Seòmar agus comataidhean

“Could” means discretion—

Oh—I had forgotten, with that debate about “could” and “would”. Which one is it, please? [Interruption.] What page? Oh dear—maybe you should—

I know that this is just under consideration, but you have mentioned a possible amendment at stage 2, whereas our briefing says that changes would be brought in by affirmative procedure. What process are we looking at? I appreciate that an instrument under the affirmative procedure means taking evidence and so on.

Section 13(7) of the bill—I should have known that. There we are. Rap over the knuckles. What is the definition in section 13(7)?

Can it be triggered by just a complaint? That would not be “proceedings”?

It has to be an official police investigation whereby people are advised that that is happening.

What about the official investigation—I am sorry, I am muddling myself now. I do not want to muddle you up. The official investigation must be by the police.

The education landscape has changed beyond recognition in just a few decades, as has the world around us. Between the education that I had in the 1950s and 1960s, the education that I delivered as a secondary teacher in the 1970s and 1980s and education today, there are worlds of difference, in and outside the classroom. With the online world and technology, the needs of society continue to change and accelerate. What is taught will have to adapt while focusing on ensuring that children have the basic tools of numeracy and literacy.

There is much to be recommended in the broad base of our education syllabus, particularly in secondary education and beyond to tertiary. However, I welcome this wide-ranging report, which endeavours to provide a broad discussion about what our children need in today’s world to help them thrive and contribute to society in their own way. The report also endeavours to make schools a place where inequalities are minimised and diminished and, most importantly, a safe and happy place to be.

I will focus first on what is for me the linchpin of success: the teachers. Something that remains constant is the value of a good teacher, and there are many good teachers. Some of us here can no doubt easily recall the good and distinguish them from the mediocre, no matter how distant our learning experience. That evidences the impact that the quality of teaching has on us, even decades on, and it is recognised in the report, which states:

“One very strong theme that featured heavily in the responses to the National Discussion was the importance of valuing and appreciating all educational professionals working with and within schools. We listened to some robust views about the importance of teachers and the need for more support staff, including classroom assistants, learning assistants, support for learning staff, and pupil support staff. ... We heard about the importance of class sizes affecting how much time and attention a teacher or support staff member could give to each individual child or young person.”

The issue of class sizes comes next for me. The smaller the class, the easier it is to teach and to give time to each child. I once taught a class of 40 and another of 16, and how I taught was determined not just by the character of the class but by the size itself. That for me is self-evident.

Inclusivity is to be welcomed, but it is not the answer for all children who have, for example, severe learning difficulties or behavioural issues. That is not just about their development and wellbeing; it is about the other children in the class. In that respect, I refer to my intervention on Willie Rennie.

There is a question about whether it is best for a child with, say, very difficult behavioural issues to be in a mainstream class. I repeat that, in my casework, it sometimes seems that what is a presumption verges on the mandatory. I have had representations from parents of children who would need substantial support in order for them to remain in a mainstream class that they have concerns that that would not be best for their child’s development. That is especially the case if many children in a class require additional support.

I turn to the testy matter of how a school can deal with bullying which, again, often comes up in my casework. The report states:

“Within the National Discussion, we heard many times how important it was for pupils of all ages to feel secure and free from any form of bullying, intimidation, or harassment.”

However, in my casework experience, policies in certain schools are not always effective in striking the balance between the bully and the bullied. I appreciate that that is a difficult balance to strike, and I know that Scottish Borders Council, for example, is reviewing its bullying policy. For some parents, there is the perception that every effort is made to keep the bully in school, not the bullied child.

I understand that some 30,000 children have caring responsibilities. They might not always disclose that to a teacher in order to protect a parent out of fear—whether baseless or not—that social work might remove them from the situation if, for example, the child is supporting a parent with addiction problems.

Of course, if concerns about a child’s wellbeing ring alarm bells, there is a duty on a teacher to bring those concerns to the attention of the appropriate authority. We ask a lot of our teachers, and we ask even more of them now than we did during my time in the classroom.

In my view, teachers need to have more in-class support and more non-teaching time for continuing professional development, for example. Sometimes, they are so busy that they do not have time to do anything else.

People can educate, in its broadest sense, even in a dilapidated hut—although that is not a suggestion from me to the Government. For me, it comes down in the simplest terms to the teacher, the in-class support and the size of the class.

Mr Rennie actually quoted from the part of the report from which I was going to quote. I very much agree about the presumption about mainstream education, but I feel that in some schools it is almost mandatory. That is not always in the interests of a child who has, let us say, severe behavioural difficulties, and nor is it in the interests of the other members of the class.

