Roz McCall
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“That restraint and seclusion have been used inconsistently and without parents being told is worrying, and that is exactly what the bill hopes to address. When parents find out what has happened to their child only because of bruises, distress and changes in behaviour, that is not just a failure to communicate; it is a failure of trust.”
“Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have been mentioned by absolutely everyone who has contributed to the debate, which shows just how much work they have done to contact every single one of us, to lobby us and to highlight how important the legislation is.”
“Further discussion is not needed—decisive action is. The recommendations in the “Strengthening the Safety Net” report talk about having a national adoption practice model, improved training, mandatory data collection, enhanced crisis intervention and a more flexible adoption allowance.”
“Other areas of concern include the robust transfer of post-adoption support from a specialist adoption team to generic children and families services after three years. In theory, that might seem to be administratively tidy, but in practice it fails to reflect the complexity and longevity of adoptive family life.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the motion to the chamber and for continuing to highlight the importance of strengthening adoption support for families across Scotland.”
“My very first debate on this issue when I became an MSP was a members’ business debate on Scotland’s forgotten children, focusing on adoption in Scotland and the urgent need to improve post- adoption support.”
The complete record
Every one of 585 lines we hold for Roz McCall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“The purpose is straightforward: to support parents, to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life and to unlock workforce potential in order to reduce poverty. Many young children respond and develop well when nurtured at home by their parents, but whether to do that is a choice that families should be able to make if they can afford to do so. Too many families are forced into a different position and put under financial pressure, because it is not possible for them to balance the cost of childcare with returning to work. By targeting support to those who need it most, we can ease the financial pressures on families, support parents who wish to return to employment and strengthen Scotland’s economy at the same time. Another issue lies in the inflexibility of the system.”
“It is in that context that I will be clear about where we stand. The Scottish Conservatives are committed to building a country that supports working families from the very start. We believe that no parent should be forced to choose between financial stability and staying at home simply because affordable childcare is out of reach. When parents tell us that it does not make financial sense for them to work, that is a signal that the system is not functioning as it should. Work should provide security, independence and opportunity, not place families under greater strain. That is why we have proposed the introduction of means-tested childcare from the age of nine months.”
“Two thirds of mothers said that childcare costs are the same as or more than their income, and more than half of mothers stated that, after paying for childcare, it does not make financial sense for them to work. Those are shocking statistics. Too many families need both parents working to ensure that they have a roof over their head, heat in their homes and food on their table. Working simply to afford the childcare that allows them to return to work does not provide that security. When the majority of mothers say that employment does not pay once childcare is factored in, we must ask ourselves whether the system is truly delivering for families. With 50 per cent of fathers expressing the same concern, we see that it is a widespread societal issue and not a gender-based one.”
“Every parent who is able to re-enter employment because childcare is available represents greater economic participation and greater financial stability for their family, but families in Mid Scotland and Fife and across the country continue to tell us that affordable and flexible childcare can be difficult to find. Availability does not always align with working patterns, provision does not always match demand and costs remain a significant barrier. That is why the work of organisations such as Pregnant Then Screwed deserves our recognition. Through campaigning and evidence gathering, Pregnant Then Screwed has ensured that the lived experience of parents is heard in policy debates across the UK. Its 2026 state-of-the-nation survey produced sobering findings.”
“I thank members from across the chamber for supporting my motion to allow this debate to take place. It is on a really important issue, and I am delighted that we have a chance to debate it in the final few weeks of the parliamentary session. The motion speaks to two connected truths with which we can all agree: childcare strengthens families, which strengthens Scotland’s economy. Providing childcare is not simply a social policy; it is an economic lever. When parents are able to access affordable, flexible and accessible childcare, they are better able to return to work, increase their hours or pursue training and career progression, which supports household income, reduces financial pressures and contributes to national productivity.”
