Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely value and understand the importance of ensuring that any decision that is made in relation to a child protection order is well evidenced and in the child’s best interests.

The Scottish Government opposes amendments 119 and 120 on the basis that the current legislation and practice are already sufficient in that area. When social workers apply for child protection orders, they must submit paperwork to a sheriff, which includes a signed statement that acts as an oath. Furthermore, in most cases, the sheriff requests a discussion on the case, and a verbal oath is therefore also taken.

There might be cases in which a sheriff does not necessarily consider that the application warrants further discussion, and it would not be appropriate for legislation to require a verbal oath in cases in which the sheriff has judged that that is not necessary. Although legislation can and does set out matters that sheriffs must take into account, prescribing that an oath must always be taken goes further than current practice, in which sheriffs may determine that written evidence is sufficient.

As they have considered all the evidence in the particular case, sheriffs are best placed to decide how evidence should be taken, including whether it should be given on oath. The law should allow that discretion rather than prescribe it. I therefore hope that my explanation highlights to Miles Briggs that Ms Webber’s amendments are unnecessary.

I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 119 or move amendment 120. If he does, I encourage members to vote against them.

I will bring in my official, Aisha Pereyra, to say more in a moment, but a number of things had to be considered following the consultation, including the delivery vehicle and the safeguarding of children. We had to deal with a number of matters to really ensure that we got the payment right, based on what we heard during the consultation and on our engagement. Aisha may be able to say more about the full timeline.

I could not say that for certain, although I believe that that was an aspect—as well as the further work that had to take place in preparation for bringing the draft regulations to the committee.

I would be happy to do that, to clarify the point about the time between May 2025 and bringing the regulations to the committee today.

I thank Mr Rennie for lodging amendment 168. I share his desire to prevent the premature deaths of anyone in Scotland, and—in the context of the Promise—to prevent the disproportionate number of early deaths that are linked to outcomes from being care experienced.

However, I am concerned about the scope of the proposed duty and how it would actually work in practice. Amendment 168 assumes that the Scottish ministers would readily have access to relevant information about such matters for all care-experienced persons who are under the age of 65. However, that is not the case, especially in relation to adults who might have left the care system many years ago and whose care records might no longer be available.

As well as its being unworkable, I am concerned that, as proposed, amendment 168 could be detrimental to the privacy of care-experienced people, and that it could cause trauma and stigmatisation to their families. In addition, defining “premature death” is a medical matter. For some people, unknown or later-diagnosed health conditions can cause death earlier than might be the case in the general population.

It is important to continue to gather data on the deaths of children who are looked after and to seek to prevent more such deaths. Under regulation 6 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, notification duties are already in place in the event of the death of a child who is looked after. Further detail on reporting was set out in an update to national guidance in 2024.

Since October 2021, a national hub has been in place to review and learn from the deaths of all children and young people in Scotland. A principal aim of the hub is to channel the learning from child death reviews to inform change and improvement and, ultimately, help to reduce the number of future preventable child deaths. The national child protection/adult support and protection learning review group also meets regularly to ensure that learning is better shared between partners and to drive national improvements.

The law and processes that we have in place must be proportionate, flexible and timely to ensure that learning is relevant to the current practice context and is systematic in approach. There must be a strengthened focus on how learning can be actioned and implemented to improve outcomes for all. However, I recognise the need and collective desire to prevent as many preventable deaths as we possibly can, and I agree that there is more work to do to ensure that such learning from the information that we hold can support increased preventative activity.

I will be happy to explore the issue further with Mr Rennie ahead of stage 3 and to consider what more can be done to build on the existing work that I have set out, with a particular focus on the deaths of looked-after children and people under the age of 26 who are receiving continuing care or aftercare.

I agree with the intent behind Miles Briggs’ amendment 185. Ensuring that children’s care services are effective, accessible and free from unnecessary barriers, including unnecessary bureaucracy, is central to our commitment to keep the Promise. However, the issues that Mr Briggs seeks to address, including bureaucratic barriers to access or delivery, are already covered by a robust statutory framework for children’s services planning, reviews and reporting. That framework is further supported by annual reports and inspection that form a core part of the children’s care system. There are amendments in a later group that also relate to that and which are relevant to amendment 185.

My concern is that introducing a separate statutory review would duplicate existing legal duties and would add complexity and, potentially, more bureaucracy to the system, almost as an unintended consequence, whereas our focus should be on delivery and improvement.

