Earlier this morning, in our first panel, we heard about the international success in that reversal of language shift. I do not know whether that is the right word—I am sure that you understand. The panel spoke specifically about the revival of French in the context of Canada. We have heard a bit from Professor Millar about some of the things that are going on in Norway. Are there other examples of a successful reversal of language shift that the Scottish Government should perhaps have taken cognisance of? Where might we learn lessons around how we could see that reversal reversed in Scotland? I am stumbling on my words a bit here—apologies for that.

Dr Dempster, do you want to go first?

That was the situation with Scots. We will now move to Gaelic, if that is okay.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that local government debt has now risen to 160 per cent of its annual funding settlement. (S6O-03366)

Given the shocking rise of local government debt and the risk of it spiralling further, can the minister confirm what contingency plans the Scottish Government has made in the event of a local authority going bankrupt?

Last week, the First Minister’s Government scrapped its commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2030. The Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy stated:

“we accept the CCC’s recent rearticulation that this Parliament’s interim 2030 target is out of reach. We must now act to chart a course to 2045 at a pace and on a scale that are feasible, fair and just.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2024; c 64.]

With that in mind, the residents of Winchburgh presented a petition with more than 2,000 signatures to the First Minister’s Government last week that asked for a train station to be built that serves their town and the surrounding area and which could take almost 500,000 car journeys off the road. Will the First Minister’s Government now take the lead and back and build a station at Winchburgh?

I thank Liam Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber. Improving rail connections in the north-east would be not just a regional benefit but a national benefit, and is a national priority. By enhancing the infrastructure in the north-east, we would not only foster local community cohesion but bolster the entire country’s transport network.

Members will be aware that there are other initiatives across the country, including the campaign to open a train station on the existing main line at Winchburgh, in West Lothian. That exemplifies strategic investments that can significantly contribute to broader economic and social development across Scotland. The same benefits have been clearly articulated by north-east members today—specifically, by Liam Kerr.

Winchburgh, which is a vibrant and growing community in West Lothian, currently finds itself isolated from the national rail network because the trains pass on by, and—as Willie Rennie mentioned in respect of other places—do not stop there. That lack of direct access severely restricts the ability of residents to reach essential medical services, pursue educational opportunities and connect with employment opportunities. The establishment of a new railway station would dramatically enhance connectivity, ease congestion in West Lothian and the west of Edinburgh, and support our ambitions to provide sustainable transport solutions.

I commend Winchburgh Developments Ltd for its commitment and substantial contributions to making that vision a reality. Its involvement is a testament to the power of community and corporate collaboration in driving forward public projects. Along with the community of Winchburgh, it presented a petition of more than 2,000 signatures to the Scottish Government. When it comes to community empowerment, that reflects the petition that was presented on Cove and Newtonhill, which had more than 1,500 signatures.

Winchburgh Developments Ltd is the principal landowner and has worked in partnership with Winchburgh community council and the Winchburgh Community Development Trust. The developer has already funded a new junction on the M9 to alleviate congestion and has shown considerable commitment to expanding the community. It is now time for the Scottish Government to match that.

As Cove and Newtonhill do, the region anticipates significant population growth. As a direct result of investment that is being leveraged from the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal, up to 4,000 new families will move there. Demand for more robust public transport options has never been more urgent, and the area will continue to grow.

A new station at Winchburgh is essential. Not only is it necessary for alleviating mounting congestion in our capital city, but it is a critical factor in meeting the Scottish Government’s failing net zero ambitions. The pace of progress has been staggeringly slow and bogged down in bureaucracy. Despite repeated promises to do so, Transport Scotland has still not shared Network Rail’s cost estimate or design estimate with the developer, which delays any realistic assessment that the developer can make about what its contribution can be, and simply adds to the transport woes of the West Lothian community, which is getting larger by the month.

However, there could be some good news. Winchburgh is a rare example of a station project that will not need to be wholly funded from the public purse because it will receive a generous contribution from the developer. Surely the Scottish Government should be pulling out all the stops to make that happen. That model could transform not only Winchburgh but so many of the badly needed infrastructure projects that we have heard about this afternoon.

I will be clear. The needs of the community are obvious. The benefits of the project can be seen from either end of the crowded M8, and they all require urgent action from the SNP Government to get something moving: no more meetings, no more talk about different types of meetings—just actual action.

I therefore call, yet again, on the Scottish ministers to do something—to re-establish the steering group to get the project moving and to commit to a timetable to deliver a station for the communities around Winchburgh, without any further obfuscation or delay.

Widening participation is a fundamental pillar of the 40 faces campaign, and the University of the West of Scotland is Scotland’s leading university in widening access. Last week, the Scottish Funding Council published its indicative allocations, and the UWS will have the number of its funded places cut by a staggering 734. Of those, 220 will be reallocated to another institution. The UWS wrote to you on 19 April, detailing its concerns that that will limit its ability to continue to lead in widening access. When was the decision to reallocate the places from the UWS to another institution brought to the attention of the minister? Will you meet the principal and vice-chancellor of the university to discuss the unintended consequences of the decision?

Foster care is, of course, a preferred option in many of the cases that Roz McCall has discussed this afternoon—or rather, this evening. I am satisfied that my amendment 1 will provide the assurance that the very best option will be provided and that young people who need to go into care will be in the best place for them. Martin Whitfield’s amendment 82 mentions the extensive range of services that should be available directly in secure care settings. However, during some of the visits that the committee undertook as part of our evidence sessions, we saw that many of those services are there or are provided in partnership with other providers such as the national health service, the local authority or, indeed, the third sector. I have echoed what the member said.

With that, I am delighted that it seems that my amendment 1 might pass.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

As Ruth Maguire stated at the outset of today’s proceedings, children can be both victims and perpetrators of harmful behaviour. There is always a fine balance in managing the risk when two young people are involved in something distressing. The bill will introduce changes that will end the placement of under-18s in young offenders institutions. However, I am clear that no child should be accommodated in the same secure accommodation facility as the child who has caused them harm.

I recognise that all children in secure accommodation are vulnerable, that protections must be in place for their safety and that reassurance must be given that those protections are in place. Amendment 1 provides that, before approving a secure accommodation service, Scottish ministers must be satisfied that it can ensure that no child will be placed with another child in particular circumstances. Those are when it has been established that one child has offended against the other child, or when they have acted or behaved in a way that has had, or is likely to have had, a serious adverse effect on the health, safety or development of the other child.

I thank the minister for the productive discussions that we had following my lodging a simple amendment at stage 2, which was rejected. We have worked together to ensure that amendment 1 may proceed.

I am aware that processes are in place for the appropriate placement of children in secure accommodation and that, in practice, no child who has committed an offence against or harmed another child would be placed in the same facility as that child. However, my amendment will provide reassurance that processes are followed by secure accommodation services, and it will ensure that Scottish ministers are satisfied that that approach is followed before they approve such a service. I encourage all members to support the amendment.

I move amendment 1.