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 7 of 14.
“I am not sighted on the specifics relating to Angus Council, but I will go back to my officials in relation to toilets being locked during the school day. More broadly, she will be aware of the guidance that we published last week following the Supreme Court ruling. That guidance is intended to bring clarity to the teaching profession and to young people in our schools and was our response to the Supreme Court ruling. I am more than happy to take away the specific issue that she has raised.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, that updated guidance reflects the Supreme Court judgment and states that “separate toilet facilities for boys and girls must be provided in schools” and that “the facilities require to be made available on the basis of biological sex”. Tess White: Parents have informed me that girls’ toilets in secondary schools in Angus are being locked during the school day, which is denying girls their legal right to single-sex spaces. That, as the cabinet secretary has just outlined, is illegal. What immediate steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that every girl in every school has unrestricted access to single-sex toilets, as required by the law? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Tess White for raising that point.”
“Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, education authorities have the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education. The Scottish Government therefore does not carry the legal responsibility for the management of schools, or of their facilities, including the provision of toilets and changing rooms, which is a matter for education authorities. The Scottish Government’s role is to provide education authorities and schools with non- statutory guidance to inform their work in relation to the legal requirements and associated national policies. The guidance that was published last week fulfils that role.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gilruth. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“The position that is taken in our guidance is that we trust Scotland’s headteachers to take the action that they consider necessary, which includes imposing a mobile phone ban across the school day. However, the question that I want to hear the answer to today is why Scottish Labour does not trust Scotland’s teachers to lead the change that we all want to see. I move amendment S6M-19123.2, to insert at end: “, and acknowledges that the Scottish Government’s Guidance on Mobile Phones in Scotland’s Schools makes clear that headteachers are empowered to implement full bans, should their professional judgment see fit to do so.” 15:06”
“Indeed, the significant disruption that is caused by mobile phone use in classrooms was a key theme of the behaviour in Scotland’s schools research that was published in 2023. More broadly, there are a number of questions at the heart of the Government’s approach to the issue of mobile phone use in schools. In Scotland, as we have heard, it is our local authorities that have the statutory responsibility for running our schools, not the Scottish Government—I do not think that Scottish Labour is proposing to change that. Snappy one-liner debates might help when it comes to drafting a press release, but they rarely stack up when it comes to the detail.”
“Pupils spoke to me with passion about how the ban was implemented in their school. The approach that was taken in Stonelaw allowed pupils to use their devices in social areas and during break times. The pupils felt that that was a fair approach, as it involved trusting them as young people. Being able to use their phones during breaks and in social areas was a privilege that they would not abuse. If they broke the rules, their phone would be confiscated until the end of the lesson. How we get such buy-in is really important. If we simply ban something, behaviour change is not assured. We must educate people, which is the part that our schools—as opposed to MSPs in Holyrood—are experts in. I agree that mobile phone use can be a distraction to learning and teaching.”
“It involves communication. The national guidance on mobile phones that was published last year gives guidance on how schools can do it. Last year, I visited Stonelaw high school to launch that guidance. The headteacher at Stonelaw had all the young people buy into the ban. She achieved that, working with her staff, by doing several things; parental engagement and buy-in was key. That action helped to secure parental buy-in and support. Pupils’ buy-in involved pupils minding their own data use and checking how much time they were spending online. Teachers joined in. Staff and pupils alike were horrified by the amount of time that they were wasting online. Young people were receiving, on average, 80 notifications in a one-hour personal and social education lesson.”
“There is an irony that I want to return to on that point: mobile phone use is corroding the way in which we all communicate. If Scottish Labour wants a ban on phones in our schools, what are its views on mobile phone use in this Parliament? For absolute clarity, I would support a day in this place being set aside in which we commit to not using our electronic devices. As politicians, we should be leading by example. It cannot be “Do as I say, not as I do.” That is why, if Labour MSPs are interested, how our headteachers go about implementing full-scale bans is very important. I heard about that this morning, when I was in Portobello high school— the school that Ms Duncan-Glancy referred to, which took nine months in total to implement its ban because it had to listen to, and work with, its whole school community.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I am happy to do so. Pam Duncan-Glancy: We are not proposing primary legislation. What I said was that the cabinet secretary is the person who said that legislation was required. If you chose to do so, you could use the regulation-making powers in section 2 of the 1980 act. That is already in the gift of the Government. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Jenny Gilruth: As I have just intimated, whether or not it is primary legislation that is being proposed—I hear the member’s point in relation to regulations—I have to ask why. Regardless of whole-school approaches, it is not my experience that pupils are routinely sitting with their phones out in class—quite unlike members of the Scottish Parliament in this chamber.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I say to the member, very gently, that it is quite clear in the national guidance that our headteachers are already empowered to carry out mobile phone bans. I must ask why Scottish Labour does not trust our headteachers to do that. It is not for me, sitting in an office in Edinburgh, to dictate to Scotland’s teachers. Why does the Labour Party think that it knows better than Scotland’s teachers? What interests me in Scottish Labour’s approach—and I will be interested by how this argument develops—is how exactly it intends to implement a national ban. I presume that the proposal is for primary legislation; I think that I heard the member suggest something around regulations. Whether it is primary legislation or regulations— Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?”