“The wording of my statement in December was very clear that the Government was not, at that point, ruling out further inquiries in this space. I also said that I would come back to Parliament in February with a more substantive update. I have done that today and I have committed to a further inquiry, which I am glad to hear that Conservative members will support. I will make a final point in relation to policing, which is that additional funding has been provided to Police Scotland through the budget. We will, of course, come to stage 3 of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill later this afternoon, and I very much hope that the Conservatives find themselves able to vote for a budget that will provide additional income to Police Scotland to allow it to respond to some of the real challenges that we see in relation to child sexual abuse.”
“In December, I gave an update to the Parliament on the work of the inspectorates. On Ms McCall’s point about timescales and the terms of reference, that work will be pivotal in informing Alexis Jay’s understanding of the terms of reference. She will be the inquiry’s independent chair, so it is not for me, as the cabinet secretary, to stipulate what the terms of reference should be. The point about independence has also consistently been put to me by survivors. I am sure that Roz McCall has also heard that through her engagement with survivors, many of whom lack faith in some of those organisations, for well understood reasons. Bringing a level of independence to the process is, therefore, hugely important. Roz McCall mentioned that this represented a U-turn from Government. However, I do not necessarily accept that point.”
“The inquiry will consider historical matters, but what immediate targeted support will be provided to police, social work and specialist child protection services to ensure for victims that there are no more cover-ups? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Jenny Gilruth: Roz McCall touched on a number of points, and I will try to cover each in turn. Ms McCall talked specifically about having faith in the process. Throughout my engagement with survivors, I have been keen to ensure that all these issues are not politicised. Across the board, we need to be careful not to use individual cases in the chamber, for example. Instead, we must consider the evidence base, which is exactly what I have been doing throughout this process, in order to arrive at informed decisions.”
“When pushed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs asked Meghan Gallacher to make the case for a public inquiry and questioned what added value it would bring. I wonder what has happened to change the Government’s mind in that regard. It is essential that the inquiry is independent, its terms of reference must be defined without further delay, and all institutions must be held accountable. Cabinet secretary, your colleagues have misled the Parliament on the matter, so we must have absolute faith in the process and the inquiry’s findings. What are the inquiry’s parameters? Is anything off limits? What does the Government expect the timeframe to be for the report to be published for scrutiny? Will you provide MSPs with any additional evidence that has led to this U-turn?”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. Finally. We have been calling for a public inquiry on grooming gangs since my colleague, Liam Kerr, lodged an amendment in that regard in September last year. I note that the statement refers to the Government sharing the sense of urgency, but, to be clear, we are at this point only because of the relentless campaigning by victims groups and the continual questions that my Conservative colleagues have asked. We have known for some time that victims have highlighted cross-border trafficking, and it is scandalous that they were not listened to before now. Every day that we have waited for an inquiry, another victim has gone without the justice that they deserve.”
“We have increased access in both college and university enrolment for those from a care-experienced background. However, I appreciate the point about retention and the wider responsibility that we, collectively as a Parliament and a country, have to care-experienced people through the Promise. If the member has the forbearance, I will take that away and engage with Skills Development Scotland, working with my colleague who leads on the Promise. I will provide reassurance and look into any further action that can be taken to make a positive impact for the people who she rightly highlights need our help, and as much assistance as we can give them, to ensure that we fulfil the”
“The initial enrolment in apprenticeships as a post- school destination is a positive step, but the real challenge lies with sustained retention. Nine months after leaving school, the proportion of care- experienced young people in positive destinations drops by 15 percentage points, falling from 86.4 per cent to 71 per cent. In my region, Fife College reports that only 46.5 per cent of care-experienced students successfully complete their course compared to 63 per cent of the general student population. Can the minister outline what mandatory retention measures the Scottish Government is embedding in its new apprenticeship contracts to ensure that care- experienced apprentices are supported to the finish line and not just at the starting blocks? Ben Macpherson: The member is right to highlight those issues.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that hundreds of teachers have sought medical treatment following attacks by pupils in the last five years. (S6F-04684)”
“We need to deal with the fact that, on average, energy prices have been 50 per cent higher in this country than they have been elsewhere. I hope that that gives Parliament a sense of my priorities. Following the announcement that I made today, we will work quickly to deliver that funding as a matter of priority well ahead of the original commitment, which was that it would start in the next financial year. Instead, it will be deployed this month. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Lorna Slater to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 17:00”
“We have heard talk of industrial and other strategies. I was struck, as, I am sure, were others, by the comments that Paul Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil, made—I think when he appeared before a UK Parliament committee. He talked about the costs he faced and said: “My international competitors do not have those costs. I also have to deal with high energy costs and those kind of things”. There are policies that he talked about wanting to see changed. We have come through the challenges at Grangemouth. I have talked about the issues that Alexander Dennis faced, and about ExxonMobil and Mossmorran—and there are others, too. I am conscious of the need to ensure that we reduce the costs that some of those businesses face that their competitors across Europe simply do not face.”
