Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will start my remarks where the public conversation on the bill started, which is with the parents and the carers who have had to live through something that we should never normalise in any school setting—not for any child, and not in any part of Scotland. I pay tribute to campaigners Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger for their strength and determination, to Daniel Johnson for believing in them and in their plight, and to the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its measured and thorough report.

Restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, to prevent injury. That is the Government’s position, which I support. Use should be rooted in children’s rights, safety and basic human dignity. For too many families, harm has been caused not just by an incident itself but by what comes afterwards—the uncertainty, the delay in getting answers, the lack of clarity and, sometimes, the feeling that they are being kept at arm’s length from information about their own child. That is why parents and carers have pushed for consistency, transparency and change that are real, and not just well meaning.

I come to this debate not just as an MSP but as a parent of children with additional support needs. I have witnessed restraint and seclusion being used on my own children in primary school. Even now, that memory causes frustration. I send my whole-hearted support to parents, children and young people affected by this issue. I share their frustration, and I understand.

The petition that was lodged in the Parliament back in 2015, and another lodged with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in 2018, highlighted inconsistent practice across local authorities and a lack of monitoring. Those are not small issues. If practice is inconsistent, rights are inconsistent. If monitoring is weak, learning and trust are weak—and trust is what families need most.

I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s guidance that was published in November 2024, which is built around relationships and rights, prevention, de-escalation and post-incident support. That guidance matters, and it was developed with the engagement of stakeholders, including parents, education staff, local government and unions, which is really important. I am glad to see that the one-year review is now under way, with a final report expected in March 2026.

I do not see this as an either/or situation. The bill would put key expectations on a statutory footing. I note that the Government will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, while being honest about the amendments that might be required. I think that that is a responsible approach, because it respects the complexity of the matter while giving us the chance to get the detail right at stage 2.

What I hear from parents and carers is not a desire to punish staff; it is a desire to be treated as a partner, to be informed promptly, to have an accurate record, to know that there is clear national expectation, and to ensure that children’s rights are not optional or dependent on a postcode.

I also note and understand that schools are operating in really tough conditions. Distressed behaviour has increased, workloads are heavy and staff safety matters, too. That is exactly why we must get our approach right for everyone involved. I believe that we can both protect children’s rights and support staff with clear, workable expectations, training and a culture that learns rather than blames. We must refine definitions to avoid ambiguity and we must ensure that the practical operation strengthens relationships rather than weakens them.

I support the motion to agree to the bill’s general principles at stage 1, with parents and carers at the very forefront of my mind and with a clear expectation that definitions can be tightened at stage 2. Families deserve consistency, children deserve dignity, and staff deserve a system that supports them in keeping everyone safe.

I thank Kenneth Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I pay tribute to the wonderful contributions from members across the chamber, in particular the exceptionally moving contribution from Beatrice Wishart.

These debates matter, because they give us the space not just to reflect on history and on the past, and to think of all those who were lost, but to consider what that history asks of us here, now, today. Marked on 27 January, Holocaust memorial day falls on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—a place that has come to symbolise the sheer scale of the brutality of the Holocaust. Six million Jewish men, women and children were murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators, but alongside them, there were people, not necessarily Jewish but with other characteristics, who were murdered, too: Roma people, disabled people, deaf people, LGBT people, political opponents and others who were deemed unworthy of life. That was not an accident of history—it was a result of ideology, dehumanisation and systems being turned against people.

I recently attended the Holocaust memorial day event in the Scottish Parliament, and I want to reflect on that experience because it has stuck with me, as these events often do. We heard directly from a Holocaust survivor. She spoke about her childhood during the war: about the fear that was constant, about hiding and about the calculations that she and her family had to make again and again simply to stay alive. Those were not abstract decisions—they were human ones, made under unimaginable pressure, where a single mistake could cost the family everything.

She spoke about living in France—in occupied territory—and explained that her family was hiding from not just Nazi SS soldiers but the Vichy police—ordinary police officers, wearing uniforms, representing the institutions that people were meant to trust. She did not draw parallels to the present day, and I am not claiming to do that on her behalf, but it was a reminder to me of something deeply important—that threats do not always look like what we might expect. Sometimes, they look official; sometimes, they look legitimate; and, sometimes, they present as order.

She went on to describe how Jewish people were stripped of their humanity, gradually, through language, labelling and being spoken about as lesser, a problem and something to be managed. As I sat listening, it was impossible not to reflect on the power of language and how easily harm can be justified once people are never seen as fully human.

