Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill response 

Part 1 Chapter 1 

1. What are your views on the aftercare provisions set out in the Bill? 

The Scottish Association of Social Workers (SASW) welcomes the proposed extension of aftercare provision outlined in the Bill. Social workers are acutely aware of the complexities and challenges that accompany the transition to adulthood for all young people. These challenges are often magnified for those who are currently, or have previously been, looked after, making the provision of ongoing advice, guidance, and assistance essential to their wellbeing and development. 

As the professional association for social work in Scotland, we have been gathering the opinions of our members, and this response represents multiple discussions we have had with them and other stakeholder partners. 

Social workers have consistently embraced the principles of The Promise, which closely align with their professional values and aspirations for working with families, children, and young people in need of support. Indeed, for many years, social workers have been asking for three key changes consistent with The Promise: to focus on preventing problems rather than just responding to crises, to work alongside the people they support as partners, and to base eligibility for services on what people need rather than on the resources available. 

Social workers’ commitment has never been in question. While legislation can formalise responsibilities, it is important to acknowledge that social workers have never willingly withheld support from those in need. Rather, the primary barrier has been, and continues to be, the lack of adequate and sustainable financial resource. 

We are concerned that the finances set out in the financial memorandum accompanying the Bill lack rigour and, as proposed, do not provide sufficient funding to support its successful implementation. The sector is already under significant strain due to increasing demand, workforce recruitment and retention challenges1, and diminishing resources. Without additional investment, the ability to deliver the intended outcomes of the Bill will be severely compromised. 

Furthermore, resource limitations are likely to impact the eligibility criteria for accessing aftercare services, meaning that people will only get support when they reach crisis. This undermines the Bill’s objectives. For the legislation to be effective and equitable, it must be supported by a realistic and adequately funded implementation plan. 

Without additional resource, support for children on the edge of care and those in need may be limited. If existing resources are stretched too thin, delivering effective support becomes more difficult. This could unintentionally weaken the national commitment to Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC). 

Not all services for care experienced young people and adults are provided by social services. Other sectors, such as health, also struggle with resources, which leads to long waiting times for mental health support or diagnosis and management of ADHD and ASD. Such constrictions in the system negatively impact on successful transitions for those young people. As the CELCIS report (2023) highlights lack of access to early help and preventative family support services, and to specialist health, mental health, and disability support were identified as longstanding service gaps and weaknesses in Scotland. 

Successful change depends on strong, stable foundations—an insight echoed in the CELCIS (2023) report, which also called for a simplified and better-aligned legislative and policy framework. However, the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill introduces additional complexity to an already crowded landscape. SASW believes two urgent priorities must be addressed to support meaningful reform: ensuring social work teams are fully staffed and supported, and securing adequate funding for both social work services and the third sector. The profession is currently facing a recruitment and retention crisis, driven by rising demand and diminishing resources. Without strengthening the foundations of our care system, the Bill is unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes.  

Extending aftercare provisions must not negatively impact other provisions that looked after children are entitled to. The Bill and its supporting documentation do not provide sufficient assurance that unintended consequences have been adequately investigated and controlled. 

The SASW team and members would welcome further dialogue and remain committed to contributing constructively to the development of policy that supports children, young people, and young adults who are currently or formerly looked-after. 

2. What are your views on the corporate parenting provisions set out in the Bill? 

SASW welcomes the extension of corporate parenting provisions. However, we remain concerned about the resources required to effectively support this expansion—concerns that mirror those outlined in our response to Question 1. Without sufficient investment, there is a risk that the intended benefits of these provisions may not be fully realised. 

3. What are your views on the advocacy proposals set out in the Bill? 

The social work profession is strongly committed to listening to, involving, and empowering children, young people, and families, in line with Article 12 of the UNCRC. The CELCIS report (2023) found that, in practice, this commitment has largely focused on ensuring that their voices are heard in the GIRFEC child’s planning meetings. We therefore support the proposal to extend the right to independent advocacy as a lifetime right. 

However, a key finding in the CELCIS report shows that what children, young people, and families value most is having supportive, empowering, and non-judgmental relationships with the practitioners who work with them. The opportunities to build and sustain such relationships are significantly hindered by systemic under-resourcing, as outlined in our response to Question 1. Services are operating at or beyond capacity, and social workers often lack the time to engage consistently with families and young people, which affects our ability to build the positive, trusting relationships that help families. Strengthening workforce capacity and resourcing will have a far greater impact on outcomes for care-experienced individuals than the provision of advocacy services alone. 

