Chamber and committees

It sounds as though, given the timing, with more and more people either accessing new benefits or being transferred to benefits, it is probably quite crucial that the lived experience piece is at the forefront of what you are doing.

That is helpful. You referred to the increase in the secretariat, and it was good to hear Judith Paterson talk about getting up to full capacity with board members and those sorts of things. Has that changed the way that SCoSS works? I have heard that you feel that you are being efficient but also that you can respond to things. Is that the secretariat's role in particular?

Good morning. My questions will focus on the content of the annual report in terms of the funding and finance of SCoSS. From the 2023-24 annual report, we saw that expenditure would exceed the budget in 2024-25. That was not a huge overspend—it was £470,000 compared to the projected spend of £450,000. The committee is interested to know whether that has been resolved and whether there is a view about the financial sustainability of SCoSS going forward?

Do you feel that you are now in a position where the budget planning process will be easier because—to borrow a phrase—known unknowns are perhaps lessened by where we are in the process of transfer? Are you finding that the engagement with the Government on your needs—saying, “Here is a need. How do we get to the budget figure that will work for us?”—is a communicative and open process?

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the formal apology that he has made to Scotland’s Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The Government is right to acknowledge that, although they occurred before the Parliament was established, the Scottish state and its public institutions should recognise the wrongs that were visited on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The tinker experiment was wrong and should never have happened. It exposed some of our most marginalised communities to cultural injustice, prejudice and failure. Although that occurred many decades ago, it is clear that it has had a lasting effect. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I add our apology to that of the First Minister.

We have heard that it has taken a long time to reach this day. Once again, it is important that we pay tribute to all the individuals in the Gypsy Traveller community who have spoken out and have had to relive injustices in order to get the recognition and the apology that they deserve. It is also important to put on record the work not just of Christina McKelvie, about which I accord myself with the comments of the First Minister, but of all the other organisations in Scotland, particularly the Scottish Human Rights Commission under the stewardship of Professor Angela O’Hagan and others, that continue to work on these issues.

In response to Alexander Stewart, the First Minister acknowledged, once again, that this is the beginning of a conversation and a process, but I do not think that he said in definitive terms whether there will be consideration of a redress scheme. Is he able to say anything further on that? If not, is he able to say why that is and whether he thinks that redress in the form of compensation would be appropriate?

Cashback for communities does, indeed, do great work and, clearly, youth work is part of the response. However, I have spoken with a number of youth groups in my community, including Johnstone Castle Learning Centre, which is locked out of that funding because its income is under £200,000. Most youth groups that we represent in our communities will not have an income of £200,000. What does the minister suggest that they should do to ensure that their life-saving work continues?

That will be useful to the committee when we write our legacy report to hand over to whoever comes next.

A number of non-Government amendments to the then Children (Scotland) Bill that were agreed to introduced various provisions, not least on child advocacy services under section 21 and alternative dispute resolution under sections 23 and 24. At the moment, there is no plan for implementing them. It would be useful if the Government placed on record its policy intention in relation to implementing those provisions. I appreciate that that will probably be done in the next parliamentary session, not this one.

Good morning. Given the policy criticisms of the lack of regulation of child welfare reporters, implementation of the regulatory regime that is proposed for them—how that will be carried out—is important. Does the Government intend to implement the regime for child welfare reporters in this parliamentary session or the next? If it is going to be in the next session, is there a best estimate for when that will happen and come into effect?

In that case, I am wondering about the legacy of regulation that will be held over from this parliamentary session until the next session. The minister is right to say that we have to go through an election and a Government has to be formed, but do officials have a view on the timescale for the work?

Before Meghan Gallacher moves on to talk about childcare, can she say whether she recognises the importance of neonatal services for women and, in particular, the issues that we have debated on the Government’s downgrading of the neonatal service at University hospital Wishaw, which is of serious concern to a number of Lanarkshire members in the chamber, not least my colleague Davy Russell, the member for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse? Does she recognise the importance of that to women?