Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3705, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call on Cathy Jamieson to speak to and move the motion. In the circumstances, I think that I can be fairly flexible about the timing of speeches.
I am sure that the Presiding Officer does not want me to be so flexible that I take up the next two hours.
I begin by thanking everyone who was involved in the bill, from the policy development and consultation stages through to the preparation of the draft bill and the detailed scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I thank the bill team for steering the legislation through, and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for engaging so fully in the process by scrutinising the bill in detail with the Justice 1 Committee. Once again, we have seen an example of how the Executive and committee members can work to improve legislation at each stage and ensure that we have a bill that is fit for its purpose.
The stage 1 debate demonstrated that there was unanimous support for the general principles of the bill. We have worked hard since then to resolve concerns about specific provisions. I am certain that members will want to comment on those issues during the afternoon's debate.
It is important to stress again why the bill is so important. Those of us who have worked in child care and who have followed the course of some recent inquiries, or those of us who have taken an interest since becoming members of the Scottish Parliament, will be all too aware of shocking cases of child abuse in which the perpetrators have been free to move on to other child care posts. We simply had to find a way of stopping that.
Despite other measures that have been put in place to improve safeguards for children—such as increased access to criminal record checks and the establishment of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Social Services Council—there was still a loophole that allowed some unscrupulous people to move freely from post to post. The bill will plug that loophole.
The protection of children is our top priority. However, during the stage 1 debate we acknowledged the need to achieve a careful balance of protecting children from abuse and protecting adults from inappropriate referrals. That is a difficult balance to strike and I hope and believe that the bill has done that. As I said in an earlier debate, it is a balance that many people who work in the front line of child protection must strike daily.
The minister is talking about striking a balance between children's rights and employment rights, but is she aware of the Scottish Trades Union Congress's concerns? Will the minister ensure that the STUC and other stakeholders are involved in drawing up guidance for the implementation of the bill?
I am happy to give Cathy Peattie that assurance and I will come on to that issue in a moment or two.
We have been careful to ensure that there is no scope for malicious referrals. Any referral that is not properly made will be weeded out early in the process. An organisation that makes a referral will have to back it up with evidence that it has followed the appropriate dismissal or disciplinary procedures in reaching its decision to sack or move a person away from working with children. We will not entertain referrals that are not backed up with such robust evidence and we will certainly not entertain referrals to the list from individuals who merely have suspicions or concerns about a person. The legislation does not provide for that. Such concerns should be dealt with through each organisation's procedures and investigated where that is necessary and appropriate.
There are concerns that not all employers will have in place the necessary mechanisms to enable them to provide the required information in support of a referral to the list. Cathy Peattie, the deputy convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, referred to the STUC. I had a very helpful meeting with representatives of the STUC to discuss those issues and we agreed that those matters should be covered in the implementation guidance. I will involve the STUC and, of course, other interested organisations at an early stage in the development of that guidance. The STUC has made it very clear that it wants to help in the process and I will be glad to take up its offer.
We must also consider how best to ensure that voluntary organisations have the support, training and guidance that they will need to help them meet the new requirements of the bill. I know that they are keen to play their part in strengthening child protection and we will work with them to help equip them for that role. I can give an assurance that, in bringing the new legislation into force, we will take account of the time that organisations will need to gear up for implementation.
I would like to reinforce the importance of referrals from the courts. Those provisions have attracted little debate during the passage of the bill but, nonetheless, will play an important part in strengthening the protection of children. It is worth spelling out again that those who are convicted of the most serious offences against children—which are listed in schedule 1 to the bill—will be referred to the list and included on it automatically.
For other offences involving children, the court will refer a person to the list unless it is satisfied that the individual is unlikely to commit more offences against children. I expect that those measures will act as a strong deterrent, because those who are included on the list will commit an offence if they try to obtain work with children, or if they continue to work with children. Any organisation that employs a person on the list to work with children will also be guilty of an offence. That sends a very clear message about responsibilities.
I am keen to see the measures in the bill take effect as soon as possible, so although I recognise that it will take some time for organisations to be equipped for their new duty to make referrals to the list, I intend to press ahead as quickly as possible with the processes that are required for referrals from the courts. We will, as a priority, establish the required links and the databases that will be needed.
