Chamber and committees

That is exactly why there needs to be national reporting, and it is why the bill is not overly specific about the precise arrangements. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Government to resolve. It is for local authorities to collect the data, and it is then for the Scottish ministers to determine how to report the data. The Government would need to resolve that level of detail. As I understand it, the suggestion is that the information relating to such schools would be reported separately. In a sense, all that we would be asking local authorities to do is to collate that information. We might simply ask them to be clear about the nature of each of the schools that Mr Mason has identified and where they are.

The fundamental reason why I have introduced a member’s bill is that I do not believe that we have seen the urgency of action that was called for back in 2019.

I understand the complexities. I also understand some of the concerns about the burdens that it might place on practitioners. However, at the end of the day, in the most serious instances, we are talking about things that, in any other setting, we would consider assault and, certainly, use of force. In any situation where organisations—or, especially, the state—are using those things, we need to give that very careful consideration. I am, quite simply, frustrated that we have not seen more urgent action.

We certainly need clear recording so that we understand the situation, and that must be on the basis of law. Whenever someone’s liberty is restrained, whenever someone is put in seclusion or whenever force is used against another individual, we need careful scrutiny of that. Fundamentally, that is what it boils down to.

We have had guidance, of one sort or another, for well over a decade now. It is time to have it on a statutory footing.

If there has been criticism from that quarter, it is that they would like me to go further and do more to increase scope and to look at other areas. The existing law on additional support needs is a complex web of different bits of legislation, starting with the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, extending to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, and beyond. I recognise that there is a real need to provide some clarity on the different rights that those acts embody, as well as the recourse. If I had time and resource, I think that there would be a lot of merit in an education bill that resolved those issues.

Likewise, there would be a lot of merit in looking at other contexts in which young people find themselves when they are in the care of people other than their parents, guardians or carers, such as when using transport or in overnight accommodation. Quite simply, my bill is a members’ bill; it has to have clear scope. The complexity of tackling those additional issues would require a level of resource that is not available to me. There is an election next year, and I think that the new Government should look at those issues very seriously.

It is difficult to set that out, because the engagement has been extensive. I have had a huge amount of engagement with a huge number of organisations at various stages and in various forms, including Enable and the National Autistic Society Scotland, and I have mentioned that I have visited Donaldson’s. I have also engaged with Children First and Children in Scotland. I do not think that it can be overstated how important they have been in shining a light on the topic. They have brought to light what is happening in our schools, the sorts of practices that are sometimes employed and the need for action. Frankly, we would not be here without their engagement and diligent work, and I think that they will play an important role.

As the convener pointed out, a number of children who are impacted by those practices are not able to express themselves. They may be non-verbal or, if they are verbal, they may not have the full range of expression. Therefore, organisations that are able to provide advocacy and insight are really important. Their role is invaluable and my engagement with them has been extensive, not only throughout the development of the bill. As members may be aware, I sat on the Education and Skills Committee during the previous session of the Parliament, and my engagement stems back to the start of my time in the Parliament in 2016.

It perhaps does not provide that clarity by definition, but I hope that it would by process, as it would require the Government to maintain the guidance.

At the end of the day, I cannot legislate for the Government to provide good guidance. I wish that I could, but I cannot. Nor do I think that it would be appropriate to provide that level of clarity in a bill—that would not be sensible. However, I can try to ensure that the guidance is being consistently applied, which is a really important element of placing it on a statutory footing, and I can ensure that it is maintained, updated and reviewed. Without it being on a statutory footing, there would be no compulsion on the Government to produce guidance on the topic ever again.

The recording and reporting elements are useful, not just so that we all gain clarity; they force a requirement for precision. I am familiar with what Mr Rennie is talking about. When things are vague, they are not guided by clarity but driven by speculation. I am doing everything that I can to increase clarity. I would argue that it is the lack of clarity at the moment that is leading to the situation that Mr Rennie is concerned about.

I think that you might be putting words in the GTCS’s mouth slightly when you say “piecemeal”. I think that the GTCS recognises the value of the bill but considers it to be very specific—“specific” is the word that I would use, rather than “piecemeal”—and it is absolutely right.

As I alluded to earlier, there is a much wider question about safeguarding, the legislation on additional support needs and the rights and recourses that individuals have. That is all really complicated. A broad range of legislation alludes to this area, and that needs to be looked at. However, as I said in my discussions with the GTCS—it acknowledged my point—-as necessary as such an effort is, it goes far beyond the scope of a member’s bill.

That argument has a lot of merit and is compelling. The key question is whether it would be more appropriate for that level of detail to be in the guidance, because I would not want to introduce complexity or difficulties when that might not be possible—for example, it might not be possible to reach a parent before the end of the school day if they do not pick up their phone. I have a small hesitation in saying that it would be appropriate for that to be in the bill but, as a matter of practice, what you have set out is absolutely how things should be done.

The short answer is no, they would not need to do that. The bill does not state that every single teacher would have to receive training. It is up to education authorities to identify the number of practitioners who require specific training. As has been alluded to, it is also not the case that no training is currently taking place.

It is important, especially for the most serious kind of training—for practitioners who are likely to need to use physical restraint regularly—that we maintain some regulation over what it should consist of and who can provide it. One issue is that there are providers out there who currently offer training based on stress holds and techniques that are derived from adult contexts—if I can put it like that—which, in my view, are wholly inappropriate for use in schools.

Through the bill I have sought to enable, in a relatively light-touch way, something of a Scottish Government kitemark. The bill is about saying, “Look, for people who need such training, these are the sorts of training courses and providers that are appropriate.” I do not believe that that would require a huge amount more regulation than. At the moment, the Government signposts to the Restraint Reduction Network, but I would just like to see that aspect go a bit further.

That does not preclude the fact that for some practitioners—in fact, probably most of them—the training that local authorities provide might be appropriate. It goes back to the idea of training the trainer. It would then be for the guidance to start pulling apart the categories.

However, I am clear that it is important that we regulate the use of physical restraint in the legislation.

Yes.

I will bring in Roz Thomson in a moment, but I do not think that it does suggest that. The bill sets out when restraint would be likely and provides for training for people who might need it in that context.

Mr Mason is absolutely right that that need could vary according to context, which is why it is really important for local authorities to take the lead. However, that does not mean that every instance of physical interaction is an example of restraint. If two children are fighting, a teacher might have to intervene, but that would be a one-off. The bill targets the times when practitioners have to use prolonged force to restrict a child’s freedom of movement or liberty—for example, by using holds and doing more than just separating children—at which point there absolutely is a need for training.

I am not saying that there is no need for thought. It is quite the reverse, because there is a need for detailed thought about how teachers intervene to separate pupils, but I do not think that that needs the same level of training as would be required for someone who might need to use particular forms of physical intervention. There would be a need for clarity, nuance and some teasing apart in the guidance. However the focus of training should be on the most serious physical interventions that absolutely can—and, to be frank, do—result in children being injured. That is what we must try to minimise, if not prevent.

I will bring in Roz Thomson.