Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are going to move on to discuss part 2 of the bill. However, before we do that, what is your opinion on the fact that part of the bill amends the Education Act 1980, which is a UK act, and it will not be possible to challenge a breach of the amendments under the 2024 act, as the bill only covers acts of the Scottish Parliament? What is your view on whether part 1 of the bill achieves its objective of complying with the UNCRC, as well as providing coherence and clarity of the process for withdrawal from religious observance and religious and moral education? Do you have any further thoughts on that approach?

I appreciate the dry and technical nature of the points that the witnesses have made today, but it is important that we get them on the record. I say to Gina Wilson that, if she wants to send us the amendments that she referred to, we would appreciate it, as it would allow us to understand where those views are coming from. We have a fantastic team at the Scottish Parliament that supports MSPs in understanding any legalese and helping us to make headway on these things.

We now have questions from Marie McNair, who joins us remotely.

New figures from Energy Action Scotland show that energy debt has soared to a record £4.4 billion in just four years, with vulnerable Scots burdened with £400 million of that. It is a disgrace that, in an energy-rich country, so many people are in fuel poverty, and especially that, under a Labour United Kingdom Government that pledged to cut bills, the energy price cap has risen again to £1,755. Does the First Minister share my concern that Labour—the UK Government—has lost control of the cost of living crisis? Can he set out what the Scottish Government is doing to support households in the face of the UK Government’s inaction?

It is important to recognise something that we do not say nearly enough in the Parliament: Scotland has fantastic schools that are led by great teachers and filled with hard-working young people. Too often we talk about education in the Parliament as if our pupils are a problem to be solved, which I find incredibly insulting and frustrating. Childhood and adolescence are not problems; they are very normal stages in human development that are full of learning and growth. Our job is to support that journey, not reduce it to soundbites that paint young people in the worst possible light.

I have a lot to get into my speech.

Labour’s motion calls for a blanket ban on mobile phones in classrooms. I agree that mobile phones can and do cause distraction. There are times when they contribute to negative behaviour and there is growing evidence that overuse can affect concentration and social interaction. None of us would deny those facts. However, the real question is not whether those are challenges; it is how we can best respond.

Just last month, I spoke with a headteacher in my constituency who told me that they had introduced a phones away policy during lessons but that they still allow phones at lunch time. That is because, for some pupils—especially those with additional support needs—access to music or online communication is vital. That flexibility worked for their school. That can be compared to another school in which a complete ban during the whole day is also the right approach. Both policies are valid because they come from professionals who know their pupils and staff.

On the point about exemptions, would that not just create the same admin, policing and management but with fewer powers and more restrictions?

The Scottish Government’s approach to empower headteachers and schools to make the decisions that are right for their school communities makes far more sense. Labour would be the first to complain if the Scottish Government swooped in with central diktats on other matters and undermined the professional judgment of teachers. Local authorities and school leaders know their pupils, staff and environment far better than we ever could in the Parliament, and they are best placed to decide whether a mobile phone policy means a complete ban, restricted use or managed access—and they already have the power to do that.

Let us also not pretend that the Government has been idle. Last year, detailed guidance on mobile phones was published, which was designed with input from teachers, unions and educational psychologists. Just a few months ago, that was followed by new guidance on building positive relationships in schools. The guidance is not about leaving schools to fend for themselves—far from it—but it is about equipping them with evidence and support to make the best choices.

It is worth remembering the broader context. Almost 4,000 staff contributed to the behaviour in Scottish schools research report. The report showed that most pupils are well behaved and dedicated while also highlighting challenges such as misogyny and worsening behaviour in some places, as my colleague Patrick Harvie spoke about. That is exactly why the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was created, bringing together the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, parents, carers and the third sector. It is about partnership, not grabbing headlines.

If we want young people to learn healthy communication, resilience and balance in a digital age, the answer cannot be to simply legislate phones out of sight. That will do little to prepare young people for the world beyond the classroom, where digital communication is a daily reality.

Let us not fall into the trap of making children the scapegoats for wider frustrations. Let us respect their development, respect our teachers and respect the principle that those who are closest to the classroom are best placed to decide what happens in it.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the issues that it has been facing. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary outline what work the Scottish Government has done and is doing to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to move quickly through the system?

As members can imagine, urban gulls are a hot topic in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Not long after I was elected, I set up a gull working group with local authorities and experts to share best practice, with the recognition that each community faces different challenges. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. What support can the Scottish Government give to local authorities for the bespoke solutions that are needed?

Will the member take an intervention?

Welcome back. I welcome the second panel of witnesses: Dr Alejandro Sanchez is the human rights lead for the National Secular Society and Fraser Sutherland is the chief executive officer of the Humanist Society Scotland. Thank you for joining us. We will move straight to questions, and I will kick off by asking what your experience is of the right to withdraw from religious and moral education and religious observance.

Absolutely.

Professor O’Hagan, can you tell us about your experience of how the right to withdraw currently works in schools?