Official Report 1099KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19123, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, on mobile phones in schools.
14:52
Presiding Officer,
“It helped me focus.”
“Fights and bullying at breaks have got better—because no one has their phones in class to organise them.”
“I spend more time talking to my friends now.”
“I’m glad the temptation to go on my phone has gone.”
That is what young people told me about a ban on mobile phones in school classrooms when I met them last week, and that is why Scottish Labour has lodged a straightforward motion with a straightforward purpose: to ban mobile phones for learners in classrooms across Scotland in order to help to make classrooms calm and safe places to learn. We propose that because education is crucial. It is the ladder to opportunity for all, and it is our job to move anything that stands in the way of that vital goal.
All colleagues across the chamber know that there are many obstacles to that goal and that the atmosphere in too many classrooms is challenging for learning and teaching. Teachers are overworked and are firefighting disruption. The scaffolding that should be there to hold our young people up—timely mental health support, speech and language services and educational psychologists—has all been stretched thin, and in some cases it is non-existent. Bullying is up by nearly 200 per cent in just five years. A School Leaders Scotland survey found that pupil behaviour is increasingly difficult to manage, and the Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools research cites phones and social media as a factor, recognising that they are seriously disruptive.
Amid all of that, we are still allowing that disruption in classes and letting the online world pour into the school day through the rectangle in a young person’s pocket, with the constant of notifications, group chats, viral clickbait and rising amounts of harmful content. The cabinet secretary says that headteachers are empowered to end that if they see fit, but that is not leadership; that is passing the buck. Local delivery is indeed crucial, but it is the Government’s job to set clear expectations, and that is why I cannot accept the Government’s amendment to the motion. It leaves us where we are now, and I am not prepared to stand still on the future for our young people.
The pupils I met last week told me that, when the temptation is removed, they talk to their friends more, they concentrate more, they feel calmer and they can hear themselves think. A national ban on phones in class would free young people and empower staff and parents. It would change the temperature in the room and draw a sensible boundary during lessons so that pupils can concentrate and teachers can teach. Importantly, it can be implemented in a way that involves young people, engages parents and empowers schools. Leaving it up to headteachers lacks leadership and passes the buck.
Where the Government has failed to lead, schools have stepped in. In Portobello, the model is simple and it is delivered in a rights-protecting way. Pupils keep their property, but it is locked in a pouch for class and unlocked at lunch—not at break. Pupils can unlock it to call home if they need to, and pupils who need more regular access to their phones—for example, pupils with additional support needs or caring responsibilities and some pupils in the senior phase who might need messages about work—can access them. In Notre Dame high school in Glasgow, staff and pupils manage a clear off and away rule, together with classroom routines that everyone understands. Those are two different models with the same outcomes: more attention, fewer flashpoints and more time on task.
However, leadership cannot stop at the school gate. The Government issued guidance and then shrugged. We therefore have a postcode lottery, with teachers left to bear the weight of that crucial decision and parents left to navigate mixed messages. Empowerment without direction is abdication, and our motion corrects that.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Will the member take an intervention?
In the absence of the iPads that the SNP promised, where teachers want to use devices in lessons in schools where bans exist, teachers have the option to say, “Take out your device for this task” for a specific purpose and in a specific period.
I am happy to take the intervention.
You do not really have time, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
I apologise to Karen Adam, but I cannot take her intervention.
With a national ban, the default changes from phones first to learning first. That is what we are asking for. We are asking the Government to take a practical, proportionate step, with a classroom rule being implemented with professional judgment and involving young people.
The Government has dithered and delayed. Schools have improvised, parents have worried and pupils have paid the price. Today, the Parliament has a choice: we can let schools keep muddling through or we can set a clear expectation that every child in Scotland deserves a calm, phone-free lesson as standard, not as a postcode perk. Our ask today is simple: to make the rules clearer, make the day calmer, give teachers back the time to teach and give pupils the space to learn and flourish. The motion proposes a national phone ban for learners during lessons. Our young people deserve that, and I urge members to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that mobile phones should be banned for learners in school classrooms.
I advise members that, as ever when there are two debates during the afternoon, we are pretty tight for time. There is not a lot of additional time.
15:00
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. 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.”
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?
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—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am happy to do so.
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.
Always speak through the chair.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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
I thank the Labour Party for holding a debate on mobile phone use in schools. The Scottish Conservatives held a similar debate in January this year, and I am pleased that, since then, other parties—and, indeed, the cabinet secretary herself—have moved towards supporting our call for a national ban on the use of mobile phones in classrooms. We are clear that there is growing concern about behaviours in our classrooms, and mobile phones are often at the heart of those behaviours.
As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, our classrooms must be safe spaces for pupils to learn in and teachers and classroom assistants to teach in, but, for so many of our young people, they are not. Concentration is a key thing that we must ensure is restored. Many schools can be and are great learning environments for our young people and great environments for teachers to deliver the lessons that we all want to be delivered. However, we also need to make sure that standards are set.
