 Fawr o'r cymdeinig i'r 5th gilydd lleifafol bethau o yllafegau ffordd ac yng nghym thighb wgol y ddefnyddio ar gyfer 2024. Mae'r unrhyw ymddangas i na ffordd o'r agenda yw unrhyw twsyddol yng Nghymru a Llyfrgell i'r Gwyrdd dan Strath Gûl, fel yng Nghym Trif. Felly o'r gilydd lleifafol ethaf, yr ydw i gynnig ei fawr y bydd yng nghymda i'r Fygin, mae ydych chi'n mynd i'n gwineb i'r Mennau byd yng nghym Fygin 21. I want to welcome back the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, as well as her supporting officials. I note that the officials seated at the table are here to support the Minister but are not able to speak in the debates on the amendments. Members should therefore direct their comments or questions for the Scottish Government to the Minister. I will briefly explain the procedure that we will be following this morning for anyone who is watching for the first time. The amendments that have been lodged on the bill have been grouped together. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If she has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the minister to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will then put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to a vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. As a reminder, only committee members are allowed to vote and voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerking team has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. Now that we have covered the housekeeping matters, we can start the substantive business. I call amendment 207, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 105. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move. I call amendment 208, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 105. I call amendment 209, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 105. I call amendment 210, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, already debated with amendment 169, Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 210 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 210, those against, the result of the vote on amendment 210 is 4 against 5. Amendment 210 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 211 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, already debated with amendment 169, Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 211 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 211, those against, the result of the vote on amendment 211 is 4 against 5. Amendment 211 is therefore not agreed. We are now moving to the section on secure transportation. I call amendment 212 in the name of Ross Greer, group with amendments 162 and 163. Ross Greer, to move amendment 212 and speak to all amendments in the group. I would like to start off by thanking the hope instead of handcuffs campaign and the minister and her officials for their help with this amendment. It was a bit of a revelation to all members of the committee when we realised that there are no standards set for secure transportation in Scotland. It is a black hole in terms of data on what is actually going on. No one involved in the system, accommodation providers, councils, nobody was content with this. Everybody believes that we need to develop standards. We have no shortage of stories from young people with totally inappropriate use of restraint, deception to get them into vehicles and other what we would consider to be unacceptable behaviour by transport providers. Those are all anecdotes. We have no systematic reporting of that. Sometimes accommodation providers themselves are made aware of an incident, sometimes the council is made aware of an incident, other times nobody is. Amendment 212 creates a new section addressing both standards and reporting requirements concerning secure transport. 90A places the duty on Scottish ministers to create standards for service providers and it requires that they are developed in consultation with appropriate stakeholders. That is the same approach that is taken to care services, including secure accommodations. We are not creating something new and unique here. We are filling a gap in the system. There is an initial minimum but non-exhaustive list of what to include in those standards, and that is to give greatest flexibility and to make sure that this process is led to the greatest extent possible by those who are affected through consultation rather than by ourselves now if we unduly restrict it through primary legislation. I would highlight that COS2A4 requires that standards are set in relation to the use of restraint. It does not ban restraint for the obvious reason that everybody in a car should be restrained at a minimum by their seat belt. Some restraint during transportations is clearly not only reasonable but is required by other legislation. Being in a moving vehicle creates obvious risks, which may make further restraint necessary. Committee members and the minister are all aware of evidence of totally unnecessary use of restraint, so standards should clearly be set here. The approach of setting standards via secondary legislation also gives the opportunity for further direct parliamentary scrutiny of those standards once they have been developed and come back to us. 90B creates a corresponding duty on the providers to meet the standards and on those commissioning their services to ensure that the standards are actually being met. I'm very grateful to the member to give way. Could you explain whether or not this particular section is expected to extend to justice services transporting young people not between secure or to or from secure accommodation but in general parlance of their duties as law enforcement officers? I thank the member for that intervention. My expectation would be that that would cover all providers of secure transport for young people, so that's a long-ended way of saying, yes, I believe that it would. Regardless of the settings that a young person is being moved between, so that this is not just on young people who are in the care of a local authority, because it also places the duty on Scottish ministers where a young person may be in their care, i.e. whether at that stage of the justice system. 90C establishes the reporting requirements. As I said, we currently don't really know what's going on in secure transport, we've just got lots of anecdotes. It requires reports from local authorities and a consolidated report from ministers. I think that that will surface issues locally and nationally and allow them to be addressed in a systematic manner. There's a balance to strike between the need for reporting and the burden that we place on councils in particular. We'll all be familiar with regular concerns on councils that reporting requirements are already taking resources away from service delivery, so that gives flexibility to the format of the reports, i.e. councils will, in some cases, already be producing wider reports that that could simply make a new section of, rather than forcing them to create something brand new where that wouldn't necessarily be required. Miles Briggs amendments seek a very similar outcome to my slightly different way, more through setting the requirements on the face of the bill than through regulations, so I'll allow the member to speak to his reasoning for that. As I said, my preference for the approach of particularly developing the standards through secondary legislation is that it would give us another opportunity to directly scrutinise them as Parliament, and I do think that we need to provide a bit of flexibility in the reporting as well. Particularly given the small number of young people that we're talking about here, I think that it would be quite hard, if not impossible in some instances, to maintain their privacy while producing disaggregated reporting based on characteristics. I recognise, though, that we're absolutely trying to achieve the same goal. 212 does not formally pre-empt Miles Briggs amendments 162 and 163, although I think that if we end up in a situation where all are passed, the bill is creating some kind of duplication that we need to clear up at stage 3. However, as I said, we're absolutely trying to achieve the same outcome here. I know that this would probably be for the regulation stage, but there are some who argue that restraint should be almost excluded completely because they see that as an indication of a failure to manage the young person in a more effective way. Does he envisage a minimalist approach? I know that he's not in favour of banning it completely, but where does he draw the line? What kind of guidance do we give for the next stage? I thank Mr Rennie for that intervention. I have a lot of sympathy with those who would wish to see restraint eliminated from the system completely. I think that we would all want to see a system where there are no situations in which restraint becomes inevitable or unavoidable. The challenge that I see in a situation like this is that I can envisage a hypothetical where in a vehicle moving at speed if an incident were to occur. For the safety of everybody in that vehicle, including the child, it may be necessary to, for the minimum amount of time and using the minimum amount of force, restrain that young person appropriately. That's deeply uncomfortable, but for their safety that might be required. I would want to see a set of standards that focus on making that situation unlikely in the first place and then set out clear expectations on the provider to minimise the use of restraint if it becomes unavoidable. That being said, I'm not the expert in this. I don't have lived experience this, which is why I have added those requirements to consult and to come back to Parliament with those regulations. I have a very brief final point, which is not something that we can cover in primary legislation but is related to it. It was surfaced by the scrutiny of this area of the legislation at stage 1. That's about the service providers in Scotland. There's clearly been some kind of failure, whether it's a market failure or a failure of procurement processes, where we have providers driving nine hours from Portsmouth to Glasgow or Dundee to then take a young person on a 15-minute journey. There is a need for government and for local authorities to identify why that's the case, why we don't have that provision here in Scotland, whether it's appropriate for that to be in-house provision within the public sector, whether there are private providers willing to provide it, but there's some kind of regulatory or procurement barrier. We do need to resolve that because clearly it's not good value for money for the public and it's providing a much poorer quality of service for vulnerable young people than we would all like to see. I think that that just about covers it, convener, so I'll finish there. Thank you very much, Rose Greer. Can I now ask Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 162 and other amendments in the group? Thank you. Good morning to members and minister and your officials as well. I'd like to start by saying that I've also been working with, I hope, instead of handcuffs in over the number of years now to look at how this can be looked at and also how this bill can create that framework, which I think we all want to see. Very much welcome, Rose Greer's 212, in terms of what I would also like to see. I note from the Children and Young People's Commissioner that they had commented on 163 in relation to elements around strengthening data collection. I think that 212 achieves what I've also wanted to see, so I'm happy not to move 162 and 163, but in summing up, I hope that the minister might look at some of the comments that organisations have said in relation to strengthening that data collection issue. Minister, can I now call on yourself now? Thank you. