Seòmar agus comataidhean

Last week, no secure accommodation was available in the network in Scotland. Today, there is just one bed. On 20 February, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland wrote to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, saying:

“I have been told that instead of a placement in a safe and therapeutic environment, with integrated education and mental health support”—

that is, our secure accommodation network—

“children have instead had to be placed in what has been described to me as ‘cobbled together’ provision”.

Is it right that, under your Government, the most vulnerable children in Scotland are relying on “‘cobbled together’ provision”?

I believe that the internal market act should be fixed; it absolutely needs to be—[Interruption.]

There we have the lap of derision, from those who are paying attention.

It is right to say that the UK Labour manifesto spoke, as has been raised today, about strengthening the Sewel convention

“by setting out a new memorandum of understanding”,

because the Governments need to work together.

I will, again, quote a Scottish MP—Douglas Alexander MP—who sits at the heart of the UK Government. He has said that

“The Government is committed to working closely with the Devolved Governments to deliver effective outcomes for people across the UK”,

and that

“we recognise that the operation of the UK Internal Market Act can be improved, including more certainty and clarity”.

That is where the other part of the debate sits.

Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?

Is the tone, attitude, approach and view that is being taken in the cabinet secretary’s speech and the speeches of others conducive to a relationship with the UK Government that is productive, which is how I have heard the relationship described by members on the Government front bench?

Much in the same way as the Scottish Government decided to bring this debate to the chamber before the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has published its report on its on-going inquiry—

Well, it is an indication of another debate—a debate in which, aside from one reference, members have not discussed the importance of the Windsor framework and the requirement to act in good faith in protecting the UK internal market.

Was there a change? Yes, and—in response to Christine Grahame’s assertions, quotes and references—this is an act that needs to be fixed. The vehicle for fixing the act is under way: it is being brought forward.

This debate has been almost three debates in one, two of which were interesting. I have to say at the outset that Scottish Labour welcomes not only the new UK Labour Government—which no one would be surprised at—but its commitment to resetting the relationship with the devolved Governments, and it has wasted no time in demonstrating that.

It is fascinating that we have statements and questions in which the Scottish Government talks about, and talks up, the close working relationship that exists between the new UK Government and the Scottish Government, but then, following the Scottish Government’s chosen debate yesterday—although I could not possibly criticise it for wanting to level criticism at other Governments—we have today’s debate. This debate, rather than being, as it was heralded, about protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament, might in fact have been an invitation to come back and talk about independence, although I know that the Scottish Government’s front-bench members have been silent on that point—

I mean this with the greatest respect, but perhaps therein lies the challenge for those who are in the Government. The challenge is to reach out across the chamber and to work harder to seek consensus. Perhaps then, Scotland will have a Parliament that it can remember and respect.

I apologise to Christine Grahame. I need to make progress.

I want to deal with the other element of the debate, which is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. When listening to contributions, it is interesting that the phrases “Scottish Government” and “the will of the Scottish Parliament” are interchanged so frequently when assurance is needed that the whole Parliament has agreed to something, rather than its having been the will of the Scottish Government. It is interesting to revisit Jackson Carlaw’s contribution, who has the privilege of being able to look back at the 2007 to 2011 Government. I hope that his speech was in no way heralding any intention to depart the Parliament on his own terms.

The Scottish Government is a minority Government. It has tried to reach out to other parties and on some occasions it has achieved that, but not with the certainty, strength or clarity of previous Scottish Governments. We need to remember that, under the Scotland Act 1988, in essence, the chamber was set up so that there would be a Government of minorities, and that it would take from the strength and wisdom of people across Scotland in order to work together. That is a skill that needs to be practised, attuned and constantly revisited. Jackson Carlaw made a point about having the ability to walk the corridors and talk to people. I feel that that is unduly lacking in Parliament now, for whatever reason. Having taken an intervention from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, it would be interesting to be invited to consider that and to see where, across the Parliament, we can find agreement on the important things, such as the issues that Alex Rowley raised—the NHS, housing and education.

I, too, thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. She will be aware that the report clearly states that

“the journey is behind schedule”

and that we are

“not halfway towards”

keeping the Promise. I know that the minister is aware of that.

I have two specific questions. The first comes from the letter from The Promise Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission: when will the Government publish the statutory framework on restraint and seclusion?

The second question is on a more worrying issue, from an imminent danger point of view. On 8 January, when the minister was asked in the chamber about the lack of secure accommodation in Scotland, she responded:

“As I have said, however, there are regular conversations between the Government, partners and heads of secure care to ensure that a situation such as that does not happen.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; c. 29]

There were no independent secure centre vacancies in Scotland on Tuesday and there are none today. What is the Government going to do about that problem, which is not a hypothetical problem but one that those centres face currently?