Chamber and committees

I thank and congratulate Alyn Smith for securing this member’s business debate, and I also thank members for their speeches. As Stephen Kerr has just reflected, this debate has been positive, and it has given all members—including me, as the new Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic—an opportunity to celebrate the enormous success that is Scotland’s screen sector.

We have long been a great cinematic nation: from Sean Connery’s James Bond and the film, “Gregory’s Girl”, which has been mentioned, to modern classics like “Trainspotting” and so many more examples, we have played a defining role in the global story of film and television. However, this debate is not just about celebrating that legacy; it must be about acknowledging what we are achieving today and looking at how we can build on that in the future.

Today, Scotland’s screen sector is not only culturally authentic and significant; as members have reflected, it is also an economic powerhouse and a global creative force. Alyn Smith spoke of the sector’s value, and I will put some of that growth in context. In 2019—just a year after the creation of Screen Scotland—film and television contributed £567 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy. By 2023, that had risen to £718 million, and, as members have reflected, we are now on track to reach £1 billion of GVA by 2030. That growth reflects sustained investment, strong partnerships and a clear vision for the sector.

The Government’s manifesto commitment to make Screen Scotland a distinct body with increased funding will be central to realising that vision. It will allow us to accelerate growth, attract inward investment, expand domestic production and build the skills and infrastructure that all members have said are needed for long-term success.

I want to say a little about Screen Scotland, which has been at the heart of the sector’s progress since 2018. The next step will involve strengthening what works to ensure that Screen Scotland is equipped for the future. We are determined to continue that work.

Many members have reflected on the need for a skilled and diverse workforce. Working with Education Scotland and others, Screen Scotland has begun that work from the ground up by embedding screen and TV skills in the curriculum so that young people across Scotland can forge a pathway to being the television and film makers of the future. As my portfolio brings together education and culture, that is something that I will be keen to pick up and champion. I was pleased to hear Jenni Minto say that her constituent Grace has given the curriculum changes a five-star review.

Having embedded film and screen in the curriculum, we are committed to working with Screen Scotland and others on plans to embed a dedicated film and TV school in a Scottish university, building on the training programmes that have been so fundamentally linked to productions such as “Outlander”, “Dept Q” and others.

We are also continuing to support the growth of world-class studios and infrastructure so that productions of all sizes can choose to base themselves in Scotland. Members were correct to reflect on the fact that attracting production is key. Inward investment and international productions are a huge part of that. Such investment ensures that Scotland is attractive and globally competitive and is able to continue to attract productions such as the Oscar-winning “Frankenstein”, “Dept Q” and Marvel’s “Avengers”. I was pleased to hear my colleagues Ben Macpherson and Q Manivannan recognise the good news that there will be a second season of “Dept Q”.

It is right to say that, with any kind of disruption—even when Glasgow’s streets are being showcased in international film and TV—we must be considerate of businesses. I am always interested in hearing about ways in which we can do that better.

However, there is another angle to reflect on, which is that domestic production is just as important as, if not more important than, our ability to attract international pictures. David Torrance was absolutely right to remind us of that, and Alyn Smith was correct to mention the supply chain and all the behind-the-scenes jobs. When content is developed and owned in Scotland, the benefits go further and last longer. By supporting sustainable jobs, we can strengthen independent production companies, ensuring that value remains here in Scotland and that we have the ability to tell our own stories—something that has felt elusive for too long.

We have already seen what can be achieved in productions such as “Summerwater” and “An t-Eilean”, which provided absolutely gripping Gaelic drama. Both those productions were supported by Screen Scotland’s broadcast content fund. Independent Scottish production companies continue to produce work that reaches global audiences and reflects our distinctive voice—a voice that I am so glad is being heard in English, Gaelic and Scots.

To build on that, we need to do much more on intellectual property development. That includes backing Scottish writers, producers and creators to originate ideas here, to retain rights here and to scale those ideas for international markets. We must enable people to emulate the young Liam Kerr in that regard. It is essential that we have a strong pipeline from development through to distribution if Scottish-owned content is to play a larger role in the growth of the sector.

