Jenny Gilruth
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I thank Pam Gosal for bringing this debate to Parliament and for sponsoring the recent round-table discussion on the topic, which I was pleased to attend, along with colleagues from across the Parliament. There is now a growing consensus on the issue.”
“Back in 2024, the Government published updated national guidance in which I was clear that any headteacher would have my full backing as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills should they see fit to implement a ban, but that decision was ultimately left to headteachers’ discretion.”
“As a result of Parliament’s close scrutiny, I believe that we have produced a stronger bill that is consistent with the initial intentions behind it.”
“I thank Daniel Johnson for his commitment in bringing forward the legislation on restraint and seclusion that is before us today. I applaud his approach to working with the Government and I encourage more such good behaviour in the coming parliamentary session.”
“The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 1 report and members’ speeches in the stage 1 debate highlighted clear support for the bill’s general principles.”
“That principle, which underpinned the national guidance that was issued in 2024, remains central today. The Scottish Government’s original intention was to conclude the review of our 2024 guidance before determining whether legislation was required.”
The complete record
Every one of 653 lines we hold for Jenny Gilruth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 14.
“The close engagement with SCES will continue as the Government develops the statutory guidance to accompany the bill. I have also heard concerns from stakeholders, including the Humanist Society Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, about non-inclusive religious observance in non-denominational schools. Scottish Government guidance is already clear that religious observance should be inclusive of pupils of all faiths and none. However, the updated statutory guidance will reiterate the necessity of inclusivity, which is exactly why the Government supported Elena Whitham’s amendments on the issue. The Government recognises and agrees that inclusivity will look different in a denominational setting.”
“Although I was married to my wife by a humanist celebrant, my last teaching post before I became an MSP was in a Catholic school, so I know and recognise the significant importance of faith schools to communities the length and breadth of Scotland. The Scottish Catholic Education Service will be a key stakeholder in the development of the new statutory guidance, in recognition of the importance of supporting the changes in denominational schools, particularly when religious observance is often part of their wider ethos. To that end, I have been pleased to lead significant engagement with the Scottish Catholic Education Service. In addition, my officials recently visited Sacred Heart primary school in Glasgow and Calderwood Lodge primary school in East Renfrewshire to meet headteachers and listen to pupils.”
“The Government was supportive of the bill being amended in that way, given the clear consensus on the importance of religious and moral education as a curriculum area and its benefits for community cohesion. The consensus was echoed by stakeholders, including the Scottish Teachers Association of Religious and Moral Education, the Humanist Society Scotland, the United Nations Children’s Fund UK and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. However, as we heard this afternoon, some concerns have been expressed about how the change could affect denominational schools, where religious observance and religious education are often closely interwoven. Again, I put on the record the importance of protecting our denominational schools, which are rightly afforded legal protection in Scotland.”
“Part 1 of the legislation proposes a new legal requirement to consider pupils’ views as part of the withdrawal process. Without those changes, pupils might be denied their rights under the UNCRC. The withdrawal process can be initiated only by a parent; the bill does not seek to change that. However, the changes will provide certainty in law that children’s and young people’s views must be considered when parents are exercising their withdrawal right. As members will also be aware, at stage 2, the bill was amended to separate religious observance and religious and moral education so that the right of parental withdrawal applies only to religious observance.”
“The bill offers Parliament a clear opportunity in this parliamentary session to make meaningful progress on enhancing the rights of Scotland’s children and young people. The right to withdraw from religious observance in Scotland’s schools dates back to the 1800s. Consequently, perhaps, there is no legal requirement currently to consult children about being withdrawn from religious observance in Scotland’s schools. Thankfully, things have moved on since then. Given the wide range of views on the issue, the Government’s approach throughout has been to chart a middle course, to strengthen children’s rights while balancing three other key considerations—namely, parental rights, stakeholder views and the practical implications for schools.”
“The legislation that comes before Parliament today does not sit in isolation; rather, as we have heard from some members this afternoon, it is part of the wider story of Scotland’s journey to strengthen children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 was a key milestone on that path. As the chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has commented, it is “one of the finest examples of domestic children’s-rights legislation anywhere in the world.” Just three months ago, on world children’s day, we laid Scotland’s first children’s rights scheme before Parliament. The passing of the bill before Parliament this evening will build on that progress to date.”
