Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, panel, and thank you for the information that you submitted in advance. It has been hugely helpful, even though it has, at times, made difficult reading, because of the gravity of the situation in our schools.

Picking up on the theme of reform and reviews, I know that countless reviews have looked into what we need to do here. We have mentioned the Morgan review this morning, and there are plenty of others. What does the panel think are the barriers to implementing them?

My colleague will ask about some of the experiences that you have described in relation to behaviour and so on.

You made the point that support staff do not necessarily have sight of plans or information. Can you talk a bit more about that? What do support staff need in order to do their job appropriately?

I take the minister’s point on that, and those matters were considered previously. However, now that that information has come to the Government and the committee, it is quite important that the Government responds to it so that we can understand the context in which we will vote on the bill at stage 3.

The committee’s report on the bill acknowledges the significant resourcing and training challenges that implementation of the bill will pose, particularly to a number of key agencies, including Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and local authorities. The report also notes the reassurances that were provided in evidence by Children’s Hearings Scotland that the resource would be in place ahead of the bill’s implementation. Children’s Hearings Scotland expressed confidence that it could successfully recruit additional panel members who will be needed as a result of the bill, but it also said that that is crucial to the successful delivery of the bill.

On that basis, it is important that the bill does not commence until those panel members are in place. If, as organisations have said, the required numbers are put in place, there should be no concern about amendment 220. If that does not happen, the amendment would serve as protection to ensure that there would be no delays for the young people who are in the system, either on offence or welfare grounds, as a result of our not having recruited enough panel members to deliver the provisions in the bill.

Amendment 220 would be a responsible way to ensure that everything that is required in the children’s panel is in place to support the implementation of the bill, should it be passed.

I take the minister’s point. However, there must be a calculation of how many panel members are required for the system as it stands—or at least I hope that there is. My suggestion is that that calculation should be used as the basis for your consideration of the right number of panel members in the future, given that that number is likely to increase, partly as a result of the substance of the issues that they will be dealing with. The difficulty is surely not insurmountable, and you can use that calculation to consider what that number should look like.

Would the minister be 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 hearings system has the resources to deliver the changes without there being significant delays for Scotland’s young people?

My intervention was going to be very similar to that of my colleague Ruth Maguire. I am a bit concerned about part of your answer to her question, particularly the bit where you highlighted that Children’s Hearings Scotland had a recruitment campaign but did not recruit enough panel members. That is exactly the sort of concern that I want to avoid, because that could introduce delay to what could otherwise be a system that could get children and young people through it at a reasonable rate.

I appeal to the minister to work with me to address the principle of the underlying point. I take her point about the wording of the amendment, but is there a mechanism that she could work with me on to make sure that there is capacity in the system to deal with the increase in cases and substance that will go through it, so that we do not retrospectively create a delay or backlog in the system?

I have a couple of points and then a question. Far from duplicating assessment, the reality for the people whom amendment 159 is trying to support is that they are not getting any assessments, because the CAMHS 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 nearly the extent that they should be. There is significant evidence to suggest that the amendment would not introduce duplication but might be a safety net to catch young people who desperately need it.

The minister has said that there are technical drafting issues with amendment 159, but would she be prepared to look at the issue and develop an amendment with the member who lodged it, and with others who are interested, at stage 3?

Thank you, minister, and good morning to your officials.

One Parent Families Scotland and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation did some research recently that found that single parents are struggling with a lack of affordable wraparound childcare and that the issue is particularly acute for under-threes and disabled children. What will the minister do to look at single parent families and, specifically, disabled children to see whether that issue is having any impact on the lower uptake, particularly for two-year-olds but across the piece, in relation to childcare?

Will the minister take an intervention?

My understanding is that the Care Inspectorate guidelines would prevent the sharing of spaces in the way that the minister has described.

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? Although they are very unlikely circumstances, what sort of conversations has the minister had with the Care Inspectorate to discuss the impact if such situations were to happen?