Seòmar agus comataidhean

There would be support. I will ask officials to come in with some of the detail on that.

I have nothing further to add, thank you.

Motion moved,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Registration of Social Workers and Social Service Workers in Care Services (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you very much, convener and committee members, for inviting me to speak to the draft Registration of Social Workers and Social Service Workers in Care Services (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024.

The regulations are relatively straightforward in that they amend the timescale in which an individual must apply for registration to the Scottish Social Services Council. This Scottish statutory instrument plays an essential part in the Scottish Social Services Council’s future-proofing programme suite of work, which seeks to modernise and simplify registration to ensure that the service that is provided is fit for future need and that public protection is always at the forefront.

Existing legislation currently requires all individuals who must be registered with the Scottish Social Services Council to apply for registration “as soon as reasonably practicable after starting work”, with a six-month timescale for registration to be complete. Although the six-month timescale to fully gain registration will still be in place, the draft SSI seeks to amend the timescale for applying for registration to three months. That change will set a much clearer expectation for workers.

When the future-proofing programme was developed, it was identified that individuals who are required to register as part of taking on a role in care often left it very close to the deadline to apply for registration, which could impact their continued employment if it was not completed in time. The amendment will bring greater clarity on what is expected and will encourage people to apply for their registration sooner.

The change will reduce the overall timescale and the gap between an individual starting employment and their fitness to practice being assessed and it will lead to greater public protection by deeming whether an individual meets the standards of character, conduct and competence that are necessary for them to do their job safely and effectively in line with the Scottish Social Services Council’s codes of practice.

The SSSC carried out a consultation on its future-proofing programme, which ran between December 2021 and March 2022. The consultation received more than 6,500 responses, of which 91 per cent were from registrants. In relation to the proposals that I have brought before the committee today, 78 per cent of about 3,000 responses agreed that three months after starting their role was an appropriate timescale in which to require workers to apply for registration and 75 per cent agreed that that would make it easier for employers to comply with requirements.

The Scottish Government then carried out a consultation late in 2023, which concluded in January 2024, focusing on three imminent aspects of the future-proofing programme. The change to registration timescales was one aspect and 77 per cent of respondents to the consultation, including 10 key stakeholder groups, agreed with the proposed amendment of the registration timescales.

Although the majority of respondents were supportive, some concerns were raised. The key issues were the potential burden on SSSC staff during the transition phase; that three months are too short a timescale for new workers; and how the change would interact with the standard six-month probationary period to which workers are subject.

In light of those concerns, further investigation was carried out. Accordingly, staff at the SSSC will receive appropriate training on implementing the changes ahead of their going live, and new and probationary workers will receive support from their employer to gain registration, with the obligation continuing to fall on the employer to ensure that the timeframe is met.

Guidance and information are currently being sent directly to employers to make them aware of the changes. The SSSC is hosting online events for employers and workers, up to and after the launch of the legislation and the new changes on 3 June 2024.

The SSSC has also published full details on its website of all the changes that are being made as part of the future-proofing programme, including an employer’s toolkit. That includes information on the three-month deadline, and states that anyone starting a role from 3 June 2024 will be subject to the three-month registration period.

Ensuring that the law is clear on by when an individual should be registered creates a driver for employers and workers to meet the mandatory timescale. Clarifying the timescale for applying for registration lessens any potential risks to those receiving services, who include some of our most vulnerable citizens.

The legislation before the committee is an essential part of a process that is designed to ensure that public safety is at the heart of social services in Scotland. I hope that members will support the instrument.

I mentioned that I had met David Johnston MP. When I raised the issues with him, there was certainly an understanding of the capacity issues. I have said that I want to work alongside his Government, rather than forcing its hand. For the benefit of all children and young people, this is about working together to get an appropriate solution.

We are talking about exceptional circumstances, but I have said at every point that this is about what is best for the child. If a child in England needs to be deprived of their liberty and placed in a secure care setting but there is no capacity in England and it would be best for them to be placed in Scotland, that is absolutely what must happen. I have been clear at every point that that applies as long as it is best for the child.

