Official Report 585KB pdf
09:15
The next agenda item is day 3 of stage 2 proceedings on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, along with her supporting officials. I remind members that the officials who are seated at the table are here to support the minister but cannot speak in the debates on amendments. Members should therefore direct comments or questions to the minister.
Once again, we welcome a number of non-committee members who are attending to speak to their amendments and participate in the debates.
After section 21
We move to the next group of amendments. Amendment 207, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 208, 208A, 118, 210, 210A, 211 to 215, 125 and 223.
Good morning. I will be brief as I can be. I have three amendments in this group—amendments 207, 208 and 210, which are all interlinked. The amendments seek to ensure that opportunities to explore voluntary arrangements through family group decision making are properly and consistently accounted for. I welcome the minister’s acknowledgement of the need to see how family group decision making can be strengthened through the bill, which was a cross-party ask.
The amendments build on the recommendation in “The Promise” that family group decision making should become more common. The “Hearings for Children” report said that family group decision making
“should be routinely and consistently offered to children and families, in line with the National Standards produced by the National FGDM Steering Group, as an option to help find innovative and creative ways to solve their problems well in advance of any statutory involvement of the Children’s Hearings System and in line with the recommendations”
in “The Promise”.
The purpose of amendments 207 and 208 is to establish a clear and consistent check on whether family group decision making has been explored, to inform the reporter’s investigation and decision. That is not about the reporter offering the service to families directly. Amendment 208 would therefore not prevent or delay hearings. It is the right thing for the child that such an offer is made, and it would help to ensure that the issue is properly considered either before or alongside a hearing.
Amendment 210 is on reporting on family group decision making. It would establish a better understanding of how and when children and families are offered family group decision making across Scotland, to inform policy and resourcing decisions and to help to meet the Promise’s call. As an Edinburgh MSP, I know that the City of Edinburgh Council’s work on that approach is transforming lives and making a real difference, and I know that that is also the case in Glasgow. However, we have an opportunity to strengthen family group decision making as part of the bill.
I move amendment 207.
Good morning. I remind those in the room and those watching of my declaration of interests.
I do not intend to speak for too long on this group, because Miles Briggs has introduced it exceptionally well. It is about ensuring the best for individual children for whom family group decision making can make a transformative change. I have lodged amendment 208A, which seeks to add to amendment 208, on consideration of whether family group decision making is offered. The extension would require the reporter to consider that in appropriate cases.
Amendment 210A seeks to add specificity to the reports that would be produced under amendment 210, in the name of Miles Briggs, which I support.
We have an opportunity here to bring into the bill something that should have been there from the outset. Since the Promise was originally made, family group decision making has been seen as a way of ensuring the best environment in which to not only discuss challenges and promises, but find solutions.
Like Miles Briggs, I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to see where we are on that, but I think that it will be a crucial, important and timely intervention in the bill’s progress, which will assist. I will leave it at that.
Good morning. I will speak to amendments 118, 211 and 125, which would introduce national standards, guidance and reporting requirements for family group decision making, which is a cornerstone of early intervention and family-centred practice. Family group decision making recognises that children do best when families are engaged in decision making about their care and support, with professionals acting as facilitators rather than directors of their lives.
Amendment 118 would require the Scottish ministers to establish national standards of practice guidance for family group decision making. That would ensure consistency, quality and accountability across all local authorities and third sector providers. By requiring consultation with stakeholders, including the national steering group, local authorities, third sector providers, the principal reporter and the national convener, the amendment would ensure that guidance is practical, informed by experience and child centred.
Amendment 211 would require the Scottish ministers to produce a report on family group decision-making provision and sustainability within one year of royal assent to the bill, and that said report must be published and laid before Parliament. That would create transparency and allow monitoring of the implementation of that aspect of the bill. Amendment 125 would update section 24 to reference that explicitly, which would ensure that family group decision making is fully integrated into the legislative framework of the children’s hearings system.
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.
