Chamber and committees

I wonder whether Brian Whittle would agree with me that there are two fundamental points here. First, it is important that safeguards are put in place, especially where those issues have been raised by the people who would be delivering the bill. Secondly, as we proceed, given the sensitivity of the issues, we have to be seen to be providing those safeguards. Those are two very important purposes. The second point is about providing strong signals and clarifying principles that we want to see if the bill is to be enacted safely with the confidence of the people who we are going to ask to deliver it. I wonder whether Mr Whittle would agree with those two distinct points.

Forgive me, convener. I move amendment 7.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 112 not moved.

I note what Liam McArthur is saying, and in a sense, he is right, but would he also observe that those amendments were lodged following the RCN requesting them, so the profession itself is asking for those restrictions? Why does he think that those observations—and, indeed, requests—should be rejected?

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.

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 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.

That topic requires detailed guidance. A raft of considerations is involved in notifying parents, guardians or carers that an incident has occurred, but those should quite rightly be a function of guidance rather than put in the bill. I simply want to ensure that the notification happens without question, which is what the bill sets out.

I also note that there have been questions about whether 24 hours is too long. It would be perfectly within the gift of the guidance to specify a shorter period than that. I cannot quite come up with an example, but there are circumstances, particularly around the recording of the incident rather than the informing element, in which a period of reflection or bringing together all the perspectives might be required before the recording can be completed. I expect to see context and other considerations properly included as functions of the guidance, but they are certainly not things that can be included in the bill.