Hansard

::It is a huge privilege to move the motion in my name, which seeks the Parliament’s support for the purposes and general principles of my bill. I begin by thanking the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its diligent and detailed report. The insights that it has provided the Parliament with will strengthen the legislation. Likewise, I thank the Government for the on-going dialogue, particularly with Jenny Gilruth. That dialogue has been constructive and extremely useful. The non-Government bills unit is a jewel of this Parliament and must be acknowledged, as must my office team—in particular, Philip Miller.

However, the greatest acknowledgement must go to Beth Morrison. Her tireless campaigning on the issue began when her son Calum returned home from school in 2010, covered in bruises. He had been pinned down by four adults, face down in a prone restraint, simply because he did not want to get off a bike. In 2015, she lodged a petition, which urged the Parliament to create Calum’s law to deal with the issue.

When, in 2022, Beth asked me whether I would take that proposal forward, I was pleased to do so, because I knew that Beth’s and Calum’s experiences were not isolated ones. In 2018, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland published a report, “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools”, which identified 2,674 incidents of restraint and seclusion related to 386 children. It also found that only 18 of the 32 local authorities were recording that information and that even fewer were doing so comprehensively at the level of the child. Those findings have been reinforced by several subsequent reports from many trusted organisations, such as Enable, Positive and Active Behaviour Support Scotland, Children in Scotland, the National Autistic Society Scotland and Scottish Autism. They were also raised in the Morgan review on additional support needs, which was commissioned by the Government.

Through the last parliamentary session, I listened to many parents’ anguish and pain as they told stories about how they had struggled to find out why their children had returned home with bruises—children who were overwhelmingly of primary school age; children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning difficulties; often, children who had diminished communication. I felt compelled to act and to do what I could to make Calum’s law a reality. That is why I bring this bill before the Parliament today.

Let me set out the bill’s four key provisions. First, it would create a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, refreshing the existing non-statutory guidance. That is not to create something new; it is simply to put the guidance on a statutory footing and to ensure that long-standing inconsistencies are eradicated by ensuring that we have clear and consistent practice across Scotland.

Secondly, it would create a duty on schools to inform parents and carers promptly if their child has been restrained or secluded. We have to end the anguish and frustration that is experienced by so many parents who face that situation. Schools act in loco parentis, and if physical interventions or seclusion take place, it is vital that parents and carers are informed promptly.

Thirdly, it would require recording and reporting on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Despite their being part of Scottish Government guidance for almost a decade, we still do not have consistency of recording or a clear national picture of the frequency of, or variation in, those practices.

Fourthly, it would create a duty on the Scottish Government to maintain a list of approved training providers, to ensure safe practice. The bill does not seek to stop the use of physical interventions, but we must ensure that, when they do occur, the best possible practice is used and support is provided to those practitioners who need to use them. Overall, however, we should seek to minimise the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and to ensure that it is used only as a last resort and where there is an immediate risk of harm.

I acknowledge that there are concerns about the proposals that are set out in the bill, but I make it clear that the bill simply puts on a statutory footing what should already be happening. Its obligations will rest with local authorities and schools, not individual teachers. It is vital that those practitioners who may need training get the best possible training. My bill will certainly not require all teachers to be trained.

That is what my bill will do. It should improve matters for practitioners, parents and, above all, children.