Hansard

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.