4. What are your views on the proposals for guidance in relation to care experience? 

SASW generally agrees with these proposals. 

The policy memorandum recognises that support and entitlements for care-experienced people currently exist but are not supported by a single, universal definition of ‘care experience’. We understand that the guidance will aim to provide this definition. 

However, we must ensure that no one loses their existing access to support simply because they do not meet the new definition. Our priority must be to enhance and expand support for those who need it, while being careful not to extend entitlements unnecessarily to those who don't. 

We welcome efforts to reduce the stigma around care experience: the language we use matters greatly. 

Scotland's care community has changed significantly since the Independent Care Review spoke with care-experienced people in 2018. When Scotland joined the National Transfer Scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2021, it substantially changed the makeup of our care community. Nearly one-third of children in care are now unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, whose needs and experiences can be very different from those of children born in Scotland. This is not sufficiently acknowledged or addressed in the guidance in its current form. 

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children must have their voices heard in these discussions. Any changes to how we talk about care experience must consider these changes and help all children and young people feel they belong and are included. 

Chapter 2 

5. What are your views on proposals designed to limit profits for children’s residential care services? 

We strongly support the principle that care for children should be driven by compassion, stability, and the best interests of the child, not by profit. In common with The Promise, we believe that there is no place for profit in how Scotland cares for its children. 

The Independent Care Review and subsequent work under The Promise have made clear that the marketisation of care undermines the relational and rights-based foundations that children and young people need. Profit-driven models risk prioritising financial outcomes over the quality and consistency of care. 

We support proposals that seek to limit or eliminate profit within children’s residential care services. We believe that public and third sector models, grounded in accountability, transparency, and child-centred values, are better positioned to deliver the kind of care Scotland has committed to under The Promise. 

However, we note that the current phrasing of the proposals is vague and leaves considerable room for interpretation regarding what constitutes “extensive profit.” As a result, we question whether the proposals, in their current form, can lead to meaningful change. Nonetheless, we welcome the intent to create a safeguard against further marketisation of children’s care services in the future. 

We also encourage the Scottish Government to continue working collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure that any transition away from profit-based models is carefully managed, with a focus on maintaining continuity of care and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people. 

6. What are your views on proposals to require fostering services to be charities? 

The proposal to require fostering services to operate as charitable organisations could increase transparency and public accountability.  While this change would not result in significant differences within the fostering landscape at this point in time, it protects the sector in the future. Requiring charitable status would align with the direction of travel in removing profit from residential services. 

Improved strategic planning at the national level could strengthen consistency and sustainability of services across Scotland. Coordinated national efforts, particularly in forecasting need and planning procurement within the fostering sector, could play a key role in achieving this. 

7. What are your views on proposals to maintain a register of foster carers? 

We support the ambition to improve the availability and quality of national data to make information about the location and availability of fostering support, and inform future planning and policy development.  

The Policy Memorandum indicates a potential implication for professional registration for foster carers, “bringing foster carers in line with other parts of the children’s workforce who are registered and regulated”. However, the wording in the Bill and the Explanatory Note do not refer to formal registration with the Scottish Social Services Council, National Nursing and Midwifery Council, or General Teaching Council, which is where other parts of the children’s workforce are registered. We assume that, given that foster carers will continue to go through a panel approval process, the Bill does not intend this as an additional formal registration process. Whatever decisions are made in the future, we need to be careful not to increase barriers and bureaucracy for people wanting to become foster carers. 

Chapter 3 

8. What are your views on the proposed changes to the Children’s Hearings system? 

Composition of children’s panels, children’s hearings, and pre-hearing panels 

The Kilbrandon principles underpinning the Hearings System, along with the principles outlined in the UNCRC, remain relevant. These place children’s rights at the centre of processes and decision-making and promote a proportionate response to children and young people and their families. Central to this approach is the concept of community responsibility, whereby services and members of the community play a role in supporting children and families.   

The Hearings System has a rich history of drawing on members of the community who volunteer their time to support children and young people. The use of volunteers brings a lay person's perspective to often complex situations and provides checks and balances to the assessment and decision-making of professionals responsible for working with children and families. The benefits of volunteering extend to individuals gaining greater awareness of and empathy for the challenges facing children and families,  bringing a greater sense of community and shared social responsibility. 

