February 2026. We provided the Education, Children and Young People Committee with a briefing ahead of their Stage 2 consideration on the above bill.

We have previous provided Committee with Stage 1 written[1] and in-person evidence on this Bill.[2]

A number of amendments relate to issues that were not included in the Bill as originally published. This means that not all respondents included these in their Stage 1 evidence. In some cases there was limited or no consideration of these in the Stage 1 report. We welcome further discussion of these important issues, but for some amendments do not feel we can take a position at this stage. This does not reflect a lack of concern about the issues they raise and we will review our position ahead of Stage 3.

Our office’s statutory remit covers children and young people under the age of 18 and young people under the age of 21 if they have been in the care of, or looked after by, a local authority.[3] On that basis, we do not take a position on issues which primarily or wholly relate to people aged 21 or over.

General principles and purpose

We oppose both amendments in this group. Whilst children have a right not to be separated from his or her parents against their will, UNCRC Article 9 recognises that this may sometimes be necessary for the best interests of the child. We are concerned that some of these “general principles” move attention away from the best interests of the child.

Kinship care

We support all amendments in this group. We note that there was significant discussion of kinship care during Stage 1. These amendments strengthen support available for children in kinship care and their carers.

Aftercare

This group contains a number of amendments which seek to extend eligibility for aftercare. While we support the aims of these we are not taking a position on amendments which primarily address the rights of young people aged 21 or over.

We support amendment 127 which is intended to ensure children leaving care at different times have the same access to aftercare. We oppose amendment 5 (and the related 6) which appears to exclude children who are already 16 when this Bill comes into force.

UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act: restatement and application

We support Martin Whitfield’s amendments in this group which demonstrate how the new Register of Foster Carers could be brought within scope of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. They retain the original text of this Bill as published.

Amendments 92, 93 and 94, however, attempt to do the same but with significant reframing compared with the original text of this Bill. We can’t support this amendment on that basis, but it does demonstrate the confusion which arises from repeated amendment of legislation.

We appreciate the intent of amendment 217 and share the frustration that some provisions in this Bill remain outwith the scope of the UNCRC Incorporation Act. However, we are concerned that this could have the unintended consequence of removing duties should steps not be taken to bring the full Act into scope in time. We would be happy to consider other options at Stage 3.

Care services for young people: continuing care, return to care, and housing

Again, some of these amendments extend continuing care beyond 21, so fall outwith our remit and we take no position on these.

We note the discussion during Stage 1 on a right to return to care and welcome the attention paid to this issue. There are several options presented in these amendments and on balance we prefer amendments 131, 132 and 133. 

Corporate parenting: duties and guidance

This group contains a number of amendments placing different duties on Corporate Parents. We are not sure all recognise the diverse range of organisations defined as Corporate Parents by Schedule 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.[4]

Whilst this includes large public bodies who directly deliver services to care experienced children and young people, it also includes a number of small organisations. These include Bòrd na Gàidhlig, Creative Scotland and the Scottish Sports Council. Some of the requirements in these amendments would not be practical or possible for these organisations.

We support amendments 137 and 138. There is a need for better guidance on corporate parenting and what that means for the full range of organisations defined as Corporate Parents by the 2014 Act.

Employment and training for cared for and care-experienced people

We must oppose amendment 139. Whilst we recognise there is good intent, this would be impossible for smaller organisations who are Corporate Parents to comply with unless provided with significant additional resource by the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament (depending on funding source). Amendment 142 takes a more limited approach but as it was not included in the Bill as lodged and there is limited discussion of this issue in the Stage 1 report we have taken no position.

Public authorities: duties and guidance

We support amendments 143, 160 and 161 which strengthen the requirement for public bodies to have regard to care experienced people.

We support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 165 on restraint in care settings, though we recognise it may require further fine-tuning through amendments at Stage 3.  This amendment reflects a long-term call of the office for consistent national human rights based legislative standards, guidance, and monitoring of restrictive practices across all settings. 

Advocacy services for care experienced persons: independence

A number of amendments have been lodged which address the issue of independence of advocacy services. On balance we prefer amendment 147.

We oppose amendment 97 which would require advocacy services to be financially independent of the local authorities, lead children’s services and providers of care or support services. Whilst it is important that advocacy is independent, the state does have an obligation to fund such services and this amendment would disrupt the current funding model.

Advocacy services for care experienced persons: other matters

Amendments 145 and 155 extend advocacy services to any family member of a care experienced person. This could result in significant conflicts of interest for advocacy services and take the focus away from the child.

As with amendments on independence in the previous group, we prefer the definition in amendment 147.

Estranged children

We recognise the intent behind these amendments and particularly the concern for children aged 16 and 17 who have no experience of care but become estranged from their parents. However, as there is no discussion of this issue in the Stage 1 report we will consider discussions at Stage 2 before taking a position on these amendments.

