Hansard

::I almost do not know how to respond to the overwhelming and universal compliments that I have received this afternoon. I cannot claim not to occasionally use a theatrical flourish in the Parliament, but I try to approach my work in a collegiate way, to deal with things matter-of-factly and to work with people from right across the chamber, and I hope that some of that is reflected.

I, too, reiterate my thanks to Beth and Calum Morrison and Kate Sanger. Kate and Beth are a dynamic duo and a dream team. I will just reflect on something that Douglas Ross touched on. I believe in the Scottish Parliament, because it brings power closer to people and makes the possibility of change much more realistic for people. If we pass the bill, the process will demonstrate to Beth and Kate that it is delivering on that promise to Scottish people.

We should always be clear on what we are talking about. Restraint and seclusion, in the most serious instances, are about children—often vulnerable children—being pinned down and held in stress or prone positions. We are talking about seclusion and being put in a locked room, which is sometimes called a chill-out room but is not—it is a cupboard with a lock or, sometimes, a padded room. That is not right—not in this day and age. If that has to happen, we need the most robust procedures around it. Whenever the state intervenes physically, using force, we rightly expect and demand that that has robust monitoring and supervision. Why would we not have that expectation for our children?

We must acknowledge the EIS’s concerns. Maggie Chapman did an excellent job of dealing with them, but let me reiterate its key concerns, which were around timing, legal questions for individual teachers, training, workload and league tables.

In relation to timing, it is not true that the provisions of the bill are new and were only introduced in the 2024 non-statutory guidance. The 2017 guidance made it clear that local authorities should have clear procedures and training available for teachers and went on to say that all instances of the decision to use physical intervention

“must be recorded and monitored.”

That was in 2017—it is not new. I reflect that, often, we legislate without having detailed guidance to implement the measures in the legislation until after the passage of the bill. We have an advantage here in that a decade or more of guidance to build on, so we know what we are talking about.

On the legal question, let us be clear that the obligations will be for local authorities and for schools, not for individual teachers. That is not to say that individual teachers will not be asked to play their part but, critically, the obligations rest at a different level. Likewise, on training, the bill restates what is already in guidance about the training being made available. There is no point in this legislation at which it says that all teachers must be trained.

On workload, I am clear that there should be no additional workload. If, as the EIS agrees, such incidents should already be recorded, there should be no additional workload. Critically, we know that accidental injuries are recorded in a comprehensive way—that is part of current practice and, if the recording is being omitted when the interventions are deliberate, there are bigger questions for us to ask.

Finally, on the matter of league tables, the legislation sets out that the information will be gathered at local authority level and passed on to the Scottish ministers. There are two safeguards there: first, the information will be provided to ministers not on the basis of the school but on the basis of the local authority. Secondly, I deliberately left it to the discretion of ministers to decide how that would be detailed, because we need to take care about it and jigsaw identification must be avoided.

We should note that not only was the General Teaching Council for Scotland broadly supportive of the bill, it made the point that perhaps we need to go further. That reflects on many of the points raised by the cabinet secretary. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has also taken a constructive approach.

I am almost out of time—as the member in charge of the bill, between the six minutes for my introduction and the five minutes to conclude, I have a lot to pack in.

On definitions, we need to ensure that, particularly in recording and reporting practice, we are not inadvertently capturing other things. As some members pointed out, hugs are not restraint. A supportive hand on the shoulder is not restraint. Although the definition in the bill talks about removing the ability to voluntarily move, we can tighten that definition. I will look at that—things such as the deliberateness of the use, the length of time, the risks involved and the nature of the intervention need to be captured, particularly in relation to the recording and reporting, so that we do not create unnecessary work. That is doable.

I am keen to work with the trade unions, other relevant bodies, the Government and everyone in this chamber to make sure that we get those definitions right and on other points that have been raised. I think that all the points raised by the committee are right and I hope to work on amendments, either directly myself or with others, to ensure that we improve this bill.

I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon.