Chamber and committees

I recognise the importance being placed on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. I will not reiterate the points that my predecessor made with regard to the rationale for the decision that was taken, but I assure the committee that it is commanding my full attention and that I am engaging closely with officials on it. I cannot commit to any specific time, but the undertaking given by my predecessor to publish draft provisions still holds and is one that I will honour.

Yes, I will undertake specific engagement with the panels that were established, but this is also a feature of my wider engagement with a range of organisations representing all the interests that would be affected by the bill. It has featured as a matter for discussion very frequently, and I want to assure the committee that I am actively engaging with people with lived experience on this as part of wider conversations pertaining to my portfolio. Moreover, further specific engagement is planned ahead of the publication of any draft provisions.

I know that this is not your intention at all, Mr Harvie, but the term “treatment” is almost suggestive of the fact that something is to be cured or remedied. I know that that is not—

If we consider the statutory framework that our education authorities operate under, we see that an inclusive approach in which needs are assessed and support is provided based on those needs is already in statute. There are requirements for that in the way in which our education system operates. The challenge has been implementation, and that is at the forefront of my mind. It is important to have statutory obligations, but what matters is what the experience of the individual is when they interact with a particular service, which, in the case that you described, is an educational setting. That is why we are doing the work on the implementation review and the joint task force.

That reflects the need to address the points that you made, Mr Whittle, but I also recognise that we cannot look at support for people who are seeking assessment or support for a new developmental condition in isolation from wider society. The impact of the pandemic has been profound and it has affected people in different ways. However, significant cultural shifts are taking place in society, too.

I know that the committee will have given consideration to our changing mobile phone and social media habits in its broader deliberations on mental health. I know that that is just one factor, but it is having a profound impact on society, particularly on people with neurodevelopmental conditions. Some of that impact will be positive—those aspects can be used to create awareness and prompt people to seek more information and support. However, some of it might be less positive. I realise that those dynamics apply across a range of aspects of society.

I take the point that, when considering our approach, we should not just take a whole-system approach to neurodevelopmental needs; we have to see things in the round, at a population health level. We are taking specific steps to improve implementation of the existing standards, and we recognise the broader population health aspects, too.

That is such an important point. As the committee will be aware from the work that it has undertaken, there is a significant increase in demand among adults, which could be for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps their child was assessed, prompting thought and reflection about their own circumstances in life, which ultimately led them to take a decision to seek assessment and diagnosis.

From engagement, encounters, conversations and reading testimony, I have found that, when someone has such reflections later in life—perhaps in their 40s—the evidence speaks very powerfully about what the difference would have been if they had had an intervention, a diagnosis or more awareness at a much earlier age. As I say, that is powerful, and it speaks to the importance of children and young people in the approach that we have set out in the national neurodevelopmental specification and in being consistent with GIRFEC.

We are taking every opportunity to identify need at the earliest stage. As you have said very clearly, you are a passionate advocate for prevention, and we know that recognising need and responding to it at the earliest stage is of vital importance. That is reflected in GIRFEC and in the national specification. The point that Stephen McLeod set out earlier on how we can more effectively use the data that is already in the system is important. That will be reflected in the work of the task force in addressing the implementation challenges that we have seen. Perhaps Stephen has something to add.

Thank you, convener. Good morning to you and to the rest of the committee. This supplementary LCM should be read in conjunction with the Scottish Government’s previous memoranda on the Employment Rights Bill, dated 11 December 2024 and 3 April 2025.

The Scottish Government has been working closely with care providers, trade unions, local government and regulators for a number of years to deliver fair work in the social care sector, but, as you are aware, the Scottish Government’s ability to act in this area is constrained by the devolution settlement. Nevertheless, we have continued to deliver what we can by using the powers that are available to us, including enabling payment of a real living wage to all social care workers, delivering direct care and commissioned services, developing an effective voice framework for the sector, which is nearing the conclusion of a pilot phase, and working with the sector to identify priority areas for enhanced terms and conditions in due course. However, the Employment Rights Bill and subsequent amendments now confer some limited powers on the Scottish ministers, and it is for those reasons that a supplementary LCM is required for those provisions.

It is important to note that a lot of work has also been carried out to develop and design a process for delivering a voluntary sectoral bargaining model for Scotland. When the Employment Rights Bill was introduced, it included provisions relating to the social care sector in England, most notably for the establishment through regulations of a negotiating body to consider pay and terms and conditions for the adult social care sector.

The outcome of those negotiations, once accepted by the secretary of state, was to be enacted through regulations to deliver fair pay agreements for workers who were in scope. The Scottish Government recognised the opportunity to potentially underpin much of the work already undertaken in Scotland on sectoral bargaining by seeking to extend the scope of the bill to Scotland. That will provide the Scottish Government with the option to regulate for negotiated fair pay agreements for the sector as an alternative to the aforementioned voluntary process.

