Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand that acquisition cannot be done in isolation, but is access to that funding doing what it needs to do? Is the issue purely to do with the fact that, because of the situation with the private housing supply, the fund does not go far enough, or is it simply not able to do what it says on the tin?

Nicky Brown and Jim McBride, could you comment on the national acquisition plan? Is it doing what it says on the tin? How is it affecting your local areas?

My next question follows on from that. The committee has concerns about getting information through the GP gateway process. There needs to be a movement towards making sure that the numbers come closer together, because we want to make that process as smooth as possible. The more information you have to gather and check, the more important it is to make sure that the communication streams work in a timely manner.

How are you making sure that we can move forward in a way that will bring those numbers together? Is there anything that can be done to ensure that the information that you are getting is properly assessed but quicker, and that you can get the information that you need from external sources as smoothly and as quickly as possible?

Can you share any initial reflections on processing carer support payment applications?

I will.

My amendments in this group are probing amendments.

I am aware that, over recent years, councils have made decisions to reduce their residential estates. That begs a question on safeguarding. It is very important that we ensure that there is a prudent level of safeguarding in relation to our residential placements.

We could easily have a situation in which someone over the age of 18, who is legally an adult, is in secure accommodation because it has been deemed important that their liberty is withdrawn but they are living in the same secure accommodation as a child—in other words, someone under the age of 18—who has been placed there so that they can stay out of harm’s way. That is an unacceptable position. Given the situation as regards residential placements and the state of the residential estate across the country, I would like the minister to outline the safeguarding measures in the bill and explain how she will ensure that that scenario will not arise in reality.

That is my general feeling as regards section 16. The intention of my amendments is to start a debate on the subject. I am not 100 per cent sure that the safeguarding measures that are in place are sufficient. I would be interested in hearing what the minister has to say on that.

I move amendment 95.

I was talking about a specific scenario, on which I am not 100 per cent sure that I got a response. It is about safeguarding. Although I understand that decisions will be made case by case and that it will be for local authorities to decide, there has to be absolute certainty that the financial provision and support to ensure that that happens are available.

I am not 100 per cent convinced by the answer that we have a failsafe in place. As much as I understand the position on young offenders institutions and that people will be concerned or even worried about the direction of some of the amendments that I have lodged, an option needs to be in place. I am really not sure that it is.

I will not press the amendments in the group, but I am still concerned and will discuss with the minister how we move the matter forward for stage 3.

Amendment 95, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 16 agreed to.

Section 17—Detention of children on conviction

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.

It is interesting to be winding up a debate that has moved on in such a way. As I stated, I will seek to withdraw or not move my amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned about the process that has been followed in the debate. It is, as I have said, interesting to sum up on what might be called an additional amendment, and I should say that, if I were in a position to do so, I would support amendment 206. I am concerned about the disparity in this respect and about the ethos in question holding true, perhaps to detrimental effect.

I agree with that.

At this point, I will just say that I wish to withdraw amendment 85.

Amendment 85, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 86 to 88 not moved.

Amendment 206 moved—[Liam Kerr].

Thank you, convener. This is the first time that I have spoken today.

The group of amendments that I have lodged balance previous amendments that came up last week but that, in the end, were not moved. My amendments in this group are designed to allow the courts to refer to the children’s hearings process, if deemed appropriate to the child’s treatment, when the child pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence in solemn proceedings. They are designed to ensure that the child’s welfare is at the centre of decision making and to allow the support network provided by the children’s hearings system to be provided in such cases. However, given that the previous amendments were not moved last week, these amendments—that is, amendments 85 to 88—will have to be withdrawn or not moved.

I move amendment 85.