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 5 of 12.
“Natalie Don-Innes: I appreciate the points that Ms McCall has made, but I do not think that we are taking a timid approach. As I have said, “Realising the ambition” is internationally recognised in what it aims to achieve. At the moment, I am focused on ensuring that the guidance is fully embedded and implemented in our early years provision. That will have huge benefits, some of which Ms McCall has directly referred to. However, I am very open to continuing these conversations, because I am fully aware of the benefits and outcomes that we are seeing in other countries. Early Years Education and Childcare (Impact of Increased Provision) 5.”
“It is now evident, through studies that have been conducted across the world, that a kindergarten approach is beneficial to a child’s development, and I welcome the positive way in which the minister is open to that. The model gives children time and space to learn through exploration, relationships and safe environments. It has been proven to lead to stronger language and communication skills, better emotional wellbeing and improved problem solving, and it has the potential to narrow the attainment gap. It is not a soft option; it is the way to go, and it can improve academic performance in the later years of a child’s education. Given all that, can the minister explain why we have a timid approach to the kindergarten model and why we are not embracing it, with both hands, for children in Scotland?”
“The bill as it is currently drafted does not strike that balance. It does not provide the clear safeguards or commonsense guidance that is required to protect relationships and wellbeing, and—despite its intentions—it risks creating confusion, inconsistency and conflict. We need an approach that is grounded in common sense, clarity and genuine respect for all those at the heart of education: parents, teachers and, of course, our young people. 15:52”
“Stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, have said that the bill addresses only part of the issue. Crucially, there is still no clear example of where such a conflict in Scots law would arise, and yet here we are, placing another layer of complexity on to public authorities without clear justification. At a time when schools are stretched and teachers are under pressure, and when we should be doing everything possible to support them, the bill risks adding confusion rather than clarity. We should all share the intention of strengthening children’s rights, but those rights must be implemented in a way that supports families and does not strain them; in a way that considers children’s emotional needs and does not burden them; and in a way that respects the vital partnerships between parents, teachers and schools.”
“In a time when division and misunderstanding are so easily amplified, removing children from opportunities to learn about other people would risk deepening social fractures. We should be encouraging tolerance, not unintentionally narrowing young people’s horizons. Again, we must approach that with common sense. The number of withdrawal requests is very small, at around 4,000 children across Scotland, yet the bill will introduce a legally complex, administratively heavy process that will affect every school and every teacher, and every family regardless of whether they have ever considered withdrawing their child. That is neither proportionate nor practical. The Government’s proposal to amend the UNCRC compatibility duty raises more questions than it answers.”
“Respect must be the thread running through all of this: respect for parents as primary educators; respect for teachers as professionals; and respect for young people as developing individuals who need guidance, not pressure. Religious and moral education, and indeed religious observance, play an important role in helping children to understand different cultures, beliefs and world views. As Claire Benton-Evans reminded us, “children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 10.] in order for them to grow into the inclusive and tolerant citizens that we want for Scotland. It is about fostering understanding, not promoting doctrine.”
“Douglas Hutchison described the practicalities as “burdensome for the school and onerous for the child and parent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 34.] Teachers across Scotland who work every day with children of vastly different developmental stages have said plainly that the process would be hard to implement consistently or fairly. We cannot ignore the reality. We cannot legislate in a way that sounds good in theory but causes stress and confusion in practice. We must put children’s wellbeing at the forefront so that we do not create situations in which a child feels torn between their parents and their school or responsible for making decisions that they might not be emotionally ready for.”
“It should not create conflict; it should not place new emotional burdens on young people; and it should not put teachers in the impossible position of having to navigate family disagreements—yet that is what the bill does. Under the proposed process, schools would have to inform a child of their parents’ withdrawal request, gauge the child’s capacity, gather their views and then, potentially, override the parent. That might look tidy on paper, but, in a real school, with real families and real pressures, that would be far from straightforward. Stakeholders have been crystal clear. Susan Quinn of the EIS warned of significant concerns about resources, workload and the impact on relationships.”