“The third area is about the wider community. In our first engagement on the issue, Alex Rowley— alongside you, Deputy Presiding Officer, if I am allowed to say that—made the point about mitigating the social and economic impact on the wider community. We are doing that mitigation in two ways. One is through the work that Fife Council is leading on, and the other is through the work that Scottish Enterprise is doing. I have invited Scottish Enterprise to consider where it might provide investment now to businesses that are unconnected with Mossmorran and ExxonMobil, where that might create accelerated employment opportunities in the community to mitigate the loss of jobs or the economic impact. I have frequently raised that point with the unions, too, in relation to their suggestions. The final plan is about the country.”
“On the plan for the site, immediately on hearing the news, Scottish Enterprise joined me in a meeting with the company to get access to as much of the analysis as possible about the land and the site. Willie Rennie said, “It is a good site”— I think that that is a direct quote—and it absolutely is a good site. It is well positioned and it has access to utilities and to water. Scottish Enterprise has zoned the site into what could be made available more immediately, in order to connect that information with potential interested parties. It also intends to undertake a wider marketing exercise, so that those over and above the parties on the Grangemouth interested parties list will also be aware of the opportunities at the site. That is part of our objective of ensuring that there is long-term employment at the site.”
“As I announced today, we are also providing skills support for both direct and contracted staff, which is a little bit different from what we have done elsewhere. We have heard that a significant proportion of the workers who are affected by redundancy as a direct consequence of the site’s closure are contract staff. As with ExxonMobil’s direct employees, those are highly skilled workers with in-demand technical competences such as electrical engineering, welding and pipe fitting. The funding that we have announced will extend support to them—an approach that deviates from approaches taken elsewhere. Alex Rowley talked about the support from other employers: I have had direct conversations with Babcock—as has Scottish Enterprise—to provide connections with employers that are looking to recruit. That is the plan for the workforce.”
“What I have heard is consistent with what I have heard from the workforce representatives, the trade unions and other stakeholders: that, right now, we need a plan for the workforce, a plan for the site, a plan for the community and a plan for the country. Let me take those in turn. I start with the workforce. Today, I announced accelerated funding over and above the £9 million that we have already committed to. That funding will stand up immediate training needs analysis for affected workers. It will provide courses that meet the identified training needs of affected workers. Phase 1 of the project focuses on immediate, direct support for affected workers, and phase 2 will involve more general and tailored training programmes.”
“However, they need investment, infrastructure and business and manufacturing growth—and certainly not just talk. I need bring my remarks to a close. A fair transition must work for all workers, as well as for climate goals. If a transition takes away a community’s identity, jobs and future, people will not support it, and they are right not to do so. Constituents are not asking for special treatment. They want honesty and a clear plan. When an industry changes, they want to know what will take its place. Let us stop focusing on decline and start creating the opportunities for Mossmorran, Fife and for Scotland’s energy future. 16:54 Kate Forbes: It has been a good debate.”
“As a result, skilled workers are leaving the sector, the country, or the workforce altogether. A transition works only if there are new jobs ready before the old ones disappear. I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s news today that there is accelerated funding from the Scottish Government for retraining. However, energy policy also needs to be realistic. Today, Scotland still depends on oil and gas for most of its energy. Stopping domestic production does not end demand. It simply means that we import more, which leads to higher emissions, fewer jobs and less economic security. Communities know the importance of environmental responsibility. Many Mossmorran workers want to help to build the future of energy, including carbon capture, hydrogen fusion, advanced manufacturing and low-carbon fuels.”
“That is not a just transition; that is reckless, and working families are paying the price. Mark Ruskell: For years, we have called for a plan. I produced a research report in 2022 that outlined five options for Mossmorran. Four of those were about reinvestment in the site and would have delivered a future for the site, but the operators simply were not interested. It is not the case that we have been calling for a closure of Mossmorran; we have been calling for reinvestment and a plan. Roz McCall: Unfortunately, there is evidence of the Greens standing outside calling for a closure. As much as I accept that Mark Ruskell has done some work on this, that does not fit with the rhetoric that has been coming across. Across Scotland, we have lost thousands of oil and gas jobs, but new industries have not grown quickly enough to replace them.”
“For years, the Scottish Government promised a plan for a transition. Claire Baker highlighted that in her contribution. However, when the closure was announced, there was no plan. Workers learned about their future from the news. That is not a just transition—it is uncertainty that is being forced on working communities. I accept the work that Mark Ruskell has done in the industry over the years and I acknowledge that the Greens have brought today’s debate to the chamber—but my constituents have long memories. They remember the years of campaigning to shut Mossmorran down entirely. You cannot relentlessly demand the closure of an industry and tell workers that their livelihoods are incompatible with your vision, and then feign shock when jobs, apprenticeships and local investment begin to disappear.”
“Both Daniel Johnson and Willie Rennie highlighted an important point, which is that plans for how a transition will work in reality need to be in place ahead of time. The detail on that has been missing. The closure of ExxonMobil ethylene plant puts about 400 direct and contracted jobs at risk. Each job supports a family, a local business and a community that relies on skilled industrial work. For generations, people in the area have worked in energy and manufacturing. These are not just numbers—they are welders, engineers, technicians and apprentices who have spent years building their skills. What upsets local people most is not the change itself; they know that industries change over time. However, what they do not accept is letting things decline without planning for what comes next.”
“I speak today not only as a member of the Scottish Parliament but as the regional MSP for the communities living next to Mossmorran every day. When I became an MSP four years ago, I tried to hit the ground running and to understand the issues in the area. For the people in Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, Cardenden and the nearby villages, this debate is not just about theory; it is personal. It affects their jobs, homes and apprenticeships, and it is about whether families can keep building their future in Fife. The motion talks about a just transition but, for many local workers, this is far from just. It does not feel fair or anything like a real transition. To them, it feels like an ending, with nothing taking its place.”
“I ask members across the chamber to support the bill. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Decision Time 20:01”
“Without that evidence base, we will not be able to move forward, so it is imperative that that work is undertaken so that the guidance can be supported by the evidence that is gathered. The bill is not an end point, but it is progress. It is a chance to make children’s voices stronger in our schools and to improve how we uphold children’s rights in law. Today, we have the opportunity to take the next step on our children’s rights journey. Children’s rights are not abstract things that sit on a shelf; they are the real, lived experiences of the young people in our schools. Improving children’s rights must be a shared endeavour for all political parties in a Parliament of minorities. This is a journey, ultimately, but it is also a responsibility that rests on us all to strengthen, uphold and realise the rights of every child in Scotland.”
“The Government has responded to those asks, and we have tried to chart a middle route accordingly. I am pleased that we have been able to support a range of amendments from colleagues that I believe have strengthened the bill. We have listened, and at stage 3 the Government lodged a range of new amendments to reflect the issues that were raised at stage 2. With regard to part 1 of the bill, the Government worked with members to lodge amendments in relation to the statutory guidance and the reporting and monitoring of withdrawal requests—a point that was raised in this afternoon’s debate. There is currently a challenge in relation to the evidence base, which is exactly why amendments that were lodged, and agreed to this evening, will seek to build that evidence base—a point that Karen Adam made very successfully.”
