the work with a young person is crucial, whether the intervention involves a physical hold or seclusion. That probably hits about four of the rights that are listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yes, the parents have a right to know and be part of that conversation, but—we have not mentioned this yet—so, too, do the young people. They are crucial in this.
Absolutely.
Dealing with seclusion is complex. It needs to be understood that schools consider what measures can be put in place to reduce risk. In the main, schools—specifically special schools—are secure in that they have an outer perimeter fence and a secure gate. Seclusion is therefore not used in many schools. If the child needs to be de-escalated, other spaces within the school can be used. That highlights the importance of the school estate and school buildings in meeting the needs of our children and young people.
13:00The previous practice that I witnessed over the years—a long time ago, I would like to say—was that seclusion was, at times, part of a child’s plan, and it was part of how their education was delivered day to day. I do not feel that we are in that place any more. If there has been seclusion, it has been used as a strategy to reduce risk.
One challenge that I have been dealing with in light of the new guidance comes from the feeling from some school staff that seclusion is less intrusive than restraint and that, if there is a risk of harm to staff or other pupils, secluding a child in a room for a short period in order to reduce that risk is more beneficial than restraint. That is an example of the challenges relating to the complexity of the matter that we are trying to work with in local authorities.
It is worrying, though, that seclusion can be a form of exclusion, with people being taken out, isolated and not part of the structure of their classroom any more. That could perhaps lead to them having even greater problems in the future. Is that not the case?
I would expect that. However, as I tried to say before, we have come a long way in terms of the practice in our schools. In light of the new guidance, there has been a significant reduction in the use of seclusion across our school estate.
Great. Thank you very much, everyone—that is good stuff.
I am conscious of the time, but I have a couple of questions. One is about the consistency of policy frameworks across different children’s services, such as schools, care settings and childcare providers. We have touched on that. A few of you have mentioned views on the current guidance and the impact of moving to statutory guidance. I do not know who wants to comment on the policy and on statutory guidance—perhaps someone who has not said anything on that already. Again, I am conscious of the time, but perhaps someone would like to talk about those two issues.
I can comment on both. Although the current guidance needs to be reviewed now that it has been implemented, ADES is in broad agreement with moving it to a statutory basis. That reflects the need for public trust and transparency in this area. There are details that should be discussed if that goes forward, but we feel that, broadly, it would not significantly shift the work that we are doing in local authorities for the guidance to be on a statutory basis.
As the ADES submission noted, there is a need to ensure that the guidance spans all services for children and young people. As it stands, the current guidance is largely for early-years settings and school settings; it does not take into account other settings for children, wherever they might be, both during the school day, perhaps for alternative types of educational provision, and after the school day, at after-school clubs, or for holiday provision—and there are also social work settings for care. There needs to be alignment.
Regardless of whether the physical intervention guidance that currently exists is replaced on a more statutory basis, and whether the guidance is statutory or non-statutory, we need to understand how we will know that it is working. That is the bit that is missing from the current context, in my opinion. We have good guidance, which people have worked very hard to produce, and it is now being embedded across schools, but can we say how well it is being implemented? Can we say that there are still issues that need to be resolved nationally? I do not believe that we can say that.
Regardless of whether the guidance is statutory or non-statutory, I go back to my point about checks and balances. How do we see things? How do we know when to intervene to help?
That is a very good point, which almost feeds into the discussion on training and how to monitor it.
The EIS would prefer that we give more time to what is in process. Not all local authorities are at the stage of fully implementing the current guidance, although most of them are. We need time to see how that works. Most of the stuff that the Scottish Government guidance has brought in would cover many of the concerns that parents and others have rightly raised about making the guidance statutory.
The EIS perspective on making things statutory is that, to echo what Pauline Stephen said, there is a whole backdrop of relationship-based interventions—getting it right for every child et cetera—and we feel that that would have a very negative impact on all the structures that are operating. Ultimately, it will come down to resourcing and to supporting staff. We do not see that there is enough financial backing behind the bill to support the steps that it is asking people to take.
On that point, witnesses in the earlier evidence session spoke about the training requirements and whether local authorities look at one centre if they are dealing with kids who might be more susceptible to restraint or seclusion over that period of time. Or should that training or resource be spread out? Has the EIS discussed that?
Are you referring to the training that is outlined in the bill?
Yes, but also more broadly in relation to what is already out there.
I would rather that the bill’s focus was on de-escalation training than training on how to restrain. In a special school setting, there is a system. Gavin Calder talked about CALM training. I have had that training, as have a lot of my colleagues. It involves very specific approaches, and you are tested on it once a year. Again, I echo what Gavin said, in that the theory around it is, arguably, by far and away the best aspect of it. There is also weekly practice: in the special schools setting, there will be teams that are practising weekly, and they will tailor their approach to the young people in their classes as regards possible responses to a dysregulated and distressed young person.
