Chamber and committees

I share Pauline McNeill’s concern regarding appeals in relation to the vetting process. Appeal provisions apply under the English vetting system when errors have been made accidentally and information has then become available. I am a little disappointed that the cabinet secretary was unable to give a categoric assurance that the question of an appeal in respect of the vetting process could not be put in the regulations, although she indicated that it might be if that were sought by stakeholders.

With regard to amendment 11, is it envisaged that only representations from people whose complaint has completed the complaints process would be considered by the chief constable or would it include representations from people whose complaint is still under way?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for clarifying her view on regulations with respect to appeals that relate to the employment contract and appeals that relate to vetting errors. In principle, does she agree that, if there was an error in the vetting process, an appeal should be possible, which could be dealt with in regulations?

Perhaps the answer lies in the 2018 Scottish Government-published report on the consultation exercise that looked at updating the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, which included the requirement to look at ASN provision. What has happened to that legislation since 2018?

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on how to place on record that the minister’s statement that, this morning, there were three places available in secure accommodation in Scotland was factually incorrect and that, at 10.46 this morning, there were only two places in independent secure centres listed as being available.

I thank the minister for her statement, which was requested before Christmas recess, along with an assurance that there was not going to be a capacity issue over the Christmas recess period. During that time, on average, only one bed was available. The minister talked about three beds being available this morning. In fact, only two beds are available at the moment, and no emergency beds are available, so the spare capacity is only two beds.

There is great concern that young people who are placed in secure accommodation on a care and welfare basis are possibly being rushed out before it is safe in order to create space and to facilitate the flexibility that is being talked about. Can the Scottish Government reassure the people of Scotland and, more important, the young people who are caught up in the system that no one, on any occasion, is rushed out of secure accommodation to make provision for a more serious case as perceived by those who are deciding who goes where?

I welcome the Government’s commitment to deal with young people’s involvement in crime and antisocial behaviour. Does the minister recognise the crucial role that youth work plays in addressing youth crime and antisocial behaviour? I know that she will not acknowledge it, but Government cuts have had a detrimental impact, so should youth work be placed on a statutory footing so that young people can avoid becoming involved in crime?

I am grateful to the member for clarifying his position. The difference in my position and that of Scottish Labour is that we think that, with regard to the principles, we need to look at the bill that is presented to us and, possibly more importantly, at the policy memorandum, where the Scottish Government has articulated those principles. I will pick just one, which states that the bill will lay

“the legal foundations that will enable the body”—

the one that follows the SQA—

“to deliver two distinct and separate functions to achieve these overarching objectives”,

which are

“To develop and award qualifications”

and

“To accredit qualifications.”

The principle that underpins the bill is a single organisation, and I am greatly concerned about that. Significant numbers of members across the chamber are particularly concerned about it. To pick up on Alex Rowley’s very positive contribution, we are not going to vote against the bill; we are going to abstain. [Interruption.]

I hear humour ringing out across the chamber. Where in the principles is the Scottish Government’s confirmation that it will separate those functions? That does not exist in the published bill or in the published papers. It exists only in the contribution that has been made today. That in itself shows the challenge that the Scottish Government has in articulating what its proposed legislation means between stage 1 and stage 2 and, in some cases, stage 3. We are taking the option and opportunity to abstain, which is an indication from those of us on this side of the chamber—with the exception of Willie Rennie—that substantial changes need to be made.

In the short time that I have, I will address the point that John Mason raised—I am glad that he did—about the use of the word “learner” and the significance of not articulating that it means children and young people, who are a significant group that fall under the bill. The Scottish Government needs to look seriously at John Mason’s proposal about adding to the description of learner by stating “children, young people and other learners”, which would take account of adult learners. Bill Kidd mentioned that issue in his thoughtful contribution.

The reason why a reference to children needs to appear in the bill is because of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and human rights. Learners are not rights holders under human rights; children and young people are rights holders. If they are not specifically identified in the bill, they could be seriously challenged should they wish to say that the subsequent legislation has failed them and that their human rights have been breached.

We are duty bearers in respect of the issue, which is why raising it is so important. This also relates to the significant number of comments from members on the lack of consultation and the lack of a role for children and young people in participating in decisions that will affect them specifically. We heard from Ross Greer about the obvious issue that the SQA cannot even write to children but, more importantly, children cannot write to the SQA and expect an answer. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has pointed out that the

“distance between the SQA and children and young people has been a recurring theme”

that is raised by them. The commissioner went on to say that children and young people feel like

“there is ... no way that they can feed back to the SQA. They are keen to do it—they want to say what their experiences are, some of which are not great.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 October 2024; c 6.]

On a number of occasions post the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, proposed legislation has come to the chamber that has lacked the language of the UNCRC and has not taken into account, in explicit terms, all that was talked about on that act or the reasons why we fought to get it on to the statute book, which was so important. The bill is another example of that. The UNCRC is talked about and we nod towards it but, when we ask where we can point to that in black and white in the bill or the supporting documents, we find that there is a lack of support for children and young people.

Members are aware of how Scottish Labour intends to vote at decision time tonight. Thank you for your patience, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I am very grateful to Douglas Ross for taking an intervention. Was he as disappointed as I was by the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, particularly in relation to the SQA? Having heard what the cabinet secretary said today, does he have any confidence that the Scottish Government will move far enough to meet the recommendations that the committee has made with regard to the SQA?

This has been a fascinating discussion at stage 1 of the bill, when it is for Parliament to decide whether, on the advice of the committee, we support the principles of the bill.

I will pick up on points that were made about the SQA in the previous speech, by Ross Greer, as well as in his opening speech, and in Willie Rennie’s speech. Before I do that, I give members the opportunity, should anyone wish it, to intervene to say whether the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report—what we have heard from the cabinet secretary today—gives them confidence that the Government is in a position to make changes to the bill as far as they are probably needed, according to a number of the submissions made in the debate.