Scottish Parliament, 19 February 2014

263 contributions from 44 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-09071, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 and 2: 40 minutes

Groups 3 to 5: 1 hour 10 minutes

Groups 6 to 8: 1 hour 45 minutes

Groups 9 to 11: 2 hours 20 minutes

Groups 12 and 13: 3 hours 5 minutes

Groups 14 to 16: 3 hours 35 minutes

Groups 17 and 18: 4 hours 15 minutes

Groups 19 and 20: 4 hours 40 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Education and Lifelong Learning

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is portfolio questions. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions and answers to match, please.

Question 1, from Drew Smith, has been withdrawn, and an explanation has been provided.

Dumfries and Galloway Council (Meetings)

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the director of education at Dumfries and Galloway Council and what matters were discussed. (S4O-02898)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Government officials regularly meet the director of education at Dumfries and Galloway Council to discuss a wide range of education issues.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I hope that that would include the introduction of the new higher qualifications. I ask that because I have been contacted by teachers in my constituency who are quite concerned about the timetable for the introduction of the new higher qualification and, indeed, the lack of materials and training to enable them to deliver it.

I am aware that individual schools have been given a welcome degree of flexibility over the introduction of the qualification. What steps has the Government taken to ensure that teachers have received the necessary training and development to deliver the new courses? I seek the cabinet secretary’s assurance that sufficient course work and assessment materials will be available on time.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am very pleased to say that the Scottish Qualifications Authority has missed not a single deadline at any level in the programme of delivering curriculum for excellence, and I am absolutely certain that it will not miss these deadlines.

The materials are being provided, and we have provided additional training and materials whenever that has been requested or whenever we think that that is something that teachers would look for. That approach continues, and my colleague Dr Allan is constantly looking for ways in which we can carry on supporting teachers.

On the highers themselves, I indicated last November when I spoke to School Leaders Scotland that there was a view that the highers were on track for delivery but that, if any individual school—or teachers of an individual subject—doubted that, there was flexibility. Unlike the national 4 and national 5 qualifications, the highers will be dual running for at least a year, given that some young people take highers in secondary 5 and some take them in secondary 6.

There is therefore flexibility, although I do not believe that it will be widely used. The schools that I visit—I know that Dr Allan visits many schools, too—are working very hard to deliver a series of courses that are very good for young people and which are expanding their horizons and Scotland’s ability to move forward.

Foreign Language Engagement Strategy

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its foreign language engagement strategy. (S4O-02899)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Scottish Government takes very seriously the issue of language learning and teaching. That is why we have made a commitment to create the conditions in which every child in Scottish schools will have the opportunity to learn two languages in addition to their mother tongue by 2020. That is of course the Barcelona one-plus-two model.

Engagement on that vital one-plus-two policy is progressing well. Our strategic implementation group is leading this progress, working with local authorities, Education Scotland and other bodies involved in planning and delivering enhanced language learning in schools.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

As convener of the cross-party group on Germany, I have noted that the number of school pupils presented for German exams and the number of German-speaking foreign language assistants in Scottish schools have declined over the past decade. What is the Scottish Government doing to reverse that specific trend?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I am aware of the member’s interest in the issue and the statistics to which he refers. At the same time, it is worth saying that the overall number of foreign language assistants in schools has increased marginally—or, in fact, more than marginally—from 59 to 73 in the past two years from 2011-12 to 2013-14. However, I am aware of the specific issues around German. I have met the German consul and others to ensure that we press forward on the agenda to ensure that German is among the languages promoted in Scotland’s schools.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Figures that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service released last month highlight an 11 per cent reduction in the number of Scots who apply to study European languages and literature at university and a 36 per cent reduction in the number of those who apply to study non-European languages and literature. As Colin Beattie said, the number of foreign language classroom assistants has fallen—from 284 in 2005-06 to 73 today. How can we be confident that school pupils throughout Scotland are being given opportunities to learn languages at school and to continue that study at university?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Although I would not read too much into a single set of UCAS figures, it does, I suppose, highlight the need for modern languages to be taught much more widely, and also much earlier, in schools. The lesson from foreign language learning in other countries is that it simply happens earlier, which is why I hope that the one-plus-two model of learning languages in primary schools will in time feed through to the number of qualifications that are taken in secondary schools and at universities.

It is also worth saying that additional qualifications such as those in languages for life and work are useful for people who may not wish to study a modern language in its own right at university but who do wish to work or study abroad.

Curriculum for Excellence (Online Safety)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how the curriculum for excellence addresses the threats posed to children and young people through internet access and social media. (S4O-02900)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Children and young people will learn about the safe and responsible use of different technologies, including the internet and social media, as part of their broad general education under the curriculum for excellence. Furthermore, all staff in schools share a responsibility for identifying and responding to the care and wellbeing needs of children and young people, whatever the cause.

In November 2013, the Scottish Government published guidance on developing policies to promote the safe and responsible use of mobile technologies in schools. It provides advice for local authorities and schools on how to develop appropriate policies that encourage safe and responsible use while protecting staff, children and young people from the harassment and abuse that can arise from the misuse of such technology.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The issue requires more time than can be afforded through oral questions, but given the serious threat that internet activities such as sexting and neknominate and the easy access to pornography pose to young people’s wellbeing, how can our schools help to encourage young people to have the confidence to refuse to consent to unwanted activity and others to respect that decision to refuse consent?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member raises some important and troubling questions. I think that it is fair to say that bringing stakeholders together on the matter, as happened at the recent summit that Aileen Campbell and I held, is a useful way forward. It is about ensuring that the culture is such that, from an early age, schools promote among individuals a sense of wellbeing and confidence, as the member puts it, and confidence about how to use the internet safely.

Curriculum for Excellence (New Higher Examinations)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that schools will be in a position to implement the new higher examinations through the curriculum for excellence in 2014-15. (S4O-02901)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Yes—schools across Scotland continue to make good progress on all aspects of the curriculum for excellence including the new national qualifications. Education Scotland, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the Scottish Government and local authorities are delivering a wide range of support to help teachers to introduce the new highers. We have made it clear that they provide smooth progression from the new national 5 qualifications and that we therefore consider them to be the natural option next session for young people in Scotland.

We also recognise that there needs to be some scope for local flexibility based on professional judgment whereby teachers can work closely with their senior management, their local authority and the parent body to make a decision in the best interests of their learners. We will continue to provide support wherever it is needed.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Is the minister aware that Fife Council agreed to put in £400,000 to support the introduction of the new higher after carrying out a survey of all schools in Fife that showed that there is a need for much more support and that teachers are under massive pressure? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the matter further?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I should have thanked Mr Rowley for what was, I believe, his first oral question in the Parliament. I welcome him to his role—but that leaves him under no obligation to welcome my answers.

I agree that the provision of support is important, and it is central to what we are doing. I understand from the contact between Education Scotland and Fife Council that support has been requested in five areas and has been provided, and that Education Scotland is in no doubt about the council’s ability to do what is asked of it with regard to the new qualifications. I am willing to meet Alex Rowley to discuss any outstanding issues that he wishes to raise.

Universities Scotland (Meetings)

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning last met representatives of Universities Scotland. (S4O-02902)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I met representatives of Universities Scotland on 3 February when I chaired a meeting of the university sector advisory forum.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I was recently made aware of a situation in which two pupils who attended neighbouring schools in my region wished to study medicine at the University of Glasgow. Both pupils received the same exam results, but one pupil was admitted and one was not. That was because one of the schools was targeted for the university’s reach programme, and the pupil who attended that school, which has a lower higher education progression rate, was given the opportunity to participate in it.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the current policy is discriminatory and that there should be an equal playing field so that all pupils, regardless of their school, should be permitted to participate in the reach programme if they do not achieve the required grades?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is a curious assertion, because it goes very much against the idea that we should find ways of widening access to all higher education, which I thought that Siobhan McMahon’s party supported. If we were to abandon an initiative such as the reach programme, we would make it significantly harder to widen access.

It is important, however, that we recognise another issue that Siobhan McMahon correctly raises: that widening-access places in medicine are extraordinarily sought after. In those circumstances I, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, met representatives from Scotland’s five medical schools on 15 January. That was my second meeting with those representatives to discuss and consider options for widening access and the appropriate balance of undergraduates in those schools. We will progress ideas in that regard.

National Guidance on Political Literacy (Falkirk Council)

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Falkirk Council regarding the implementation of national guidance on political literacy. (S4O-02903)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Education Scotland has produced guidance to support the teaching and learning of political literacy, and it emphasises the importance of young people receiving information in an impartial and balanced way.

The Scottish Government has had no direct discussions with Falkirk Council about implementing the national guidance. It is for schools and local authorities to decide how to progress the implementation of the curriculum, including political literacy.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Locally I have heard fifth-year and sixth-year pupils crying out for information in their respective schools, and I am pleased to see that Falkirk Council has—albeit belatedly—recently approved plans to address issues with regard to political literacy and the referendum.

Political literacy is an important component of curriculum for excellence and is central to citizenship education. What safeguards are in place to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds who are attending school or college receive information in a clear, accessible and impartial way?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Angus MacDonald rightly highlights the need to ensure that all young people have such information, along with the skills that they need to interpret the material that they see in the press and the confidence to read about issues in the public domain. Political literacy is about giving people those life skills rather than seeking to infringe on the choices that they will make, and that will have to be done impartially.

It is important to note that local authorities, Education Scotland and organisations such as the Electoral Commission all contribute to ensuring that those ends are met.

Household Income (Childcare)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of household income people spend on childcare. (S4O-02904)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Parents in the United Kingdom face some of the highest childcare costs in Europe. Although those costs are currently lower in Scotland than in England—£94.35 per week in comparison with £106.52 for two, three and four-year-olds—parents in Scotland still spend approximately 27 per cent of household income on childcare, in comparison with an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 12 per cent.

The Government recognises that the cost of childcare imposes a substantial burden on families, which is why we have set out the childcare commitments in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill and in our white paper, “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland.” Those commitments will make a significant impact on the affordability of childcare for all families with children from the age of one to school starting age.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The minister commented on the OECD average being only 12 per cent. Given that that is the case, does the minister agree with me that only the full powers of independence will enable Scotland to have one of the best childcare systems in the world?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, unsurprisingly I agree with Mr McMillan. For the first time ever, via the white paper, we have a blueprint for achieving universal childcare here in Scotland. We know that increasing the participation of women in the labour market by 6 per cent will increase the tax intake by £700 million.

In short, if we want social democracy—which I do—we very much need to have the ability to pay for it. It is therefore important that the Parliament has control over both sides of the balance sheet. This is an example of how social and economic policy must go hand in hand.

School Leavers (Outcomes)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to improve outcomes for school leavers. (S4O-02905)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Government is focused on improving the level of qualification of all our young people leaving school, and on ensuring access to opportunities for them to continue their education or to get a job.

The year 2013 saw record exam passes, with rates increasing for all major qualifications and a record-breaking 91 per cent of our school leavers entering an initial positive destination.

Our “opportunities for all” commitment guarantees an offer of a place in learning or training for every 16 to 19-year-old who wants one, and we work closely with schools to help young people to make a successful transition into employment, learning or training. More than 60 per cent of school leavers enter higher or further education, with institutions now offering wider access to students from the most deprived neighbourhoods.

We are also supporting young people who are opting to join the workforce. We have exceeded our ambitious target of delivering 25,000 modern apprenticeships in 2012-13 and we are improving work experience opportunities for young people through schemes such as the certificate of work readiness.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The minister will be aware of a series of jobs fairs that I have been holding across my constituency. One of the key issues that is coming out of those from the young people who attend them is the attainment gap. What progress is being made in reducing the attainment gap between the most and least economically disadvantaged pupils, and in ensuring that more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds get access to apprenticeships, training for work, or further and higher education?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I thank Christina McKelvie for the question. I put on record the efforts of Christina McKelvie and other MSPs who have run successful jobs fairs, which I believe have a positive contribution to make at local level.

There is political consensus across the chamber about addressing the attainment gap, and there is a desire to do much more. The attainment gap is of course narrowing, but we want to make faster progress. Government policies such as getting it right for every child, curriculum for excellence, opportunities for all and even the youth work framework are all important. The work that we are doing in the early years is also crucial. For example, this afternoon we will debate landmark legislation on improving the welfare and early education of Scotland’s children.

On widening access, which Christina McKelvie raised, widening access agreements are important. In my portfolio area, there is work in and around the Wood commission on how we can create clearer pathways so that all young people are better apprised of the vocational, educational and training opportunities that are available to them.

Edinburgh College (Meetings)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

10. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of Edinburgh College and what issues were discussed. (S4O-02906)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I met several Edinburgh College representatives on the first birthday reception that the college held in the Parliament on 1 October. The reception was hosted by Colin Beattie MSP and Kezia Dugdale MSP. The topics of conversation were many and varied.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the industrial action at Edinburgh College. Regardless of the fact that the Scottish Government has no direct locus in that, will the cabinet secretary join me in wishing for a swift resolution to the dispute—to the satisfaction in particular of the staff?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be happy to join Mr Biagi and the whole Parliament in wishing for a speedy resolution to the dispute. I urge both sides to work constructively towards that end. It is, of course, a fact that staff pay and conditions are matters for colleges to determine. However, negotiation is the only way to conclude such disputes.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Of course, negotiations are still under way at this moment.

Can the cabinet secretary assure us that no student will be financially penalised for observing and respecting the strike action?

Some students are facing higher national diploma assessments at the moment. If, next week, the strike moves to three days a week, they will be materially affected. What additional support can the cabinet secretary provide for those students?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would not expect any student to be penalised. The best support that the students can have is resolution of the dispute, therefore the proper position of politicians with regard to this matter is, I think, to urge that the dispute be resolved; the opportunity exists to resolve it. Like Marco Biagi, I wish for a speedy resolution and I urge both sides to work constructively towards that end because it is a matter for both sides to conclude.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary believe that it is reasonable to continue to expect lecturers to teach up to 24 hours a week at degree level?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It would be far better if Mary Scanlon took the stance that I have taken—and which I think even Kezia Dugdale may be taking—which is to say that negotiations are under way and that it is best that the parties to the negotiations reach a conclusion that is in everybody’s interests. I do not want to second guess any aspect of the negotiations. I regret that that is what the member is trying to get me to do.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I agree that we need a swift resolution to the dispute.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that more than 51 per cent of staff absences at Edinburgh College are the result of stress, depression, anxiety and fatigue, and that many of the lecturers whom I met last week said that part of the challenge is in dealing with the aftermath of the merger of the three constituent parts of Edinburgh College?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I say to Sarah Boyack, as I have just said to other members, that the proper response is to urge resolution of the dispute so that both sides can move forward in a way that will ensure that students are not affected, that the valuable work of staff is recognised and that the college can move ahead.

Merger processes are always difficult, but the Edinburgh College merger has been hugely successful. It is a college of scale that has huge ambition, and whose first birthday was celebrated across this chamber. We need to ensure that the college moves on, but it will do so only if both sides resolve the dispute. I think that that is the will of every member in this chamber, whether they represent Edinburgh or simply have an interest in the college sector. I urge members to urge both sides to reconciliation and resolution of the dispute.

West of Scotland College (Meetings)

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

11. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning last met the principal of West of Scotland College and what was discussed. (S4O-02907)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I met the principal of West of Scotland College, along with other principals, college sector representatives and other stakeholders at the further education strategic forum in September 2013. The forum considered a range of matters relating to learner success, and the interim report of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Between 2007-08 and 2012-13, the number of part-time students studying at James Watt College plummeted by more than 9,000. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that that trend impacts negatively on our economy, and on the life chances of adult learners who rely on part-time courses for second-chance learning and career development? How will the merged college sector reverse that depressing trend and increase the ability of part-time students to access and participate in college education?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recommend that Duncan McNeil go to that college, which is part of West of Scotland College, and talk to the principal and staff. That would enable him to understand the changes in the college sector as they understand them, which is that they are a positive benefit for young people and older people who want to access employment opportunities. That is what has taken place.

Duncan McNeil should really start looking at what is taking place in colleges—the opportunities that they are offering and the huge change for the better that has taken place. To hark back constantly to another era when colleges were not reformed and were not able to deliver in the way that they are now delivering helps nobody; it certainly does not help Parliament’s understanding of education. We have heard yet again—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Part-time—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Duncan McNeil is keen to shout out. Mr McNeil can shout out inaccuracies all that he wishes. The reality is that he needs to recognise the benefits of reform and to get behind that reform, in the interests of his constituents.

“UK Commission’s Employer Skills Survey”

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what lessons it can learn from the results of the recent “UK Commission’s Employer Skills Survey” in relation to its youth work strategy. (S4O-02908)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The results from the UK Commission’s employer survey have confirmed that young people in Scotland are better prepared for work than are their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Our all-Government, all-Scotland approach to get0ting young people ready for work is making a difference.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The “Employer Skills Survey” stresses the importance of skills readiness for young people who leave school and go directly into the world of work. Employers in England say that four in 10 are poorly prepared when they reach the workplace. I welcome the fact that the figure in Scotland is 10 per cent better. However, what work is under way to address the three in 10 young people who go from school directly into the world of work whom employers say are still not fully work ready?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important to recognise that the “Employer Skills Survey” is the principal source of information about employers’ perceptions of the labour market. It is good news overall that employers who employ young people are satisfied with the work readiness of 65 per cent of young people. The amount increases for young people who have been to college and university. Employer satisfaction in relation to work readiness of young people who have been to university is in excess of 80 per cent.

