I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words.

Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities. I have visited a number of islands with the Parliament’s committees during the past 15 years, including Islay, Arran, Mull, Harris, Lewis, and Orkney, as well as going to Shetland for a council by-election. That has been one of the enjoyable aspects of being an MSP. Normally, I visit islands as a tourist and have visited some 38. I note that I consider the Uists and Benbecula to be one island as I can drive my car between them without using a ferry. I hold to the position from one of my more controversial moments in the Parliament that Skye has not in fact been an island since the bridge was built. [Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland.

I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals. However, I caution that, from a tourist’s perspective, such fixed links can make an island less attractive or magical for a visitor and could have a negative economic impact.

Talking of driving my car, my priority for road improvements in Scotland would have to be the A82 between Tarbet and Ardlui right at the top. The Road Haulage Association was in the Parliament last week. The fact that two heavy goods vehicles cannot even pass each other on stretches of that road is appalling. In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9.

I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says,

“if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.

Last summer, I visited Mingulay for the first time and I have previously visited St Kilda. I find it incredibly sad that islands that once supported a hardy population eventually had to be evacuated and now have no permanent human inhabitants. We do not want that to happen to any more of our islands or remote areas. I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow. Somehow, we need to take that on as a national challenge and support teachers and other workers from urban areas to consider moving to more rural and remote parts of Scotland.

Another aspect is political representation. Rightly, the three main island groups are guaranteed an MSP each, yet the whole west coast from Cape Wrath to the Mull of Kintyre forms only three constituencies and is represented by three MSPs. If the Western Isles can have an MSP for 22,000 registered voters, why should Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch have to have 63,000 voters? We need to address that by not being so fixated with the population of constituencies. Land mass should be a factor, too.

This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion. We all know each other, to some extent, and we have a building that is modern and fit for purpose, unlike the one on the Thames. We are not hampered by a second unelected chamber. One person can make a real difference in a chamber of 129, whereas, as I can say having been at Westminster, with its 650 MPs, one person does not count for much there, and Scotland counts for very little.

I have tried, over my 15 years here, to say things that no one else would say and to ask questions that no one else would ask. That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here.

I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues. In particular, I thank you, and especially Alison Johnstone, for taking a firm line when some members sought to bully you and undermine Parliament as a whole. Many of us are very grateful that you did so.

I thank the member for that answer, but does she agree that the lobbying register is a complete waste of money and that it serves no valuable purpose at all?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, regarding its role in staffing and resourcing the lobbying register, what assessment it has made of the effectiveness of the register in its current form. (S6O-05644)

Does the member think that he is being realistic? Edinburgh has millions of tourists who come for all sorts of reasons, but they could be put off doing so by the exchange rate, problems in the middle east and other sorts of things. Does he really think that we can pin things down to the visitor levy? Would his proposals not just add bureaucracy and make public service reform even more difficult?

Amendment 1 will provide a regulation-making power to amend the definitions of restraint and seclusion in section 1 at a future date, where ministers consider it necessary to do so. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is keen on such an amendment and I think that it makes a lot of sense. The regulation-making power will be able to be exercised where necessary to prevent the current definitions capturing actions that do not carry a significant risk of harm and, on the other hand, it will allow the definitions to capture additional actions that do carry a significant risk of harm. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will provide Parliament with an opportunity for scrutiny.

I will set out why I consider that amendment 1 matters, and how the bill now offers a clearer and more practical approach to restraint and seclusion in schools. At stage 1, we in the Education, Children and Young People Committee had reasonable concerns that the bill might accidentally pull in routine and harmless interactions, such as guiding a child by the hand across the road or offering physical support as part of a child’s everyday care. The committee wanted to ensure that the system would be workable for staff, without unnecessary paperwork or confusion.

A number of changes that directly addressed those points were introduced into the bill at stage 2. The bill now includes clear definitions of restraint and seclusion. Statutory guidance will provide clarity about the difference between action that significantly restricts a child’s movement and something that is simply day-to-day support. That should mean that we can clearly say that holding a child’s hand or other ordinary interactions are not restraint and are not covered by the bill. Restriction of movement, such as with equipment that is used as part of a child’s agreed support plan, might still fall within the definition of restraint in section 1, but regulations made under section 4(4A), which was added at stage 2, will be able to specify that such actions are types of restraint that do not need to be recorded or reported.

Amendment 1 will ensure that the definitions in the bill remain appropriate and workable. If, in future, activity that is genuinely routine is still being mistakenly treated as restraint or seclusion, an adjustment can be made to the definition in section 1. That should ensure that the framework always remains practical and proportionate. Together, those provisions respond directly to the committee’s concerns and should create a balanced, workable system that protects children, while supporting the professionals who care for them.

I move amendment 1.

I welcome both Daniel Johnson’s and Willie Rennie’s comments, as well as those of the cabinet secretary.

Willie Rennie used the word “ambiguity”; other people would use the word “flexibility”. I fully accept that there is a balance to be struck. If we are too rigid, something might be caught that is not meant to be; if we are too relaxed, it is the other way round. The example that we frequently heard in the committee was that, if a child runs across the road, you want to grab them—in any way that you can, frankly—to prevent their being run over. That is why we need a degree of flexibility.

I understand the unions’ point of view and that of the children’s commissioner. I accept that the commissioner’s job is to be on the cautious side. That is absolutely fine, but I suggest that amendment 1 gets the balance roughly right.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools

Would the member accept that lots of things can change after somebody books a holiday? Beer duty often goes up overnight. People buy things, and a few pounds here or there will not make a difference.

Is the answer not to consider compulsory voting, so that prisoners would have to vote along with the rest of the population?

Is the answer not to consider compulsory voting, so that prisoners would have to vote along with the rest of the population?

Is the answer not to consider compulsory voting, so that prisoners would have to vote along with the rest of the population?