Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I cannot speak for other ministers or about pieces of legislation other than the one that I have introduced. As I have said, it is regrettable that two aspects of the Promise bill are not compliant with the UNCRC. I have given the reasons for that, which relate to complexity and time. However, as Mr Ross has stated, I am seeking further advice in relation to the concerns that have been raised in the conversations that I have had around the Promise bill in its entirety.

I am more than happy to provide more information around that at the stage 1 debate next week. Claire Montgomery might be happy to follow up on Mr Ross’s points around the UNCRC more generally.

They would have been entitled to that anyway; the point is that the placing authority would not have known about it, so it would not be able to plan in advance and consider the child’s needs. That is where the regulations come into play.