Last week, I was delighted to visit Leith academy, which I know that the cabinet secretary also visited last week. I welcome what the school is doing to support its pupils, some of whom I welcomed to Parliament yesterday. I have been really impressed by the work that the school is doing on pupils’ expectations with regard to mobile phone use in classrooms. Most schools can manage expectations in that way.
However, in too many cases, our school environments have become toxic, with students and teachers experiencing stress, bullying and other negative behaviours, and mobile phone use is often at the heart of that. Action must be taken to ensure that poor behaviour in the classroom has consequences, and we must look towards not allowing pupils to have phones out in classrooms. I therefore welcome the fact that there now seems to be a clear consensus across Parliament on our desire to send out the clear message that we want mobile phone use in classrooms to be banned and that we want all 32 councils to move towards implementing such a ban.
As has been stated, here in the capital, City of Edinburgh Council is leading by example. I welcome the fact that Conservative councillors have secured a ban on mobile phones in Edinburgh’s primary schools, which will be introduced in November. In addition, two secondary schools—Portobello high and Queensferry high—have piloted the issuing of special sealed wallets, which, once sealed, require a magnetic pad to unlock them. That allows pupils to keep their phones in the classroom. That is an expensive solution to the problem, and I know from speaking to staff that the additional staff support that is needed to seal and unseal the wallets is problematic. I am open to different approaches being taken, and I think that headteachers should be at the heart of that work. All schools already try to manage the situation, and their headteachers have policies on the issue.
The Scottish Conservatives have led the debate on our toxic school environments. We have called for a reset on that, and I hope that ministers have started to listen. I hope, too, that Parliament will continue to listen to some of the commonsense views of teachers, parents and our young people that we have brought to Parliament. I welcome the progress that has been made in delivering some of the changes that we want to see, such as the review of additional support for learning, which we secured in May. Ultimately, we want Parliament to send out the message that we want there to be a national ban on mobile phone use in classrooms, and that we want all councils to work to progress that. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
I move amendment S6M-19123.1, to leave out from “banned” to end and insert:
“subject to a clear national ban in classrooms, recognising the strong evidence of how distracting they are and how disruptive they can be to pupils’ ability to learn and teachers’ ability to teach; acknowledges that while headteachers and local authorities have some powers to restrict the use of mobile phones, existing Scottish guidance is weak, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected.”
15:09
Pam Duncan-Glancy quoted young people welcoming the change of policy on phones in classrooms, and she talked about having a sensible boundary during lessons. I welcome that, and I will support the motion, but it is disappointing that Labour does not support the Government amendment, which also seems sensible and balanced to me. It seems that Labour wants to present the idea of a simple blanket and uniform rule while still acknowledging the need for exceptions and individual reasons and acknowledging different circumstances. I agree that we need to recognise the autonomy of schools.
That being said, I support the motion and the Government’s amendment. The cabinet secretary said that Labour’s motion is missing something, but I think that both the motion and the amendment are missing something, because the debate is not just about distraction in class but about young people’s ability to learn to navigate an increasingly fraught, hostile and disturbing information landscape. Many aspects of today’s permanently online life do not stop when the school day ends—far from it. Young people face multiple issues, including bullying, targeted abuse against minorities, marketing, conspiracy theories and racist and far-right content—all beaming at them 24 hours a day through these devices. It is not accidental. It is built into the business models of social media platforms and others.
I cite the death of 23-year-old Paloma Shemirani. Paloma’s mother had been radicalised against science-based healthcare by that type of content, and that influence led Paloma to refuse chemotherapy that could have saved her life. Her story has become a tragic example of the way that social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and X have become sources of health information and disinformation, with millions of people—increasingly, young people—relying on them for advice and being misled.
Health conspiracies on other issues, such as anti-vaccine conspiracies and the promotion of fake treatments, also circulate. Recently, days after Donald Trump promoted dangerous rubbish about paracetamol and autism, a member of this Parliament echoed that baseless idea. Scotland is by no means immune.
Prejudice, racism, anti-migrant propaganda, homophobia and transphobia have been growing in intensity to the point that, even at the highest level of politics in the United Kingdom, there are politicians who openly debate whether black or brown people can ever be British, English or Scottish—ideas that, not so long ago, would have been the preserve of the British National Party. Much of that activity is promoted and even directly paid for by social media platforms—X, YouTube and others are paying people huge sums of money to produce it and then aggressively pushing it out to audiences, especially young people. That torrent of far-right and conspiracist propaganda is the information landscape that young people are growing up in. If phones are switched back on as soon as young people leave the classroom, they are still vulnerable.
