Chamber and committees

Would Beatrice Wishart take an intervention?

I join colleagues from around the chamber in thanking my friend and colleague Daniel Johnson for his work on the issue and the bill. It is no small feat to bring together a member’s bill. Given his success with the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in the previous session of the Parliament, he knows that more than most. I also pay tribute to his staff, who have carried out the work with great aplomb and good humour in the Labour corridor even when they have been busy preparing to get to this day.

As Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson, I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the general principles of the bill at decision time—much, I am sure, to the relief of my colleague Daniel Johnson, who sits beside me on the front bench.

We have heard already about the tireless work of campaigners that has brought us to today. I declare an interest: looking at the public gallery is, for me, to look at a group of old friends because, as colleagues who are in the chamber know, for seven years prior to coming to the Parliament, I worked for Enable Scotland. I am still a member of Enable Scotland. That is where I first got to know Beth, Peter and Calum and to work with some extraordinary people on these issues.

As we have heard already, Beth is a ferocious campaigner. She is tenacious but she has compassion and her family brings her much joy in her life. That is her motivation in the campaign. Not only does Beth campaign and not only has she worked on the issues to bring us to this point but she educates. That is important. Everything that I know about the issues and about the alternative interventions that can be provided I probably know through her work. I associate Kate Sanger with that as well. She has worked closely with Beth and others in this space. That is the reason why we are here and why Daniel Johnson introduced the bill.

In some ways, becoming shadow education spokesperson just in time to lead on the bill for Labour was probably meant to be, given my association with the early parts of the campaign.

Today, we build on work by organisations such as Enable Scotland and the National Autistic Society, and by people who have supported the campaigners to drive forward these issues and ensure that they do not disappear off the agenda and, with the coming elections and changes in Parliament, are not forgotten about somehow.

The bill is built on the substantial work that has been undertaken, such as the children’s commissioner’s “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” report and Enable Scotland’s “In safe hands?” work. There is a myriad of data and reporting that share people’s experiences of some of the dreadful things that have happened to our children in school settings and other settings across Scotland.

In concert with colleagues, I recognise that we have an opportunity today to make a legislative change that will be a turning point. It can be a moment when we say that this sort of seclusion and restraint is no longer acceptable, and that the recording and the duty of candour that will exist will be put on a legislative footing, which is important.

Like colleagues, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by the EIS and others. Daniel Johnson will very clearly outline his response to that. He is very willing to engage and has engaged throughout the process, and stages 2 and 3 will allow us to do more of that.

I recognise at the outset of the debate that there is a genuine will across the Parliament to ensure that we get this right by putting it on a statutory footing that no young person will have to experience the situation that Calum and other young people have experienced. We must make a statement from this Parliament that says that children will be protected and equally safe under the law.

15:06

I will begin by picking up on what we have heard this afternoon, starting with the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s work, which has been very important. We have heard it referred to throughout the contributions, including those from members of that committee. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence on the bill. However, it is clear to me—particularly now that I have been inducted into the committee’s lengthy meetings on Wednesday mornings—that the committee spent a lot of time looking forensically at the detail of the evidence that was presented, and that is reflected in the report. We also heard about that work from Willie Rennie, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the committee’s convener.

That was about ensuring that there was strong scrutiny of the bill—Daniel Johnson was put under that scrutiny so that he would explain how he felt the bill would progress—and that the voices of campaigners were heard, as we have heard already, as well as those of teachers and other school professionals who have concerns. I know that Daniel Johnson will turn to those points in his closing speech, but we also have an opportunity, as the bill progresses, to address some of those points more fully.

In reflecting on some of the process that sits around the bill, what Daniel Johnson said about the non-Government bills unit was correct. That unit is the unsung hero of Parliament in ensuring that bills are well drafted and well considered and that they can be brought to Parliament for scrutiny and for us to discuss the issues, decide on the general principles—as we will this afternoon—and then move forward into the subsequent stages.

In opening, I reflected that I worked for Enable Scotland for seven years. In my time there, we produced a number of important pieces of work and reports on seclusion and restraint in schools and the abuses that have happened, which we have heard reference to this afternoon. However, Enable tried to look more widely at the school experience of children and young people who have a learning disability, autism and neurodivergence. We tried to reflect on their experience and, crucially, how we could make it better for them and for their parents.

I remember a statistic that came from the report “#IncludED in the Main?!” At that point, the hundreds of parents and carers of young people with a disability whom we surveyed said that they found their experience of the school system stressful and a battle—those were the words that were used—and that they felt alone and cut off from decision making. That is probably what has been reflected most in this afternoon’s debate.

We are trying to set things right for children and young people who have experienced the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint, but we are also trying to support parents and carers who face daily challenges and often find it hard to get to the truth of what is happening to their children and young people and to move beyond that to build a strong relationship with those who, as Daniel Johnson said, are in loco parentis.

I hope that, as a result of agreeing today that the bill should proceed and as a result of the work that we will do to progress the bill to stages 2 and 3 and put it on the statute book, when we return to Parliament in the next session, we can look back and reflect on the work that will be carried out in our local authorities, in the hope that we will have reduced the burden that parents have felt. We hope that there will be fewer parents who describe their school experiences as stressful or a battle or who feel alone or cut off.

