Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes.

There is a really important point here. I have deliberately given the bill a narrow scope. Such considerations need to be context specific. I do not think that it is possible to provide a single set of guidance for all possible settings, particularly when it comes to different age ranges. There have been some calls as to whether the provisions could or should apply to early years settings. For practical reasons, that becomes really complicated. On a commonsense level, we all know that the level of physical interaction that needs to be provided with the youngest children is very different.

On interaction with the existing law, providing a single set of guidance to cover both education settings and care settings is complex. I do not think that double reporting would be required. The Government is also of the view that, if there is double reporting, that can be resolved, at the very least, through clarification and so on. I understand your point but, from my perspective, it is a matter of providing clarity within school settings. To provide something more comprehensive would be beyond the scope of what is achievable or manageable in a member’s bill.

Again, it is incumbent on the Government to look at all those things in the round. Even if you go beyond my bill’s scope and look at some of those settings, such as residential schools and early years settings, they have multiple layers of oversight, which my bill does not alter. Likewise, residential schools must have a relationship with the local authority, which my bill, again, does not alter.

How those different things interact needs to be looked at. Frankly, the scope of some of those bodies needs to be considered. I looked at early years when I was a member of the then education committee in the previous parliamentary session. The Scottish Social Services Council, the Care Inspectorate and local authorities all have a view. We need to consider that.

On the question of the scope, I do not think that the bill will require additional or dual reporting because it is about regulating school settings. It is clear when a school setting is a school setting, and those bodies will already have relationships in place. The wider point is important and needs to be addressed, but it simply would not be sensible for me to attempt to do so with this bill.

That reporting would be collated and published by local authorities at that level. The data would exist at a school level. The member is right to flag the changing nature of inspection regimes and the fact that some schools go for long periods between inspections. However, the inspection regime is meant to be responsive so that, when concerns are raised, there can be inspections on that basis.

We are in the realm of speculation here—I would hope that, in conjunction with the guidance, the reporting regime and some consideration by the inspectorate of how it should proceed, we would see that forming part of an inspection regime and that, if there are specific concerns, the inspectorate might reflect and be able to engage on that basis. That is speculating about where this might end up, but it could and should be part of the role that the inspectorate sees for itself.

Yes, but that level of detail would require to be resolved. The Government is engaging on that point, but I think that that would be a matter for regulations. Strictly and formally speaking, we are talking about the education authority rather than the local authority—in other words, the council that is acting as the education authority for the school in that area. I think that where the school is situated is the more appropriate consideration. I understand the alternative point of view, but I think that that would be the most appropriate and simplest way for the system to work.

The bill says that it is for education authorities to determine.

I struggle to answer that question, because I do not know. I do not really understand why that is not happening, because these are very serious situations.

I take the view that schools act in loco parentis. There is a bond of trust between parents and schools, and parents trust that schools will tell them when things happen to their child. Given the level of recording, reporting and acknowledgement that is already required, I do not understand the argument that it is somehow burdensome to ask for that when it is a result of direct intervention.

The only thing that I can interpret—we see this in some of the responses—is perhaps an anxiety that reporting deliberate action might result in further action. However, that is an argument for putting in the guardrails, with clear processes in place so that that is not the case.

We all understand, especially in relation to children with profound needs, that there might well be a need to intervene physically. However, it is important that we are very clear about how and when that happens. Critically, because schools act in loco parentis, it is also really vital that parents are told. Ultimately, schools act on behalf of parents, so parents must be informed, and as quickly as possible.

That is my understanding. I set out the pattern of my direct engagement with the Scottish Government, but there has also been engagement between the NGBU and Government officials. The Government also notes that education authorities are currently meeting the costs that are associated with the restraint training that is required by the existing guidance and that those costs are acknowledged in the financial memorandum. In a sense, the Government notes our approach and seems broadly to agree with that.