Hansard

::I congratulate Daniel Johnson on the progress that he has made thus far in legislating on restraint and seclusion. Mr Johnson and I have been engaged over the course of this session—for months and probably years—and I am grateful to him for the extremely collegiate way in which we have been able to discuss and debate the issues that are pertinent to this stage 1 debate. For clarity and, again, for the record, the Scottish Government will support the general principles of the bill.

As we have heard, there are a number of others to thank, by no means least the families of those children who have experienced restraint in distressing environments. As we have heard from Douglas Ross and Daniel Johnson, Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger are to be applauded for their tenacious efforts in driving the changes that come before Parliament today. I am very pleased that Beth and her son Callum are with us in Parliament today, and I look forward to meeting them again following the debate.

I am grateful to the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee for its instructive role, and also to stakeholders, families, campaigners and practitioners for their support thus far. I am sure that members of the Scottish Parliament across the chamber will agree that our collective understanding of the issue and its impact has been strengthened by the willingness of parents of young people to share their personal experiences.

The Government is clear that restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort, to prevent injury. As members will be aware, in November 2024 we published our non-statutory guidance for schools on physical intervention, which reinforces that position. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of that guidance. Although the Scottish Government’s intention was to conclude a review of the guidance before considering legislative options, I have nonetheless engaged constructively on Mr Johnson’s bill since it was introduced in March last year. In June last year, I wrote to the committee to confirm the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill, while reserving the right to seek to amend any provisions where necessary. That remains the Government’s position. I very much share the committee’s clear commitment to ensuring that all children in Scotland’s schools are supported in ways that uphold their dignity, rights and safety, and I welcome the committee’s stage 1 report and its conclusions.

I was pleased to meet Mr Johnson earlier this week. As ever we had a productive discussion on areas where we would like to work together and strengthen the bill at stage 2. This is a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson will retain responsibility for its passage through Parliament. However, I agree with committee members that the statutory definitions of restraint and seclusion need to be workable, clear and aligned with children’s rights.

As the committee stressed, it is important that a distinction is made between restraint and physical interventions that do not raise wellbeing concerns. Such distinctions will help to reduce the risks of overreporting and overburdening on our school staff. I have agreed to work with Daniel Johnson to develop stage 2 amendments to address the concerns on that.

The committee also raised important points regarding national reporting routes and the avoidance of duplication. I accept the recommendation that further, joint work is needed, particularly on approaches for independent and grant-aided schools and for situations involving care settings. Accordingly, Mr Johnson and I have agreed that an amendment should be lodged at stage 2 to allow independent and grant-aided schools to report directly to ministers rather than via local authorities, which will help to ensure clarity and proportionality.

I have discussed the financial implications of the bill with Mr Johnson, and he shares my desire for the associated costs to be kept to a minimum. Should Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill today, I commit that the Government will lodge a financial resolution during the coming weeks.

The bill will place a duty on the Government to produce statutory guidance. As I alluded to, the Government produced our 2024 guidance, and that guidance will form the backbone of the statutory guidance that will be required under the bill. I therefore welcome the alignment that Mr Johnson has sought with our existing guidance in many areas.