The idea of putting that into a mainstream school is an absolute nightmare. Currently, in Edinburgh, in a special school setting, eight is the maximum class size and there is a staff team around that. You would be transferring that to a mainstream school with potentially 33 young people and one member of staff. There might be the occasional pupil support assistant, but, in essence, there would be one teacher on their own. To expect mainstream colleagues in that context to be trained in how to use restraint methods is an absolute nightmare scenario, and I cannot see it working.
That is a really good point, Tom. Thank you.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the information that you have given us. On post-incident reporting and lessons learned, in the interests of time, I will ask Mike Corbett and Tom Britton to comment initially. What is the current practice for post-incident response, and what does it involve with regard to lessons learned, so that more people can understand what is good practice in current situations?
When you say post-incident reporting, do you mean the whole thing or reporting to someone in particular? Are you talking about reporting to parents or debriefing with staff and so on?
My question would have been about all of that, but I think that we covered the aspect with parents in response to the convener’s question. I am thinking more about staff in schools and, generally, how lessons are learned in the sector. How does the current system support that?
As with so many of these things, the picture of how post-incident support and debriefing are done is a bit patchwork. In some cases, it seems to be done very well. No doubt the committee will know of incidents earlier this year when, rather than a debrief taking place, some teachers seem to have been blamed for being involved in certain incidents. I also touch on Pauline Stephens’s point that, regardless of whether you go for statutory guidance—we do not think that you should do that, certainly at this stage—we absolutely agree that there needs to be recording and reporting of every significant incident, so that we can capture the scale of the problem.
It would be helpful if that could include receiving feedback from teachers on whether they have had a debrief and have found it helpful or whether incidents will impact on future practice. The only hesitancy that we have about national reporting is that there should not be an opportunity for individual schools, teachers or, indeed, pupils to be identified, so there would need to be some safeguards for that. However, we think that the practice would be helpful and would help us to have a national approach to the debrief situation.
How could that be done in schools?
I would need more time than we have available today to explore that. It is not simple or straightforward. In principle, though, we would support it.
I go back to the need for relationships and resourcing to be at the heart of everything, especially when we are dealing with vulnerable young people who have multiple complex needs.
In a well-resourced staff team, there would be a structure in which, if there was an incident with a young person, the response would be to review plans and processes. The management team would check in with the staff team to see how they were, because such an incident can be very upsetting for everyone who is involved. Unfortunately, in a lot of schools just now, the reality is that the infrastructure and the resources are not there, so meaningful post-incident dialogue and conversations are not taking place.
With the best will in the world, local authorities will have structures and policies that should kick in after an incident, but time and financial pressures and a lack of staff and resources mean that those things are often left undone. That is criminal considering that, in the ideal scenario, there should be a focus on the young person, the relationships and the wellbeing of everyone in the setting. However, because there are major issues those things are not happening.
Could you give us an idea of what those issues are?
Often, senior leadership teams in schools are overwhelmed with many incidents. In a scenario when you do not have enough staff in a classroom to support the young people who are in it, in an emergency, you might bring in other adults who do not know the setting, will not be experienced in the processes and will not know the young people. Sometimes, those adults can become a source of dysregulation for the young people in the class. That can become a perfect storm.
Classes should be about teaching and learning, and about developing and nurturing young people, but, in many scenarios, young people are often dysregulated and distressed and staff are having to firefight. In those cases, so many incidents are being recorded that it can be a monumental challenge to put in place the processes that have been set up to support people. In some, but not all, special schools, that is an on-going situation.
Is there a body or organisation that would be the obvious candidate to gather information on good practice and on the difficulties that schools have in doing post-incident work and learning lessons from it?
Fundamentally, the Scottish Government could provide more funding. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has announced £30 million of extra funding for additional support, but that is just a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed.
My experience tells me that, in special schools, the maximum class size should be six students. Often, young people cannot cope with other young people being in the classroom. However, the reality is financially driven, and the class size is eight students. It might seem a bit strange to say it, but those two additional students can make a monumental difference. Often, the special school intake is completely full and there are waiting lists, so young people with complex learning needs are having to go to mainstream primary schools. They are struggling badly to cope, and the system is struggling to cope with them. That can be a very challenging situation and, unfortunately, I do not see it improving soon.
