Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2026 [Draft]
::The background to the bill has been well set out this afternoon by Daniel Johnson, and I congratulate him on its reaching stage 1.
The issue of restraint and seclusion has been a topic of discussion for some time. Like other members, I have met parents and campaigners and heard why they feel that legislation is necessary. I have listened to their concerns about incidents of inappropriate restraint, and I recognise that many of them have shared personal and upsetting stories of their children’s distress in order to inform the bill’s progress. As Daniel Johnson did, I acknowledge the roles of Beth Morrison and Calum, who represented other families and their children in the pursuit of this legislation.
I recognise that some people, including in the teaching profession, have concerns about the bill, which I will come on to. However, I note that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has scrutinised the bill and is in unanimous support of its general principles. I also welcome the briefing from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which sets out its support in line with the UN’s recommendations.
I know that the member in charge of the bill has indicated that he will be happy to work with the Scottish Government and others to reach agreement on a definition of “restraint” that is suitable without encompassing everyday interactions. I also welcome the fact that work is being undertaken to develop a human rights law-compatible definition that would apply across education, care and health service settings, so that we can ensure a consistent legal framework.
Some teachers in my region have raised practical concerns, particularly around unintended consequences and staff confidence. They are right to highlight the pressures that the profession already faces. The EIS is clear that restraint and seclusion should be measures of last resort. It is concerned that proposals to introduce statutory guidance could negatively impact the need for open discussion of intervention, which could lead to a culture of fear and anxiety for teachers and staff who are worried about potential consequences.
To be clear, placing existing guidance on a statutory footing is about achieving consistency, clarity and accountability, so that the guidance is consistent across local authorities, is clear to pupils, teachers and parents, and is in line with the promotion of positive relationships and behaviour and of early intervention. The bill aims to underline the preventative approach while providing clarity around processes that should be followed. All those principles are already in the current guidance.
The impacts of additional training and the recording of incidents have also been highlighted, including the implications for workload and training for staff who are already under significant pressure. It is always worth underlining the vital role that teachers and their educational staff play, and the consequences for individuals in the teaching profession of the increasing workload demands that they continue to face. The lack of sufficient time, staffing and resources in teaching is a recurring issue that is much broader in scope than that of the bill. We know that investment in education is needed. I accept that the legislation could introduce some additional workload on recording and reporting requirements, but there seems to be an acknowledgement that that is necessary and achievable. Wider failures in resourcing education cannot be used as a reason for avoiding necessary reform of pupil safeguarding measures.
The recording of incidents and the provision of high-quality training in physical intervention for teachers are important measures. We know that part of the reason for the bill was the inconsistency that exists across local authorities in recording and communication. The guidance in this area would need to ensure a balance between consistency and practicality.
My colleague Daniel Johnson has been clear that not everyone in the profession would require training in physical intervention. The bill would require the Scottish Government to publish statutory guidance on the training of staff—something that has already been done on a non-statutory basis—and for it to maintain an up-to-date list of approved training providers.
The bill is all about achieving clarity, consistency and child protection. If, at the next stages, work could be done on definitions and the management of practical impacts, it could deliver strong safeguards for children while supporting staff. For those reasons, I support the bill’s principles and its progression.