However, one young person who is disadvantaged in entering the workplace is one too many. The aspiration of the Government, as was recently laid out by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, is to raise that figure from 65 per cent to more than 90 per cent. The work that we are pursuing in the curriculum for excellence and via the employment agenda recognises that young people in Scotland are better qualified than ever before; they are better prepared for work and are more work ready than their counterparts elsewhere. However, what many young people lack is work experience, which is why we are investing heavily in things such as the certificate of work readiness, activity agreements and community jobs Scotland.

Nursery Education (Edinburgh)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

13. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of pupils who started primary 1 in Edinburgh schools in August 2013 had not had six terms of nursery education. (S4O-02909)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am sorry to say that the Scottish Government does not hold that information. Current policy is that children start funded early learning and childcare from the term after their third birthday. That means that children who are born between March and August will receive six terms, children who are born between September and December will receive five terms and children who are born between January and February will receive four terms. The parents of children who do not receive six terms can request that school entry be deferred for an additional year, which enables the child to start school when they are closer to five and a half years of age.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Does the minister share my concerns that children who start school at four have also had the least nursery education and are therefore doubly disadvantaged when they start school? For example, a child whose birthday is in February will get four terms and start school at four and a half. Deferment is possible in Edinburgh only if the child’s birthday is in January or February, not if their birthday is in November or December. Does the minister realise that, in a sense, the situation is worse in many schools in Edinburgh because the demand is so great that routinely a significant number of children have only one year of nursery education? I know that there is not an easy answer, but does she think that there is a problem there to be addressed?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The situation is complex and it is important to recognise that some local authorities can and do provide beyond the statutory entitlement; West Lothian Council has children commencing nursery very soon after their third birthday. That is something that the Scottish Government certainly encourages local authorities to do if they have the capacity to do so.

It is, of course, open to parents of children of the younger age group—those whose birthdays fall in January or February—to choose to defer the school start so that the children can have an additional pre-school year.

As we expand our childcare provision—whether through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that we will debate this afternoon, or the ambitions of the white paper—and increase the number of two-year-olds who will be eligible for early years and nursery provision, it is important that the number of two-year-olds who are affected as Malcolm Chisholm described decreases over time.

Childcare (Budget)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it considers that the budget provision for extra childcare will have. (S4O-02910)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth confirmed as part of the budget that we are providing £190 million to our partners in local government over the next two years to implement the childcare commitments that are set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. We have committed a further £59 million over two years for a phased expansion of childcare eligibility to the most vulnerable two-year-olds. Those investments will deliver significant support for families for whom the costs of childcare can be a challenge. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill contains provisions to extend funded early learning and childcare to a minimum of 600 hours a year, which represents an increase of 45 per cent from the 412.5 hours that we inherited in 2007 and will save families up to £707 per child per year and benefit 120,000 children.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply. I note the mention of the childcare provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which we will debate shortly.

Yesterday, the minister announced a review of childcare led by Professor Iram Siraj. Will she provide more detail of what the review will consider and its expected outcomes?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important that, as we realise our ambitions for the transformational expansion of childcare, we develop capacity in the sector. Working with children is skilled and important work. It requires qualifications and training. Therefore, it is important that we build the capacity and plan ahead to expand the workforce to match our ambitions.

Professor Iram Siraj will lead an important expert review, which will include a cross-representation of people from the private sector, local government and trade unions and will address skills and qualifications, recruitment and retention, career pathways and, which is important, the status of early years childcare workers, as well as other workforce planning issues.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (Post-results Service)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

16. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Qualifications Authority regarding the post-results service. (S4O-02912)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Scottish Government is in frequent discussion with the Scottish Qualifications Authority on a range of matters relating to the national qualifications, including the new results services.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Who will be expected to pay for the review process for any pupil’s results? There seems to be considerable confusion as to whether that will fall on the local authority or the individual school. Will the minister clarify that?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member will be aware that we are talking about a number of different processes. First, there is the exceptional circumstances consideration service for people who were absent—perhaps for good reasons such as bereavement or illness—or who, immediately after taking the exam, wish to make the SQA aware that they were in those or similar circumstances. There will be no charge at all for that service.

The other area that we are talking about is the post-results service, in which there is the option for a clerical check or review marking. If that process results in a grade being changed, no charge will be levied.

Curriculum for Excellence (Energy Industry Pathway)

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

17. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that the curriculum for excellence is providing an effective pathway for young people to enter a career in the energy industry. (S4O-02913)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I strongly agree with the member—or rather, I will strongly agree with him once I respond to his question; forgive me for my enthusiasm. The curriculum for excellence supports the development of knowledge and skills in young people that will equip them for learning, life and work, including moving into a career in the energy industry. The sciences and technology in particular provide opportunities for learners to explore different types of energy sources and their use. Education Scotland and energy skills Scotland are working together to create better links between the industry and education to support more effective learning and teaching on energy in schools and colleges, and to build young people’s awareness of careers in the sector.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Does the minister agree that the curriculum for excellence provides an opportunity and pathway for our young girls at school to go into careers that are generally orientated towards the male sector?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Only today, I met Mr Russell, Mr Ewing and representatives of other organisations to look at how to promote the energy industry in schools. One issue that has come up again and again—the member has raised it before—is ensuring that there are pathways into the industry specifically for women. That, of course, comes down to the support that we all give to promoting science as a subject in schools for girls, and also to making people aware of the full range of opportunities that exist for employment in the energy sector.

Training Organisations (Clydebank and Milngavie)

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

18. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to local training organisations in Clydebank and Milngavie. (S4O-02914)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Local training organisations in Clydebank and Milngavie have access to the same Scottish Government funding support that is available to all commercial or third sector businesses. In addition, those who are registered on the Skills Development Scotland national learning objectives database can bid to support the delivery of the Scottish Government training programmes, including modern apprenticeships and the employability fund, or to become an individual learning account-approved provider. SDS local skills investment advisers, who operate out of local offices throughout Scotland, are also able to provide support to locally based training providers on skills investment and training issues.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank the minister for that full answer. Can she confirm that the Scottish Government will encourage and continue local partnerships between schools and training organisations in Clydebank and Milngavie to ensure that young people have the maximum opportunities to learn new skills?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Absolutely. Local training providers are very important to the local employability infrastructure. I suppose that one of the prevailing themes of the Wood commission’s interim report was how we galvanise and develop further the partnerships between schools, employers and training providers. I know that there are excellent training providers in Mr Paterson’s constituency. I have been out to visit the Lennox Partnership, which I had the good fortune of bumping into again today at the third sector and voluntary sector 10th annual gathering. It spoke about how it had benefited from investment in community jobs Scotland.

Childcare

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

20. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to expand childcare provision. (S4O-02916)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is all about the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill today. As we know, that bill includes provisions to increase the level and flexibility of funded early learning and childcare for three and four-year-olds and our most vulnerable two-year-olds to a minimum of 600 hours a year from August 2014.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I very much welcome the proposed increase that the minister referred to, of course, which we will look at in considering the bill. However, can she make it quite clear that it is only by voting yes that we can bring about the transformational change in childcare provision that the women of Scotland wish to see?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

That is crystal clear. As I said earlier, for the first time ever, we have a blueprint to achieve universal childcare in Scotland. No other Government at the Scottish or United Kingdom levels has ever done that before.

Point of Order

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This morning, the Finance Committee considered the supplementary financial memorandum to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. During the meeting, members were informed by Scottish Government officials that the Scottish Government is

“at this stage ... not in a position to be able to offer estimates”

for the capital costs of the bill. That is in direct contravention of rule 9.3.2 of the standing orders, which states that a bill shall be

“accompanied by a Financial Memorandum which shall set out the best estimates of the administrative, compliance and other costs to which the provisions of the Bill would give rise, best estimates of the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise, and an indication of the margins of uncertainty in such estimates.”

I understand that the Finance Committee is very concerned about that failure and has written to the minister, asking for an urgent explanation. Presiding Officer, I would welcome your advice on the implications of what is a clear breach of the standing orders by the Scottish Government, what that means for the debate this afternoon and whether this would set a precedent whereby rule 9.3.2 of the standing orders no longer applies.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I thank the member for prior notification of the point of order. I have given the matter consideration and it is clear that, under rule 9.12 of the standing orders of the Parliament, the financial resolution was passed by the Parliament at stage 1 of the bill and a supplementary financial memorandum was lodged, as is required under rule 9.7.8B, as a result of amendments that were agreed to at stage 2. As the member mentioned, supplementary financial memorandums must

“set out the best estimates of the administrative, compliance and other costs to which the provisions of the Bill would give rise”.

I appreciate, from what the member has said, that he has concerns about the information that has been provided in the supplementary financial memorandum to the bill. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to raise those points in debate. However, it is up to members to decide to what extent they take that into account in taking a position on amendments and the bill. The current rules do not require that the Parliament pass a resolution on a revised financial memorandum.

The member raises an interesting question with the point that he makes. He might like to write to our Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which—as he may know—is currently reviewing the legislative procedures of the Parliament.

That is my answer, under the standing orders at the moment, to the member’s question on the financial resolution. Members may wish to raise those points as matters of debate.

Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon, and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after the group is called. We are very tight for time this afternoon.

Before section 1

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

The stated policy intention behind the bill is to contribute to Scotland being the best place for children to grow up, and I applaud that intention. It is vital to the Scotland that we wish to create, which recognises not only the vital contribution that children and young people make to our society and our communities but that, in order for them to make that contribution, they deserve and require our respect, our protection and our nurturing.

I welcome the provisions in part 1 of the bill but, like many organisations and individuals working with and for children in Scotland, I am disappointed that part 1 does not go further. Accepting all the stage 3 amendments would go some way to progress our commitment to children’s rights, and accepting amendment 116 would form a key part of that commitment.

My amendment seeks to place a duty on Scottish ministers to establish a body within one year of royal assent to examine the case for giving legislative effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I recognise that the Government has intimated that it believes full incorporation to be unnecessary; I also recognise that the Education and Culture Committee’s stage 1 report raised questions over how that could be done meaningfully.

I hear what the committee has said about incorporating children’s rights, but why do we need evidence to accept that children have rights that should be upheld and promoted in law in the same way that adults do? The same arguments were not made when the case was made for the adoption of the European convention on human rights, or for extending the Human Rights Act 1998 to apply to devolved matters during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If we did not require evidence to apply human rights to our domestic law, why do we need evidence for children to have rights in law?

There has been strong support for such a move from the children’s sector and the human rights sector. Incorporation of the UNCRC was supported by UNICEF, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, the NSPCC, Families Outside and Together. Amendment 116 has the support of Children 1st, Barnardo’s, Together, YouthLink Scotland, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and a number of academics across the legal and sociological disciplines. For such a move to be supported by such a wide range of interested organisations surely suggests that the amendment has merit.

The bill should mark not the end of our journey in the process, but the beginning. Today, we can commit to explore how to incorporate children’s rights into our legislative framework; signal our intent to make our society truly a child-centred one; and recognise children as having rights in their own regard, which all of us should be willing and devoted to pursuing.

Amendment 116 would give Scottish ministers considerable scope to determine how best to achieve that. Setting up a body such as an independent commission to examine the options would make a statement that I hope we can all support. The amendment would not require Scottish ministers or the Parliament to commit to anything other than the establishment of an appropriate body and consideration of its report. In doing that, we would send a clear signal about the importance that we attach to children’s rights and provide a clear message about the seriousness of our commitment to make Scotland the best place to grow up. Therefore, I hope that Scottish ministers and all MSPs, from all political parties and none, will support amendment 116.

I move amendment 116.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The bill represents the coming together of two pieces of proposed legislation, one of which is a bill on children’s rights. As Jean Urquhart identified, the Government appears largely to have lost sight of that aspect of what we should be trying to achieve.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates said that the bill added little to what was in place and in some respects even diluted children’s rights. Our committee concluded at stage 1 that the duty on ministers was

“little more than a restatement of existing obligations.”

Although improvements were introduced at stage 2, the children’s commissioner is clear that

“So far the opportunity has been missed to be ambitious for children’s rights and to embed children’s rights in Scotland’s governance and public services.”

My amendments are an attempt to address that position, not just with regard to the bill but with regard to future legislation.

Like others, I did not feel that the case had been made for the full incorporation of the UNCRC, but more can and should be done to incorporate key principles, most notably articles 3 and 12. Tam Baillie proposed that idea in his stage 1 evidence, and he was backed by a wide range of children’s charities. Despite that, the minister and her Scottish National Party colleagues refused to support any of my stage 2 amendments.

Parliament should have a further opportunity to consider the issues and to take a view. My amendments 117 and 118 reflect what we have heard about the need to put children’s rights and interests at the centre of the bill, to make sure that their voices and views are heard, and to give proper effect to the principles that should underpin the bill. I am sad to say that the minister’s amendment 93 will not do that. While I have sympathy with Jean Urquhart’s amendment 116, the important thing is to get substantive and meaningful changes into the bill now.

At stage 2, I sought to beef up the reporting requirements on ministers with regard to the steps taken to comply with the duties that are placed upon them. All my amendments in that regard were rejected. I am pleased that Neil Bibby has taken up the cudgels at stage 3 and I will support his efforts.

I will be interested to hear Alison Johnstone’s comments about the amendments in her name. I am instinctively sympathetic, but it is perhaps unfortunate that she did not lodge amendments with such effect at stage 2, to enable more detailed consideration and, if necessary, refinement.

Amendments 125 and 126 represent an attempt to safeguard children’s rights in the context of future legislation. Amendment 126 repeats an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and would require a children’s rights impact assessment to be carried out on every relevant bill that was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. Ministers would have discretion about how widely the approach would apply. The approach would enable us to reflect the Education and Culture Committee’s recommendation, follow the lead that has been taken in Wales and deliver a cultural shift in the way in which we view children’s rights.

The minister has argued that undertaking CRIAs could be delivered through non-legislative means. However, although the Government committed to trialling CRIAs in its UNCRC action plan in 2009, not a single CRIA has been carried out.

Amendment 125 tries to skin the cat in another way and would place a duty on ministers to make a statement or assessment of compatibility with the UNCRC, as currently happens with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that such an approach works well in Australia. I hope that if amendment 126 remains unpalatable to the minister, amendment 125 will be an acceptable alternative.

On children’s rights, the bill remains a missed opportunity. The children’s commissioner has made clear that if my amendments and others in this group are not agreed to, the bill

“will fall far short of matching the high ambition to ‘make rights real’, often stated by Ministers.”

I urge the Parliament to vote to put that right.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the range of amendments that focus on part 1 of the bill. The bill will ensure that children’s rights properly influence the design and delivery of policy and services, by placing new duties on ministers.

Amendment 116 proposes the establishment of a new body to look at legal implementation of the UNCRC. The proposal seems similar to the children’s commissioner’s suggestion at stage 1 that a parliamentary inquiry look at UNCRC incorporation. The suggestion was not pursued by the Education and Culture Committee in its report.

We have robust structures for holding ministers to account for their approach to the UNCRC. We have the Scottish Parliament and its committees, the children’s commissioner and a national implementation group for children’s rights. Another body is not required, and even if it were required, there would be no need to legislate for its creation.

UNCRC incorporation was the subject of a great deal of discussion at stage 1. A range of views was given by key figures with expertise in children’s rights and the law. The Education and Culture Committee carefully considered the arguments and was not convinced of the merits of incorporation. Professor Ken Norrie said:

“I think that to incorporate the convention into the domestic legal system of Scotland would be bad policy, bad practice and bad law. I say that primarily because the UN convention was not drafted or worded to create directly enforceable legal rights in the domestic legal system.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 3 September 2013; c 2682.]

We will continue to engage with partners about how we can strengthen children’s rights, through the fora that are in place, and build on the strong foundations in the bill, which are a good starting point from which to develop the UNCRC.

On amendment 117, a similar amendment was considered at stage 2. Now, as then, we have concerns about the introduction of the concept that children’s interests should be “a key consideration”. The UNCRC clearly recognises that children’s best interests should be a primary, rather than a key, consideration. That is the standard towards which we should be working. It does not make sense to pursue such a broad-ranging principle through blanket duties on ministers, which would open up the risk of unnecessary litigation. That would serve no one’s interests.

It makes sense to consider amendment 118 alongside amendment 93, in my name, as both amendments focus on the views of children. Amendment 93 stems from a suggestion from stakeholders that the Government should consider incorporating article 12 of the UNCRC, recognising a child’s right to be heard. Our position remains that implementation of article 12 is not best achieved through a blanket duty. Instead, we require targeted changes, tailored to individual circumstances. Nevertheless, we remain keen to explore how our commitment to article 12 can be realised. Amendment 93 is designed to ensure that children’s views feature in ministerial decision making.

Amendment 118 would go further than amendment 93, by requiring ministers actively to seek children’s views in relation to all decisions. I recognise the value of consulting children and young people, but that must be done in a meaningful way. Amendment 93 addresses that point by offering flexibility around when to consult. For that reason, I encourage members to support amendment 93 as an alternative to amendment 118.

Amendments 119, 120 and 122 represent a radical departure from our current system for protecting children. They would impose on ministers a duty to take all measures to protect children from violence and ill treatment. Although I welcome the intention behind what is proposed and respect Alison Johnstone’s commitment to children and young people, the proposed duty may be impractical and would be impossible to satisfy. Ministers can introduce legislation and policies to protect children, but we cannot guarantee that a child will be safe from violence and neglect in the way that amendment 119 seems to require.

Furthermore, Alison Johnstone’s amendments fail to recognise the central role that many other bodies must play if we are to protect children effectively. Our system does not provide for Scottish ministers to work directly with individual children and their families on a day-to-day basis. Instead, it is founded first and foremost on strong multi-agency working at a local level. That approach continues to deliver an ever-improving system for supporting our most vulnerable children, as is evidenced by the many inspections of children’s services that have been undertaken over the years.

