���˿���

The member raises an interesting point, which goes to the heart of the matter. The most profound concern probably comes from people with those needs. I am not clear about any need for particular provision, primarily because the bulk of such incidents involve children with additional support needs, which means that it would be impossible to look at guidance in that area of practice without keeping additional support needs absolutely front and centre, as they very much are in the current guidance.

The question is interesting from another perspective, and I would be interested to follow up informally with committee members about their visit to Donaldson’s. When we talk to practitioners working in such settings, they have the fewest issues or concerns about the bill, because they understand the need for sensitivity. When I spoke to people at Donaldson’s, they almost questioned the need for the bill because they do not use restrictive practices.

I absolutely think that, when we look at the bill and develop guidance, we must have young people with additional support needs or disabilities at the forefront of our minds. I do not think that that means there is a need for more specific provision within the bill, but I am focusing precisely on that.

Willie Rennie makes an important point, which I understand. The current situation makes it worse; having non-statutory guidance that does not have the precision or the clarity that we might want creates ambiguity in those situations. Having the provisions on a statutory footing, and requiring clarity and engagement on the definitions and, indeed, on recording, would better promote clearer definitions about what we mean by restraint and appropriate responses.

Critically, that is why there is also a training element. If we were just talking about the bill without the other elements, particularly training, I might agree with you. However, the key point is that I am not just seeking to provide a document. I am seeking to provide clarity on training and practice. That will always be an on-going effort. The moment that the Government produces guidance, concerns will be expressed along the lines that Mr Rennie has set out. By making the guidance clearer and more precise, we will minimise the risk.

The short answer is no, they would not need to do that. The bill does not state that every single teacher would have to receive training. It is up to education authorities to identify the number of practitioners who require specific training. As has been alluded to, it is also not the case that no training is currently taking place.

It is important, especially for the most serious kind of training—for practitioners who are likely to need to use physical restraint regularly—that we maintain some regulation over what it should consist of and who can provide it. One issue is that there are providers out there who currently offer training based on stress holds and techniques that are derived from adult contexts—if I can put it like that—which, in my view, are wholly inappropriate for use in schools.

Through the bill I have sought to enable, in a relatively light-touch way, something of a Scottish Government kitemark. The bill is about saying, “Look, for people who need such training, these are the sorts of training courses and providers that are appropriate.” I do not believe that that would require a huge amount more regulation than. At the moment, the Government signposts to the Restraint Reduction Network, but I would just like to see that aspect go a bit further.

That does not preclude the fact that for some practitioners—in fact, probably most of them—the training that local authorities provide might be appropriate. It goes back to the idea of training the trainer. It would then be for the guidance to start pulling apart the categories.

However, I am clear that it is important that we regulate the use of physical restraint in the legislation.

Yes.

I will bring in Roz Thomson in a moment, but I do not think that it does suggest that. The bill sets out when restraint would be likely and provides for training for people who might need it in that context.

Mr Mason is absolutely right that that need could vary according to context, which is why it is really important for local authorities to take the lead. However, that does not mean that every instance of physical interaction is an example of restraint. If two children are fighting, a teacher might have to intervene, but that would be a one-off. The bill targets the times when practitioners have to use prolonged force to restrict a child’s freedom of movement or liberty—for example, by using holds and doing more than just separating children—at which point there absolutely is a need for training.

I am not saying that there is no need for thought. It is quite the reverse, because there is a need for detailed thought about how teachers intervene to separate pupils, but I do not think that that needs the same level of training as would be required for someone who might need to use particular forms of physical intervention. There would be a need for clarity, nuance and some teasing apart in the guidance. However the focus of training should be on the most serious physical interventions that absolutely can—and, to be frank, do—result in children being injured. That is what we must try to minimise, if not prevent.

I will bring in Roz Thomson.

That argument has a lot of merit and is compelling. The key question is whether it would be more appropriate for that level of detail to be in the guidance, because I would not want to introduce complexity or difficulties when that might not be possible—for example, it might not be possible to reach a parent before the end of the school day if they do not pick up their phone. I have a small hesitation in saying that it would be appropriate for that to be in the bill but, as a matter of practice, what you have set out is absolutely how things should be done.

That is as the funder. The Government is looking at whether it would report on that as a subset of the information, so that we do not end up with confusing data. That would be done for the reason that you set out: such institutions have a very different relationship with local authorities, full stop. Local authorities use institutions such as the one that you mentioned as providers of education, rather than local authorities sitting as regulators of such institutions as providers of education, if that makes sense.

Yes.

The relationship is different, but I think that most of those schools engage with their local education authority.

I will bring in Roz Thomson to cover the methodology of the bill’s financial memorandum in more detail. I have met the Scottish Government about every six months during the bill process. There has been an extensive level of engagement. It was important for the Government to be aware of the bill, especially given its concurrence with the issuing of its guidance.

Critically, as I said directly to the cabinet secretary, it was really important to me that the bill did not contain any surprises for the Government; that is the approach that I have sought to take. As I understand it, the Government broadly agrees with the numbers that are set out in the financial memorandum. The costs are not overly significant. Mr Kidd is absolutely correct to say that the measures do not add up to nothing. There will be costs of around £3 million in year 1, with similar on-going costs each year, which is not the biggest amount of money in the context of the education budget.

Let us also be clear that we have guidance and that all actors say that the guidance is being complied with. I do not envisage a requirement for any huge alterations to the guidance. There will be a need to revise and reissue the guidance, and there will be some additional implementation costs, but we are taking at face value the assurance from both providers and the Government that there is already compliance.

Roz, do you want to provide some clarity about the more detailed elements of the methodology?