“Mr Cole-Hamilton has spoken this evening of the improvements to the bill at stages 2 and 3, and I am grateful to his party for its support in that regard. For example, there is the separation of RME and religious observance, which is a position that is also supported by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The bill is a step forward, building on our framework to support children’s rights. Karen Adam spoke about her experiences as committee convener, and I again pay tribute to committee members for their careful consideration of the issues more broadly. Throughout the passage of the bill, I have tried to listen carefully to members; to public authorities; and to education, faith and belief and children’s rights stakeholders.”
“Stephen Kerr: We have discussed ad nauseum the moral and legal responsibilities of parents, but my point is that the parents’ wish can be set aside, can it not? That is what the bill will do. Many people—at least those on one side of the matter— point to that as a fundamental change in the architecture around parents’ rights. Jenny Gilruth: I do not agree with Mr Kerr’s assertion in that regard, because a withdrawal request can be initiated only by a parent or carer— that is not changing. What is changing is that we are putting into statute the requirement to engage with children and young people on their views, as we would expect in relation to UNCRC requirements. I am mindful of the time, Presiding Officer.”
“Jenny Gilruth: Mr O’Kane and I discussed that at stage 2. I am not currently able to give him an example, because that is a future-proofing power to protect our public authorities. That has been the purpose of provisions throughout the bill. The power is reflected in the Human Rights Act 1998, so the approach that the Government has taken is not unusual, but it is much more focused. Mr Kerr raised a number of points, not least in relation to the role of parents. I again put on the record the fact that parents have a clear role in the withdrawal process, which can be initiated only by parents or carers—that is protected and provided for in the bill. They solely retain the power to initiate a request, and they must be involved in the discussions. That will be set out in the statutory guidance that we will publish in due course.”
“As has been rehearsed throughout stages 1 and 2 and again in the debate on amendments today, part 1 is necessary to address questions that have been raised about UNCRC obligations in relation to existing legislation. Part 2 of the bill is necessary to bring clarity to the law in relation to preventing public authorities from being caught by conflicting duties. It is important to restate that the bill is short and technical in nature. It is the case that we have been able to chart a middle ground through the bill and to find consensus on a number of different issues. Paul O’Kane: On the part 2 provisions, will the cabinet secretary point to an example of where she thinks a public authority might require that exemption? I do not believe that she has been able to do so thus far, and it would be useful for the record.”
“Reflecting that we draw near to the dissolution of the Parliament, regardless of who forms the next Scottish Government, I sincerely hope that the commitment to protecting and enhancing children’s rights will continue. I recognise that the bill might not go as far as some members had hoped, but it is a meaningful and measured step forward, and it will make a real difference in how children’s rights are understood and protected. I pay tribute to my bill team, who are sat at the back of the chamber. They are the civil servants and lawyers who expertly advise ministers on legislation, and I am grateful for their diligence and support throughout the passage of the bill. A number of points have been raised by members in the debate. I will start by addressing why the legislation is required.”
“The bill will replace a flexible approach with a legal process that assumes that children of any age have capacity and that asks schools to decide between parent and child. That is not a minor adjustment; it fundamentally redefines roles and responsibilities. The Scottish Conservatives support children’s rights and believe that young people’s voices matter. However, rights exist within relationships, and parents retain primary responsibility for guiding their children. Because of that, we will not vote for the bill at stage 3. 19:55 Jenny Gilruth: Before responding to points that have been made in the debate by colleagues from across the chamber, I will begin with a thank you. Throughout the passage of the bill, the commitment to strengthening children’s rights in Scotland has been shared across most, if not all, political parties.”
“The bill also changes the UNCRC compatibility duty by increasing the number of situations in which public authorities can act against the convention because of primary legislation. That is a technical but important legal change. Amendments that were made at stage 2 already expect legal disputes and set out ways for senior legal officers to get involved, but we should not pass legislation and resolve its consequences after the fact. Religious and moral education in schools is meant to help pupils to explore beliefs, values and ethical questions; it is not about indoctrination. Current guidance already asks schools to consider the child’s view when a withdrawal is requested, allowing for fair, age-appropriate discussion without forcing schools to act as the arbitrator in family disputes.”
