Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I am very glad that it is being as supportive as it is now.

Yes. There was discussion from both directions, to be candid. The Government had considered whether there were ways for it to incorporate the provisions in my bill within other legislation.

On many of the points that have been asked about—especially with regard to Willie Rennie’s question about the GTCS, as well as on some broader points—I feel that the bill might have been better progressed as a Government bill, in some ways, as part of a more comprehensive package. I had been very open to the Government taking it off my hands, so to speak, and taking its provisions forward in other legislation.

The legislative programme has become more congested as we have gone through the session, as we are all aware, but that was part of the discussions. There would have been merit in the bill becoming a Government bill. I also think that there is merit in it being a member’s bill, because it is a way of ensuring that we are keeping pace.

I will try to explain my previous “politician’s answer”. The Government has fundamentally been of the view that there needs to be guidance and clarity in this area—frankly, the guidance needs to improve. The Government had been wary of confronting some of the things that have been described, from the voices that we have heard, and it had therefore been ambiguous as to whether it wanted to put the guidance on a statutory footing, but that had been part of the dialogue throughout the period that I outlined in my introductory remarks.

I hope that that provides some context about the dialogue, and as to whether I think that the proposals could and should be dealt with through a member’s bill or through a Government bill.