“However, through the bill, the Government is asking the Parliament to make significant changes to how families, schools and children navigate decisions about religious observance and about religious and moral education—we have already heard that those two aspects are not the same. Those are deeply personal areas of a child’s education, so any changes to them must treat families with the respect that they deserve. Scottish Conservatives absolutely believe that children should be heard in decisions that affect their lives. Their voices matter, their experiences matter, and their wellbeing—emotional or otherwise—must always be at the heart of what we do. However, listening to children must sit alongside a practical, commonsense approach that respects the crucial role that parents play in shaping their children’s upbringing.”
“I am pleased to speak in the stage 1 debate. The bill raises profound questions about how we balance children’s rights, parental responsibilities and the practical realities of delivering education in Scottish classrooms. At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that children must have a say in their education. Their voices matter, their experiences matter, and their wellbeing—in particular, their emotional wellbeing—must guide our thinking. Over many years, Scotland has rightly taken steps to ensure that children are listened to, which I whole-heartedly support.”
“In 2024, there were 284,448 pupils in Scotland’s schools with additional support needs, which represents a record high of 40.5 per cent of the total pupil population. Conversely, the number of ASN teachers has decreased, to a record low of 2,837. In 2010, one ASN teacher was supporting 20 pupils, but by 2024, the same teacher was supporting more than 100 pupils. Without proper investment in ASN support staff, the difficulties in our classrooms will continue to rise. In conclusion, we can make the policy changes that will actively change the outcomes for Scotland’s children, but only if we have a Government that is willing to do it. 16:52”
“However, the consequences have to be accepted not only by the pupil but by the parents, the teachers and the local authority alike. I urge the Scottish Government to re-address its approach in that regard. Another issue that is having a detrimental effect on behaviour in our classrooms is the rise in additional support needs in a classroom setting. There is much evidence coming forward as to the detriment to our young people as a result of things such as the extended lockdowns through the pandemic and the harmful side effects of smartphone apps. It is essential that we accept the current position and provide ASN staff accordingly. As I have previously mentioned in the chamber, the number of pupils with additional support needs has increased significantly.”
“Mike Corbett of the NASUWT in Scotland has stated: “The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”, and said that “You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.” Although a structured conversation between staff and pupils to address incidents of poor behaviour is certainly an option, it has to be backed up with robust consequences that are completely accepted and understood. Martin Whitfield: We are talking about restorative practice. Is it not right to say that that approach works only once a person has developed the skills of empathy and of understanding the consequences of their own actions? Roz McCall: Yes—I could not agree more with that, at a certain level.”
“I believe that boundaries and an understanding of consequences are essential, and issues in that regard are a contributory factor to the reason why Scotland has a greater proportion of violence than the other three of the four UK nations. That opinion is not mine alone—there are increasing doubts among unions and experts about the Scottish education policy of restorative approaches to behaviour management.”
“If we do not look at those issues objectively and without prejudice, we cannot change the outcomes for teachers, children and young people across Scotland. I would like to highlight how I think some of those issues could be addressed. A developing mind has an essential need for boundaries. According to child development experts such as Dr Ross Greene, author of “The Explosive Child”, and Dr Dan Siegel, co-author of “The Whole-Brain Child”, children who grow up with clear and consistent rules tend to have better self-control, stronger decision-making skills and healthier relationships. Without boundaries, children can struggle with self-regulation, develop anxiety and find it difficult to respect others’ limits.”
“I thank Labour for bringing the debate to the chamber on an afternoon that has focused on education and skills. I say at the outset that the issues in our education system in no way reflect the hard work and dedication that is provided by teachers and support staff across the country. However, why do we find ourselves in a position where Scotland’s classrooms are the most violent in the UK, more than a third of our teachers have been attacked with a weapon, more than 64,000 school bullying incidents have been reported by 25 local authorities, and in a survey by NASUWT in March, 83 per cent of its members in Scotland said that the number of violent and abusive pupils had increased in the past 12 months? Why are we in a position where we are the worst in the UK?”
“As I said, at 6.30 this evening I will engage with the unions—Unite and the GMB— to understand how we can support those people as best we can. There are also the supply chain companies that I mentioned to Murdo Fraser, which employ staff who could be affected. We are very conscious that that tallies up to a significant number. We intend to work with the colleges and others through PACE to provide as much support as possible to every member of staff.”