We have also succeeded in securing broader applications of those bill provisions to children’s services, not just services for adults, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with the UK Government to build on our fair work principles and help to maximise the bill’s positive impact across Scotland.

The amendments to which the LCM pertains clarify that negotiating bodies can set only minimum terms and conditions of employment for social care workers and cannot adversely affect those workers’ existing terms and conditions or prevent employers from offering better terms and conditions than those agreed by the negotiating body. They also establish the parliamentary procedure for approving codes and guidance. Together, these measures protect social care workers from being forced on to worse contracts, safeguard fair pay and conditions, and help to maintain a competitive and sustainable workforce across the sector.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the regulations.

When I appeared before the committee in June last year, you were considering the Scottish Pubs Code Regulations 2024 and related Scottish statutory instruments. The Scottish pubs code will improve the position of tied pub tenants through the creation of a statutory framework to govern the relationship between pub-owning businesses and their tied pub tenants.

At the time of the committee session, I was aware of significant stakeholder concerns about the regulations and, in particular, the code. I was not able to withdraw the regulations in June, but I undertook to carry out a further focused and targeted consultation on the pubs code. My stated intention was to introduce an SSI to make amendments to the code and to bring the legislation into force as soon as possible. The SSI that the committee is considering today is the result of that further consultation.

My officials and I have engaged fully with stakeholders in the development of the legislation. The consultation process involved the receipt of written proposals from stakeholders, followed by workshops and a formal written consultation. The intention was not to reopen fundamental policy debates about the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Act 2021; the focus has been on key areas of concern that were raised by tenants, pub-owning businesses and their representative organisations. I am grateful to stakeholders for their continued engagement in that work.

The policy area remains difficult, with stakeholders diametrically opposed on certain matters. A difficult balancing act is required, and it has not always been possible to reach consensus. However, the purpose of the code is to improve the position of tied pub tenants, and I believe that it will now achieve that purpose more effectively. The SSI will ensure that the code fulfils the intentions of the 2021 act and is consistent with its regulatory principles.

I am conscious of the significant challenges for all businesses at this time, so I have sought to ensure that we do not put unnecessary demands on pub-owning businesses while still improving the position of tied pub tenants. The SSI will result in some aspects of the code, including the guest beer arrangement and information provisions, coming into force on 31 March 2025. In response to concerns from some pub-owning businesses about their preparedness, the provisions on market-rent-only leases, rent assessment and review will come into force on 30 June.

Once in place, the code will be monitored and enforced by the Scottish pubs code adjudicator. The adjudicator and her office have been working hard to prepare for when the code comes into force, and I am pleased that that has involved good engagement with the sector. The 2021 act requires that the adjudicator’s work and the code be reviewed after 31 March 2026, and every three years thereafter. We must continue to ensure that the code is proportionate and in keeping with the obligations of the act.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

In the first instance, I will be meeting stakeholders in the coming weeks to discuss their specific concerns in more detail. Those meetings will help to inform what we will do regarding consultation.

The intention is for the consultation to be launched in mid-August and run for eight weeks. I will write to the committee relatively soon to update members with more detail about what we expect the consultation to include. I want it to be informed by my more detailed engagement with stakeholders in the coming weeks.

No. The position had already been filled. It was originally intended that the regulations would come into force in early October, so her appointment preceded the commencement of the regulations anyway.

As I said, my intention is to bring forward the coming-into-force date if possible, but that will be contingent on the engagement that we have over the summer and on that consultation, about which I will keep the committee updated. The adjudicator will be able to start developing her role now that she has been appointed.

I appreciate that point. I refer members back to a point that I made at the previous committee meeting: it would have been the Government’s desire and intention to have had further consultation and engagement but, because of the circumstances in which we found ourselves, with which the committee is familiar, that was not possible. At the previous meeting, we brought forward the regulations and set out the rationale for the approach that we are taking.

I am not going into this with an expectation that we will be able to find a pub code that will satisfy absolutely everyone, because I recognise that there are strong views about the code. However, I will seek to build as much consensus as possible.

As I said at the previous meeting, we are in a situation where the pubs code does not satisfy either pub-owning companies or tied publicans. I hope that, through engagement with representatives and stakeholders and through the consultation that we intend to launch in August, we can build a greater degree of consensus so that there can be confidence when the code comes into force. As I said previously, there is a requirement in the legislation to have a review in the future, which will provide a further opportunity for consideration, once there has been an opportunity for the code to operate.