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to Mr Greer and Mr Briggs for bringing forward these amendments. Secure transport of children is a very important matter and there is a range of work on going in this area. As Mr Greer mentioned, the Government has worked with him on amendment 212. It's been carefully framed to take account of wider matters. It's envisaged that the standards that ministers would be obliged to publish and report on would draw heavily on the service specification that the Scottish Government and COSLA have produced. The committee heard about this at stage 1, however it is not mandatory. Therefore, amendment 212 allows a set of national standards that all those commissioning secure transport must adhere to. The service specification prohibits the use of mechanical restraint, handcuffs or pain-inducing techniques. Careful consideration will be given to this issue before ministers produce standards. We are aware that restraint, as has been discussed this morning, may require to be an option in a very small number of cases as a last resort, either to protect a child or to protect those transporting them. The alternative may have to be the police being called bringing a criminal justice response. On a national regulator, we noted the concerns raised by the care inspectorate and their evidence regarding their role and remit. However, I would like to assure the committee that discussions are on-going in this respect. I can't pre-empt these but I would like to reassure the committee and members that there is existing legislative provision to enable the functions of registering, regulating and inspecting secure transport services to be conferred on the care inspectorate. While I am not saying that this is the direction that things will certainly go on in the future, I think that it is useful in context in terms of the window of opportunity presented by this bill. My officials also continue to work with relevant agencies to look at a national contract that would standardise matters in terms of a provider and approach Scotland-wide. I commend Miles Briggs for raising the matters in the amendment. I note that Miles Briggs has said that he is not going to press the amendments, so I won't go into these in detail. However, Mr Briggs referred to some issues around data collection. What I would say is that I would be happy to have a discussion with Mr Briggs on any gaps that he feels in relation to the production of the standards going forward. In summary, I would support amendment 212. I would ask the committee to do likewise. Ross Greer now to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 212, please. Thanks. I will always say in winding up as I welcome the minister's commitment to Miles Briggs to look further at the data collection points. I think that those are really important issues that Mr Briggs and the Children and Young People's Commissioner have surfaced, but apart from that I think that we have covered this quite comprehensively, so I am going to press amendment 212. The question is that amendment 212 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, thank you. So now we are moved to section 23 on secure accommodation, and in this grouping I first call amendment 108 in the name of Ross McCall, group with amendments as shown in the grouping. Ross McCall to move amendment 108 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning everyone again. 108 and 109 again, probing amendments are as following on basically from other amendments that have been put forward and other amendments have been discussed. This is regarding separation concerns, regarding biological sex when it comes to secure accommodation. I've listened to the minister over the past couple of weeks and I'm not sure that there will be much more that the minister can add to this, these probing amendments, but again I put across a scenario because I'm concerned regarding safeguarding measures about concerns over adequate accommodation provision. So we could find a situation where a biological male residing in a secure accommodation for reasons of a sexual assault could be within the same secure accommodation as a biological female needing to be removed from a harmful environment. I would really appreciate the minister's elaboration on this and to give him more details on safeguarding measures that this sort of scenario will not happen. I'm not going to move at the moment but I would like to hear what the minister has to say. Thank you. Thank you, Ross McCall, and now breaking with tradition. Sue Webber to call and speak to her amendment in her own name. The amendment that I've placed after last week's committee is a very simple amendment that is there to really specifically ensure that children should not be put in the same secure accommodation with the child that has caused them harm. It's not much more complicated than that and I hope that that's certainly the intention behind my amendment just to broadly ensure that child children are safe in the secure accommodation. I won't really speak much more apart from that. As I said, it's very simple. Can I now ask Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 155 and other amendments in the group, please? I'd like to start by paying tribute and thanking a number of people who have helped shape some of those amendments. Beth Morrison and her son Callum have been working towards Callum's law, Daniel Johnson, my Lothian colleague, who is also working on a bill around this, and a number of organisations. Very much the letter that we all received on 23 November from the Promised Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission, Mental Welfare, Commission for Scotland, the Children, Young People's Commissioner and the Quality View and Rights Commission, looking at how we can develop a statutory framework on restraint and seclusion. My amendments in this group look towards to try to secure that in secure accommodation. Amendments 115 and 116 look towards training regulations to make sure that we have consistency in that. It has been noted that across councils they are responsible for different systems and different commissioners being provided to deliver that. I think that that needs tightened up. Amendments 115 to 161 look at the recording and reporting of restraint within secure accommodation. I hope that those will provide duties not only to record and report, but to look towards restraint being used as a last resort. I hope that the minister in considering those amendments can see what the Scottish Government and members of this committee want to see potentially at stage 2, but if not happy to work on those at stage 3. I understand that some committee members in their scrutiny of the bill have highlighted concerns around children who have committed an offence being placed in secure accommodation with other children raised this morning. I also note from last week's committee session the need for further reassurance on the safeguarded measures in place in secure accommodation. All of Scotland's secure accommodation providers offer an integrated model of delivery. There is a long established understanding that all children placed in secure accommodation have experienced or are experiencing extreme needs, risks and vulnerabilities in their lives. Amendments 108 and 109 from Rose McCall, although I appreciate that those are proven amendments, would go against this approach. Committee members can be confident in the existing experience and the expertise of secure accommodation providers in matching children to placements and managing the needs and risk profiles of each child entering secure accommodation. Individualised risk assessments and plans are made to meet each child's needs, ensuring that the safety and the protection of the children and the staff are at the core of that decision making. I noted it and we have had some discussions around the nature of risk with the Government. An observation that I made when we were going through the gender reform bill was that a risk assessment that the evidence that I saw looked at the risk and the probability of the risk occurring, but not the impact if it did. Can you reassure me that that risk assessment has been done with the academic rigor that you would want to see? The reason that I cite that example was that the situation that we found ourselves in with Isla Bryson was a situation that I raised with the Government beforehand and said that the probability of that risk occurring was low, but the impact, if it should, would be extraordinarily high. I cannot say that I was happy to be proven right, so it is disaggregating between probability and impact. Can you reassure me that that technical approach is being done and is embedded in all service providers? I thank the member for that intervention. I certainly can provide those assurances and I am going to get on to some of those in my speaking notes. I will get back to that and I am equally happy to take any further questions from the member. If passed, the bill will bring a very small increase in the number of older children who would otherwise have been placed in a YY into secure care. The latest figures show two under 18s in YY. As things stand, often an under 18s placement in YY is not due to the type or the severity of their offence that they have committed, but due to their legal status. In respect of separating girls from boys, as proposed by amendment 108, research that has been carried out by Cibol found that whilst gender is a consideration in placements, mixed gender living is normal, it is beneficial and it is reflective of the wider community experience. Along with other stakeholders, secure accommodation providers themselves do not support such structured separation of children in secure accommodation. This change in practice would not be evidence based and it would not be consistent with the co-brand and ethos. Those amendments would essentially be disproportionate and would be unworkable and they would further compound capacity challenges. Amendment 221 from the convener also relates to the ministerial approval process for a secure accommodation service. I do understand that the intention is that if a child has been harmed by another child or is the victim of an offence, they should not be accommodated alongside the child who has caused the harm or who has committed that offence. However, there are some issues with the wording of the amendment, particularly in relation to not describing the behaviour at references, and that creates ambiguity around the intention and would make it impossible to implement in practice. In any case, however, I agree with Sue Weber that children should be safeguarded and protected. The amendment does not seem necessary because, as I have outlined, there are existing vigorous processes in place for the admission of children into secure accommodation and each case is looked at on an individual basis. A robust matching process is undertaken before a child is placed in a particular secure accommodation setting, as underpinned by contractual requirements and underlined in recently published care inspectorate guidance. I thank the minister for taking this intervention and on the care inspectorate guidelines. My understanding is that they would prevent the sharing of spaces in the way that the minister described. However, to build on Michelle Thomson's point about the balance of probability and impact, can the minister say something about whether she has had conversations with the care inspectorate about the impact of doing so? Even in the very unlikely circumstances in which it would happen, what sort of conversations has she had with the care inspectorate to talk about the impact of it, where to happen? Those conversations have taken place at official level with the care inspectorate. I have not discussed that personally with the care inspectorate. However, in light of committee concerns around gaps in what is being considered, I would certainly be happy to take that away. However, I still have some reassurances that I am going to go through in terms of providing those safeguards. The care inspectorate guidance considers the impact of the proposed placement on other children living in the secure accommodation service and any reasons why that placement should not be approved. For example, due to the particular circumstances or the needs of other children in that setting, that will all be considered. I am curious as to what is it in the wording that would preclude you supporting my amendment when you said at length that there is a ministerial process that takes place. I am a bit bemused as to what is in there that is making it so difficult. It is in relation to the wording because it does not necessarily describe the behaviour, if you bear with me. The behaviour is rather irrelevant when I am saying that it is about a child that has caused harm and a child that has been harmed. I do not believe that, by making a descriptor of behaviour in terms of that, it is muddying the waters a little bit. It is around the definition of the offence, and behaviour does not necessarily need to be negative. It would not be workable in law, essentially. I mean, I am happy to have further meetings with the member around the wording. As I say, discussions would really need to take place around whether it could be workable, but at the moment that is the situation. It says offence or behaviour in the amendment. As I say, it would need to be clearer in terms of— Well, okay. Minister, carry on. Thank you, convener. It is also mandatory that each secure accommodation service provider has a clear child protection policy, which ensures that safeguards are in place for those using the service, and secure accommodation managers in consultation with the head of unit are under legal obligation to ensure that, where a child is in secure accommodation, their welfare is safeguarded and promoted. Accomodating children together where there are clear welfare or safeguarding risks would