Amendments 119, 120 and 122 cut across all that. They fail to recognise that the people who are best placed to support children are those who have most contact with them and their families. Our focus must be on strengthening those relationships, because that is what our children need.

Getting it right for every child builds on the approach that I have described, and it is through the effective implementation of that model that we will best be able to ensure that all children—including those who are at risk of violence or ill treatment—get the help and support that they need at the time that they need it.

Amendment 121 seeks to recognise the important role that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child plays in shaping our approach to children’s rights. Although it is important to recognise the excellent work that that committee does, the bill is not the best place to do that. Furthermore, I am not sure what practical difference the amendment would achieve. Any steps taken in response to recommendations by the committee would already be captured by the existing reporting duties under our bill.

The issue with which amendments 123 and 124 deal was debated at stage 2. There is now a well-established expectation that ministers will consult stakeholders as part of the policy development process. Accordingly, there is no need to identify every instance in which consultation is necessary and with which organisations it must be carried out. I am sure that we would all recognise that, when it comes to engaging children, our practice is perhaps not as well established. That is why we took steps at stage 2 to introduce section 1(3A), which will ensure that children will be consulted on ministers’ UNCRC implementation plans.

Amendment 124 would place on ministers a requirement to consult every three years on the steps that have been taken to secure “better or further effect” of the UNCRC. At stage 2, I made it clear that I could not see the value of consulting on a list of steps that ministers had taken with a particular aim in mind. After all, that is quite different from producing a plan of future actions, in relation to which there is scope for influencing activity. That same scope simply does not exist in relation to a retrospective report.

Amendment 125 would require ministers to prepare and publish a statement of UNCRC compatibility for all future bills. There would be a huge degree of overlap between that proposal and the children’s rights impact assessments that are proposed in amendment 126, and a system of unnecessary bureaucracy would be created.

As I made clear at stage 2, the Scottish Government recognises the importance of assessing our decisions against the rights of children, and we are developing a children’s rights impact assessment for use across Government as a direct consequence of the duty in section 1(1). Therefore, amendments 125 and 126 are disproportionate and unnecessary.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I listened carefully to what the minister said. She seemed to be concerned that amendment 125 overlaps with amendment 126. That would make sense if she intended to accept either of them, but by the sound of things she will accept neither of them.

As I made clear, in the UNCRC action plan that was published in 2008 it was indicated that the Government was committed to trialling CRIAs, yet we have not seen one in the intervening years. When might the first CRIA be piloted under the action plan?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I have said, we are developing that. That is something that we will achieve in order to ensure that we make rights real for children and that the UNCRC is much more keenly felt across the Government’s wider agenda.

For all the reasons that I outlined before Liam McArthur’s intervention, we cannot support any of the amendments in the group except my amendment 93, for which I seek members’ support.

I add that I respect the role that Liam McArthur, Alison Johnstone and Jean Urquhart have played and the way in which they have set out their arguments. I hope that we can work together to achieve more on the UNCRC and to make rights real for children in Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

It has, at times, been difficult to articulate through this bill the potential impact of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on children’s lives. Some see the articles in the UNCRC as very technical, but many of them relate directly and emphatically to real and practical improvements in children’s lives. Article 19 of the UNCRC is one such example, requiring states to take appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of abuse, neglect and violence. Although successive Scottish Governments have made progress to be proud of, there is always much more to do. Too many children still live in fear of abuse, neglect and violence and miss out on their childhoods as a result.

I note Liam McArthur’s comments about the lodging of my amendments, but I know that he agrees that we must strive to do all that we can to give children the best start in life. Amendment 119, which uses almost exactly the same language as that found in article 19, aims to ensure that Governments have to do exactly that: to strive for the best and comply with the UNCRC.

The intention is to create an overarching national approach to protecting children from abuse, neglect and violence and to modernise criminal provisions in this area that are now 76 years old. Although the obsolete parts of section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 have been repealed, our authorities continue to rely on that statute to protect children from harmful, criminal acts of abuse, neglect and violence and adopting amendment 119 would provide a holistic framework within which we can work to protect children.

I note the minister’s concerns about the adoption of this particular article but I hope that she will respond to my points about modernising the legislation and say how, if amendment 119 does not find support, the Government will progress the protections that protect children in Scotland.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendments 121, 123 and 124 in my name as well as the other amendments in the group.

Although I join members of all parties in welcoming the general principle of raising awareness of children’s rights, it is clear that section 1 could—and should—be improved and go further. During the Education and Culture Committee’s scrutiny of the bill, a number of witnesses said that, in reality, this particular section fails to add anything new and lacks ambition. The Law Society of Scotland described the duty that is placed on ministers as a

“diluted version of ... existing obligations”

and it was noted that the bill requires ministers only to “consider” the UNCRC but not to act on or explain those considerations.

If the bill is to avoid becoming what Liam McArthur has described as a missed opportunity, members should support my amendments, which would add a requirement on ministers to demonstrate how they have responded to general comments or recommendations made directly to the United Kingdom by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. That would bring the reporting duty more in line with the children’s scheme that is set out in the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, which contains a duty of “due regard” to the UNCRC and has been widely welcomed by those working with and for children in Wales. It is important that we can properly scrutinise ministers’ actions if we are to ensure that the bill is having the kind of impact that we all want it to have.

On amendment 116 in the name of Jean Urquhart, during the bill’s passage through Parliament there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the extent to which the UNCRC should be incorporated into law. Amendment 116 would allow us to continue that discussion by placing on ministers a duty to establish a group to consider the merits of incorporating the UNCRC into law and to report back. Any decision on the extent to which incorporation is appropriate would, of course, be a decision for Parliament and would be informed by the best available evidence.

Finally, I am also supportive of the amendments in the name of Liam McArthur and Alison Johnstone. In particular, I draw members’ attention to the importance of seeking the views of children who are likely to be affected by decisions and ensuring that children’s rights impact assessments are carried out on every relevant bill. Having spoken a number of times in the chamber about the importance of listening to children and young people instead of just talking at them, I am slightly disappointed that the minister’s amendment in this respect does not go as far as Liam McArthur’s amendment.

Amendments 116 to 126 as well as amendment 93 would significantly strengthen what is widely regarded as a weak section in the bill. I urge members to support those amendments if the bill is to match our ambition.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Over a lengthy period, I have listened very carefully to what has been the most challenging but nevertheless one of the most interesting aspects of the debate on the bill. As I said on the very first day of evidence taking at stage 1, the main difficulty all along with part 1 has been the need to assimilate very different legal perspectives on the bill, especially the need to reach a rational judgment on the need to incorporate the UNCRC into Scots law.

In turn, that meant examining whether the current duties on Scottish ministers are sufficiently strong in terms of protecting children and whether in some cases we have not done enough to enhance the rights of children. In particular, there was a need to ensure that there was a clear understanding of the duties on ministers and those that fall on local authorities and other bodies.

At the end of that process, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that there is a sufficiently strong case for full incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law, on account of the fact that some aspects of the UNCRC are not fully compatible with our legal traditions. However, we believe that there has to be more clarity over the rights of ministers, children and their families and, just as important, those of local authorities and other professional bodies. Following those criteria, we will support amendments 117, 118, 93, 121, 123 and 124 but not the other amendments in the group.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Like Liz Smith, I listened as part of the Education and Culture Committee to the evidence on this section of the bill. Like the rest of the committee, I came to the conclusion that there was little evidence of how full incorporation of the UNCRC would improve outcomes for children in Scotland.

Paragraph 38 of the committee’s conclusions in its stage 1 report notes:

“the UNCRC is implemented in Scotland in a number of ways already”.

In fact, article 42 is incorporated into the bill and it obliges ministers to promote awareness of children’s rights among children as well as parents. That aspect of the bill has been welcomed by the Scottish Information Commissioner.

The committee’s conclusions also state:

“We are not persuaded of the case for full incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law ... We agree that the benefits arising from incorporation of the UNCRC could be realised from improvements in policy and practice, such as through the implementation of GIRFEC.”

Liam McArthur mentioned that Neil Bibby had taken up the cudgels at stage 3. I find it quite strange that it has taken such a long time for Neil Bibby to reach that position, given that he was one of the members of the committee who signed up to those fairly fulsome conclusions.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Minister, would you like to respond to any of the points that were made in the debate? You do not have to by any measure.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Joan McAlpine raised the fact that the committee did not support the full incorporation of the UNCRC, and I reflect again on Professor Ken Norrie’s comments on the bill. Technical difficulties prevent us from accepting Alison Johnstone’s amendments, but there is a firm commitment to ensure that we can work with everyone who is interested, to ensure that we make rights real across Scotland. This is about making sure that we put Scotland on the path towards becoming the best place to grow up, and making rights real is a key part of that.

I will make sure that we work with others across the chamber to allow us to have the proper scrutiny, which, as I set out in my opening remarks, is already there through the Parliament, the Education and Culture Committee and the children’s commissioner. By working together, we can have a bill that we are proud of, with regards to UNCRC provision.

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

I return to the wording of amendment 116 and reiterate what it would do and what it would not. It would require Scottish ministers to set up a body to consider whether the UNCRC should be given legislative effect. It does not state what sort of body that should be, nor does it insist that the UNCRC should be given legislative effect. It would allow ministers and indeed MSPs to charge that body with exploring all the issues relating to this matter. The body would have to lay its report before Parliament and Scottish ministers would be expected to respond. At no point in that process would there be a burden, responsibility or even an expectation on Scottish ministers and MSPs to commit to giving legislative effect to the UNCRC.

As someone who believes passionately in creating a rights-based society for all, I hope that the option of giving legislative effect to the UNCRC would be explored fully and that the body would conclude that that would be the appropriate thing to do. I hope, too, that the body would provide advice on how and when to do so. However, committing to establishing the body would not commit future Governments or Parliaments to its recommendations. We would still be able to make that democratic decision, which is as it should be.

I have made my views clear on why I think it is important for Scotland to incorporate the UNCRC into our legislative framework, but far greater politicians than me have called on us all to do more for children. Someone said:

“Our children are our greatest treasure. They are our future.”

He also said:

“History will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of children.”

There are many reasons to follow the teachings and words of the late, great Nelson Mandela. Throughout his presidency and his retirement, Mandela championed the cause of children. His love for children and his appreciation of their needs, rights and interests, and of society’s duty and responsibility to protect and nurture them by being child centred and furthering their rights, provide us with more and indeed compelling reasons to do as I suggest.

I uphold my amendment 116.

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

I am upholding it—I am pressing it.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

As I said at stage 2, the reason why we require the addition of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to give additional assurance that disabled children’s views are embedded in the bill and given due regard in all aspects of policy development.

I understand that the Government is satisfied that the UNCRC requirements are sufficient to provide that and, at stage 2, the minister stated that

“the rights set out under the UNCRC apply equally to all children, including disabled children.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 December 2013; c 3158.]

However, if that was indeed the case, I do not believe that the UN would itself have set out an additional assurance with the UNCRPD.

More emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill makes adequate provision for the rights of disabled children to be realised. Embedding such a provision in primary legislation would build a strong foundation for public authorities around Scotland to adjust their practice and procedures to reflect the national intention to uphold disabled children’s rights.

I also understand that the Scottish Government does not wish to highlight specific groups of children and seeks to promote the notion of universality. However, given that the bill specifically mentions looked-after children, the precedent has already been set and it would be remiss of the bill not to mention disabled children in the way that I propose.

The minister will be aware that my proposed amendments are supported by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Enable Scotland and Children 1st.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is a problem with the financial memorandum and that we in the Labour Party are concerned about the financial support that is available for the bill, I urge the minister to support amendment 92 and all other amendments in this group.

I move amendment 92.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As I mentioned at stage 2, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of Siobhan McMahon’s amendments, and by bringing them to stage 3, she has allowed us to undertake further detailed and important scrutiny of the rights issue. I am also grateful to the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland for its helpful briefing.

Having sought other legal advice on the issue and revisited the lengthy and fairly complex debates that we had during the passage of legislation on additional support for learning, we remain nervous about identifying a specific group of young people who have special needs without addressing the concerns of others. We will therefore not support the amendments in the group, but we would like the minister to provide further reassurance beyond that which she gave at stage 2 that the rights of disabled children will not in any way be undermined or diluted when it comes to providing them with the appropriate levels of support.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendments 92 and 94 to 100 seek to place requirements on Scottish ministers and public bodies to take steps with the aim of furthering the rights set out under article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The proposals mirror a series of amendments lodged by Siobhan McMahon at stage 2 and, as I was then, I am happy to welcome the sentiment behind the amendments, and I take the opportunity to thank Siobhan McMahon for bringing the matter to members’ attention today.

The rights set out under the UNCRC apply to all children, including disabled children. On Siobhan McMahon’s particular point, the UNCRC specifically recognises the importance of ensuring that disabled children are supported to access the same opportunities as their peers. Article 7 of the UNCRPD restates those important principles.

We are strong advocates of the UNCRPD, but it is important to remember that part 1 of the bill seeks to promote a universal approach to protecting and promoting the rights of all children, in express recognition of our responsibilities to each and every one of our children, irrespective of their background or needs. To begin to recognise some groups of children and not others would begin to dilute that notion of universality, which echoes the points that Liz Smith made in her remarks.

I state this categorically, and I hope that it gives comfort to Siobhan McMahon and Liz Smith: the fact that we are not making explicit reference to disabled children does not in any way detract from the commitment that we are making to them. We have worked and will continue to work with all the groups that Siobhan McMahon mentioned that are supportive of the intention behind her amendments. Although I am supportive of that intention, we cannot support the amendments, but we will continue to work with the groups that have been helpful with the drafting of the amendments to ensure that we get things right for children who have disabilities.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I appreciate the comments made by Liz Smith and the minister. Liz Smith and I spoke earlier and at stage 2 about her concerns, so I appreciate where she is coming from. However, I suggest that we pay attention to the third sector organisations that wish for this to happen. As the minister keeps saying, the key principle of universality is about ensuring that everyone has the same rights and access to everything in education. Therefore, when a disabled child faces additional barriers, we should make provision for their needs. That is the reason for my amendments and I will press them.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Amendment 127 aims to ensure that family support services are reflected in children’s services planning in order to inform local commissioning strategies. The amendment would ensure specifically that the bill’s policy aim translates into effective services that meet the needs of disabled children and young people and their families.

The amendment has come from the for Scotland’s disabled children group, a banner organisation for several charities and organisations working for and with disabled children and their families. The organisation and I believe that without a clear duty in the bill that ensures that the specific needs of that vulnerable group of children and their families are reflected in joint local planning and in the local commissioning processes, there is a real danger that opportunities to deliver innovative support for that group will be missed.

I urge the chamber to support the amendment.

I move amendment 127.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendment 127 from Siobhan McMahon was raised at stage 2. It has a good policy intention—to ensure that children’s services planning covers support for the families of children with particular needs. As I said at stage 2, we share the belief that children’s services planning should include support for families in their caring roles for children with particular needs and that kind of support is already covered by the bill as drafted.

We will ensure that guidance makes that more explicit and we will work with others who have an interest in this area to develop that very important guidance. Nevertheless, as drafted, the amendment does not make it clear which services for such families would be covered, which could undermine the focus of children’s services planning. Consequently, we do not support amendment 127. I understand the intention behind it and will continue to work with groups to ensure that the guidance makes provision much more explicit.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome the minister’s comments and I appreciate that she will make that support explicit in the guidance. However, I will press my amendment.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The amendments in this group have been lodged to serve as a clear guide to public authorities that local commissioning strategies must reflect the needs of young people transitioning into adult life, services and support.

For disabled young people, there is a further significant pressure point at the transitions planning stage, when young people are moving from one set of eligibility criteria under the additional support for learning framework to a completely different framework under social care. Many young people with less complex care needs may no longer qualify for a formal care plan and so are likely to require access to softer, community-based support services that currently might not exist or which are not accessible to disabled young people.

It is therefore crucial that the bill places a duty on local authorities to develop and implement children’s and young people’s services plans as opposed to children’s services plans. That would support the transitions process and would be of particular benefit to those young disabled people who have less complex support needs and for whom the adult social care assessment framework may mean that they fall short of being assessed for a formal care plan as they move into adulthood and independent living.

Amendment 179 would give Scottish ministers the powers to introduce a national mentoring scheme to support children and young people with a disability during the key transition from childhood to adulthood. As we know, children and young people with a disability often face significant barriers in accessing life chances, including employment and leisure opportunities and opportunities to develop social contacts. Amendment 179 seeks to address that and could significantly improve outcomes in those key areas for children and young people with a disability across Scotland.

I urge the minister and the chamber to support the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 128.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I start by paying tribute to Siobhan McMahon not only for the amendments in this group but for those in earlier groups and for the work that she did at stage 2 to bring issues to the attention of the committee. Like her, I have been concerned about some of the problems that can arise around a young person’s transition to adulthood when they reach the age of 18 and all the support suddenly disappears or starts to fragment. Although I am conscious of the need to protect the rights of adults, and adults with particular needs, I think that the issues that she raises in these amendments are extremely pertinent.

In addition, amendments 179 and 196, which seek to provide a right to mentoring support for children and young people with a disability, are well made, and I am happy to lend my support to them.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On amendments 128 to 139 and 142 to 161, I said in response to the similar amendments that Siobhan McMahon raised at stage 2 that we believe that widening the planning of services around children by including the needs of young people up to the age of 25 risks making such planning less meaningful. The services that children need are not necessarily the same as those that young adults require. Conflating both within the same set of plans overcomplicates planning and does not necessarily serve children and young people well.

