The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1662 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Let us again be clear about what the bill would and would not do, and what the definitions would and would not do. The definitions are simply about providing the scope of practice around which there needs to be guidance from the Government. The bill does not state that anything would be prohibited, nor does it provide for any penalties. The bill literally states that the Government must provide guidance for actions that fall within that scope of practice. It is then for the guidance to provide the sort of clarity that the member quite rightly seeks.
That is a normal way for the Parliament to proceed. Jackie Dunbar is here—we had a similar discussion yesterday about the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. There is a balance between the boundaries that we create in legislation and the things that we leave as a matter for guidance. What I am saying is that there is a scope of activities that need to be regulated by guidance. It is then for the guidance to specify precisely what those activities look like.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Willie Rennie makes an important point, which I understand. The current situation makes it worse; having non-statutory guidance that does not have the precision or the clarity that we might want creates ambiguity in those situations. Having the provisions on a statutory footing, and requiring clarity and engagement on the definitions and, indeed, on recording, would better promote clearer definitions about what we mean by restraint and appropriate responses.
Critically, that is why there is also a training element. If we were just talking about the bill without the other elements, particularly training, I might agree with you. However, the key point is that I am not just seeking to provide a document. I am seeking to provide clarity on training and practice. That will always be an on-going effort. The moment that the Government produces guidance, concerns will be expressed along the lines that Mr Rennie has set out. By making the guidance clearer and more precise, we will minimise the risk.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I would expect nothing less of Mr Rennie.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
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.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Yes.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
The relationship is different, but I think that most of those schools engage with their local education authority.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
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.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
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.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I just want to thank the committee. I hope that I have provided all the answers that you need, but please come back to me if you require any further clarification. Above all else, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: thank you very much for taking this time—I know that the committee is very busy. This has been a pretty extended endeavour for me, so I appreciate members taking the time and effort to look at my bill.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I am very glad that it is being as supportive as it is now.