“The statement highlights that a vast number of people in the wider community and supply chain rely on the Fife ethylene plant for their employment. Does the First Minister have any numbers on how many people in Fife will be affected? Considering how many people will be looking for alternative employment and upskilling, can the Scottish Government reassure Fife College that it will have the funding that is required to provide courses, given the inflexibility of the current process? Kate Forbes: The business has shared initial data with us to aid our understanding of the workforce, and we want to continue to work with the company to ensure that we understand the full impact. The member is right. As well as the 179 ExxonMobil staff, there are contractors, who will also need support.”
“More importantly, we need to do preventative work so that women can leave an abusive relationship at the earliest signs and are not trapped because of financial barriers.”
“It is only through such collective endeavour, when we agree budgets and strategies in this place, that we can meet the needs and aspirations of the victims/survivors who our committee spoke to, who were eloquent and impassioned in talking about their experiences—I thank them once more for that. I also thank the people providing front-line services on the ground, such as those at the financially included project, who work day in, day out supporting victims/survivors. Let us come together in this place—the Parliament, the Government and members across parties— not just this afternoon but in the new parliamentary session to meet the needs of all those who find themselves to be victims of economic abuse. That is right for victims/survivors.”
“We heard that there is much more to be done in relation to the benefits system—not just by the UK Government on universal credit but by the Scottish Government and COSLA and local authorities more generally. There is much more to be done in relation to public sector debt—that point shone right through the entire debate. There is good work happening in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but much more needs to be done on that, as well as on access to legal support. I get the feeling from the debate that this is a clear and sincere collective endeavour by the Government and the Parliament and by political parties of every persuasion. All I hope is that, in the new parliamentary session—some of us will be here; some of us will not—we can garner that collective endeavour by the Government, the Parliament and members across parties.”
“There was a discussion about whether the Scottish Government is delivering enough. It is always the Parliament’s job to push the Scottish Government to go further. Frankly, whether we are SNP back benchers, committee conveners or members of the Opposition, we should all absolutely do that. Equally safe is supposed to be the delivery strategy. Therefore, I expect the Scottish Government to think carefully about the recommendations from both committees and about how to ensure that the strategy will not just be warm words—I am sure that it will not be—but will have tangible, deliverable actions, with budgets beside them, to deliver many of the outcomes in the reports, which we have mentioned in the debate. There is much more to be done on that.”
“She shared a story from one of her constituents, and Paul McLennan chimed in on that point. Awareness has to grow more generally of what economic abuse and control actually is. During the debate, we had an inadvertent and accidental demonstration that there is good cross- Government working taking place on economic abuse. Paul McLennan mentioned his involvement in developing the new fund to leave during his time as Minister for Housing. Kaukab Stewart has been pushing forward on that as the equalities minister, so there is clearly joined-up working taking place. More of that would be nice, but it is happening, so that is good to put on the record. Kaukab Stewart also said that 1,800 more women are expected to benefit from the new fund to leave, which is a hugely positive thing.”
“I thank Alexander Stewart for saying that having a single point of contact in local authorities would aid in this endeavour, as was recommended by the committee. Carol Mochan spoke about low levels of awareness of equally safe among victims/survivors and the need to have support available in a physical form, perhaps in education settings and elsewhere. That point was reinforced by Beatrice Wishart, and it is important to put it on the record. I thank members who stressed that economic abuse is not simply a consequence of domestic abuse but a thing in and of itself. Maggie Chapman said that it was a specific instrument of control, and Jackie Dunbar, in a very impassioned and personal speech, for which I thank her, said that it was part of a systematic pattern of abuse.”
“A theme that has shone right through the debate, and which we heard about in the minister’s closing comments, is the further actions that are required on legal support. I welcome the minister’s comments, but Karen Adam was right to talk about legal assistance deserts. More has to be done, and the committee is right to be frustrated. Pam Gosal and Maggie Chapman spoke about the search for lawyers. Some women, particularly in more remote or rural areas, have had to call up to 50 lawyers to get someone to take on their case. There is sometimes not an equality of arms for women when they seek legal representation, so the Government has to go further on that. There is always a need for clear information, awareness and support. That is another theme that shone through the debate.”