clearly run contrary to that. In summary, the intention behind the convener's amendment, as I understand it, would be already achieved through existing law and practice. I turn to amendments 155 and 156. Again, whilst I agree with the sentiments, they do not necessarily seem necessary. The secure care workforce is already, as it should be, highly trained to meet the needs of children and to appropriately support children in their care. The Care Inspectorate at the Scottish Social Services Council and Scotland Excel set and monitor the training requirements for secure accommodation staff. That includes meeting the needs of children with a wide range of complex and challenging requirements. Those include the need for evidence of implementation of restraint policy and the training of staff in such approaches and in de-escalation practices. There are also technical issues with those amendments. In particular, they are not clear in terms of what is meant by restrictive practice, de-escalation techniques and learning disabilities. They are less effective than current requirements, as they simply require proposed service providers to make a commitment to train staff at an unspecified point in future. However, I do appreciate where Mr Briggs is coming from on those. I am not sure if those were intended as probing amendments, but again, I have been more than happy to meet him ahead of stage 3 to discuss. I therefore ask him not to press them at this stage. Government amendments 110 and 111 relate to the definition of a secure accommodation service and address the concerns that some stakeholders, including service providers, raised at stage 1. Recognising those legitimate concerns, the Government committed to working with them to ensure that the definition aligns with the promised recommendation on being clear that the underlying principle of secure accommodation is the provision of therapeutic trauma-informed support. Amendments 110 and 111 do that by emphasising that the care, education and support provided to children in secure accommodation takes account of the effects of trauma that they may have experienced. Secure accommodation service providers are well versed in recognising and understanding the impact of trauma that individual children in their care may have experienced and work with children in a way that demonstrates that understanding. Amendments 110 and 111 therefore build on existing practice and ensure that trauma is given the prominence at warrants in the secure accommodation service definition and that further context is provided around a service's overall purpose. Regarding amendment 213, the definition of a secure accommodation service already includes much of what is listed in this amendment as part of the service's core purpose. All children's health, education and other needs are individual and therefore cannot be prescribed in legislation. Although secure accommodation providers must ensure the welfare of all children is safeguarded and promoted, in practice, this will be done in collaboration with other relevant authorities and in accordance with contractual arrangements. Now, whilst I appreciate again that it is well intended, the amendment could cause confusion as to where responsibilities lie and compel secure accommodation services to ensure that support is provided even when a child is no longer accommodated by them. For example, local authorities already have aftercare duties towards looked after children under the Children's Scotland Act 1995. It is not clear what a secure accommodation service could add to that, particularly as it will not maintain a relationship with the child once they leave secure care. With regard to amendment 157 and 158, again, I do not consider that those are appropriate. In relation to amendment 157, secure accommodation is a highly regulated and monitored sector, with a number of existing safeguards in place to ensure again the safety of both the children being cared for and the members of staff. In terms of restraint, it is a very complex issue, covered in various settings. The national holding safely guidance is already in place and applies to all residential childcare settings, including secure accommodation. Now, while the guidance is specifically about physical restraint, the Scottish Government is clear that the wellbeing and safety of children is always paramount and that the use of restraint should only be used as a last resort and in exceptional circumstances. The published secure care pathways and standards are also very clear that restraint should only be used as a last resort, where a child's behaviour is considered to be a significant risk to either themselves or others. Secure accommodation service providers have their own techniques, their own methodologies and training for staff on approaches to physical restraint and restrictive practice, based on that guidance. There is not, in my view, a need to further supplement that with further guidance. On amendment 158, data on specific uses of restraint and secure accommodation is not publicly available, and this is appropriate to protect the rights and the privacy of the children in this setting. However, there are clear regulatory frameworks in place for secure accommodation services to report incidents of restraint to the care inspectorate. The information gathering and publication duty in amendment 158, therefore, appears to be unnecessary and would impose a disproportionate and misplaced burden on local authorities who would not have ready access to the information specified. They are not subject to those kinds of duties in respect of any other care setting, and, as with other amendments that I am about to come on to, I have concerns about the data protection and the rights implications of what is proposed. Lastly, in relation to amendments 159, 160 and 161—again, I completely understand the reasoning behind those amendments, yet, in addition to them raising some technical drafting issues in respect of definitions and data protection, I feel that the obligations could be problematic in practice. I note from stage 1 that the minister commented that it would make sense to look at ensuring consistency in the reporting of incidents of restraint. The calls from a number of organisations for the Government to develop statutory guidance, but also the reporting of that, specifically in relation to persons with disabilities. I just wondered where the minister felt that that information was being properly reported beyond just a care commission. I do feel that it is being reported. I have been having conversations with officials this morning about whether improvements can be made in relation to that. However, in relation to the amendments that have been put forward, as I said, they raise a couple of problems in relation to overlap. I think that there needs to be either more refinement on that or more work in relation to that. The minister set out some concerns about Miles Briggs's amendments, but is she, in principle, opposed to putting the guidance on a statutory footing, which is what many of the campaigners are calling for? If so, would she consider bringing forward an amendment at stage 3 to do exactly that? I am not necessarily opposed, in principle. However, as I said, if there are issues with the data, if there are issues in terms of what I have discussed around data protection and things like that, I would have. I am not opposed, in principle, but it is something that would need further consideration ahead of stage 3. Will she give that consideration and bring forward an amendment? I cannot commit to bringing forward an amendment at the moment, but I can commit to considering further. I am sorry to follow on from that. In terms of the information gathering and the publication duty in amendment 158, it could impose a disproportionate and misplaced burden on local authorities. As I said, I am happy to consider that further. In relation to 159.160 and 161, in addition to them raising technical drafting issues, they could be problematic. I understand that the intention of 159 is that needs assessments are undertaken for children entering secure. However, it does already happen and regular reviews are carried out as required by the legislation. I am happy to take the intervention prior to moving on to the next amendment. The amendment makes assessments mandatory in all circumstances, but we must recognise that that may not always be necessary and could lead to duplication. If, for example, the child is already being assessed and supported by child and adolescent mental health services at the point of admission to secure, then a further mental health assessment would not need to be undertaken. In any case, the responsibility for managing a child's placement rests with relevant local authority or for some centres' children with the Scottish ministers. It is unclear why or how the Scottish ministers could be responsible for meeting the duties under this amendment for all children in secure accommodation. However, I am happy, as I have said, to consider that further. I am happy to take an amendment from Ms Duncan-Glancy. Far less than duplicate assessment, the reality for the people who this amendment is trying to support is that they are not getting any assessments, because the cams' waiting times are really high and local authorities are struggling to provide support, particularly in education. We know that co-ordinated support plans are not being used to the extent that they should be. There is significant evidence to suggest that this would not be duplication, but it might be a safety net to catch those young people who desperately need it. On that basis, the minister said that there are technical drafting issues with it. Would the minister be prepared to look at the issue and develop an amendment with the member who has brought it and others interested at stage 3? I thank the committee for the intervention. Under the looked-after children regulations 2009, there is an obligation for local authorities to assess children's needs and to prepare a child's plan to meet them. I am hearing concerns from the committee that this is not always happening. I believe that I have already made a commitment to investigate this further or consider it further. I am sure that members will understand that I cannot commit to bringing amendment on this forward at this moment in time, but I am very happy, as I have said, to consider further. On amendment 160, steps may be taken by a variety of people to reduce the need for and the duration of a child's placement in secure accommodation. Of course, in line with ECHR and UNCRC obligations, that will be the case for all children, not just those with learning difficulties or disabilities and complex needs. Local authorities are not always responsible for the decision to place a child in secure. Local authorities will be involved in the child's case, but for those children placed in secure accommodation through the courts, they will have a limited role in the decision making or the duration of the placement. Imposing a duty on them to explain how they have tried to avoid or minimise the use of secure accommodation does not necessarily seem appropriate. I agree with the needs to collect data, as is outlined in amendment 161, but I do not think that it is necessary to go as far as is proposed. All local authorities currently do collect data on the number of children in secure accommodation, and that is published annually as part of the children's social work statistics. Now, as there are only four secure accommodations centres in Scotland and a relatively small number of children within them, the more specific that published data becomes, the higher the likelihood that individual children could be identified. Publishing information at the level of specificity outlined in Mr Briggs amendments could lead us into this territory, which would not necessarily be lawful under the GDPR and would breach the children's right to private life under article 8. However, I do appreciate the thinking behind those amendments if there are areas that could be moved on without having a breach of data protection or where it would not lead to identifying a child. I would be happy again to consider further. In summary, I invite members to support amendments 110, 111, and I urge Ros McAll, Sue Weber, Miles Briggs and Martin Whitfield not to press their amendments in this group. If they do, I urge the committee to reject them. Can I now call Martin Whitfield to speak to amendment 213 and other amendments in the group, please? I am very grateful and good morning to the committee in those attending. 