I thank all members for what has been a really constructive approach to consideration of including family group decision making in this bill, both during stage 1 scrutiny and in the stage 2 amendments.
The Government agrees that it is important to see family group decision making clearly reflected in the bill. I support the intention of a number of amendments that seek to strengthen family group decision-making practice to encourage consistent, proportionate and targeted support that best serves the interests of children and families.
The Government will support certain amendments today, and I ask that we work together in advance of stage 3. As we know, family group decision making can play a powerful role in supporting children and families. When it is used appropriately, it brings families together, supports children to be heard and enables wider family networks to be part of planning and decision making. That can help to build stronger, more sustainable plans, support earlier and more preventative intervention and, of course, reduce the need for escalation.
Family group decision making is intended to be not a mandatory step but an option to be considered within our wider approach of getting it right for every child, with its use being informed by the professional judgment of social workers and other practitioners and tailored to the individual circumstances of each child.
Family group decision making has an important role to play in the suite of early interventions that are available to support families. However, it might not always be the most appropriate tool, particularly in cases where there are coercive control, domestic abuse or other risk factors in a child’s life. With that in mind, I cannot support amendments 208 and 208A. Those amendments risk creating a mandatory process, moving away from the voluntary and supportive role of family group decision making, and they confer on the children’s reporter duties that more appropriately belong to local authorities.
As members have pointed out, engagement with Children First, as well as with members from across the Parliament, has taken place regarding stage 3 amendments, and we agree with the intent behind many of them. I intend to continue working with Children First as we develop targeted measures that are designed to strengthen practice and strategic oversight, while supporting effective decision making across the wider system.
09:30
I will present the results of that work at stage 3 in the form of a package, which I am confident that members will support, based on what has been passed today and depending on the outcome of further discussions with Children First and members. I invite members to support amendments 207, 210, 210A and 212, and to work with me on refinements that will be presented at stage 3.
In light of the Government’s position, I ask other members not to move their amendments today. As I said, I am keen to continue fruitful discussions ahead of stage 3, with a view to developing a coherent and workable package that reflects our shared ambition on family group decision making.
Could you clarify which amendments you are prepared to support today?
I reiterate that I support amendments 207, 210, 210A and 212.
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?
Not in terms of promoting guidance. I agree whole-heartedly that we need to do more to make families aware of that process, which can be really important. However, issues remain with the amendments regarding the principal reporter’s duties and the shift away from them. I would like to continue discussing that issue with Children First and with other members.
I call on Miles Briggs to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 207.
Having listened to colleagues, it is quite clear from the breadth of cross-party amendments that we can strengthen this area at stage 3. Our debate shows that we can build a great future model of support and early intervention, which I hope we can achieve at stage 3.
I am happy to accept the minister’s assurances. Given the amendments on family group decision making that the Government is supporting at stage 2, there is an opportunity for us collectively to get this right at stage 3.
I press amendment 207.
Amendment 207 agreed to.
Amendment 208 not moved.
Amendment 208A falls.
Amendment 116 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 116 disagreed to.
Amendment 199 not moved.
Amendment 209, in the name of Willie Rennie, is in a group on its own.
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.
I thank Mr Rennie for lodging amendment 209 and raising this important matter. I support the intention behind the amendment. We have already taken significant steps through the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 to achieve what is proposed. The commencement of the provisions in the act on 30 March will ensure that the default position is for under-18s who have been charged with an offence to be taken to a place of safety other than a police station prior to their appearance in court.
There is broad agreement that police custody is not an appropriate environment for children, but the implications of change are truly complex. An established working group is considering the broader opportunities and challenges of building in flexibility on the use of alternatives to a police station. We continue to work closely on that with partners, and Police Scotland is already progressing non-legislative improvements such as expanding voluntary interview pathways and developing child-friendly approaches in existing stations.
