Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are people going to lose their jobs?

You surprise me a little bit. It is almost as though you are saying that you welcome the refresh.

So, strictly speaking, it is not additionality, is it?

Welcome back. The next item on our agenda is consideration of public petitions. We will first consider PE1548, which is about national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. It 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. The petition says that the guidance should support the principles of last resort so that, when it is deemed necessary, restraint should be the minimum required to deal with the agreed risk, for the minimum amount of time, and with appropriate supervision of the child at all times, including during “time out” or seclusion.

The guidance should also support the principles of reducing the use of solitary exclusion and limiting the time that it is used for—for example, by setting a maximum time limit; not using restraints that are cruel, humiliating, painful and unnecessary or that are not in line with trained techniques; and the accountability of teaching and support staff for their actions, which should include recording every incident leading to the use of seclusion or restraint and monitoring of that by the local authority.

The guidance should also include the principles that there will be regular training for staff in how to avoid the use of restraint and that, when restraint is unavoidable, there will be training in the use of appropriate restraint techniques from providers accredited by the British Institute of Learning Disabilities, with no use of restraint by untrained staff.

The petition also calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to appoint a specific agency—either Education Scotland or, possibly, the Care Inspectorate—to monitor the support and care that is given in non-educational areas, including by evaluating the restraint and seclusion of children with special needs in local authority, voluntary sector or private special schools.

Our papers outline the work that was undertaken on the petition by the Public Petitions Committee and the session 5 Education and Skills Committee. In December 2019, the Deputy First Minister and then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirmed that

“the Scottish Government will produce new national guidance that will provide a clear human rights-based policy on physical intervention and seclusion in Scottish schools”.—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 19 December 2019; c 22.]

A working group, whose membership included the petitioner, was established in early 2020 to develop and agree the new guidance. Although progress was delayed by the pandemic, the Deputy First Minister indicated, in correspondence dated 16 February 2021, that the guidance would be finalised later in 2021. As yet, that guidance has not been published.

Do members have any comments on the petition?

With regard to the petitioner’s expectations, it is only fair to say that we are not going to get to this specific aspect of education policy any time soon—not within a year, at least—because of the inquiries that we already have under way. You mentioned the Ken Muir report. On top of that, we have a growing number of legislative requirements, which will also take up our time.

As there are no other comments, do members agree to write to the cabinet secretary, asking for an update on the anticipated timescale for the guidance that is being developed by the working group?

Members indicated agreement.

I am not sure that politicians should be getting involved in that.

The next petition is PE1692, which is on an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. I am not a great fan of all these acronyms; I have to keep reminding myself of what they stand for. The petition, which was lodged by Lesley Scott and Alison Preuss on behalf of Tymes Trust and the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge 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 GIRFEC policy relies.

Our papers say that, in January 2020, the Deputy First Minister and then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills explained that his officials were in the early stages of developing a package of products based on shared principles around how services should handle sensitive personal information, to ensure that children, young people and their parents could be assured that their rights were being respected. At that time, the Deputy First Minister expected to publish those materials at the end of 2020; however, progress was delayed by the pandemic. In February 2021, responding to a request for an update, the Deputy First Minister indicated that the guidance would be finalised later in 2021. As yet, that guidance has not been published.

I ask members for their comments. Although I am not a fan of acronyms, the subject matter of personal data is a critical issue in the minds of many people, including the petitioners.

The final petition is PE1747, which was lodged by Alison Thomson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish schools—primary, secondary and special.

Our papers outline the action that was taken on the petition by the session 5 Public Petitions Committee and its decision to refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee. In its legacy report, the session 5 education committee explained that it undertook work on additional support for learning following the referral of PE1747, which included, at its 18 November 2020 meeting, taking evidence from Angela Morgan on her additional support for learning review report and, as part of its pre-budget scrutiny, looking at additional support needs. However, the committee stated that, given the time constraints, it was unable to fully consider the petition. Do members have any comments on the petition?

That is a very good point, which highlights the concerns of the petitioner. That is, of course, why we are having this discussion.

Are we agreed to keep the petition open and to consider the matter further in a future discussion of our work programme?

Members indicated agreement.