Chamber and committees

On the point about holding a child’s hand, I contend that that would not constitute restraint on the basis of the definition, but it is an important point.

First, I reiterate that the definitions are literally just about providing scope—there are no prohibitions or prescriptions. Secondly, the definitions are very much in line with the guidance that the Government produced in 2024. I would argue that not only is that compatible with what the Government has already produced, it is narrower. If you read the current Government guidance in its entirety, you will see that it provides for restraint to include physical actions that constitute supporting a child, but the definition of the bill is narrower than that.

There is a real need to look at one area that the Government has raised with me in private and through correspondence and oral evidence with you, which is the relationship with reporting. I spoke about providing a scope for the guidance, which can then be further refined and focused. As it stands, the guidance on reporting may be too expansive, and I am open to narrowing the definitions in the guidance if that would be helpful and, in particular, to providing further clarification about the reporting requirements in the bill. For example, that might focus on the reporting of more sustained uses of physical intervention, such as when a practitioner uses such an intervention over a period of minutes rather than seconds.

I have a final point. The bill certainly does not define all physical contact as restraint. It is about physical intervention that deprives an individual of the ability to act independently. That is why I am not sure about the example of holding a child’s hand because, when you do that, the child can usually withdraw. There might be an issue when that is more forcible. It is important to me that a supportive hand on the shoulder, or perhaps even a hug from a teacher, especially for a younger child, is not restraint—it is physical communication.

There is a final category of interventions that might protect a child, such as the example of pushing a child out of the way of a moving vehicle. We need to look at that, which is why looking at duration might be in order, but there is also another way of looking at that. If my child was on a school trip and had to be pushed out of the way of a moving bus, would I want to be told about that? Yes, I would. Would I want that to be recorded and for there to be some reflection on how that had happened? Yes, I would.

I understand that there are nuances but, overall, those things should be captured and reflected on.

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.

Again, it is incumbent on the Government to look at all those things in the round. Even if you go beyond my bill’s scope and look at some of those settings, such as residential schools and early years settings, they have multiple layers of oversight, which my bill does not alter. Likewise, residential schools must have a relationship with the local authority, which my bill, again, does not alter.

How those different things interact needs to be looked at. Frankly, the scope of some of those bodies needs to be considered. I looked at early years when I was a member of the then education committee in the previous parliamentary session. The Scottish Social Services Council, the Care Inspectorate and local authorities all have a view. We need to consider that.

On the question of the scope, I do not think that the bill will require additional or dual reporting because it is about regulating school settings. It is clear when a school setting is a school setting, and those bodies will already have relationships in place. The wider point is important and needs to be addressed, but it simply would not be sensible for me to attempt to do so with this bill.

That reporting would be collated and published by local authorities at that level. The data would exist at a school level. The member is right to flag the changing nature of inspection regimes and the fact that some schools go for long periods between inspections. However, the inspection regime is meant to be responsive so that, when concerns are raised, there can be inspections on that basis.

We are in the realm of speculation here—I would hope that, in conjunction with the guidance, the reporting regime and some consideration by the inspectorate of how it should proceed, we would see that forming part of an inspection regime and that, if there are specific concerns, the inspectorate might reflect and be able to engage on that basis. That is speculating about where this might end up, but it could and should be part of the role that the inspectorate sees for itself.

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.

I struggle to answer that question, because I do not know. I do not really understand why that is not happening, because these are very serious situations.

I take the view that schools act in loco parentis. There is a bond of trust between parents and schools, and parents trust that schools will tell them when things happen to their child. Given the level of recording, reporting and acknowledgement that is already required, I do not understand the argument that it is somehow burdensome to ask for that when it is a result of direct intervention.

The only thing that I can interpret—we see this in some of the responses—is perhaps an anxiety that reporting deliberate action might result in further action. However, that is an argument for putting in the guardrails, with clear processes in place so that that is not the case.

We all understand, especially in relation to children with profound needs, that there might well be a need to intervene physically. However, it is important that we are very clear about how and when that happens. Critically, because schools act in loco parentis, it is also really vital that parents are told. Ultimately, schools act on behalf of parents, so parents must be informed, and as quickly as possible.

That is my understanding. I set out the pattern of my direct engagement with the Scottish Government, but there has also been engagement between the NGBU and Government officials. The Government also notes that education authorities are currently meeting the costs that are associated with the restraint training that is required by the existing guidance and that those costs are acknowledged in the financial memorandum. In a sense, the Government notes our approach and seems broadly to agree with that.

That topic requires detailed guidance. A raft of considerations is involved in notifying parents, guardians or carers that an incident has occurred, but those should quite rightly be a function of guidance rather than put in the bill. I simply want to ensure that the notification happens without question, which is what the bill sets out.

I also note that there have been questions about whether 24 hours is too long. It would be perfectly within the gift of the guidance to specify a shorter period than that. I cannot quite come up with an example, but there are circumstances, particularly around the recording of the incident rather than the informing element, in which a period of reflection or bringing together all the perspectives might be required before the recording can be completed. I expect to see context and other considerations properly included as functions of the guidance, but they are certainly not things that can be included in the bill.

Yes. That is a feature of the bill. HMIE would need to consider how restraint and seclusion form part of its inspection regime. I would not want to overspecify that.

In my view, any regulator or provider of oversight is always there to provide support and encourage good practice as well as to stop bad practice. As you outlined, the Care Inspectorate’s role in reducing restraint in care settings is a good example of what we would hope for in the new regime. I would not want to specify precisely how that would work but, clearly, the inspectors should be asking about those topics, particularly in settings where such things might be more likely to happen.