I also want to say a word about cinema. Michael Marra, Liam Kerr, Lloyd Melville and Jenni Minto are absolutely right to mention the importance of independent cinema. As well as strongly encouraging folks to enjoy their local cinemas, I want to acknowledge this evening the campaigners who are working to save their independent cinemas. In that respect, I must mention the success of the Screen Machine campaigners, and I am really pleased that the Scottish Government was able to support that.

Time is against me, but before I wind up, I just want to make it clear that public service broadcasting is absolutely central. It is critical that Scotland’s voice is heard in it, and, as culture secretary, I will be championing that.

Our ambitions are absolutely clear: we have a sector that, as members have reflected, has gone from strength to strength and is a real growth area for our economy. However, it also has intrinsic value in providing jobs and growth in Scotland’s communities and in allowing us to tell the stories of Scotland and to put them on a global stage. I am so proud of the success that we have had to date, and I look forward to leading that further.

I would certainly be interested to engage with Willie Rennie on the growing body of concern that he has spoken of regarding the use of digital devices being unregulated. There is a distinction to be made between personal mobile devices and digital devices that are provided by a school, which will often have firewalls and other technologies, meaning that pupils stay squarely focused on the learning outcome of the use of the device.

As part of the consultation on the proposed legislation, I will seek to understand more about those concerns over a lack of regulation. Given that the aim is to help with the learning environment, I am keen to ensure that we are not removing tools that help teachers to further our young people’s education.

I thank Angela Ross for her question and her support for the policy. I hope that we can continue to garner that support right across the chamber. I also acknowledge her comments about the preparedness and the preparations that have gone into the policy. I give credit to my predecessor in the education portfolio—the Deputy First Minister, Jenny Gilruth—for the very considered manner in which the policy has been adopted and for getting us to this stage.

Angela Ross is right to ask about flexibility. One problem with the current situation, and one reason why we need to change the law, is that some schools have adopted the approach and others have not, and that variability across the country will be letting down some pupils. We cannot have that and we have to correct it, but flexibility will continue to be an important aspect. The guidance as it stands allows for school-appropriate flexibility, including on whether the ban applies in the classroom or to the whole campus, and what exemptions might be made available.

Another thing that is critical to making the policy work practically, which is what Angela Ross’s question was about, is the whole-school-community approach to its development. That has to involve the heads of schools and teachers working with parents and carers, and, crucially, with young people. When I visited James Gillespie’s high school, I found that it has put a great deal of emphasis on the whole school community’s buy-in to the policy, and that was bearing fruit in its implementation.

I would reflect a similar experience to that of Katherine Sangster. She mentioned having spoken with a number of parents who are keen to see this carefully developed policy move to the next stage and to a nationwide position. I, too, have had that experience. Most teachers who I spoke to in a constituency capacity, prior to coming into my current role, reflected that desire for a central position, and that is what the Government is now moving to deliver.

Katherine Sangster is right to ask about timelines. In the first 100 days of this Government, we have committed to opening the consultation on the legislation and publishing the updated guidance, which we are encouraging schools to adopt now, in advance of the change of the law.

Trust is vital, and we absolutely trust our school leaders and teachers to lead the policy. That is why the Deputy First Minister’s guidance put them front and centre and put our support behind them. Support is also vital. As I have reflected, we have heard calls for increased national support, which will now be provided.

Ms Kinross-O’Neill is absolutely right to remind us of the importance of the views of children and young people. That is central to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our belief in getting it right for every child. Children and young people have already been engaged through the development of the guidance, and I assure her that that approach will be front and centre as we take forward the legislation.

However, it is also worth saying that, as adults in society, we have an obligation to act when we believe that something is harming our children.

I associate myself with Marie McNair’s question. Recently, I spoke to a guidance teacher who said that, almost exclusively, she begins her mornings by dealing with the emotional upset or turmoil of one young person, or a number of young people, as a result of something that has emanated from the online world. It might be communication between pupils or something that someone has seen and cannot get out of their head.

We all need to reflect on the fact that this situation has intensified very quickly. Technology is ever-evolving, and we will have to be nimble as we seek to grapple with it. Our responses to such issues should be clear and always proportionate. We should empower young people, parents and carers, and we should support our teachers and headteachers to implement what is right for their schools.

I would reflect to Meghan Gallacher that the law in Scotland is as it stands, and the Government’s position has long been that we cannot unilaterally implement the policy nationwide without a change in the law. As has been reflected, the development and co-development of guidance that has gotten us to this point has been helpful preparation for the next step that we will take together.