13:15
Last week, we heard from Kate Sanger about her daughter, Laura. The petitioner, Beth Morrison, and her son, Calum, have driven the campaign. What would you say to them? In both cases, the children are non-verbal. They have returned home with physical marks, and their subsequent behaviours have resulted in challenging situations for the family and also when they go back into education. Saying that we need more guidance and that we should wait and see is not enough for the campaigners. Policies have clearly failed that group of children and young people. Why have we not been recording the incidents? Why has best practice not been put in place to tell parents what has been going on?
I will happily come in to say that that is the main reason why the statutory guidance is needed. Those people have been failed by the system. As I mentioned, there is a system for those who are in care. Lots of them are non-verbal. For those who stay with their parents, the parents rely on their young person going to school and being safe. Those children and young people have not been kept safe, so there is definitely a systemic failure, which is why the system has to be improved.
Fundamentally, SCIS is 100 per cent behind putting the requirement into statutory legislation so that every possible safeguard is in place to make sure that things do not go wrong.
There is a really boring policy answer to that question. I will not repeat what I have already said, but are we confident that we have the right policy structure in place and that it is clear about what are musts and what are recommendations? I suggest that we need to look at that and be very clear about it.
I agree with Lynne Binnie’s point that, whatever the guidance looks like in future, it is in no way possible to be absolute and to write down, for example, every circumstance that a teacher might find themselves in and what they should do in that circumstance. At the same time as looking at policy, we have to retain everything that we do to make sure that we have the right people being teachers, that they get the right support—we see that theme in our fitness to teach work, where that has maybe not been the case—and that those checks and balances are in place.
Pam Duncan-Glancy asked an interesting question about which organisation is responsible for that in Scottish education when the legal responsibilities for child protection sit with local authorities and the proprietors of independent schools. Who makes sure that that all happens as it should?
My final question is about the role that the inspectorate has played to date in considering this issue. Where do you see it acting in future to support schools on training, so that restraint is used properly, and on the recording of incidents? There are past and future elements to that question.
The inspectorate plays an important role. We see that in our school inspections, where the inspectorate considers safeguarding and quality indicator 3.1 in the quality assurance framework. Within the current system, the inspectorate provides important checks and balances at an individual school level. In order to achieve improvement, it might need to consider stronger and more robust involvement at a local authority level.
I know that I sound like a broken record, but the Care Inspectorate has an overview and it tends to do annual visits. Any seclusion or restraint that takes place in care and in nurseries has to be recorded and that information is sent to the Care Inspectorate so that it can see the numbers and determine whether some institutions are using the practices more than others. The Care Inspectorate will pick up the phone and say, “Can we check why this happened? Will you talk us through it?” That gives accountability.
I do not want to be critical but, with the best will in the world, we need to consider the way that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education has been so far. My last school last saw HMIE in 2012—other than at the annual visit, which tends to be pretty brief and is certainly not a deep dive into what is going on in the school. I know that big changes are coming to HMIE. It would require a big change in its remit, but if it was beefed up, it could play the same role as the Care Inspectorate to make sure that we have that national oversight.
As I said on the record last week, it is interesting that the Care Inspectorate has reported a 40 per cent reduction in the use of seclusion in the institutions that it inspects.
We have to ask why things are so different in practice between care and education. Why does the Care Inspectorate have an identity as regulator of its part of our system while HMIE does not have that identity as regulator of our education system? Like Lynne Binnie, I believe that inspection plays an important part, but we cannot achieve system oversight through the inspection of individual establishments. We need to take alternative approaches to the gathering of information to identify statistics such as those which we have just heard about from the Care Inspectorate. How do we know whether incidents of restraint are increasing or decreasing in our schools? We need a national process that will allow us to see that.
If HMIE comes in, it cannot just be about the numbers—we must look at the context. It must look at the systems that support the context in the school and the relationship aspects. Otherwise, it will just have a negative impact.
We are down to four witnesses, but I will not be insulted if anybody else has to leave, so do not worry about that.
I want to follow up on training, which has already been mentioned. Mr Calder, when you talked about training, I think that you said something about three days per year.
The CALM training that we put our education and care staff through is three days per year. That is one particular brand of training, but there are a number of recognised trainers, as there are in other parts of education throughout the country.
I will not say that that is the gold standard, but the teachers and schools that need it most will be doing that training three days a year.
Absolutely.
The point has been made that we cannot train everybody at that level, and we probably do not need to. Do we have a range of training? A previous witness talked about a training needs assessment or something like that. The GTCS must have a view on that.
