Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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 have already highlighted my concern that some of the positions that would be taken by the one-member panel process might inadvertently have some form of unintended consequence. I lodged my amendments to look at what I believe overstretches that decision-making process, especially because, as I have already stated, we have issues in rural areas right now and I want the unintended consequences to be brought out. However, I take on board what the minister has said and that she is willing to work with me on those concerns.

Amendment 105 is entirely about safeguarding. I have heard of instances where a safeguarder has made the situation that they have been put in worse rather than better. I am concerned that, if one person is making the decision, the information for that one person needs to be complete, which means that that approach is maybe not the right way to go.

On amendment 106, I am concerned that, if we introduce a system of one-member panels, we will easily get to a stage at which more information and decision making moves towards that one-member panel. Amendment 106 seeks to make sure that it is held in statute that the most important cases should be heard by three-member panels.

Amendment 107 is about continuity of the chair. I have explained a little bit about what the amendments are, but I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3. There are concerns and work needs to be done, but I am happy to take it forward offline, as the minister said, and work on the amendments ahead of stage 3.

11:15

I accept that we should have that process, and I agree 100 per cent that advocacy should not be a one-off offer, if that makes sense.

By not focusing on infants, we have a splintered approach right now. We are not getting it right for the youngest children. Will the minister explain to me how the current approach gets it right for the youngest children involved in the process?

Given the statement that the minister has just made, is she willing to work on the issue before stage 3 to ensure that we have a suitable process? We are talking about moving forward and looking at all care-experienced children, so is she willing to work on this whole area to ensure that infants are properly included in the bill?

I will not pre-empt that then—I will listen to the rest of the debate. I will do it that way, if that is okay. I would like to hear more of what the minister has to say on the other amendments.

Thank you, convener, for helping me with the process earlier. The debate was very interesting, and I am glad that it continued. I will seek to withdraw my amendment and take up the minister’s offer to work on the issue ahead of stage 3, to examine whether we can amend the bill to ensure that the youngest people who are involved in the process have a system that works for them.

Amendment 110, by agreement, withdrawn.

Good morning—it is nice to be back. I will talk solely about my own amendments.

We are sometimes in a position of not knowing what we do not know. The minister will be well aware of my concern about the housing issues that care-experienced young people, and care-experienced people in general, face. We hear regularly that there is a serious problem, but we do not have much data on it.

My amendment 103 is intended to provide transparency with regard to housing outcomes. It would introduce annual reporting on housing outcomes for care-experienced people, which would allow us to see whether the policies that we are putting in place are actually working. What is measured tends to get improved.

Amendment 104 is intended to close an accountability loop. It would require reporting on spending priorities and outcomes that are aligned with the Promise. The Government is committed to the policy—we can see that large investments are being made—and the amendment seeks to allow us to have an idea of how the money is being spent and what the results are.

By lodging my amendments, I hope to shed a bit of light and transparency on what is happening.

I am sorry to interrupt you mid-flow, minister. My concern in this regard arises from the application of the provision in rural areas. I have spoken to many panel members recently. In certain areas, such as rural areas, it is physically impossible to get three panel members, and we are finding that members are coming from other areas to sit on panels.

The proposals, as I understand them, are that, where it is practicable, somebody will be appointed to make the decisions in such a case. In rural areas, where there is a limited pool of panel members, that could mean that there is a member from another geographical area making decisions on families that could, on specific matters such as safeguarding, actually set the case back.

That issue has been explained to me, although I might not be explaining it very well here. There can be a detrimental effect such that sometimes a safeguarder can take the situation back a step rather than forward. That is how it is working on the ground.

My amendment seeks to ensure that there are three voices making such decisions, rather than one, based on the fact that rurality is causing a bit of an issue here. What are the minister’s comments on that sort of specific situation?

11:00