213 is specifically regarding the provision of services that need to be made available to children in secure accommodation. Can I thank the minister in her submission for dealing with the context, which allows me to address some of the issues that appear to be concerning the Government? It is right, of course, that secure accommodation provides an integrated delivery model where individual assessments are made for each child. That is absolutely right, because those are unique individuals who are presenting within the system. Of course, secure accommodation has child protection policies. Again, it is also true to say that some of the children that present perhaps have some of the most complex needs of any individual who comes into contact with the state. The Government's assertion that 213 is too open and could lead the secure accommodation providers to require an on-going obligation to the individual children with respect, I disagree with, because the reference to secure accommodation is drawn, obviously, from the Children Hearing Scotland Act 2011, which defines the secure accommodation only as far as it extends to them accommodating young people. It very specifically says, for the purposes of restricting the liberty of children. Therefore, the secure accommodation provider cannot be held responsible beyond that obligation to secure the restriction of liberty of children beyond that. I respectfully disagree with the minister that it opens an on-going obligation, because if that was the argument, there would be an on-going obligation on primary schools, nurseries and local authorities to add in for an item. There is a period of time where an emanation of the state ceases to be the responsible party for a young person, and that is defined and used in almost all interactions with young people and, indeed, emanations of the state. To what the amendment seeks, it seeks to provide a baseline to give the opportunity for the outcomes that have been intended and, indeed, which we have discussed over the past three weeks and, indeed, at stage one, to stand a chance for a better outcome, because it would place on the secure accommodation provider that specific obligation and respect of those young people who come within the area of influence of the secure accommodation provider to take responsibility to ensure, where appropriate, the advocacy services, education, emotional, mental and health support, healthcare support to maintain contact with the child's family, the transition into aftercare support. The minister confirmed that only some of these elements already sit within the secure accommodation provider's responsibility in her submission, and that the purpose of the amendment is to bring together a holistic overview to ensure that every young person who comes within secure accommodation has this baseline that will be looked at by the person who is doing that most important of issues, which is restricting the liberty of the child. Surely it should be for that secure accommodation provider to undertake that responsibility. Can I now call Ros McAll to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 108, please? Thank you, convener. I'm not going to spend a long time winding up. I thought that that was very interesting. I'm just going to say that I'm not going to move 108. Thank you. So Ros McAll seeks to withdraw amendment 108. Does any member object? No. The amendment is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 109, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 108. Ros McAll, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 221, in my name, already debated with amendment 108. Sue Webber, to move or not move. Given the discussions with the conversation from the minister, I'll certainly be looking to take it away and bring it back at stage 3 with the wording amended so that it doesn't cause a conflict, and at this stage I will not move. I call amendment 155, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. Thank you, convener. I listened to what the minister had to say with regard to the group of these amendments. I'm really keen, I think, for this bill not to be a missed opportunity for us to strengthen what should be a statutory framework. Last week demonstrated the need for some of this with the Care Inspectorate raising serious and significant concerns over the safety of students at Hillside School in Aberdair in Fife. I think that those are needed, but I'm happy to work with the minister at stage 3 to see where the Government can accept what needs to be a stronger framework, and not just for this bill, but for other bills that the Government is committed to bringing forward for people with disabilities. I'm happy at this stage not to move those amendments if the minister is willing to take that work forward as well. Can I then call on yourself again, Mr Briggs? I'll call amendment 156, in your name, already debated with amendment 108. I'll call amendment 110, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 108. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 110, raise your hand. Those against? Okay. The result of the vote on amendment 110 is 4-7 against 2. Amendment 110 is therefore agreed. I'll call amendment 111, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 108. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'll call amendment 213, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 108. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move. The question is that, excuse me, amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 213, and those against 213. The result of the vote on amendment 213 is 4-4 against 5. The amendment 213 is therefore not agreed. I'll call amendment 157, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. I'll call amendment 158, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. I'll call amendment 159, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. I'll call amendment 160, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. I'll call amendment 161, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 108. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. and finally not moved. Thee'r cwestiynau y gallu ysgolwch ar hedge 24 yn tylkon i, erbyn ni'n anoddiau, ond mae anoddiau. Yes, we are all agreed. Now, we move on to a section on cross-border placements. And I call amendment 112 in the name of the Minister group with amendments 214, 113, 215, 216 and 217. I point out that, if amendment 112 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 214 in a preemption. Minister, to move amendment 112 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener, and I move the amendment. The bill enables the Scottish ministers to further regulate cross-border placements of children and young people into Scotland from other parts of the UK in a way that reflects our key policy principles, that these placements should only ever occur in exceptional circumstances and that, when they do, the child's safety, wellbeing and upholding of their rights must be paramount. With regard to my amendments 112 and 113, those will ensure that ministers have the powers they need to robustly regulate these placements where they do need to occur. We know from recent evidence gathering that cross-border placements are being made into Scotland from other UK jurisdictions and that they are legally underpinned by a variety of different court orders. We also know from our evidence gathering that around a quarter of all cross-border placements into Scotland at present are placed through a route where there are legislative provisions in place to allow these to happen, but there is no court order from the relevant jurisdiction underpinning this, for example, where a child is placed in the care of a relevant local authority and accommodated through a voluntary arrangement. So the powers available to ministers through the bill is drafted only extend to regulating cross-border placements which are underpinned by a non-Scottish court order, but given the proportion of placements we know are occurring through alternative routes, it is vital that we recognise all cross-border placements made into Scotland, whether they be via a court order or other legislative provisions. So amendments 112 and 113 will ensure that all cross-border placements with a legal basis in the home jurisdiction can be effectively regulated here, particularly they will allow ministers to impose appropriate conditions on the placing of children in Scotland, to establish a process for monitoring adherence to these conditions, and to set out consequences in law where they are not adhered to. This will help safeguard the wellbeing of placed children and uphold their rights throughout the duration. I consider that those amendments are essential to build a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose and which will enable ministers to proactively manage known and emerging risks that we see evolving regarding cross-border placements. I think that it is clear without those additional powers to legally recognise and properly regulate such placements. The best interests of placed children would be at risk of becoming secondary to financial and capacity challenges being managed by placing authorities, which we know have been a cause of concern particularly in England. That will inevitably have a detrimental impact on the rights and the welfare of children and young people and on the quality of the care that they receive whilst in placement. I recognise that there is a degree of overlap between the amended power under section 190 of the Children's Heatings Act 2011 and the new section 33A power being added to the Children's Heatings Act 2015, but that is appropriate given the complexity involved in cross-border placements and the number of different legal routes by which a child may be placed here. Having Taylor-made powers on the statute book will provide the flexibility needed to effectively regulate all lawful placements into Scotland and to safeguard and promote the welfare of all placed children. Before I get on to Mr Marra's amendments, I would like to highlight that I am very conscious that I have not had a discussion with Mr Marra on some of those issues. I am very aware that Mr Marra raised some of the concerns in stage 1, and I am happy to, I would very much like to meet with Mr Marra to discuss following the Government's amendments to see if there are any areas that he feels still need to be addressed. I would also like to highlight to the committee that I have had in December a very productive meeting with David Johnson MP, the Minister for Children, Families and Well-being, where we have committed to collaborative working in relation to cross-border placements. Turning to amendments lodged by Mr Marra, I am beginning with amendment 214. That enables ministers to provide in regulations that a non-Scottish order underpinning a cross-border placement may only have effect if it is in the best interests of the child. I think that we are all in agreement here that the placement of a child or a young person in Scotland on a cross-border placement should be with the child's best interests at heart. However, the Scottish ministers have no locus to interfere with the decision making process of a court in another jurisdiction. The making of a court order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will include due consideration of whether that placement is in the child's best interests, and that is appropriately a matter for and a decision to be made by the relevant court. I personally see the key to securing that the best interests of the child are met in the placement as being to ensure that any such decision is only made following an appropriate planning and assessment process. Of course, the child or young person should be fully involved in that process. I understand that it is already provided for through existing care planning legislation elsewhere in the UK, and Scottish Government officials are working with counterparts and other administrations to explore ways of bolstering those processes before, during and after placements in an effort to best support children. Although the Scottish ministers cannot interfere with courts determining that a cross-border placement into Scotland is in the best interests of a child or a young person, they can look to robustly regulate those placements where they occur. That is exactly the purpose of the bill's cross-border provisions and the Government amendments in that group. I urge the committee to support them, and I would be unable to support amendment 214. Turning to amendment 215, it seeks to strengthen the rights of children from other UK jurisdictions to access the services that best meet their needs and to ensure that they are appropriately supported. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment here, it is not clear on a number of fronts. First, it is unclear how ministers should ensure that a child receives appropriate support, nor what that support should entail for the child. There is also no definition of a non-Scottish order in the amendment. That term is defined in section 190 of the Children's Heating Scotland Act, but even assuming that that is what was meant, I would still say that that amendment is unworkable. It would appear to mean that Scottish ministers would have a duty to ensure that any child subject to an order made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland has access to appropriate support on a range of matters mentioned, whether they are on a cross-border placement into Scotland or not. The committee will be aware that the competence of this Parliament only extends to conferring functions that are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, and that amendment would appear to go further than that. Legislation already exists, whereby in certain circumstances and with the agreement of the receiving local authority, children and young people can be placed in Scotland from England, Wales and Northern Ireland on a permanent basis. In such instances, the child will be brought into, in layperson's terms, brought into the Scottish system, and a Scottish local authority will assume the responsibility for that child's needs in relation to matters such as education or health. The amendment would risk interfering with the local authority's role in that regard. However, the Government is clear on roles and responsibilities relating to cross-border placement placements, which are intended to be temporary, and which arise due to issues with capacity in the care system elsewhere in the UK, such as deprivation of liberty orders. Those have caused us all a great deal of concern in recent times, and I am very strongly of the view that, in those cases, the provision of services to the child ought to and best sits with the placing authority who knows the child, who is responsible for their care planning and who will ultimately maintain a relationship with the child when they see their placement in Scotland. I think that we would all be agreed that we would not wish to take any action that could have the unintended effect of incentivising cross-border placements, given our position that those placements should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances. As I have said, we are in the best interests of the child. For those reasons, I would not be able to support amendment 215. Turning to amendment 216, it is unclear what exactly the proposed cross-border placement plan should cover beyond the illustrations around information sharing about children's needs and measures. Secure accommodation providers would take to support them. Cross-border placements into secure accommodation are primarily a matter for the placing local authority and the independent secure accommodation provider. There are clear expectations and frameworks already for such placements into it. As I have mentioned, the Scottish Government is working with other UK Administrations to consider how existing regulation in practice can be optimised to improve experiences for children. Regarding the enhanced powers conferred by the bill if passed to better regularly manage cross-border placements, I anticipate that arrangements for information sharing will be set out in those regulations. Requiring that to be set out in a report could result in unnecessary duplication. Further, the amendment proceeds on the basis that ministers should report on the measures that secure accommodation services are taking to support the specific needs of children on cross-border placements. While I agree that those needs should be met, the role of meeting a child's needs should, in most cases, remain with the local authority who has placed the child into Scotland. It would also seem inappropriate for ministers to report on practices within secure accommodation provision when there is an established approval, registration and inspection regime in operation. Such existing oversight ensures that they operate effectively in a way that upholds children's rights and respects their needs. Secure accommodation services in Scotland are approved by Scottish ministers and are then regulated and inspected by Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, known as the Care Inspectorate under the Public Services Reform Act 2010. The inspection process does not differentiate between the care of those children who are placed in secure accommodation in Scotland from outside of Scotland, so cross-border placements into secure accommodation are covered by the inspection process. Secure care pathways and standards, as I mentioned, were all published in 2020. They set out what all children in or on the edge of secure care in Scotland should expect across the continuum of intensive supports and services, and that includes children who are placed in Scotland from elsewhere. It is also worth highlighting that section 24 of the bill further provides for additional standards and registration and regulatory requirements to be put in place specifically for those care services that accommodate cross-border placements, including secure accommodation services. For the reasons outlined, I could not support amendment 216. Finally, on amendment 217, although I recognise the sentiment here, it would be rare for a child who is subject to a secure accommodation authorization in a compulsory supervision order to be placed into secure accommodation outwith Scotland. Where a child is subject to a secure accommodation authorization in a CSO, it would be the decision of the chief social work officer of the child's home local authority in consultation with the head of the secure unit whether that authorization should be implemented. The duties here are enshrined in regulations and supported by good practice guidance. Those include requirements that any placement must be appropriate to the child's needs and that the child's views must be taken into account. The Scottish ministers have no role in those placements and that is because the duties lie with the local authority who is responsible for the implementation of the relevant CSO. I therefore would not be able to support amendment 217. It would make Scottish ministers essentially responsible for operational matters where responsibilities of local authorities in relation to looked after children are well established and it could interfere with those and create confusion and again unnecessary duplication and that could be to the detriment of the welfare of the children who require secure care. In summary, I move amendment 112 and ask members to support government amendments. I have made clear and offered to further discuss with Mr Marra. I would ask Mr Marra not to move amendments 214 to 217 but if they are moved I would ask the committee to reject them. Michael Marra, to speak to amendment 214 and the other amendments in this group, please. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the minister for the comments on the amendments in my name and also setting out some of our thinking around this area, which I hope to probe a little bit further. My interest in this area was first prompted by the evidence taken in this committee when I was a member of it at the start of last year. What I found to be a felt rather unfortunate distinction in some regards about the responsibilities or the level of responsibility that we might take as a Parliament to ensure the best outcomes for some of the most vulnerable young people, not just in Scotland but across these islands, the reality of our secure accommodation system is that we have many young people from England in particular in those circumstances, in any of those facilities, who are at significant risk either of other people's hands or of their own hands of significant harm or loss of life. It is the fact that we afford those opportunities for secure accommodation to those young people, I think, is a very important part of the system that is protecting life across the UK. In those respects, it does not matter to me, to me, as a matter of principle, where those young people are born. I understand that there are legal restrictions and responsibilities that have to be taken on board, and the operation of that, which some of my amendments try to address and try to support, is in that area. Frankly, some of those children just live a little bit further away, but the circumstances that they face are equally as horrendous. I started there from why we have cross-border placements. I think that it is quite clear from the evidence that the Parliament has received so far that that is principally on the scale of a function of the dysfunction of the English system. There is a lack of capacity in England, and the Parliament has heard considerable amounts of evidence in that regard. Katie Nisbyt from Clan Child Law told the Parliament that there is huge under provision of secure accommodation in England. That is a quote from Kevin Northcote of Rosset Young People's Trust's book on the demand that exists in the English system. The Good Shepherd Centre, Alison Goff, said that there has been a dramatic and sustained rise in the number and frequency of referrals from England. The minister herself has told the committee back in May of last year that England simply does not have enough capacity. There is a recognised issue in England. Ofstead reported that there were 50 children waiting for every secure bed in England. It is a really significant issue. There is a clear problem of capacity in England that has to be addressed. I have a significant problem as a result of that, perhaps, particularly from the evidence that was received from the Children's Commissioner's Office in that regard. It expressed the idea that, by making it harder for local authorities to place children in Scotland, I hope that that would somewhat force the issue of providing more appropriate places in England. I know that it is not a quote from yourself or from Government ministers, but it is from the Children's Commissioner's Office that, by making it more difficult to protect the lives of young children coming into Scotland, we are going to force the Tory Government in England to fix the secure accommodation system in England. I do not see that there is any evidence that that would be the case. Megan Farr went on to say that it is not something that Scotland can fix for England's sake. Of course, at the heart of this is the fact that these young people are at significant risk today, and that our facilities and workers in Scotland are protecting their lives, and we should make that. I want to explore and hear more justification from the minister. She says that these placements should only ever occur in exceptional circumstances. I mentioned at the beginning that I had met David Johnson in relation to that, and I raised those issues with him. There was certainly an understanding of those capacity issues. I have said that I want to work alongside the Government rather than sort of forcing their hand. I think that for the benefit of all children and young people, that it is about working together on this and seeing how we get an appropriate solution. Obviously, if a child is in England, we are talking about if it is in exceptional circumstances but what I have said at every point is as long as it is what is best for the child. Obviously, if a child is in need of being deprived of their liberty or in a secure care setting or it is best for them, if there is no capacity in England, and it would be best for them to be placed in Scotland, that is absolutely what must happen. However, I have been very clear at every point that it is as long as what is best for the child. However, in relation to the larger capacity issues, as I say, I had a very helpful meeting with David Johnson MP and officials have been continuing those conversations. I am looking forward to having a plan in place about how we are looking to work together to tackle this in the long run. I appreciate that point. I think that working together as the two Governments and having a proper collaboration, trying to solve the situation in the round, is certainly very desirable. I will come back a little bit to the rationale around that if it can. First, I would take issue with the issue about proximity in essence. Part of the prevailing policy discourse in this is that children should always be placed as close to the local authority as they can and to their local community. I think that that is an underlying assumption in the discourse that we are hearing both from the minister and from the Children's Commissioner. However, we have also heard evidence that, for instance, from Claire Lundy, from St Mary's, Cymru or Secure care centre back in March of last year, we should talk about the number of young people, particularly from London boroughs, who have been involved in child criminal exploitation and the need and the desirability of having a lack of proximity. Greater distance was something that would help young people. I am not entirely clear that we took substantial evidence that there was a prevailing policy to have children at close proximity to their local