I feel strongly that it is a basic human response that, when a child is in distress, hurt or injured, we want to help and protect them. That is one of the most fundamental human reactions. For a parent, that becomes amplified. When we see that our child is hurt, a knot forms in our stomach, we want to act immediately and we fundamentally feel guilty about not having prevented that harm.

Just imagine what it must be like when someone’s child returns home from school with bruises, and it takes days, weeks or months to find out where those bruises came from. That is what is at the heart of the bill and what motivated me to introduce it to Parliament. Too many parents, whose children often have additional support needs and are often non-verbal, are simply unable to find out what happened. Sometimes, they eventually find out that it was the adults who were charged with looking after their children who caused those injuries through the use of inappropriate restraint.

We have to accept that the use of restraint and seclusion will at times be necessary, but, when it is, we have to have the highest possible standards—not only in how it is applied and how those children are treated, but in informing parents. That is what the bill will do and what Parliament will have the opportunity to decide on. It is a huge privilege to stand here as the member who introduced it.

Above all else, we need to recognise Beth Morrison and her tireless campaigning. Her journey started when her son came home in 2010 with bruises. That started a campaign that culminates, I hope, today—this evening—with Parliament passing the bill. After that incident in 2010, Beth lodged a petition and she lobbied. It was not just those processes, however. We all need to recognise Beth’s absolutely winning personality: people cannot say no to her, whether through her perseverance in conversations with all of us in this Parliament, through her sending in all those submissions whenever a committee was looking at anything connected with the topic, and through her tireless work with the press. That is a huge amount of work. I fundamentally believe that this Parliament is about bringing power closer to people, and she stands as testament to the ability to do that. I hope that we will pass the bill this evening and, in so doing, bring about Calum’s law, but we all need to recognise that, although this may be Calum’s law, it is also definitely Beth’s bill. [Applause.]

We also need to pay tribute to Kate Sanger, who has absolutely been Beth’s partner and stalwart, standing alongside her. She has her own experiences with her daughter, Laura, and is an innovator, with the communication passport concept for children with additional support needs. We must pay tribute to such tireless campaigning, because that is something that we need more of. We should all be thinking about how we can support campaigners, making sure that their issues become real and become law, and that we see the change that we all want.

The bill that is in front of us does four critical things. It puts guidance on a statutory footing, ensuring that we have compliance with the standards that we expect. It contains requirements to inform parents so that, when such circumstances arise, parents are told as quickly as possible. It requires clear recording and reporting standards. Above all else, it requires training standards, so that when professionals in the classroom use such techniques, they do so in line with the highest possible standards.

I am pleased that the Government has today published its initial data on the use of the existing guidance, which tells us two clear things. First, it tells us that the overwhelming majority of local authorities and staff in the classroom say that the guidance has been helpful. Secondly, the data highlights the gaps. Only 30 of the 32 Scottish local authorities responded, while two did not. One local authority was unable to provide the data and almost half are not fully reporting data in a way that is compliant with the guidance. Therefore, although it is clear that the guidance is making a difference and bringing about improvements, the data shows us that we still need to go much further and that we need to pass the bill to ensure that we make progress.

In my closing speech, I will touch on some of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by trade unions, which I thank for their contributions. I also thank members around the chamber, including the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Government more broadly, because the engagement that has brought us to this point has been productive.

I look forward to hearing everyone’s speeches. Most importantly, it is a great pleasure to move the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:06

Will the member take an intervention?

Just to update Willie Rennie’s characterisation, it should be noted in the Official Report that I was a very willing victim. [Laughter.]

The challenge in summing up a stage 3 debate for my own member’s bill is to prevent that from becoming akin to a gushing Oscar acceptance speech. I will therefore try to marshal my thank yous and to make some points. I begin not just by thanking members for their contributions this afternoon but by thanking the Parliament more broadly. The passage of the bill has been a genuinely cross-party effort, and the bill is better as a result of not just that engagement but the overall parliamentary process: the definitions are tighter; there is flexibility in the way that it is framed; and the scope is right, because nursery classes have been removed from it. Above all else, as members from across parties have pointed out, it will make our children safer, provide clarity for practice and treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

On that cross-party effort, Miles Briggs’s contribution in particular has been very helpful. He has taken a real interest in the topic, as has Willie Rennie, whom I also thank for his on-going dialogue.