“Major stakeholders have raised concerns about whether the bill is needed, how practical it is and what resources it would require. The Church of Scotland has asked whether there is any evidence that a new law is needed. The Educational Institute of Scotland has warned that the resource demands may be underestimated and that the bill could affect workloads and relationships in schools. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has said that it is hard to see how the bill could be put in place without adding burdens for schools, parents and pupils. Those are not minor voices; they are the people who will have to put the legislation into practice. I question whether the bill properly addresses the issue. It risks creating new disputes between parents and children for schools to manage.”
“However, the convention also recognises that parents have the main responsibility to guide their children in using those rights as they grow and mature. For decades, Scottish educational law has kept that balance by listening to children and respecting the role of parents. It values independence and family responsibility. The central issue with the bill is that it alters that balance. After stage 2 changes, parents will no longer have the final say in withdrawing their child from religious and moral education. Instead, schools will need to notify the pupil, tell them that they can object, check their understanding—with no set minimum age—and, in some cases, let the child’s objection overrule the parent’s request. That represents a significant legal and cultural shift in how educational decisions are made.”
“My last comment on members’ speeches is about the point that Paul O’Kane made in his speech about what the bill is for and why we are doing it now. That was a very interesting point. I, too, look forward to the cabinet secretary giving us an answer to that question in her response. The points that he and the Labour Party have raised on denominational schools are valid. Now that I have commented on the debate, I want to add a few lines. Children should have their say in decisions about their education. The UNCRC recognises that. As I said, article 12 states that a child who is capable of forming a view has the right to express it and that that view should be “given due weight in accordance with … age and maturity”. We accept that.”
“She described a situation in which somebody requested to go to a playgroup because they wanted to but the parents did not want the child to be in a religious playgroup. That highlights the issue that we have been talking about regarding which side we would possibly choose. If the parents then forced the issue, the playgroup would be forced to become the mediator between the family and the child. I highlight the points that Miles Briggs, Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson made about the conflict between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UNCRC. Because those two forms of legislation are not compatible in this respect—there are contradictions—I think that all those members are right that there could be a legal challenge.”
“The debate has been thoughtful, and I thank members from all parties for their contributions. Everyone who spoke did so out of a genuine concern for children and young people in Scotland’s schools. The cabinet secretary has tried to get a balance in the bill, but how do we balance article 12 of the UNCRC, which states that a child who is capable of forming views has the right to express them, against article 5, which states: “States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom”? It is a difficult road to travel. The Deputy First Minister’s intervention on my colleague Miles Briggs highlighted the issue.”
“However, I can be clear that the staff in our hospitals whom I met when I launched “Palliative Care Matters for All”, and more widely, are absolutely focused on ensuring that they provide the best palliative care or end-of-life treatment. That is really important. We, in this chamber, need to come together to work out the best way to support the strategy that the Scottish Government launched last year, which I am sure Ms McCall will have read, and the number of outcomes that are in it. That focuses very much on ensuring that we have the right outcomes for people and the right staff complement to support those families.”
“I note the minister’s comments that this is not an either/or situation. However, Marie Curie’s research shows that 18,500 people die with unmet palliative care needs each year, and the Association for Palliative Medicine warns that 40 per cent of doctors might leave the speciality if assisted dying is introduced. Does the Government accept that losing those clinicians would widen the existing gap in end-of-life care? What assessment has the Government made of the impact on the workforce during the passage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill through Parliament? Jenni Minto: I am afraid that I cannot answer the second part of Roz McCall’s question.”