Meghan Gallacher is absolutely right to highlight the difficulties and the potential harms of the online world, as I have done. We also need to remember that navigating the online world can provide communities for certain young people and can be an outlet for their needs in life, but they will not be able to navigate it well and get those benefits unless we help to protect them from the harms, which is exactly what we will do.

My priority is to ensure that our school environments support pupils to thrive and to reach their full potential. There is no doubt that new and evolving technologies can provide opportunities for learning and communication. However, they also bring the risk of a spectrum of harm. We need to recognise the negative impact of mobile phones and screen time and, frankly, to protect our children and young people from that.

That is why now is the time for phone-free learning environments. I am pleased that there is cross-party consensus on the issue and that we can work together on it. We owe it to our pupils and teachers to do so, and to create an environment that is conducive to learning and teaching. This Government has already been clear that any school or education authority that wishes to introduce restrictions on mobile phones in its classrooms or across the school estate will have ministers’ full support. That is the position set out in our national guidance, which we introduced in 2024 in response to the 2023 report on behaviour in Scottish schools that highlighted the disruption caused by mobile phones in our classrooms.

Since we introduced that guidance, many schools and education authorities have acted to restrict the use of mobile phones, and I welcome that. However, there is too much variability. We have listened carefully to calls from parents, carers and teachers to ensure greater consistency across the country so as to support children’s learning and development.

We continue to hear concerns about classroom disruption where restrictions are absent and about the wider impacts on pupils’ wellbeing of excessive screen time, exposure to harmful online content and the effects of online bullying. That is why we will shortly publish a consultation on legislation to make our learning environments phone free, thereby meeting our commitment to do so within the first 100 days of this Government’s being in office.

Last week, in one of my first school visits as Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic, I went to James Gillespie’s high school, where I met staff and young people to discuss the school’s mobile phone policy. It is clear about allowing no phones during school hours on school grounds, which include the campus, the classrooms, the corridors and the cafeteria. The rules for the school’s young people are clear: see it, hear it, lose it.

When I spoke to the staff and the young people, which I did separately, they highlighted the benefits of that policy, including fewer distractions during class, reduced conflict among pupils and between staff and pupils, and more interaction among peers. The young people reflected on how much they welcomed the break from otherwise addictive apps and content.

I want to hear from more pupils through our consultation. Scotland has been a pioneer in the advancement of rights for children and young people, and it is vital that their views be front and centre in the decisions that we take. We also want to understand the range of views from parents and carers, school staff, education authorities and interested organisations, which will help to shape our legislation and allow us to deal with multiple complex issues.

For example, as our current guidance makes clear, there will be occasions when exemptions are required, such as where young people use their phones to monitor medical conditions or where young carers need to maintain contact with home. Schools that have already implemented phone-free policies per our guidance are managing exemptions well. We will fully explore and understand all those issues to inform sensible legislation.

Legislation is the only way in which we can mandate learning environments to be phone free. Until then, existing guidance allows all schools to introduce such a policy now. Therefore, to signal our intent that schools should move to introduce restrictions while we prepare legislation, we are working with education authorities to refresh our current guidance to support and encourage more schools to introduce restrictions ahead of a change in the law.

We are working with the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools so that the updated guidance will be informed by the views of organisations including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the main teaching unions and representatives of parents and carers. As will be crucial, it will also be informed by the views of young people.

The guidance will set out expectations for key areas, including the engagement with the whole school community—pupils, staff and families—that will be required if we are to build support for such policies. I am pleased to inform members that the updated guidance will be published by the end of this month to support schools in considering their approach from the beginning of the next term.

This issue rests within the wider public health approach to online harm that the Government is committed to taking. We recognise the spectrum of harm that is associated with the significant intensification that we have seen in children’s and young people’s use of online platforms and smartphones. That spectrum includes—but is not limited to—loss of concentration and the waste of precious childhood years, at one end, and it goes right through to the absorption of harmful and often violent, misogynistic or radicalising content, incitement to self-harm, extreme bullying and, in some cases, grooming.