“They might create an argument that “religious education” and “religious instruction” are two substantially different things under the 1980 act, which of course is not the case.”
“In practice, the term “instruction” in the 1980 act has long been understood to mean teaching or education, and it appears throughout the 1980 act, including in contexts entirely unrelated to religion. There are currently 27 uses of the term “instruction” in the 1980 act as it would stand after the passing of the bill. The amendments would update only a fraction of the references in the act, and they would leave references to “religious instruction” in other sections unchanged— including in sections dealing with the management of denominational schools, for example. While it might be fair to say that the terminology is somewhat outdated, especially given modern curriculum practice, the amendments risk creating inconsistency and uncertainty in how the legislation should be interpreted.”
“As we have heard this afternoon, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 6 and 11 would replace references to “religious instruction” with the term “religious education” in section 8 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. I understand that concerns have been expressed at use of the word “instruction”—a point that I recently discussed with the Humanist Society. National guidance has long been clear that religious and moral education is expected to cover learning from a range of faiths and world- views, including beliefs independent of religion, in an objective manner. I discussed the amendments in this area with the Scottish Catholic Education Service last week and, as we have heard this afternoon, it expressed concern regarding the perceived impact on denominational schools in particular, including on learning outwith the classroom.”
“I give Mr Golden an undertaking that I will take the matter to Qualifications Scotland, in relation to both his ask for funding and the guidance that might be provided. I hope that that gives him some assurance, and I am happy to get back to him in writing once I have received a further update from Qualifications Scotland.”
“Parents and support for learning staff have reported that, despite the SQA’s policy change, pupils are unable to use speech-to-text on Chromebooks in exams, because the required software is not being funded. Pupils who use speech-to-text as their normal way of working are therefore forced to use a scribe in exams. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that places those pupils, who already face barriers to learning, at a clear disadvantage? Will she commit to finding a practical solution, whether through funding or technical guidance, such as paying for individual invigilators to ensure that pupils do not access the internet, as a potential way forward? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Golden raises a hugely important point. We want to ensure that no pupils are disadvantaged by examination requirements or the support that is provided.”
“As an executive non- departmental public body, Qualifications Scotland has now replaced the Scottish Qualifications Authority. It operates at arm’s length from ministers and is responsible for its own operational decisions. Ahead of the 2025 exams, the body updated its policy to allow the use of internet-enabled devices in exams. That removes barriers for assistive technology users and ensures that students can use their normal way of working from the classroom in assessments. Qualifications Scotland is working with councils and CALL Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government, to provide support. Maurice Golden: Chromebooks are used by the majority of local authorities.”
“On 8 January, we launched a 14-week public consultation on the future of secure care in Scotland, which includes questions on the potential development of community-based accommodation in Scotland. We welcome views on how secure provision should evolve to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of our children and young people.”
“Importantly, this change does not alter Scotland’s existing decision-making processes, nor does it change our commitment to reducing cross-border placements wherever possible. As was made clear during last year’s parliamentary debate, placements into provision in England should occur only in exceptional circumstances and, especially, should not occur in response to capacity pressures. Members will be acutely aware of the previous challenges that we have faced around secure accommodation capacity in Scotland. Although 16 of Scotland’s 70 beds are currently vacant, our work with providers and partners to restore and enhance that capacity continues.”
“Today’s debate focuses on proposed changes to UK legislation. The changes would give the Scottish ministers powers to make provisions that are consequential on devolved aspects of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in respect of community-based and secure accommodation. In June 2025, the Scottish Parliament agreed to a motion extending provisions within the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to Scotland, allowing children from Scotland to be placed in community- based settings in England, once they are developed and if they are judged to be in the children’s best interests. It is already possible for children living in Scotland to be placed in secure accommodation in England, although that is rarely done.”
“I am more than happy to meet him or to send him further written detail in relation to that specific point.”
“Like Mr Whitfield, I was in a classroom before I was in this place and I know that, at times, qualification reform the last time around felt as though it might have been dealt with in a better way. I have reflected on that as cabinet secretary, and it is important that we work with the profession. As Martin Whitfield knows, the profession is currently balloting in relation to strike action on workload. I do not think that, as cabinet secretary, it would be in my best interests to rush forward qualification reform without listening to those concerns and working with the profession. I will continue to engage with the profession to that end. The member also asked a substantial question about specialist staff. I have not yet been given advice to that end from Qualifications Scotland, but I will continue to engage with him on that.”
