Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am glad to hear that the Government accepts that people are waiting too long to get the support that they need. Although the minister highlighted that support is not based on having a diagnosis, that is not necessarily the case for too many children and young people with autism and other neurodivergent conditions.

I also note the minister’s assertion that young people are not being moved off waiting lists to meet CAMHS targets. The minister can be as crystal clear as he likes, but we have a freedom of information response that shows that that statement is completely false. If the minister has that proof, will he commit to publishing the data that supports his statement regarding neurodivergent conditions and CAMHS waiting times?

I rise to speak on the LCM that we have been asked to approve this afternoon. It has already been highlighted that it covers child employment, secure care and residential care. I have concerns about it, which I will briefly outline to members.

At face value, the proposal to allow residential accommodation as an alternative to secure care might seem uncontroversial. Indeed, the Scottish Government seems quite comfortable in its assertion that it is very unlikely that a child would be given a cross-border placement. Unfortunately, however, unlikely does not mean impossible. The Scottish Government’s memorandum states that

“allowing for this option is in line with article 3 of the UNCRC, which requires that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions involving them.”

The proposal to allow residential accommodation might seem helpful in offering greater flexibility, especially where capacity is under pressure. Secure accommodation in Scotland is currently under immense pressure, but we must not lose sight of what secure care is and why it matters.

Last year, in this Parliament, we passed the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, which moved away from placing children in young offenders institutions and into an individual child-based system that increases the use of secure care, with all the safeguarding and specialist support that come with it. We said that the outcome of that would be that there would be immense pressure.

The briefing from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland for this LCM also raises concerns, specifically about the possibility of cross-border placements. I stress that the fact that the Government assures us that such placements are unlikely to happen does not mean that they will not happen.

Residential care is not secure care. It does not offer the same physical security, therapeutic oversight or legal framework. It is not a like-for-like substitute, and we should not treat it as one.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. What legal guarantees could be put in place to prevent residential facilities being utilised in a justice-related placement? How will cross-border oversight be managed if the facilities are based in England? I look forward to the assurances and information on that, and I accept that the minister is stepping in on this matter.

I will also briefly address the child employment provisions. On the surface, they are not controversial, but there is an open question that I would like clarity on. Does the bill cover children who work on family farms or in small businesses? I understand that we have legislation on that, but, all over Scotland, that is not just a job but part of family life. That is how many people—especially young people—learn responsibility. If there is any unintended impact, we must understand it and address it.

Finally, I come to the point on process that has already been highlighted very well by Jeremy Balfour and Douglas Ross. It is my understanding that the LCM is being rushed because the UK Government did not fully appreciate the Scottish implications of the amendments, despite the UK bill being in the House of Lords. I note the minister’s comments and his apology for any delay on the Scottish Government’s side, and that is accepted. However, Parliament is being asked to approve last-minute changes to devolved legislation without full consultation, without detailed impact assessments and without certainty on how those powers would be used.

We are being asked to give up scrutiny and to take on trust that it will all work out, and I am afraid that I cannot do that. I was assured that the concerns raised about secure accommodation provisions in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 would not be an issue, but it has come to pass that they are. When vulnerable children are involved, I cannot simply go on assurances—the price is too high.

We have a responsibility to protect the integrity of our justice reforms, the clarity of our devolved powers and, above all, the rights of the children we serve. On that basis, we will not fully support the legislative consent motion, but we will not oppose it.

The minister mentioned the Who Cares? Scotland report. I agree that its findings are deeply concerning, given that, although the Promise aimed to end the practice of excluding care-experienced children, those children are nearly six times more likely to be excluded than their peers. The use of extremely limited timetables as a method of avoiding formal exclusion is also unacceptable, especially as it begets non-attendance, increases stigma and enhances mental health issues.

In its 2025 report, the Promise oversight board stated that

“school exclusions, reduced timetables and non-attendance can be interlinked. Data sets must be connected to give a clearer picture of what young people need in order to thrive.”

Is the Scottish Government collating that interlinked data? If so, when will it be published? If not, what steps is it taking to facilitate that important information?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

I will.

Thank you very much.

The disappointment that I want to highlight is down to some of the behaviour that was on display yesterday. Some of the amendments that were spoken to, and some of the contributions that were made, were met with what, in my opinion, were arrogance and contempt. I believe that that shows disrespect to the Parliament and does a disservice to the people who we represent. Members might have differing opinions, but every one of our contributions is equally valuable.

It is our job to be a voice for the people who we represent. The fact that the majority in the Parliament might disagree with the substantive points that are made in debates does not diminish those points or the need for them to be made. It is our moral duty to fully push the debate, and if members in the chamber think that Opposition voices should be silenced, curtailed or belittled they will push this institution towards dictatorship and away from democracy.