Taking a public health approach means being clear about such harms and taking a holistic approach to addressing them. Therefore, when considering the impact of mobile phones in schools, we must think not only about distraction in the classroom or bullying during the school day but about the higher risk of depression, anxiety, poor sleep and poor health in adolescence that can arise from smartphone use in general. Taking such an approach means engaging the whole school community so that schools can create the conditions to get things right for school wellbeing, learning outcomes and long-term health.

Schools are only one part of the solution, and I will highlight action that we are taking to support parents and young people to ensure that social media companies are held to account. Although the main policy and legislative levers, such as measures that can be taken under the Online Safety Act 2023, are held by the United Kingdom Government, in Scotland we are taking all available steps to act here and now while we wait for the UK Government to step up.

Let me be clear: we support the UK Government’s consultation on the banning of social media for under-16s. However, we do not think that that will solve the problem of online harms. We need more concerted action to force social media and tech giants to do more to protect our children. That is a fight that I will not shy away from.

We have also already taken action to provide guidance for parents of younger children and babies by publishing advice on screen time on our Parent Club website for parents of children aged under 5. That advice is in line with the World Health Organization’s guidance. We also continue to fund resources such as the Mind Yer Time website, which gives children and young people advice on social media use, screen time and sleep, and on the impact of all those factors on their body image and mental wellbeing.

We will now build on that work by funding a national public health campaign to make young people and their families aware of how to use social media, screen time and online time in a safe and healthy manner, which might mean not using it at all. We need families to be aware of the harmful consequences and the risks to mental health, sleep and body image of online time, as well as the benefits of spending time with friends and family in real life. Parents must be supported in that effort and never shamed.

We will also use the example of Ireland’s successful pause before you post campaign to make parents and carers aware of the potential harms of what is called sharenting—sharing images and details of their children on social media that can be pieced together and so inadvertently create a digital footprint for young people.

We can take that action—and are taking it now—but Scotland does not have the powers to act in areas such as the regulation of internet services. We will take steps to push the UK Government to take more action, including ensuring that Ofcom uses its powers to hold technology companies and social media providers to account. Regulation has fallen substantially behind where it needs to be. We will advocate for a social media levy on companies, to be invested in programmes to support safer online engagement for young people, thereby improving mental health and supporting online literacy.

I was very interested in the comments of the former UK safeguarding minister, who, in her resignation letter to the Prime Minister, said that she knew of solutions that could end the ability of children in the UK to take naked pictures of themselves

“on every phone and device in the country.”

If that technology exists, it must be rolled out without delay. The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, Siobhian Brown, has written to the new safeguarding minister to ask about that technology, to confirm our support for such a move and to reiterate our desire to work closely with the UK Government on the important issue of safeguarding.

Our children and young people are growing up in an online world that was unimaginable 20 years ago when I was at school. I recall the first smartphones emerging then. The rapid evolution of technology means that our thinking must also adapt. The Government is clear that a public health approach is appropriate to respond to those changes. Creating phone-free learning environments is an important part of that holistic approach. Our schools should be safe and nurturing environments for our children and young people, where they can learn free from the distractions of mobile phones. Teachers will benefit from that, too.

I look forward to working constructively with members on that issue and the wider issue of freeing our children from intensifying online harm.

It is not at all daunting to have one former teacher sitting next to me and one over my shoulder, but that helps to stress how much I hope that we can deliver the change in the law in a way that takes on board the views of the teaching profession, parliamentarians across the chamber, parents and carers and, of course, our teaching unions and local authorities. I recognise that each school will have to seek to overcome different aspects of the issue, whether there is a classroom ban or a campus ban, and I have alluded to some of them already.

Personally, I saw a campus ban working really well at James Gillespie’s high school. The teachers and young people reflected to me that that not only helps to remove distractions in the classroom but frees the young people from what we know can be the malign influence of the online world throughout their day. Some of the young people reflected to me that, because their phone had been off in their bag, increasingly, when they were going home, they were not turning it back on as quickly as they might have done before. That is breaking the addictiveness that we know tech companies build into many of their platforms.

In response to Patricia Gibson, I would say that flexibility will be built in and we will consult carefully on what everybody involved thinks needs to be reflected in the eventual law change. However, I am keen to ensure that what we finally pass in the chamber reflects the gravity of the potential harm that could impact our young people and operates as a bit of a line in the sand for how we see the correct use of smartphones in the online world for our young people.