As for the larger capacity issues, I had a helpful meeting with David Johnston, as I said. Officials have continued the conversations, and I look forward to having a plan in place for how we will work together to tackle the issue in the long run.

I will bring in officials shortly. I absolutely agree with Willie Rennie’s points. I want the offer to be taken up for as many two-year-olds as possible.

Last year was the first year that we could rely on accurate data. As Mr Rennie has pointed out, there was a decline in take-up, which is disappointing. However, a range of work is under way to encourage and increase take-up. A series of webinars have been held with local authorities to support them to access the data and make best use of it. Webinars have been held with the Improvement Service and the Village on access to funded ELC for two-year-olds with a care-experienced parent. In addition, through the Improvement Service, we are offering one-to-one support to local authorities that want to work on maximising the uptake of those funded hours.

I absolutely agree with Mr Rennie’s point about the variation. Take-up varies from 30 per cent to up to 90 per cent. I would like to understand that variation a little bit more. Obviously, it is still relatively early days as regards our having that data. I want to look into that more as we move forward, to encourage uptake and ensure that that provision is taken up.

Mr Marra will remember discussions about the Scottish Government’s policy to fund beds in secure care. The number of children who are being placed in cross-border secure care has reduced from 30 last year to 12. The payment for secure care beds has helped to support that, and it is reducing dependency on cross-border placements.

The whole way along, I have been clear that decisions in relation to the bill will be monitored. Officials are in regular discussions with secure care providers. If sustainability is becoming a concern, the policy will certainly be considered. However, as I said, the policy to support beds in secure care centres has massively reduced that dependency.

As I have stated, we sought advice on each of the bill’s provisions and on the amendments.

I will respond in due course—absolutely—but I am sure that the committee will be aware that my focus has been on the next stage of proceedings. Those matters were discussed at a previous session of the stage 2 proceedings. I am happy to consider that response at a later date, but, at the moment, I am looking at the issues in hand and the amendments in front of me.

A projected number of panel members is hoped to be in place, just as there is a projected number of hearings that could take place. However, I do not feel that it is necessary to prescribe those matters on a fixed basis. Tying the commencement of the bill to that is not necessary, given the on-going engagement with the relevant bodies such as Children’s Hearings Scotland and its efforts to increase the numbers of panel members. Equally, other issues are being considered in relation to the redesign of the children’s hearings system, including in relation to the panel and panel members.

There are changes that could take place and other things to be considered, so I would not want to tie the bill’s commencement to reaching specific numbers of panel members. However, to give assurance to the committee, my officials and I will keep up regular meetings with Children’s Hearings Scotland. I would not agree to commencement if I felt that the system was essentially not ready.

Under the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, there is an obligation on local authorities to assess children’s needs and prepare a child’s plan to meet them. I hear concerns from the committee that that is not always happening, and I have already made a commitment to investigate or consider that further. I am sure that members will understand that I cannot commit to lodging an amendment at this time, but I am happy to consider that 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. In line with obligations under the European convention on human rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 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 accommodation. They will be involved in the child’s case but, for children who are 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, therefore, does not necessarily seem appropriate.

I agree with the need to collect data, as is outlined in amendment 161, but I do not think that it is necessary to go as far as the amendment proposes. All local authorities currently collect data on the number of children who are in secure accommodation; that is published annually as part of the children’s social work statistics. As there are only four secure accommodation centres in Scotland, with a relatively small number of children in them, the more specific that published data becomes, the higher the likelihood is that individual children could be identified. Publishing information at the level of specificity that is outlined in Mr Briggs’s amendment could lead us into that territory, which would not necessarily be lawful under the general data protection regulation and would breach the child’s right to private life under article 8 of the ECHR. However, I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, and, if there are areas that could be progressed without leading to a breach of data protection or the identification of a child, I would be happy to consider that further.

In summary, I invite members to support amendments 110 and 111, and I urge Roz McCall, Sue Webber, Miles Briggs and Martin Whitfield not to press or move their amendments in the group. If they do so, I urge the committee to reject those amendments.