The theme for Holocaust memorial day this year is bridging generations, and it was great to see at that event a pupil, Finlay Cleland, from Banff academy in my constituency, reciting a poem that he had written after visiting Bosnia, where another horrific genocide was committed. It gives me hope to see young people taking note. Seeing our efforts to pass down that history being picked up and guarded is exactly what we must aim for because, without that, remembrance risks becoming something that we mark rather than something that actually changes us.

It is about not just remembering the dead but protecting the living. I hope that we listen, learn and carry the lessons forward, not just in words, but in deeds and in the choices that we make to protect our human rights and values and have humanity every day.

I thank Kenneth Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I pay tribute to the wonderful contributions from members across the chamber, in particular the exceptionally moving contribution from Beatrice Wishart.

These debates matter, because they give us the space not just to reflect on history and on the past, and to think of all those who were lost, but to consider what that history asks of us here, now, today. Marked on 27 January, Holocaust memorial day falls on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—a place that has come to symbolise the sheer scale of the brutality of the Holocaust. Six million Jewish men, women and children were murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators, but alongside them, there were people, not necessarily Jewish but with other characteristics, who were murdered, too: Roma people, disabled people, deaf people, LGBT people, political opponents and others who were deemed unworthy of life. That was not an accident of history—it was a result of ideology, dehumanisation and systems being turned against people.

I recently attended the Holocaust memorial day event in the Scottish Parliament, and I want to reflect on that experience because it has stuck with me, as these events often do. We heard directly from a Holocaust survivor. She spoke about her childhood during the war: about the fear that was constant, about hiding and about the calculations that she and her family had to make again and again simply to stay alive. Those were not abstract decisions—they were human ones, made under unimaginable pressure, where a single mistake could cost the family everything.

She spoke about living in France—in occupied territory—and explained that her family was hiding from not just Nazi SS soldiers but the Vichy police—ordinary police officers, wearing uniforms, representing the institutions that people were meant to trust. She did not draw parallels to the present day, and I am not claiming to do that on her behalf, but it was a reminder to me of something deeply important—that threats do not always look like what we might expect. Sometimes, they look official; sometimes, they look legitimate; and, sometimes, they present as order.

She went on to describe how Jewish people were stripped of their humanity, gradually, through language, labelling and being spoken about as lesser, a problem and something to be managed. As I sat listening, it was impossible not to reflect on the power of language and how easily harm can be justified once people are never seen as fully human.

The theme for Holocaust memorial day this year is bridging generations, and it was great to see at that event a pupil, Finlay Cleland, from Banff academy in my constituency, reciting a poem that he had written after visiting Bosnia, where another horrific genocide was committed. It gives me hope to see young people taking note. Seeing our efforts to pass down that history being picked up and guarded is exactly what we must aim for because, without that, remembrance risks becoming something that we mark rather than something that actually changes us.

It is about not just remembering the dead but protecting the living. I hope that we listen, learn and carry the lessons forward, not just in words, but in deeds and in the choices that we make to protect our human rights and values and have humanity every day.

I will start my remarks where the public conversation on the bill started, which is with the parents and the carers who have had to live through something that we should never normalise in any school setting—not for any child, and not in any part of Scotland. I pay tribute to campaigners Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger for their strength and determination, to Daniel Johnson for believing in them and in their plight, and to the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its measured and thorough report.

Restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, to prevent injury. That is the Government’s position, which I support. Use should be rooted in children’s rights, safety and basic human dignity. For too many families, harm has been caused not just by an incident itself but by what comes afterwards—the uncertainty, the delay in getting answers, the lack of clarity and, sometimes, the feeling that they are being kept at arm’s length from information about their own child. That is why parents and carers have pushed for consistency, transparency and change that are real, and not just well meaning.

I come to this debate not just as an MSP but as a parent of children with additional support needs. I have witnessed restraint and seclusion being used on my own children in primary school. Even now, that memory causes frustration. I send my whole-hearted support to parents, children and young people affected by this issue. I share their frustration, and I understand.

The petition that was lodged in the Parliament back in 2015, and another lodged with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in 2018, highlighted inconsistent practice across local authorities and a lack of monitoring. Those are not small issues. If practice is inconsistent, rights are inconsistent. If monitoring is weak, learning and trust are weak—and trust is what families need most.

I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s guidance that was published in November 2024, which is built around relationships and rights, prevention, de-escalation and post-incident support. That guidance matters, and it was developed with the engagement of stakeholders, including parents, education staff, local government and unions, which is really important. I am glad to see that the one-year review is now under way, with a final report expected in March 2026.

I do not see this as an either/or situation. The bill would put key expectations on a statutory footing. I note that the Government will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, while being honest about the amendments that might be required. I think that that is a responsible approach, because it respects the complexity of the matter while giving us the chance to get the detail right at stage 2.

