Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will now suspend briefly for a change of officials before we consider a third draft affirmative instrument.

11:50

Meeting suspended.

11:51

On resuming—

Welcome back. Our next agenda item is consideration of our third and final draft affirmative instrument, which is on the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland local taxation chamber. I welcome back Siobhian Brown, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Mandy Williams, unit head of tribunals and judicial policy, and Rachel Nicholson, who is a lawyer in the legal directorate.

I invite the minister to speak to the draft instrument.

As members have no comments or questions on the instrument, we will move on to agenda item 5, which is formal consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-20225.

Motion moved,

That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Local Taxation Chamber (Rules of Procedure and Composition) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Siobhian Brown]

Motion agreed to.

That concludes our formal business in public. I thank the minister and her officials for joining us. We now move into private session to discuss the remaining items on our agenda.

11:56

Meeting continued in private until 12:26.

::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 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 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.