I agree that we need to go further and explore how we can ensure that taking a child to a police station on arrest is not the usual practice in the future, but I am conscious that careful consideration needs to be given to a test to be applied when deciding that an alternative location is suitable to receive the child and, indeed, where that location might be. The definition of a place of safety in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 includes a range of places such as a residential care home, a hospital or someone’s house. Police Scotland is, understandably, clear that it needs to be able to perform its role in appropriate settings that will best meet children’s needs and that it needs appropriate powers to keep them safe.
On top of the work that is under way, I think that it would be sensible to take more time to explore the views of Police Scotland and others on suitable settings and the practicalities before we make changes to the law in this area, so that we can be confident that any legislative changes will be workable in practice.
I am not being in any way disrespectful to Police Scotland, but is the challenge not that it will always be easiest for a provider to continue with an existing process? The amendment suggests that we shift the argument to say, in effect, that a police station should become the last resort, and that every other option should be considered first. I think that that needs to happen. I accept the minister’s articulate discussion of the issue and I note that the group that she mentioned is meeting, but is this not fundamentally about flipping the question over and challenging Police Scotland on why it could not facilitate the use of, for example, a hospital or a house? I realise that weekends and evenings will be difficult times, but if we agree that the use of a police station should be the exception rather than the rule, how long does the minister envisage that it will take to reach that position?
I cannot put a timescale on that. Mr Whitfield highlights some of the challenges that exist around the issue. He said that the police station should become the last resort. I agree, but there are real differences and difficulties. We are talking about children being taken to a place of safety before appearing in court. Such places may be appropriate for holding a child before their appearance in court but not necessarily appropriate at the point of arrest, when the circumstances are very different and there could be real complexities. That automatically becomes a challenge. Other questions include how the decision would be reached on a place of safety and whether it should be a multi-agency decision or purely for Police Scotland to make—and, if it is a decision for Police Scotland, what rank the commanding officer making the decision would be.
I cannot put a timescale on this. We have had a debate about the complexities and, as I said, work is under way. I would like that work to continue, because we have to get to the point that Mr Whitfield talked about. However, as I said, getting there involves a number of issues.
I do not need to say much more, although I stress that I am supportive of the intention behind amendment 209.
I have had meetings with Police Scotland representatives who are really frustrated that, for some adults who are in mental health crisis, taking them to an accident and emergency unit is the only option. We have to be careful about what we might create in classifying somewhere as a safe place without attaching any real outcome to that, apart from its being a holding area. It would not be appropriate to start filling A and E units with young people.
The minister outlined work that is going on. When is that likely to report and present different models and alternatives? It sounds as though we are not yet able to identify what would be classified as a safe place.
I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to continue discussions with Willie Rennie on the issue. Cross-party discussions have been set up in advance of stage 3, so I would be more than happy to provide a little more information on the issue at that time, if that would be helpful.
In light of my comments, I ask Mr Rennie not to press amendment 209, pending further explorations and discussions. As I have been clear, I am happy to consider and take away the issue ahead of stage 3, if that would be appropriate.
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.
Willie Rennie asked several questions. On timescales, as I said, if we can get something in at stage 3 that either defines the issue or points to further work or exploration, I will be happy to do that, but I will take advice on whether that would be appropriate and whether we could safeguard against some of the complexities that have been raised.
When it comes to whether the issue is appropriate for inclusion in other legislation, I have been very clear that I agree with the intent behind amendment 209, so I would like it to progress further, whether in this parliamentary session or the next.
A change in the law would be required. However, that does not take away from potentially doing further work and exploration prior to that point.
Amendment 209, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 118 not moved.
Amendment 210 moved—[Miles Briggs].
09:45
Amendment 210A moved—[Martin Whitfield].
The question is, that amendment 210A be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
The result of the division on amendment 210A is: For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 210A agreed to.
Amendment 210, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 211 not moved.
Amendment 212 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendments 213 to 215 not moved.
Section 22—Children’s services planning
Amendment 81, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 82, 121 and 123.