What I hear from parents and carers is not a desire to punish staff; it is a desire to be treated as a partner, to be informed promptly, to have an accurate record, to know that there is clear national expectation, and to ensure that children’s rights are not optional or dependent on a postcode.

I also note and understand that schools are operating in really tough conditions. Distressed behaviour has increased, workloads are heavy and staff safety matters, too. That is exactly why we must get our approach right for everyone involved. I believe that we can both protect children’s rights and support staff with clear, workable expectations, training and a culture that learns rather than blames. We must refine definitions to avoid ambiguity and we must ensure that the practical operation strengthens relationships rather than weakens them.

I support the motion to agree to the bill’s general principles at stage 1, with parents and carers at the very forefront of my mind and with a clear expectation that definitions can be tightened at stage 2. Families deserve consistency, children deserve dignity, and staff deserve a system that supports them in keeping everyone safe.

I congratulate Emma Roddick on bringing the debate to the chamber. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak today because this is exactly what members’ business is for—it allows us to shine a light on work that genuinely changes lives but often does not get the attention that it deserves.

When I first read the information about what Growing2gether actually does in pairing young people with toddlers in nurseries, so that those young people can become mentors, I thought that it was a simple idea, but it is really brilliant. The programme is not about giving young people the kind of help that adults sometimes talk about, when we step in to help them fix themselves by telling them what to do, what is wrong with them and why they cannot make progress. Instead, it is about actually handing responsibility to young people, saying that we trust them and letting them be needed. That is a lot: it is massive, but it is actually genius.

I say a proper, “Well done,” to everyone involved in making the programme happen, including the staff of Growing2gether and the facilitators on the ground, as well as the school and nursery staff who make space for the work and keep it going week after week, which I know is not easy when people are already juggling everything that they have to do to look after nursery-age children. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I used to chair a local playgroup, so I have a little bit of insight. Most of all, I say, “Well done,” to the young people who have stepped up and given it a go, and to the wee toddlers who have benefited and are at the heart and core of that work.

The motion talks about young people who are dealing with a lot, such as poverty, mental health challenges and trauma, with everything that comes on top of that, including living with the pressures of modern times. None of us can pretend that we do not see that in our own communities. I see it in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency, where we have loads of young folk who have really good hearts and are good kids but are just carrying a bit too much. They may have had a few years of being told what they are doing wrong most of the time. Adults tend to say that we are preparing young folk for the risks that they might face, but we do that and tell them how they are falling behind, instead of being positive and giving them the opportunity to shine, which is exactly what Growing2gether does. I will certainly take that back to my constituency and talk about it.

I also have a little understanding of mentoring toddlers because I have had six children and know exactly what sort of patience that takes. You have to show up and be kind, and you must be consistent. That is a lot to learn at a young age, and—believe you me—toddlers will find any loophole that they can. Of course, they are also good fun.

The programme is not just good for the wee ones; it is good for all who are involved. It builds confidence in a true, authentic way—not confidence that is put on in order to mask ourselves or to provide us with a way of showing up in society, but a true, authentic transformation within a person. Gaining that real confidence is revolutionary. It is an issue that is pertinent to everybody in the chamber.

I once again thank Emma Roddick for bringing the issue to Parliament, and I hope that the Scottish Government looks seriously at the programme to see how we can roll it out across the rest of Scotland.

13:05

I congratulate Emma Roddick on bringing the debate to the chamber. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak today because this is exactly what members’ business is for—it allows us to shine a light on work that genuinely changes lives but often does not get the attention that it deserves.

When I first read the information about what Growing2gether actually does in pairing young people with toddlers in nurseries, so that those young people can become mentors, I thought that it was a simple idea, but it is really brilliant. The programme is not about giving young people the kind of help that adults sometimes talk about, when we step in to help them fix themselves by telling them what to do, what is wrong with them and why they cannot make progress. Instead, it is about actually handing responsibility to young people, saying that we trust them and letting them be needed. That is a lot: it is massive, but it is actually genius.

I say a proper, “Well done,” to everyone involved in making the programme happen, including the staff of Growing2gether and the facilitators on the ground, as well as the school and nursery staff who make space for the work and keep it going week after week, which I know is not easy when people are already juggling everything that they have to do to look after nursery-age children. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I used to chair a local playgroup, so I have a little bit of insight. Most of all, I say, “Well done,” to the young people who have stepped up and given it a go, and to the wee toddlers who have benefited and are at the heart and core of that work.