Throughout the preparation of the bill, we were careful to ensure that the rights of the individual are respected and protected. I am confident that the listing process, together with the extensive appeals procedure, will protect those rights adequately.
Finally, I stress—as others and I have stressed during the debates on the bill—that the new safeguards are not a panacea for every situation. The bill on its own cannot and will not safeguard every child in every situation anywhere, but it will complement the other measures that are in place. There is no substitute for rigorous recruitment practices, including thorough interviews, checking of references, supervision during probationary periods and regular supervision and support of staff and volunteers. Most of all, as the recent report of the child protection review—so aptly called "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright"—says, we all have a responsibility to ensure that children can grow up safe from harm in all areas of their lives. That puts the onus on everyone in society—everyone in communities—to take child protection seriously.
Parliament has a good record in its support of children and young people. Today marks another historic step in ensuring that all our children get the best possible start in life. I am therefore pleased to move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill be passed.
No one is in any doubt that we in Parliament need to do all that we can to increase the protection that we afford our children. The bill, as the minister said, is another tool to assist us in that, but it certainly comes none too soon; Lord Cullen's inquiry following the Dunblane tragedy and his report, which addressed the vetting and supervision of adults working with children, was published some years ago.
Central to the bill has been the need to balance carefully the rights of children with those of individuals. Concerns were expressed about the extent to which incidents will be thoroughly investigated, and about the mechanisms by which individuals will have the opportunity to defend their actions during any disciplinary or dismissal process. However, reassurance was sought and was given that referral to the list will be properly made, appropriate and backed up by robust evidence and relevant procedures.
That brings me to the need for information and guidance for all employers. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee noted in its stage 1 report that it is vital that training and guidance are provided to organisations to enable them to make consistent and fair decisions. Guidance on what constitutes harm was also recommended. I am pleased that the minister took all of that on board, and I am also pleased to hear that she intends to involve the STUC and others in the development of the guidance. I hope that "others" includes voluntary sector interests—I am sure it will—because some voluntary organisations are concerned about the impact of implementation.
It is vital that everyone view the bill's proposals as fair and transparent, because at the end of the day the main point is that the legislation will introduce further safeguards that will help minimise the risk of unsuitable individuals' being able to work with children. As such, it is a welcome initiative, and by implementing it Parliament can take credit for improving the situation of some of Scotland's most vulnerable children.
I, too, am pleased to lend my support to the bill. I congratulate the minister and her team on their success in taking the bill through Parliament; I also congratulate the minister on the speed with which she has done that. I am aware that her interest stems from her professional background and I am sure that she is pleased that the bill gathered cross-party support as it underwent the various stages of legislative scrutiny.
The bill had to deal with particular problems and it was important that we were concerned about the movement of employees who work with children, whether between employers or across jurisdictions. The bill goes a long way towards allaying concerns about those matters.
At stage 2, many concerns were tackled about the balance between the rights of children and the rights of the employees who work with them. Thanks to many amendments that Michael Russell lodged, questions about tribunals, provisional listing and hearings were aired. With the support of Ian Jenkins—a Liberal—we changed the bill, which allowed the Executive to think again. That represents a message to the Parliament. Voting need not be whipped on non-partisan bills on which agreement exists, because if a committee agrees to some amendments to a bill, the Executive thinks again and proposes an improved bill. That happened with the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill.
Many of us are familiar with the costs to voluntary organisations, particularly those in the youth sector, of Scottish Criminal Record Office checks. Voluntary organisations will incur some costs that are not yet apparent, in particular from the administrative work load that some might face. I appeal to the minister to have an open mind—once the bill has bedded down and practices begin to be understood—about whether support for voluntary organisations will be required, if some organisations find that the administrative demands are onerous and make a call on their finances. It would be regrettable if any organisation tried to cut corners because it had to make savings.
I congratulate the minister on succeeding with the bill and I thank her team and the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, who helped us to amend the bill.
I, too, thank everyone who was involved in the bill's production, including the witnesses who spoke to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, our clerks and the bill team, which was headed by the minister. I also thank the minister for the way in which engagement between the committee and the Executive was handled. The other day, I attended as a substitute member a Health and Community Care Committee meeting at which the complicated Mental Health (Scotland) Bill was being dealt with. I am impressed by the way in which committees work together with ministers to improve bills at stage 2. That is to the Parliament's credit.