“I put that on record on the basis that, if victims/survivors have told us that that is an issue, they should hear that said in the Parliament this afternoon. Marie McNair reinforced the calls that I made in my opening speech for the Scottish Government to take a lead in working together with the UK Government, the DWP, Social Security Scotland, COSLA and other partners to share best practice. I hope that the Scottish Government will drive that forward, irrespective of political differences. There is no political difference when it comes to supporting women who are fleeing violence or economic abuse, and so I hope that such working together will happen. We also heard a lot about financial barriers; the five-week wait for universal credit is clearly one such barrier.”
“We are lucky to have such professionals in the Parliament supporting us with our committee reports—I want to put that on the record. I also want to put on the record something that did not come up in the debate and which I did not mention in my opening speech, which is the issue of inconsistent responses by police officers to allegations of financial abuse and coercive control. That key issue was raised by some members of the survivor reference group. The committee welcomes Police Scotland’s commitment to develop training for officers on identifying and understanding economic abuse and consider opportunities to collaborate with the financially included project, which has raised concerns.”
“I want to assure the Parliament that my ministerial colleagues and I remain committed to working towards a strong and flourishing Scotland, where all individuals are equally safe and respected and where women and girls live free from all forms of violence and abuse, including financial and economic abuse. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. I call Bob Doris to wind up the debate on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. 15:49 Bob Doris: As is traditional, I thank all members for their excellent contributions, but it was remiss of me at the start not to also thank our committee’s clerking team, particularly Halla Edwards-Muthu, and the Scottish Parliament information centre, particularly Camilla Kidner, for their excellent work.”
“Its report was published on 17 September, and it is only right that we fully consider its recommendations and conclusions. Solicitors in all parts of Scotland are able to access the fund for work that they have carried out and legal assistance schemes that are flexible enough to allow solicitors to travel to rural and remote parts of the country to carry out work, should it not be possible to have local solicitors for people to instruct. The Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government on reserved issues, such as the condition of no recourse to public funds and universal credit.”
“Looking ahead, we will develop a fee review mechanism and explore the fundamental changes that are required to create a legal assistance system that is fit for the 21st century. I am concerned about the lack of availability of solicitors. There are fewer civil solicitors than was the case previously, but they are also more active: in 2014-15, there were 1,067 active solicitors, with an annual average of 12 grants each; by 2023-24, there were 791 active solicitors, with an annual average of 17 grants each. The legal aid system is generally effective in delivering help to those in need, but we recognise that there are challenges in relation to certain types of cases and locations. I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into legal aid.”
“It is vital that women are able to access the support that they need when they need it. Our delivery partners, including local Women’s Aid groups, will work closely with others to ensure that women are fully supported in their decision to leave, and that is why, through the delivering equally safe fund of £21.6 million, we fund a range of organisations to do that. We have also made a considerable investment in vital advice services, such as the economic abuse helpline, Scotland’s domestic abuse and forced marriage helpline and Citizens Advice Scotland. These services make a tangible difference to women’s lives by giving them advice to help them to navigate complex financial systems and rebuild their lives. On legal aid, the Scottish Government recognises that the legal aid system needs to be reformed.”
“The Government would like to make the fund permanent, and we will set out further details at the forthcoming spending review. I am grateful to the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing for prioritising and protecting housing rights for women. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was passed on 30 September, introduced a number of provisions to protect tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. Those provisions fully recognise the vital role that social landlords have in keeping their tenants safe. The provisions include measures to ensure that social landlords fully consider domestic abuse through financial control, particularly rent arrears, when supporting their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse, and that they support women to remain in their homes or to be rehoused, if that is what they wish.”
“It is important that we see and acknowledge the results of the funded services for survivors, and that includes work in schools and work that concerns awareness-raising campaigns such as the forthcoming campaign on misogyny, which is also referenced in the equally safe strategy. There is also a strand of work under the strategy that concerns training, such as the national trauma transformational programme. In order to ensure delivery across portfolios, I chair the equally safe ministerial group, which meets regularly to ensure ministers and cabinet secretaries are following up on their parts of the strategy. With regard to the fund to leave, the Scottish Government is clear that financial uncertainty should not be a barrier to women leaving an abusive partner. I note Roz McCall’s recognition of the fund’s positive impact.”
