Chamber and committees

I believe that it should be reported on at local authority level, because reporting in more detail than that would be problematic for two reasons. First, we would not want school-by-school information, for exactly the reasons that have been outlined. Secondly, I hope that the numbers either would be or would become small. In that case, if we were to report at school level, we would run the risk of jigsaw identification. That would be a real concern, particularly in certain school settings with small numbers of children or young people attending. Reporting at local authority level would allow issues to be identified at that level, which would allow further questions to be asked by both ministers and parliamentarians.

It is important to acknowledge that the collection process would not provide the level of detail that would allow for league tables. It would be a matter for the Government to decide precisely how to report those figures.

I am sure that we will get into definitions. However, I note that the bill as it stands would enable the definitions to be elaborated on and thus more precision and categorisation of different types of intervention and the collection of such data. I am very open to tightening up the definitions, especially around the reporting requirements, to make that more precise.

Again, let us be really clear about what the bill will do: the definitions will not create any prohibitions or offences. There is nothing in the bill on individual teacher compliance; it will be for schools and local authorities to oversee. It is not the case that individual teachers will face those questions; the questions are for school leaders and local authorities.

Secondly—apologies if I am repeating myself—creating scope in a bill and providing further detail in guidance is a fairly typical way to legislate. My bill makes particular provision to allow those definitions to be elaborated. I know that there is concern about the use of the word “elaborate”, but let us be clear about what we are talking about: it is not about expanding on but about refining, specifying and clarifying. It is important that the guidance is clear because, ultimately, that is the appropriate place for practical advice so that teachers have clarity about what is appropriate or not.

To bring it back to the fundamentals, if force is being used by an individual against another individual that deprives them of their ability to act, that is serious and I think that there needs to be clarity about how and when that is permissible. All the bill does is state that the Government has to provide that clarity in guidance.

The point about de-escalation is interesting. I have seen all the written submissions that questioned why de-escalation did not specifically feature in the bill. However, it is absolutely embedded in the thinking behind the bill and informs its direction of travel. There is also the question of future-proofing the legislation, which I want to do. “De-escalation” is the current terminology, but it does not have a basis in law. Members are all familiar with the fact that terminology will probably have moved on in 10 years’ time.

To be clear, my focus is on physical intervention. The consequences of people getting it wrong when they use de-escalation techniques are of a different order of magnitude from those of getting it wrong when they use physical restraint. That is the target that I have in mind.

It boils down to the need for clarity. That suggestion works both ways, in that people not intervening when they should is not necessarily something that one would want, but neither is overuse of physical interventions. That is why it is really important, especially in the context of children with additional support needs, that those people who are likely to need to intervene absolutely have a level of training over and above what we might normally expect. However, we also need clarity about what is and is not appropriate. The danger lies where there is ambiguity.

I would expect nothing less of Mr Rennie.

That was very similar.

Yes. I might put it more strongly than that: that would be inappropriate. I think that it should be 24 hours for good reason. If you were a parent, the very latest that you would want to know is the next day. Your parental responsibilities span the weekend, and the consequences of an incident such as that might be germane, because they might result in your child being distressed and unable to articulate why. The very longest time that a parent should have to wait before knowing that something has occurred is 24 hours. As I indicated in my previous answer, in some cases, that might be too long. That is the very longest that I would want it to be.

Yes, but that level of detail would require to be resolved. The Government is engaging on that point, but I think that that would be a matter for regulations. Strictly and formally speaking, we are talking about the education authority rather than the local authority—in other words, the council that is acting as the education authority for the school in that area. I think that where the school is situated is the more appropriate consideration. I understand the alternative point of view, but I think that that would be the most appropriate and simplest way for the system to work.

The bill says that it is for education authorities to determine.

There is a really important point here. I have deliberately given the bill a narrow scope. Such considerations need to be context specific. I do not think that it is possible to provide a single set of guidance for all possible settings, particularly when it comes to different age ranges. There have been some calls as to whether the provisions could or should apply to early years settings. For practical reasons, that becomes really complicated. On a commonsense level, we all know that the level of physical interaction that needs to be provided with the youngest children is very different.

On interaction with the existing law, providing a single set of guidance to cover both education settings and care settings is complex. I do not think that double reporting would be required. The Government is also of the view that, if there is double reporting, that can be resolved, at the very least, through clarification and so on. I understand your point but, from my perspective, it is a matter of providing clarity within school settings. To provide something more comprehensive would be beyond the scope of what is achievable or manageable in a member’s bill.