My amendment 82 updates section 59A of the Public Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to reflect changes that section 22 of the bill makes to the bodies that will be responsible for children’s services planning in the future. Section 59A of the 2010 act requires that, where certain care services are applying for Care Inspectorate registration, they must give notice of their application in a prescribed form to those who are responsible for children’s services planning in the area in which the new service is intended to operate. Amendment 82 updates section 59A to reflect that, in the future, any integration joint board that operates in the relevant area, as well as the local authorities and health boards, should be notified of the Care Inspectorate application. Amendment 81 is consequential to amendment 82. Amendments 81 and 82 are largely technical amendments, but with a purpose that I hope members can support.
I thank Roz McCall for her amendments 121 and 123 and for our discussion in advance of stage 2. I acknowledge the concerns around on-going pressures on local areas. However, I feel strongly that the provision on IJBs in section 22 of the bill will help us to bridge the gap that we all know can exist between children’s and adult services. We know that integrated working between children’s and adult services is more likely to lead to improved outcomes for children and families. The need for that will not come to an end, so it would be inappropriate to bring that provision to an end through a sunset clause.
The IJB provision should not impact on current arrangements, because IJBs should already be involved in children’s services planning as an “other service provider”. The provision merely strengthens an existing responsibility by driving culture change and improved collaboration, supporting a more coherent approach across children’s and adult services and improving transitions for young people. The journey of public sector reform that has just begun is likely to create more of a need for such integrated working in the future, not reduce it. Therefore, I do not think that it would be helpful for the longer-term work to make support for integration time limited.
IJBs play a key role in relation to adult services, which is pertinent to our aims for children who are leaving care and who are to be supported through continuing care or aftercare. IJBs should be expected to contribute through appropriate services to meet those needs. Other adult services, such as those for substance use, often have a direct impact on children. Strengthening the role of IJBs in all areas will address inconsistencies, improve whole family support and enhance transitions for young people moving between children’s and adult services.
I agree that we must ensure that our strategic planning environment is operating as well as it can and that the provision makes a positive difference. The right way to do that is to consider the other amendments that are being discussed today that relate to reviewing the act. I therefore ask Roz McCall not to move her amendments 121 and 123 today but to engage further with me to consider the effect, benefit and challenges of the change that is being made through section 22. If she moves her amendments, I encourage members to vote against them. I hope that members will support my amendments.
I move amendment 81.
I thank the minister for all the work that we have done together on the issue. As she has already highlighted, she is aware of my concerns. I state categorically that I agree that we need to blend the process between child services and adult services and that the IJB is the best place to do that. My concern about IJBs is that most of them are struggling financially with their current responsibilities. Given their limited resources, I am worried about adding more responsibilities to their remit, especially in light of the measure’s importance.
My amendments would require the Scottish ministers to review
“the operation and effectiveness of the functions conferred on integration joint boards”
and to lay a report before Parliament. That would embed transparency, allow the Parliament oversight and provide an opportunity for us to adjust practice based on evidence and experience over the specified timeframe. By including a formal review, we would ensure that any continuation of the new arrangements is supported by clear evidence that they benefit children, reduce fragmentation and improve outcomes.
I take on board what the minister has said today. I am willing to work with her ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can come up with a different way of amending the bill in order to reach a suitable outcome. Blending the process is important, but, if that is kicked down the line or IJBs are not sufficiently resourced to carry it out, we could find that it just collapses at the first hurdle. That is my main concern.
I call the minister to wind up.
Reflecting on what Ms McCall said, I am concerned that the current approach could lead to further inconsistencies later down the line. We should be looking at the success of the measure or how impactful it has been, and, where it has not been impactful, how to support it to be more successful.
I recognise the intent behind Ms McCall’s amendments. The question of further reviews of the legislation or of provisions within it is covered in a later group, and we can consider the issue that she raises in that light. As I say, I am happy to continue the discussions.
Amendment 81 agreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
After section 22
Amendment 83, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 84, 85, 122 and 216.
Amendments 83 to 85 are prompted by a concern that I have had for a long time about a lack of consistency between local authorities on important issues of policy and, sometimes, of practice, such as the use of restraint, sibling separation and exclusion from school. Sometimes, the inconsistency even relates to the data that different local authorities gather. My amendments seek to resolve that, at least to an extent. They relate to the setting of national outcomes and priorities, reporting criteria and consultation in relation to children’s services planning.
