The use of mobile phones has been highlighted as one of the most frequent and disruptive behaviours in schools. Lisa Kerr, headteacher of Gordonstoun, has stated:

“Teenagers rarely thank adults for placing boundaries, but we will never forgive ourselves if we don’t act now.”

The evidence is there. For the sake of our children’s futures and our teachers’ wellbeing, will the Deputy First Minister commit to taking immediate steps to ban and restrict mobile phone use in our schools as soon as possible?

The use of mobile phones has been highlighted by secondary school staff as one of the most frequent and disruptive behaviour issues in class. In Edinburgh, the headteacher at the Royal high school has taken the opportunity to strengthen its mobile phone policy that devices are not permitted to be used during the school day, and that policy is being strictly enforced. As a result, there has been a marked improvement in pupil engagement, with pupils talking more and being less heightened about what they are missing on their devices. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a consistent and enforced mobile phone policy that restricts their use is vital if we are serious about tackling behaviour issues in our schools?

I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned capital. The First Minister committed to a new eye pavilion when he was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, yet the eye pavilion is still in a building that has been condemned. The Royal Edinburgh hospital is still only in phase 1 of a three-phase plan. The national treatment centre at St John’s is supposed to be a national priority. A new sterilisation unit must be built. My constituents in Lothian are asking where those things are. They are all projects that have been promised in the past. I am not asking where the money will come from—I am asking where the money has gone.

The inability to define that formed part of the crux of the challenges that we faced regarding the accuracy of the financial memorandum. We know now—and we already knew—about the challenges faced by young people with additional support needs who are desperate for a diagnosis and about the waits that are required.

We felt that the bill would introduce conflict into an already cluttered legislative landscape. The committee heard that many children and young people, as I have just said, face long waiting times for diagnoses, and that some young people do not wish to pursue a diagnosis or view themselves as disabled or as having a disability.

For those reasons, the committee is concerned that the bill would place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide transition plans to disabled people and young people, but with a lack of clarity on how they would identify the eligible children in the area.

Worryingly, we heard that the current legislation has not had the positive impact that was envisaged. Many witnesses described it as complex, cluttered and difficult to navigate for young people and their families.

Several stakeholders highlighted local authorities’ poor deployment of co-ordinated support plans, despite their statutory nature. Many stakeholders spoke about the considerable difficulties that are faced by those who work to support young people in their transition to adulthood, with extreme pressures on resources in local authorities and health and social care systems, and the precarious nature of funding in the third sector.

We heard about issues around organisational cultures, particularly regarding the differences between children’s and adult services and the difficulties with information sharing. We do not believe that the bill would resolve those issues with resourcing or the interactions between children’s and adult services. However, we agreed that urgent action must be taken to address those issues, and the Government must ensure that that happens.

I have not had time to cover all the issues that were raised during our scrutiny of the bill, but I look forward to hearing from other members of the committee during the debate.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the aims behind the bill and commends Pam Duncan-Glancy for bringing the bill before us. However, for the reasons that were set out in our report and in my comments, we were not convinced that it should progress beyond stage 1.

I agree. We have found many times that the people who are having an impact and making positive changes to disabled people as they transition into adulthood are the individuals who take leadership roles in their communities.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee—I bet that it does not get many thanks—and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill and for sharing their conclusions and recommendations.

Given the complexities involved in the bill, we took the unusual step of writing to both the Government and the member in charge with our findings, seeking a response before finalising our report. I thank the Government and Pam Duncan-Glancy for their helpful and extensive responses.

I would like to say at the outset that the members of the committee were not convinced that the general principles of the bill should be agreed to, with the exception of Martin Whitfield, who attended as committee substitute for the member in charge. Today, I intend to set out briefly some of the reasons why the committee came to that conclusion. I want to be clear, though—and I cannot reinforce this position enough—that we argued that doing nothing in relation to improving outcomes for disabled children and young people in their transition to adulthood was not an option. We were extremely concerned when we heard evidence of the poor experiences of transitions for many disabled young people. We agreed that things must change, and they must change quickly.

The bill requires the Scottish Government to introduce and implement a national transitions strategy for improving transitions to adulthood for disabled children and young people. It also says that there should be a transitions plan for every disabled child or young person. Going from what we heard, the committee agreed that a national transitions strategy was needed. Importantly, we were aware that the Government was already working on it, so we pressed the Government for a committed timeline and further information on its development.

We were deeply concerned to hear that young people and their families were not always being listened to by professionals. Some young people told us that their transition was often built around what people thought was right for them, rather than what they wanted to do. That is not acceptable.

The committee recommended that the experiences of those who have been through transitions should be at the heart of the design of any national strategy. That should help to ensure that negative outcomes are avoided and that a person-centred approach is built on.

The Government has now published its statement of intent, which summarises its research and engagement on the strategy and sets out what the Scottish Government should focus on now.

I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. First, I thank the member in charge for introducing the bill, which has given us the opportunity to discuss both at committee and, importantly, here in the chamber today the important issue of how to improve the opportunities for disabled children and young people as they grow up.

I thank colleagues for their detailed consideration of the bill and all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views. ARC Scotland helped us to organise informative, informal sessions involving young disabled people called divergent influencers, a group of parents and carers of disabled and young people and a group of practitioners who are involved in improving the experiences of young people as they make the vital transition to young adult life.

I also thank the pupils at Buchanan high school, which is an additional support needs secondary school in Coatbridge, who hosted an extremely informative visit and told us about their preparations for leaving the school that year. Speaking to all those pupils was invaluable and it gave us a great insight into the issues that children and young people are facing.

I have not yet had that detail. Perhaps the Government can make that clear in its contributions during the debate.

Make no mistake, we intend to return to the issue of the transitions strategy, and we will be pressing the Government to move more quickly on introducing and implementing an appropriate and robust national strategy. It will not be an option for the strategy to lie on a shelf, gathering dust.

The committee heard concerns about the legislative competence of the bill’s provisions on the assigning of a minister with special responsibility, and about the accuracy of the costs associated with the bill. The member in charge responded to those points.

A major concern for us was how the bill, if it became an act, would interact with the laws that are already in place in this area. For example, the existing legislative framework refers to additional support needs rather than disability, and we felt that it was unclear whom exactly would be covered by the bill.

The committee was also concerned about the need for a diagnosis in order for young people to access support as set out in the bill, even though the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, which is used in the bill, does not require a diagnosis to be made.

To ask the First Minister what work is being done to support the expanding role of the general practitioner surgery. (S6F-02562)

The expanding role of GP surgeries is critical in helping to prevent acute hospitals and accident and emergency departments from being overwhelmed. However, they cannot recruit and retain the various MDT members that the First Minister has referred to.

Colinton surgery in my region has contacted me to express its concern about the disparity in pay that is developing between GP surgery staff and national health service staff. There is now a two-tier NHS pay scale. Staff at the surgery are frustrated and demoralised. Pay for GP staff was uplifted less than it was for their NHS colleagues under the agenda for change. Will the First Minister find the investment to ensure that an uplift can be agreed to support those expanding GP practices that continue to struggle?

At the Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting yesterday, we heard powerful evidence from Who Cares? Scotland regarding the importance of siblings being kept together, whether in residential care or in foster care. We heard about the conflict relating to the reducing numbers in residential care, which sometimes prevents that. Could the member reflect on that?