Paid Chair 

While there are clear benefits to a volunteer model within the Hearings System, cases coming before the Hearing are increasingly complex and often require a high degree of understanding and analysis to ensure decisions are made that reflect the best interests of the child. The introduction of legal representation has seen a rise in the level of conflict and adversarial discourse within Hearings and has made chairing hearings particularly difficult in some cases. Remuneration alone does not guarantee that panel chairs have the skills and qualities required to manage very complex cases. However, chairs, the offer of remuneration may make the role more attractive to people unable to give their time voluntarily and it reflects the value of the role of the Chair. Given this, we support some element of payment accompanied by clear expectations around levels of training, experience and ability to manage the complexities of the hearing process. 

Paid specialist Panel Member  

This role potentially compromises the Kilbrandon principle of bringing the child's community together with professionals to decide the best way forward for the child at the heart of the Children’s Hearing. Reports provided to the panel before a Hearing allow specialists to provide expert opinion, having had the opportunity to conduct a full assessment. This process enables panel members to consider and give appropriate weight to the information provided. The time afforded during a Hearing is not likely to be sufficient to enable a specialist member to appraise a situation fully and to come to a rounded assessment that might inform decision-making. It is important to recognise the Children’s Hearing as a decision-making tribunal, not an assessment process. We wonder why the expert has not been involved in the earlier assessment process rather than at the decision-making stage.  We think this is the wrong stage to bring in a specialist.  Additionally, there are cost issues in bringing experts which we suggest would be better spent on supporting families at the earliest stage of difficulty. 

There may be some issues in bringing identified experts to work alongside volunteers.  Volunteers may be reluctant to challenge a colleague who is deemed an expert.   

Child attendance at hearings and hearings before sheriff. 

The Hearing is a legal process which makes significant decisions about the life of a child. As such children should be expected to attend unless there are compelling reasons particularly given it is their Hearing. While giving choice about attendance respects the immediate rights of a child to choose whether they want to attend, there may be wider impacts on their rights if they are not in attendance, particularly when a hearing makes a decision that restricts their rights to live with their family of origin or have their liberty restricted in some way. As such, we would prefer to see the reasons for excusal expanded and flexibility around attendance - attendance online be offered for example, rather than removing the obligation to attend. In the case of babies or very young children their age may be used as an acceptable reason to be excused (as is currently the case). Consideration should also be given to children with learning disabilities or significant disruptions to their mental health about whether attendance at their hearing is in their best interest. Should measures be taken to remove the obligation to attend, care needs to be taken to ensure that the child has freely chosen not to attend, and that they understand the potential consequences of that decision, while also ensuring the child is not placed under undue pressure not to attend. 

The right to a fair trial is enshrined in law and, while the Hearing sits outwith the criminal court system, the child has the right to hear concerns about their behaviour and to respond to them. Given the Hearing has the power to restrict liberty and its findings may constitute a criminal conviction for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the child should be supported to attend, as these decisions will have significant long-term impacts on the child.  

Restorative practices are valuable in addressing offending behaviour. The Hearing provides a forum where the child can understand the impact of their alleged actions and learn why certain decisions have been made as a result. 

Grounds hearings 

We agree with the proposals to streamline the grounds process as described within the Bill. This will reduce stress on families and children required to attend repeated hearings and takes into account the age and capacity of children who may not understand or be able to accept the grounds as presented to them.  

Relevant persons 

We agree with the proposals contained within the Bill regarding relevant person status, particularly the process of removing relevant person status, where the person concerned might use this status to continue harm towards the child. Formalising this process may strengthen the promotion of children's rights more fully. We consider the number of people deemed to be “relevant” should be kept to a minimum, with clear criteria for who might be considered relevant for the purpose of the Hearing. 

Tests for referral – inclusion of the word “support” 

The Children’s Hearing is a legal tribunal that makes significant decisions affecting the lives of children, young people, and their families. Language matters when working with children and young people. Terms like "control" and "treatment" can carry negative or value-laden connotations, but need to remain in the language to reflect the powers the Hearing has.  

We therefore agree with the inclusion of “support” while retaining the existing language within the current referral criteria. 