15:38

::I raised with the First Minister last week at First Minister’s question time the cabinet secretary’s comments, when, in response to the issue of teachers moving abroad to access jobs, she said that people are

“opting not to travel to jobs”

in Scotland, and that they are

“much more expensive to employ”.

The First Minister accused me of skating past his stellar record on education, but I suggest that he somewhat skated past the defence of the cabinet secretary’s comments. To go to the point that Willie Rennie made, does the cabinet secretary why teachers are so angered by what she said? Does she also accept that a recruitment campaign at this stage in the current parliamentary session, in which she promised recovery and made a very clear pledge on teacher numbers, is just not going to cut it?

::This is the fifth debate on Holocaust memorial day in the current session of Parliament. It has been an honour for me, in my time in Parliament, to participate in each of those debates, alongside colleagues from across the chamber. Holocaust remembrance in this Parliament has been a collective endeavour across the parties. I pay tribute to Kenneth Gibson for leading our debate today, and I pay tribute to Jackson Carlaw for his efforts over the years, along with myself. Indeed, I pay tribute to both members for their collaboration on the commemoration events in the Parliament last week and for their collaboration over many years.

At this point in the parliamentary session, it is important that we all rededicate ourselves to Holocaust remembrance and education and that we put on record today the importance of continuing that into the next Parliament. We can try to read the runes, but none of us knows what that Parliament’s make-up will be. It is important that, whether we are hoping to come back or not, we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that this place continues to lead the nation in our remembrance and our calls for education.

One of the most encouraging things in the past five years, which have often been difficult years in terms of geopolitics, as members have referenced, has been the voices and the participation of young people in this Parliament and across Scotland in remembering the Holocaust, educating their peers and learning for themselves, often through encountering for themselves the places that Jackson Carlaw touched on and broadening their horizons and their understanding of the Holocaust and subsequent genocide.

We can reflect on the wonderful ambassadors of the Holocaust Educational Trust and of the Anne Frank Trust; on the vision schools Scotland programme, which does such great work in our schools; on the drama work done in schools by Beyond Srebrenica; and on the time for reflection leaders that we heard from this week. We have heard a rich and diverse range of young voices in Parliament—they have been passionate and eloquent, and they have led by example.

That really speaks to this year’s Holocaust memorial day theme of “Bridging Generations”, because it is the duty of all of us to ensure that we are bridging the gap that now exists between living survivors and subsequent generations. We now have a generation of young people who will encounter the Holocaust only through secondary sources and will not have the opportunity to meet survivors, many of whom, although they were children when they escaped the Holocaust, are now advanced in age. I pay tribute to the survivors who continue doing everything that they can to educate.

In my remaining time, I will touch on something else that is really crucial this year. Scotland’s senior rabbi, Rabbi Moshe Rubin, who will be known to many here, spoke at the East Renfrewshire Holocaust memorial day commemoration on Monday night and raised concerns that the number of schools in the United Kingdom participating in events to mark Holocaust memorial day is reported to have fallen by 60 per cent since the 7 October terrorist attacks on Israel. Surveys also show that many young adults—indeed, a third of young adults in the UK—are unable to name Auschwitz or any other concentration camp or ghetto where the crimes of the Holocaust were committed. When asked if they had encountered Holocaust denial or distortion on social media, 23 per cent of young people surveyed said that they had and 20 per cent of survey respondents more widely in the UK believed that 2 million or fewer Jews were killed, while others did not know that 6 million Jewish people had been killed in the Holocaust. Those figures should concern every one of us, and it should be our duty to renew the call for education and remembrance among young people.

As I said, we have wonderful examples of that happening in Scotland. I pay tribute to the Government, which continues to invest in that work, and I believe that there is a collective will across this Parliament to do that. However, there are really clear examples of what can happen when we do not educate, do not allow a space for debate and discussion or do not encourage young people to ensure they are accessing reputable and true sources.

As we end this session of Parliament, my call to those of us who are fortunate enough to be here in the next session is for a rededication and for an effort to ensure that all young people, and all people more generally, can have high-quality Holocaust education and remembrance.

13:12

::Would Beatrice Wishart take an intervention?

::I will begin by picking up on what we have heard this afternoon, starting with the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s work, which has been very important. We have heard it referred to throughout the contributions, including those from members of that committee. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence on the bill. However, it is clear to me—particularly now that I have been inducted into the committee’s lengthy meetings on Wednesday mornings—that the committee spent a lot of time looking forensically at the detail of the evidence that was presented, and that is reflected in the report. We also heard about that work from Willie Rennie, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the committee’s convener.

That was about ensuring that there was strong scrutiny of the bill—Daniel Johnson was put under that scrutiny so that he would explain how he felt the bill would progress—and that the voices of campaigners were heard, as we have heard already, as well as those of teachers and other school professionals who have concerns. I know that Daniel Johnson will turn to those points in his closing speech, but we also have an opportunity, as the bill progresses, to address some of those points more fully.

