Seòmar agus comataidhean

My clear expectation is that anyone who is waiting for assessment should be sensitively signposted to support that is available. I reiterate the point that diagnosis is not, and should not be, a prerequisite for support. Education and local authorities should not be using the need for a diagnosis as a way to gate keep access to services. They have clear obligations—there are statutes—on meeting people’s needs and ensuring that services are delivered consistently in line with the principles that are set out.

Having said that, I recognise that the evidence that the committee has taken is as you have articulated, which comes back to the point about implementation. I will not rehearse my previous points on the review and the joint task force, but those are the principal ways in which we are responding to the issue.

We have a national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people, and I expect to see a consistent approach. In our work with health boards, my strong desire is that we achieve consistency.

In saying that, I recognise that there is variation to respond to the needs and assets of different communities in different parts of Scotland, and that is particularly important when working with local partners. Variation can be important, but that is in the context of how a service is delivered and what assets are utilised to meet what should be a consistent national standard, because that is what people ultimately expect.

I recognise that there is variation at the moment. In partnership with local government and health boards, we are working to reduce that. We have a clear policy framework that sets out what the standard should be. The question now is one of implementation and our being able to achieve that.

Work has been undertaken in relation to the workforce. The Royal College of Psychiatrists makes a profound point in the paper that it has published. That speaks to the need for a stepped care approach that is based on need and looking at the opportunities for early intervention.

There will of course be cases where engagement with a psychiatrist is appropriate and that is consistent with meeting an individual’s need. However, there will also be many cases where needs can be met and support can be provided without the involvement of a psychiatrist in the way that is perhaps occurring too frequently at the moment. I recognise that and I also recognise the point that has been articulated by the royal college about the impact that it is having on the sustainability of the existing workforce.

Gavin Gray might want to add something and speak a bit more broadly on the workforce point.

Work is already under way. The policy framework for children and young people—the national specification—is in place. We recognise that there is an implementation gap, hence the work that I have referred to. That is under way and I want it to move at pace. We are working with health boards on the implementation of the findings of the pathways report.

I made reference to the paper by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, and we are giving serious consideration to that. I reiterate a point that I have made in the chamber: we welcome that paper. It makes an important contribution to the discussion, and there is much in it that is worthy of serious consideration. I give the committee the undertaking that this is an absolute priority for me and that we are going to be working at pace to make as much progress as possible—hence the additional investment that we have committed to in this financial year.

That is an important point. We in Government certainly try to support boards and local partners to take forward best practice. The National Autism Implementation Team published the pathways report a couple of years ago. The Government accepted the recommendations from that and has been working with health boards to support implementation of those recommendations, but I recognise that there is currently variation. Recognising the day-to-day operational role that health boards have, we are committed to continuing to work constructively with boards to achieve the level of national consistency that people across Scotland expect.

Do any officials want to come in?

Thank you, convener. Good morning to you and to the rest of the committee. This supplementary LCM should be read in conjunction with the Scottish Government’s previous memoranda on the Employment Rights Bill, dated 11 December 2024 and 3 April 2025.

The Scottish Government has been working closely with care providers, trade unions, local government and regulators for a number of years to deliver fair work in the social care sector, but, as you are aware, the Scottish Government’s ability to act in this area is constrained by the devolution settlement. Nevertheless, we have continued to deliver what we can by using the powers that are available to us, including enabling payment of a real living wage to all social care workers, delivering direct care and commissioned services, developing an effective voice framework for the sector, which is nearing the conclusion of a pilot phase, and working with the sector to identify priority areas for enhanced terms and conditions in due course. However, the Employment Rights Bill and subsequent amendments now confer some limited powers on the Scottish ministers, and it is for those reasons that a supplementary LCM is required for those provisions.

It is important to note that a lot of work has also been carried out to develop and design a process for delivering a voluntary sectoral bargaining model for Scotland. When the Employment Rights Bill was introduced, it included provisions relating to the social care sector in England, most notably for the establishment through regulations of a negotiating body to consider pay and terms and conditions for the adult social care sector.

The outcome of those negotiations, once accepted by the secretary of state, was to be enacted through regulations to deliver fair pay agreements for workers who were in scope. The Scottish Government recognised the opportunity to potentially underpin much of the work already undertaken in Scotland on sectoral bargaining by seeking to extend the scope of the bill to Scotland. That will provide the Scottish Government with the option to regulate for negotiated fair pay agreements for the sector as an alternative to the aforementioned voluntary process.

