Chamber and committees

That brings me to my final question. The bill has a broad definition of “restraint”. Will that cause problems? Should there be more focus on what restraint is? I will tell you some of the things that have been said to us, because we have to ask questions. We are told that holding a child’s hand to cross the road, or using a hoist or moving equipment for children with complex needs, could be taken for restraint. If the bill becomes primary legislation it will be the law, so how do we get a definition that everyone is comfortable with? How do we make sure that teachers are comfortable and know what they are doing and that everyone knows—for want of a better term—what the rules of engagement are?

I would like to go down a similar route to the one that I took earlier and ask about the broad definition of restraint in the bill. As you all know, this is primary legislation. If it becomes law, teachers and everyone else will have to abide by it.

The bill defines restraint as

“anything done by a member of the staff of an education provider with the intention of restricting the physical movement of a child or young person”.

That captures a lot of things. A member of staff might be trying to help a child or young person as in the example that we heard earlier of a child who is about to run on to a road. Using a hoist or other equipment for a child who has complex healthcare needs could also fall under the definition of restraint, as could the basic standard physical care of a child who has complex needs.

Clearly, work needs to be done on the definition, because it cannot be so broad as that provided for in the bill when you are dealing with such issues.

I totally agree with that. The problem is that that definition is in the bill. We are having the opposite argument to the argument that we often have in here about stuff being put into guidance. Surely you have to admit that work must be done on the definition.

That brings me to some of Kate Sanger’s evidence. Suzi Martin already knows about this because I have cried on her shoulder about it with regard to my two autistic grandchildren. You brought up how you deal with it on a one-to-one basis with the teachers. It is about basic humanity. I have seen my daughter in these situations, where the two children are absolutely screaming the place down and she just talks to them quietly and deals with it. Surely, in reality teachers also do that because, as you say, it is the human thing to do.

Does anyone else have anything to add?

I know that everybody else wants to say something, but I have an addendum to what I have asked. Let us look at it from the point of view of a lawyer. What if, after the bill becomes law, there is an incident and a parent ends up saying, “That was over the top. I’m going to go to a lawyer”? If the definition is that broad, all kinds of things could happen when the law is tested in court. It is quite concerning. I am sorry; I am just gibbering now. Nicola Killean, did you want to add something?

It was not in connection with the convener, right enough.

I am at a different stage of the parenthood malarkey from the convener, because I am a grandparent now, but my experience was the same as the convener’s: the kids get a sniffle and the school is on the phone to you. I find it difficult to think that restraint and seclusion are happening and going unnoticed. I am shocked, because my daughter complains about how often the school is on the phone and sending kids home. Suzi, is this connected with the lack of data that you mentioned? You said that it is an invisible problem. How would you get the data that you talked about, to deal with the issue?

The definition is quite broad, however. Surely it needs to be tightened.

What you have all said makes more sense to me than what the bill says, which is that restriction is

“anything done by a member of the staff of an education provider with the intention of restricting the physical movement of a child or young person”.

That is all it says, but you are saying that restriction is stopping someone from doing something that they want to do. That might be a better explanation.

Good morning. I will start with Alison Nolan first. As we all know, all roads lead to Paisley, and your submission mentions the increased uptake of services at the Paisley central library since it was put right in the middle of the high street, which is an example of culture being used as a regeneration tool for our high streets. More than 115,000 people visited the library in its first year on that site, and they would not otherwise have gone there, which shows that culture can be used to increase footfall in an area.

You talked about this to a certain degree earlier. Is it up to local authorities to have such ideas and commit to pushing them forward? In Paisley, we have the museum at the top end of the high street, the library right smack in the middle, and Paisley town hall—which is now a venue, after money was spent on converting it—at the bottom end. Basically, Renfrewshire Council is using culture as a regeneration tool to make sure that everybody else comes into town. It creates footfall, which gives people a reason to have a shop or whatever in Paisley town centre.

Is that an example of what you were talking about earlier? Perhaps you can give some more detail on how that approach could be used elsewhere, too.