On amendment 141, we recognise the difficulties that are associated with the transition from children’s services to adult services and that good transition planning is essential for those children whose needs will require continuing support into adulthood. Planning for that absolutely should be covered by children’s services plans, which is why the existing provisions in the bill allow for that. We will work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that that is clear in the guidance supporting this part of the bill.

On amendments 179 and 196, we can see the merit in a scheme that provides mentors to disabled children to help to ease their transition into adulthood and promote their wellbeing. Indeed, there is strong evidence that goal-oriented mentoring can help young people to achieve and to become more confident in expressing their views. To that end, I announced in December my intention to establish a national mentoring scheme, initially focused on the children who will benefit the most from such help—especially children looked after at home, aged from eight to 14—before being expanded to other groups of young people.

The scheme is non-statutory in nature and will allow us to test how to apply it to improve outcomes. Although it is not aimed directly at children with a disability, it will still benefit a significant number of disabled children. As the scheme develops, I am open to discussing with Siobhan McMahon and others how we can target it further to help those most in need. Consequently, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.

It is important to remember that not every child with a disability will need—or, indeed, want—a mentoring service. However, through our mentoring scheme, we can actively explore means by which such a scheme can be made more widely available to those children who will benefit.

For those reasons, we do not support this group of amendments. We are happy to continue the dialogue around the intentions behind the amendments.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Liam McArthur for his kind comments. I feel as if I am an honorary member of the Education and Culture Committee, I thank him for welcoming me on the days that I was there and for offering his support in relation to these amendments, which are genuinely my best attempt to deliver a better bill in relation to the transition service. I think that the minister has recognised that. However, I disagree with her to an extent. Of course not all disabled children and young people are the same but, at the moment, young adults are getting lost in the system because there is not a care plan for them, so I will be pressing the amendments.

On the mentoring scheme, I absolutely believe that the intention behind the scheme that the minister announced in December is right. Of course I will continue the dialogue to expand that. However, I do not think that that prohibits us from voting for these amendments today.

I press amendment 128.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The amendments in this group are technical amendments to take into account the effect of recent legislative changes to the administrative boundaries of health board areas and ensure that the definition of “relevant health board” in section 7(1) and associated references throughout part 3 are consistent with that legislation.

The text in part 3 of the bill as introduced was drafted on the basis that local authority and health board boundaries are currently not aligned. As a result, to ensure that the joint planning duties would cover each local authority area, the original provisions required local authorities to plan jointly with each health board that operated within that local authority area. However, in light of the recent decision to introduce secondary legislation to adjust the boundaries of health board areas to ensure that they are aligned with those of local authority areas, amendments are now required to part 3 of the bill. The National Health Service (Variation of Areas of Health Boards) (Scotland) Order 2013 will make the changes to health board areas with effect from 1 April.

Amendment 55 amends the definition of “relevant health board” in section 7(1) to reflect those changes. Consequently, associated references in part 3 should be amended from “each” or “any” relevant health board to “the relevant health board” or “the health board”. That is the effect of amendments 56 to 68, 70, and 72 to 74.

I move amendment 55 and ask Parliament to support the amendments in my name.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Amendment 130 moved—[Siobhan McMahon].

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland for suggesting the amendment.

Section 9 sets out the four aims of the children’s services plan. The fourth aim, which is in section 9(2)(a)(iii), says that children’s services should be provided in the way that

“constitutes the most efficient use of available resources”.

If the amendment is agreed to, the provision would read “constitutes the best use of available resources”. The reason for lodging the amendment is that the present wording is inconsistent with the statutory duty of best value, to which all local authorities must have regard when planning and delivering services under section 1 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.

Maintaining a balance between the two principles of efficiency and effectiveness is essential to the idea of best value. It is believed that including only one of those two fundamental principles in the children’s services planning part of the bill is inconsistent with that Government policy and related legislation and may send a message to local authorities that might encourage an emphasis on cost to the detriment of quality and effectiveness in the provision of children’s services.

Audit Scotland has repeatedly highlighted the importance of best value as the key to success for local authorities. In 2012, it said:

“Local authorities that place best value at the centre of all they do are well placed to deal with the challenges in 2012 and beyond.”

Audit Scotland has also raised concerns about the possibility of local authorities taking an overzealous approach to cost cutting at the expense of service quality and provision.

Therefore, although the amendment appears to deal with a small issue in the context of the many significant issues with which the bill deals, it is no less important, given the potential positive impact of good-quality, effective children’s services. This is an opportunity to improve the drafting of the bill.

I move amendment 140.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The amendment is not likely to make a significant difference to the way that children’s services plans are prepared. Local authorities remain bound by section 1 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which sets out the basic principles of best value. Local authorities would not be able to develop children’s services plans without taking account of best value, and we would ensure that that principle was clearly set out in the national guidance on how to prepare children’s services plans.

Nevertheless, we can see the attraction of providing greater consistency in the language of best value between different pieces of legislation. Best value remains a key principle at the heart of our children’s services, and we support an amendment that further highlights its importance. Therefore, we support John Wilson’s amendment.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister has clearly stated that the Government has accepted the amendment, and I press it.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendments 69, 71, 75, 76, 83 and 85 amend the sections on guidance and directions in parts 3, 4, and 5, which cover, respectively, children’s services planning, the named person and the child’s plan. The amendments make it clear that, before issuing, revising or revoking guidance or directions under those parts, Scottish ministers, in addition to consulting any person to whom the guidance or direction relates, must consult such other persons as they consider appropriate.

It has always been the Scottish Government’s intention to consult as widely as is required in respect of guidance and directions that are issued under those parts of the bill, including with children, parents and third sector organisations when that is appropriate. However, we consider that it is helpful to make it clear in the bill that consideration should be given to who will be affected by the issue, revision or revocation of any set of guidance or any direction, as that will ensure that the necessary consultation is undertaken.

The amendments also achieve drafting consistency across parts 3 to 5 in respect of the provisions on guidance and directions.

Amendment 88 makes a minor drafting adjustment to section 57 to achieve drafting consistency between that section, which concerns guidance that is issued in respect of the corporate parenting duties in part 7, and the sections on guidance in parts 3 to 5.

I move amendment 69.

Amendment 69 agreed to.

Section 16—Directions in relation to children’s services planning

Amendments 70 and 71 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 17—Children’s services planning: default powers of Scottish Ministers

Amendments 72 to 74 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 18—Interpretation of Part 3

Amendment 161 not moved.

Section 19—Named person service

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

From the very outset, the Conservatives have argued strongly against the introduction of a named person for all nought to 18-year-olds, and we will now do so again. We believe that the policy is wrong in principle, that it does not have conclusive supporting evidence and that it has not been properly costed—something that was unanimously agreed by the Finance Committee. In addressing the bill team, the committee’s convener, Kenny Gibson, said:

“the savings that you are talking about over a short period ... are not realistic, and ... that would lead, two or three years after the bill has been passed, to significant funding shortfalls.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 18 September 2013; c 2991.]

Again this afternoon, concerns have been raised about the revised financial memorandum.

Amendments 1 to 50 and 162 to 164 seek to address two of the most fundamental flaws. Amendments 1 to 50 would remove those aged 16 and above from the named person plans—a move that I know has the unqualified support of both Labour and the Liberals and, I suspect, some SNP members, too. Even the most ardent supporters of the policy do not believe that it is workable beyond 16, because it is not compatible with many other aspects of Scots law that define an adult at age 16 and because many practitioners believe there would be additional confusion over the lines of accountability. Bill Alexander, of Highland Council, who is one of the most ardent supporters, said:

“I do not understand how my daughter, who is 17 and doing performing arts in Manchester, could have a named person; she will not need or want one.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 September 2013; c 2858.]

Professor Norrie said:

“I should have been more comfortable if the limit of childhood were set at 16”.

The Scottish Government’s response to those points at stage 2 was exceedingly weak, so I hope that, in the intervening time, it has had a change of heart. We are talking about young adults—16 and 17-year-olds who are allowed to marry, free to leave school and able to enlist—who are being told by this Government that they are old enough to vote in the upcoming referendum but not old enough to go about their business without being assigned a named person. That inherent contradiction speaks for itself.

The second set of amendments—amendments 162 to 164—seeks to limit the function of the named person and create a route for parents to contest any decision that a named person is necessary. The reasoning behind that combines the substantial concerns raised by several groups and by Aidan O’Neill QC, that there would be scope for a legal challenge against the Scottish Government’s proposals, particularly with regard to article 8 of the European convention on human rights which safeguards the right to “private and family life”.

Since stage 2, we have listened very carefully to the concerns that a general opt-out could undermine efforts to safeguard the welfare of our most vulnerable children. Consequently, amendment 162 proposes limiting the functions of the named person policy to instances where there is a safety, legal, wellbeing or rights concern.

Similarly, amendments 163 and 164 place a duty on the service provider to inform parents, children and young people of a decision to appoint a named person and create a provision for that judgment to be subject to appeal. Taken together, the amendments will ensure that the policy is based on need rather than imposed across the board. That point has been raised by a number of organisations, including several churches and parents groups, many of which have written to MSPs in the past few weeks to ask them to reconsider the matter. Time after time, they are pointing out that the named person policy fails the criteria of what makes good law, that it tips the balance away from parental and family responsibilities towards the state, that it is not properly costed and that it will be open to legal challenge. For all those reasons, and for the sake of common sense, I ask the chamber to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 1.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I have a number of members who want to contribute to this group of amendments, so I ask that they be as brief as possible.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is difficult to be brief on the topic of the named person, given the amount of misinformation that has been going out.

First, I make clear to members that I speak as someone who was once a chair of a children’s panel advisory committee and who was, many years ago, a researcher for the former Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. What is so important about the named person provision is that we are trying to provide a universal safety net for all young people. The point about universal access to the safety net is that that would proactively support young people, rather than reacting when things go bad in their lives.

The amount of misinformation that we have had has been appalling. Liz Smith mentioned the emails that members have received. Some of the emails that I have received have bordered on the offensive. Indeed, some of them talked about “state surveillance”, “1930s Nazi Germany”, and “Big Brother”. I have to wonder whether some of those emails have been orchestrated.

Given my child protection background, I know that it is most important that the named person is a universal service for all young people. As parents, most of us will bring up our children well, but we never can know or foretell when we or our children may suffer through, for example, bereavement, family break-up or illness, or when we might need instant access to a named person who knows our child well and can provide access to all the relevant services at the time of need.

As with our children’s hearings service and GIRFEC, Scotland is, with the named person, introducing groundbreaking legislation and child protection work. I urge every member to support the named person provisions.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

There is no doubt that this is the most controversial aspect of the bill. The measure must be properly debated and discussed, as it has been at some length on the Labour benches. There are strong feelings about it. Some people believe that it is absolutely necessary if we are to identify and protect vulnerable children; some people believe that it is not required and will potentially interfere in family life.

As I have said, in principle I have no objection to provision for a named person being in the bill. However, I do not believe that it is the state’s role or job to bring up all children—I hope that all members agree. I would welcome reassurances from the minister on the concerns that parents have raised in recent weeks.

Like many members, I want us to have the best possible protection and support system for our children. However, there are two critical tests for the named person provision: the system must work in practice; and it must be properly resourced. The minister and the Government have completely failed to address those two key concerns.

Labour cannot support all the amendments in this group, but we will support Liz Smith’s amendments on reducing the age limit for having a named person from 18 to 16. We supported similar amendments at stage 2. Liz Smith referred to Bill Alexander, the director of health and social care at Highland Council. When he gave evidence to the committee, I was concerned when he questioned why a named person would be needed for most children who have left school. He said:

“I do not understand how my daughter, who is 17 and doing performing arts in Manchester, could have a named person; she will not need or want one.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 September 2013; c 2858.]

There is no doubt that some young people will require additional support after leaving school. However, the vast majority of young people will neither need nor want a named person. As members know, Highland Council was the national pathfinder for implementing GIRFEC, so Bill Alexander is highly respected by the Parliament. During the stage 1 debate, a member said:

“Bill Alexander knows more about the subject than almost anybody else, and I have found what he says to be true”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; c 24832.]

That member was the cabinet secretary, Mike Russell. It is therefore astonishing that the Scottish Government intends to proceed without listening to what people such as Bill Alexander and Opposition parties say about the issue.

My position on resources is the same as that of the child protection charity the NSPCC, which said:

“NSPCC Scotland supports the intention behind the Named Person approach which, if properly resourced, could increase the likelihood of early intervention for children and young people; thus improving their outcomes.”

The key phrase is “if properly resourced.” During the stage 1 debate, I raised concerns about resourcing on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing. The RCN said:

“Using the Scottish Government’s own estimate of health visiting hours required to deliver the Named Person role specifically—on top of the rest of the health visiting workload—the RCN estimates it would necessitate around an additional 450 health visitors to be recruited and trained.”

The matter was raised at stage 1 and the minister said that she was listening, but no action was taken. It was raised at stage 2 and the minister said that she was listening, but no action was taken.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Has the member had a chance to read what the City of Edinburgh Council said? It said:

“The Council believes that the costs for Children’s Rights, GIRFEC, Early Learning/Childcare and Other Proposals are accurately reflected based on our understanding of the requirements of the legislation.”

Does he agree with the City of Edinburgh Council? Does he agree that we have been listening to others, to ensure that the estimates in our financial memorandum are the best that they can be, to finance the approach thoroughly?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

With respect, I say that the minister listens to the people to whom she wants to listen. She says that she is listening, but she is not hearing the concerns of the RCN. The issue was raised at stages 1 and 2. If she is serious about the policy, where are the extra health visitors?

I have not even mentioned the resources that local authorities and teachers will require if they are to meet their named person responsibilities and provide on-going, rather than one-off, training. It is also still not clear how the named person role will be properly resourced or how it will work during 12 weeks of school holidays. It is no wonder that the Finance Committee said, in its damning report on the bill:

“The Committee has a number of concerns in relation to some of the costings within this FM and notes that there is a lack of evidence to support the figures provided for some aspects of the Bill.”

The Scottish Government has failed properly to address the resource issues. The policy will not achieve its intended purpose unless it is properly resourced.

The minister has said consistently that she has listened, but I do not think that she has been hearing. She has not listened to Opposition parties, to people such as Bill Alexander or to organisations such as the RCN.

Like many other members, I can support the policy in principle, but the minister and the Scottish Government have failed the two key tests in relation to the practical and resource issues. By failing those key tests, the Scottish Government risks failing Scotland’s children.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I will restrict my comments to the named person in a school setting.

What is proposed will normalise what takes place in any well-run school. It will give people confidence to approach a person whom a child trusts—the headteacher. We should not forget that the named person can be for the whole school complement. That person will be there to listen and to advise. The first port of call, I assume, would be the family. The named person will have no powers in bringing up a child, but sometimes extremely serious incidents happen in the home. We know about such situations—they are graphic, worrying and detrimental to children. In such circumstances, society does not simply expect us to intervene; it demands that we intervene. There is an expectation that intervention should take place swiftly. As a result of the named person being well connected with the different authorities involved, it will be possible to act swiftly for the sake of the child.

The evidence and experience from the Highlands, where no person or family has raised any issues in regard to the named person, is there for all to see.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Neil Bibby indicated, part 4 of the bill, on named persons, has attracted the most attention, controversy and opposition since stage 1.

After some initial misgivings, through the process I have been persuaded of the benefit that a named person arrangement can deliver. That said, I was concerned—as were a number of witnesses—about the practical implications of the way in which resources would be allocated and about the circumstances in which information would be shared. We will come to that issue in a later group.

On the former, it is still not clear whether the focus on the wellbeing of a child as opposed to the narrower definition of their welfare will have the effect—in some cases—of diverting resources and attention, with the risk that cases of genuine welfare concern will not be picked up, or will be picked up later than would otherwise have been the case. The serious criticisms that the Parliament’s Finance Committee—whose convener and deputy convener are Government back benchers—made of the bill’s financial memorandum did nothing to allay those concerns.

In addition, I am not convinced that the task of implementation has been made any easier by the insistence of the Scottish Government on making the named person provisions apply universally in relation to young people all the way up to the age of 18. At stage 1, we were told that applying the named person provisions through the teenage years becomes increasingly problematic. That will come as no surprise to any of us who have or have had teenagers. Even Highland Council—the exemplar in the delivery of GIRFEC and a pioneer of the named person approach—appears to have been unable to make that aspect of the named person approach work. Neil Bibby and Liz Smith were quite right to cite what Bill Alexander said in evidence about his own experience, and we know the high regard in which his views are held by the education secretary.

I question whether insisting on a named person for young people up to the age of 18 is necessary or achievable. That being the case, why risk spending scarce resources trying to do what even the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, from his personal experience, acknowledged would be a formidable challenge? Therefore, I support Liz Smith’s amendments that are aimed at limiting the universal application of the named person provisions to children and young people up to the age of 16.

This is an area that is crying out for post-legislative scrutiny. Although Highland Council’s experience has been persuasive, it should be recalled that the named person arrangements were implemented on a non-statutory basis. How named person provisions will operate on a statutory footing remains to be seen, but Parliament will want to be reassured that what the bill proposes remains proportionate, and we may need to return to the issue in the coming years.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Labour’s front benchers say that they support the named person in principle, but Neil Bibby used the phrase that it is not

“the state’s ... job to bring up ... children”.

That is not just speaking with forked tongue; it is pandering to the most hysterical misinterpretation of the proposal and, as such, it is profoundly irresponsible.