I will back the motion and the Government amendment at decision time. The policy stance on phones in classrooms is fine as far as it goes, but I am not sure that the debate about whether it should be a blanket decision by a cabinet secretary or up to the autonomy of individual schools and headteachers is really where the issue is at. We must not allow that action to result in complacency about the wider issue—the world of abusive, bigoted, conspiracist and untrue content that we have all created and the impact that it is having on everyone, including the young people who are growing up on it.
A policy of no phones in classrooms is fine, but it will not end the need to take a far more robust approach to regulating social media and tackling the far-right and toxic culture warriors.
15:14
I think that there is agreement that the use of mobile phones in the class can be incredibly distracting. There is growing evidence from across the education world that it damages academic performance and can be a major source of distraction.
The constant notifications that we all experience on our phones can create a state of hypervigilance and a lack of concentration. That has an effect on the school more widely—for example, on the number of conflicts and fights between pupils, and pupils’ conflicts with teachers. I think that members on all sides of the chamber accept that that is the case and that phone use in class contributes towards the trio of issues that the cabinet secretary often talks about: absence, additional support needs and behaviour. It adds to the mix and exacerbates the problems within that.
Patrick Harvie made the point that the wider world of the internet presents an extreme challenge to our way of life. School can often offer a haven of education and peace, and a bit of normality, away from everything in the wider world. If there is trouble at home, school can be a place of safety. What we are talking about today is exactly how we execute that.
I would like to see the evidence as to the impact of the cabinet secretary’s current policy so far. I hear of some good examples where phones are handed in at the front of the class at the beginning of the lesson and handed back at the end, which has an impact on the performance of the class.
Equally, however, I hear too often that there is still a debate about whether phone use in class is a good thing or not. We should recognise that the evidence and the science are clear: it is not a good thing for phone use to be happening in class. We should not leave any doubt about that, and the cabinet secretary needs to play a role in that regard.
There has been a bit of a difference in the way that the cabinet secretary has talked about the issue today. On the one hand, she has said that she thinks that phones are a distraction but, on the other hand, she has said that she wants to leave the power with the headteacher. I want to empower headteachers, but that indicates that there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to have phones in class.
We need to be clear that the evidence is growing—the science and the studies are clear—that that state of hypervigilance is not a good thing. I would like the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in her closing remarks, because we need to send a very clear signal to headteachers about what we think that the balance is. The cabinet secretary has a leadership role in that regard.
In addition, headteachers need a bit of support, because they face a number of different challenges. Those include sometimes quite challenging parents who come into the class and demand things from teachers and from the headteacher. If direction comes from the education secretary, it means that the headteacher has her support. The headteacher knows that the cabinet secretary has their back, which perhaps makes it slightly easier to implement a ban.
A final point is peer pressure. I know many young people who would just love a day without having to go on their phone, because of the way that it changes their demeanour and their ability to talk in the playground, the canteen or the corridors. They would be able to get those human connections back again, rather than everybody being stuck on their phone all the time.
We can seek the positive of that change in behaviour with schools as a haven, and we should be aiming for that. I will support the motion and the Conservative amendment this afternoon, because we need to go further.
We move to the open debate.
15:18
I believe that it is time to ban mobile phones in all Scottish classrooms. We need to shield children from harmful content, misinformation, bullying and other social pressures and—as Pam Duncan-Glancy said—make the classroom a safe place in which to learn.
I was shocked to read that research by Ofcom indicates that a quarter of three and four-year-olds in the UK now have a smartphone and that, by the time they are 12, the percentage rises to 89 per cent. That is the current trend in society, and by the time children come to education, it is much harder for educators to control something that is going on outside.
With the rise in cyberbullying, our children are exposed to an unacceptable amount of danger. There is pressure on parents to provide smartphones—Willie Rennie was quite right to talk about peer pressure—and I think that that would dissolve to some extent if there was a ban on mobile phones in schools.
It would also take the pressure off headteachers themselves, although they would still have to deal with a minority of parents who may still want to keep phones in class. The Government appears to clearly support a ban as long as headteachers make the decision. That is what we are arguing over, and I think that it is a responsibility for Government. Given the trend that I talked about and the harm that is being done to children, it is a decision for Government to make.
I do not believe that such a decision would undermine the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the delivery of education by local government in any way whatsoever. The tech companies are incredibly powerful, and we know that there is a constant battle with them about social media content and a tension with the policies that we drive to reduce violence against women and girls. The tech companies’ algorithms drive people towards certain behaviours. One of my biggest reasons for supporting a ban on mobile phone use in schools is that an increasing body of data shows that being exposed to excessive social media is rewiring young brains during a critical window of their psychological development. That is my primary concern, and it always has been. I agree with Jenny Gilruth that we should listen to our headteachers, but we should also listen to our scientists. Their views are unequivocal and have been for a decade. I think that that is enough of a basis to say that we have a responsibility to impose a ban on mobile phones in schools.