The motion talks about young people who are dealing with a lot, such as poverty, mental health challenges and trauma, with everything that comes on top of that, including living with the pressures of modern times. None of us can pretend that we do not see that in our own communities. I see it in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency, where we have loads of young folk who have really good hearts and are good kids but are just carrying a bit too much. They may have had a few years of being told what they are doing wrong most of the time. Adults tend to say that we are preparing young folk for the risks that they might face, but we do that and tell them how they are falling behind, instead of being positive and giving them the opportunity to shine, which is exactly what Growing2gether does. I will certainly take that back to my constituency and talk about it.

I also have a little understanding of mentoring toddlers because I have had six children and know exactly what sort of patience that takes. You have to show up and be kind, and you must be consistent. That is a lot to learn at a young age, and—believe you me—toddlers will find any loophole that they can. Of course, they are also good fun.

The programme is not just good for the wee ones; it is good for all who are involved. It builds confidence in a true, authentic way—not confidence that is put on in order to mask ourselves or to provide us with a way of showing up in society, but a true, authentic transformation within a person. Gaining that real confidence is revolutionary. It is an issue that is pertinent to everybody in the chamber.

I once again thank Emma Roddick for bringing the issue to Parliament, and I hope that the Scottish Government looks seriously at the programme to see how we can roll it out across the rest of Scotland.

13:05

I congratulate Emma Roddick on bringing the debate to the chamber. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak today because this is exactly what members’ business is for—it allows us to shine a light on work that genuinely changes lives but often does not get the attention that it deserves.

When I first read the information about what Growing2gether actually does in pairing young people with toddlers in nurseries, so that those young people can become mentors, I thought that it was a simple idea, but it is really brilliant. The programme is not about giving young people the kind of help that adults sometimes talk about, when we step in to help them fix themselves by telling them what to do, what is wrong with them and why they cannot make progress. Instead, it is about actually handing responsibility to young people, saying that we trust them and letting them be needed. That is a lot: it is massive, but it is actually genius.

I say a proper, “Well done,” to everyone involved in making the programme happen, including the staff of Growing2gether and the facilitators on the ground, as well as the school and nursery staff who make space for the work and keep it going week after week, which I know is not easy when people are already juggling everything that they have to do to look after nursery-age children. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I used to chair a local playgroup, so I have a little bit of insight. Most of all, I say, “Well done,” to the young people who have stepped up and given it a go, and to the wee toddlers who have benefited and are at the heart and core of that work.

The motion talks about young people who are dealing with a lot, such as poverty, mental health challenges and trauma, with everything that comes on top of that, including living with the pressures of modern times. None of us can pretend that we do not see that in our own communities. I see it in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency, where we have loads of young folk who have really good hearts and are good kids but are just carrying a bit too much. They may have had a few years of being told what they are doing wrong most of the time. Adults tend to say that we are preparing young folk for the risks that they might face, but we do that and tell them how they are falling behind, instead of being positive and giving them the opportunity to shine, which is exactly what Growing2gether does. I will certainly take that back to my constituency and talk about it.

I also have a little understanding of mentoring toddlers because I have had six children and know exactly what sort of patience that takes. You have to show up and be kind, and you must be consistent.

That is a lot to learn at a young age, and—believe you me—toddlers will find any loophole that they can. Of course, they are also good fun.

The programme is not just good for the wee ones; it is good for all who are involved. It builds confidence in a true, authentic way—not confidence that is put on in order to mask ourselves or to provide us with a way of showing up in society, but a true, authentic transformation within a person. Gaining that real confidence is revolutionary. It is an issue that is pertinent to everybody in the chamber.

I once again thank Emma Roddick for bringing the issue to Parliament, and I hope that the Scottish Government looks seriously at the programme to see how we can roll it out across the rest of Scotland.

13:05

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2026 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received apologies from Paul O’Kane. Our only agenda item in public this morning is our first evidence session on our inquiry into neurodivergence. The inquiry was precipitated by the Scottish Government’s decision in 2024 to delay the introduction of a learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. We will be focusing on the experiences of neurodivergent people in education, employment and the criminal justice system.

We will hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and we will then move to a round-table format to explore the key themes of the inquiry with autistic disabled people’s organisations and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—ADHD—organisation.

We begin with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland. I welcome to our meeting Dr Jim Crabb, policy lead, and Dr Leonie Boeing, child and adolescent mental health services psychiatrist and vice chair of the college’s child and adolescent faculty. You are both very welcome. Thank you for attending.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. We will begin with questions. I will kick off the questioning, and I will come to you first, Dr Crabb. Will you summarise the background to your report and any key points in it?

We now have questions from Tess White.

That brings this part of the meeting to a close. I thank you for your evidence.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

10:42

Meeting suspended.

10:48

On resuming—