authority. Can you expand on that a bit more? I do not quite recall that being the case. Certainly that is part of what I am trying to prove with the minister in terms of the understanding as to what she calls that it should only ever occur in exceptional circumstances and the reasoning for that. If I can, I am certainly happy to have the conversation. We also had evidence from the Children's Commissioner in that regard to talking about the lack of compatibility about the legal situation, which was a further barrier perhaps around DLOs. We have heard some issues around that so far as well, but I am trying to probe whether that is part of the issue. Certainly in conversations that I have had with people in this policy space, there is no idea that the closer you are to the community that you are in—I think that the committee heard fairly significant evidence on that basis—that that is more desirable, but perhaps where we might draw the line about what the exceptional circumstances might be. The ability to cut ties from criminal exploitation is really important where that would be of benefit to the young person. I would also say in terms of cross-border, as we call it. There are circumstances in geographies where there is more secure accommodation available on the Scottish side of the border that is in greater proximity to communities in the north of England. A similar facility might be elsewhere in England. The idea that that proximity should be judged by the legal artifice of the division of a non-existent hard border to me is in on-sense. If the availability is in Glasgow when you are in Carlyle or in the north somewhere in Newcastle, it is more available than a facility in the south of England. That talks to the idea of proximity and the ability to return to a community and have links to your family and otherwise in that area. Those are as good a reason to have young people in those facilities in Scotland as there could be. I appreciate any reflections on those issues, but whether the underlying issue of that discourse of proximity and the desirability of it is something that the minister is taking into this and I quote, should only occur in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that I did refer specifically to saying that it would be a preference to have all children as close to their local authorities as possible. I would again just re-emphasise my words around what is best for the child and that is taken into account at every circumstances. We would maybe prefer it to be in exceptional circumstances if that is best for the child, but again that will be considered because as I say it really must be considered on a case by case basis. All children's cases are going to be individual. There could be reasons why a children would have to be placed away from their local authority. Again, I just really want to re-emphasise that it would be down to what is best for the child, although I would just say that it is within the promise that there is a move towards having less children move out with their local authority. That is certainly part of the prevailing policy discourse that I am describing within the promise that is part of what is established in Scotland. If I can move on, I can be here to the issue of finances, which is certainly closely attached to that, because the other evidence that the Parliament has heard both in the finance committee and in the education committee is that our secure accommodation services are incredibly dependent on Scottish cross-border placements to keep the lights on. The actual fact is that the placements that are coming from England are allowing those services to continue to operate. The Good Shepherd Centre has said that Scotland has been turning to England to ensure sustainability. St Mary's Ken Muir has said that, without that income subsidy, there is no service for Scottish children would exist. My ears pricked up when he mentioned the finance committee being a fellow member. I do not recall evidence being brought to bear that backs up the assertion that the member is making, although I am not doubting what you are saying, but I do not recall that. Can you help me to recall that? Certainly. I have just given you two quotes from those different areas. Whether that was at the finance committee or the education committee, I think that both committees have taken evidence on the financial memorandum that is on this side of it. Those things have been raised. I am happy to provide the member with those comments that your references were made in this committee, not in the finance committee. Those ones were, yes, absolutely. Those issues about the financial sustainability are still very relevant. Wherever they have been taken, they will be given to Parliament. The last one is Kevin Northcott from Rossie's Young People's Trust said that approximately 50 per cent of our current cohort of young people are cross-border placements. The prevailing trend in your wish to reduce the number of cross-border placements would seem to be as close to zero as possible. To me, that adds significant questions to the financial sustainability of this incredibly important sector. We think that our concern is not about the provision of the service for children in Scotland and from Scotland. Actually removing English young people from the system as much as possible, the policy trajectory, will result in those institutions not being able to continue to operate. That should be a significant concern in terms of the policy direction that we are taking. Again, I would appreciate any clarification from the minister as to what she is going to do about the financial sustainability of the sector if her policy trajectory is to be adopted. Mr Marra will remember a discussion around the beds policy, where the Scottish Government is funding beds in secure care. The reduction of numbers of placed cross-border children in secure care has reduced from down to 12 from 30 last year, but the payment for secure care beds has helped to support that. It is reducing dependency on cross-border placements. I have been very clear the whole way along that decisions in relation to the bill will be monitored going forward. We are in official discussions with secure care providers, and if that is becoming a concern, that will certainly be considered. However, as I say, that dependency has been massively reduced by the policy around supporting the beds in secure care centres. I will be happy to look at those figures further in some of those discussions. If I can turn in closing, convener, to the amendments, I have listened to the minister's case and I will assume a press alone amendment, which pre-empts my own in terms of the broader direction of travel. I am certainly happy to meet her and discuss the other amendments, and in that light, I am not intending to press them at the moment. What I had hoped for from those amendments was to try and give better clarity and to better operation to how this situation works. I do think that it is an area that can tend to be chaotic, and it is part of the function of the chaos that we have described—or I described at the start of this—in terms of the lack of capacity in the English system. I spoke to a member of staff, certainly, sir. I am very grateful. I am not sure whether he is going to talk about his amendment 217 and taking that forward with the minister. However, just in case, when the committee takes it to stage 3, what reassurance has the member already got about the competency, specifically of amendment 217 and its workability? The minister made quite reasonable comments in relation to that earlier on about whether there is a risk of imposing a duty that cannot be fulfilled, particularly given what he said about provision elsewhere earlier on. Has he got that reassurance already? If not, is that something that he would be seeking in his further conversations with the minister? I have had reassurances, certainly, about the competence of that, but I take the ministers and our officials' comments on this very seriously. It is partly on that basis, so I am not seat to press it at the moment. I will have those conversations as offered with the minister and try to explore. Essentially, this is about the two-ways operation of this process and making sure that we can have the rights and the responsibilities that we afford to young people to be best supported in both directions. It is absolutely right that we can have those conversations and see how we can best provide it. All of that kind of suite of amendments after the preemption are really about trying to add to make sure that we get the best operation of this system. If I can come to my example last week, the minister talked about amendment 216, about leaning on the local placing authority in England to make sure that they had a sense of principal responsibility. I spoke to a member of staff from one of the secure accommodation centres. It is a frequent occurrence that a young person is going to leave their term of care with one of the secure centres. They are in negotiation on the day of departure with a local authority about where that young person will go and on the basis of can you drop him off in leeds type situation. There is a huge issue of capacity, and it is only right and proper when we take these young people into our care in Scotland that we try to most as comprehensively, as possible, to put in place a structure in agreement with the placing authority about how their needs can best be met. If we can put in place some form of framework to make sure that that is supported from the outset when those placements are contracted with the placing authority, that can only be to the benefit of the young person and can avoid, particularly at the termination of the placement, some of those chaotic situations. That is really the spirit of it. I am happy to investigate further with the minister and the officials and discussions on that. There is really trying to be as support as it can to try to add capacity to that on the basis of my original intent, which is to cross-border placements are going to be part of this system for a very long time to come. They are at the moment continuing to be necessary to keep the lights on in Scotland, but frankly they are very necessary for young people across the UK to ensure their safety and the protection of their lives. Can I remind members that, if amendment 112 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 214 with the preemption. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 112, those against and those abstaining. The result—we need to redo that vote again. Apologies committee. I call again the question. There is a division. Those in favour of amendment 112, please raise your hand. Those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 112 is four, six, no against with three abstentions. Amendment 112 is therefore agreed. I need to now ask that question section 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 113 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 112. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 215 in the name of Michael Marra already debated with amendment 112. Michael Marra to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 216 in the name of Michael Marra already debated with amendment 112. Michael Marra to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 217 in the name of Michael Marra already debated with amendment 112. Michael Marra to move or not move? Not moved, convener. I call amendment 162 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 212. I will call on Liam Kerr to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Can you do the next one as well, please, Mr Kerr? You are doing the next one as well. I call amendment 163 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 212. Liam Kerr to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that sections 26 and 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are. Thank you. I now move to section 27 on impact operation and commencement of the act. I call amendment 218 in the name of Martin Whitfield, group with amendments 219 and 220. Martin Whitfield to move amendment 218 and speak to all amendments in this group, please. I'm very grateful, convener. This set of amendments in relation to data collection and reporting the outcome for children are all intended to ensure, as we've discussed before, with a number of these amendments that the recognised outcomes that we seek for the purposes of this bill are achieved and held to account. I understand that there are, of course, challenges with regard to anonymisation, with regard to identifying certain individual young people. However, if we do not collect and analyse the data, if we do not have reports on the outcomes for our young people, then actually there is the very real risk of unforeseen consequences going forward. I'm very grateful to the Scottish Government, who have indicated the willingness to discuss with this matter before stage 3. Under the circumstances, I don't intend, unless other committee members have any questions about it, to take this element of the debate much further forward. Thank you, Martin Whitfield. Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 220 and other amendments in this group, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning to everyone again. The committee report acknowledges the significant resource and training challenges that implementation of the bill will pose, particularly to a key number of agencies, including Children's Here in Scotland, SCRA and local authorities. The report also notes the reassurances provided in evidence by Children's Here in Scotland that the resource would be in place ahead of the bill's implementation. Children's Here in Scotland expressed confidence that they could successfully recruit additional panel members needed as a result, but that they were crucial to the successful delivery of the bill. On that basis, it is important that the bill not commence until those panel members are in place. If, as organisations have said, they put the number required in place, there should be no concern as to the amendment. If it does not, the amendment would serve as a protection to ensure that there would be no delays in the system for the young people who are in it on either offence or welfare grounds as a result of not having enough panel members recruited to deliver it. That amendment presents, in my view, a responsible amendment that makes sure that everything that is required within the panel is in place to support the implementation of the bill should it pass. Liam Kerr, can I go? I am very grateful, convener. Minister, this section concerns the operation and impact of the act of the bill, so I think that it is important that I come in here. Minister, there have been significant concerns raised by experts that sections 12 and 13 concerning restrictions on reporting are overbroad, unworkable, a significant restriction on media freedoms, but above all, it may well be non-compliant with articles 10 and 8 of the section 12. Therefore, the act may become inoperable, hence my intervention here. The committee must be concerned with assisting the Government to avoid passing any more law that is unlawful or inoperable and which might ultimately be subject to costly challenge. Minister, what I seek is reassurance to the committee, and I will put specific questions and I will request answers to each specific one for the committee's reassurance. Has legal advice been taken specifically on sections 12 and 13 of the bill? If so, were experts in media law part of that, and if so, can we see it to reassure ourselves? If legal advice has not specifically been taken on sections 12 and 13, what will the Government be doing prior to stage 3 regarding the legality of sections 12 and 13 to ensure that Parliament does not inadvertently pass legally incompetent provisions? I was about to hand over unless any other member wants to come in. Minister, I was going to then come to you to respond to some of the discussions and points that were made from Martin Whitfield onwards, so over to yourself. Thank you. I will comment on the amendments in just a second in relation to Mr Cares' questions. I thank him for that. I can assure the committee, categorically, that legal advice has been sought on all of the bill's provisions and the amendments in the normal way, as is the normal bill process. As members will appreciate, the ministerial code requires that I respect the confidentiality of advice given, and I am not able to get into the details of this just now, but Mr Cares can be assured that legal advice has been sought, and we have proceeded with that in mind. Is there a respect specifically on sections 12 and 13 that says that they will be legally competent, and that was from experts in the media law? On each of the bill's provisions and the amendments, as I have stated. The minister will have read some of the comments from the society of editors. Is she able to respond in a substantial way to their concerns to explain why she thinks their issues are not valid? Due course, absolutely. At the moment, I am sure that the committee will be aware that my focus has been on the next stage of proceedings in relation to those matters that have been discussed at a previous session of the stage 2 proceedings, so I am happy to consider that at a later date. At the moment, I am looking at the issues in hand and the amendments in front of me. I take the point, and of course those matters were considered previously, so I understand the minister's point on that, but the fact is that information has now come to the Government and the committee. I feel like it is quite important that the Government respond to that so that we can understand the context in which we would then be voting on a bill in stage 3. As I have said, I am more than happy to consider and comment on that in due course. As the minister says, we need to consider the sections of the bill that we are looking at today. She has already commented that she would address the concerns that the members have brought up in due course. We will follow up regarding that, and I will let the minister carry on now, please. I ask for an intervention with respect, because I think that Willie Rennie raised a very important point there. In the next 15 minutes, we will be asked to agree this section, presumably. Sections 12 and 13 have already been agreed, and I understand what you are seeking to draw attention to today. It has not escaped me, but we have a process and a protocol to follow in terms of stage 2 proceedings. As challenging as it may be, that is what we are obligated to do. May I respond, convener? The section that we have been asked to agree is not sections 12 and 13. It is section 27 and 28, something like that, on the impact and operation of the act. Therefore, when the minister says, in response to Willie Rennie's what I thought was a very reasonable intervention, and says, we will go back and we will come back to you at stage 3. In 15 minutes, we will be asked to agree the impact and operation section, and I do not feel or am concerned that the committee, the answer that we have heard from the minister about, I will go away and we will deal with it at stage 3, and paraphrasing, is not sufficient to allow the committee to come to a view. I simply make that point. I really just want to be very clear that I have said that I will consider this. We have sought appropriate legal advice and proceeded on that basis. I think that Mr Kerr made reference to media law experts. It is the role of the Lord Advocate to satisfy ourselves on legality, not media law experts. I will make no further comment in relation to this at the moment, other than, hopefully, have given assurances to the committee, and that I am happy to come back to this at a later stage. Amendments 218 and 219, as Martin Whitfield alluded to, cover ground similar to those previously lodged, I will not go into every amendment because I understand that Mr Whitfield does not intend to press them, but I have obviously confirmed that I will be discussing that further. I will turn to amendment 220. I fully appreciate the challenges that are inherent in the scale and the operational needs of the children's hearing system. I have met children's hearing Scotland and further meetings that are being scheduled to ensure that the previous assurances that I heard from them, that there are appropriate plans in place to ensure capacity within the current tribunal model are maintained. By placing the duty on ministers to report to Parliament on whether there are a sufficient number of panel members presents a couple of problems. We risk interfering with the absolutely vital independence of the national convener of children's hearing Scotland. It is for the national convener to determine how to resource children's panels as enshrined in the 2011 act. Beyond that fundamental principle, there are serious practical implications flowing from amendment 220. It risks removing flexibility, both now and in the future, given that trying to identify a predetermined figure on which to base commencement of the bill has a number of limitations. We must recognise, for example, that the number of hearings and the number of panel members is not fixed. The number of hearings scheduled each year can and does change, as can the number of volunteers required on a month-to-month basis. Each volunteer may have more or less time to give to the system than others. We could have thousands of volunteers, but depending on their availability, that would not still necessarily mean system readiness or capacity. I do not feel that reading into the numbers specifically is necessarily helpful. I appreciate that. I take the point that she is making. I would say that, just now, there must be some form of calculation that looks at how many panel members are required within the system as it stands, or I hope that there are. My suggestion is that using that as the basis of what you would consider in the future would be the right number of panel members, given the increase that it is likely to come through, not just in terms of people but also in terms of substance and the issues that they would be dealing with. Surely it is not insurmountable to consider what that should look like. Would the minister be therefore willing to work with me at stage 3 to look at another form of words that recognises the intent behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the panel system has the resources in order to deliver this without delivering significant delays for Scotland's young people? I thank the member for the intervention. There are a projected number of panel members that it would be hoped to be in place, just like there are a projected number of hearings that could take place. Obviously, as I said, those are projections. However, I just do not feel that it is necessary to prescribe those matters on a fixed basis. I do not feel tie in the commencement of the bill to that. It is necessary, given the on-going engagement with the relevant bodies, such as Children's Hearing Scotland and its efforts to increase panel members. Equally, there are other issues that are being considered in relation to the children's hearings redesign, in relation to the hearings system and panel members. There are changes that could take place, other things to be considered, which is why I would not, as I say, not want to tie the commencement of the bill to specific numbers around panel members. What I would say to provide assurance to the committee is that I will keep up regular meetings, so will my officials keep up regular meetings. I would not agree with commencement if we are in a place where we feel that the system is not ready, essentially. I will take two interventions on that point. I appreciate the given way. I get absolutely that there will be fluctuating numbers of both hearings and of volunteers in them. How does the Government reassure itself that things are working as they should be and that hearings are not being delayed and that there is enough capacity? What is the mechanism that is used to do that at the moment? That is not concerns that are being raised with me now. As I said, when I met Children's Hearing Scotland prior to the summer, they were very enthusiastic and hopeful about the recruitment campaign that they were about to run. I understand that that recruitment campaign did not take in as many volunteers or new panel members as we had hoped, but it is for the national convener to decide on how best to proceed in terms of trying to attract members in and trying to attract panel members. As I have said, in terms of the Children's Hearing designed, there are a number of matters, not just the role of panel members. There are a number of matters in relation to that redesign being considered, which could all help with future capacity for the hearing system. Of course. Is that what you are saying? Is that on-going dialogue with the system? That is how the Government is reassured that it is literally— Absolutely. My intervention in question was going to be very similar to my colleague Ruth Maguire's. I am a bit concerned about the answer there, though particularly the bit where the minister highlights that Children's Hearings did the recruitment campaign and that they did not recruit enough panel members, which is exactly the sort of concern that I am trying to avoid delaying what could otherwise be a system that could get children and young people through at a reasonable rate. I appeal to the minister to say that I take the point that she makes about the wording of this amendment, but is there a mechanism that the minister thinks that she could work with me on that would try to address the principle of the underlying point, which is that we need to make