We have also succeeded in securing broader applications of those bill provisions to children’s services, not just services for adults, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with the UK Government to build on our fair work principles and help to maximise the bill’s positive impact across Scotland.

The amendments to which the LCM pertains clarify that negotiating bodies can set only minimum terms and conditions of employment for social care workers and cannot adversely affect those workers’ existing terms and conditions or prevent employers from offering better terms and conditions than those agreed by the negotiating body. They also establish the parliamentary procedure for approving codes and guidance. Together, these measures protect social care workers from being forced on to worse contracts, safeguard fair pay and conditions, and help to maintain a competitive and sustainable workforce across the sector.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the regulations.

When I appeared before the committee in June last year, you were considering the Scottish Pubs Code Regulations 2024 and related Scottish statutory instruments. The Scottish pubs code will improve the position of tied pub tenants through the creation of a statutory framework to govern the relationship between pub-owning businesses and their tied pub tenants.

At the time of the committee session, I was aware of significant stakeholder concerns about the regulations and, in particular, the code. I was not able to withdraw the regulations in June, but I undertook to carry out a further focused and targeted consultation on the pubs code. My stated intention was to introduce an SSI to make amendments to the code and to bring the legislation into force as soon as possible. The SSI that the committee is considering today is the result of that further consultation.

My officials and I have engaged fully with stakeholders in the development of the legislation. The consultation process involved the receipt of written proposals from stakeholders, followed by workshops and a formal written consultation. The intention was not to reopen fundamental policy debates about the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Act 2021; the focus has been on key areas of concern that were raised by tenants, pub-owning businesses and their representative organisations. I am grateful to stakeholders for their continued engagement in that work.

The policy area remains difficult, with stakeholders diametrically opposed on certain matters. A difficult balancing act is required, and it has not always been possible to reach consensus. However, the purpose of the code is to improve the position of tied pub tenants, and I believe that it will now achieve that purpose more effectively. The SSI will ensure that the code fulfils the intentions of the 2021 act and is consistent with its regulatory principles.

I am conscious of the significant challenges for all businesses at this time, so I have sought to ensure that we do not put unnecessary demands on pub-owning businesses while still improving the position of tied pub tenants. The SSI will result in some aspects of the code, including the guest beer arrangement and information provisions, coming into force on 31 March 2025. In response to concerns from some pub-owning businesses about their preparedness, the provisions on market-rent-only leases, rent assessment and review will come into force on 30 June.

Once in place, the code will be monitored and enforced by the Scottish pubs code adjudicator. The adjudicator and her office have been working hard to prepare for when the code comes into force, and I am pleased that that has involved good engagement with the sector. The 2021 act requires that the adjudicator’s work and the code be reviewed after 31 March 2026, and every three years thereafter. We must continue to ensure that the code is proportionate and in keeping with the obligations of the act.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

In the first instance, I will be meeting stakeholders in the coming weeks to discuss their specific concerns in more detail. Those meetings will help to inform what we will do regarding consultation.

The intention is for the consultation to be launched in mid-August and run for eight weeks. I will write to the committee relatively soon to update members with more detail about what we expect the consultation to include. I want it to be informed by my more detailed engagement with stakeholders in the coming weeks.

No. The position had already been filled. It was originally intended that the regulations would come into force in early October, so her appointment preceded the commencement of the regulations anyway.

As I said, my intention is to bring forward the coming-into-force date if possible, but that will be contingent on the engagement that we have over the summer and on that consultation, about which I will keep the committee updated. The adjudicator will be able to start developing her role now that she has been appointed.

I appreciate that point. I refer members back to a point that I made at the previous committee meeting: it would have been the Government’s desire and intention to have had further consultation and engagement but, because of the circumstances in which we found ourselves, with which the committee is familiar, that was not possible. At the previous meeting, we brought forward the regulations and set out the rationale for the approach that we are taking.

I am not going into this with an expectation that we will be able to find a pub code that will satisfy absolutely everyone, because I recognise that there are strong views about the code. However, I will seek to build as much consensus as possible.

As I said at the previous meeting, we are in a situation where the pubs code does not satisfy either pub-owning companies or tied publicans. I hope that, through engagement with representatives and stakeholders and through the consultation that we intend to launch in August, we can build a greater degree of consensus so that there can be confidence when the code comes into force. As I said previously, there is a requirement in the legislation to have a review in the future, which will provide a further opportunity for consideration, once there has been an opportunity for the code to operate.