Neil Bibby rose—

We know that all the children’s charities support the universal principle universally, but so—interestingly—do parents charities. In committee, when my colleague Colin Beattie asked Clare Simpson of parenting across Scotland whether she agreed with opponents of the named person that the proposal would usurp the role of the parent, she said:

“I do not feel that that is accurate at all. Parents’ rights and responsibilities are firmly enshrined in law.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 10 September 2013; c 2746.]

She went on to talk about a MORI poll that her organisation carried out in which parents across Scotland were asked whether they knew where to turn when they felt that they needed help and support in their parenting. According to that survey, 72 per cent of parents across Scotland and 84 per cent of parents in deprived areas did not know where to turn. I think that I will listen to Clare Simpson before I listen to some of the rather hysterical arguments against the named person provision which, through the application of the universal principle, is intended to protect the most vulnerable children in our society.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Honestly, I think that Joan McAlpine could pick a fight with the Labour Party in an empty room. That was ridiculous. [Interruption.]

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Liz Smith has lodged two different sets of amendments: those that reduce the maximum age at which people will have a named person from 18 to 16, which we can support, and those that seek to diminish the universality of the named person, which we cannot.

That said, it has not been easy for us to come to this conclusion. We have always said that, although the principle is sound, resourcing is an issue. Concerns about resourcing are as strong as ever and, indeed, are being expressed by those such as the RCN and the Educational Institute of Scotland that actually support the named person principle. I say to Fiona McLeod that any misconception about what the named person is and does has arisen because her Government’s front bench has failed to stand up and explain the principle in a way that parents find meaningful.

I ask the minister, first, to specifically reassure Parliament in her closing speech that no resources will be moved away from children who are in need to those who do not need support. Secondly, if this is not state interference in family life—and the minister needs to listen to such concerns, which parents are raising; after all, it is our duty as parliamentarians to give voice to them—can she tell us why parents who feel that their child is healthy, happy and succeeding should need a named person? That simple and legitimate question is being asked by thousands of parents across the country and if the minister wants their support, she has to answer it.

We support what the Government is doing, but the minister needs to do a much better job of explaining exactly what this provision means to people across the country.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Bibby mentioned Bill Alexander’s evidence to the committee. I remember that and, indeed, the discussion that we had about it after the meeting. He had mentioned a daughter who had left school to go on to university and I challenge anyone in the chamber to say that those who are at university or college are not supported. There are student welfare associations, universities provide pastoral care and so on—those young people are in supported places.

However, not all young school leavers have such an outcome, and some 16-year-olds leaving school will be denied access to a named person simply because they are leaving earlier. My own son is 16; if he stays on until sixth year, he will be in school until a month before his 18th birthday. However, a 16-year-old who leaves the school system might go on to a difficult working situation, might experience financial problems that they were not expecting or might have a different type of lifestyle from what they had expected when they left school. Those young people should not be denied access to a named person because of that.

Finally, in the excellent chamber debate that we had on the Public Petitions Committee’s report on child sexual exploitation, there was unanimous support for a named person for any victim of child sexual exploitation who was going through the court process. I would suggest, however, that the court process should not be the beginning and the end of that support. If a named person were universally available to all young people, any victim of child sexual exploitation would be able to go to that person at the very beginning of the process.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The debate about the named person provisions has attracted a lot of comment, information and—as Fiona McLeod made clear in her remarks—misinformation. As a result, before I turn to the specifics of Liz Smith’s amendments, I want to make absolutely clear our intentions and how the provisions will help us to achieve them.

We want to ensure that our children have the best start and outcomes, that children and families have somewhere to go if they need an extra bit of help and that no one is left without support.

We want to promote an early intervention and prevention approach that is co-ordinated and prevents problems from escalating into crises. We want to ensure, as far as possible, that no child slips through that net. A named person for every child will help us to achieve all that. It has to be for every child because we do not know when that extra bit of help is needed. It is a universal service, as Fiona McLeod stated; a public good. As Martin Crewe, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, said:

“if we’re to try and create a system where children don’t fall through the gaps, it has to be a universal system. Unfortunately children aren’t born with an ‘at risk’ sign on their heads, so we have to have a system that does its very best not to allow children to slip through the gaps.”

Following the serious case review of the tragic death of Daniel Pelka, Anne Houston, the chief executive of Children 1st, said:

“Deaths like Daniel’s remind us why the principle behind the named person ... in the Children and Young People Bill is a sound one as it aims to prevent children slipping through the net.”

The named person also provides parents, families and children with a familiar person to whom they can go if they want a bit of advice or help navigating other services. In Highland, where the role has been implemented, Bill Alexander, who has already been mentioned, said:

“It operates effectively, and enables agencies to respond more quickly to parents who raise concerns about their child’s wellbeing.”

Mr Alexander also said:

“We do not get complaints about the named person role being deployed; we get complaints when parents believe it has not been deployed.”

We have consulted widely on the bill’s provisions and we have listened to parents and other groups. The bill has been shaped and honed by what people told us was needed—that includes parents and families as well as charities and other organisations.

It was after listening to views and concerns, including those of parent groups, that we strengthened the information sharing provisions at stage 2. Fundamentally, parents told us that they wanted a single point of contact and were fed up with repeating the same stories to a number of different services. We listened to parents and we will continue to listen to them, because, as I have consistently said, they are almost always the best people to support and protect their children.

I clarify that ministers will use powers under the bill to issue guidance in relation to the named person service prior to the commencement of the duties. The majority of children get all the love, support and encouragement that they need from their parents and wider family, but it is impossible to say which children or families may at some stage need extra support.

If the named person can spot early signs that a child is experiencing difficulty they can work with the parents and family to put in place the right support where required. Parents will still have the right not to accept the advice. The only circumstances in which parents would not be fully involved would be where to involve them could place the child at risk of harm or danger, or adversely affect the wellbeing of the child or young person. That will be the exception. Our guidance will be absolutely clear on those principles and I will continue to work with parent and family groups when developing the statutory guidance.

To undo this part of the bill, as the amendments in this group would do, and as Neil Bibby seems to want to do, would be wrong and ill thought out, as it would remove the universal framework that will support early intervention and the better outcomes and wellbeing for our children that we all want to see.

Amendments 1-50 specifically seek to remove support from young people and their families at the very time when they may be facing the challenges of transition to adult services and post-school services. As Jim Sweeney, chief executive officer of YouthLink Scotland, said:

“It is vitally important to support young people through this key transitional stage. Unfortunately, not all young people have parents who are willing or able to provide them with the support that they need at this difficult time – a period when they are making choices that will affect their future lives.”

Indeed, during its inquiry into decision making on whether to take children into care, the Education and Culture Committee heard from many children and young people, including those over the age of 16 who reported their desire to have access to support services and to be able to go and speak to somebody.

Ms Smith’s amendments fail to acknowledge that, or to—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will take an intervention from Liam McArthur.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have listened to what the minister said and I think that she is right about the evidence that we heard about the benefits of the named person. However, as Liz Smith and Neil Bibby indicated, Bill Alexander’s evidence varied. He specifically highlighted the problem of having a named person for those in later teenage years. I am not saying that a named person should not be available to those aged 16, 17 or 18, but the universality of that provision risks diverting resources away from and undermining the very things that she is intent on achieving.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I will go on to make more points on the issue, but if providing co-ordinated and targeted support to children from their earliest years up to the age of 16 is effective—as we know it is—the same principle holds true for young people aged 16 and 17. Liz Smith’s amendments fail to acknowledge that, or that a young person needs to be able to access support if they have personal challenges, which might be related to addiction, mental health issues, unemployment or homelessness.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What prevents young people and their families from accessing that important support now?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The measure is about ensuring that support is co-ordinated in an effective way and that there is a single point of contact, so that people know where to go if they do not get support from their family, friends or whatever. That is why the approach has worked well in the Highlands and why there have been fewer inappropriate referrals to the children’s reporters and to children’s panels. We have been able to better target support at those who are the most vulnerable.

Jim Sweeney—someone whom we should listen to—has pointed out:

“Even if young people who leave school before they are 18 succeed in accessing a positive opportunity such as a job or a Further Education place, they may need support to sustain these opportunities, as many young people drop out of courses or have difficulties in finding and keeping a job. Failing to find or keep a first job can have a ‘scarring’ effect on the rest of young people’s lives, leading to negative outcomes such as poor health and reduced life expectancy, and can also contribute to generational cycles of worklessness and poverty”.

Our aim through the bill is to provide better and slicker support for those who need it or where significant concerns emerge. We all recognise that young people aged 16 or over have varying degrees of need, skill and maturity and that the majority of them will be able to reach their own decisions on the issues that affect them. Many will not need to use the named person service and guidance. The role should be delivered with flexibility and with a light-touch approach when required. However, no one knows what might happen in the coming days, weeks or months. People might look to family and friends but, when they turn to public services for help, we should not remove the support of their named person just because they have reached their 16th birthday, which is what Liz Smith’s amendments would do and what Labour seems to want to support.

Liz Smith has referred a number of times to the situation in which a young couple who are aged 17 could be parents and could have contact with three named persons. What has not been acknowledged is the fact that many young parents struggle to cope and can benefit from having a professional to turn to who can help them to access the support that they need. Liz Smith suggests that the way to streamline support for such young people is to take it away altogether.

More generally, Liz Smith’s amendments 162 to 164 would fundamentally undermine the named person role and restrict the ability to encourage the early intervention and prevention approach that is needed if we are to prevent crises.

Amendment 163 would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the named person role. In respect of the proposed right of appeal to a sheriff, procedures are already in place at local level to deal with complaints about the exercise of the named person functions. We have lodged Scottish Government amendments, which we will debate later, to ensure that there is a clear and accessible route for parents and families to take for independent consideration of complaints and determination of the issues, if those local procedures are unsuccessful.

Amendments 162A and 163A to 163F are dependent on amendments 162 and 163 being agreed to. Similarly to amendments 1 to 50, they would remove references to “young person”. Liz Smith’s suggestion does not support a responsive, preventative and early intervention approach, but rather is overly bureaucratic, resource intensive, unnecessary and, ultimately, not in the best interests of our children and young people.

In response to Neil Bibby’s point about finance, we have costed the measure and we are financing it. Health visitor numbers have increased by more than 14 per cent since 2007. As Joan McAlpine stated, we have to wonder about Labour’s full commitment to the policy, which has proven to be a success and has allowed services to be better and more effectively targeted at our most vulnerable young people and children.

I do not support the amendments in Liz Smith’s name.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I repeat that we have two fundamental objections to this part of the bill. We thoroughly object to the assertion that all children between nought and 18 need a named person. I will go back to some of the evidence. It has been cited time and again that Highland Council has been highly successful because of its named person policy. I do not doubt that Highland has been highly successful, but I can see no evidence whatever that that is to do with the named person policy, rather than other highly efficient aspects of GIRFEC, the council’s good leadership and the way in which social services are organised. The council has had a particular success rate on that, but I cannot find the evidence that it is to do with the named person.

A further point was brought to the Parliament’s attention by the Finance Committee. The minister has alleged that the policy is fully costed and funded. I simply do not accept that, nor did every single member of the Finance Committee, which in effect said that the minister’s plans on this policy looked as though they had been written on the back of an envelope.

It is very clear to me that the lack of costing and funding for the policy has serious implications. We have teachers and perhaps health visitors who are very concerned about the accountability that they will have under the policy and where the resources will come from. I ask the minister to think about that very carefully before we come to the vote.

Some members referred to all the evidence from parents and said that it has always been the case that parents have supported the named person policy. That is simply not true. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council’s extensive survey showed that 83 per cent of the parents surveyed did not accept the policy. I therefore think that we have to be very careful about how we balance that evidence.

I will press amendment 1 because we have a fundamental objection to this part of the bill.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Presiding Officer, in order to save time, I ask your permission to not move consequential amendments 3 to 50 all together.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister and committee colleagues will be aware that I have been pursuing this issue since stage 1. I recognise that progress has been made since then—notably through a series of amendments that the minister lodged at stage 2.

Sections 26 and 27 came in for fairly pointed criticism, not least from Professor Norrie, whom the minister quoted earlier and who gave the committee every encouragement to dump over the side sections 26 and 27 lock, stock and barrel. However tempting that might have been, we opted for a different approach, and as a result sharing of information about a child or young person can take place only when it is proportionate and relevant. Moreover, it can happen only with regard having been had to the views of the child.

Welcome although that is—I acknowledge the steps that the minister took at stage 2—evidence that the committee received makes it clear that information being shared will not require the child’s consent. As a result, there is a risk that the child’s right to privacy under article 16 of the UNCRC or article 8 of the ECHR could be compromised.

The minister will point to advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office that suggests that data protection rules are not breached where information is shared about a child about whom there are wellbeing concerns even if consent has not been sought. However, as Clan Childlaw and the BMA have pointed out, if no attempt is made to seek a child’s or the parent’s consent before confidential information is shared,

“there is a significant risk that children and young people will be reluctant to access and engage with confidential services”.

They go on to confirm that a child or young person’s right to privacy

“is not respected in the absence of a requirement to seek consent”.

My amendments acknowledge the need for exceptions to be made where

“the information holder considers that to seek ... consent would be likely to adversely affect the wellbeing of the child or young person.”

The amendments would require that guidance be drawn up on how confidential information could be shared in such circumstances. I understand that the amendments reflect the approach that is already taken in the health service. The absence of a more explicit reference to a need to seek informed and explicit consent weakens the bill and opens it up to justified criticism.

I look forward to hearing comments from the minister and other colleagues.

I move amendment 165.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Information sharing was discussed extensively in evidence taking at stage 1 by the Education and Culture Committee. Concerns were raised by some witnesses, as Liam McArthur fairly said, and the committee raised the matter in its stage 1 report. The committee had the chance to discuss and debate information sharing again at stage 2, and we did so extensively.

In my view, this provision was improved by amendments that were passed at stage 2, so the bill is now robust and balanced in this respect. In addition, the minister committed to publishing full guidance on implementation of the information-sharing provisions.

I turn directly to Liam McArthur’s amendments on confidentiality. Of course confidentiality should be respected at all times. However, Liam McArthur must recognise—I think that he does, because he was careful in how he spoke—that there is an expectation that there will be discussions with the child and that their views will be taken into account before a decision is made to share information. A decision to breach confidentiality would never be taken lightly, but sometimes such a decision is necessary in order to promote, support or safeguard a child’s wellbeing.

I am concerned that, if Liam McArthur’s amendments were to be agreed to, they would interfere with the bill’s intention regarding safeguarding a child’s wellbeing. I know that that is not Liam McArthur’s intention and that he is doing his best to strike a difficult balance. However, I am sure that he is aware that in many of the most tragic cases of recent years lack of information sharing has been identified as one of the key factors in the tragedy. I therefore cannot support amendments that could in any way result in appropriate information sharing being either confused or slowed down.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I support Liam McArthur’s amendments for two reasons. First, they seek to increase the amount of rights that children have. That is important given that, a long time ago, two bills were proposed, one of which was a rights of children and young people bill. To involve them wherever possible in consent to access their data is absolutely the correct approach.

The other reason is that Liam McArthur’s amendments would give parents the right to be consulted where organisations propose to share information about the child that is not specifically about the parents. That is sensible, and it is why Labour members will support Liam McArthur’s amendments.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, am grateful to Liam McArthur for lodging the amendments in group 9, which strike at the heart of the concerns about the data-sharing aspect of the bill. Notwithstanding Stewart Maxwell’s well-intentioned comments, there is no doubt that data sharing remains a controversial element of the bill and that there is, as things stand, still scope for data sharing to be misused or abused, and not only in relation to the named person policy.

Many professionals are concerned about where their responsibilities lie and, therefore, about where accountability will lie, especially in a dispute or even a general disagreement between them, the family and the named person. We will support the amendments.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As Stewart Maxwell does, I respect how Liam McArthur has put his argument across. He will know that I raised concerns in committee about some of the bill’s provisions, including the concerns of LGBT Youth Scotland with regard to the privacy of young gay teenagers. However, I am confident that the guidance will address those concerns and that, given the amount of attention that we have paid to data sharing, professionals will act appropriately.

There is also the issue of confidentiality for parents. Again, I had concerns about how proportionate the provisions are with regard to sharing information about children whose wellbeing is not threatened. However, we must balance such considerations and consider what is best for vulnerable children.

In the wider context, it is important that every inquiry into a child’s death has concluded that information sharing was not robust. I believe that, on balance, I and others should put our concerns aside and trust that professionals will make the correct judgments and protect the most vulnerable children. I will therefore not support the amendments in group 9.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We have listened carefully to the arguments in support of the amendments in group 9, and we share many of the sentiments that have been expressed. We must ensure that appropriate information is shared when there is a reason to do so, and that we seek to respect the views of the child and their right to privacy with regard to data protection and ECHR legislation as well as seeking to promote, support and safeguard their wellbeing.

In that context, the amendments seek to strike a careful balance in what are complex provisions. However, I will set out why we believe that the provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2 best reflect—as Joan McAlpine and Stewart Maxwell pointed out—an appropriate balance in terms of sharing information, promoting good practice and meeting the important aims that Liam McArthur has set out.

Amendments 165, 166 and 168 seek to ensure that informed and explicit consent is obtained prior to the sharing of confidential information under section 26. They would also provide that the information holder take account of the child’s age and maturity when seeking consent. An exception to the duty to seek consent would be made if the information holder considered that it would adversely affect the child or young person’s wellbeing to do so.