sure that the capacity is in the system to deal with the increase that goes through it, to deal with the increase in substance that goes through it, so that we do not retrospectively create a delay or backlog in the system? So, again, thank you for the intervention. I don't feel that this needs to be as prescriptive as this. As I've said, commencement plans will, in practical terms, rely on a positive Children's Hearings Scotland report on their numbers. As I say, this would not be something that would be commenced without an assurance that there are the numbers in place to cope with this. I would also say, just in relation to Ruth Maguire's points in terms of discussions, it is fluid. As I say, that's why these on-going discussions are very important. For example, in November, Children's Hearings Scotland planned to run a February recruitment campaign, however now they don't, because I believe that the situation has improved. So this is fluid, it's fluctuating and it needs to be considered on a continual basis, rather than setting in stone something that is required for this to go ahead. I'm trying to set out points why I don't feel that that is necessary at this stage, so I hope that I've provided reassurances in that respect. I believe that I've said everything that I was planning to say in the responses to those interventions. I'll just ask the relevant members not to move the amendments in this group. If they do, I would ask the committee to reject them for the reasons that I have outlined this morning. Thank you, minister. Martin Whitfield, sorry, I know there's lots of conversations going on around about you there. Martin Whitfield, can I now ask you to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 218, please? I'm very grateful for the indication from the Government that under the circumstances I won't be pressing my amendment, so I seek your leave to withdraw it. Oh, thank you. Martin Whitfield seeks to withdraw amendment 218. Does any member object that the amendment is therefore withdrawn? I call amendment 219, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 218. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Not moved. So now the question is that the sections 28 to 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, thank you. I call amendment 114, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 7. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 115, in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 99. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 116, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 99. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're all agreed. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Oh, I forgot the bit above that. Apologies minister. I call amendment 117, in the name of the minister, already debated with 99. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 118, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 99. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that the schedule be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 220, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 218. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. Withdrawn. Withdrawn. Thank you. Not moved. Moved here. Correct. That's fine. Thank you. So the next question is that sections 31 and 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question, the final question today, is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I'll just have a wee deep breath there. So that concludes our consideration of the bill at stage 2, and I would like to thank the minister and her supporting officials for their attendance throughout. Our next agenda item, however, does also involve the minister. So I will suspend for five minutes to allow for a change of officials. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to take evidence from the minister for children, young people and keeping the promise Natalie Dawn MSP and her officials on the provision of early learning and childcare specified children Scotland amendment order 2024 draft. I would like to thank the minister for staying with us this morning and welcome your officials to the front table. We've got Joanna Mackenzie, team leader of targeted children and family well-being Scottish Government, and Nico Mackenzie Euthan, lawyer from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Ms Dawn, can I invite you to speak to the draft instrument and you have up to three minutes. As in previous years, this amendment order will increase the maximum income levels for families with a two-year-old who is eligible for funded early learning and childcare because they receive a joint working tax credit and child tax credit or universal credit award. The relevant order currently specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of a joint child tax credit and working tax credit award with an annual income that does not exceed £8,717 or if their parent is in receipt of a universal credit award with a monthly income that does not exceed £726 per month. The amendment order will increase the maximum income level to £9,552 per year for households in receipt of that joint child tax credit and working tax credit claim. The universal credit maximum income level will increase to £7,96 per month, so we are essentially making this change to reflect changes at a UK level to the national living wage, and I will leave it there. Can I ask the members if they have any questions or comments on the draft instrument? Mr Willie Rennie, please. I have raised this issue before we are predecessors. It is about the take-up for two-year-olds. We were told previously that the data sharing arrangement with the HMRC and DWP would significantly increase the take-up, but the figures from last year showed a decrease in actual numbers but also in terms of a percentage take-up, which is a real concern for me because we have got the data sharing arrangement in place. There also seems to be huge variations from one local authority to the other. Has the minister looked at why that variation has happened and why we have not managed to drive up the take-up? The two-year-olds, the certain group of two-year-olds, I think that we were liberal Democrats, were very strong advocates for it, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to give them the opportunity to have that early learning in childcare when they have been offered it. I will perhaps bring officials in in a second, but what I would say is that I absolutely agree with Willie Rennie's points. I want to see as many two-year-olds taking this offer up as possible. This was the first year that we could rely on the accurate data. As Mr Rennie's pointed out, there was a decline, which has been disappointing. However, there is a range of work under way to encourage and increase that uptake. There has been a series of webinars with local authorities to support them to access the data and to make the best use of that. There has been webinars with the improvement service and the village on access to funded ELC for two-year-olds with a care experience parent. We are also offering one-to-one support through the improvement service to local authorities that want to work on maximising the uptake of those funded hours. Mr Rennie also commented on the variation, and I absolutely agree. I think that it goes in some places from 30 per cent to up to 90 per cent, and I would like to understand that variation a little bit more. Obviously, as I said, we are still relatively new in having that data. I want to look more into that as we move forward to try to encourage and ensure that that uptake is taken up. My concern has been that the Government has placed its confidence in the data-sharing provision to solve that problem. I have made previous points that the two-year-old provision is not available in every community, because sometimes there are perhaps not sufficient numbers to justify the full provision, but it might mean that families, perhaps not worth the wherewithal to be able to travel, are having to travel quite significant distances in order to access a centre. Could the minister look at that in particular to make sure that we do not have large areas where there is no provision so that those isolated individuals cannot access the provision? That is one of the reasons that I think that perhaps has not been the take-up that we would like to see. I could have understood why it was static, but the actual reduction in numbers is a real concern. As I have said, I would like to make all the efforts that I can to try to encourage that. In terms of the kind of rurality issues or the distance, there are a number of reasons why uptake might not be so high for two-year-olds, as we see with our three- to five-year-olds. I am certainly looking into understanding what the reasons are for that variation. As I have said, I do not know whether officials have anything to add further to that. On the data that local authorities have, it is the first time that they will have known where the eligible population is, as well as being able to target them with information that also aids with planning. Some of those issues around where services are placed, we see that as a benefit going forward. As the minister said, the first data this year was in June. The data on registrations is collected in September, so not all local authorities were signed up at that time. We are definitely still in an early stage of this and the potential of it to support planning as well as targeting information. We have not put all of our eggs into this basket. There has always been work, particularly with the improvement service, to try to get underneath some of those local variations, local processes that might be a barrier to take up. There is also work that we did a while back with the children and young people improvement collaborative. We have now a published document that we can use that looks at some of the other factors around this, not just the data on eligible families but some of the other processes that might be barriers, as I said, to uptake. Some questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you, convener. Thank you, minister, and good morning to the other officials. The One Parents Family Scotland and Joseph Renty Foundation did some research recently that found that single parents are struggling on the basis of a lack of affordable or wraparound childcare and it is particularly acute for under-threes and also disabled children. I wonder if the minister can say what specifically she will do to look at the single-parent families in this but also specifically for disabled children to see if that is having any of the impact on the lower uptake, particularly for twos, but actually across the piece in terms of childcare. In relation to our further expansion and announcements on the programme for government, the member will be aware that we have early adopter communities under way. Those were limited to four but we added another two in the programme for government and discussions and plans are under way just now as to how we roll out in those areas. Those early adopters are really working with families to look at providing childcare from nine months right up to school-age childcare. As I say, it's about understanding what is best for what families want, what's best for the children themselves, what's best for the local areas. I suppose that comes back to Mr Renty's point as well around locality and rurality. So there is work under way just now to try and extend our current offer to make sure that what we extend to is works for parents, works for children and families. I don't have to tell the member we are operating under extremely difficult financial circumstances so we are trying to go as fast as we can but as I say what is more important for me is that we get it right for families and that we get what's needed. So in terms of single-parent families, they will obviously be a consideration in terms of our work going forward. Thank you minister for responding to those questions. Can we now move to agenda item three, where I invite the minister to move the motion in her name, S6M-11977, that the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the provision of early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland amendment order 2024 draft be approved. Does the minister have anything further to add? No, she's moved it. Thank you very much. Do any members have any comments? No, we're fine. The question is that motion S6M-11977 in the name of Natalie Dawn be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The committee must now produce its report on this draft instrument and is the committee content to delegate responsibility to me as the convener to agree the report on behalf of the committee? I would like to thank the minister and her officials for their participation today and I now close the meeting. Thank you very much.