Chamber and committees

I will speak to amendments 212 to 215 in my name. I have been working on them with Children First, which has been very supportive, and I know that it has been working constructively with the minister on possible further amendments at stage 3. I want to introduce these amendments to put down an early discussion on the relevant issues, to ensure that we get to the right place at stage 3.

My amendment 212 would establish statutory guidance to help areas across Scotland to deliver high-quality and consistent family group decision-making services. It would build on work that has already been done by third sector and local authority providers, and it would give that work more profile and greater authority. Amendment 212 mirrors amendment 118 from Roz McCall, but it goes further in a number of crucial ways. In particular, it specifies a few key points in decision-making processes that are not set out in legislation, and in which evidence shows that family group decision making can have a real impact. That includes pre-birth assessments, when children are being considered at child protection case conferences and, finally, when there are plans to return a child to their family or for them to leave secure or residential care.

“The Promise” is quite clear about family group decision making. It says that it

“must be of high-quality and there must be an approach to developing (or further developing) consistent standards and training as in other areas, such as advocacy.”

The Promise Oversight Board also says that

“there is a need to ensure that it is available to everyone who would benefit from wherever they live in Scotland, and that it is sustainably funded.”

My amendment 213 intends to establish a clear legislative duty to provide family group decision-making services. It seeks to address two issues, the first of which is patchy provision. We know that around two thirds of local authorities already have some form of service available, albeit that they vary. That leaves around one third without an offer. Children First’s research shows that there are many areas where a service operates in small teams and is vulnerable to the making of cuts.

Secondly, the law is unclear. Children First commissioned a legal opinion from Janys Scott KC, which showed that the current law is not clear enough about local authorities’ responsibility to provide such services.

Amendment 213 could also work alongside the new statutory guidance that we have already debated, and could help services to build up towards offering consistent, high-quality provision that is equally available to every child across Scotland.

Amendment 214 seeks to introduce a duty to promote family group decision making, which would require local authorities to take reasonable steps to make families aware of such services and the benefits that they might have. The purpose is to help local authorities to promote an approach that is grounded in early help and prevention. We know that many children and families struggle to find help unless they are experiencing a level of crisis. They need to reach a high threshold to qualify for help or be referred to services such as family group decision making. Amendment 214 would help to turn that around. If families knew about services such as this one, there would be a higher chance that they would make use of them at an earlier stage. That, in turn, should help to prevent problems from building up.

I recognise that that might lead to a higher level of demand, which might need further resource. However, helping families to resolve their challenges at an earlier stage should help with making savings in the long run.

In England, a mandatory offer of family group decision making before court proceedings is currently being legislated for through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. That means that all families will be offered family group decision making before court proceedings so that, where possible, they can be supported to develop their own solutions without relying on a system of intervention. Amendment 214 has a similar ethos.

Finally, amendment 215 is consequential on amendment 213 and follows the same ethos as amendment 214, which seeks to empower families, as far as possible, to access family group decision making services in a way and at a time that is right for them.

“The Promise” talks about Scotland’s

“commitment to early intervention and prevention”,

but a combination of national crisis alongside slow system reform means that we are a long way from keeping the Promise and making that transition. Families need to be empowered and supported to access services. There should always be a way to find support before statutory interventions are brought in.

Do you object in principle to the purpose of my amendments—as they relate to statutory guidance, promoting guidance and so on—rather than the detail, which you want to discuss further before stage 3?

I declare an interest, in that St Leonards school is in St Andrews in my constituency, and I am an unashamed fan of it. There are walls around the school, but it is actually very open. It works in partnership, does Saturday schools in various subjects, has joint sports activities, shares its grounds and is fully integrated into the community.

I am quite a pragmatic politician. If something works, I do not want to break or change it; I simply want to keep doing the things that work—and that school works. It also attracts pupils from across the globe and ties up with the university for staff who are there for short periods and who want to take the opportunity to put their children into good-quality education. The school works; therefore my belief is that we should not change it.

My question is: have you ever secured an answer from the UK Government as to why it adopts a singular targeted approach on VAT on education for your sector, compared with nurseries, universities or colleges? My understanding is that there is no VAT on education in those sectors. Have you ever had an explanation from the UK Government as to why you have been targeted?

My amendment 220 is broadly in the same area. It would put a requirement on the Government to produce a report within two years. The timescale of two years is important, because it would be roughly at the mid-point of the next session of Parliament. It would be an important staging post for keeping the Promise. If we delay any longer, we would not get traction from the outcome of the report.

In particular, my amendment would require a report from the Scottish Government to provide key data on three important areas: progress to eliminate

“the practice of restraint of children and young people in care”;

progress to eliminate

“the exclusion of care-experienced people from education”;

and

“longitudinal data on outcomes for care-experienced adults”.

I drafted the amendment in partnership with Who Cares? Scotland, which is concerned about keeping up the pressure on keeping the Promise, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

I thank Martin Whitfield and Miles Briggs for contributing to the debate, which has shone a spotlight on some of the challenges that we face. I will not press the amendment, but I am keen to understand from the minister whether she can see a possible resolution in an amendment at stage 3 or whether she sees the work going beyond stage 3 and therefore into another bill. Although she is not in control of a future Government’s legislative agenda, would she consider it appropriate for a similar provision to be included in other legislation?

My final question for the minister’s consideration in advance of stage 3 is whether some of the work can be done without a change to the law, or whether Police Scotland would require a change in the law before it could change its practice. I am quite happy to take an intervention now.

Thank you for giving evidence this morning. I care about all pupils in state schools and in independent schools, but I am particularly concerned about those from modest backgrounds. If I was a parent and I had sent my child to one of those schools, I would want to make sure that they had continuity of education and that, once they started, they would finish. I would not want them to change midstream, because that interruption would reduce the quality of their education. I know that many parents on modest incomes are in exactly that position and that they are now having to sacrifice significantly in other areas. Do you have experiences of or reports about the sacrifices that those families are making to ensure that their children’s education is continued?

Amendment 209 would allow children to be taken to places of safety, as defined in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011. Children can already be taken to places of safety between being charged and going to court, but amendment 209 would allow that to happen earlier in the process.

The amendment was developed in response to a suggestion by the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice. Children who come into conflict with the law, many of whom have suffered adverse childhood experiences, are overwhelmingly from disadvantaged backgrounds. The independent care review also identified that, for a variety of reasons, care-experienced children are disproportionately criminalised. An inspection of police custody in March 2025 found children being held for disproportionate lengths of time, including a 13-year-old held for six hours and a 14-year-old held for 12 hours. Children and young people have told the CYCJ that custody can be retraumatising and that it is often the most difficult part of their justice journey.

The committee will recall that, in its written response to our call for views, the CYCJ said:

“We very much welcome the ongoing current work across Scotland to look at alternatives to police custody, including the use of places of safety.”

However, in accordance with section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, Police Scotland is still required to take an arrested person to a police station, regardless of their age. The small change to that legislation that is proposed in amendment 209 would allow a child to be taken instead to an appropriate place of safety, where that is possible. That change would provide options to be creative, person centred and more trauma informed and it would allow sufficient time for the relevant provisions and resources to become embedded across Scotland.

I move amendment 209.

Could you clarify which amendments you are prepared to support today?

For Paul O’Kane, I will move it. [Laughter.]

To paraphrase, the minister has said that the amendments would create an untidy landscape with fragmentation, but I have not heard that there would be any disadvantage to young people with care experience. If her plan for the Norrie review results in another bill in future, and if the landscape is untidy, she can tidy it up at that point. We need to try to make improvements now, even if things are a little bit messy, to ensure that we give the best possible rights to care-experienced people.