The cabinet secretary is quite right that MSPs are some of the worst offenders, particularly during committee meetings—we know that. However, we are talking about children and the responsibility that we have towards them. That is why I am speaking in the debate. It is asking a lot of a child to ask them to navigate online content and to protect themselves. At some point in the future, I wonder whether those children will ask us why we did not act more strongly when we had the chance, and why we left it to them to make decisions about their use. Members may have noticed a recent survey of gen Z adults aged between 18 and 27, who have grown up with social media. Members can believe this or not, but the survey found that nearly half them wished that TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter—or X—had never been invented. That generation is already alive to the dangers of smart phone use.
In my final minute, or just under a minute, I want to touch on the wider harms that Patrick Harvie spoke about. He was quite right to say that, by banning mobile phones in schools, we will not reduce all the harm. However, we know that smartphones are used, especially by boys, for intimate image abuse, and that 12-year-olds are exposed to pornography on smartphones. It is as much about protecting boys as it is about protecting women and girls. Clearly, that is a wider issue, but much of that behaviour goes on in schools. For some time, I have been calling on the Government to collect data on what is going on in our schools, because England and Wales have done that. I hope that we will legislate further on what needs to be done to tackle the creation of that content and to teach children that that is unacceptable behaviour.
For those reasons, I believe that this generation expects the Government to take big decisions. I think that the time has come for there to be a national ban on mobile phones in our classrooms.
15:22
I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for bringing the motion for debate in the chamber. Many of us have had casework on the issue over the past few years. East Lothian Council has had a policy of allowing individual schools to decide on their own policies. I am also aware of differing opinions within schools in East Lothian, as well as among the parents whom I have liaised with. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlighted, it is about the Scottish Government empowering headteachers in schools to make the decisions on mobile phone use that work for them and best support their children and their local areas.
Of course, classrooms must be a safe environment—I do not think that any of us would disagree with that—and we must recognise the role that mobile phones play in contributing to distraction and challenging behaviour.
Some of the children whom I have spoken to in East Lothian and beyond say that they use their mobile devices in classrooms as a learning aid. Is the member embarrassed that the SNP’s commitment to provide every school pupil with an internet-connected tablet or laptop and the support to use them has not been delivered during the parliamentary session?
No, I am not embarrassed. The Government has made good progress on that.
We need to equip headteachers with guidance and with the means to act in the best interests of their pupils in addressing concerns around mobile phones. The Government is supporting Scotland’s schools to take the necessary steps to tackle the negative effects that are associated with mobile phone use in order to enhance outcomes for all Scotland’s young people. Of course, as members have noted, there is growing evidence that suggests that overexposure to mobile phones can negatively impact concentration levels and result in isolation. The decision to implement a ban on mobile phones rests with headteachers. As I said, I have had discussions with headteachers in East Lothian. They know their pupils and staff best and are trusted to make decisions that are in the best interest of their pupils.
Those decisions are not made in isolation. Guidance on mobile phones was published in August 2024 to provide support to teachers’ efforts to ensure a consistent learning environment for pupils.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I am sorry, but I only have four minutes, and I have already taken one intervention.
The Government is now providing schools with comprehensive guidance on a range of approaches to responding to behaviour issues. That builds on the guidance that was published in June 2025 to promote positive relationships and behaviours across the whole school community.
Importantly, the guidance was developed with input from headteachers, teaching unions, local government and educational psychologists. It focuses on improving outcomes by reinforcing positive behaviour and working to reduce the likelihood of negative behaviour occurring in the future.
The Scottish Government guidance is the latest commitment to be delivered through the relationships and behaviours in schools joint national action plan, which covers the period from 2024 to 2027. It was developed in response to evidence from the behaviour in Scottish schools research that the Government published in 2023. Around 4,000 school staff from across Scotland participated in the production of the report. The joint action plan is a collaborative exercise and is informed by the work of the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Education Scotland, as well as by the views of parents and carers. It contains 20 key action points that are designed to support schools in their practice and approaches. It will be delivered across three years and is led by partners, including national Government, local government and third sector organisations.
Scotland has a good education system, with great schools and great teachers. We should trust them more. We all want our children and young people to get the most out of the learning opportunities that are available to them, and all children and young people have the right to get the support that they need to reach their full learning potential.
There are real challenges in Scotland’s schools at the current time—we are all aware of that—and it would be far more beneficial for Scotland’s children and young people if parties were able to work together to respond to those challenges.
In my experience, schools know how best to use their local knowledge to develop their own mobile phone strategy.
15:26
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s motion, which calls for mobile phones to be banned for learners in school classrooms. We have had to bring the debate to the chamber because of the continued inaction and dithering from the Scottish Government.
I declare an interest, in that I have two primary school-age children. They do not have mobile phones, because I do not think that it is appropriate for them to have them yet, but I very much recognise what Willie Rennie said about peer-group pressure.