Amendments 83 and 85 would significantly strengthen children’s services planning by providing the Scottish ministers with regulation-making powers to ensure greater national consistency and oversight in relation to the aims of children’s services plans while, of course, retaining the flexibility for local lead children’s services planning bodies to respond to their local priorities. The amendments would also enhance accountability in relation to reporting on the achievement and implementation of the plans.
The fact is that many, if not all, of the challenges facing children and families are shared across the country, and setting national outcomes, priorities and reporting criteria will help to focus effort on those challenges—or, at the very least, will mean that they cannot be ignored. That will help to develop a clearer and more consistent picture of how children’s services planning partnerships are performing across the country and, I hope, avoid a postcode lottery of care.
The benefits of the approach are twofold. First, it will strengthen accountability by providing a more consistent basis on which plans and progress can be assessed, and secondly, it will help to identify where support and improvement activity are most needed, allowing national and local partners to target resources more effectively. That said, including a duty to consult in relation to the new powers will ensure that stakeholders have a genuine chance to influence the national outcomes, priorities and reporting criteria and will help to ensure that they reflect local issues and priorities.
On amendment 84, Scottish ministers and other service providers currently have the ability to dispute elements of a children’s services plan by issuing a notice that sets out their reasons for disagreement, but currently the law does not require those preparing the plan to take any meaningful action in response to that notice. Amendment 84 seeks to address that gap by placing a clear requirement on those contributing to a plan to take concerns seriously and, crucially, to respond to them. That would strengthen accountability, support better collaboration and help to ensure that plans genuinely reflect the needs of children and families.
For those reasons, I strongly recommend that the committee support the amendments.
I move amendment 83.
I call Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 122, which is in the name of Sue Webber, and other amendments in the group.
I welcome the amendments in Nicola Sturgeon’s name, which would strengthen children’s services plans.
Amendment 122, in the name of my colleague Sue Webber, is on preventing family separation. Currently, the bill makes no mention of the reunification of children, parents and families. Parents often have to fight hard to have their children returned to their care and, often, when there is reunification, very little support is offered to the families. Children have the right to be brought up, when it is safe to do so, with their parents and families, and we must ensure that lack of support is no barrier in that respect, if that is what a child or young person wants as their outcome.
Amendment 122 seeks to add a new aim to children’s services planning by making it clear that such services allow a child to continue or resume living with their parent, and that those services must be available to the extent that all children who need them can access them. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that, because work on reunification services is missing from the bill.
I have worked with Children’s Hospices Across Scotland on amendment 216, which deals with an important aspect of the bill. I pay tribute to CHAS and the work that it does across Scotland. The amendment seeks to ensure that families with children and young people with life-shortening conditions get the support that they need to transition into adult services. I put on record my concerns, which have already been outlined by Roz McCall, about aspects of the bill potentially being lost when IJBs have to decide what they will fund, and I make it clear that my amendment 216 specifically seeks to ensure that a consistent approach to the issue is taken across Scotland and that children and young people with life-shortening conditions get the support that they need for transition.
I thank Nicola Sturgeon for lodging amendments 83 to 85. Improved children’s services planning is central to keeping the Promise, and I am therefore happy to support the amendments, as they will help to achieve a better balance of strong national oversight on national priorities while giving local areas the flexibility that they need to deliver the best outcomes for children and families. They should also mean that there is better information locally and nationally to support the development of future priorities and plans.
Ms Sturgeon mentioned consistency; that is an absolutely key issue for me, and I believe that the amendments can improve things in that respect. Of course, any change must also make things simpler and more effective and reduce process and administrative burden, not add to it. The proposed changes will give time to consult and to ensure that we get this right, as well as future proofing the intent to cover the national priorities at that time.
