Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2026 [Draft]
::I congratulate Daniel Johnson on getting this far with the bill. He has done a very professional job in convincing all sides of the bill’s merits, and it has lots of merits. However, if anybody has any doubt about the bill, I would advise them to go and meet Beth Morrison. Anybody who wants to go up against her should think again. She is an effective and forceful campaigner, and that is in part why Daniel Johnson has been so successful.
I am an original supporter of the bill, which I signed up to, but that did not prevent me from asking difficult questions in committee, because it is our role in committee to ask those difficult questions. I welcome the Government’s support for the bill. It was cautious in the early days, so it is even more significant that it is now prepared to support the bill.
In one respect, the bill is simple. As Daniel Johnson said, it seeks to move the guidance that already exists from its current status on to a statutory footing. It also covers training and recording. However, we should always be careful when guidance is put on a statutory footing. Although that gives it extra priority and means that it is considered with extra seriousness, it also has the potential to introduce greater caution, which can be unhelpful at moments when clear and decisive decision making is required. I will return to that.
Like others, I am grateful to the EIS for raising the issues that it is concerned about, because that is part of the accountability process. Issues of culture, resources, timing, workload and training were raised in the evidence sessions, and two of those are particularly important.
First, at a critical moment when a decision is required about the safety of a child, what we want is not caution but clarity about what is required to happen. If a member of staff is too cautious because the matter is covered in statute, a child could be harmed as a result. We must be mindful of that when we are considering the matter.
Secondly, it is easy to work out what great practice is and what dreadful practice is. It is the bits in the middle that are really hard to determine. We need absolute clarity—that feeds into the first point—about what the right thing to do is, and that is why putting the guidance on a statutory footing is essential. We have had guidance for years, but it has not been given the emphasis, priority or seriousness that it deserves. Putting it on a statutory footing will help to bring clarity and decisiveness at critical moments.
We have to be clear to the teaching profession and to staff, because this is not just about restraint. There are wider debates about behaviour, about violence in schools and particularly about additional support needs. The percentage of young people with such needs is now over 40 per cent. There is a debate about inclusion and how we manage young people and give them specialist additional support in schools.