At stage 1, I said that the bill spoke of a loss of innocence. I accepted that the bill's central provisions were necessary and, although I did not like the idea, I accepted with regret the argument that provisional listing was probably a necessary evil. I expressed reservations about the looseness of the definitions of harm and of putting children at risk of harm. I highlighted the gravity of labelling, without absolute proof, someone as being unfit to work with children, because such a label would impose on that individual an indelible stigma that would probably deprive them of their career and lead to their becoming a pariah.
Even now, all those reservations remain to a degree, but I have been considerably reassured by the minister's comments to the committee and during today's debate, by her letter to the committee and by the stage 2 and stage 3 amendments to safeguard against malicious or ill-founded accusations leading to permanent or even provisional listing.
I speak of my hesitation, but since the stage 1 debate, we have read in the papers of, and seen on television, incidents that show the need for care and protection of children and the dilemmas that we face in deciding who is fit for, and capable of, looking after children. We have read of abductions, desperate cruelty and malicious and reckless mistreatment of children. I fear that much of that has been inflicted by close family members and other relatives, who are not the subject of the bill. However, we have also read about the workings of internet networks involving chatrooms and pornographic materials.
In normal life, we would expect a parent to sacrifice a great deal to protect his or her children. In our society, we too must be prepared to sacrifice something to protect the children who are, as Cathy Jamieson said, everyone's responsibility. When a child's human rights are threatened, and there is a conflict of interest between the rights of a child and those of an adult, it is right that we should move in favour of the rights of the more vulnerable child who cannot so readily defend him or herself. However, we must also do what we can to preserve the rights of the adult and ensure that injustice is avoided by enabling individuals to get a fair hearing and a right of appeal against potential injustice. I am satisfied that we have tried to do that and that we have managed to do it reasonably effectively in the bill.
If we are to stand back a little from the detailed provisions of the bill, we will see that we have to guard against the pervasive tendency to engender fear in the way in which we regard the safety and protection of children. I do not wish to see a society in which, out of fear, we reduce the kind of life experiences and opportunities that we offer our children and, indeed, that we offer ourselves as parents and carers of children.
I do not want a society in which parents feel unable to photograph their children at school events that are held in public. When a child is hurt before one's very eyes, I do not wish to be constrained by fear of misinterpretation from putting my arm around the child who is hurt to offer comfort. I do not want a society in which teachers and voluntary workers do not feel confident enough to take youngsters on school trips and outdoor activities because they fear blame and prosecution if things go wrong in some form of accident or incident over which they could not reasonably be expected to have total control, any more than a parent could be expected to do so.
In earlier discussions, I spoke about the position of social workers who face serious dilemmas and have to make difficult moral judgments day in and day out. Although it might be possible with 20:20 hindsight to say that their judgments are wrong, I believe that social workers deserve our protection in the situations that they face.
The Liberal Democrats support the bill. It contains substantial and important safeguards. Let us protect our children from danger wherever we can, but let us not live our lives, or expect them to live theirs, in an unnecessarily overprotected and cosseted manner that limits their life experiences in a negative way.
I welcome the bill and look forward to its becoming an act. For many of us, it has been difficult to come to terms with some of the detail of the bill, but the passage of the bill has shown the close working relationship that can be formed between a minister and a parliamentary committee. The few amendments that were before the Parliament today show that the changes that were made were significant and worth while. The minister has provided the reassurances that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee sought to enable us to work with her and to see the bill reach fruition today.
The process has not been easy: none of us likes to believe or accept that our children are in danger from people who are in positions of care or responsibility, but the sharp reality is that some dangerous people will be and are in such positions. The bill is not a panacea for everything: it will neither stop child abuse nor will it stop children being hurt by adults. It will, however, go some way towards closing existing loopholes.
I remember the contributions that members of other parties made to the stage 1 debate, most notably Kay Ullrich, who told of her experience as a social worker in Ayrshire. It was a valuable contribution, which helped the committee to understand that people were being moved on because of the perceived threat that they posed to children. The cause of the threat was not dealt with adequately, but was swept under the carpet.