“Understanding how mobile phone bans work is rather important. The national guidance that was published last August states: “That means empowering headteachers to take the steps they see fit to limit the use of mobile phones in our schools, up to and including a full ban on the school estate during the school day, if that is their judgement. 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.” Pam Duncan-Glancy: The point that I made when I set out why we are proposing the motion is that you are leaving it up to headteachers to take a big decision on what goes on in schools. Does the cabinet secretary think that there should be a mobile phone ban for learners in classrooms, or not?”
“The Government agrees with the premise behind the Scottish Labour Party’s motion that mobile phones should be banned in our schools. The motion from Labour is very simple. People like that from politics: simple solutions to the challenges of the modern age. However, I think that it is missing something—that is, the professional judgment of Scotland’s teachers, whom we trust to educate our children every day. I am sure that Scottish Labour is not suggesting that we ignore the views of Scotland’s teachers on this important issue. With that in mind, I am surprised to hear that Labour members will not be able to vote for the Scottish Government’s amendment, which makes the need for that judgment clear. We should listen to our teachers. It is what I spend much of my time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills doing.”
“Therein lies inequity, however, in that not all pupils have devices. I am clear that we should not bake inequality into pedagogy by relying on personal smartphones where schools need devices for learning.”
“That leaves us in a situation where we can see an abdication of responsibility for Scotland’s children and young people. In our motion, we ask for national clarity, with no phones in class for learners, clear expectations, clear consequences and clear exceptions, including for pupils with ASN and those who need devices for medical reasons, for example, as I set out. National guidance should codify decisions on all of that, so that families are confident, staff are empowered and young people are freed to learn. We must acknowledge that technology is with us and that, of course, it has potential for our nation. Despite the Scottish National Party’s promises, however, not all pupils yet have the free iPads to learn on that they were promised, so some are relying on personal devices when teachers are using them in lessons.”
“I am interested in the member’s point about a postcode lottery. In Scotland, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 makes it clear that statutory responsibility for the delivery of education rests with local authorities. Our 32 local authorities very often interpret the curriculum in different ways. Is the Labour Party now suggesting that we repeal the 1980 act and centralise education? I am keen to hear the message on that. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to section 2 of the 1980 act, which has regulating-making powers for the Government in a wide range of areas. One has to wonder how on earth anything that the Government wants to do in schools can get done if the education secretary does not think that she has any power over schools.”
“The update that I provided yesterday is a technical change, and it, of course, relates directly to recent legal changes that have come forward. We have updated the guidance in accordance with those legal changes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A large number of colleagues want to ask supplementary questions. It is unlikely that I will get through all of them, but I will require brevity in both the questions and the responses.”
“I have been very clear that, throughout the course of the months that have passed since the Supreme Court’s ruling, we have engaged with trade unions, in particular, in order to hear from them about their members’ experiences, and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities directly. Our stakeholder engagement has also included the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—I hope that the member does not have an issue with us engaging with ADES—COSLA, which I have already alluded to, Education Scotland, Engender, LGBT Youth Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, sportscotland, Stonewall Scotland and the Scottish Trans Alliance. That is a list of the organisations that were engaged with back in 2021.”
“The guidance boasts that it was developed by LGBT Youth Scotland. That taxpayer-funded lobbying group previously produced guidance that suggested that there was no such thing as biological sex, which was widely criticised by child health experts, including one who said that that guidance simply should not be accessible to our school children. Why on earth is the SNP Government still taking its cue from an extreme gender ideology lobbying group instead of the Supreme Court? Jenny Gilruth: I think that the member is somewhat misguided in relation to the point that she made about stakeholder engagement.”
