Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am probably at risk of asking the minister to repeat herself; if so, I apologise in advance. I want to be absolutely clear about the policy intentions of the regulations compared to the aspirations for the bill.

Minister, you confirmed to Willie Rennie that the intention is not to incentivise placements, but to raise the standards of placements. You also confirmed to Graeme Dey that one of the Government’s longer-term objectives, which will be addressed through the bill, is to reduce the number of cross-border placements overall. For clarity, will you confirm whether one of the policy intentions or objectives of the regulations is to disincentivise cross-border placements and to temporarily try to limit the number of placements, or is that not a material consideration for the regulations but a longer-term aspiration to be tackled by the bill?

That is helpful. It might well be that the regulations disincentivise placements, but that is not their intention, which is purely about raising the standards of the current situation until legislation is introduced to make wider changes.

I am keen to get into some other points of substance. However, given that you have raised the 22-days proposal, which I asked the commissioner’s office about last week, I am interested in your perspective. My understanding was that we could not, through regulation, address the proposal that the officials laid out. The specifics of what they asked for would have to be addressed through primary legislation or, indeed, are entirely outwith the scope of the Scottish Parliament, given that we are talking about an English High Court order.

When I discussed the role of the advocate with the children’s commissioner’s office, my presumption was that the advocate would be the most likely route through which ministers would become aware of a concern, but you will be aware that the children’s commissioner’s office has asked why that would be an advocate rather than specifically legal representation. I assume that, in a number of cases, the advocate might well be someone with relevant legal qualifications anyway, but that is not guaranteed. Can you expand a bit on why the regulations do not give those young people guaranteed legal representation? That could be provided alongside the advocate, since the commissioner’s office acknowledged that the advocate can play a really powerful role. However, given that the young people are unlikely to be entirely familiar with their rights under English law, never mind Scots law, there is a need for clear understanding of what their rights are under the Scottish system.

Thank you. I am keen to come back in if there is time, convener. However, I will be happy to leave it there for now, because I know that other members would like to ask questions.

I am keen to hear others’ reflections in relation to the example that Paul Bradley gave of experience of engaging with Scottish Government officials, civil servants and folk from various national agencies, and whether they are bringing the NPF to their discussions with you, and how that is shaping the requests that you make of them and your strategic decisions. Does anybody have a different experience—expecting to go to meetings with civil servants knowing that they will ask how you are contributing to NPF outcomes? Are others’ experiences broadly similar to what Paul outlined?

That is really good to hear. The last part of that answer probably points to your answer to my next question but, if such a piece of work was to be undertaken, where would responsibility for it sit? Would it be with Education Scotland or with Graeme Logan and the learning directorate? I am interested in the accountability around evaluation of the scheme overall, but if a specific bit of longitudinal evaluation work was to be done, where would it best sit?

I want to bring together two points that Nick Hobbs made that are perhaps related. A couple of moments ago, you said that there is a question about the connection between the young person and Scottish ministers, if it comes to the issue of whether ministers should pursue the placing authority. The issue is about how ministers would know to do that, if the young person does not have any connection with them.

I think that that is related to the question of the role of the advocate. I completely accept your point that an advocate is not a substitute for legal representation. There are complications because, with the young people who we are talking about, if they have a lawyer in the first instance, in almost all cases, it will not be a lawyer who practises Scots law. Is there not a potential role for the advocate there?

There is a question about how to create a connection between the young person and the Scottish ministers for the use of the potential power to pursue through the sheriff court. Could that not be addressed through guidance for the independent advocates that that is part of their role in advocating for the young person? If, after discussion, the advocate and young person believe that it is necessary, part of the advocate’s role could be to create a connection with ministers and the Scottish Government to see whether the option of pursuit through the courts is viable.

How much of Education Scotland’s role is about ensuring that the RICs and local authorities are evaluating and feeding back versus doing its own direct evaluation?

I have a question about encouraging that local accountability. It is not for the Scottish Government to tell local elected members what they should have on their agenda, but how do you strike the right balance between giving local authorities the autonomy that they deserve as elected bodies and trying to encourage and support them to do local evaluation work that can collectively be fed up to build the national picture?