Hansard

I start by making it absolutely clear that all of Scotland’s children deserve and have the right to feel safe in our schools. They should not be restrained or secluded. The only occasions on which that should be considered are when there is an immediate risk of injury to the child or others, as we heard from Paul McLennan and others, and the cross-party support for Daniel Johnson’s bill shows that the Parliament shares that view.

I thank members for their really constructive and thoughtful approach to today’s debate and indeed to the bill process as a whole. I will respond to some of the comments that members have made in the debate.

First, I have some bad news for Miles Briggs: this is not the final education debate in the current session of Parliament. In fact, his colleague Pam Gosal will be leading a members’ debate tomorrow afternoon on mobile phones in schools, and he can be assured that I will attend that debate.

I absolutely love that Beth Morrison—the “Queen Bee”—has ensured that we are all wearing our crown badges today. After the stage 1 debate, Beth presented me with a tiara, but I did not think that it would be appropriate to wear a tiara in the chamber, so I have not come wearing it today.

Miles Briggs spoke to the importance of the statutory guidance, on which I firmly agree. The consultation will sit alongside that statutory guidance.

I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions. We rehearsed some of this in the stage 1 evidence session at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but I have engaged directly with all the teaching trade unions, including as recently as last Thursday, and the Government has ensured—working with Mr Johnson, of course, whose bill it is—that the teaching trade unions will be consultees in relation to the statutory guidance. That is hugely important.

Secondly, a number of Scottish Government amendments last week spoke to some of those concerns, and an amendment by John Mason made it clearer that the proposed changes will not apply to nursery settings. Mr Mason’s amendment on the definitions speaks to the issue being revisited in the future, which addresses a concern that the teaching trade unions highlighted about the broadness of the category.

Thirdly, amendments were agreed to at stage 3 to support things that will be non-reportable in order to minimise the workload burden on teachers. That also addresses a concern that the teaching trade unions highlighted and to which I was sympathetic.

We heard from Willie Rennie about the churn of guidance that the Government produces. I remind members that much of the raft of guidance that the Government has produced in the education space, particularly in the past three years, has been at the behest of the Opposition parties. However, we need to consider the matter. I discussed with my officials only yesterday that, when we are creating a range of guidance, such as on attendance, behaviour and mobile phone use, we also need to step back and ask what needs to go, and to be mindful of the workload that they create for our schools. Publishing reams of non-statutory guidance arguably does not create the behaviour change that we need. That substantiates the need for Daniel Johnson’s bill, because we need that behaviour change. The review guidance update that officials published this morning covers the rationale for Mr Johnson’s bill.

Paul O’Kane was quite right to reflect on the collegiate spirit that has characterised engagement on the bill throughout its passage. In that spirit, I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He said this weekend that he did not think that it was his job as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee to give the Government an easy time. I say to Mr Ross that absolutely no one in the Scottish Government thinks that he has given ministers an easy time so, on that, he has absolutely succeeded.

I also commend the diligent work of members across parties—in particular, Miles Briggs, Roz McCall, Martin Whitfield, Paul O’Kane, Ross Greer and Willie Rennie—for their work with the Government on a range of educational issues.

If you will indulge me, Presiding Officer, I will also pay tribute to Natalie Don-Innes, who will be stepping down. I was not able to contribute to the debate that she led last week, in which lots of accolades were paid to her. As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties.

I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal. It signals to teachers and staff that we will support them to de-escalate challenging situations in schools. It signals to parents that their children matter and that, when something happens at school that involves their child, they should be told about that timeously. More importantly, it signals to all our children that they should not be restrained or secluded at school.

I am pleased that one of the final bills that the Parliament will pass in this session relates to children and to giving effect to their rights. As Calum put it, the children

“aren’t naughty; they’re just scared.”

I agree with that. That is why the Scottish Government will vote in support of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill today.