I fully appreciate and understand that every parent will make choices about whether and when it is appropriate to give their child a mobile phone, with the best interests of their child in mind. I particularly understand that many parents give their children a phone for safety reasons, so that they can contact their child should there be an emergency. Many children take mobile phones to school for that reason. The proposal would not prevent that, but it would prevent the misuse of those mobile phones in the classroom.
Schools and classrooms should be a space for learning, growing and flourishing, but mobile phone use is a known distraction in the classroom, which is limiting the ability of teachers to teach and learners to learn. Not only that but, as we have already heard, bullying continues to be a problem in Scottish schools, with an increase in cyberbullying, which follows children inside and outside school, and sickening examples of vicious attacks in schools being filmed on mobile phones and spread across social media.
It is for all those reasons that Scottish Labour would implement a nationwide ban on mobile phones in classrooms in order to make schools safe and attentive places for learning again.
It is important to listen to what teachers and parents are saying. I have been listening to teachers and parents in my area, where good progress has been made to limit the misuse of mobile phones in classrooms. I have to say that the overwhelming majority of teachers and parents to whom I speak agree with a nationwide ban.
It is also important to listen to the views of young people, who are also saying that mobile phones are causing distractions in the classroom. Having listened to their concerns, I would also say that, of course, there would need to be exemptions for schoolchildren who have caring responsibilities or who need mobile phones for medical reasons, but the assumption would be that the vast majority of children do not require a mobile phone in the classroom. Messaging between pupils, filming in classrooms and doing pranks using mobile phones are unacceptable and should not be tolerated—I would say that they should not be allowed to happen in the first place. That is why we should have a nationwide ban on mobile phones in the classroom.
Of course, there has been progress in a number of areas, but I say to the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary that we should have a nationwide ban. I also say to the Scottish Government, which has recently announced its support for a ban on greyhound racing—despite there being next to no greyhound racing in Scotland—that we should have a ban that will make a significant difference to Scotland’s children and young people.
It is also not to say that digital learning cannot make a good positive difference to young people’s lives, but it should be done using laptops, tablets and technologies that are specifically designed for learning—not by using kids’ own mobile phones.
On the issue of laptops and devices, as we have just heard from Mr Hoy, let us not forget the SNP manifesto commitment in 2021 to provide every primary and secondary school-age child in Scotland with a laptop or tablet to get online. That pledge was scrapped last year. Mr McLennan said that the Scottish Government was making real progress. Apparently, in 2024, the Scottish Government had issued only 60,000 devices, despite there being 700,000 school pupils. I do not really count that as progress. If we were marking that progress out of 10, the Scottish Government would not even get 1. That is the story of this Government—big promises made and big promises broken; all talk and no action; all spin and no substance.
We have heard a lot about distraction this afternoon. Perhaps the Scottish Government should stop being distracted by the constitution and grievance politics, and focus on the issues that matter. The Scottish Government should introduce a nationwide ban on mobile phones in classrooms, which will make a difference to our children and young people.
15:30
How about that? A Government that is not distracted by manufacturing grievance all day long—that would be quite an improvement on the Government that we have.
I know that there are wider issues—Patrick Harvie went on at length about the wider issues—but we are talking about the learning environment in schools. That is what we are talking about. I had not come across the word “hypervigilance”. I like that. It is a good description of exactly what we are trying to combat.
I make no apology for standing up to argue in favour of order and discipline in our schools, because order and discipline require consequences and sanctions. Without them there is no respect; without respect, there is no learning environment. Those are not optional extras—they are the very foundations of what makes an education system work.
I know that sometimes we have an aversion in the Parliament to looking at evidence, but we must look at the evidence of what has happened elsewhere. In Spain, they talk about gaining the equivalent of up to a year of extra learning in science, and there have been significant improvements in maths. In Norway, a ban has boosted girls’ grades, reduced bullying and lowered stress and anxiety. In North America, for goodness’ sake, the evidence shows calmer lessons, higher levels of engagement in the classroom and improved test scores.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is unequivocal that a smartphone should be used in school
“only when it supports learning”.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has shown that digital distraction costs people months of learning time, with two thirds of teenagers in its surveys admitting that they are distracted in class by phones—sometimes their own, often those of their classmates.
The Scottish Government has highlighted in its own behaviour in Scottish schools research report that the
“abusive use of mobile phones and digital technologies was one of the most ... serious”
disciplinary problems in our classrooms. The same report revealed shocking rises in violence and disruption. Almost 90 per cent of teachers in secondary schools said that pupils were sometimes or frequently off task, and more than half reported serious verbal abuse. Physical violence against teachers has also risen alarmingly.