“15:42 Kaukab Stewart: The debate has certainly given us the opportunity to reflect on the financial barriers to leaving an abuser. As we have heard, those barriers are complex and multifaceted. They relate to the control that a perpetrator has over the victim/survivor, for whom the systems do not always work. I want to categorically make clear, and reiterate, the Government’s commitment to addressing those issues. We have heard many contributions regarding the equally safe strategy, which is co-owned with COSLA and provides a framework for action. Of course, I recognise that further improvements can always be made; however, I will respond to some of the points that members have raised. With regard to same-sex relationships and those working with LGBT survivors, that is funded work and it is in the strategy.”
“The Scottish Conservatives are calling on the SNP Government to stop deflecting and actively move forward to support victims of domestic abuse, because every day of delay risks another victim being turned away, another survivor being forced to return to an unsafe home and another life being put at risk because the system could not help in time. Let us not make victims pay the price of Government inaction—let us work together to ensure that financial barriers are never again a reason for someone to stay with their abuser. The time for reviews and rhetoric has passed; we need common sense, compassion and action now. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Kaukab Stewart, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government.”
“It asks the Government to make permanent the fund to leave, in order to cover deposits, travel and essentials when a survivor escapes abuse; to guarantee year-round funding for discretionary housing payments so that no council runs out mid-year; to review the Scottish welfare fund to make it consistent, trauma informed and accessible; and to ensure that the equally safe strategy delivers not just aspirations but real, practical financial support. However, progress in that regard remains painfully slow. The committee has done its job. It has listened to survivors, charities and those on the front line, and the evidence is clear. What is missing now is leadership.”
“Leadership is what is required now; what has been announced is cold comfort for victims of abuse, given that we are not doing more. Finally, I highlight the contribution from Pam Gosal, who is actively trying to do something in this space with her Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. We should congratulate Ms Gosal on all the hard work that she has put in to introduce the bill. The committee has called for commonsense deliverable actions.”
“In her initial speech, Carol Mochan highlighted the need for better knowledge and advertising of the help that is out there so that victims can get the support that they need. That is something that could happen now. I turn to the minister’s contribution, because she mentioned that there are three or four separate consultations and reviews on the back of the reports from both committees. That only represents further delay, however, because the reports already highlight what needs to be changed. Tangible changes to the system are required, not further consultation and reviews of work that has already begun. I am sorry, but I say to the minister that asking officials to simply consider the report for the next equally safe strategy is not enough. We could have seen much more action if only it had been a priority for the Government.”
“Citizens Advice Scotland warned that debt rules can leave only £1,000 in a bank account. Such rules could literally stop a woman from leaving her abuser. Those are not abstract policy failures; they are barriers that trap victims who are in danger. My friend and colleague Alexander Stewart highlighted that there is one incident of domestic abuse every eight minutes. That is a horrific statistic and it highlights how important it is that we do something more about this issue. Mr Stewart, Bob Doris and Maggie Chapman all mentioned that victims might have to approach 11 different services before they get any assistance, which shows that there is a fundamental gap in our system.”
“It is not acceptable that the changes to the process are not further up the priority list; that failure lies squarely with the Scottish Government. I have to agree with Karen Adam: it is disappointing that there has been no civil legal aid legislation in this session. Victims of domestic abuse deserve better. They deserve a Government that acts with urgency, not one that issues warm words while survivors are forced to choose between safety and destitution. Women’s Aid told the committee that survivors with even modest savings may be left paying for the home they fled while trying to rebuild their lives elsewhere. Engender and Shelter Scotland described women and children being placed in hotels for weeks because councils have nowhere else for them to go.”
“We have heard some powerful contributions from across the chamber and I thank colleagues from all parties for recognising the importance of this debate. The speeches from Jackie Dunbar and Beatrice Wishart were both very strong, because they came from a personal angle. We can never underestimate coercion and we can never underestimate what an abuser will do. Let us be clear about what the committee report tells us. Four years after these issues were first raised, basic financial protections for victims of domestic abuse are still missing. I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for taking action on the issue and for producing the report, and I thank the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the committee.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Babcock, in Fife, has had to hire workers from overseas as a result of reductions in some college courses. (S6F-04394)”
“The recommendations have not just been accepted— their implementation is in train, and I expect them all to be completed by the end of this year. On the back of Roz McCall’s information, I will make sure that that case is also highlighted and that lessons can be learned.”