“On the member’s point, curriculum improvement in its totality will look across the board—not just at the senior phase, but from the early years all the way through our curriculum—to ensure that the curriculum is fit for purpose and updated accordingly. Martin Whitfield: The cabinet secretary talked about the rebalancing that sits at the heart of this. Can she say how many additional teachers or specialist staff will be in place to deliver these reforms, and by when? If she cannot answer that, does she accept that, without extra capacity, there is a risk of increasing teacher workload and undermining fairness for pupils? Jenny Gilruth: I very much agree with Martin Whitfield’s point about teacher workload. That is exactly why I have taken a pragmatic approach to the delivery of qualification reform.”
“Written examinations in practical cake craft, metalworking and woodworking at national 5 have already been removed. That work will be extended, with stakeholder engagement on the removal of exams under way for a further three practical subjects, and that is set to roll out in 2026-27. In terms of qualification design, the new product-type design phase started in autumn last year, with subject-level development from 2028, with the aim of new level 4 and 5 qualifications being aligned to the curriculum framework from 2031. However, it is important in the broadest terms to accept that changes are already coming.”
“Can the cabinet secretary give families a clear assurance that the system that pupils will face in 2031 will be fairer and more reflective of their ability than the one that it is replacing? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Whitfield for his question, although I think that there was a little conflation there in relation to the timeline for the qualifications update, which I published back in June 2025. The detail that Mr Whitfield talked about is therefore not necessarily new. What happened yesterday was, of course, the official stepping up of Qualifications Scotland. It is worth putting on the record today that much of the work on qualifications reform is already under way. As part of the work on rebalancing assessment methods, which the Government has accepted is important, we are placing less reliance on high-stakes examinations.”
“Change is already under way on rebalancing assessment methods and placing less reliance on high-stakes examinations, and work is progressing well on the curriculum improvement cycle, ensuring that curriculum change drives qualifications reform in a systematic way in the coming years. Martin Whitfield: The cabinet secretary talked about re-establishing trust following the passing of the 2025 act, but it is children who are currently in primary 4 who will sit the new rebalanced assessments in 2031. It was in 2013 that this Government said that Scotland would be the best place in the world for a child to grow up. Why is it taking so long to reach that point?”
“Yesterday’s launch of Qualifications Scotland and the recent announcement of the appointment of Ruth Binks to the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland are major milestones in re- establishing trust and confidence in the system following the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act 2025. The new Qualifications Scotland board heads an overhauled governance structure, with recruitment to learner and teacher interest committees already under way. It will guide the school partnership team, led by Sarah Brown, an experienced headteacher, to ensure that Qualifications Scotland is shaped by the learners and practitioners whom it serves.”
“I commit to continuing to work constructively with the member in charge and, of course, with the committee to strengthen the bill at stages 2 and 3 and to ensure that its implementation leads to meaningful and positive change for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children, young people and their families. 14:58”
“Training is key to the successful implementation of the bill and the guidance, but, as the committee has acknowledged, restraint is not a practice that the vast majority of our school staff will need to use. Therefore, restraint training will be necessary for only a small number of our school staff. That is an important point, which we discussed at committee during stage 1. On national data collection, the committee is absolutely right that the reporting system must support transparency, accountability and learning. However, as the committee has acknowledged, the creation of league tables of restraint data needs to be avoided at all costs. I therefore welcome the committee’s agreement with the Government’s position that the publication of school-level data would not be appropriate.”
“Does she agree that it is important to stress that, although that guidance was published in 2024, the 2017 guidance also made clear the requirement to record and monitor, and said that training should be provided? Therefore, those requirements are not new, and they were not introduced by my bill or the 2024 guidance. Jenny Gilruth: I am happy to support the points that Mr Johnson made. The guidance will be familiar to teaching staff and those who work in our schools. It is important to remind colleagues and stakeholders that, for many staff who work in our schools, the approaches that are being taken will not be new. The differentiation is that the guidance will become statutory through legislation. I welcome the committee’s acknowledgement of the importance of trauma-informed training being grounded in clear national standards.”