I assure Mr Briggs that the Scottish Government is committed to strengthening the existing framework, including through enhancing scrutiny of children’s services plan annual reports, supporting local engagement in that scrutiny, refreshing statutory guidance and ensuring that there are clearer expectations for identifying and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

There may be a place for that in the new agency. I would be more than happy to discuss that further with Mr Briggs and with Social Work Scotland, to see whether we can address the concerns that Mr Briggs has raised through amendment 185.

Roz McCall’s amendment 103 would require the Scottish ministers to report on housing outcomes for care-experienced people. I know that this issue was considered during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill last year. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 builds upon on the strong housing rights that already exist in Scotland and brings a renewed focus on prevention.

I am acutely aware of the housing challenges that care leavers face, and the Scottish Government is committed to working with partners, including local authorities, on the best approach to reducing them. That includes plans to refresh guidance for local authorities and corporate parents on supporting young people who are leaving care, to improve information on available financial support and to continue engagement with the Department for Work and Pensions on how young people leaving care can access its services in Scotland.

It is unclear how information on housing outcomes could be gathered in practice for an annual report under amendment 103, as not all people with care experience will have a housing outcome in the social rented sector. I suggest that the partnership work that is currently under way through the Promise story of progress and the Promise progress framework is the best route for monitoring and reporting outcomes. I am prepared to look further at the housing-related data and at how that might inform improved service provision.

There are similar challenges with Roz McCall’s amendment 104, which would create statutory reporting duties on expenditure, service provision and outcomes related to care experience.

The extensive partnership work that is under way, and that is being continuously developed among the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, The Promise Scotland and partners more widely provides the most appropriate route to demonstrate progress.

As was the case with amendment 103, I note that the Promise story of progress provides the jointly agreed approach to measuring change, the key metrics against which progress can be measured and a strong quantitative basis for understanding progress and directing further action.

In addition, the work that is under way, led by Scotland’s national social policy adviser Linda Bauld, to connect data sources across the Scottish Government and across organisations, notably with Public Health Scotland, is effectively improving our understanding of progress. Through Plan 24-30, there is a growing understanding and a shared vision of what, when and by whom actions must be undertaken.

It is of course important to note that funding for the Promise is complex. I have been clear with the committee on this before: success comes through both targeted and universal service provision, and it can be achieved only through an increased shift in expenditure and activity, from reactiveness to prevention.

Our approach to whole family support aims to remove barriers to enable local partners to have greater flexibility. That alignment and the potential consolidation of funding will support a fuller understanding of total expenditure on Promise-related activity.

Some of the outcome indicators listed in—

I am laying out a clear package of on-going work that can be drawn upon to understand the data, the spending and the activity that is on-going day to day. On whole family wellbeing, the member said that spending is disproportionate across the country. That is driven by the readiness of children’s services planning partnerships. Beyond the Promise, the focus on whole family support and public sector reform must have an impact on the bureaucracy and the reporting issues that have been identified.

Work is under way to enable flex in the funding and reporting. I have set out a clear package of areas that help us to gather the data and evidence that Ms McCall refers to in her amendments 103 and 104. However, imposing statutory reporting requirements in primary legislation would risk detracting from the flexibility that is required to invest in, design and deliver services to achieve the best outcomes. I therefore ask Roz McCall not to move amendments 103 and 104.

I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 105 and 105 for similar reasons. I encourage committee members to vote against those amendments if they are moved.

I thank Fulton MacGregor for lodging this group of amendments. I am aware of his long-standing interest in adoption, both in his previous professional life and as an MSP, and I believe that we share the same aim of ensuring that adoptive families receive strong, reliable and consistent support.

The amendments raise important issues regarding specialist post-adoption social work support, peer support, sustainable funding, recognition of adopted people’s experiences, improving national consistency in adoption breakdown and access to therapeutic support. Such matters are important to many adoptive families, and I thank Mr MacGregor for some of the quotes that he read out and for emphasising people’s real-life experiences. I, too, have heard directly from adoptive families about the challenges and the inconsistencies in support, and that is why we are driving forward actions from the adoption vision statement. However, I am prepared to go a little further today.

Although each and every one of those areas are important, we must ensure that any changes that we make are workable and deliverable across Scotland. Much post-adoption support is provided through wider children and families teams and specialist third sector organisations, and local capacity varies. In that context, placing new duties in the bill risks creating statutory expectations before we have fully clarified their purpose, scope and delivery mechanisms. It is important that any duties in this area are designed with a clear understanding of existing practice and are informed by the experience of adoptive families, so that what we put in place genuinely supports them.

I absolutely recognise the value of specialist post-adoption social work and peer support, and I understand the intention behind highlighting sustainable funding and ensuring that adopted people feel that their experiences are acknowledged. I also agree that there is merit in improving how adoption breakdown is understood and recorded, and I appreciate the intent behind the proposal for a national therapeutic support fund.