“I note his comments about accountability for NHS Lothian, but how will the Scottish Government ensure that NHS boards are held accountable, especially as we are talking about one of the most vulnerable moments in a woman’s life? Neil Gray: Roz McCall is absolutely right. That is why it is so important that we get this right. My apologies to the constituent who contacted her with those details. That is clearly a very distressing situation, and I would appreciate being furnished with those details so that I can follow up with NHS Tayside to ensure that the necessary response to that and the on-going care needs of that family are in place. Healthcare Improvement Scotland has carried out an inspection of Ninewells.”
“Following the BBC “Disclosure” programme last night, which highlighted the harrowing experience of a patient from 2020, I was approached by a constituent who experienced similar issues with her maternity care at Ninewells hospital. Her baby was dropped by a doctor, she was given drugs, which were later described as unsafe in her condition, and she was told to remove a surgical bandage herself in the toilets 24 hours after birth rather than getting the correct support from staff. Given that the cabinet secretary mentioned in his statement the progress that has been made through NHS Tayside’s local improvement action plan, what reassurances can he give to my constituent and other women that those improvements will be sufficient to ensure safety?”
“The national guidance, which has been criticised throughout the afternoon, was developed by the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools. The group’s membership includes the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NASUWT, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, School Leaders Scotland, the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, and Unison. Members purport to represent the views of teachers across Scotland, but I know that our approach has the backing of Scotland’s professional associations. Those professional associations and trade unions are best placed to make such decisions and represent their members. They have my full trust and the Scottish Government’s backing to do so, which is exactly what the national guidance on mobile phone use makes clear. 15:53”
“More broadly, I go back to the implications of implementing such a ban. We have to trust Scotland’s teaching profession. In the national guidance, I have made it very clear that headteachers have my full support to implement a mobile phone ban should they so wish. Many schools have already done so, and many local authorities have already undertaken that work. Mr Rennie rightly spoke about the need for evidence to inform any future thinking on the topic. I agree with him, which is why, in advance of the next election, the Government will review the impact of the bans and seek to understand how they operate across the country. That is the right and proper approach to informing future policy developments. It is important to trust our teaching profession.”
“Only in March, Keir Starmer, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s boss, said that a complete mobile ban in schools is “completely unnecessary”, so there seems to be some dubiety about the Labour Party’s position on whole-school bans. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member give way on that point? Jenny Gilruth: I am aware that I have no time in hand. I want to make some progress, but I am happy to discuss the matter with Pam Duncan- Glancy outwith the chamber. It is important to be mindful of those wider societal issues. Pauline McNeill rightly spoke about the increase in misogyny and the recent increases in toxic behaviour online, which are not limited to our schools. It is important that we recognise some of those societal shifts, which impact, and hold a mirror up to, some of the behaviour that we now see in our schools.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: Does the cabinet secretary not understand that teachers, including headteachers, whom we all trust to implement policy and create good education environments in their schools, are desperate for the Government to show leadership and set out its expectations on a ban of mobile phones in schools? That is what the motion is asking the cabinet secretary to do today. Will she do it? Jenny Gilruth: Ms Duncan-Glancy and I have debated this point at length previously. The points that I made in my introductory remarks relate to the legal framework as it currently operates. However, I am somewhat confused by the Scottish Labour Party’s position on the issue.”
“Stephen Kerr: Would the cabinet secretary like to see a ban of mobile phones in Scotland’s schools? I am not saying that she will direct it or legislate for it, but would she like to see it? Jenny Gilruth: I will read to Mr Kerr my own words from the national guidance on mobile phones. It states: “I am clear in publishing this guidance that, as Cabinet Secretary, I will support any headteacher who decides to institute a ban on mobile phones in their school.” I give my full backing to headteachers to do exactly that. Stephen Kerr and I have discussed at length the impact that a such a ban might have on learning and teaching in schools. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Jenny Gilruth: I will, but I am mindful of the time.”