Chamber and committees

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.

As the minister will be aware, the Education, Children and Young People Committee wrote to the First Minister about the Cass review last week. We called for a clear timeline to be established for a Scottish response to the review. The committee also called for a comprehensive children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment to be carried out. That is because we recognise that the Cass review raised some very complex and sometimes competing children’s rights considerations. Will the minister undertake to carry out such an assessment? When will that be done? How will she ensure that that fully explores the rights of children and young people across Scotland?

Thank you very much. We will move straight to members’ questions. I bring in Liam Kerr, to start off.

Ruth Maguire would like to come in with a supplementary question on that theme, before we move forward.

I know that colleagues will come in on the specific theme of the education reform agenda, so you will be able to elaborate on that.

There are a couple of supplementary questions.

I will bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you for your patience.

You have already touched on my next question, Nicola. Under the curriculum for excellence and, in particular, the broad general education, teachers and schools are expected to determine the curriculum. How do you ensure that, within that education space, schools are consistently directing towards the five elements that are listed in article 29 of the UNCRC?