“I have discussed the financial implications of the bill with Mr Johnson, and he shares my desire for the associated costs to be kept to a minimum. Should Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill today, I commit that the Government will lodge a financial resolution during the coming weeks. The bill will place a duty on the Government to produce statutory guidance. As I alluded to, the Government produced our 2024 guidance, and that guidance will form the backbone of the statutory guidance that will be required under the bill. I therefore welcome the alignment that Mr Johnson has sought with our existing guidance in many areas. Daniel Johnson: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her kind words.”
“Such distinctions will help to reduce the risks of overreporting and overburdening on our school staff. I have agreed to work with Daniel Johnson to develop stage 2 amendments to address the concerns on that. The committee also raised important points regarding national reporting routes and the avoidance of duplication. I accept the recommendation that further, joint work is needed, particularly on approaches for independent and grant-aided schools and for situations involving care settings. Accordingly, Mr Johnson and I have agreed that an amendment should be lodged at stage 2 to allow independent and grant-aided schools to report directly to ministers rather than via local authorities, which will help to ensure clarity and proportionality.”
“I very much share the committee’s clear commitment to ensuring that all children in Scotland’s schools are supported in ways that uphold their dignity, rights and safety, and I welcome the committee’s stage 1 report and its conclusions. I was pleased to meet Mr Johnson earlier this week. As ever we had a productive discussion on areas where we would like to work together and strengthen the bill at stage 2. This is a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson will retain responsibility for its passage through Parliament. However, I agree with committee members that the statutory definitions of restraint and seclusion need to be workable, clear and aligned with children’s rights. As the committee stressed, it is important that a distinction is made between restraint and physical interventions that do not raise wellbeing concerns.”
“As members will be aware, in November 2024 we published our non-statutory guidance for schools on physical intervention, which reinforces that position. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of that guidance. Although the Scottish Government’s intention was to conclude a review of the guidance before considering legislative options, I have nonetheless engaged constructively on Mr Johnson’s bill since it was introduced in March last year. In June last year, I wrote to the committee to confirm the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill, while reserving the right to seek to amend any provisions where necessary. That remains the Government’s position.”
“I am very pleased that Beth and her son Callum are with us in Parliament today, and I look forward to meeting them again following the debate. I am grateful to the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee for its instructive role, and also to stakeholders, families, campaigners and practitioners for their support thus far. I am sure that members of the Scottish Parliament across the chamber will agree that our collective understanding of the issue and its impact has been strengthened by the willingness of parents of young people to share their personal experiences. The Government is clear that restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort, to prevent injury.”
“I congratulate Daniel Johnson on the progress that he has made thus far in legislating on restraint and seclusion. Mr Johnson and I have been engaged over the course of this session—for months and probably years— and I am grateful to him for the extremely collegiate way in which we have been able to discuss and debate the issues that are pertinent to this stage 1 debate. For clarity and, again, for the record, the Scottish Government will support the general principles of the bill. As we have heard, there are a number of others to thank, by no means least the families of those children who have experienced restraint in distressing environments. As we have heard from Douglas Ross and Daniel Johnson, Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger are to be applauded for their tenacious efforts in driving the changes that come before Parliament today.”
“The hub will give teachers access to the latest research and evidence and will provide practical support to allow our teachers to apply their own insights in their own classrooms. It will allow teachers to share learning across communities of practice, engage with expert panels and develop classroom-ready resources, and they will be supported by teachers who are seconded to the hub. I was delighted to meet a group of those teachers yesterday, who are already helping to make a difference by supporting teachers in our schools in relation to ASN. I note that the hub’s work will link to and be shaped by the short, sharp review that I announced on 15”
“George Adam: I am extremely pleased to hear that additional support needs is a focus of the centre, because my eldest granddaughter has additional support needs. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary say more about the role that the centre will play to improve practice to support children with specific learning needs? Jenny Gilruth: I cannot tell colleagues what a positive visit I had this week, meeting the seconded teachers who are already working at the centre for teaching excellence. They are making a real difference in our schools, listening to the profession and formulating the exact type of support that Mr Adam spoke about in relation to additional support needs. The centre will have a dedicated hub on pedagogy for inclusion. That will open this spring, and it will have a specific focus on ASN.”
