At present, all teachers are not trained in restraint. The committee has previously considered the approaches that are used in relation to ASN and teacher training. We cannot mandate individual education providers.

I would have been keen for us to explore the number of hours that are allocated to the teaching of additional support needs in initial teacher education. It is difficult to mandate independent universities, which are autonomous from the Government, as you are about to hear, and tell them that they have to teach X number of hours on autism or dyslexia, for instance.

There are challenges in relation to initial teacher education, but there are also challenges in relation to local government, as local authorities have a responsibility to provide continuing professional development. There are disparate teacher training practices across the country and within local authorities, and they are often dependent on individual teacher needs. At present, we do not mandate; we say that teachers use their professional judgment for their own continuing professional development. They have 35 hours a year—as I recall from the back of my brain—in which to complete CPD activities that they think will benefit their teaching and learning. We do not mandate at the current time.

There are disparate practices, and you are right to say that there will be different approaches to how teacher training is done, but the national list that the bill provides for will give us some certainty. Under the 2024 guidance, only training providers who have achieved Restraint Reduction Network certification should be used, and that approach is mirrored in Daniel Johnson’s approach. Consistency is provided for in the guidance and in the bill, but at present we have different approaches across the country. I think that the committee is taking evidence from local government on that.

Yes—and there are rural dynamics.

They do.

I think so. I have seen the evidence and am aware that that practice is used across the country in a range of different ways. Robert Eckhart might want to say more on that.

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill and the important issues that it covers.

First, I put on record my thanks to Mr Johnson and his staff for the collegiate approach that they have taken in engaging with the Government over some time on his legislative proposals.

As the committee knows, the legislation does not sit in isolation; rather, it builds on our non-statutory guidance on physical intervention in schools, which was published in November last year. The guidance is part of our “Included, engaged and involved” series that aims to support positive relationships and behaviour in our classrooms. Its non-statutory status mirrors the approach that we have taken to guidance that is delivered as part of our relationships and behaviour in schools national action plan, including our guidance on risk assessments and on promoting positive, inclusive and safe school environments, which we published in June.

The physical intervention guidance was developed with extensive input from many of the witnesses who have provided evidence to the committee, including representatives from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, teachers and other education staff, local government, teaching unions and, of course, parents, who have been instrumental in bringing the bill before Parliament.

Although considerable work has been undertaken to implement the guidance, it is still less than a year old. Full implementation is still at an early stage, and it will take time. Nonetheless, we committed to a one-year review of the guidance and, regardless of the bill’s passage, that work will begin shortly. The review will, of course, be informed by the evidence that is provided of situations in which restraint or seclusion has been used in inappropriate ways. However, it will also consider examples in which the diligence of teachers has created learning environments where children with additional support needs can thrive and are supported without recourse to restraint or seclusion.

The bill presents another opportunity to take further steps in making clear our expectations on the use of restraint and seclusion. We have worked carefully and collaboratively with partners to support our overall aims of protecting children by minimising the use of restraint and seclusion.

I recognise that this sensitive issue requires a measured and proportionate response. I have met Beth Morrison and heard her distressing account of her son Calum’s restraint back in 2010. I have also met Kate Sanger, and I know that the committee has heard about the traumatic effect that seclusion had on her daughter, Laura. Let me be clear that no family should have to experience that. I have also met the teaching trade unions on the issue, and I have appreciated their contributions.

I should be clear that the practices of restraint are not used in most of Scotland’s schools, and it is not a practice that most classroom teachers are trained in. As our physical intervention guidance sets out, and as the committee has heard, the vast majority of our education workforce does not need to be trained in the use of restraint. On those rare occasions when it is deemed necessary, it is important that properly trained staff feel confident in using it, supported by the detailed advice and safeguards that should be followed, as outlined in our guidance on physical intervention.

Having carefully considered the contents of Mr Johnson’s bill, and as I set out in my letter to committee, the Government will support the general principles of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I met Mr Johnson recently and we have agreed to work collaboratively on the bill to ensure that it delivers on its intended purpose. As the committee has heard, further work will be required in order to fully understand the costs that would be involved in its implementation. I have also set out a number of aspects on which amendments might be required, including on definitions and on national reporting. Although the Scottish Government is supportive of the bill, it is, of course, a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson retains responsibility for its passage through Parliament.

I am happy to take any questions from members.

That concern was put to the committee by Mike Corbett of the NASUWT, and I heard again from him last week that better reporting, which the convener has called for and which I support, might put children in danger to some extent. Those are issues that we would need to consider in the round. I was quite taken by Mike Corbett’s point, and we would need to be mindful of it. I am sure that there are ways in which we could work with local government to provide more reassurance around that, but it should not be the case that we are not informing parents about things for fear of other things happening. There might be something in the mix in relation to how we work with schools and parents in individual circumstances where there might be a concern at home about that type of behaviour.

I agree with your view, convener, that it should be prioritised, and the national guidance sets out that approach. I do not think that we are going to move away from that view.

Yes. With regard to children attending a school outwith their own area, we are of the view that the report should be made to their local authority. For example, if the placing request came from, say, the Highland Council for a young person to be placed in Moray, the report should go to where the placing request—[Interruption.] I am just checking that with officials, but yes, there is a bit of an issue in that respect.

As for the independent sector, I know that the Scottish Council of Independent Schools is broadly supportive of the bill, but there are issues there. For example, we do not want dual reporting. However, we think that amendments could be lodged at stage 2 that would resolve such issues.

I think that it is fair to say that the trade unions are not supportive of the legislation, so the Parliament needs to be mindful of that. There is quite a lot of support in the committee for the bill, and, of course, the Government is supporting it at stage 1, too, but we need to work with the trade unions on it.

There is more that we can do in this space to provide reassurance, and I would want to work with Mr Johnson in engaging with the professional associations. They are clear that they do not want the guidance to be put on a statutory footing. For all the reasons that Mike Corbett has set out to the committee, their preference would be for us to work with them on improving the guidance and perhaps making it a bit stronger, as we have done with behaviour. We can give more concrete examples and more support to the profession in that kind of non-statutory space, but that is not where we are here.

I am more than happy to engage with the trade unions on this. However, they have a number of concerns, and I come back to Mr Rennie’s point about the bill creating a chilling effect and, as a result, teachers not using restraint. An alternative view is the evidence that the committee took from Barnardo’s, which said that, on the contrary, there might be an increase in the use of restraint as a result of the legislation. We need to be mindful of those views.

I would hope that our engagement with the professional associations will not create challenges, but I have met them and have listened to their challenge. We need to do that as the bill progresses.

Well, anything can happen in Scottish education, Mr Greer. Thinking of the most recent conversation that I had with the NASUWT and the EIS, which was last week, I would say no, but that does not preclude it from happening in the future.