The conclusion is obvious: mobile phones undermine learning, discipline and the happiness of children and young people, and they undermine the authority of teachers. As a general rule, they should not be seen or used in classrooms, save in the rarest of circumstances, when they directly support learning. However—this is the point, and I am aghast that the cabinet secretary cannot grasp this—teachers and headteachers cannot do this alone. We might say that they have autonomy to do this, which is true, but it is not an easy thing to do. They have to deal with the consequences of their decision to ban mobile phones in their schools. That point has been highlighted by other members. Headteachers are standing up to the everyday disruption, disorder and, often, violence. They are often left feeling—anyone who has spoken to a headteacher must know this—that they are alone in confronting those challenges, because the national direction and guidance are lacking and they are without the back-up from the Parliament that they badly need.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Kerr is just winding up.
Teachers and headteachers deserve the unambiguous backing not just of ministers but of every member of the Parliament. They must know that, when mobile phones are banned in their schools, they are enforcing that rule with the full support of the Government and the Parliament. Government action must reflect a broader society that backs parents and teachers in making the right choices for our children. It will take resolute, collective action—parents, teachers, communities and this Parliament acting together—to make a ban real and effective.
The choice before us is simple: order and discipline in our classrooms or continued distraction, disruption and decline. For the sake of Scotland’s children, it is imperative that we choose order.
15:35
It is important to recognise something that we do not say nearly enough in the Parliament: Scotland has fantastic schools that are led by great teachers and filled with hard-working young people. Too often we talk about education in the Parliament as if our pupils are a problem to be solved, which I find incredibly insulting and frustrating. Childhood and adolescence are not problems; they are very normal stages in human development that are full of learning and growth. Our job is to support that journey, not reduce it to soundbites that paint young people in the worst possible light.
Will the member take an intervention?
[Made a request to intervene.]
I have a lot to get into my speech.
Labour’s motion calls for a blanket ban on mobile phones in classrooms. I agree that mobile phones can and do cause distraction. There are times when they contribute to negative behaviour and there is growing evidence that overuse can affect concentration and social interaction. None of us would deny those facts. However, the real question is not whether those are challenges; it is how we can best respond.
Just last month, I spoke with a headteacher in my constituency who told me that they had introduced a phones away policy during lessons but that they still allow phones at lunch time. That is because, for some pupils—especially those with additional support needs—access to music or online communication is vital. That flexibility worked for their school. That can be compared to another school in which a complete ban during the whole day is also the right approach. Both policies are valid because they come from professionals who know their pupils and staff.
On the point about exemptions, would that not just create the same admin, policing and management but with fewer powers and more restrictions?
The Scottish Government’s approach to empower headteachers and schools to make the decisions that are right for their school communities makes far more sense. Labour would be the first to complain if the Scottish Government swooped in with central diktats on other matters and undermined the professional judgment of teachers. Local authorities and school leaders know their pupils, staff and environment far better than we ever could in the Parliament, and they are best placed to decide whether a mobile phone policy means a complete ban, restricted use or managed access—and they already have the power to do that.
Let us also not pretend that the Government has been idle. Last year, detailed guidance on mobile phones was published, which was designed with input from teachers, unions and educational psychologists. Just a few months ago, that was followed by new guidance on building positive relationships in schools. The guidance is not about leaving schools to fend for themselves—far from it—but it is about equipping them with evidence and support to make the best choices.
It is worth remembering the broader context. Almost 4,000 staff contributed to the behaviour in Scottish schools research report. The report showed that most pupils are well behaved and dedicated while also highlighting challenges such as misogyny and worsening behaviour in some places, as my colleague Patrick Harvie spoke about. That is exactly why the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was created, bringing together the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, parents, carers and the third sector. It is about partnership, not grabbing headlines.
If we want young people to learn healthy communication, resilience and balance in a digital age, the answer cannot be to simply legislate phones out of sight. That will do little to prepare young people for the world beyond the classroom, where digital communication is a daily reality.
Let us not fall into the trap of making children the scapegoats for wider frustrations. Let us respect their development, respect our teachers and respect the principle that those who are closest to the classroom are best placed to decide what happens in it.
We move to closing speeches.
15:39
The debate has been interesting. A number of members have used the word “distraction”, but it is coincidental that this has been a slightly distracted debate. I think that Neil Bibby was the first one to suggest that the Government is being distracted, when he said that it is being “distracted by the constitution”. I think that he is the only member who mentioned the constitution in the debate, proving that it is not only independence supporters who are distracted by the constitution.
There have, however, been aspects of the debate in which we have been distracted from the real issue—it is not only in classrooms where that happens. Should this serious debate really come down to the difference between a cabinet secretary issuing an edict and respecting the autonomy and the judgment of schools and headteachers? That, in itself, is a distraction from the wider issue that all members across the chamber are genuinely concerned about.
Members have spoken about the impact on learning and of conflict. Those are social and cultural phenomena that are part of our behaviour. They come from us and do not inevitably come from the technology itself.
I have been left thinking that, had someone described mobiles to me when I was a young person growing up in the west of Scotland in the 1980s, they would have sounded like something from science fiction—a great, enlightening and liberating technology, giving us all access to the sum total of human knowledge and the ability to communicate with anybody else in the world. They would have sounded so utopian. In reality, they have become something deeply dystopian.