Indeed, I thank the entire Education, Children and Young People Committee. Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved.

I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made. That is very important.

I pay tribute to the non-Government bills unit. When we think about what the Parliament should be, the member’s bill process is critical. Roz Thomson and her team do an outstanding job.

I pay tribute to the children’s commissioner and third sector organisations—in particular, Enable—for the work that they have done in shining a light on the issue and providing the impetus.

I also thank the trade unions. They have not always been welcoming of the proposal, and I understand why. It is a difficult topic. However, I have no doubt that the bill has been improved by their engagement and has tighter definitions. I am also mindful of the bureaucracy and workload about which they have raised concerns, and of the on-going resourcing and support that teachers and classroom assistants require.

Let us be in no doubt that this is not the final word on the topic. Indeed, following 7 May, it needs to be at the top of the to-do list for whoever will form the next Government, because there is work to be done to implement the bill’s intent.

We need the guidance to remain a living document that is updated so that it reflects best practice. Above all else, it must be a practical document that everyone in the classroom can use.

We need continuing professional development for all practitioners in the classroom. Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it.

We also need to look very carefully at the fact that while there has been a huge expansion in the number of children identified as having additional support needs, the level of resource—particularly the number of specialist, trained, additional support needs teachers—has declined.

However, I also want to thank the Government, because this has been a really rewarding process. The communication has been constructive, on-going and focused. In particular, I thank Jenny Gilruth. I remember the two of us as very newly elected members back in 2016, sitting around the table at the away day in Stirling for the Education and Skills Committee. I do not think that either of us would necessarily have imagined that that on-going relationship might have resulted in a bill such as this.

Ultimately, politics is about interpersonal relationships, dialogue, identifying where there is common cause and doing something about it. I hope that this bill stands as testament to that. This is my second member’s bill. I do not know whether two for two is a record. If this bill passes, as I hope it will, I will be proud of it.

However, above all else, I repeat my thanks to Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger: you are absolutely outstanding campaigners and you are delivering change. I know that I should speak through the chair, but please forgive me, Deputy Presiding Officer. All of us in the Parliament owe you a debt of gratitude.

The cabinet secretary stole my closing line. As we pass Calum’s law, let us end with Calum’s words:

“The children aren’t naughty, they’re just scared.”

Let us put that to an end.

Amendment 2 is sensible. In essence, it allows the Government to get on with it and do the consultation ahead of the bill coming into force. It is sensible and practical and I support it.

: As the member in charge of the bill, I will support all three amendments in the group and all the amendments that have been lodged this afternoon.

I thank the Government for giving me early sight of its amendments. Indeed, there was some discussion about whether I would lodge amendments. Many of the amendments are about operability, so it is important to hear from the Government.

I thank John Mason for lodging amendment 1 and for his interest throughout the bill process. He is absolutely right that it is important that we do not inadvertently capture types of physical contact that we would expect and encourage in our schools, especially for primary school children. Amendment 1 is proportionate and provides a safeguard against the inadvertent capturing of such behaviours. I note that it addresses the issues that have been raised by the teaching unions. I thank Willie Rennie not only for raising those real concerns, as it is important to have them on the record, but for going through all the unions’ acronyms and sparing me from having to do the same thing. Including provisions to adjust the definitions through secondary legislation is a better way of addressing those concerns than having explicit exclusions in the bill, because it means that we can take a more nuanced approach to the definitions.

I note the concerns raised by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, who urges members not to support amendment 1. I understand those concerns, particularly the one about altering the definition of seclusion, but there are important safeguards. The regulations would be subject to consultation and to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, the Government would have to make a case for alterations, and Parliament would have the final say as to whether they proceed. I believe that that makes the provision proportionate and safe.

It is important that we are able to adjust the reporting requirements in line with changes to the definition, so I welcome amendment 3. Likewise, on amendment 6, we can all understand that the nature of looking after nursery school children is very different from that of looking after primary school children—it is literally a hands-on activity. Therefore, it is really important that we exclude nursery classes and classrooms and nursery children from the bill, because it is a complex area. I very much welcome amendment 6.

