Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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 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.

No, I am not saying that in relation to this specific bill—

Yes, absolutely. I was giving the committee an idea of the general response to the UNCRC and highlighting the issues around that. I have already been clear in my answers about what I am doing in relation to the concerns that have been raised on specific aspects of the bill.

Good morning.

It is a personal honour for me to bring forward this legislation. The provisions set out in it represent a significant step forward in our commitment to keep the Promise and ensure that all children and young people in Scotland can grow up loved, safe and respected.

The bill builds on progress that is already being made nationally and locally. There are now fewer children and young people who are looked after in Scotland, no young people under the age of 18 are being admitted to young offenders institutions, and more people with care experience are going on to positive destinations nine months after leaving school.

However, we all know that the journey that we are on still has some way to go. The pace of change has to be increased, and in more areas and on more issues. The Promise has to become a reality in care-experienced people’s lives.

The bill seeks to support that ambition. It makes changes to a wide range of policy areas, including expanding eligibility for aftercare, improving the language of care, establishing a national register of foster carers, tackling excessive profit in the care system, providing statutory guidance to promote understanding, and expanding eligibility for and the right to advocacy.

That last measure is particularly important, because it will empower children and young people, and ensure that their opinions are central in decision making in their own lives. It also ensures that the voice of care-experienced children and young people is supported and heard throughout the system.

I was at an event hosted by Our Hearings, Our Voice, which was all about celebrating and listening to care-experienced voices. At that event, young people spoke about some of the ways that they would like to see hearings change. They are carrying out some great work of their own, but some of what was discussed speaks directly to the bill, which also includes provisions to help strengthen the children’s hearings system, and to strengthen the relationship between children’s and adult services, which are key to delivering holistic family support.

The bill is not the sum total of our work to keep the Promise, and nor should it be. Practical changes are being made that do not require legislative reform. Other changes, such as those in chapter 3 on children’s hearings, are part of a wider and broader project to redesign children’s hearings. However, I am aware that there is a wide range of views on whether improvements and additions can be made to the bill.

I put on record my appreciation of everyone who has responded to and engaged with the development of the bill’s provisions, from the original consultation through to providing and giving evidence at stage 1, as well as my appreciation of everybody I have met along the way.

I am also grateful to committee members and party spokespeople for engaging with me at stage 1, and I hope that that co-operation continues throughout the bill’s progress in Parliament. I want to make it clear that I am listening.

I am happy to take the committee’s questions.

I do not believe that there has been a lack of engagement. I think that there has been extensive engagement from me and my officials.

The bill has been informed by the independent care review, which reflected the voices of more than 5,500 care-experienced children, adults and families. We undertook four public consultations. A range of work has been on-going with different organisations. I have engaged with Sheriff Mackie on his report on the children’s hearings system. Most importantly, I have met very regularly with children and young people to determine what their priorities are.

Although I appreciate that there has been some criticism around engagement, I do not necessarily know whether that is criticism of engagement leading up to the bill’s introduction; it is perhaps more about a lack of engagement around the specific provisions in the bill.

I have a duty to respect Parliament; I am bound by the ministerial code. I assure the committee that, both leading up to and following the introduction of the bill, I have engaged widely—as have my officials—and I will continue to do so.

Well, I will—

Well, you said—