If this phrase is adopted, it has significant implications for expectations of resource to support children and their families. WE are not certain that this is reflected in the financial memo. 

Information about referral, availability of advocacy services etc 

We agree with the provisions within this section to create a duty to provide information about process and advocacy services to all children referred to the Reporter. We would further stress the need for independent advocacy to be offered to any child who makes a choice not to attend their Hearing. In hearings related to offending behaviour, children should have access to their own legal representation to ensure that their rights are upheld. 

Test for referral  

The current referral test of “might be necessary”  has resulted in that out of 10,197 referrals, only 2,238 resulted in a Hearing where a Compulsory Supervision Order was made. The Bill documents indicate that this is a problem. Where Reporters and Panel Members believe there are too many referrals coming from particular agencies, those conversations should happen locally rather than using a law that potentially protects vulnerable children. 

The proposed referral test of “likely to be needed” could be seen to prejudge the outcome of the referral process. Families often say they feel the outcome of meetings and processes are already decided beforehand. This wording would potentially compound that feeling while also deterring professionals or members of the public from referring families who need support or intervention because they are unsure about whether compulsory measures are likely. Social workers may consider it a “fail” if they refer and their recommendation for compulsory supervision is not accepted. This could lead to referrals being seen as professionally risky decisions.  

The assessment and preparation for a Hearing requires local authorities and social workers to fully explore and evidence the needs and supports required. With the pressures on the social work profession, there is a risk that the outcome of reducing the referrals to the Hearings System deprioritises the support to a child and their family.   

Where resources are scarce, this change could lead to decreased support rather than the positive outcome of fewer referrals being made.  

Interim supervision orders, and review of CSOs 

We agree with the proposed changes as detailed within the Bill. 

Part 2 

9. What are your views on the proposed changes to Children’s Services Planning set out in section 22 of the Bill 

We tentatively welcome the proposed changes to Children’s Services Planning outlined in Section 22 of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, the inclusion of Integration Joint Boards (IJBs) as statutory partners alongside local authorities and health boards. 

This change could be a positive step toward more integrated and collaborative planning across health and social care services to ensure that the needs of children and the adults who love them can be met in a more consistent and interrelated way. Our current schemes of delegation for IJBs enable the separation of social services for children and adults, ignoring the reality that the wellbeing of children is highly dependent on the wellbeing of their adults.   

Elevating IJBs to statutory status acknowledges their critical role in delivering services, and aligns with the broader ambition of The Promise to create a more cohesive, child-centred system of care.  This might improve transitions from children's to adult services.  

This proposal has the potential to: 

• Strengthen collaboration across children’s and adult services and across health, social work and social care, ensuring that planning is informed by a wider range of expertise and operational insight.
• Promote shared accountability by encouraging all statutory partners to contribute meaningfully to the development and delivery of Children’s Services Plans.
• Improve consistency of the experience of people in Scotland by formalising IJB involvement, which has previously varied in practice. 

However, we also note several considerations that will be essential to the successful implementation of this change: 

• Clear roles and responsibilities must be established to avoid duplication and to ensure effective coordination among statutory partners.
• Capacity and expertise within IJBs should be developed, particularly in relation to children’s services, which may not fall within their current remit due to the different schemes of delegation across different areas.
• Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be introduced to assess the impact of this change on service quality and outcomes for children and families. 

In summary, we cautiously support the intent of Section 22 as it may contribute to more effective and inclusive planning. We encourage the Scottish Government to provide clear guidance and support to ensure that this change leads to meaningful improvements in the lives of children and young people. 

10. Are there any other comments you would like to make in relation to this Bill 

Overall, we tentatively support the proposed Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill and welcome its intention to improve outcomes for children, young people, and young adults who are currently or formerly looked-after. 

While we agree with the bill’s overarching aims, we remain concerned about the feasibility of its implementation. We urge the development of a rigorous and detailed implementation plan that addresses the current shortcomings in the resource, early support and the workforce crisis mentioned in our response to Question 1.  

In our view, the bill has been brought forward in haste, resulting in insufficient assessment of what is required to ensure its success. This makes the need for a robust, collaborative implementation strategy all the more critical. 

The SASW team and our members are committed to constructive engagement and welcome continued dialogue. We remain dedicated to supporting the development of policy that genuinely enhances the lives of those with care experience.