To echo the cabinet secretary’s comments, amendments 4, 5 and 7 are technical amendments that enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that the bill is workable and implementable. I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about ensuring that they are focused on the bill’s intent and purpose. I always like to encourage that approach from the Government, rather than it taking sweeping powers. I very much welcome the fact that the Government has lodged amendments that have that focused scope and urge members to support amendments 4, 5 and 7.

If one thing is clear, it is that the whole Parliament is united in—frankly, almost nauseating—tribute to Liam McArthur. However, the tribute is deserved. On a very personal level, and thinking back to our most recent conversation about the bill, I just wish that disagreeing with people was always so agreeable. That is a genuine personal tribute.

This is a bill that I have found difficult; indeed, I was opposed to the previous legislation that came before the Parliament. However, when I examined the matter from first principles and asked myself whether I would want to exercise this option if I were terminally ill, I concluded that I would. Should people have an option, and would they have autonomy? I think so.

However, I do not believe that people make decisions in isolation. They make decisions in the context of community, society and family.

Ultimately, when we legislate, we create expectations and norms. We create expectations of how people will behave in certain ways. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we have the safeguards and protections that that needs, and we have to ask ourselves what kind of bill we have. I asked at the beginning of the stage 3 amendments, is this a permissive bill or is it a precautionary one? Is it one that enables people to do things, or does it provide people with an option in extenuating circumstances with safeguards?

Unfortunately, in my view, we have arrived at a bill that is the former. Yes, we have introduced many additional standards, considerations and procedures but, ultimately, what the bill boils down to is a decision that will be afforded to people on the basis of two medical practitioners’ judgments—yes, those judgments will be based on experience and training, but they will be the judgments of two people. That is why I think that the section 104 order is problematic. It is not because we will not have a say—we will—but the detail of that is so critical and we will not be able to scrutinise it or challenge it. We will be given a binary choice. Further, there is no external check on those two doctors’ judgments; there is no point of escalation and there is no oversight.

When we listen to the external royal colleges, we must listen to the detail. It is not only about the protections for conscientious objection. The Royal College of General Practitioners said in one of its principles that there is a lack of an independent and transparent system of oversight, monitoring and regulation. That is what the bill lacks.

A great number of members have said that the bill has more safeguards than any comparable piece of legislation. That is simply not true. If you look at the Australian legislation and at where such legislation has already been passed, you will see that virtually all of them have three external safeguards. Half of the Australian jurisdictions have a permit-based system, whereby every request has to be externally approved. Even in those that do not, every single Australian jurisdiction has two forms of external oversight, including a tribunal, by which individual requests can be escalated and assessed by the individual themselves, the medical practitioners or those who have immediate concern for the individual, such as family members. Each and every jurisdiction has an oversight board that oversees the implementation, assesses individual requests, can make referrals to other authorities, including the police, can provide advice to Government and provides on-going statutory review and recommendation.

We have neither of those oversight or safety mechanisms in the bill whatsoever. We have a narrow bill. It is true that we have increased the number of things that we are going to ask medical practitioners to take into consideration, but it ultimately boils down to two doctors’ opinions—doctors who can make mistakes or errors of judgment. They may make referrals, but no amount of referral will stop those errors or mistakes.

Very often when we legislate in this place, “good enough” is good enough. Legislation by necessity has to be a matter of compromise, but this is not an area where we can afford compromise—“good enough” is not good enough.

If members are seeking solace from the statements of members in the chamber that the bill has more safeguards than any comparable legislation, they are mistaken. If they do not believe that those safeguards are in place, they should not vote for the bill.

20:13

Would the member accept that a number of the safeguards that are present in many parts of Australia are not present in the bill in terms of oversight? I am not sure that it is correct to say that the bill before us would be the most safeguarded legislation.

In a sense, I agree with what Liam McArthur says about section 104 orders coming back to Parliament. However, does he agree that much of the detail about how the bill will work in practice will rest in the guidance and that Parliament is being given a yes or no option when many here might want to be able to scrutinise that detail?