In reflecting on some of the process that sits around the bill, what Daniel Johnson said about the non-Government bills unit was correct. That unit is the unsung hero of Parliament in ensuring that bills are well drafted and well considered and that they can be brought to Parliament for scrutiny and for us to discuss the issues, decide on the general principles—as we will this afternoon—and then move forward into the subsequent stages.

In opening, I reflected that I worked for Enable Scotland for seven years. In my time there, we produced a number of important pieces of work and reports on seclusion and restraint in schools and the abuses that have happened, which we have heard reference to this afternoon. However, Enable tried to look more widely at the school experience of children and young people who have a learning disability, autism and neurodivergence. We tried to reflect on their experience and, crucially, how we could make it better for them and for their parents.

I remember a statistic that came from the report “#IncludED in the Main?!” At that point, the hundreds of parents and carers of young people with a disability whom we surveyed said that they found their experience of the school system stressful and a battle—those were the words that were used—and that they felt alone and cut off from decision making. That is probably what has been reflected most in this afternoon’s debate.

We are trying to set things right for children and young people who have experienced the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint, but we are also trying to support parents and carers who face daily challenges and often find it hard to get to the truth of what is happening to their children and young people and to move beyond that to build a strong relationship with those who, as Daniel Johnson said, are in loco parentis.

I hope that, as a result of agreeing today that the bill should proceed and as a result of the work that we will do to progress the bill to stages 2 and 3 and put it on the statute book, when we return to Parliament in the next session, we can look back and reflect on the work that will be carried out in our local authorities, in the hope that we will have reduced the burden that parents have felt. We hope that there will be fewer parents who describe their school experiences as stressful or a battle or who feel alone or cut off.

15:38

::I am grateful to Beatrice Wishart for taking my intervention and I am sure that her speech will be as good as the others in the debate.

This is obviously a difficult subject to discuss, but does Beatrice Wishart agree that young people are really important in relation to the Holocaust commemoration debate? I am sure that she will have seen—in Shetland and her community—young people standing up to speak and contributing to ensuring that we all continue with Holocaust remembrance.

::I join colleagues from around the chamber in thanking my friend and colleague Daniel Johnson for his work on the issue and the bill. It is no small feat to bring together a member’s bill. Given his success with the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in the previous session of the Parliament, he knows that more than most. I also pay tribute to his staff, who have carried out the work with great aplomb and good humour in the Labour corridor even when they have been busy preparing to get to this day.

As Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson, I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the general principles of the bill at decision time—much, I am sure, to the relief of my colleague Daniel Johnson, who sits beside me on the front bench.

We have heard already about the tireless work of campaigners that has brought us to today. I declare an interest: looking at the public gallery is, for me, to look at a group of old friends because, as colleagues who are in the chamber know, for seven years prior to coming to the Parliament, I worked for Enable Scotland. I am still a member of Enable Scotland. That is where I first got to know Beth, Peter and Calum and to work with some extraordinary people on these issues.

As we have heard already, Beth is a ferocious campaigner. She is tenacious but she has compassion and her family brings her much joy in her life. That is her motivation in the campaign. Not only does Beth campaign and not only has she worked on the issues to bring us to this point but she educates. That is important. Everything that I know about the issues and about the alternative interventions that can be provided I probably know through her work. I associate Kate Sanger with that as well. She has worked closely with Beth and others in this space. That is the reason why we are here and why Daniel Johnson introduced the bill.

In some ways, becoming shadow education spokesperson just in time to lead on the bill for Labour was probably meant to be, given my association with the early parts of the campaign.

Today, we build on work by organisations such as Enable Scotland and the National Autistic Society, and by people who have supported the campaigners to drive forward these issues and ensure that they do not disappear off the agenda and, with the coming elections and changes in Parliament, are not forgotten about somehow.

The bill is built on the substantial work that has been undertaken, such as the children’s commissioner’s “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” report and Enable Scotland’s “In safe hands?” work. There is a myriad of data and reporting that share people’s experiences of some of the dreadful things that have happened to our children in school settings and other settings across Scotland.

In concert with colleagues, I recognise that we have an opportunity today to make a legislative change that will be a turning point. It can be a moment when we say that this sort of seclusion and restraint is no longer acceptable, and that the recording and the duty of candour that will exist will be put on a legislative footing, which is important.

Like colleagues, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by the EIS and others. Daniel Johnson will very clearly outline his response to that. He is very willing to engage and has engaged throughout the process, and stages 2 and 3 will allow us to do more of that.

I recognise at the outset of the debate that there is a genuine will across the Parliament to ensure that we get this right by putting it on a statutory footing that no young person will have to experience the situation that Calum and other young people have experienced. We must make a statement from this Parliament that says that children will be protected and equally safe under the law.

15:06

Okay. You said that there was a mixture of financial and governance issues and that those two things were interlinked. Are the solutions to that interlinked? This morning, we have had a lot of discussion about how those with oversight are appointed or elected, but the sense is that there is no clarity on whether amending that would fix the problem. The view, I think, is that anyone who is dealing with billion-pound budgets must have some financial training or expertise.

It would not be fair to ask you for the one thing that would make the difference, so instead I will ask what the principal governance change would be that could make the difference at your institution.