“I visited the centre at the University of Glasgow this week to hear about the substantial progress that it has made following its launch in September 2025. Three research hubs are already open, providing accessible resources and professional learning, aligned with priorities that have been identified by Scotland’s teachers. A further three hubs will open this spring, including—crucially—one that is focused on additional support needs, on which I updated the chamber a couple of weeks ago. Teachers can access the latest research and evidence through the centre, with structured support to apply insights to their practice. There are already 46 seconded teachers acting as points of contact for colleagues in schools, ensuring that research is relevant to and practical for our classrooms.”
“I am also aware that Aberdeenshire Council is currently led by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, so there is a political incoherence between Alexander Burnett’s question—although I am sympathetic to that question—and the actions of his local authority, which have been to take the funding that I protected centrally in national Government and to cut teacher numbers. That is not a coherent approach. I would be more than happy to engage directly with the local authority on those issues, but we must remember that, when central Government protects funding for teacher numbers, communities should expect to see that play out in their communities. That is not what has happened in the case of”
“Jenny Gilruth: I will walk Alexander Burnett back to my comments in response to his colleague Roz McCall, in which I alluded to the fact that, when the probationer scheme was introduced in 2002, it was meant to be in addition to the staffing complement. I hear the challenge that Aberdeenshire Council is facing, and I have met with it a number of times to discuss those issues. Aberdeenshire has benefited from the manual allocation of PWP probationers by gaining more probationers. However, probationers are meant to be in addition to the staffing complement. In the past year, Aberdeenshire Council was one of the local authorities that took additional funding from the Scottish Government to the tune of just over £9 million and chose to reduce teacher numbers.”
“However, that funding is at risk because teacher numbers have decreased as Aberdeenshire receives an insufficient number of newly qualified teachers through the Scottish Government’s teacher induction scheme, having failed to get nearly 40 per cent of the primary teachers and 70 per cent of the secondary teachers that it had requested. That trend is happening across all rural local authorities, because the Scottish National Party is not providing enough support to attract newly qualified teachers to those areas. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether education in Aberdeenshire will be further penalised for the educational recruitment failings of the SNP Government?”
“I have also convened a round-table discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, trade unions, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and other key partners to explore urgent collective solutions to the challenges that were outlined in Alexander Burnett’s question and other teacher recruitment and retention challenges. Alexander Burnett: As part of its budget, Aberdeenshire Council is expecting £9.4 million from the Scottish Government to maintain or increase teacher numbers and to reduce class contact time.”
“Last week, we launched a new national teacher recruitment marketing campaign, which includes activity designed to encourage those thinking about a career in teaching to consider teaching jobs outwith the central belt and in more rural areas. In addition, probationer teachers can receive a preference waiver payment of up to £8,000 if they are willing to complete their probation anywhere in Scotland, as part of the Government-funded teacher induction scheme. We have manually allocated PWP probationers in recent years, which has resulted in more probationers in hard-to-fill subjects being allocated to remote and rural areas.”
“We need the right number of teachers in our schools to deliver on that commitment. I know that Mr Kerr welcomed the progress that we have seen in the past year, with teacher numbers increasing for the first time since 2022 as a direct result of that COSLA agreement and investment. Again, I encourage Mr Kerr to consider supporting the Scottish Government’s budget, because it maintains that investment, which we know has made a real difference in the past year by increasing teacher numbers and allowing us to make progress on reducing class contact. The Deputy Presiding Officer : There are a number of supplementaries.”
“I also gave some detail of that in my response to Alexander Stewart. There is potential for primary teachers to move into the teaching of secondary subjects where there are currently gaps. The member will be aware of the marketing campaign that we launched recently that targets some of the areas where there are known gaps. We also know that there are primary teachers with the prerequisite qualifications who may be able to move to fill those gaps and vacancies, as and where they exist. Mr Kerr also mentioned the COSLA agreement, which was negotiated through last year’s budget. It provided £186.5 million to increase teacher numbers or, for some local authorities, to maintain them at 2023 levels. That is important in relation to Mr Rennie’s point about reducing class contact.”
“Further reflection of that reality is the statistical fact that one in 10 primary teachers who are qualified do not have a permanent job in their first year. That is not success. Whatever happened to the funding agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that was going to guarantee teacher numbers? At what point will the cabinet secretary get really serious about the issues that we keep raising in the chamber and bring forward a properly thought-out and planned workforce projection? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Kerr has touched on a number of points. One relates to the issue of primary teachers. He may be aware of the reduction that I have delivered in the number of primary teachers that we are training. In the past year, we have reduced the number of primary teachers for the exact reasons that he has set out.”