“It is also important to remember that transgender people represent 0.44 per cent of the population of Scotland. Evidence tells us that transgender young people have significantly worse educational and wellbeing outcomes than other pupils. They are much more at risk of bullying, they are more likely to leave education early and they are at risk of increased mental health and wellbeing concerns. We have updated the guidance in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, and I have responded to the member’s point in relation to the law and the stipulation that relates to the point that she has raised on single-sex spaces. Pam Gosal: All that I needed was yes or no, but, obviously, I did not get that. What is even more disturbing about the guidance is who has helped to develop it.”
“I therefore give the cabinet secretary the opportunity to answer yes or no to a simple question: under the guidance, can biological males who identify as women still use girls’ toilets? Jenny Gilruth: It is important to say that we have been clear since the Supreme Court’s ruling that we accept the judgment on biological sex. I also put it on the record that, under the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, our schools already provide toilets for boys and girls. That is stipulated in legislation at the current time. There is also a requirement in relation to accessible toilets. More broadly, as I alluded to in my previous response, the rights of all children and young people must be respected in our schools.”
“We have brought forward updates to the guidance to provide clarity and confidence to teachers and staff as they work to support the mental, physical and emotional health of transgender young people in our schools. Pam Gosal: Yesterday, the Scottish National Party Government published new guidance that was meant to give schools clarity about how boys’ and girls’ toilets and changing room facilities should be provided. Yet, instead of finally protecting single-sex spaces, the muddled new SNP guidance has confused matters further. This morning, the SNP education secretary repeatedly refused to state whether biological males could still use girls’ toilets and changing rooms in our schools.”
“The revised guidance has been developed to respond to and take account of recent legal decisions. There has been engagement with education authorities and trade unions to understand the concerns that are experienced in our schools. The guidance on which the revised guidance is based was developed in the light of engagement with a range of stakeholders, including parents and carers, education representatives, LGBT organisations and women’s organisations. The Scottish Government has been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling. We remain committed to engaging with and involving partners and stakeholders throughout that process, as and when appropriate. I make it absolutely clear that the rights of all children and young people must be respected in our schools.”
“I welcome the opportunity to streamline, and bring more money into, the college sector, and to deliver apprenticeships, even within the existing overall education and skills budget.”
“We must ensure that we continue to fund those that are being delivered now. Often, the key to success in the delivery of apprenticeships has been our fantastic college sector. Indeed, in his report, James Withers advocated “a colleges and universities first approach”, and I agree that there are opportunities to do more with the college sector in order to deliver them. However, the sector itself has raised some concerns. For example, for every pound that leaves the Scottish Government, only 40 to 50 per cent is received by the colleges that undertake to provide the training for apprenticeship contracts in certain key sectors of the Scottish economy. As the committee heard, there is, in between the Scottish Government and the college, a managing agent that takes significant amounts of that funding.”
“It is worth reflecting on why the Scottish Government decided to legislate in this area. The independent review of the skills delivery landscape by James Withers in 2023 highlighted the need to focus on a new vision to meet the challenges of future needs. Principally, we need flexibility to be delivered across the post-school learning system in order to achieve genuine agility and to ensure that learners at all stages of life are accommodated. Members from across the chamber will be hearing about or seeing the opportunities that apprenticeship schemes are delivering every week—they are critical to the skills that our economy needs now and in the future. I believe that they must be protected and nurtured, and not only so that we can grow and deliver more opportunities.”
“This morning. Miles Briggs: Oh—this morning. The work that the school is undertaking with young people in that part of the capital—especially those with attendance challenges—is exemplary, and I was really impressed with the school’s focus both on delivering positive outcomes and on making sure that we work to realise our young people’s potential. That is why Scottish Conservatives want a radical new approach, with the development of a hybrid education—we want to give young people the opportunity to access college and take up an apprenticeship earlier in their learning careers. That has been missed from this bill, and I hope that we can pursue it at stage 2. When Scottish ministers introduced the bill, we on the Conservative benches were open to the reasons and rationale behind it.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gilruth. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“That is an international trend that we have seen across Europe and the world post-pandemic, whereby the role of the teaching profession has diminished somewhat. It is really important that we work with our teaching trade unions and others, including the commission, on how we can help to restore the relationship between school and home. The report goes on to talk about some of the challenge in that regard. I give a commitment to Mr Rennie that I will engage with the commission on the substantive points in its report.”