The bill is not an excuse for bad employment practices. Many of the concerns that were expressed in the evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee showed that people felt that proper practices would not be followed. However, those practices must be followed if the bill is to be a success; the passage of the bill cannot be stopped because people do not have in place proper and adequate employment practices.
We need to ensure that protection is given to the work force, but also to the most vulnerable members of our society—children and young people. They deserve nothing less than what is being given to them today. I hope that the bill will move the debate forward, and allow us to close one of the loopholes that exist. However, I hope that it does not engender more fear in our children and young people that there is somebody out there waiting to get them—the bill is about a small number of people. We need to take action, but we must not allow that to be blown out of proportion or to create among children and young people fear of something that simply does not exist.
It shows what a varied life the members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have that this morning we were all engaged in a battle of ideas and wills, and this afternoon we are agreeing—essentially—on a piece of legislation. The Official Report shows that during stage 2 of the bill, Brian Monteith noted that we voted in a variety of different ways. Column 3910 is the only recorded instance of Irene McGugan and me voting on different sides, but as I was supported only by Brian Monteith, I suspect that Irene was right in the circumstances—it is always wise to change one's mind.
The bill is essentially the last brick in the wall, and results from the Cullen inquiry into the shootings in Dunblane. It has taken so long to put that brick into the wall because of the difficult issue at the heart of the bill. The difficulty is balancing the undoubted need to protect our children against the obvious need for natural justice for those who are accused. That has been the central difficulty for every member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee during the passage of the bill. It was a difficulty during stage 1 and it became an acute difficulty during stage 2, because we listened carefully to a variety of organisations that had genuine fears about the balance being struck. In particular, I mention the STUC, which was concerned about some of the bill's implications for employment practices. A variety of others, such as the NHS Confederation, gave evidence to the committee, but we were most struck by the evidence from children's charities and parents.
It has taken some time for me to be persuaded that the balance is right—I am not totally persuaded as yet. It is clearly the will of the committee and the chamber that the bill should pass, and do so without opposition. However, we should maintain concern about some of the key aspects of the bill. Ian Jenkins indicated that well in his speech.
There is, for example, the issue of tribunals. The bill itself does not establish any independent tribunals; instead, it establishes a procedure for which the minister is responsible. She has said on more than one occasion that she will devolve responsibility for that to another group, which will presumably be made up of senior civil servants. I concur with the Justice 1 Committee, which said in its report on the bill that it would have been better to establish an independent tribunal system. However, that was not the will of the committee when it finally came to a vote. That said, we should bear the issue in mind, because in time it might be necessary to consider it.
I am very glad that we have dealt with defamation and with one of the issues in connection with provisional listing, but we have not dealt with other issues in that regard. I return to the point that the bill might create a unique concept that might be known as being provisionally guilty. I accept the reason for doing so and that there is a need to protect our children. I also accept that, in the light of the Cullen inquiry into Dunblane, there might be a need to recognise that some people are guilty although they cannot be totally found out at a crucial time because of the nature of their actions. That said, I am still uncomfortable with some of the bill's detail—I see Ian Jenkins indicating his assent to that remark. We will have to move forward with the bill and examine carefully how it is implemented.
Finally, I want to thank not only the individual committee members, the minister and others with whom we have worked, but the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, who bore the brunt of the work on the 81 amendments—a record total—that I lodged at stage 2. It is appropriate that one of those clerks is sitting in one of the hot seats today to watch what happens at the very end of the process.
The bill is very much about recognising children's vulnerability and the importance of choosing the right people to work with them. We must remember that the vast majority of adults who work with children are driven by a commitment to child development and welfare. However, we must acknowledge that some adults—albeit a small minority—might want to harm children. We need not dwell on particular examples, but even here in Scotland, we know that abuse happens.
Child abuse is not just about scenes in gritty dramas; we cannot just switch off the television. Real life demands real action, and the proposed new list of adults who are unsuitable to work with children is a considerable improvement to our child protection system. However, as others have said, it is important to remember that the bill does not substitute for robust child protection policies, nor does it tackle the problem of child abuse that occurs behind closed doors in family homes. Nevertheless, the bill is a positive step that seeks to minimise opportunities for people who are intent on harming children.
