Chamber and committees

How many more statements will be made to this Parliament before we see legislation that will transform our education system?

Does the minister share my concern—a concern that is shared by the Finance and Public Administration Committee—over the bill’s financial implications and the ability to resource what is outlined in the bill?

There is a lot to digest in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, and I am sure that many members would have preferred to have a stand-alone debate this afternoon. I fully understand the challenges for members who have been allocated only four minutes, because they will be stuck for time to develop their arguments. That does not allow for good debate. However, I understand that it is process-related and is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. When it comes to important bills such as this one, members need the time to debate and challenge the thoughts of others in the chamber.

On the bill itself, I will start on a positive note. The Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise and I recently had a productive meeting in which we discussed issues relating to her brief, which I shadow. I hope that we can work together on the bill and across other issues. We both care about the wellbeing and safeguarding of children and young people. I also agree with the principle of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill—supporting young people, whether they are victims or perpetrators of minor crimes, to try to reduce reoffending, and ensuring that wraparound care is available.

Should the bill be approved by the Parliament, it would increase the age of definition of a child from 16 to 18 in the criminal justice system and will mean that most offences that are committed by under-18s will be dealt with by the children’s hearings system rather than by the court system.

However, the bill does not come without its problems. Some are historical but it is imperative that we MSPs do not allow bad law to pass through Parliament.

I welcome the opportunity to debate at what age a child becomes an adult. I have struggled with that when looking at devolved law, because the Scottish National Party has moved the goalposts, depending on portfolio area. For example, a person can get married at 16 and can buy alcohol or get a tattoo at 18, but is not viewed as an adult until 21 or 25 for justice-related issues.

Then there is the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The SNP suggests that young people should be able to change their gender at 16, but the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill changes the age of a child from 16 to 18. We need to have a serious conversation about age, but I understand that that discussion will need to be for another day.

My colleague Sue Webber, in her capacity as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, highlighted the valid concerns of MSPs who sit on that committee. She raised the important issue of finance and resource. As it stands, the bill lacks detail on costings and outlines issues regarding key agencies. The Finance and Public Administration Committee also highlighted the lack of financial information in the financial memorandum. That already puts the bill at a disadvantage; it causes doubt about its deliverability and provides no reassurance that bodies such as local authorities and Children’s Hearings Scotland will be able to implement the changes that the proposed legislation will introduce.

I could not agree more with Sue Webber about the timings for the bill. With no full costings, debating the proposed legislation is like putting the cart before the horse.

The problem is not with professional development but with encouraging people to enter and stay in the childcare profession. The Scottish Childminding Association said that 34 per cent of childminders had quit since funding was increased for early education and childcare in 2016. That figure is expected to rise to 64 per cent by 2026. I know that the minister shares my passion for early years learning, so will she update Parliament on any progress that her Government has made to tackle those worrying statistics?

No—not at this time, convener.

I want to pick up on the youth work aspect. When Liz Green attended a previous meeting of the committee, at which I was present, she said that progress had stalled around last summer or autumn and that regular meetings with the Government had stopped around January or February. I appreciate that you are newly in your post, minister, but do you know why those meetings stopped? If you are looking to have a youth element, which I believe is important, should you not be having regular meetings with stakeholders?

Until December.

I have a final question. With the pilot being launched this year, will the Government be able to have the programme fully implemented by the initial date of September 2025?

I thank you for that response, minister, but are we saying that rural young people should stay in rural settings? Rural young people should have the flexibility to move into urban settings, should they wish to learn there, but, as it stands just now, and particularly in the case of New College Lanarkshire, we are actually closing the door to rural young people who might want to study there.

I understand that it is not the Government’s role to tell colleges what to do, but, if New College Lanarkshire is facing a £4.3 million cut, it has few options. I understand that the college is going to review the nursery issue in December, but what security does that give to people who work in those settings or to students who are on courses now but who might have to find alternative childcare at the last moment?

I will continue with the theme of the impact that the budgetary issues are having on our college estates. Like Bob Doris, I will use a case study—in this case, New College Lanarkshire. The halls of residence at the Motherwell campus have closed and the nurseries at the Cumbernauld and Coatbridge campuses have also closed. Those closures impact not just the hard-working staff at those facilities but our learners, whether rural young people who look to study in more urban areas or students with young children.

In last week’s debate, I referred to the example of a young person from Argyll who is no longer able to go to college because the student accommodation on the Motherwell campus has closed. We are moving beyond the stage where things are deeply regrettable and can now see the direct consequences that budgetary issues have for our young people.

What support is the Government offering for students who find themselves in such circumstances? Is the Government saying that rural young people cannot go to college because of budget cuts?