We need consistent guidance that is contextually applied, because the training needs in two different schools will not be the same. The individual needs of two children or two teachers will not be the same. I suggest that teachers need access to good support at different levels. I agree with the view of a witness that the committee heard from last week that not every teacher requires to be trained in restraint. I believe that to be true. Teachers need to understand how to prevent behaviour and how to de-escalate situations when things go wrong in the classroom, and those teachers who are in a context where we know that restraint and seclusion might feature in a child’s plan should be correctly and appropriately trained in relation to that.
That training also requires to be sustained. One of the main features that I am aware of in the training that Gavin Calder talked about is that it is not a one-off. Tom Britton explained that on-going quality assurance processes are needed in the background, and that has to be done properly. Training needs to be done at different levels but under a banner of consistent guidance to help people to assess what they need.
I assume that not every teacher in every school is trained in first aid but that there will always be at least one teacher in a school who is trained in that.
Yes.
Can we say the same about restraint? Should there always be one teacher who can do that?
I would say no to that. I agree with a few of Pauline Stephen’s comments about the need for professional learning to be aligned with the needs of the staff, the school and the context. That sits at local authority level, and I do not understand the bill as dictating the length or the type of training. My understanding that it is about whether, if restraint training is provided, it is provided by an organisation that is part of the Restraint Reduction Network or a regulator body.
Currently, there is variance across our 32 local authorities. Some local authorities, such as mine in Edinburgh, use a regulated training provider: CALM Training. There are a number of different examples across local authorities, and some have in-house training. There is a decision to be made, therefore, as to whether to make it statutory or mandatory for a training provider to be accredited through a particular organisation or set of credentials.
When it comes to professional learning for supporting children with distressed and challenging behaviour, there is a continuum—local authorities have a range of training, which is very much embedded in positive relationships. We see most local authorities promoting whole-school approaches with regard to nurture and restorative practice. Moving on, there is de-escalation, which involves a skills-based approach regarding the type of things that staff can do and say to respond in the moment when children are distressed. At the top, for a very small number of staff in a local authority, there would be physical restraint training.
As a result of the guidance, whereby physical restraint is a last resort, we are seeing a reduction in physical restraint training across local authorities and much more investment, and a bigger increase, in lower-level approaches around understanding relationships and de-escalation.
I am sure that we would all agree with de-escalation, which has been mentioned a few times. However, in the geography department of a large school, when one child starts beating up another child who is autistic, what does the teacher do if they have not had that type of specific training? Do they intervene or do they phone the physical education department to send somebody over?
There are a range of approaches, so it is hard to give a one-size-fits-all answer to that type of scenario. However, every teacher and member of support staff needs to have been given some professional learning around how they would respond in that situation. In some instances, it would be correct to step back and allow other members of staff to step in. Of course, if there is a risk of harm, the advice in general is to intervene to reduce that risk as far as possible.
Mr Britton, you seem to suggest—if I read your submission correctly; maybe I have got that mixed up with the view of the NASUWT witness, who has gone—that it should, in a sense, be up to the staff to choose what training they get, rather than making it mandatory. Am I misunderstanding or is that your line?
My understanding is that the bill does not define “restraint” and that it talks about restraint training for all teachers. There are huge challenges with that. The mainstream setting is much more of a challenge than a special setting, which is set up to have that built in. The idea of having a teacher who was trained in restraint in a secondary school would be hugely problematic, because they would have to abandon their teaching and flee across the school. If a school is taking a CALM approach, more than one person is needed.
My understanding is that the bill talks about two to four days of training. It is worth pointing out that schools have five in-service days a year, so that would potentially be problematic. There is a huge amount of ambiguity around that.
We heard about an example earlier in which one teacher intervened and another did not, and both ended up facing a challenge.
I will ask my final question, because we are running out of time. You mention in virtually every line of your report that we need more resources and that that is the real answer, but you also express pessimism that there is not going to be much more resource and that you will simply get your 1 per cent of whatever it might be. Would you accept that we have to do something within the existing resources and that we cannot just sit back and wait until we have enough resources?
There are always things that we can look at and try to improve, but it is about the context. In a classroom situation, where a school is short staffed and teachers have young people with multiple complex learning needs who are struggling to cope in that environment, it is very difficult to move forward positively. Without the context of more funding and more staff, it is difficult to get beyond that. The situation is getting much more complex and challenging in mainstream schools. Just now, primary schools in particular can often be highly challenging environments, with young people with complex additional support needs struggling to cope.
We could pursue that aspect further, but I think that that is enough.
I thank you all for your time and your evidence. I know that we rattled through the session, but the committee has covered all the points that we needed to cover, and I appreciate your answers being brief enough to ensure that I could get all members in.
The committee will now move into private session to consider our final agenda item.
13:30 Meeting continued in private until 13:44.Previous
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27