Hansard

I will deal first with the legitimate points that members have raised.

I absolutely take on board Douglas Ross’s point about the workload of the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its having had insufficient time to deal with the issue. He noted the date of 14 May. I should explain, in case it has not been clear, that there continued to be to-ing and fro-ing between the two Governments. As I understand it, that was in part because of a clause in the bill and the fact that we were completing the work on reimagining secure care ahead of making it public. For our part in that to-ing and fro-ing, I apologise.

As I said earlier, as a former Minister for Parliamentary Business, I could not agree more about the need for the Parliament to have an appropriate amount of time to do its work. As I explained, there would have been a legislative compatibility issue had we allowed consideration to run beyond the timeframe that we have.

As I understand it, Roz McCall was talking about the proposed community-based secure accommodation in England. She is no doubt aware that no such accommodation is currently available. The bill provides for such facilities to be developed. If the bill is agreed and receives royal assent, the UK Government will consult on the provision of and the requirements for the facilities. In effect, we are future proofing our approach by referencing the existence of such accommodation. I give her the reassurance that this is not in any way a change in our approach. As I said to Martin Whitfield, this is about getting the wording of the legislation right, and the bill does not make cross-border placements more likely.

The point about family farms was a very good one for Roz McCall to raise. I do not have the answer for her today, but the bill provides a power for ministers to create a single bylaw—that is probably not the correct term—that would apply across the whole of Scotland. There will be consultation on that. I will ask officials to take on board the very fair point that she made to ensure that whatever is brought forward captures that issue that she has rightly raised. The Parliament will have a role in that regard.

I thank all members for their constructive and thoughtful contributions. No Government or Parliament on these islands has done more to progress the rights of children and young people. We are rightly proud of what we have achieved together in this Parliament in that regard.

We are also rightly fierce in protecting the best interests of children and engaging with them to get their views on decisions that affect them. The provisions on employment should give children more choice and opportunity to make decisions about when they work to gain income and independence. They modernise our approach to children’s employment and will make protections and opportunities more consistent across the country. I will quote a young person who was engaged with the proposed changes:

“I think that it will make young people happier and able to work and gain more experience.”

Although it would have been our preference to legislate on this devolved matter here at Holyrood, it would have been wrong to pass up the opportunity to update what is an outmoded statutory framework. A system of 32 local byelaws on child employment lends itself to inconsistency across councils in relation to permitted and prohibited types of work. Some bylaws are out of date and are not reflective of modern-day employment opportunities. Most have not been updated since the early 2000s—indeed, one dates back to 1973. Some still refer to the prohibition regarding children working as chimney sweeps or on merchant ships or undertaking work in coal yards. Creating central regulations will provide consistency, reduce the administrative burden of updating byelaws and allow for engagement to ensure that updates reflect the needs and interests of children and young people, as well as local communities and economies.

The provisions on community-based accommodation will provide flexibility and choice in providing the most appropriate placement for a child, if deemed appropriate and in an exceptional circumstance, and if it fully meets their care needs. No significant issues were raised about either of those changes by stakeholders, and there was recognition of the value of them. However, it is recognised that further engagement will be undertaken with key stakeholders.

As I said earlier, I note the concerns of the DPLR Committee regarding timescales, and, once again, I apologise that the Parliament was not given more time to consider the changes. When working with UK bill measures, that is not always feasible, but I accept the importance of giving parliamentary committees more opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislative changes, especially changes as important as these. I hope that the Parliament will agree that the changes will help to protect and enhance the best interests of Scotland’s children and young people and will, accordingly, give consent.