���˿���

What they are is quite important—this is a bit hypothetical.

I am not necessarily sure that I am reluctant to say that it is better. It is just that I suppose that Mr Rennie presumes that the relationship was bad at some point. I mean, we are bailing out a—

We had just launched the guidance in November 2024. Our preference was to review the guidance, and our view was that the timescales did not meet the Government’s requirement to take on the bill, because we had not yet carried out or started the review, and we needed that granular detail to inform any legislative change. To my mind, it would have been jumping the gun somewhat for us to adopt a bill not four months after the publication of our own guidance.

I cannot recall, on the second point, but I am happy to write to the committee on that. However, I have engaged with Mr Johnson on the matter over a number of years. We have been engaging with Mr Johnson on it throughout my time as cabinet secretary. We have been discussing it, and he has been aware of the need for us to publish guidance. He has fed into some of that process, and his team have been helpful in sharing their thoughts. We have been engaged throughout the period in question.

Convener, you are right that the Government could perhaps have taken a decision earlier on whether to take on the bill. We did not do that because of the timescales associated with the publication of the guidance. We are content to support Mr Johnson’s bill at stage 1, but we are still going to carry out a review of how the guidance is operating in practice, which we hope will help to inform the passage of the bill.

I do not necessarily agree with Mr Rennie’s characterisation of the Government’s position as opposing the bill. I think—

Yes, I think that that is a risk, and the committee and the Parliament need to be mindful of that and how we can guard against it with regard to the next steps. However, I would counter that there is probably already a risk of such reticence on the part of staff, which speaks to the issues that the convener raised earlier about reticence with regard to reporting. So that reticence exists already to some extent in the teaching population and the education workforce. If the bill gets to stage 2, which I suspect that it will, we can consider how we might ameliorate that situation by working with local government. However, that is not without its challenges, which is a point that trade unions raised.

We will have to agree to disagree with my caveats, Mr Rennie.

Yes. I have written to the committee on that. Mr Johnson’s approach is quite focused on education settings. I completely understand why he has done that, which is not to take away from the approaches that are used in other settings. We think that there is a way in which they could complement each other, and that is the approach that we suggest should work.

However, there are issues in relation to the policy memorandum and why the bill needs independent and grant-aided schools to report restraint to the education authority in which they are situated. That needs to be looked at. There are issues in relation to the role of the inspectorate, and there is an ask that the inspectorate is involved in national reporting. We look at the financial memorandum in that regard to consider whether this approach will drive more costs. These issues need to be flushed out during stage 2 deliberations, but I do not think that they are insurmountable.

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill and the important issues that it covers.

First, I put on record my thanks to Mr Johnson and his staff for the collegiate approach that they have taken in engaging with the Government over some time on his legislative proposals.

As the committee knows, the legislation does not sit in isolation; rather, it builds on our non-statutory guidance on physical intervention in schools, which was published in November last year. The guidance is part of our “Included, engaged and involved” series that aims to support positive relationships and behaviour in our classrooms. Its non-statutory status mirrors the approach that we have taken to guidance that is delivered as part of our relationships and behaviour in schools national action plan, including our guidance on risk assessments and on promoting positive, inclusive and safe school environments, which we published in June.

The physical intervention guidance was developed with extensive input from many of the witnesses who have provided evidence to the committee, including representatives from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, teachers and other education staff, local government, teaching unions and, of course, parents, who have been instrumental in bringing the bill before Parliament.

Although considerable work has been undertaken to implement the guidance, it is still less than a year old. Full implementation is still at an early stage, and it will take time. Nonetheless, we committed to a one-year review of the guidance and, regardless of the bill’s passage, that work will begin shortly. The review will, of course, be informed by the evidence that is provided of situations in which restraint or seclusion has been used in inappropriate ways. However, it will also consider examples in which the diligence of teachers has created learning environments where children with additional support needs can thrive and are supported without recourse to restraint or seclusion.

The bill presents another opportunity to take further steps in making clear our expectations on the use of restraint and seclusion. We have worked carefully and collaboratively with partners to support our overall aims of protecting children by minimising the use of restraint and seclusion.

I recognise that this sensitive issue requires a measured and proportionate response. I have met Beth Morrison and heard her distressing account of her son Calum’s restraint back in 2010. I have also met Kate Sanger, and I know that the committee has heard about the traumatic effect that seclusion had on her daughter, Laura. Let me be clear that no family should have to experience that. I have also met the teaching trade unions on the issue, and I have appreciated their contributions.

I should be clear that the practices of restraint are not used in most of Scotland’s schools, and it is not a practice that most classroom teachers are trained in. As our physical intervention guidance sets out, and as the committee has heard, the vast majority of our education workforce does not need to be trained in the use of restraint. On those rare occasions when it is deemed necessary, it is important that properly trained staff feel confident in using it, supported by the detailed advice and safeguards that should be followed, as outlined in our guidance on physical intervention.

Having carefully considered the contents of Mr Johnson’s bill, and as I set out in my letter to committee, the Government will support the general principles of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I met Mr Johnson recently and we have agreed to work collaboratively on the bill to ensure that it delivers on its intended purpose. As the committee has heard, further work will be required in order to fully understand the costs that would be involved in its implementation. I have also set out a number of aspects on which amendments might be required, including on definitions and on national reporting. Although the Scottish Government is supportive of the bill, it is, of course, a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson retains responsibility for its passage through Parliament.

I am happy to take any questions from members.

I completely concur with your views on that, convener. I do not have children myself, but I have three nephews and a niece. My sisters receive regular updates, and information is shared about incidents that might have happened at nursery on a routine basis. You are right to flag that challenge. That is, of course, the other side of the coin, when it comes to sharing information with parents. To my mind, we need to see much better information sharing.

The national guidance that we published last year talks about a requirement to report by the end of the school day and Mr Johnson’s bill includes a provision, which we support, for that to happen within 24 hours. There is an opportunity here for better sharing of information with parents and carers. When incidents occur, the information should, of course, be shared with parents and carers. We would expect that to happen as a matter of course and something is going wrong when that does not happen. I have been very clear that the events that we heard about from Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger should not be happening in our schools as a matter of course.

The national guidance is an opportunity to improve practice, but we have not yet reviewed that guidance and must have certainty and assurance about where we are in the legislative landscape.

Robert Eckhart might want to come in.