When I consider the social and cultural environment in which I grew up as a queer, out young person in the 1980s, I just imagine how much worse that experience would have been had every homophobic bully on the planet—whether it was the person sitting at the next desk in my classroom or someone in Government or in a position of power in the country—been able to access me directly and to beam that prejudice right into my eyeballs. I also imagine how much worse it is for, for example, young trans people who are coping with the level of prejudice that is being beamed through those devices right into their eyeballs every day, let alone for young people who are being affected by racism or anti-migrant prejudice, those who are vulnerable to the pressure to present Instagram lifestyles and Instagram bodies, and those who are desperate for information about their health or their wellbeing and finding only lies and conspiracies.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
Ending the use of phones as a distraction in class is fine, but we must also enable our schools to give young people the skills to navigate their lives in this age of information and disinformation. If we want schools to teach those skills, sometimes the question to ask is what the right role is for phones in classrooms, in the right context; it is not just about having a blanket ban.
I will finish by saying, once again, that the problem does not stop when the school day ends, when young people leave the class or leave the school—far from it. The harms that all members are concerned about in the debate are not inevitable. They are really the result not of the technology itself, but of the deliberate choices of the wealthy, powerful people whom we have permitted to control the technology and how we all use it.
15:43
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Scottish Labour for again bringing to the chamber an issue of concern that I think we can all see within Scotland’s education system.
The use of mobiles in classrooms has been a concern of the Scottish Conservatives for many years. The point was first raised by my colleague Sue Webber back in November 2023. I think that we were discussing violence in schools at the time. We are almost two years on and are still debating the negative influences of mobiles being incorrectly utilised in our schools.
The Scottish Conservatives have been aware of the issue for years and have been lobbying to ensure that Scotland’s young people have suitable learning environments in the classroom.
Surely we must all agree that it is essential that our classrooms are conducive to inquiring young minds learning, inquiring and growing. That has to happen in a structured atmosphere and without external influences or mechanisms to distract young people from the task that is in front of them.
In 2024, a Scottish Secondary Teachers Association survey found that 71 per cent of its members believed that the misuse of mobile phones had a negative impact on behaviour and learning, while more than 90 per cent of their lessons were being interrupted by students having to be asked to put away their mobile phones. Three quarters of teachers said that mobile phones disrupted nearly all their lessons. Those are very stark figures.
Even though some local authorities have availed themselves of the guidance that empowers headteachers to restrict mobile use, there is still uncertainty and there is more room in the guidance. That is why national guidance must be clear about what is expected of our headteachers.
I will mention a couple of points that came up in the debate. I listened to Karen Adam’s contribution, but I do not think that it was about what we have been discussing in the debate. Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs mentioned the violence in the classroom that is exacerbated by mobile phones, which was also mentioned in the teachers survey. I think that we can all agree that teachers and classroom assistants should have a working environment that is completely free from violence, threats and bullying.
Stephen Kerr’s contribution was excellent, highlighting the international results that have come from mobile phone bans.
Patrick Harvie made a valid point, but the influence of social media is a different debate . We know that there are algorithms that can spin us off down a rabbit hole, and whether it be far-right or leftist propaganda, we are aware that many of our young people might be seeing harmful ideology on social media. However, that is definitely a different debate.
Finally, on Willie Rennie’s point, there needs to be a clear signal to our headteachers so that they know and can believe that we are behind them and that they will be listened to in what they are calling for.
We have recently heard many positive accounts from schools that have taken steps to limit or even ban mobile phones in classroom time. The results in increased learning and attainment among the pupils in those schools are there for all to see.
I have previously highlighted the fundamental point that children should be children. There is an innocence that we, as a nation, should nurture rather than destroy. The effects of mobile phones on growing and developing minds are only just beginning to be explored. So far, the isolation and anxiety that come from social media are deeply concerning. The issue is more important than we currently know or are aware of, and I urge the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected, just as the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment suggests.
15:47
I welcome the contributions made by members this afternoon. As I said in my opening remarks, there is a lot of consensus around the chamber on the issue.
We all recognise the significant harm that mobiles can cause when they are used inappropriately or maliciously. Many of us will have had personal experience of that. This morning, I was listening to a group of pupils at Portobello high school, and one of them spoke eloquently about the impact of the mobile phone ban in Portobello. She said:
“When our phones went down, our heads went up.”
The comment stayed with me throughout the morning, during our interactions with the international council of education advisers, which is here at the moment.
We also recognise more broadly the impact that mobile phone use can have in our classrooms, such as in a class of 30 pupils, each of whom is receiving 18 notifications an hour, which causes significant disruption to learning and teaching.
There is also a consensus that, when mobile phones are causing problems, it is entirely appropriate for schools to act to restrict young people’s access to them. However, where we differ—Willie Rennie rightly spoke about this—is in how potential bans should be implemented. Let us remember that the headteacher of Portobello high school took nine months to implement his full ban, and it was not a top-down ban—he was working with the whole school community.