The amendments in the group rightly recognise that confidential information should not routinely be shared, that the child’s views about the information being shared are important, and that sharing or not sharing information can have a serious effect on a child. The information sharing provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2 already provide that careful consideration be given to issues of confidentiality, the views of the child or young person and the impact of information sharing on their wellbeing. The amendments are more limited in scope than the current bill provisions in that they do not extend to sections 23 and 38, which also require information sharing.

Amendments 169 and 171 seek to remove sections 26(8) and 38(3). They would therefore remove the protection that we introduced at stage 2 to make it explicit that where there is a legal prohibition or restriction on sharing information, that prohibition or restriction cannot be ignored. The amendments do not include an amendment to the corresponding provision in section 23, which we included in our stage 2 amendments. Although the bill’s provisions refer to a duty of confidentiality, the amendments refer simply to “confidential” information without any definition, which leaves room for potential confusion.

Amendments 167 and 170 seek to ensure that guidance that is to be published on part 4 of the bill contains advice on how to proceed when consent to sharing of confidential information cannot be obtained, and that information holders must proceed in accordance with that guidance. Section 28 of the bill already allows for guidance to be issued in relation to the exercise of all functions that will be conferred by part 4, including the information-sharing duties, and it also already requires all persons exercising those functions to have regard to the guidance. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The bill is clear that practitioners need to consider carefully what information must be shared, when and with whom.

The bill’s provisions support early intervention; that is why it is crucial for the named person to be aware of all concerns about a child’s wellbeing. We have listened to the views of stakeholders—specifically in the health sector—who have experienced confusion and, at times, conflict when operating under a duty of confidentiality, even when they knew that it would be in the best interests of the child to share information. Section 26(8), as amended, therefore permits them to share information, but only after consideration of all the other tests in section 26. Sections 23(7) and 26(8) also make it clear that the bill does not permit a breach of any other legal restrictions on disclosure of information.

Of course we know that the child’s views are important—that is why at stage 2 we lodged amendments to all the information-sharing provisions to ensure that the child’s views are obtained wherever possible. As stipulated in section 28, guidance will reinforce those important principles, which recognise the importance of taking the child’s views into account, and recognise that sharing information about a child’s wellbeing can do harm as well as good. The amendment to further specify that guidance should be followed is not required and will add nothing to the existing provisions.

Amendments 165 to 171 seek to go too far when a child’s wellbeing is at risk and would potentially prevent information from being shared appropriately. Stewart Maxwell has already pointed out that every inquiry into a child’s death in the past few decades has shown that lack of information sharing has been a key factor. What is proposed in the amendments would complicate—and potentially confuse—the intention behind the bill, which is to ensure that appropriate and proportionate information gets to the named person well before crisis point is reached.

We therefore strongly oppose all the amendments in group 9, not because we do not respect the principles that they seek to promote—as outlined by Liam McArthur—but because we strongly believe that the bill already provides for the important principles that Liam McArthur laid out to be respected.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Kezia Dugdale and Liz Smith for their comments and support. I also thank Joan McAlpine for her interest in and pursuit of the issue throughout stage 2, in particular in relation the concerns that were raised by LGBT Youth Scotland. I was very sympathetic to those concerns. I thank Stewart Maxwell for what I thought was a fairly accurate explanation of the journey that the committee went through and the evidence that we took. He is right to highlight the concern that we do not want to do anything that would either create confusion or slow down the process.

However, as I said earlier, there is equally a risk that we will slow down the process through children and young people and their parents and guardians not engaging with confidential services because of concerns about lack of explicit consent. The presumption of consent—with the exemption that consent would not be sought when it was likely to affect adversely the wellbeing of the child or the young person—would strike the right balance. To pick up on the point that the minister—and, I think, Joan McAlpine—made, it would also leave scope for the professional judgment of the people who are tasked with making enormously difficult decisions about the circumstances under which they should share confidential information.

I think that the amendments in group 9 are important in that they would give more confidence to children and young people and their parents and guardians that what will be put in place is proportionate and robust and will allow latitude for the exchange of information in the correct circumstances.

On that basis, and notwithstanding the comments that have been made by the minister and other colleagues, I press amendment 165.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On the basis that I am losing support with each amendment, I will not move amendment 168.

Amendment 168 not moved.

Amendments 38 and 39 not moved.

Amendment 169 not moved.

Section 28—Guidance in relation to named person service

Amendment 170 not moved.

Amendment 75 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 29—Directions in relation to named person service

Amendment 76 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish Government is committed to clear, quick and accessible routes for consideration of complaints if there are disagreements about the exercise of the named person or child’s plan functions. We are also committed to ensuring that a mechanism for that is in place in advance of the commencement of the GIRFEC duties, which are currently scheduled for 2016, as set out in the financial memorandum.

However, we do not want to add unnecessary complexity to the complaints landscape, where there are existing mechanisms to enable people to challenge decisions or roles in public services. In evidence to the committee the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—the independent body that handles complaints about devolved public services in Scotland—highlighted the difficulties that are sometimes caused by the complexity of complaints processes.

Amendment 101 will enable ministers to propose provisions for dealing with complaints in respect of the named person duties in part 4. It will also enable ministers to propose changes to other legislation, if required, in order to provide as accessible and consistent an avenue as possible for complaints handling in relation to the named person duties. Amendment 102 will allow the Scottish ministers to make equivalent provision in respect of the child’s plan duties in part 5.

Amendments 112 and 113 propose that the order-making powers will be subject to affirmative procedure. That is considered appropriate so that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise, to debate and, if satisfied, to affirm the detailed proposals before they can come into force.

I am grateful to Liz Smith for her help and her input into discussions on the amendments, and for the useful meeting that we had following the stage 2 committee meetings. I hope that we can continue working together as we develop the detail of the proposals. Processes already exist for consideration of complaints at local level; we expect that disagreements about the duties in parts 4 and 5 will be resolved at that level, where possible.

If that is not possible, we want to ensure that there is a clear and accessible route for parents and families to go for independent consideration of complaints and determination on issues. The order-making powers will enable us to ensure that all matters that should be subject to a complaint and independent investigation are covered. That will be a key focus of our planned consultation, as we take into account stakeholder views on the detail of what is required. We will also continue our discussions and work with the SPSO to ensure that we avoid duplication and do not add unnecessary complexity to the complaints landscape.

As we develop the detail, we also need to take into account the current wider consideration of complaints in social work, where we are keen that the system should meet the needs of service users. We do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that work by putting detail for the GIRFEC provisions in the bill now.

We are therefore proposing the order-making powers to give the flexibility that is required to take into account related developments elsewhere. That will also enable us to engage further with stakeholders—especially parents and families—which will inform the development of our proposals.

As I said previously, we are committed to having in place a clear and accessible system for consideration of complaints in advance of commencement of the GIRFEC duties. The proposed order-making power will enable us to achieve that. Therefore, we ask Parliament to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 101.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the minister has indicated, at stage 2 I lodged three amendments that sought to introduce provisions for resolution of disputes regarding the need, content and management of a child’s plan. After hearing the responses from the minister, I decided not to press the amendments on the ground that she was similarly committed to introducing a clear route of redress for families, parents and children.

I appreciated that sentiment and I was grateful to the minister for some engagement. She knows from my email of 5 February that although I am content with the spirit of the Scottish Government amendments 101, 102, 112 and 113, I still have some concerns about whether there will be a sufficiently robust appeals process, as distinct from just a complaints process. Before I accept the amendments in full, I would be grateful if she would guarantee that she will consider the matter further and engage with the Muir Maxwell Trust, which has been extremely diligent in addressing the issue.

Likewise, it would be very helpful if the minister would indicate the timeframe for consultation on the new mechanism and say how its independence will be assured.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I said earlier, after initial misgivings I have been persuaded by the case for the development of a system of “named persons”. That said, it does not require a crystal ball to see that there are likely to be points at which how that operates in practice will not be acceptable to those involved, including children, young people and their parents or guardians.

I raised similar concerns about the lack of an appeals process with regard to the child’s plan provisions that are set out in part 5 of the bill. However, it was the efforts of Liz Smith at stage 2 that secured the concession from the minister in relation to part 4. I congratulate her on that not inconsiderable achievement, given the fate of every other Opposition amendment at stage 2.

Nevertheless, I can give only a cautious welcome at this stage to the minister’s move in amendments 101 and 102 to take order-making powers that would allow a complaints procedure to be introduced for parts 4 and 5. As Liz Smith suggested, the Muir Maxwell Trust has made some interesting observations in that respect. It suggests that what is set out looks a little like a tick-box exercise, with the cards stacked against the child and/or their parents. It also questions the need or justification for time limits. I have some sympathy with that, because any case would, I presume, be dealt with on its merits.

The minister will have seen the Muir Maxwell Trust briefing and the call for a firm commitment to continue working with the trust and others to create an appeals system that is fair and which genuinely works for all—especially children and young people with profound learning disabilities. I assume that she will confirm that she is happy to do that.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for taking on board the discussion that took place in the Education and Culture Committee, particularly at stage 2 on the amendments that Liz Smith mentioned earlier. I am delighted that the minister has moved on the matter and has lodged the amendments in group 10, which are welcome. We all look forward to the consultation process to ensure that we get in place a transparent and speedy complaints procedure as soon as possible.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am grateful to Liz Smith for her engagement on the matter and for not pressing her amendments at stage 2 in order to allow us to work together on what we have proposed at stage 3. I am also grateful to Liam McArthur and Stewart Maxwell for their comments.

I have said that GIRFEC will not be implemented until 2016, so we will be able to work until then to ensure that robust complaints procedures are in place before it is implemented. We will commit to working with the Muir Maxwell Trust to ensure that we have managed to capture all views, not least those of parents and families, as we develop the approach to raising complaints. We will also ensure that we can use affirmative procedure to allow Parliament to scrutinise he provisions more widely.

I hope that the spirit in which we have approached the matter and our continued commitment to engage with parliamentarians and other interest groups will ensure that we will, by the point at which GIRFEC comes into action, have a robust process by which families can raise any concerns they have.

Amendment 101 agreed to.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendments 77 and 86 specify that the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and post-16 education bodies are not relevant authorities for the purposes of section 29 in relation to directions on the named person functions and section 40 in relation to directions on child’s plan functions. The amendments remove those bodies from being subject to ministerial direction because that conflicts with their established status of being independent from ministers, the Scottish Government and Parliament.

It is conceivable that bodies that are to be added to schedules 2 and 2A in the future may have similar concerns about their independent status and being subject to ministerial direction. Therefore, the changes that are proposed by amendments 77 and 86 allow the duty to comply with ministerial directions to be disapplied in relation to those bodies should that be appropriate. Amendments 90 and 91 provide that those order-making powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendments 78 to 82 and 84 are minor technical amendments that are made in consequence of amendments 77 and 86.

Amendment 87 is a minor technical amendment to section 50(1) to provide that the definition of corporate parents for the purposes of part 7 is made subject to subsection (3A) as well as subsection (3). That change is made in consequence of the addition of subsection (3A) at stage 2 to provide that the children’s commissioner and post-16 education bodies are not corporate parents for the purposes of section 58, thereby exempting them from ministerial direction under the powers set out in that section. Those bodies are, however, corporate parents for all other purposes in part 7.

Amendments 198 to 200 would have the effect of removing the children’s commissioner from schedules 2, 2A and 3—effectively, they remove the requirement for him to provide information and assistance with regard to the named person and child’s plan functions and to take on corporate parenting responsibilities.

Amendments 77A, 86A and 176, in Liam McArthur’s name, seek to remove the references to the children’s commissioner in the provisions on directions in parts 4, 5 and 7 in consequence of amendments 198 to 200, also in Liam McArthur’s name. We do not support these amendments in Liam McArthur’s name, and I will explain why.

At stage 2, we lodged an amendment to remove the requirement that the children’s commissioner and his officers must comply with ministerial directions relating to part 7, on corporate parenting responsibilities, on the ground that that conflicted with their established independence from ministers and the Parliament. For similar reasons, we have lodged stage 3 amendments to disapply ministerial direction-making powers in respect of the children’s commissioner in parts 4 and 5. However, the removal of the children’s commissioner from schedules 2, 2A and 3 completely goes too far.

If the children’s commissioner holds relevant information about a child that meets the tests introduced in section 26 at stage 2, and that information is not known to the named person, our policy intention is that that information should be shared. The provisions are designed to promote, support and safeguard children’s wellbeing. Sharing relevant and proportionate information relating to wellbeing concerns with the named person need not compromise the commissioner’s ability to exercise his functions, including any investigatory function.

The duties to help the named person with regard to section 25, and to provide information, advice or assistance in relation to a child’s plan under section 38, do not apply where that would be incompatible with any of the children’s commissioner’s duties or unduly prejudice the exercise of any of his functions. That would give the commissioner a safeguard if he felt that his position would be compromised in providing the requested information, advice or assistance.

On amendments 176 and 200, I acknowledge Liam McArthur’s concerns about the role of the children’s commissioner and his proposal to remove the commissioner as a corporate parent. Our stage 2 amendment to disapply the section 58 ministerial direction-making power met the substance of the commissioner’s concerns at that time, but, importantly retained the commissioner as a corporate parent with the same broad duties as the wider public sector.

The children’s commissioner is a leading advocate of children’s rights and plays a key role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. It therefore sits uncomfortably that we should consider giving the commissioner a special exemption when his role in meeting that aim is so important.

In summary, we cannot support Mr McArthur’s amendments. I ask the Parliament to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 77.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In speaking to the amendments in her name in the group, the minister has set out the steps that the Government is taking to remove the children’s commissioner from the lists of relevant and listed authorities, effectively, as she said, thereby lifting the threat of the commissioner being subject to ministerial powers of direction. I very much welcome that move, following on from the earlier steps that the minister took at stage 2.

However, concerns remain, arising from the continued inclusion of the commissioner’s office in schedules 2, 2A and 3. According to the commissioner, that could result in

“unprecedented executive interference with the model that Parliament chose and reaffirmed for bodies such as the Commissioner.”

As a result of the schedules, the commissioner would be inevitably involved in a network of close institutional relationships with statutory children’s services providers. On the face of it, that appears desirable, but there is the chance that such providers could be the subject of investigation by the commissioner, in which case the perception of independence could be compromised. The problem would be all the more acute where the commissioner owed a duty to share information about individual children with statutory services acting as named persons, as the minister acknowledged. The commissioner explains:

“It is only a question of time until the Commissioner will be required under this duty to disclose sensitive information about a child complainant to the service provider under investigation, which also provides the named person service to the child, thereby giving the service provider a degree of power over the Commissioner in terms of the investigation—precisely what Parliament sought to avoid by choosing the institutional setup of the 2003 Act.”

In addition, it has been pointed out that its inclusion in schedules 2A and 3 of the bill would appear to require the commissioner’s office to actively participate in care planning for individual children—something that quite demonstrably would be inappropriate, not least given the importance of the commissioner maintaining, and being seen to maintain, a level of independence.

Without my amendments 198 to 200—and the other consequential changes—we could end up needlessly limiting the effectiveness of the commissioner and his office. In so doing, we risk closing off avenues of complaint and appeal that are open to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our society. That is not the intention, but I fear that it could be the effect. Therefore, I urge Parliament to support my amendments.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The amendments in my name in the group strike a good balance between respecting the role of the children’s commissioner and understanding his position in relation to maintaining the independence that he requires.

I explained why we need to retain the commissioner in the lists in schedules 2 and 2A. If we are to achieve our policy of getting it right for every child, we need to ensure that everyone who holds relevant information about children’s wellbeing can share that information. I am confident that the safeguards to which I referred, which recognise circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to share information, will give the commissioner the reassurance that he requires that his independence and investigations will not be compromised.

On schedule 3, we do not consider that a special exemption from the corporate parenting duty would be appropriate, given the commissioner’s key role in achieving the aims of part 7. The disapplication of the duty to comply with directions, which we have achieved in respect of part 7 and which we are proposing in respect of parts 4 and 5, enables us to strike the right balance between protecting the commissioner’s independence and ensuring that the bill’s important policy aims in respect of promoting, supporting and safeguarding children’s wellbeing are met.

We hope that the children’s commissioner, in recognition of the unique position that he holds, will want to engage with other services to address issues that relate to children’s wellbeing, wherever they arise. We hope that the commissioner is keen to play a part in improving outcomes for looked-after children. That seems to be in the best interests of the child. The bill as drafted and as we are proposing to amend it will not require the commissioner to act in a way that is inconsistent with the proper exercise of his functions.

I therefore ask members to support the amendments in my name and not to support the amendments in Liam McArthur’s name. We think that we have struck the right balance and protected the commissioner’s role in respect of his functions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Oh, am I winding up on this group, Presiding Officer?

I heard what the minister said about the amendments in my name. I still think that there is an issue to do with, if not the compromising of the commissioner’s independence, a perception that his independence will be compromised. I intend to move the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 77A.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Presiding Officer, I raise a point of order under rule 9.3.2 of standing orders. I do so as section 43 is the first part of the bill that involves capital costs.

I ask you to look again at rule 9.3.2. This issue was first raised by the distinguished convener of the Finance Committee and I draw your attention to the letter that he sent to the minister earlier today, in which he said:

“The Committee is very concerned that a best estimate has not been provided for the capital costs as required by Rule 9.3.2 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.”

Furthermore, I draw your attention to the childcare section of the supplementary financial memorandum to the bill, which states clearly, in paragraph 13, on page 5:

“Capital costs have not been explicitly estimated. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the level of infrastructure investment required at this stage. Further work will be required to explore the need for any additional capital funding.”