I have to admit that, until recently, when I heard a news programme about it, I was unaware that the hospital at home service existed. That was my failure. I note that the Scottish Government’s motion states that it is

“a cost effective alternative to acute care”,

but, more importantly, that it

“provides very good clinical outcomes”,

which is what we all want. It also frees up hospital beds and, of course, the staff to service them.

Hospital at home is a short-term, targeted intervention that provides acute-level hospital care in an individual’s own home or in a homely setting. So far, it has led to a 53 per cent increase in the number of patients who are being managed by such services. It has prevented more than 11,000 people from spending time in hospital during 2022-23, thereby relieving pressure on A and E and, importantly, the Scottish Ambulance Service.

What is also important is that those patients were in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by the familiar, all of which, in my view, aids better physical and mental health. I will quote one patient, who said:

“I was delighted, it was unbelievable ... It was totally different to being in hospital. One thing I haven’t mentioned is the fact that it’s the personal ... between the two of us, I wasn’t just a number. It makes a difference.”

Midlothian’s hospital at home team has the acronym MERRIT, which stands for Midlothian enhanced rapid response and intervention team. It is an acute care team, based in Midlothian community hospital, which offers an assessment of a patient’s medical needs in their own home, or in a care home, by using a holistic, multidisciplinary approach during the acute phase of their illness. The service offers an opportunity to identify a potentially unwell patient, better persuade a patient to accept hospital admission as a safer place of care or direct them to a more appropriate service.

However, it should be recognised that there might be specific circumstances in which remote triage might also be appropriate, such as when the patient has been seen within the past 24 hours by a GP or another clinician; when there is a clear indication of a known recurrent or stable condition; or when examination findings are unlikely to change the appropriate place of care. In other words, as other members have said, it is about giving the right treatment in the right place, which might be either in hospital or at home.

I will give some examples of the criteria for referral to the hospital at home service. For Midlothian’s service, the patient must be resident there. In addition, their personal care requirements must be able to be met in the community: that is to say that they will be safe at home, either caring for themselves, having an existing package of care or receiving the support of their family.

There is also strict guidance on not referring patients with, for example, chest pain, acute stroke, asthma, suspected deep vein thrombosis, a suspected fracture or another suspected acute surgical emergency or, indeed, where the patient or their family is unwilling for them to stay at home. A discussion should be had with the person in their own home about what is most suitable for them.

NHS Borders’ hospital at home service started admitting patients only in April 2023 and so is the newest such service in Scotland. Rurality is an issue, but such areas can still be covered. Borders general hospital is far away for many people.

I welcome the progress that has been made on hospital at home, which seems to me to be a plus all round—and, in particular, to patients if it is practicable for them to be assessed and treated in familiar surroundings, which must be good for them.

The Scottish Parliament reconvened on 1 July 1999, 300 years after it was abolished, as part of the process of union with England. For the benefit of the sole occupant of the Labour benches, the two occupants of the Tory benches and the deserted Liberal Democrat benches, I quote the words of Donald Dewar, who was the first First Minister:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament. Through long years, those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now they are a reality. ... Today, we look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point: the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland, when we revitalised our place in this our United Kingdom. This is about more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves. ... The past is part of us. But today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament. A voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel of his native land. For me, for any Scot, today is a proud moment; a new stage on a journey begun long ago and which has no end.”

I was there; I heard those lyrical words at the rebirth of this ancient Parliament.

I repeat:

“A journey begun long ago and which has no end.”

Many of us were then inexperienced, taking our first steps into formalised politics and learning how to be effective—in my case, as an Opposition back bencher and committee convener.

Twenty-four years on, this Parliament has matured and defined its Scottishness, social democratic values and distinctive priorities. I am proud of free personal care, which the Labour-Liberal coalition brought in, and the SNP’s minimum unit pricing, free prescriptions, concessionary fares, free childcare and the more recent child payment.

I have observed six Governments in my six sessions here. Not one of them has been perfect, but they have all been accountable at the ballot box to the Scottish electorate, which has spoken loud and clear for the second time and delivered an overall majority that is indisputably committed to Scottish independence.

Now, a Government that we did not vote for—there are only six Scottish Tory MPs to the SNP’s 45—denies and even defies devolution, let alone the democratic right of the people to a referendum, as it interferes in devolved areas. What next? What will happen around, for example, nuclear power, against the will of Parliament, which controls planning law, and against the will of the Scottish people? Power devolved is, indeed, power retained; for the current Tory Government, it is power regained, which is a red alert to all who support devolution, if not independence.

We have, as a nation, travelled so far in nearly a quarter of a century, regaining our Scottish voice. The remedy lies where it must—with the Scottish people, who are sovereign, and not with Westminster. Let people use their voice loud and clear at the next election. Only independence gives them the Government and the policies that they vote for. To this chamber, that is democracy.