Chamber and committees

For absolute transparency, I should say that I am a member of the NASUWT. Mike Corbett is probably expecting more difficult questions, and I will try to be as non-biased as possible.

I will move on to whom the bill should cover. The bill defines a child as someone under the age of 18, but the age range goes up to 26, so that huge band covers school-age children and those older than that. We all know that, daily, teachers in schools face a wide variety of pupils and needs. Do teachers in mainstream schools routinely consider whether a pupil has a disability, as opposed to additional support needs, and how to meet those needs? There is a difference, as we know. I ask Mike Corbett to answer first.

You indicated that most young people will be easily identifiable. However, do you think that the bill sufficiently recognises people who have mild to moderate mental health conditions or people who are going through mental health crises? We have also alluded to people who have fluctuating support systems, and I am mindful that not everything is visible in that sense.

Based on the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, who should determine eligibility in the first instance? If there are disputes, which will inevitably happen, how would they be resolved?

Rebecca, I will go to you first. Feel free to comment on the previous topic. I am also happy for you to respond to my most recent question.

Thanks, Rebecca.

I will ask a final question, which relates to the scope of the bill. The financial memorandum to the bill suggests that around 4,000 school leavers a year would meet the current definition of “disabled”, which is around 8 per cent of school leavers from state schools. Is that a reasonable estimate?

I suppose that I am looking to find out whether that is a reasonable number. Do you think that there will be a lot more people? Do you agree with that estimate?

Andy Miller, do you have anything to add? Feel free to shake your head.

I have listened with great interest to the perspectives of the witnesses. They have been very informative.

I will ask questions about whom the bill should cover and how young people should be identified. The bill bases whom it should cover on age and the definition of disability as stated in the Equality Act 2010. Do you think that that is proper? Will that cover everybody? Will that allow all young people to be identified, considering that not all of them will be in a system already? People can have a variety of needs, and some might not be in a system, if you know what I mean. There are challenges around that. I am interested in hearing how local authorities can identify children and young people who would be eligible without anybody falling through the net. I will start with Jenny Miller.

You have had a good stab at it. Let us go to Andy Miller.

“Brexit—three years on.” What a dismal phrase to hear, particularly in Scotland, where, in 2016, 62 per cent of people voted to remain in the EU, which was a much higher proportion than the 51.8 per cent across the UK who voted to leave. In Glasgow, 66 per cent of people voted to remain in the EU, and, as recently as August last year, a Panelbase poll for The Times newspaper found that 72 per cent of voters in Scotland would now vote to remain in the EU.

However, here we are, three years on, reaping the economic and social whirlwind of the most ludicrous, self-destructive policy that a nation has inflicted on itself in recent times. Citizens, workers and students look on as their employment rights and living standards are stripped away before their very eyes. So many promises were made by Brexiteers, and so many promises have not been delivered.

Workers’ rights are already under threat from yet another Tory Government, which is pursuing legislation that will, in effect, ban strike action and whose Public Order Bill would result in unprecedented restrictions being imposed on the right to protest in England and Wales. Without a doubt, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill poses the most serious threat to workers’ rights. So many of our employment rights are bound up with EU membership and, in particular, with the European social chapter.

I remember the heady days of the 1997 general election, when not a single Tory MP was returned in Scotland. Tony Blair’s Labour Party finally managed to win, and he made good on his commitment to remove the Tory opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, which meant that, at last, UK citizens gained access to rights that were enjoyed by workers across the EU—rights relating to working hours, childcare, parental leave and health and safety. Things, they told us, could only get better.

However, we are now locked in a UK that is run by increasingly right-wing Tory Governments. We have had our EU membership removed, against our democratically expressed view, and it appears that not a single unionist party is interested in our returning to EU membership or in standing up for the full range of rights represented in the social chapter. The trade union Unison has warned us about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. It is a warning that we ignore at our peril. Unison states that the bill

“has set a fast-moving conveyor belt in motion, which will see all protections for workers and UK citizens that come from EU law fall off a cliff in December 2023, unless the government decides to produce new and equivalent UK laws.”

I am a trade union member and I have attended many trade union rallies outside this Parliament in recent months, including rallies by the Fire Brigades Union and the University and College Union. Although there is anger, and clamour for investment in people and in the services that they provide, at more than one of those events I have heard an acknowledgement that dealing with the Scottish Government is completely different from dealing with the UK Government. I suggest that that is because the Scottish Government is committed to a progressive approach to industrial relations and recognises trade unions as partners in delivering economic and social goals.

Which of us believes that the UK Tory Government has any interest in resolving current disputes in partnership with trade unions and the workers they represent or in developing employment law that will safeguard rights in the way that they are protected today by the various clauses of the EU social chapter? I suspect that neither the trade unions nor the striking workers believe that. I certainly do not.

I hope that colleagues across the chamber acknowledge the potential bonfire of workers’ rights and protections that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill represents. Scotland must not sit on the sidelines in that debate. Time and again, we have made clear our views on EU membership and the benefits that it confers. I echo the words of those who will gather this evening to call for the EU to leave a light on for Scotland. I, for one, hope that we will be back one day, ideally as an independent nation.

I am concerned about the reports of potential reductions in teacher numbers, especially with regard to Glasgow. Can the First Minister reveal what action the Scottish Government can take to protect teacher numbers?

On behalf of Stuart McMillan, I vote yes.

On behalf of Stuart McMillan, I vote no.