I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day. Her leadership of the cross-party group on India, of which I have been a deputy convener, has been very important in this Parliament, particularly to the wider Indian diaspora across our region and elsewhere.

Since coming into the education brief, I have been fairly consistent in saying that tackling the wider issues surrounding today’s debate, such as violence and disruption in our schools, must come first and foremost, because that will provide the foundation for everything else that goes on in the classroom and in the wider school environment.

Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session. Indeed, this weekend, a response to a freedom of information request from local authorities across Scotland showed that the number of reported incidents of pupil-on-teacher violence has more than doubled over this parliamentary session.

In my region, that means that in places such as Renfrewshire, things are spiralling somewhat out of control, with recorded incidents in primary schools increasing more than fivefold since 2022-23. Obviously, there are multifaceted reasons for that, and we need to understand those, but that is not an excuse for ignoring the very clear problems that surround the use of digital technology and what young people are being exposed to in online spaces. That is why my party was one of the first to call for a nationwide ban on mobile phones in the classroom. It is clearly part of a toolbox and a package of solutions to deal with those issues and give young people better opportunities and a better start to their school life.

Other actions need to sit alongside a ban, however; it would not, in isolation, be a silver bullet. That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities. We have also advocated for improving workforce planning, so that support staff meet the needs of pupils, and for ensuring that schools have funding certainty, so that they can offer teachers and education staff permanent or long-term contracts, in order to address the scandal of qualified teachers being unable to work.

It is clear to me that a range of solutions are required in the next session of Parliament to make an impact on the problems that exist in relation to violence and behaviour. It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate.

There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that. I know that the cabinet secretary will say that she feels that she does not have the power. Some advocate for a new piece of legislation, but I would advocate for looking at the legislation that we already have. There needs to be a wider discussion about powers that have not been used, such as those in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, and the duties that we place on chief education officers in local authorities to implement and enforce certain things.

Given the day, I pay tribute to Audrey Nicoll, who has made her final speech of the parliamentary session. Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued.

I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is perhaps the last time that you will chair a debate in the chamber that I am involved in, and I wish you all the very best for what comes next.

I reflected, when speaking to you yesterday, on the fact that your dear mother was the first person to sit in that chair. It has always stuck with me that it must be so important to you that, over our five years in Parliament, you have been able to do the same thing. I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.

I appreciate that I am now saying nice things to indulge you, Deputy Presiding Officer, so that I get a wee bit more time, but I am about to conclude. I leave the chamber with two important points. The politics over the next wee while will be fierce and intense, so I will quote two Johns—neither of them are who members might think, before we go there. They are two of my political heroes. One is John Hume, who said that when people are

“divided … the only solution is agreement.”

We need to find those solutions in the next session of Parliament, in particular in education.

The second is John Smith, who said:

“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.

That is all that we—those of us who are standing again—are asking, and I wish everyone well.

There is a distinct air of the end of term all around us. There was a degree of chatter at the back of the chamber between the cabinet secretary and me and others, because people are becoming slightly demob happy, notwithstanding that an election is to come. During the debate, I have been reflecting on who I was at the start of the session as opposed to who I am now. At the start of the session, I used to write my speeches down carefully and closely. Today, I have not written anything down. That is because I know exactly what I want to say, because I know how passionate I feel about the issues and the individuals who have been involved in bringing the bill to its fruition.

I begin by paying a warm tribute to my friend Daniel Johnson for his work on the bill—for his tenacity, energy and dedication to it, and for what he has done to get to know all the different facets of it and to engage with them honestly and in good faith, which is what has brought us to this point today. I also join Miles Briggs in paying tribute to the other education spokespeople who I have had the pleasure of serving alongside in the latter stages of the Parliament, and to the cabinet secretary for her efforts on the bill and for the collegiate way in which she has sought to work on it. I know that in the coming weeks it will not seem as though we always have that collegiality, so it is important to put on the record today my thanks to her and to Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Maggie Chapman and others who have engaged on the bill.

There is a real sense of coming full circle at the end of a parliamentary session. For me, there is a personal element to that, given that my career at Enable Scotland ended on my election to Parliament, but that was also the point at which I began to do a lot of work with the people who have been involved with the bill.

I want to pay particular tribute to Beth Morrison in that regard. We have heard her described as “Queen Bee” and the driving force behind the legislation, and she is an incredible woman and a tenacious campaigner. Along with Kate Sanger and other parents who have experienced horrendous situations, she has fought every step of the way to ensure that we pass the bill. Behind that, there is a real kindness and warmth to Beth. It radiates out of her—I always thought that when I worked with her at Enable. I was always struck by the fact that Beth’s email address was “calumsmummy” at whatever the email provider was. I do not know whether that is still the case, but she used to laugh and say, “I had that email address because that’s how folk knew me. I was Calum’s mummy at the school gates, and I was Calum’s mummy when organising him seeing his friends and all those sorts of things. I stuck with that, actually, because that’s who I am.” Many people in the country now know Beth Morrison as Calum’s mummy, because that was behind her driving determination to pass the legislation.

I think that all of us who are parents would recognise that. When I became a dad in August, somebody said to me, “The way you feel right now about your wee boy is how you will always feel about them—they will always be your little boy or your little girl.” Daniel Johnson spoke to that experience powerfully today. It will always be our desire to protect and support them and to give them a future that perhaps will be better than what has gone before. That is what the bill is all about. It is about our children and ensuring that they can live safely at school and have all the support and protection that they need.

I was talking about the bill with some colleagues I used to work with at Enable, Kayleigh Thorpe and Jan Savage. I reflected that sometimes in life you plant trees for other people to sit under. They recognise much of their part in the journey, as I am sure many of the campaigners in the gallery do. There are days in this place when it does not feel like we are planting trees for other people to sit under, but today is not one of those days.

15:19

I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in. That vital service is now being offered to those who require it.

Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement.

Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would appreciate your advice on how a member can correct the record when they have made an omission. My colleague Sarah Boyack, in her very fine final speech in this chamber, omitted to say that, as minister, she was also responsible for the introduction of free bus passes for the over 60s—a policy that was brought in by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive at the time. I would be very sad if that were not put on record in the Official Report for the benefit of all members. [Applause.]

I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities.

Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.

What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned.

That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities. Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away—from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region.

Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. Link, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.

The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years.

Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.

I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in. That vital service is now being offered to those who require it.

Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement.

Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would appreciate your advice on how a member can correct the record when they have made an omission. My colleague Sarah Boyack, in her very fine final speech in this chamber, omitted to say that, as minister, she was also responsible for the introduction of free bus passes for the over 60s—a policy that was brought in by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive at the time. I would be very sad if that were not put on record in the Official Report for the benefit of all members. [Applause.]

I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities.

Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.

What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned.

That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities. Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away—from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region.

Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. LINK, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.

The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years.

Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.

I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in. That vital service is now being offered to those who require it.

Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement.

Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would appreciate your advice on how a member can correct the record when they have made an omission. My colleague Sarah Boyack, in her very fine final speech in this chamber, omitted to say that, as minister, she was also responsible for the introduction of free bus passes for the over 60s—a policy that was brought in by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive at the time. I would be very sad if that were not put on record in the Official Report for the benefit of all members. [Applause.]