Given that, essentially, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque, do standing orders provide scope for business to be suspended until the Government can offer an explanation and, indeed, an apology? We believe that for it to proceed without giving an explanation is discourteous to Parliament and will impact on our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinise and vote on what is before us.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Just before I speak to amendment 51, Presiding Officer, I seek clarification of whether you are indicating that further evidence will be taken prior to our voting on these particular amendments.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At stage 2, I lodged amendments that were designed to end the practice of birthday discrimination in our nurseries, as a result of which children born between 1 September and 29 February receive significantly less provision than those born at other times of the year. Indeed, that anomaly was acknowledged by Angela Constance in her response to, I think, question 13 from Malcolm Chisholm at this afternoon’s education question time. The anomaly itself derives from the Scottish Government’s practice of funding nursery provision from the term after a child turns three. As Reform Scotland has shown, that means that nursery provision can vary by up to 317 hours or by more than £1,000 within the cost of nursery partnership provision.

A child born between 1 March and 31 August is entitled to the full two years’ nursery provision before beginning school, but a child born between 1 September and 31 December will get only 18 months’ provision and a child born between 1 January and 28 February receives just 15 months. Evidently, the situation is grossly unfair and amendments 51 to 54 would rectify it by introducing a fixed start point for all children, as is common practice in primary schools. That would end the present shortcoming and would place nursery provision on an equal basis. Although the plans were supported by the Liberal Democrats and Labour at stage 2, Scottish National Party members seem, for some reason, intent on blocking the measures, despite their commitment to what they describe as transformational policies to support young children.

At stage 2, Colin Beattie talked about

“30,000 additional two-year-olds entering the system.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 14 January; c 3287.]

That is wrong. Amendments 51 to 54 would not extend childcare to new groups; instead, they would ensure equality of access across the board by accelerating uptake. We are very well aware that that would incur a cost. The Conservatives have not shied away from that fact but we would prefer to see this policy in place rather than, for example, the universal free school meals policy.

Furthermore, the minister argued at stage 2 that the amendments were “unnecessary” because commencement dates can be set via secondary legislation. However, she made no commitment to make such a change; indeed, the SNP has said on the record that it has no plans to make such changes. That is why amendments 51 to 54 are necessary—the status quo is simply unacceptable.

By removing an unwelcome anomaly from the nursery system, amendments 51 to 54 would place all children on an equal footing. The suggestion is entirely reasonable and I hope that the Scottish Government will accept the amendments.

I move amendment 51.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

By proposing a move to a system in which all children would receive two years of funded early learning and childcare, amendments 51 to 53 would result in significant numbers of children taking up their entitlement, some from the age of two and a half. Amendment 54 would make the order-making power in amendment 51 subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

Although we accept the need to build on the bill’s provisions, the priority at this stage must be to build additional hours and flexibility into our high-quality universal provision, increasing the entitlement to around 16 hours a week, and, as we expand, focusing on our more vulnerable two-year-olds. We have demonstrated our commitment to do that with the announcement on additional two-year-olds by the First Minister on 7 January.

Amendments 51 to 54 are unnecessary, as any further expansion of or changes to the commencement dates for entitlement to early learning and childcare for two or three-year-olds can be achieved through secondary legislation made under the bill.

On the start date for three-year-olds to take up the funded entitlement, local authorities can and do deliver provision beyond the minimum number of hours and the minimum eligible children. A number of local authorities already start children from their third birthday, or the month after their third birthday, where they have capacity to do so.

The youngest children—those born in January or February—who may get less provision when they are three, will continue to be entitled to an additional year after they are four, where parents wish. In addition, increasing entitlements to two-year-olds will result in a significant decrease in the number of children who are impacted by the issue of third birthday start dates.

We share the ambitions within amendments 172, 173 and 174 to deliver early learning and childcare to significantly more two-year-olds in greater need. We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from high-quality early learning and childcare and we were absolutely delighted when the First Minister announced on 7 January that from August 2015 we will increase the entitlement to those two-year-olds set out in amendments 172, 173 and 174. I am pleased that Neil Bibby agrees with our timescales, but we do not need amendments to the bill to do that.

I have said that the bill is a starting point and that we will expand entitlement through secondary legislation where it is affordable. We have demonstrated our commitment to that approach by allocating consequential funding that was confirmed to us in December 2013.

Amendments 115A and 197 seek to ensure that those two-year-olds who would be eligible by virtue of meeting free school lunches criteria, whom Neil Bibby wants added on the face of the bill, are commenced separately in or by August 2015.

Amendments 172, 173, 174, 115A and 197 are all unnecessary, as we have made clear our commitment to commence children by virtue of meeting the free school lunch criteria through secondary legislation, for implementation from August 2015. Those amendments would overcomplicate the issue by introducing additional children and dates on the face of the bill. There are clear advantages to defining children through secondary legislation, as we always set out to do, especially through the affirmative procedure agreed at stage 2, affording an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and discussion—indeed, more discussion than would be possible through an amendment at stage 2 or 3.

The purpose of amendments 103, 105 and 114 is to ensure that the arrangements for stopping early learning and childcare to start school are the same for all children. Currently, children whose fifth birthdays are in September to December, and so who are not quite five in August when they are eligible to start school, can be deferred for a year by their parents so that they are over five when they start school. However, they are not automatically entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Children whose birthdays are in January and February, who would only be around four and a half if they started school the August before, when first eligible, can be deferred by their parents for a year so that they are over five when they start school. They are also entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Those starting and stopping arrangements are all set out in secondary legislation, which will be replaced by new secondary legislation enabled by the bill at section 43(2)(c)(ii).

The children who are defined on the face of the bill—two-year-olds who are looked after, are under a kinship care order or have a parent-appointed guardian—have their start dates set out on the face of the bill. However, they are not currently covered by the secondary legislation enabled by section 43(2)(c)(ii) and therefore have no stopping dates.

For all children born in September to December, regardless of whether they are specified on the face of the bill or through secondary legislation, whose parents or carers decide to defer entry to school for a year until after they are five, there is scope for an additional year of early learning and childcare at the discretion of the local authority. That is based on the needs of the child and informed by appropriate professional assessment, which could be by educational psychologists, early years staff or teachers.

Amendments 103, 105 and 114 are technical amendments to enable the same end dates to be specified by secondary legislation made under the bill for those children specified on the face of the bill as for all other children specified by secondary legislation under the bill. That will ensure consistent arrangements for all children and is important in determining eligibility for an additional year of early learning and childcare before starting school.

Amendment 104 will provide that children who have guardians appointed under section 7 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—guardians appointed as such in a parent’s will or similar—are also eligible for funded early learning and childcare provision from the age of two. That is to bring them in line with children who have guardians appointed by the court under section 11 of the 1995 act. Those children were deemed at stage 2 to be subject to a kinship care order and therefore eligible for funded early learning and childcare from the age of two. The amendment will ensure that two-year-old children who have a guardian, no matter how that guardian was appointed, will be eligible for funded early learning and childcare.

The purpose of amendment 115 is to provide for the commencement of the non-substantive provisions in sections 43(2) to 43(4), which define the children who are eligible for early learning and childcare provision, and of the power to make secondary legislation to describe further eligible children, including when their entitlement starts and stops.

We have worked closely with our key delivery partners on our policy intentions as regards defining eligible children and we have used the opportunity of the consequential funding that was confirmed in December to announce further eligible children to be defined through secondary legislation. I am pleased that my amendment to make the order-making power subject to the affirmative procedure, which was recommended by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, was agreed, as that will allow greater parliamentary scrutiny. It is essential that we set out at the earliest possible opportunity who the eligible pre-school children are, to enable local authorities to plan and work towards implementation.

We share the ambitions of local authorities and key stakeholders to contribute to Scotland’s social and economic development, improve attainment, support parents to find or sustain employment and, first and foremost, see our young children happy and benefiting from early learning and childcare. I am grateful to local authorities and all our delivery partners for the tremendous amount of work that is under way to plan and prepare for the delivery of the early learning and childcare provisions. I want to continue the pace and engagement on the aspects of provision that are subject to secondary legislation. The bill is the first step in achieving our ambition to transform childcare and to do more for children in the earliest years. In the white paper “Scotland’s Future”, we set out our ambitions to do even more and to help families to balance work and life more ably.

I ask the Parliament to support my amendments in the group and not to support Liz Smith’s and Neil Bibby’s amendments.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to my amendments 172 to 174, 115A and 197, which are quite simple. They would put the Scottish Government’s recent commitments on early learning and childcare for two-year-olds in the bill, and are supported by Children in Scotland, Save the Children and many other organisations. We all know the importance of providing quality childcare. It helps a child’s learning and development and helps to put money in the pockets of families. When targeted at the poorest, it helps to reduce child poverty and it is good for the economy generally.

As members will know, Labour and other Opposition parties have pushed for an extension of early learning and childcare for two-year-olds. We welcome the fact that, from next year, 15,000 vulnerable two-year-olds will get early years provision who were not going to get it previously. That is not as many as we would like, but it is welcome all the same. However, members will forgive me for being a bit sceptical. I want to ensure that the Scottish Government cannot go back on its word and cut back that commitment at a later date. Members might ask why the Government would do that. Well, let us not forget that Fiona Hyslop and the SNP Government cut nursery provision for vulnerable two-year-olds when the SNP first came to power in 2007, so the SNP has form on the issue. That is why I want the entitlement to be in the bill.

The original childcare entitlement for 3 per cent of two-year-olds is in the bill, so why not go further and put the additional two-year-olds in it, too? I am not sure why the Government does not support its own policy and put its recently stated childcare commitments in the bill. If the minister refuses to do so, will she therefore confirm that, as it stands, other than the commitment on looked-after two-year-olds, there will be no commitment to childcare in the bill?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We have made it clear from the start of the bill process that we will subsequently extend and expand childcare through secondary legislation.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

As I said, I am concerned because that comes from the Government that cut nursery provision for two-year-olds when it first came to power.

So far, Labour and other Opposition parties have lodged dozens of amendments to the bill but, unfortunately, not one of them has been supported by a single SNP member of the Education and Culture Committee or by the Scottish Government. I am surprised that the SNP Government will not support the inclusion of its own childcare policy in the bill, as I propose should happen. However, perhaps that should not be surprising as, at stage 2, the SNP members of the committee voted against their own childcare policy in the white paper of 600 hours of early learning and childcare for half of Scotland’s two-year-olds. We said that the bill was unambitious on childcare, and it still is.

Despite the partial U-turn of last month, as of September this year, 40 per cent of two-year-olds in England will get the nursery provision while only 15 per cent of two-year-olds in Scotland will get it, and even when the figure goes up to 27 per cent the SNP Government will still be lagging behind England. The SNP keeps saying that we need independence to improve childcare, despite having done next to nothing on it over the past seven years.

Labour has supported, does support and will continue to support more childcare under devolution. The SNP could go further now on childcare, but it has chosen not to this year and in every other year that it has been in power. The bill really is a missed opportunity. It is the childcare bill with next to no childcare commitments written in it. The least that the SNP Government could do is to put its recent stated commitments on the face of the bill.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Several members wish to speak. I call Christian Allard, to be followed by Liam McArthur.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I speak in support of the minister’s amendments. I listened carefully to the minister and found what she said a very welcome clarification of what children are entitled to. I wish that it had been as clear when I was a single working parent many years ago.

On Friday, the Equal Opportunities Committee will visit Dads Care Aberdeen, a fathers support group. I will explain to them the minister’s welcome clarification through her amendments and that we need them to make sure that the bill’s provisions are as clear as possible.

On Liz Smith’s and Neil Bibby’s amendments, I note that the minister said that we would be using secondary legislation. I share Neil Bibby’s ambition in his amendments, but I disagree with his point. I think that we are going in the right direction and I think that the Scottish Government and the Parliament have been at the forefront of childcare. This morning, I was at a committee that was talking about Scotland’s future, but we heard only about the currency. It is refreshing that we are spending all afternoon—and even the evening—in the Parliament speaking about Scotland’s future through the childcare that the Parliament and Government will pursue. That is why I support the minister’s amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

For nearly two years, my esteemed colleague Willie Rennie has repeatedly and consistently made the case for a major expansion of free nursery and childcare provision for two-year-olds in this country, starting with those from the poorest backgrounds. Initially, those calls were rejected by ministers, who said that that was not the Government’s priority. We were then told that any such expansion would require the powers of independence. Finally, last month, we had a change of tack from the First Minister—let us call it a plan B—which was confirmed in the budget a fortnight ago. Again, I put on record my welcome and that of my party for that move.

Although 27 per cent of two-year-olds stand to benefit from this extension in provision by the summer of next year, that figure falls short of the figure of 40 per cent for those who will be covered south of the border this summer. It is nevertheless a major advance on what was originally proposed and could bring real benefits to some of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds in our country. However, that will be the case only if adequate capital funding is put in place. The minister has regularly questioned what is being delivered now in England and Wales, where adequate capital funding has been allocated. However, given the events in the Finance Committee meeting earlier today, she may be better advised to focus more attention on what is being delivered in Scotland and how.

Understandably, there is a desire and ambition among all of us to go further, which is reflected in the amendments in this group. Liz Smith’s amendments seek to address an anomaly, which was first highlighted by Reform Scotland, in the way in which the additional early learning and childcare provisions in the bill would benefit some children but not others. At stage 2, similar amendments were rejected by the Government, though not, it must be said, on the basis of any point of principle. In the absence of any principled objection, I urge the minister to think again, accept the proposed changes and provide a more level playing field.

Neil Bibby’s amendments seek to go considerably further. Obviously, the Government has so far insisted that that is not possible and, in some cases, not desirable. However, given recent dramatic changes in the Government’s policy on provision for two-year-olds, it is perhaps worth all of us keeping the minister’s feet to the fire.

We all accept that the bill is simply a step along the way to delivering our longer-term ambitions in relation to early learning and childcare. We all wish to go further, although only some of us recognise that that does not require us to break away from the rest of the UK but requires us rather to learn, if and where appropriate, from where they are doing things rather better.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

This is an aspirational and ambitious bill. In particular, the provision of 600 hours of nursery care will make a difference in young people’s lives. It offers flexibility for families and will affect initially 120,000 young people. As the minister has noted, in January the First Minister said that nursery care would be extended to two-year-olds in workless households, which will benefit another 8,800 children—15 per cent of all two-year-olds.

As the minister rightly said, the bill is a starting point and, if we are to make a difference through transformational change, we must have the powers of independence to gain the 1,140 hours of childcare that families will need. The bill will release people and enable more of them to get back to work, which will help families to make a difference in their own lives, particularly for women who are in a family situation, although I take on board what Christian Allard said as well. Those are some of the reasons why I am backing the bill. It is ambitious and aspirational for the people of Scotland.

It has already been mentioned that Mr Bibby’s amendments 115A, 172, 173, 174 and 197 could be covered by secondary legislation. Mr Bibby’s contribution would therefore have more credibility if the Labour Party had not voted for the budget a couple of weeks ago, because it covers the issue. When he comes to the chamber at this stage and starts talking about the issues that were covered in the budget, he shows that he is completely lost with nowhere to go. However, that is not unusual for that particular individual.

These amendments are in a very important part of the bill. The bill is ambitious and it is building the foundations of the type of Scotland that we all want by ensuring that Scotland can be the best place in the world for children to grow up in.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will be brief, but I felt that it would be wrong to let this part of the bill pass without talking about the quality of childcare, particularly the quality of the training of childcare workers. We should be very pleased that Professor Iram Siraj is leading the Scottish childcare review of the training of early learning teachers. The legislation that will be passed today is ambitious and will increase the amount of free childcare for three-year-olds and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds, and the review will ensure also that that care is of the very best quality. We should all be pleased about that.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I add the Conservatives’ very strong support for the improvements in childcare. There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence about the benefits of providing childcare for health and wellbeing as well as education, and we are very supportive of that. However, it is deeply regrettable that it has formed part of the referendum debate, because it is quite clear that the Scottish Government has these powers already.

If the Scottish Government is truly aspirational and if it wants to have a transformational policy, I hope that it will agree to the amendments that will end the birthday discrimination when it comes to nursery provision. I will press amendment 51.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I have already spoken this afternoon about some areas of the bill that need to be strengthened. Amendment 175 seeks to address an area that was initially altogether absent from the bill. To improve access to and the availability and affordability of out-of-school care is crucial if we are to develop a model of childcare that supports children and helps parents. My Labour colleagues and I have consistently raised that issue in the chamber and the Education and Culture Committee.

Amendment 175 is important because it seeks to address the issue by enabling ministers to specify a minimum amount of out-of-school care when resources allow, in a way that is similar to the bill’s current provisions for pre-school care.

We all know that councils are suffering significantly as a result of budget cuts. Although councils want to improve childcare, they need the funds to do so, and there is increasing concern that out-of-school care and holiday care are vulnerable to those budget pressures.

Scottish children are already at a disadvantage in comparison with English children with regard to out-of-school care. There is an existing duty on local authorities in England to secure for working parents sufficient childcare for children up to the age of 14. There is therefore a strong case for putting the provision of childcare for school-age children on a statutory footing in Scotland. There is no doubting the importance of childcare for the early years, but working parents, who may be working from 9 to 5—or in some cases until 8 o’clock—need help with care for school-age children.

Amendment 175, which has support from a number of children’s organisations, would allow the current Government—or future Governments, which may place a greater priority on out-of-school childcare than the current Administration does—to introduce a minimum amount of out-of-school care and increase its availability when resources allow.

