Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

I reiterate that I support amendments 207, 210, 210A and 212.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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].

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?

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.

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.