Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Official Report 624KB pdf
Contents
Petitions
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
Welcome back, everyone. The next item on our agenda is consideration of public petitions. First, we will consider PE1548, which was lodged by Beth Morrison. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in all schools. Full details of the petition’s aims are provided in members’ papers.
The committee last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 May, when we noted that a working group had been developing new human rights-based, non-statutory guidance to minimise the use of restraint in schools.
In May, the committee agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on timescales for the publication of the guidance. The cabinet secretary stated in her response that the draft guidance would be put to public consultation. That was launched on 21 June and closed yesterday.
The cabinet secretary noted in her letter that
“The draft guidance focusses on preventative support that should be in place to minimise restraint and provides detailed advice and safeguards that should be followed if restraint is used”
and that it
“outlines restraints that should never be used on children and young people, such as prone and other high risk physical restraints.”
The guidance also clarifies that, should any form of restraint be used, that should be recorded.
The cabinet secretary also explained that the Scottish Government will consider placing the guidance on a statutory basis should the non-statutory guidance fail to have the desired effect.
In response to the cabinet secretary’s letter, the petitioner stated that, although some of the guidance is “good”, she is
“extremely concerned that unless the guidance is statutory, nothing will change for the staff, or children affected.”
She also expressed her disappointment that the draft guidance does not have a dedicated section for children with additional support needs. She points out that children with ASN and disabilities are
“disproportionately affected by physical intervention”.
Do members have comments on the petition?
I should acknowledge that the petitioner is a constituent of mine. I pay tribute to her, because it is her tenacity that has ensured that quite significant strides have been made in this regard, and she has achieved a very great deal through her efforts. We have guidance, which I understand she has helped to shape. I think that that guidance should be implemented now and be given a period to bed in.
Having said all that, I think that the appropriate course of action would be to close the petition, with a couple of caveats. The Scottish Government has indicated that the successful, or otherwise, roll-out of the guidance will be monitored, and it does not rule out the guidance being put on a statutory footing in the future. Recognising that, we should perhaps write to the Government, asking for an understanding of the immediate next steps and how it will monitor and assess successful implementation, or otherwise.
Additionally, in the committee’s legacy paper, we could suggest that our successor committee might wish to return to the subject and carry out a piece of work in the next session of Parliament, if that is necessary, to review whether the guidance has served its purpose and whether the proposed non-statutory footing has proven adequate.
Largely, I tend to agree with Graeme Dey on this matter, and I, too, pay tribute to the petitioner, whose tenacity, perseverance and courage in pursuing the issues is to be commended by all of us.
However, I share the petitioner’s concerns about a lack of a statutory underpinning. I also have growing concerns about what is happening in our schools not just in terms of restraint and the other issues covered in this petition, but in terms of assaults on teachers. The lack of reporting is a growing concern for me.
I think that the only way that reporting measures can be adequately supported is if they are in law. That is why the rest of the United Kingdom is going down that particular route and making it a legal duty to report. That would give us a sounder basis for assessing how the guidelines—which are to be welcomed—will be used and how they will be adhered to. I also think that it gives a basis for the cabinet secretary, Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament to be able to assess whether the approach is working.
Therefore, I am happy to support what Graeme Dey has suggested, but, when we write to the cabinet secretary, I would like the issues that have been highlighted by the petitioner and the issues that I am focused on to be included in that letter.
We should recognise that significant progress has been made. The guidance is a massive step change from what was in place, and that is, in large part, down to the work that Beth Morrison and her colleagues have done. Beth has been a ferocious campaigner. I have met her several times and she has been ferocious with the campaign—and rightly so—because she has personal experience of when things go wrong.
We have to make sure that the guidance works. Everybody should get behind the guidance so that we can get the step change in training and support in schools that is necessary to make sure that teachers are able to comply with the guidance. I think that we should focus on that initially.
I have sympathies with Stephen Kerr and think that we should look at putting the guidance on a statutory footing, but I would not want to delay things too much longer. We need to get on and make sure that the guidance is in place and that there is a united front behind it, so that it is effective.
If we find that we need extra tools and leverage in the future to make sure that best practice is spread, we should return to the statutory footing. We should ask the minister what steps should be taken to get to that position and how she will monitor that, and we must make sure that we have sufficient resource behind the guidance so that teachers feel capable of implementing and following it.
I support what Graeme Dey says—it is the right step to take at this stage. I understand the frustration that Beth Morrison might feel at that, but we have great admiration for what she did. We need to capitalise on the benefits that she has delivered and ensure that the guidance is implemented effectively.