10:00
I thank Sue Webber for lodging amendment 122, but I do not consider that it is needed. The existing statutory aims for children’s services plans are broad, and they are applicable to all children and young people, including those with specific types of needs, such as those who are care experienced. Those statutory aims already ensure that the wellbeing of all children is supported and promoted, that support is delivered as early as possible and that best use is made of available resources. Broad aims allow local areas to have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their specific population and allow such planning to be done in a holistic way. Given that every local authority has committed to keeping the Promise, in reality, some of the services that might help to enable children to continue to live safely in their families will already feature in how plans are developed and delivered.
Amendment 216, in the name of Miles Briggs, seeks to address the complexity of the landscape surrounding transitions and the particular challenges that families with children with life-shortening conditions often experience. That is exactly why we have included provision in the bill to strengthen the role of integration joint boards in children’s services planning. We want to ensure that the relevant adult health and local authority services are obligated to consider how to support young adults.
I share Mr Briggs’s ambition of strengthening the accountability of local authorities and health boards in respect of their children’s services plans and the need for more consistent data to improve national oversight, but that need would be better met through Nicola Sturgeon’s amendment 85 than by having a separate reporting duty. There is a need for more information about how transition is supported for disabled children, including children with life-shortening conditions, as they move into adulthood.
More generally, amendments 83 and 85 will allow the Scottish ministers to prescribe specific matters to be included in future children’s services plans and annual reports, which will mean that the needs of specific groups of children, such as those with life-shortening conditions, can be made visible and addressed in local areas.
Through his amendment 216, Miles Briggs has drawn attention to an important group of children, but I hope that he agrees that it is not necessary and that he will not move it. If he moves it, I encourage members to vote against it. Similarly, I hope that Sue Webber’s amendment 122 will not be moved. If it is moved, I encourage members to vote against it.
I support Nicola Sturgeon’s amendments 83, 84 and 85.
I invite Nicola Sturgeon to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 83.
In the light of the minister’s support, I have nothing to add. I press amendment 83.
Amendment 83 agreed to.
Amendments 84 and 85 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 121 not moved.
I call amendment 122, in the name of Sue Webber.
I will not move amendment 122, but the prevention of separation of families is an area that I am interested in pursuing, alongside Sue Webber, with the minister. I am especially interested in reunification. It is important that voices have expressed the fact that there are no specific provisions in the bill to strengthen that.
Amendment 122 not moved.
Amendments 216 and 217 not moved.
Amendment 218, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 219 and 220.
This last group brings us on to consideration of something that I am pleased to see appearing more frequently in legislation: a section on post-legislative scrutiny, which, in this case, would appear in a part of the bill entitled “Review of the Act”.
My amendment 218 explores the interesting idea of how the Parliament can be involved in post-legislative scrutiny of the bill once it has been enacted. I have taken such a recourse because the Government has sometimes raised challenges in respect of post-legislative scrutiny, the importance of which is now understood by all.
The proposal in my amendment 218 is to place a duty on the Scottish Parliament to arrange for one of its committees—I say that quietly, because it would be the future version of this committee that would probably have to pick it up—to report on the bill. In looking at all the amendments in the group, I see that there is a desire to have a review, and the minister has articulated today a number of other areas in which reviews will be necessary.
We have a 2030 deadline for the Promise, so it is important that the pressure to deliver on the Promise is articulated in the bill. There requires to be a level of urgency so that after a review, if any disappointing evidence comes out of it, there is still time to put it right.
The whole area of post-legislative scrutiny is interesting. Does Martin Whitfield agree that one of the challenges is timing because, if you do it too soon, there has not been enough time for the new legislation to settle in and take effect but, if you do it too late, it becomes pointless? Are the dates in his amendment the right ones to achieve that balance?
There are two levels to John Mason’s question. Generally with regard to post-legislative scrutiny, doing it too early is a waste because you have no idea how the legislation is being implemented. The second part is the challenge that we face with this bill, which is that there is an agreement to keep the Promise by 2030. If we head down the wrong road, even by accident, we will use up vital time that we need.