Permanence

We recognise the concerns about delays in achieving permanence but are concerned there may be significant unintended consequences in specifying a timescale for permanence. This may move the focus away from the child’s best interests and reduce the possibility of returning the child to the care of their parents.

Data collection and reporting on services and outcomes

We recognise the intent behind these amendments but are not sure they are all practical. For example, reporting on long term outcomes for care experienced people would rely on a record of which people are care experienced. This has the potential to interfere with care experienced adults’ right to privacy if they choose not to identify themselves as care experienced.

Support for adoption

We recognise that there is considerable concern about the lack of support for adopted children and their parents and support these amendments in principle. However as they were not discussed in the Stage 1 report we will monitor discussion on them at Stage 2 and review our position on them for Stage 3.

Children’s residential care services

We support all amendments in this group, which extends profit limitation to secure care and allows for future extension via regulations. On balance, we prefer amendment 170 over 17 but either would suffice.

Register of foster carers

We take no position on these amendments. Some relate to the rights of adults (i.e. foster carers), while decisions on how the register is operated are largely a political choice.

Allowances

Children’s hearings: composition

We support amendment 27 which allows a single member panel to decide that a 3 member panel is required

We oppose amendment 105. A single member panel should be able to appoint a safeguarder should be capable for being appointed by a single panel member and we support the ability to make and continue ICSOs with one panel member, where appropriate.

We are cautiously supportive of the prospect of professionalising Panel Chairs, however feel that more discussion is required on the skills and qualities needed in a Chair. We are unconvinced that this must be in legislation but will consider discussions at Stage 2.

Children’s hearings: child’s and relevant person’s understanding and acceptance of grounds

Amendment 61 mitigates some of our concerns regarding the changes to the requirement for children to attending hearings (see next group for details).

Child’s attendance at children’s hearing

Throughout the life of this Bill we have expressed concerns regarding the removal of the requirement for the child to attend their hearing – we are most concerned that in situations with offence grounds or deprivation of liberty, a hearing progressing in absence of the child could infringe on Article 6 ECHR and Article 40 UNCRC rights. There are also concerns for particular groups of children whose voices are less likely to be heard in the current system (for example learning disabled children).  These amendments, together with Amendment 61 in the previous group go some way to mitigate our concerns.

Children’s hearings: general

We oppose amendment 116. We believe current provisions, including the no-order presumption address the issues raised in this amendment. This amendment risks moving attention away from rights of the child.

Children’s hearings: advocacy

We believe that access to independent advocacy should be on an opt-in basis. While we understand the issues suggestions of automatic referral to advocacy seeks to address, we believe opt-out approaches may represent a disproportionate interference with children’s privacy rights. We are concerned that amendments 189, 109 may do this.

Children’s hearings: timeframes

We understand the concern that it can take too long for a Children’s Hearing or Sheriff to make decisions. However, we oppose time limits on concluding proceedings. These may be too restrictive to work in practice, particularly in complex cases and may, for example, preclude the appointment of a safeguarder or commissioning of specialist reports to inform a panel decision.

Relevant persons

We thank Mr Whitfield for bringing amendments 193 and 194 which add reference to children’s UNCRC rights to a section which already references ECHR rights. We are concerned that this Bill did not take account of the incorporation of UNCRC into Scots law in 2024, even though it was drafted after the Incorporation Act came into force.

We support amendment 74 which addresses concerns about the impact on the child where a relevant person makes repeated frivolous or vexatious requests for review. 

Children’s hearings: legal representation and legal aid

We thank Mr Balfour for bringing these amendments increasing access to Legal Aid for children referred to a Children’s Hearing, particularly on offence grounds. Whilst we agree in principle that solicitors representing children should have appropriate accreditation, we are cautious about making this a requirement at this stage, given the concern about a lack of such solicitors in some areas. Any such requirement for accreditation will need to be properly resourced.

Special provision for infants

We think there have been some important points raised about ensuring that the rights of very young children are better realised in Children’s Hearings. These amendments contain several different proposals. We will consider the arguments made at Stage 2.

Nurture and support

We oppose this amendment – while we acknowledge that the language of the 2011 Act can be seen as problematic we feel that this amendment could create too low a bar for statutory intervention.

Child protection orders: evidence on oath

Family group decision making

We acknowledge the importance of family group decision making for children who are at risk of becoming looked after and that practice is inconsistent across Scotland.  These amendments present several options to address this and we have no preference amongst them.

Places of safety: arrest

We recognise the intent behind this amendment which addresses a longstanding concern however we are not convinced that it will address the issue of a lack of alternative places of safety.

Children’s services planning

Children’s services plans and reports

We oppose amendment 122 on the same basis as related amendments, including amendment 87.

Review of the Act

[1] CYPCS, 2025.  https://www.cypcs.org.uk/resources/children-care-care-experience-and-services-planning-scotland-bill-stage-1-evidence/

[2] Scottish Parliament. Official Report. https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=16565

[3] Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/17/section/16

[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/schedule/4