Up until now, organisations in Scotland that work with children have used criminal records to check the suitability of future employees. Experience shows us that some of the worst incidences of child abuse have been by people with no previous convictions. Although Thomas Hamilton had no convictions, there was information on the files of a number of organisations to suggest that he was a risk. However, that information was not available to potential employers, nor was it collated or able to be shared.
The bill will enable the collation of so-called soft information on those people suspected of child abuse, including details of dismissals or resignations where child welfare was an issue, which will form the basis of a list of people banned from working with children. As members know, an equivalent list already exists in England and Wales. Scotland is clearly no less committed to protecting its children.
The bill has teeth. It will become a requirement for relevant organisations to consult the list. Organisations that employ a named individual will be committing a criminal offence. Organisations will also be obliged to contribute information so that the list is kept up to date. Why? It is because we want a system of child protection that works, not one that simply looks good.
I welcome the amendment lodged by the minister at stage 2 to encompass all child care organisations. We could not leave a potentially dangerous loophole through which adults who wish to abuse children could simply leave the statutory sector and move into employment in the voluntary sector. That loophole would have created a two-tier system that is not in the interests of children. Indeed, the consultation process showed that voluntary organisations agree. Some of them have said that even if they were not legally required to check and report to the list, they would feel morally obliged to do so. Good laws reflect sound moral reasoning and the bill is no exception. However, we must ensure that voluntary organisations have the means to comply with the requirements. I know that the minister will ensure that consulting the list and referring individuals are as easy as possible. If necessary, additional support will be made available, in particular to small voluntary organisations.
As the minister has said, the bill acknowledges the careful balance needed to respect the rights and interests of individuals as well as the special rights of the child. I believe that, between the efforts of the committee and the considerable efforts of the minister, we have got that balance right.
Like others, I commend the minister for the bill. I thank all those involved in getting it to this stage—the bill team, the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and all those people who gave evidence. The bill has been strengthened by their input.
I remind the chamber that, under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are required to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse. To accept the bill is to accept our obligations.
I welcome the minister's assurance about giving support, guidance and training—or words to that effect—to the voluntary sector, which has to deal with its side of the bill. However, I would like to press the minister on the issue of money. The voluntary organisations face a triple whammy of more expense: first, there is their part in administering the police checks under part V of the Police Act 1997; secondly, there will be duties imposed on them under the bill; and thirdly, there will be insurance costs arising from the bill and from related issues.
The police checks are very complicated. One large youth organisation says that 66 per cent of its people have not yet gone through the checks, and the minister could help by reducing the bureaucracy involved. Although individual checks are paid for by the Executive, which is most welcome, the considerable administrative costs sometimes go well into five figures for national youth organisations, and into smaller thousands for smaller organisations. That is big money for them. The cost of implementing the bill, which involves training and recruiting staff who know about the process and who can train others, and of the legal and other expenses is also estimated in five figures for some of the large organisations.
Insurance costs will also arise. We are an increasingly litigious society, and organisations could be sued by people who have been recommended to be put on the list and who see that as a slur on their character. There could also be suits from parents whose children have had bad experiences and who feel that the organisation did not check adequately. Both ways, the cost will be significant, and again some of the organisations quote estimates well into five figures.
I urge the minister to give an assurance that there will be money to help those organisations, as well as guidance. For them, tens of thousands of pounds is very big money, but it is quite small money for the minister's budget. The bill is an important measure and a good one, but it is only fair that those who have to co-operate with it and who do not have the money should get that money, and are paid to administer the provisions correctly.
I will deal with the points that Donald Gorrie has just raised before commenting on the rest of the debate.
I am aware that YouthLink Scotland has circulated information to MSPs highlighting some of the concerns of the voluntary sector. Indeed, many organisations highlighted those concerns during the course of our debates on the bill. I have given an assurance today that we will continue to work with the voluntary sector, and particularly with the youth organisations that have expressed concern, to get more information about the kind of support, training, advice and guidance that they will need.