Neil Bibby rightly pointed out that some pupils have additional support needs and caring responsibilities. Every headteacher I know who has implemented a ban has worked to provide support to those groups. It is important that headteachers can do that, and the national guidance gives headteachers advice and guidance on how they might do it.
We have heard contributions from members across the chamber, so I will comment on some. With his impassioned delivery, Stephen Kerr spoke about the importance of evidence, and I agree with him whole-heartedly on that point. That is why the Scottish Government regularly commissions evidence on behaviour in Scotland’s schools, the last round of which was published two years ago. We should also remember that the findings from the BISSR reflected wider societal changes, which is the point that I think that Patrick Harvie was making.
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?
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.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will, but I am mindful of the time.
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?
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. 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.
Will the member give way on that point?
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.
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. 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
It is a pleasure to close for Scottish Labour in the debate. I will perhaps contradict some of the contributions, which I have found remarkably interesting. Before I start, I should declare an interest to those viewing and those in the chamber, which is that I was a teacher some while ago, a role that straddled the start of my time in this place.
Mobile phones and digital technology have generally had a huge impact and have huge potential, and they touch every aspect of our lives. Even in the 1980s, when telephones were still attached to the wall, they tended to cause anger among parents when phone calls came in. They are genuinely a hugely valuable tool that allows young people to access information. However, a lot of this afternoon’s contributions have shown how seriously we now need to take mobile phones, the internet and the worldwide web of fake and false information, because they have a negative impact on our pupils throughout their whole lives, but particularly in the classroom.
To pick up on what Neil Bibby said, the evidence of bullying that continues on our school estates, which then carries on afterwards through the use of mobile phones—there are sickening examples of children being filmed fighting each other, which has often been provoked by the use of mobile phones—is incredibly worrying, as is the content that is being beamed down to those phones. We need to be concerned, because smartphones are damaging the environment in our classrooms.
That brings me to the speeches of various members. I will start with that of the cabinet secretary. I remind her of the requirement in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the standards and ... requirements to which every education authority shall conform in discharging their functions under section 1 of this Act”.
That relates to providing the right educational environment and the right number of facilities in which education can take place. I make that point because we do ban things for children. Roz McCall is right that children are entitled to a childhood. They are entitled to be told not to smoke, and they are entitled to be told not to drink alcohol. In due course, they might be entitled to be told not to attend greyhound races. We place parameters around our children’s lives because we are adults and parents, and because—regarding the stages of development that children go through—it is good for them sometimes to push up against walls, to see how far they can go and why those walls are there.
A number of members have said or have implied that Scottish Labour has no trust in teachers, including headteachers, in schools. That is simply nonsense. We trust our teachers to deliver curriculum for excellence, which requires certain signposted activities to be arrived at, and we empower them to teach that curriculum in the way that is appropriate and correct for a small group, for a large group or for the entire school.
I am interested in the point that Martin Whitfield is making. Of course, any regulatory move of the type that he has suggested would take power away from local authorities and centralise power with the national Government. More broadly, I am struck by the approach of the NASUWT, which has been quite critical of the UK Government’s position on the matter. Dr Patrick Roach said:
“If the Government introduces blanket bans that are unenforceable, this will make the behaviour crisis worse, not better.”
That takes me to the point that the issue is about how bans are enforced and how we trust Scotland’s teaching profession.
Briefly, cabinet secretary.
Will Mr Whitfield respond to that point?
I offer my deepest regret for interrupting the cabinet secretary’s contribution.
Of course, education policy is devolved in Scotland. On the issue that the cabinet secretary was talking about, it would be easy to go to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and ask, “Why are children not involved in this decision?” Children are, of course, involved in the decision. We have heard brilliant examples of headteachers working with their communities on how to implement a ban.
On the genuine question in today’s debate, we have to turn to Willie Rennie’s opening speech. Our schools, our headteachers, our parents and our children are looking for authority in that message. Our headteachers need support, and there needs to be a clear message. To slightly corrupt Willie Rennie’s contribution, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should give our schools the agency to be able to say that there should be no mobile phones in classrooms unless there is a need for one. The detail of “unless there is a need for one” can be devised through discussions with young people, the school community and parents.
We have heard that there is overwhelming evidence that smartphones are potentially rewiring the brains of our young people, but we cannot go down the route of a ban without providing full and proper support. We cannot have leadership if there is no listening, but we need leadership when there has been listening. The cabinet secretary has the power to make the change, not in a directorial and top-down way but by saying, “This is the message—implement it in the way that you need to.” To be fair to Stephen Kerr, in relation to his intervention, I am not sure that the cabinet secretary has gone that far by referencing support for headteachers who introduce a ban.
That concludes the debate on mobile phones in schools.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time