The time limits are important. They are driven by the deadline for the Promise—such deadlines do not necessarily exist in other legislation, but the deadline is incredibly important when it comes to the bill. Therefore, we must articulate the reviews with that in mind. It would be pointless to have a review in 2035, as it then might be, horrendously, an autopsy rather than a review.
There are pressures, which I think are reflected in all the amendments in the group. I am interested to hear from the minister and other members about where we can properly land so that the Promise can be kept at the forefront of people’s minds, as it absolutely must be, and so that, if errors or omissions occur, we have the opportunity to identify them early and rectify them before 2030.
I move amendment 218.
I will be brief, because Mr Whitfield has laid out the rationale for the need for a review. Therefore, I suppose it is a question of what kind of review we are looking for and whether we can reach a level of consensus at this stage, or, as I think is more likely, whether there is broad agreement at this stage on the need for a review that will allow us to agree to more than one of the amendments now and then come back at stage 3 to resolve any potential differences.
In terms of those differences, my amendment 219 would put the onus to conduct the review and to prepare a report on ministers rather than on the Parliament. There is an argument for both approaches. I instinctively come at this from the position of being perfectly comfortable binding future Governments but less comfortable binding future Parliaments on what they should and should not do. I am interested to hear colleagues’ views on that.
My amendment 219 would require ministers to include in the report, subsequent to having completed the review, a statement about any further action that they believe is necessary to meet the Promise.
On the issue of timescales, which John Mason raised, I think that two years is probably right. With an 18-month timescale, I would be slightly concerned that some elements of the bill would not have bedded in by that point, particularly given the difference between whatever the commencement date is and financial years. However, we are in broadly the same territory. I therefore hope that there is broad consensus on the need for review and that it is just a question of exactly what direction we want to go in. I am particularly interested to hear from the minister on that. One possible significant difference is whether we put the requirement on ministers or on the Parliament. As I said, I am keen to hear from colleagues on that.
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 the three members for lodging their respective amendments. Each amendment appropriately recognises the importance of ensuring that the legislative change that the bill will introduce is implemented and impactful in the manner that is intended.
I understand and agree with the aim of ensuring that the bill delivers on its intentions and purpose. However, although I agree with the importance of transparent reporting on progress towards keeping the Promise, I believe that the amendments risk introducing duplicative and potentially conflicting statutory reporting requirements alongside existing and planned reporting frameworks.
Amendment 219, from Mr Greer, and amendment 220, from Mr Rennie, would create minister‑led reviews on a fixed cycle. I welcome the recognition in both amendments that reviewing the act should be done only after commencement of the review section, to allow for commencement of other substantive provisions that we want to be subject to review. However, there are issues with amendment 220, because it prescribes detailed subject matter—restraint, education exclusion and longitudinal and equalities data sets—that either sits outwith the bill or is already being progressed through separate work programmes and the refreshing of guidance.
Considerable work is under way in partnership, through the story of progress and the data and evidence group, which is led by Scotland’s chief social policy adviser, to enable us to show delivery on key aspects of the Promise. Amendment 220 also seeks to include reporting on actions that are taken in relation to matters that are beyond the scope of the bill, including the exclusion of care-experienced young people from education.
Amendment 218, from Mr Whitfield, would place a duty on a parliamentary committee to report on the operation of the act. Parliamentary committees are, of course, already able to conduct such post-legislative scrutiny as they consider appropriate, and the Scottish Government always gives due consideration to any reports that are produced as a result of such scrutiny. It is nevertheless open to Parliament to place statutory duties on itself in this area. I suggest to Mr Whitfield that it might be preferable to see the review amendment that I hope to lodge following discussions with members ahead of stage 3 before asking the Parliament to decide whether it is a case that merits taking that step.
There are two questions that we are all keen to answer: first, is the legislation having the impact that we want it to have, and secondly, have we successfully delivered the changes that the more than 5,500 voices that informed the independent care review have told us must happen?
The minister speaks about looking at a review amendment ahead of stage 3. Why did she not consider lodging a review amendment at stage 2 so that the committee could discuss the matter?