However, as drafted, several of the amendments might not achieve the outcomes that we want, and others, such as amendment 12 on peer support and amendment 15 on defining adoption breakdown and setting data requirements, would require further engagement on purpose, scope and implementation before any statutory duties could be placed in legislation.

That said, I do want to be constructive, and I know that Fulton MacGregor does, too. There might be something that we could consider in the broad space represented by amendments 12 and 15, and I would be happy to work with Mr MacGregor and other members ahead of stage 3 to refine their intent in a way that reflects established delivery models; is proportionate and workable; and is informed by adopted families’ experiences.

Separate to that, I am also open to considering a review of the 2011 adoption and looked-after children guidance and to exploring whether a stage 3 enabling power for statutory adoption support guidance, which local authorities must have regard to, might offer a more coherent and proportionate route to improving consistency in the matters that Fulton MacGregor has brought to our attention. I hope that the member agrees with that approach and that he will not press or move these amendments, so that we can continue to work together ahead of stage 3.

My amendment 17 and Mr Whitfield’s amendment 170 seek to amend the financial transparency provisions in section 8 by adding secure accommodation services, which would bring them within the scope of the regulationmaking powers on profit limitation and information.

The Government lodged amendment 17 following the public consultation on the profit provisions. We believe the amendment will provide greater consistency across the children’s residential care sector by ensuring that we also have financial transparency in the secure care sector. As amendment 17 will achieve the aim that Mr Whitfield is also seeking to achieve, I hope that he might understand why I prefer my amendment, and that he might support that and not move his own.

On Mr Whitfield’s amendment 171, although I am confident that, by adding secure care, all appropriate forms of residential care are already included, I understand why it might be considered appropriate to provide for unidentified provision that could be profit making. That future proofing of our provisions with the power to make regulations might also usefully act as a deterrent to any private sector provider moving into Scotland with an innovative form of care that is profit making. It therefore seems sensible to accept amendment 171, but we might need to tidy it up a little bit prior to stage 3.

Amendment 18 will amend section 105(1) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to update the definition of a child to be 18 years for the purposes of the application of the provisions inserted by section 8 of the bill. That is in line with the bill and with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child rather than the previous default of 16 years old.

Amendment 19 will fix a technical problem with the definition of cross-border placement in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The current definition’s reference to cross-border placements that are made into a residential establishment is too narrow to cover placements made into school care accommodation services. Amendment 19 broadens the definition to correct that, and it will ensure that the new powers inserted into the 2010 act by the 2024 act can work as intended.

I ask members to support amendments 17 to 19, and to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 171.

I move amendment 17.

Amendments 20 and 21, in my name, strengthen the statutory basis for payments to foster and kinship carers. They introduce for the first time a clear and consistent mechanism for the annual uprating of allowance rates and form an important part of our wider programme of work to improve the experience of care in Scotland.

Foster and kinship carers play an essential role in providing safe, secure and nurturing homes during some of the most challenging moments in a child’s life, and to meet our commitments under the Promise and to ensure that children experience the stable relationships that they need, we must ensure that carers are not placed under unnecessary financial pressure. Amendment 20 clarifies and strengthens the legislative basis for the payments that local authorities may make to foster carers, and it ensures that ministers can make provision in relation to allowances paid in respect of the child and other payments made to carers for the role that they undertake.

It also enables ministers to require local authorities to publish the rates of payment that they pay to carers. Such transparency is vital. Carers tell us that they want to understand what they are entitled to, and the publication of consistent information will help ensure fairness and support recruitment and retention across the country. It also lays the groundwork for future policy development, including consideration of a national approach to foster carer fee payments.

Amendment 21 introduces a robust mechanism for the annual uprating of foster and kinship care allowances, and it represents a significant step forward. It means that allowance rates must be considered each year in line with inflation, using the established, structured and transparent framework that applies to devolved social security benefits. By maintaining the value of those allowances over time, we can help ensure that carers are supported with the real costs of caring and that financial strain does not impact the stability of placements.

Together, the amendments contribute directly to the Government’s commitment to eradicating child poverty. We know that children who are supported through foster and kinship care allowances are disproportionately located in communities facing the greatest socioeconomic pressures, and we know, too, that many kinship care families are living in poverty. The amendments have the potential to make a difference to those families. By supporting foster and kinship carers, we help ensure that the children whom they care for have every opportunity to thrive, and I therefore encourage members to vote for both amendments.

I move amendment 20.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 185, 103 and 104 not moved.