As I mentioned, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the half-hearted attempt at reform that the bill represents. As has been the case with so many bills brought forward by this SNP Government, we are debating a bill that is an acceptable move in the right direction, rather than making the necessary legislative changes to make tangible moves to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. That is not what this Parliament was set up to do, and the public will not thank us for it. They deserve better.

I might be the third person in line to do so, but I would like to extend my congratulations to Davy Russell and welcome him to the Parliament and the chamber. I also thank him for expressing the sentiments that he mentioned in his speech. I am three years into being an elected member, but I still feel a sense of excitement about the fact that I am here in this place.

I turn to my speech. Presiding Officer,

“reform is not in itself a panacea. Cultural change in both Government and our agencies will be essential if we are to build a new qualifications system that carries the credence that children, parents and the teaching profession will expect.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; c 24.]

Those are not my words—I am quoting the cabinet secretary—but I cannot disagree at all with their content or the sentiment that they express. However, here we are. Will the bill that we have just debated truly deliver a cultural change in both the Government and our education agencies? I think not. We could have been debating a bill that made a monumental change to our education system and truly embraced the concept of change that we all agreed was needed. However, unfortunately, much of its promise has been watered down and, in my opinion, it will result in little more than a rebranding of the already failing SQA.

In 2022, Professor Muir’s report recommended separating the SQA’s accreditation and regulation functions from its role as an awarding body. The report recommended that accreditation be transferred to a new national education agency, which would also take on responsibility for the curriculum and the professional support roles that are currently held by Education Scotland.

I totally agreed with the response that Miles Briggs gave to the intervention on his speech, because what we are looking at is simply an internal restructure. We were looking for radical cultural change—that is what we wanted to see from the bill—but, instead, the agency’s functions have not been separated in that way. Splitting the awarding and accreditation functions of the SQA is fundamental to creating a system that will work. As the scandal surrounding last year’s higher history exam showed, the SQA should not be marking its own homework. The truth is that it should have a complete overhaul—not just a cosmetic makeover and a name change.

The proposed changes fall far short of what was needed to ensure that the organisation operates effectively and is properly accountable. At every stage of the bill process, amendments were lodged with the aim of ensuring that the bill would offer not only reform but much more. At stages 2 and 3, Conservative members tried to amend the bill so that the cultural change that the cabinet secretary admitted was essential would come to pass. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the opportunity to enhance the bill—and, ultimately, to enhance our education offering in Scotland—has not been taken. I was incredibly disappointed that some of the amendments and the contributions, especially in yesterday’s proceedings—

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is saying, but what I am seeing is—I will use a phrase that my colleagues have just mentioned—low-hanging fruit. The amendments that were accepted were the amendments—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but does the cabinet secretary want to intervene again?

I will speak only to my amendment 206. Childminding provision in Scotland is currently insufficient to ensure adequate accommodation for children who are eligible for the early years offering. The number of childminding professionals has almost halved. A massive part of the issue is the increased regulation requirements that were brought by the early years roll-out of 1,140 hours of childcare and the corresponding costs and paperwork for the profession.

I accept that the needs of children must be at the centre of our processes, but that has to be balanced by the staff to ensure their safety and care, and the system needs to provide that balance. Amendment 206 would streamline the inspection regime for childminders. Currently, childminders who are registered with the Care Inspectorate can also be subject to separate inspections by Education Scotland. That can result in duplicated inspections, which places an unnecessary regulatory burden on childminders, many of whom are sole operators or small businesses.

My amendment would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations to change the routine duplication of inspections by the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland. If a childminder had already been inspected by the Care Inspectorate for educational provision, the chief inspector would not conduct a separate inspection unless certain parameters were met.

As usual, I cannot disagree with a single word that Martin Whitfield has said. That is exactly the problem that we are facing.

The amendment basically states that, once the Care Inspectorate had done its inspection, the chief inspector would not go back in and do a separate inspection unless certain parameters had been met, which are that it is specifically requested by the Care Inspectorate; there is a significant concern about the educational provision that needs immediate attention; or a joint inspection has been agreed.

Across our early years and childcare sector, childminders play a vital role in offering flexible, nurturing care to thousands of families. Although they are already subject to thorough regulation and inspection by the Care Inspectorate, they often face additional, overlapping inspections from Education Scotland for exactly the same provision. That not only places a disproportionate burden on small, often sole-trader services, but it diverts valuable time and energy from the thing that matters most, which is caring for and educating our youngest children.

This is about good governance; it is about streamlining regulation, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and showing our childminders that we value the work that they do by respecting their time and their professional judgment. Amendment 206 would ensure that we maintained quality and safeguarding standards while reducing bureaucracy and supporting Scotland’s childminders. I ask members to support the amendment.