Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2026 [Draft]
::I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to today’s debate, which has been remarkable for the conciliatory tone that we have had across the chamber so close to dissolution and for being on a topic on which we all agree. I also thank our partners in local government; our teaching trade unions; all education staff; and, of course, parents, who, as we heard today, have supported our work in this area. The Government will continue to engage with all those partners, and more substantively with Daniel Johnson, on the bill and its progress at stages 2 and 3.
Today, we have heard the will across the Parliament to build on the actions that have already been taken by the Government. Our long-standing position, as is known, is that restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, and we are committed to protecting Scotland’s children and young people.
I will address some of the comments that were made by colleagues across the chamber this afternoon, although I am aware that time is short. Miles Briggs reminded the chamber of Beth Morrison’s son, Calum, and Douglas Ross said that we would not be here were it not for Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger. Paul O’Kane spoke to the dreadful things that have happened to families, which highlights the necessity of the debate that we find ourselves having today. As Maggie Chapman rightly reminded the chamber, there has been a tireless campaign, which, I observe, has been largely led by mums—mums whose experience of our education system has not been what it should have been, and mums who have had to fight.
There are many parallels between the legislation that is before Parliament today and parental experiences—for example, of local support for additional support needs. In listening to colleagues’ contributions, I reflected on my constituent Niamdh Braid and the fight that her mother and father had to lead against Fife Council to obtain the support that she required as a British Sign Language user in school in Fife.
Willie Rennie spoke to the need for the guidance to be put on a statutory footing to bring decisiveness and clarity. I note the concerns of my former trade union, the EIS, which has been mentioned in the debate today, about the issue. I have already written to the EIS and I have committed to further engagement with it ahead of stages 2 and 3. I know that the member in charge has engaged with it, too, and I look forward to working with him on that topic. It is worth saying that the teaching trade unions were involved in the development of the Government’s guidance, and we will continue to engage with them in relation to the review and, of course, stages 2 and 3, working with the member in charge.
Jackie Dunbar spoke to the interplay between the national guidance and the bill that is before the Parliament. I am pleased that the review, which is well under way, will report in March. She was right to talk about commencement dates—a matter on which I have already engaged with Daniel Johnson—and we are in agreement that lessons from the review must inform how the act is delivered in practice in educational settings.
Claire Baker was right to talk about inconsistencies in recording practices, which I think Roz McCall touched on, too. We see that issue across our educational landscape, and the bill will have a key role to play in strengthening the quality and consistency of data, which we have already actively started to consider in relation to additional support needs, as colleagues will know from the update that I provided earlier this year.
Karen Adam spoke about the need for parents to be treated as partners. To that end, I very much agree with the committee’s approach to reporting on the same day. Families, staff and children deserve dignity, and much of that has to be about better communication.
George Adam spoke of the heartbreaking experiences that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard from families, which I know will be familiar to colleagues who sit on the committee. His observations on additional support needs are salient to our recent debates in the chamber and are another reason why the review of initial teacher education provision, which I spoke to earlier this year, is so important. Teachers need support, but we must recognise that needs in our classrooms are changing, and the way in which we support the profession is required to adapt accordingly.
George Adam was correct to guard against the creation of league tables. We often see that issue in relation to behaviour in schools, with schools and teachers fearful to report and concerned how that might reflect on their practice or their school. However, if we do not have accurate data, whether on behaviour, ASN or the use of restraint, how can any Government target support to where it is needed most? We need far greater transparency in all those matters, less protectionism and far more engagement and support for the teaching profession.
I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing the bill before the Parliament. I pay particular tribute again today to Beth Morrison, Kate Sanger and all the other parents, children and young people whose lives have been impacted by these issues. No family should have to endure the experiences that members have heard, some of which have been narrated in the debate, but we have an opportunity today to change lives and to create positive, inclusive and safe school environments. The Scottish Government is therefore happy to support the general principles of Daniel Johnson’s bill.