I have brought forward the provisions that I aim to take forward in the bill. As is the usual process with bills, a number of issues have come up in discussion with members, and reflecting on the stage 1 debate has made it clear to me that a review of legislation would be appropriate. It has not been brought in at stage 2, but I am making a commitment to bring it forward at stage 3, based on the opinions of other members. As I said, I have a series of engagement measures already laid out in advance of stage 3, and I am happy to discuss the matter as part of that process to ensure that we get to a place where everyone is comfortable.
As I said, in recognising that, and following consideration of the amendments that have been lodged, I would like to explore further an appropriate amendment at stage 3 on which I hope that we will all be able to agree. I therefore ask members not to press their amendments.
I call Martin Whitfield to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 218.
10:15
Again, we find ourselves in an interesting position in which we are invited not to put in the bill something that we recognise as important. My amendment 218 would require the Scottish Parliament to review the act. Of course, any committee of the Parliament has an innate right to investigate anything within its remit that it wants to. However, the purpose behind the amendment is to mark the importance of the issue. I am always cautious of the dangers of binding a future Parliament—I agree with Ross Greer on that—but I am more than happy to bind a future Government.
Two things need to be considered here. As I said, we need to make sure that the act delivers on what it is supposed to deliver, but there will also be a wider question for the Parliament as the years move on in relation to whether we are delivering on the Promise. There is an issue about the scope of Mr Whitfield’s amendment. Those two things need to be considered together but also separately, and perhaps we need to leave the route open to that. That will form part of my discussions with members on the appropriate way forward for stage 3.
The minister is right that there are two aspects. There is an overarching responsibility relating to how the bill is progressing, but there is also an obligation, through post-legislative scrutiny, to drill down into what is happening with a piece of legislation and to consider whether it is operating as the Parliament envisaged when it was passed, or whether unknown unknowns or known unknowns have come into view.
To be fair, all the amendments in the group articulate a review of the bill. The minister rightly has concerns with regard to amendments 219 and 220, because they would overlap with reviews that are being considered or other elements that will be looked at. However, it is important to have a review because, as we have heard, there are areas in which the bill has not yet envisaged reviews taking place and that the minister would like to happen.
Albeit that my amendment 218 would place a burden on the Scottish Parliament, the advantage is that it would place a duty on others to instigate the review. The questions that the members of the committee that would do that would ask themselves are articulated at a very high level in the amendment, which would allow that committee to scrutinise as it wishes to do.
Amendments 219 and 220 would definitely be the Government’s preferred approach. I am happy to support those amendments, but with the understanding that they will have to be revisited ahead of stage 3, given the concerns that I laid out about aspects that are not contained in the bill and other considerations. To be clear, I am not trying to push this off to stage 3. We are clear that committee members would like a review to ensure that the act is delivering what it should. As I say, I would like further refinement of that through discussions ahead of stage 3.
That intervention is incredibly helpful. If amendments 219 and 220 appear in the bill at stage 2, that will allow progress towards what I hope will be a cross-Parliament agreement on post-legislative scrutiny.
With that, I seek to withdraw my amendment 218.
Amendment 218, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 219 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 219 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 219 agreed to.
Amendment 220, in the name of Willie Rennie, has already been debated with amendment 218. I call Willie Rennie to move or not move.
For Paul O’Kane, I will move it. [Laughter.]
Let us see.
Amendment 220 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
Section 24—Regulation-making powers
Amendment 124 not moved.
Amendment 221 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 221 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 221 disagreed to.
Amendments 222, 224, 125, 223 and 123 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25—Commencement
Amendment 86 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
Section 26—Short title
Amendment 225 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 225 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 225 disagreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That concludes stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the minister and her supporting officials for their time, today and on the previous two days of consideration. I also thank committee members and other members who lodged amendments.
I suspend the meeting for 15 minutes.
10:22
Meeting suspended.
10:36
On resuming—
Previous
Subordinate Legislation