“I think that all the points raised by the committee are right and I hope to work on amendments, either directly myself or with others, to ensure that we improve this bill. I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on the front benches to change over. Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“On definitions, we need to ensure that, particularly in recording and reporting practice, we are not inadvertently capturing other things. As some members pointed out, hugs are not restraint. A supportive hand on the shoulder is not restraint. Although the definition in the bill talks about removing the ability to voluntarily move, we can tighten that definition. I will look at that—things such as the deliberateness of the use, the length of time, the risks involved and the nature of the intervention need to be captured, particularly in relation to the recording and reporting, so that we do not create unnecessary work. That is doable. I am keen to work with the trade unions, other relevant bodies, the Government and everyone in this chamber to make sure that we get those definitions right and on other points that have been raised.”
“There are two safeguards there: first, the information will be provided to ministers not on the basis of the school but on the basis of the local authority. Secondly, I deliberately left it to the discretion of ministers to decide how that would be detailed, because we need to take care about it and jigsaw identification must be avoided. We should note that not only was the General Teaching Council for Scotland broadly supportive of the bill, it made the point that perhaps we need to go further. That reflects on many of the points raised by the cabinet secretary. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has also taken a constructive approach. I am almost out of time—as the member in charge of the bill, between the six minutes for my introduction and the five minutes to conclude, I have a lot to pack in.”
“Likewise, on training, the bill restates what is already in guidance about the training being made available. There is no point in this legislation at which it says that all teachers must be trained. On workload, I am clear that there should be no additional workload. If, as the EIS agrees, such incidents should already be recorded, there should be no additional workload. Critically, we know that accidental injuries are recorded in a comprehensive way—that is part of current practice and, if the recording is being omitted when the interventions are deliberate, there are bigger questions for us to ask. Finally, on the matter of league tables, the legislation sets out that the information will be gathered at local authority level and passed on to the Scottish ministers.”
“The 2017 guidance made it clear that local authorities should have clear procedures and training available for teachers and went on to say that all instances of the decision to use physical intervention “must be recorded and monitored.” That was in 2017—it is not new. I reflect that, often, we legislate without having detailed guidance to implement the measures in the legislation until after the passage of the bill. We have an advantage here in that a decade or more of guidance to build on, so we know what we are talking about. On the legal question, let us be clear that the obligations will be for local authorities and for schools, not for individual teachers. That is not to say that individual teachers will not be asked to play their part but, critically, the obligations rest at a different level.”
“If that has to happen, we need the most robust procedures around it. Whenever the state intervenes physically, using force, we rightly expect and demand that that has robust monitoring and supervision. Why would we not have that expectation for our children? We must acknowledge the EIS’s concerns. Maggie Chapman did an excellent job of dealing with them, but let me reiterate its key concerns, which were around timing, legal questions for individual teachers, training, workload and league tables. In relation to timing, it is not true that the provisions of the bill are new and were only introduced in the 2024 non-statutory guidance.”
“Kate and Beth are a dynamic duo and a dream team. I will just reflect on something that Douglas Ross touched on. I believe in the Scottish Parliament, because it brings power closer to people and makes the possibility of change much more realistic for people. If we pass the bill, the process will demonstrate to Beth and Kate that it is delivering on that promise to Scottish people. We should always be clear on what we are talking about. Restraint and seclusion, in the most serious instances, are about children—often vulnerable children—being pinned down and held in stress or prone positions. We are talking about seclusion and being put in a locked room, which is sometimes called a chill-out room but is not—it is a cupboard with a lock or, sometimes, a padded room. That is not right—not in this day and age.”
“No family should have to endure the experiences that members have heard, some of which have been narrated in the debate, but we have an opportunity today to change lives and to create positive, inclusive and safe school environments. The Scottish Government is therefore happy to support the general principles of Daniel Johnson’s bill. 15:47 Daniel Johnson: I almost do not know how to respond to the overwhelming and universal compliments that I have received this afternoon. I cannot claim not to occasionally use a theatrical flourish in the Parliament, but I try to approach my work in a collegiate way, to deal with things matter- of-factly and to work with people from right across the chamber, and I hope that some of that is reflected. I, too, reiterate my thanks to Beth and Calum Morrison and Kate Sanger.”