Chamber and committees

That would have to be considered before it was agreed where the child was going to be placed, because we would have to consider whether those services were available for that child. If there was going to be a barrier to that child accessing certain services, that placement would probably not be in the best interests of that child. The consideration of where that child should be placed should happen before the notification.

Good morning. Happy new year to everyone. I hope that you had a nice break.

I am very pleased to introduce draft regulations that ensure legal recognition of orders and arrangements for children who are on temporary cross-border placements in care homes and foster care in Scotland. I put on record that the draft regulations are not intended to be a substitute for suitable placements of children being available in their home nations. I am also clear that cross-border placements should occur only in exceptional circumstances when it is in the best interests of a child.

Our intention is to ensure that, when such placements are necessary, they are appropriately considered and assessed and subject to a clear regulatory framework. We have heard that, for many placements in residential care homes in Scotland, local services often know very little about the placed child or their circumstances. Indeed, they sometimes only find out about a placement during a crisis. New notification requirements aim to ensure that that does not happen in the future.

We have heard that children are sometimes placed in settings or services that are not fully equipped to meet their needs. The draft regulations aim to address those concerns by requiring policing authorities to assess the suitability in advance.

Additional conditions are to be met for cross-border placements into residential care homes, including regular visits and placement reviews. Those conditions aim to address concerns that we have heard: that those who are involved in the child’s care in Scotland are frequently not included in existing review processes and that visits might be infrequent. For children who are placed into residential care homes and are subject to deprivation of liberty orders, the order must be reviewed at least every three months to ensure necessity and proportionality.

Again, for cross-border fostering placements, the draft regulations will require placement suitability to be considered in advance and for those with an interest in the child’s care to be notified of the placement. They aim to build on existing practice by requiring that a fostering agreement is in place before the placement starts, in order to cover issues such as arrangements for visits and reviews.

Although most cross-border placements into Scotland are temporary arrangements, there are some limited circumstances in which it could be appropriate for a child to be brought into the Scottish system. For example, if a child’s family relocates to Scotland, the relevant Scottish local authority may agree to take over their care. Those types of permanent transfer have been possible since 2013, and the regulations will preserve them while bringing all the rules on cross-border placements into one place.

I am happy to take any questions that members may have.

I understand your concerns. I again refer to my most recent engagement around the Promise bill, through which those concerns have been brought to me as well. I have tried to provide as much reassurance as possible in relation to the many provisions that are included in the bill and have addressed the overarching need for it and its aims of protecting children and young people.

I understand your concerns in relation to the issue and the wider feeling across Government in relation to the introduction of legislation. I have given you the Government’s response. We are leading work on the matter and we are committed to realising the full aspects of the UNCRC. I will update the committee further in relation to the specific points that were raised in your report with regard to the UNCRC and the Promise bill.

I have not discussed that issue recently, but Mr O’Kane will be aware of the amount of work that is under way around secure care. Officials have regular conversations on the issue.

I have been clear previously that my priority must be safeguarding children and young people, whether they are in secure care or residential placements. Although I understand the concerns of secure care centres in relation to funding and cross-border placements, I must go with what is best for children and young people.

On the other side, work is on-going around reimagining secure care and how we future proof it. We need to take on those two aspects at the same time, and, where concerns may arise around the cross-border situation, we are looking to provide support in other ways.

That is exactly the issue. I was made aware of a child who was placed in Scotland without suitable education provision being arranged in advance. The local authority was not informed of that placement and became aware only when it was approached for an education place, which, at that time, it was not possible to provide.

The draft regulations will put in place safeguards to ensure that that does not happen, because there will be time for adequate planning. As Mr Mason points out, it is unacceptable for children to be without education for a length of time, and to be treated differently from others, so I believe that that is one of the positive aspects of the regulations.

There was no discussion on that. As I say, there were many things on the agenda for my discussion with the minister yesterday. Cross-border placements was only one of them, so we did not get into that level of detail. There are several things that we will follow up on with each other, so I would be more than happy to put that point to ministers in the UK Government, if Mr Rennie would wish for me to do so.

Sorry, convener, is that strictly in relation to the Promise bill, or over and above it?

Mr Ross will remember that, in short, two aspects of the Promise bill are not compatible with the UNCRC: the fostering register and another aspect. I am happy to go into more detail around the matter, as I did in a previous committee meeting, during the stage 1 debate.

Mr Ross is aware of the children’s rights scheme, which I laid before Parliament last month, and our engagement with the UK Government to explore the removal of legislative restrictions that limit our ability to enhance human rights. If, by November 2026, the Scottish Government considers that, in respect of that engagement with the UK Government, progress in finding a more straightforward and effective route to extending protection for children’s rights has not been sufficient, we will commission a review of the provision of UK acts in devolved areas to identify where we need to act.

Although I appreciate that non-compliant legislation has been introduced—I gave the reasons for that in relation to the two aspects in the Promise bill—I can say that wider work is under way across Government to ensure that our legislation is compliant.

I believe that there are four deprivation of liberty order placements—I will pass over to officials for the official numbers.

You would have to refer that question to our English counterparts. I cannot speak for them—it would not be for me to say. However, I would hope that that would not be the case, based on everything that I have discussed with the committee previously.