I echo the tributes that have been paid by other members to the petitioner and the work that she and her colleagues have done over the years. In general terms, I support the approach, and I make it clear that I am very supportive of the idea of statutory guidance and of making sure that the reporting is there. It would be proportionate to do that, given the seriousness of the concerns.
I am concerned about the timeframe of writing to the minister. In relation to a legacy paper and perhaps looking at the issue again in the next parliamentary session, which is perhaps four years away, that feels to me to be at the far end of when an evaluation should take place. I would be comfortable if we asked the minister specifically what on-going monitoring of the impact is taking place, year by year. That would give me confidence that the proposed approach is the right one.
I am looking around to see whether anyone else wishes to contribute. I welcome the conversation that we have had. It should be easy to bring us all together on what the next steps should be.
I was a bit late in putting my hand up. We should emphasise the position of children with additional support needs, because the use of restraint on them is proportionately much higher.
Thank you for that, Stephanie.
As I was saying, we have probably come to an agreement that we would like to close the petition, but there are some caveats associated with that, because we want to make sure that what is intended in the guidance is what is actually happening in our schools and education establishments.
If we agree to that, there should be two next steps, but please let me know if I am picking this up wrong. We will write to the cabinet secretary with the points that we have outlined. Ultimately, the matter may have to go down a statutory route, but, in the meantime, we want to make sure that the guidance is being embedded in practice. We want to ask the minister what the Government is doing on the on-going monitoring of the implementation of the guidance and on making sure that schools have the resources to fully train teachers and staff. Stephanie Callaghan has also reinforced the issue of children with additional support needs.
Michael Marra’s point is worthy of inclusion in any communication.
Which part specifically?
You mentioned it: an annual check-in with some quantitative and qualitative information behind it.
On-going monitoring.
That would be very useful, and I think that we all agree with that.
That is great. What else have we got? We recognise that we want the guidance to be embedded and bedded in, with the caveats mentioned. We want to make sure that the guidance serves its purpose, and we reinforce that we have concerns about the lack of statutory underpinning. That will not prevent our closing the petition, but the matter is certainly on our radar.
Does the committee agree to close the petition, write to the cabinet secretary to ask what the Government’s next steps might be on moving forward with statutory underpinning and about how the guidance will be monitored, and share with the Scottish Government the issues that were raised by the petitioner? In relation to Graeme Dey’s point, we could also flag in our legacy paper that our successor committee might want to consider the petition. Are we all content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
That is great.
Getting it Right for Every Child Policy (Human Rights) (PE1692)
The next petition on our agenda is PE1692, which was lodged by Lesley Scott and Alison Preuss on behalf of Tymes Trust and the Scottish Home Education Forum. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to initiate an independent public inquiry into the impact on human rights of the routine gathering and sharing of citizens’ personal information, on which its getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy relies.
The committee previously considered the petition in May. The committee heard that, in January 2020, the Deputy First Minister and then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills had said that guidance and material to support information-sharing practice were being developed. In May, the committee agreed to write to the current Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on timescales for the publication of that guidance.
The cabinet secretary confirmed that refreshed material has been published and explained that the refreshed material, including the statutory guidance for the assessment of wellbeing, were co-produced by working groups including practitioners from relevant sectors, that the statutory guidance on the assessment of wellbeing was subject to a public consultation, and that the remaining documents, including on the role of the named person and information sharing, were subject to direct engagement with key stakeholders.
In the petitioners’ submission, they argued that the cabinet secretary’s submission is irrelevant to the purpose of the petition. That is because the petition calls for a retrospective and independent public inquiry into the impact on human rights of the routine gathering and sharing of citizens’ personal information in relation to the GIRFEC policy and is not about addressing
“possible future harm through any ‘refreshed material’.”
Do members have any comments?
My instinctive position is that this is an appropriate point at which to close the petition. The arguments for and against an inquiry have already been heard, and Parliament previously considered that there was no need for an inquiry. The petition was held open for the purposes of the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill, which the Government introduced to rectify the issues that came about as a result of the Supreme Court judgment on the named person policy. In the end, the Government withdrew that bill in the previous session of Parliament. I understand why the petitioners still feel the way that they do, but the arguments on an inquiry have already been heard, a position has been reached and nothing has changed since that point. The reason why Parliament kept the petition open is also no longer relevant.
As members have no more comments, do we all agree with Ross Greer’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I confirm that we are agreed that we will close the petition.
I thank members for their consideration of the petitions. That brings the public part of today’s meeting to an end. We will consider our final agenda item in private.
11:48 Meeting continued in private until 12:09.