“It was an ask from the teaching profession on the back of the behaviour in Scottish schools research, and we responded to that ask with very clear national guidance. The bodies that were involved in the commissioning of the published guidance were the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NASUWT, School Leaders Scotland, educational psychologists and local authorities. I ask Mr Rennie to reflect on the fact that the guidance has come from the profession and has been written by the experts in our classrooms. I am, of course, more than happy to listen to the commission on a range of educational issues. Its report, which is relatively short—I think that it is seven or eight pages in length—cites a number of things. For example, it talks about support for teachers not being as strong as it has been in the past.”
“The commission’s report states that the guidance “has not reassured teachers”, that it “has provoked widespread public criticism”, and that it is “fundamentally misguided.” The cabinet secretary often seeks the advice of the commission on school reform, so will she take its advice today and issue new national guidance that clearly asserts the right of every young person to an education that is not disrupted by others and that recognises that dealing effectively and quickly with bad behaviour requires sanctions? Jenny Gilruth: I often engage with the commission on school reform and I listen to it intently, and I am more than happy to give a commitment today that I will continue to do that on this issue. I remind Mr Rennie that the guidance did not come from me as cabinet secretary or from officials; it came from the teaching profession.”
“I have been really clear in my engagement with local government on that. Further, earlier this year, Councillor Tony Buchanan and I wrote to all directors of education to ensure that the action plan is making a difference at the chalk face. The points that Mr Rennie has rightly raised this afternoon are being addressed by local government. Willie Rennie: The commission on school reform is heavily critical of the guidance that the minister has just referred to.”
“It must be clear that schools have the right to exclude or suspend pupils, but councils also have a responsibility to provide support and education for pupils when they are out of school. The big question is whether the minister is confident that that is actually happening in local authorities and schools. Jenny Gilruth: The member is absolutely correct that schools and teachers in particular have the right and the power to exclude or suspend children and young people because of behaviour. We have been working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on our national action plan on behaviour and relationships. That plan is jointly owned by the Scottish Government and local government, which is imperative because, as the plan sets out, local government holds the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education.”
“We all want our schools to be safe places for children and young people to learn in and for our staff to work in. Our national guidance on preventing and managing exclusions and our recent guidance on consequences are clear that exclusion is an option that is open to schools where that is appropriate. Exclusion should be the last resort and, when used, it should be as a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative. Exclusion alone is unlikely to lead to behavioural change, and therefore the space provided by exclusions should be used to develop a plan to provide appropriate support to address the child’s behaviour. Willie Rennie: I agree with much of that.”
“We will look at all those matters in the round. I encourage the member to engage with John Wilson as part of his independent review of how we fund our schools, because there is an opportunity through that work to answer some of the challenges that the member quite rightly raised today. Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill 5.”
“The Parliament has committed the Government to leading a review on additional support needs. Colleagues from the member’s party were at a round table with me two weeks ago to agree some of the parameters of what that review will look at. I am keen to look at how we can ensure that funding that is protected in the Government’s budget makes its way into the classrooms, where it can make the biggest difference. My final point relates to school funding. The member might be aware of an appointment that I announced at the start of the term in relation to school governance, school funding and what comes next, in terms of the Scottish attainment challenge and the pupil equity fund. John Wilson, who was formerly a headteacher in Edinburgh, has been appointed to lead hugely important work on those things.”
“In Dumfries and Galloway, resources are being rationed and smaller schools are being disadvantaged, often having a learning assistant for a fraction of the week. I hope that the cabinet secretary, as a former teacher, will understand the pressure that it creates when support is not there for a young person at the time when they need it, which can often be unpredictable. Jenny Gilruth: The member’s substantive point was about how we can ensure that Government money, which has been protected by the Government centrally, is used at the local level to deliver on what we expect. Some of that work is being undertaken through our relationship with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the education and childcare assurance board to ensure that ASN funding gets to classrooms and to those who need it most.”
“All children and young people should receive the support that they need to reach their full potential. Local authorities oversee the delivery of education and they have a statutory duty to identify the need for, provide and review support for pupils with additional support needs in their local community, including in schools in rural areas. Spending on additional support for learning by local authorities reached a record high of more than £1 billion in 2023-24, and the 2025-26 budget sets out a further £29 million of additional investment by the Scottish Government for ASN. Oliver Mundell: On behalf of parents, pupils and teachers, I ask the cabinet secretary: what are they to do when that does not happen?”
“As I mentioned, the Scottish Government has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on the bill’s proposals, and I will continue to engage with members as the bill makes its way through Parliament. Higher Education Sector (Dispute) 3.”
