Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I am interested in the potential for a longitudinal study of the impact of the funding so far. I think that it was Jim Thewliss from School Leaders Scotland who first made the point to us that we are at a stage where entire cohorts have gone through the whole of primary or secondary education while the funds have been in place, and that this is an appropriate time to commission a long-term, longitudinal evaluation of the overall impact that the funding has had in specific settings? Is any work under way or likely to take place over the coming months that will fit that description?

If you do not mind, I will start with a daft question, because I am certainly not a lawyer. What do you recommend? Is it that the High Court should be able to make orders only for a maximum of 22 days and then a couple of subsequent—potentially, three months—extensions? That is not directly relevant to the regulations, though, is it? That is either for the proposed bill or more directly for the UK Government and UK-wide legislation.

I recognise that there are ways in which the regulations can be strengthened. However, particularly on restricting the High Court’s ability in terms of the length of orders, it seems to me to be questionable whether we would be able to do that through regulation in Scotland. I assume that any English authority that was seeking to challenge that would at least have a pretty strong case, given that the matter is not in primary legislation in Scotland and is not relevant to the UK-wide legislation—the English legislation, specifically—that applies.

You mentioned a couple of other concerns that I am interested in getting into in a little bit more detail. One of them—it seems to be very reasonable—is that under the regulations the Care Inspectorate will not be obliged to inspect facilities. There is an obligation to notify the inspectorate, but it is not obliged to take any particular action. Given that the regulations are a temporary solution, would you be satisfied if the Care Inspectorate simply made a commitment to inspect, although it would not be required to by regulations, given that what we are talking about will—we hope—be in place for two years? If the Care Inspectorate simply made a commitment to inspect facilities, would that address that specific concern?