Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a pertinent question. In some ways, the issue relates to what I said to George Adam. If there was lots of detail in the bill, I might agree with some of those concerns, but there is not. The bill also does not specify a timeline for the Government to produce guidance; it states only that the Government must produce guidance and ensure that it is updated. It does not say anything about timing. It also does not preclude or pre-empt any reflections; it just requires the Government, as a matter of law, to undertake reflections.

Another key point relates to data. We still do not know the prevalence of some of what we are talking about. I apologise for restating this point, but we are talking about some of the most serious things that can occur in a school setting. Without consistent data, it is hard to have those reflections. As I said, the bill does not pre-empt any reflections. The guidance will be iterative—I do not believe that the guidance that will be produced will be immutable for ever—but we need data in order to have guidance that can be updated.

That was very similar.

Again, let us be really clear about what the bill will do: the definitions will not create any prohibitions or offences. There is nothing in the bill on individual teacher compliance; it will be for schools and local authorities to oversee. It is not the case that individual teachers will face those questions; the questions are for school leaders and local authorities.

Secondly—apologies if I am repeating myself—creating scope in a bill and providing further detail in guidance is a fairly typical way to legislate. My bill makes particular provision to allow those definitions to be elaborated. I know that there is concern about the use of the word “elaborate”, but let us be clear about what we are talking about: it is not about expanding on but about refining, specifying and clarifying. It is important that the guidance is clear because, ultimately, that is the appropriate place for practical advice so that teachers have clarity about what is appropriate or not.

To bring it back to the fundamentals, if force is being used by an individual against another individual that deprives them of their ability to act, that is serious and I think that there needs to be clarity about how and when that is permissible. All the bill does is state that the Government has to provide that clarity in guidance.

I would expect nothing less of Mr Rennie.

Yes. I might put it more strongly than that: that would be inappropriate. I think that it should be 24 hours for good reason. If you were a parent, the very latest that you would want to know is the next day. Your parental responsibilities span the weekend, and the consequences of an incident such as that might be germane, because they might result in your child being distressed and unable to articulate why. The very longest time that a parent should have to wait before knowing that something has occurred is 24 hours. As I indicated in my previous answer, in some cases, that might be too long. That is the very longest that I would want it to be.

Yes.

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

The point about de-escalation is interesting. I have seen all the written submissions that questioned why de-escalation did not specifically feature in the bill. However, it is absolutely embedded in the thinking behind the bill and informs its direction of travel. There is also the question of future-proofing the legislation, which I want to do. “De-escalation” is the current terminology, but it does not have a basis in law. Members are all familiar with the fact that terminology will probably have moved on in 10 years’ time.

To be clear, my focus is on physical intervention. The consequences of people getting it wrong when they use de-escalation techniques are of a different order of magnitude from those of getting it wrong when they use physical restraint. That is the target that I have in mind.

It boils down to the need for clarity. That suggestion works both ways, in that people not intervening when they should is not necessarily something that one would want, but neither is overuse of physical interventions. That is why it is really important, especially in the context of children with additional support needs, that those people who are likely to need to intervene absolutely have a level of training over and above what we might normally expect. However, we also need clarity about what is and is not appropriate. The danger lies where there is ambiguity.

I just want to thank the committee. I hope that I have provided all the answers that you need, but please come back to me if you require any further clarification. Above all else, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: thank you very much for taking this time—I know that the committee is very busy. This has been a pretty extended endeavour for me, so I appreciate members taking the time and effort to look at my bill.