However, I want to keep the matter in perspective, and Ian Jenkins outlined the situation clearly. I do not want a situation in which voluntary and youth organisations begin to see their core business as dealing with bureaucracy rather than providing services for young people. If there is a way of making the process simpler, by providing support, we want to do that. I am also concerned to ensure that smaller organisations have access to advice on issues that they are concerned about, on when they need to make decisions on whether to make a referral and on appropriate employment and disciplinary procedures. That is important. We need to have a clearer indication of exactly what the responsibilities will be in such organisations, and we must get a clearer fix on any financial implications. We want to make progress on that during the implementation stage.
It is perhaps worth reflecting on some of the comments that have been made by members in the debate. Mike Russell commented on the fact that, throughout our debates, a difficult central issue has been balancing children's right to protection and the rights of adults. Anybody who has ever been involved in child protection work will be acutely aware that that is constantly the difficult central issue. Of course, there was a time when child abuse, or the possibility that children would be abused, either by people in their own families or by people in the wider community, simply was not talked about. It was not allowed to be talked about. People pretended that it did not happen, kept it behind closed doors, swept it under the carpet or simply would not face up to it.
Thankfully, things have changed to the extent that young people now are much more able to talk about such issues and to come forward and report difficulties. Legislation and the support that is provided to children and young people have also moved on. The bill takes another step forward in closing loopholes that have been around for quite a long time. The Cullen report on the Dunblane tragedy crystallised people's concerns. People who have worked with children over many years will know that previous reports highlighted the same issues and went some way towards addressing the issues, but did not plug all the gaps.
Brian Monteith referred to the fact that it has taken only a relatively short time to draft the bill. That is of interest to me, given my professional background. A relatively short period in parliamentary time can seem like a lifetime for children and young people who are at risk. We must ensure that such young people do not feel vulnerable or at risk of abuse. They must have confidence that people will act on their concerns. Inquiries such as the Edinburgh child abuse inquiry and the Kent report highlighted circumstances that could perhaps have been avoided if this kind of legislation had been in place years ago.
Members have commented on whether we have got the balance right, and I will make a couple of points about the suggestion that was made at stage 2 that there should be a tribunal system rather than ministers' having responsibility. Last week, I laid out clearly in a letter to Karen Gillon, the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, why we continue to believe that the situation that we have developed is the right one, whereby delegated powers will be given to a senior member of the civil service, someone from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and someone from the social work services inspectorate to consider all the evidence and, if necessary, to seek the back-up of legal opinion on employment practices. I hope and trust that that deals with that issue. It is important that people have the opportunity to make appeals to the court, and we have taken account of the comments that committee members made at various stages.
Several members referred to the fact that we do not want our children's lives to be so over-regulated that their innocence is lost or that they cannot have the experiences that we want them to have. I agree with those sentiments. As a parent, I know—and many others will share this view—that one of the worst fears that a parent can have is that something will happen to their child. When people put their children in the care of professionals, whether for a short period during the day or for an extended period, such as when young people have to be looked after by the state, they must be confident that those people genuinely care about children and young people and will not abuse the trust that has been placed in them. That is why the bill is so important.
Karen Gillon and Jackie Baillie referred to the fact that the soft information that has been held on individuals has perhaps gone around the system without anyone being able to collate it or take action. Jackie Baillie said that real life demands real action. The bill gives us an opportunity to take real action and to ensure that young people are protected in real-life difficult situations.
Karen Gillon also highlighted the important fact that the bill is not an excuse for bad employment practices. I state that fact clearly for the record. I expect organisations to take the bill seriously. If there are concerns or suspicions about people, organisations should investigate them thoroughly and properly. It is not the case that rumour or malicious comment will allow people to be listed. The processes will be scrutinised thoroughly, and the whole reason for bringing such cases before ministers will be to ensure that the investigation has been done properly.
I could continue to speak for a considerable length of time, but I will resist the temptation to do so. I record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill at all stages, including the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and officials. The Parliament has a good record of trying to improve the lives of vulnerable children. The bill is another example of the Executive and the committee recognising the action that needed to be taken to deal with the real situations that young people out there in the real world face and putting in place legislation that will make a difference to their lives.
I put on record again my thanks to everybody who was involved in the process. I trust that we will be able to pass the bill without opposition and to send a clear message to the children and young people of Scotland that we are on their side.