“Figures from the 2025 teacher census show that there are 2,798 full-time equivalent teachers in permanent posts who were part of the last three teacher induction scheme cohorts. Since 2014, the percentage of teachers in permanent posts has remained at 80 per cent, and additional Scottish Government investment has led to an increase in the number of teachers in the past year. The permanent employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities, which currently employ Scotland’s teachers. Stephen Kerr: A few years ago, in this Parliament, I used to stand up and say that one in eight teachers are on temporary contracts. Now the figure is one in five, or something like that. That is shocking. We have gone backwards at a rate of knots.”
“[Interruption.] However, it is important to say that, since 2021, significant investment has been provided to support Scotland’s teaching profession, not least in relation to teacher wages. I provided detail of that in my response to”
“Willie Rennie: With that kind of answer, it is no surprise that the education secretary got heckled at the Educational Institute of Scotland hustings last week. She has failed to deliver the 3,500 extra teachers that she promised, failed to deliver the permanent contracts that she promised and failed to reduce teacher contact time by 90 minutes. She blames the councils and the unions, and now she blames the teachers for being paid too much. She has given the impression that she has given up on delivering on all those promises. Has she given up, or is she gonnae meet those promises? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Rennie, as ever, for his question. I recall that, at a certain point during the hustings that we attended, there were some heckles for Mr Rennie, too. We will just leave it at that.”
“I welcome this year’s statistics, which, as I have outlined, show some improvement in the overall post-probation employment levels, which increased to 69 per cent from 65 per cent last year. That improvement has been supported as a direct result of additional investment from the Government’s budget. It is worth while reminding members that the overall percentage of teachers in permanent posts has remained relatively stable at more than 80 per cent over the past 10 years. However, I am keen to enhance the number of permanent teaching posts, which is exactly why funding has again been protected in this year’s draft budget. As a result of this year’s additional funding for local authorities, this year’s census data shows an overall increase in the number of teachers for the first time since 2022.”
“One of the options that I have been exploring with the Geneal Teaching Council for Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching unions is how we might provide funding to enable primary teachers who are unable to obtain jobs to qualify in secondary subjects for which they might already have some of the necessary qualifications. I talked about that in a bit more detail at the Education, Children and Young People Committee last week. We will be meeting colleagues to discuss the issue in the coming weeks, and I will be happy to give Mr Stewart a written update on the progress that we make. Newly Qualified Teachers (Employment) 4.”
“I was grateful to colleagues across the chamber who were able to vote for the budget, and I hope that Conservative colleagues will find themselves able to vote for the budget this year to protect funding for teacher numbers, which has paid dividends in the past year alone. We also provide extra funding to Scottish councils via the Scottish attainment challenge. We know that, across the country, that is helping to support the employment of around 3,000 extra staff, of whom approximately 700 are teachers. That is welcome. In addition, we have recently announced a recruitment campaign that I am sure colleagues will be aware of, which is very much focused on filling the gaps that we know exist in secondary schools in particular.”
“That is not what they signed up to when they trained to become teachers. How does the cabinet secretary explain the collapse of permanent primary teaching jobs after years of Scottish National Party promises to expand the workforce? Jenny Gilruth: On the issue of permanence, I very much welcome that this year’s statistics show a slight improvement. The overall number of those who have gained employment post probation has increased from 65 per cent last year to 69 per cent. However, there are substantive problems in relation to primary teachers, which I accept. The improvement that we have seen has been delivered as a result of the extra funding that I spoke about in my original answer, which was secured through the budget.”
“Under the Education Act 1980, local authorities are solely responsible for the recruitment and employment of teachers. Notwithstanding that, since 2021, the Government has provided in excess of £800 million to support enhanced salaries for Scotland’s teachers, ensuring that they remain the best paid on these islands, with the top of the classroom teacher salary scale now standing at £52,614. In addition, the Government provided extra funding in this year’s budget, which uplifted the ring-fenced funding for teacher numbers to £186.5 million. Our budget for 2026-27 maintains that financial commitment to safeguard teacher numbers. Alexander Stewart: Figures show that nearly nine in 10 newly qualified primary teachers are stuck in temporary posts or doing supply work, without a permanent job.”