Ed Miliband and the UK Labour Party have already proposed to introduce a primary school guarantee of childcare from 8 am to 6 pm. I ask the SNP Government to consider seriously what its policies and plans are on childcare for children of primary school age.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I am just closing.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Will the member give way?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Clare Adamson’s amendment at stage 2 was welcome in that it at least ensured that the bill finally mentioned out-of-school care. However, it did not provide anything new, as I suspect that local authorities already plan and consult alongside parents. It did not change the fact that the bill, although it may at least now mention out-of-school care, will do very little to improve such care.

I urge members to support amendment 175 to ensure that the bill has sufficient ambition to allow us to improve out-of-school care for families throughout Scotland, and is not regarded as a missed opportunity.

I move amendment 175.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

I support amendment 175, in the name of Neil Bibby, on out-of-school care. We all welcome the commitment in the bill to deliver—finally—600 hours of early education and childcare; it is welcome news for mums, dads and carers throughout Scotland.

However, the reality is that parents’ childcare issues do not end when their pre-schooler starts school—in fact, things become more complicated when a child starts school. I have three young children, two of whom are now at primary school. I am thankful that most schools in my constituency—[Interruption.]

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

Most schools in my constituency in Dunfermline have the benefit of an out-of-school club that provides wraparound care during term time and school holidays. Without that fantastic facility, which is run by Fife Council, I cannot imagine how I would organise my childcare.

However, many parents simply do not have the option of wraparound childcare, and it is extremely disappointing that the bill does not address an issue that is crucial for parents of school-age children. The reality is that not every local authority views out-of-school care as a priority—[Interruption.]

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

Many schools do not have out-of-school provision at all, and even where they do the hours are too restrictive or there are long waiting lists—[Interruption.]

Some members may laugh, but for mums and dads throughout Scotland the challenge of juggling working hours with the school day is a full-time job in itself. It is a daily obstacle course for many parents, and for many it is just too full of hurdles and they have no choice but to stay at home.

The issue is not just fitting in working hours and the school day—members should try fitting 12 weeks’ school holiday a year into an average five weeks’ annual leave entitlement. Some employers have gone out of their way to offer more family-friendly hours and school-run contracts, but jobs that would allow parents to fit work around the school day, never mind around the school term, are just not out there. It is vital that we remember that childcare is not just about babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

No.

Childcare is about schoolchildren too. At UK level, as Neil Bibby mentioned, Ed Miliband has pledged to guarantee wraparound childcare for primary school children if Labour should win next year.

Here in Scotland, the Scottish Government has promised parents a childcare revolution if Scotland should vote yes, and yet it is making no promises to deliver a better deal for parents of schoolchildren either now or after the referendum. Whether the result is yes or no, the Scottish Parliament has the power to lead the way and give mums and dads the right to out-of-school childcare now.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

No—I have no time now. [Interruption.]

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

Amendment 175 would ensure that mums and dads in Scotland were better able to combine work and family life—[Interruption.]

Stewart Maxwell rose—

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

That would be a boost to families, to our economy and to equality—[Interruption.]

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

It would make life less of a juggling act for working parents. I urge members to support amendment 175.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I want to follow up on that contribution, in terms of where we are. find it quite astonishing that we have just had that speech from Cara Hilton—delivered with passion, I concede—just a week after the member voted to close Pitcorthie primary school in her constituency, despite the fact that she campaigned for that school all the way through the Dunfermline by-election—[Interruption.]

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

It is absolute hypocrisy.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish Government has consistently indicated that the provisions in the bill are a first—but significant—step towards developing a system of childcare that meets the needs of all children, parents and families. [Interruption.]

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Out-of-school care and holiday care are essential to the wellbeing of our children, as well as providing support for families to work and provide economic security for their children.

The resource implications of introducing statutory requirements for the provision of out-of-school care are hugely significant. The priority at this stage is to build additional hours and flexibility into our high-quality universal early learning and childcare provision—increasing the entitlement to about 16 hours a week—and to focus initial expansion on our most vulnerable two-year-olds.

However, I am aware that the need for high-quality childcare does not end when a child hits primary school age. That is why the Government is also driving forward a range of measures to improve our out-of-school care: I announced that our early years task force would review our out-of-school care provision and recommend what more could be done; I supported amendments at stage 2 to broaden the requirement on local authorities to consult on their duties and power to deliver and support out-of-school care. That will contribute to those longer-term aims to develop comprehensive systems of early learning and childcare and out-of-school care. It will also enable local authorities to co-ordinate consultation and planning of all mandatory provision of early learning and childcare, alongside non-mandatory provision, which local authorities have the powers to deliver or support. That will inform delivery, expansion or support for delivery of out-of-school care by local authorities. We have also provided funding to—and regularly engage with—key organisations that can support or deliver out-of-school care, in particular the Scottish Out of School Care Network and the Scottish Childminding Association.

Given the range of actions that I have outlined, which the Scottish Government is driving forward to increase and improve early learning and childcare, the steps that we are taking in relation to out-of-school care, and the need to prioritise resources to make the biggest impact, we are taking action now to ensure that we can do our best to support families.

On whether we need independence to achieve our transformational aim for childcare, we have no access to the increased revenues that will be generated by enabling more parents to get back into work. We do not get that tax increase. If we were to emulate what they do in Sweden, it would generate £700 million-worth of revenue that we could then reinvest back into childcare. We cannot do that because we have one arm tied behind our back. That is why we need independence and that is why our aspirations are set out in the white paper.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order, after a member has made one of the most powerful, passionate and eloquent contributions to the debate—[Interruption.]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is it in order for another member, particularly a former Minister for Parliamentary Business, to make a rebuttal that has nothing to do with the amendment but is a personal and entirely inaccurate attack on that member? [Interruption.]

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

As I said in my opening remarks, out-of-school care is important to families. It is clearly not that important to Bruce Crawford, because he completely neglected to mention it in his contribution.

We have consistently said that, despite the obvious importance of childcare in the early years, childcare should not just be about that age group. It is regrettable that the white paper says absolutely nothing about out-of-school childcare and that, until recently, the bill said nothing either. That is a gaping hole and a clear omission in the SNP’s childcare policies. Labour gets that this is a real issue for families. Cara Hilton gets that this is a real issue for working families—that is why she won the Dunfermline by-election by 3,000 votes in October. That is why we continue to raise out-of-school care as an issue. That is why we want to do something about it, and that is why I will press the amendment.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the minister knows, I raised the issue of sibling contact at stage 2. Unfortunately, too many looked-after children are separated from their siblings and accommodated outwith the parental home. If sibling contact is not prioritised by the local authority, siblings can lose contact with each other entirely, leading to the loss of a crucial close family relationship.

Section 17 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 places a duty on local authorities with regard to promoting contact between looked-after children and those adults with parental responsibilities. Amendment 177 would extend that to cover contact between looked-after children and their separated siblings. Unfortunately, at present, if a local authority does not choose to prioritise such contact between looked-after children and their siblings, there is little or no way in which that can be challenged by those looked-after children.

I am grateful to Clan Childlaw—the community law advice network, which exists to provide specialist legal advice to children and young people—for drawing to my attention this omission in our existing provisions for some of our most vulnerable young people. I hope that amendment 177 will be supported, as we have tried to take on board the minister’s comments in relation to sibling contact and the duties on corporate parents by narrowing the focus of the amendment to just local authorities.

I move amendment 177 and look forward to hearing from the minister.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

No.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I genuinely thank Jayne Baxter for bringing this important issue to stage 3. I recognise that promoting and facilitating sibling contact is a good idea in principle but only where it is in the best interests of the children involved. We need to remember that in such scenarios, we are dealing with the interests of two children: the looked-after child and the sibling. That raises two concerns about how this measure could work in practice.

First, amendment 177 seems to focus only on the assumed best interests of the looked-after child. We need to recognise that the sibling may have good reasons for not wanting to maintain contact with the looked-after child. It seems wrong in principle to impose a duty to promote contact in circumstances in which that contact may not be wanted. Further, where siblings are not resident together there may be good reasons for that, in particular on welfare grounds. It would seem to contradict such professional decision making to use the law to force a local authority to facilitate such contact when that might not be in the best interests of one or both of the children.

Secondly, the amendment seems incomplete. For the amendment to work effectively, someone needs to be under an obligation to keep the local authority informed of any changes of address for the sibling. That would require section 18 of the 1995 act to be amended.

Nevertheless, the intention behind amendment 177 is laudable. Looked-after children should usually have the opportunity to maintain contact with their siblings. I suggest that local authorities should be encouraged to facilitate that, where the children concerned want it and it is appropriate. I would be happy to consider how we can further improve our guidance and good practice on what can be done to ensure appropriate and good-quality contact between siblings, in the interests of all the children that we have in question.

Finally, it is important to note that there has been little consultation on this proposal. Many stakeholders would have views on it, so it would be good to embrace those views, including those that have been expressed consistently by Jayne Baxter, to ensure that we have good-quality guidance on enabling contact between siblings that is beneficial for the looked-after child and the sibling.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am disappointed that the minister has indicated that she does not support the amendment. However, I am grateful to her for taking the time to provide the reasoning behind that difficult decision. I welcome her comments and hope that she will look into the matter further. I urge her to meet Clan Childlaw and other experts in this area to consider ways in which sibling contact between looked-after children can be secured. I will not press amendment 177.

Amendment 177, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 60—Provision of aftercare to young people

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendment 89 is a minor technical amendment to repeal the opening words of section 30(2) of the 1995 act, which are now redundant given the provision to repeal subsection (3) of section 30 that is made at section 60(3)(b).

Amendment 178 was lodged in response to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its report on the bill as amended at stage 2. It seeks to amend new section 26A of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 as inserted by new section 60A of the bill, which relates to the duty of local authorities to provide continuing care. That section was added to the bill at stage 2 with the full support of the Education and Culture Committee. The amendment seeks to require ministers to consult each local authority and such other persons as they consider appropriate before making an order under the various powers in that section.

We fully agree with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s comments after stage 2 that the subject matter is of such importance that prior consultation with affected persons should be required before the powers in section 26A are exercised. In that regard, ministers have already committed to setting up a working group consisting of sectoral representatives, service providers, young people, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders to develop the detail of the policy of continuing care and how the new duty will roll out over the coming years.

In addition to that commitment, we are content to include an explicit requirement for ministers to consult local authorities and such other persons as they consider appropriate before they exercise the delegated powers. In addition to the planned working group to develop the proposals in detail, the consultation requirement will ensure that all those with an interest are formally consulted before any order is made.

Therefore, I ask members to support both of my amendments in this group. In the provisions in the bill for Scotland’s looked-after care leavers more generally, we have created—with the support of the Parliament, I hope—an approach that will have long-lasting benefits for that group of young people, who need our support. The bill is a product of young care leavers’ courage and diligence in articulating how it should deliver for them and I am proud that we have worked across the chamber to enable us to deliver it today.

I move amendment 89.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I said at stage 1 that there had been 17 reports in the existence of the Parliament about the experiences of kids in care and that a care leaver called Ashley had told me that each and every one of them read like an apology note—an apology for the lack of action.

We have made significant progress throughout the passage of the bill and it is vastly better for care leavers as a consequence. I pay tribute to all the care leavers who have been actively involved in the political process over the weeks and months that we have been through. For many of them, we have lit a political fire that will mean that they ensure that no child will have the life experience that they did.

Although the minister has already done so, I draw attention to amendment 178, which concerns the duty to consult. That is critical if we are to build on the work that she has done today with regard to kids in care because, ultimately, care leavers are looking for a right to return to care until the age of 25. If that is ever to be realised in Scotland, we have to do it in conjunction with local authorities, which are at the forefront of service delivery and the transition in and out of care.

I thank the minister for amendment 178, recognise that, although we have made significant progress, there is a long way to go yet and hope that she will commit to further action around kids who live in care throughout Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I simply echo Kezia Dugdale’s comments. At stage 1, the bill reflected a real advance in aftercare for those going through the care system but, in the stage 1 debate, there was a feeling across the chamber that more could, and should, be done.

The evidence that the committee took from Who Cares? Scotland, the Aberlour Child Care Trust, Barnardo’s and—as Kezia Dugdale rightly identified—those with direct experience of the care system provided compelling evidence and the basis on which the minister has been able to act. It is an aspect of the bill of which the Parliament and, in particular, the Education and Culture Committee, which has dedicated the best part of two years to considering issues in the policy area, can feel justifiably proud.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I appreciate the comments that Kezia Dugdale and Liam McArthur made. We can be proud of what the bill delivers for our looked-after young care leavers. Others, not necessarily in the Government—I think that it was Who Cares?—described the provision as having the potential to make the way that Scotland looks after its young looked-after care leavers world leading.

There will be a working group to ensure that we can extend the support for young looked-after care leavers. It will include young looked-after children themselves. I particularly echo what Kezia said about the role that looked-after care leavers have played in developing the provision in the bill. They have left a lasting legacy for future generations of looked-after children and should feel proud of what they have achieved in the bill. They are absolutely our bairns and we need to do what we can for that group of young children and young care leavers. We are proud that we are able to help them and future generations to have better outcomes in life.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Group 16 is on the eligibility for kinship care and the assistance to be provided. Amendment 180, in the name of Jayne Baxter, is grouped with amendments 180A, 180B, 181, 202, 202A, 182, 183, 203, 203A, 184, 185, 204, 204A, 186, 205, 187 to 190, 206 and 195.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is no doubt that the kinship care landscape in Scotland has changed significantly since 2007. We have seen legislation introduced to provide support for kinship care families, but it is clear that we need to do more.

It is probably helpful to highlight that the amendments in the group follow three main strands. The intention behind amendments 180 and 206 is to end the postcode lottery of funding that kinship carers face across the country. There can be no justification for the extent and degree of variance in kinship care allowances that local authorities pay across Scotland. As anyone who went out at lunch time to speak with kinship carers will know, the system of funding that is available to people to support them in their vital role of supporting, caring for and nurturing many of our children and young people is hugely complicated, confusing and variable. I put on record my thanks to the Scottish kinship care alliance and Children 1st for the huge amount of work that they have put in throughout the passage of the bill to try to improve the situation for kinship carers in Scotland.

Amendment 180B and amendments 202 to 205 seek to extend the availability of financial support for kinship carers to those who still care for a young person who is over the age of 16 but has not yet reached 18. The other amendments in the group seek to change the eligibility criteria as defined in section 64(4), as we are concerned that they present too restricted a definition of the eligibility of the children who end up being looked after by kinship carers.

Finally, amendment 206 seeks to address the concerns of those who continue to care for looked-after children. The minister has powers to set the levels of kinship care allowances for those carers but currently does not choose to do so. The amendment seeks to end the postcode lottery of funding and ensure that there is a minimum rate of financial support for formal kinship carers, no matter where they live.

The costs of supporting children in foster care, residential care, and formal and informal kinship care vary enormously. Kinship carers often see themselves as the poor relations as a result of the funding and support that are available to them in their crucial role of caring for children in our society.

It is worth noting that it is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government’s financial review of kinship care has not been published in time for the bill. The Scottish Government promised to bring before the Parliament the outcome of its financial review of kinship care during the passage of the bill, but it has failed to do so. I sincerely hope that, when it is published and the minister is drawing up the regulations, there will be significant and careful consultation with kinship carers and organisations with an interest in the area.

I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the amendments and would welcome any commitments that she can give to supporting kinship carers in the future.

I move amendments 180 and 180A.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I consistently see the outstanding work that kinship carers do on a long-term and enduring basis across Glasgow, which I represent. I have always sought to work across parties to advance their rights and entitlements. Indeed, I acknowledge that Glasgow City Council, which previously had no kinship care allowance, began to provide one following constructive representations from me. However, the allowance can be subject to a postcode lottery across Scotland, and that is wrong.

Amendment 206 and associated amendments seek to address that problem in relation to looked-after children. However, given that, as previously mentioned, an independent financial review intends to build consistency and fairness into the system, I am unsure why, at this time, amendment 206 should be included in the bill. I hope that the minister can give us an update on that financial review and very much hope that it will specify minimum rates and be age related.

I will also comment on amendment 180 and related amendments. Amendment 180 seeks to specify minimum payments for those on a kinship care order. I will make three brief points, if I may.

First, kinship care orders are progress, because some local authorities offer no support at all when a child loses looked-after status. That will be changed. Those children will be given a statutory footing for the first time in the system.

Secondly, young people on kinship care orders will have varying levels of need, some of which will be more informal than others. Some will have moved from the looked-after process on to a kinship care order. Therefore, I remain unconvinced that, as a rule, there should be exactly the same levels of support and a national rate.

Although I cannot accept amendment 180 today, my third point is to ask the Scottish Government to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from kinship care orders, particularly in relation to those who currently get payments under section 11 orders or guardianship under section 7 of the 1995 act. Perhaps it is for the minister to examine that matter another day.

As a result of my experience of working with the minister on the issue, I know that none of this has been intended to cut support for kinship carers—if that impression has been given, it is completely and fundamentally wrong. The bill improves support for kinship carers, putting it on a further statutory footing. The Parliament cannot do this just now but, in the future, kinship care payments should be a benefit that is integrated with the wider social security and benefits system. The Parliament does not have the power to do that today, but I hope that, after September, that situation will change.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I add the Scottish Conservatives’ strong support for many of the amendments that Jayne Baxter has lodged. There are several issues around kinship care, and we have previously let kinship carers down by not providing the care and support that they require.

Bob Doris sensibly made the point that there is a need to get rid of the postcode lottery, particularly when it comes to the minimum rate of support. However, I entirely accept that we do not want to pay everybody exactly the same, as that would raise issues about the effectiveness of the support.

Broadly speaking, we will support Jayne Baxter’s amendments but not those that seek to change the eligibility definition, as we think that that might have some unintended consequences.