“As I mentioned, I discussed those with the society last week. As I said, I have asked the society whether it can share further information on the examples that the member has cited in order to look at whether more can be done to ensure that religious observance is delivered inclusively in all schools. The experience of the young person who was mentioned in the question does not sound consistent at all with the guidance that religious observance in schools should be sensitive to all spiritual needs and beliefs and be inclusive for those of all faiths and none. I would be happy for the member to write to me with further details, but, as I said, I have asked the Humanist Society Scotland for further detail in relation to that matter.”
“Given that more than 70 per cent of Scottish pupils now identify as non-religious or as having non-Christian beliefs, I am deeply concerned that non-denominational schools are still able to deliver an exclusively Christian programme of religious observance. In the report, one parent explained that their child was pressured to pray out loud and reprimanded for choosing to stay quiet, leaving her distressed and ashamed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that represents a clear failure to respect a child’s right to their own beliefs—a fundamental human right that is protected under the UNCRC—and that pupils should be given the ability to independently opt out of religious observance? Jenny Gilruth: I, too, am concerned by some of the issues that have been raised in the Humanist Society Scotland report.”
“The Scottish Government welcomes the Humanist Society’s report, which helpfully adds to the literature regarding current practice of religious observance—or RO—and the right of parents to withdraw pupils from it. Evidence shows how inclusive and pluralistic religious observance can support all pupils’ spiritual and moral development. I met with the Humanist Society last week and have asked it to share further information on its examples of RO not being delivered inclusively. Guidance is clear that religious observance should be inclusive for those of all faiths and none. Elena Whitham: I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the Humanist Society Scotland.”
“I think that that was the member’s substantive point, and the provisions in the bill reflect that aim. It is a technical bill that aims to strengthen our alignment with the UNCRC, and it will put the position in relation to ministers’ UNCRC obligations in this area beyond doubt. As I said, I am more than happy to meet members, and the committee will consider the bill in due course. “Preaching is not Teaching” 7.”
“Today, my private office has reached out to all members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which will be considering the bill in due course, to offer to engage directly. I met the Humanist Society only last week to hear some of the points that Emma Roddick has raised. The point that I made in my initial response is that it is important that the Government strikes a balance in relation to the rights of parents and the rights of children and young people. We need to be mindful of that balance and of it potentially becoming out of kilter. The aim of the bill is to ensure that, in the context of the long-standing parental right to withdraw a child from religious observance, children’s and young people’s views are given due weight in that process.”
“Although the bill gives school pupils the right to overrule their parents in order to opt in to religious observance, non-religious children will still need parental permission to opt out. That creates a hierarchy of beliefs, with the views of religious pupils being taken more seriously than those of non-religious children and young people. Why is that? Will the cabinet secretary address that worrying bias, or are religious children’s views officially more valid than the views of those who do not hold those beliefs? Jenny Gilruth: I do not agree with the substantive final point of Emma Roddick’s question. I am more than happy to engage with the member on that point.”
“The bill, in its current form, will strengthen the rights of children and young people in Scotland, building on our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The changes aim to strike a balance between that commitment, parental rights, the wide range of stakeholder views and the practicality of implementing the changes for schools. The approach represents a clear improvement in the consideration of children’s and young people’s views on withdrawal from religious observance. In accordance with current guidance, schools should already take an inclusive approach to religious observance, reflecting the diversity of faith and belief in the school community. Emma Roddick: There is a fundamental inequality in that.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There are a number of supplementaries. I will fit in as many as I can.”
“Will the cabinet secretary outline when young people in the Wester Hailes area will have the opportunity to benefit from the new Wester Hailes high school, which is currently under construction? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Gordon MacDonald for his question and look forward to attending the official opening of Currie community high school in November. On his substantive point, I understand that the redevelopment of Wester Hailes high school is under way and that completion is expected in autumn 2026. As I mentioned in my previous response, the Government will provide further funding to the City of Edinburgh Council through the learning estate investment programme, with funding of £16.8 million for that ambitious transformation, which will create lasting benefits for young people and the wider community.”
“The Scottish Government recognises the importance of education infrastructure as a foundation for delivering high- quality learning environments, supporting wellbeing and enabling long-term economic and social benefits. That is why, since 2011, we have invested significant funding of £2.8 billion in Scotland’s education estate. That investment has led to the proportion of schools in a good or satisfactory condition increasing from 62.7 per cent in 2007 to a record 92 per cent today. Our funding through the learning estate investment programme is helping to build on that remarkable progress. Gordon MacDonald: I welcome the new, state- of-the-art Currie community high school, which opened at the start of the academic year in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gilruth. We will ensure that that is recorded.”