Chamber and committees

You are quite right, convener—that is exactly what you did. Forgive me.

I will not press amendment 169 at this time, in the hope of making changes at stage 3, instead.

Amendment 169, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 170 and 171 not moved.

My amendments in this group support the principle that anyone who is subject to proceedings on either welfare or offence grounds should have access to legal representation on the basis that the outcome of such proceedings may have a significant impact on their life.

Legal aid plays a pivotal role in addressing the inherent inequalities that can arise during legal proceedings. Children who are entangled in the children’s hearings system may come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds or from difficult family circumstances. Legal aid can level the playing field, ensuring that every child has the means to present their case effectively and comprehensively, and that they fully understand the process in which they are involved. That inclusivity is aligned with the principles of justice and fairness that underpin the legal system.

Many, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, have consistently called for extension of legal aid to children in all circumstances. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made a number of recommendations to that effect, most recently in its 2023 concluding observations.

We know that organisations that support children’s rights have come across situations in which a young person has not understood that accepting a referral to a children’s hearing on the ground in section 67(2)(j) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 can result in their effectively having a conviction on their PVG certificate.

The emotional and psychological toll of navigating the legal system can be overwhelming for all young people moving through it, and the committee’s report recognised that. My amendment 186 would give all children who are undergoing proceedings a statutory right to access legal aid, regardless of the grounds on which they have been referred to a children’s hearing. The protection of that right in legislation would provide a fundamental safeguard for children’s rights and is essential for creating a system that is fair and just, ensures that children are not left unsupported and is compliant with the UNCRC.

I urge members to support my amendments.

I move amendment 185.

I am sorry, colleague.

On that basis, I think that there are gaps that need to be looked at.

The minister talked about “minor” offences. If something, no matter how minor, could lead to a conviction that could appear on someone’s PVG, people should have access to legal aid at that point. That principle is really important. Would the minister be prepared to work with me, and possibly other members who have indicated an interest, on amendment 185 to see whether there is something that we can do specifically?

On amendment 186, a young person can sometimes be referred to a panel on welfare grounds, and, through the conversation that happens through that panel, it can appear that there has been some criminality. That is what amendment 186 seeks to address. I do not hear any indication that the minister is willing to consider extending the scope for referring to a children’s hearing on welfare grounds, but I would appreciate it if she could say whether she would work with me and others on at least amendment 185, which deals with offence grounds.

I thank the minister for that. On that basis, I may consider not pressing amendment 185. However, amendment 186 is still important to enable a discussion of extending legal rights in other areas, because of the reasons that I mentioned earlier, and I urge committee members to support that amendment when we come to vote on it.

The best-case analysis of the situation is that the reduction is only £28 million. That is a swingeing cut. The worst-case scenario is that it is nearer £50 million, so to claim that universities are getting the same as last year is just inaccurate.

Thank you. We will find agreement on much of what the cabinet secretary said about the importance of non-contact time in relation to behaviour in schools and terms and conditions for teachers. However, I heard nothing about what is in this year’s budget to deliver the change this year, so can I assume that the cabinet secretary does not expect the promised reduction in contact time to be delivered this year?

With respect, cabinet secretary, that is not a statutory requirement that is funded by the Government, which is what the manifesto said would happen. That is the good will of some schools that are using PEF—which is already stretched to the limit—rather than the Government funding a pledge that it made in its manifesto.

It was your commitment, cabinet secretary.

Good morning, cabinet secretary—I do not think that I said that earlier. Thank you for your contributions so far.

You will be well aware of the importance that I place on non-contact time for teachers. How will the 2024-25 budget support the aim to reduce contact time for teachers?

I do not disagree that it is not the whole answer, but it is the answer that you gave me.