Chamber and committees

Amendments 83 to 85 are prompted by a concern that I have had for a long time about a lack of consistency between local authorities on important issues of policy and, sometimes, of practice, such as the use of restraint, sibling separation and exclusion from school. Sometimes, the inconsistency even relates to the data that different local authorities gather. My amendments seek to resolve that, at least to an extent. They relate to the setting of national outcomes and priorities, reporting criteria and consultation in relation to children’s services planning.

Amendments 83 and 85 would significantly strengthen children’s services planning by providing the Scottish ministers with regulation-making powers to ensure greater national consistency and oversight in relation to the aims of children’s services plans while, of course, retaining the flexibility for local lead children’s services planning bodies to respond to their local priorities. The amendments would also enhance accountability in relation to reporting on the achievement and implementation of the plans.

The fact is that many, if not all, of the challenges facing children and families are shared across the country, and setting national outcomes, priorities and reporting criteria will help to focus effort on those challenges—or, at the very least, will mean that they cannot be ignored. That will help to develop a clearer and more consistent picture of how children’s services planning partnerships are performing across the country and, I hope, avoid a postcode lottery of care.

The benefits of the approach are twofold. First, it will strengthen accountability by providing a more consistent basis on which plans and progress can be assessed, and secondly, it will help to identify where support and improvement activity are most needed, allowing national and local partners to target resources more effectively. That said, including a duty to consult in relation to the new powers will ensure that stakeholders have a genuine chance to influence the national outcomes, priorities and reporting criteria and will help to ensure that they reflect local issues and priorities.

On amendment 84, Scottish ministers and other service providers currently have the ability to dispute elements of a children’s services plan by issuing a notice that sets out their reasons for disagreement, but currently the law does not require those preparing the plan to take any meaningful action in response to that notice. Amendment 84 seeks to address that gap by placing a clear requirement on those contributing to a plan to take concerns seriously and, crucially, to respond to them. That would strengthen accountability, support better collaboration and help to ensure that plans genuinely reflect the needs of children and families.

For those reasons, I strongly recommend that the committee support the amendments.

I move amendment 83.

In the light of the minister’s support, I have nothing to add. I press amendment 83.

Amendment 83 agreed to.

Amendments 84 and 85 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 121 not moved.

I will speak to amendments 131 to 134 in my name. I say at the outset that I also support the intention of the amendments in the names of Martiin Whitfield and Willie Rennie, although I believe that my amendments would more effectively achieve the objective of incorporating a statutory right to return to care. Amendment 98, in the name of Roz McCall, complements my amendments, and I would support that, too.

In introducing these amendments, I want to take a step back and answer this question: in a nutshell, what is the Promise? When people ask me that question, my answer is that an important principle of the Promise was always to ensure that young people growing up in care get the same support from their parent, which is the state in its various forms, as other young people would get from their own families.

It is a really important part of any young person’s life when they make the transition from childhood to adulthood. We all know that that process can be difficult, it is often gradual and very often it can be non-linear. As Roz McCall commented in speaking to an earlier group, someone can be well into adulthood and still have the need to return to their parental home. Those who grow up in care should have that same right, and that is at the heart of the amendments in this group.

I will speak to each of my amendments in turn. Amendment 131 would strengthen what is an existing duty in section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 by making it explicit that any child under 18 who is homeless or living in accommodation that “is not suitable for” their welfare must be accommodated as a child. That is intended to deal with the issue that if 16 and 17-year-olds, and in particular those with care experience, find themselves homeless, they are often routed through homelessness services, not through children’s services. I do not think that that aligns with the Promise.

Amendment 132 would change what is currently a discretionary power to provide accommodation to care-experienced young people aged 18 to 21 into a mandatory duty, where accommodation is needed to “safeguard or promote” their welfare.

11:00

Amendment 133 would ensure that young people who return to care or accommodation are eligible for continuing care on the same basis as those who never left care. It would also allow continuing care to be provided in alternative accommodation where staying in the original home is not possible.

Jackie Dunbar has spoken about choice. A crucial element is that a young person should be able to choose the advocate they feel is best able to advocate for them. However, the point is that, in all circumstances, they should have the option of somebody who is genuinely and truly independent and does not have any other caring responsibilities for them. I take her point about the local authority paying—ultimately, that is a requirement—but the crucial point is that there needs to at least be the option, even if the young person does not take it, of somebody who has no other responsibilities, such as those that a teacher would have. Is that not the key point?

To aid my understanding, is it Jeremy Balfour’s position that amendments 146 and 147 are the minimum that he would require or that they do not go far enough? I wonder whether, at stage 3, we could take the current definition as a minimum and build on it. Who Cares? Scotland, for example, thinks that the definition should go slightly further. There will be other views, but is there an emerging consensus that this is a starting point?

I strongly agree with Martin Whitfield’s response to that question. This is about a duty on the system to provide a young person with the ability to return to care.

All of us who grew up in loving families may be able to return to that environment. As Martin Whitfield said, it might not be identical and we might not be able to get exactly the same love and care that we got years previously, but the ability to return to that environment is what these amendments seek to incorporate in the bill. I think that is important.

Amendment 133 would deal with a gap in the current system. At present, young people who return to care can lose access to continuing care entirely, and that creates the kind of cliff edge in support that I think we would all recognise we need to deal with.

Finally, amendment 134, which is important, would create a discretionary power—I stress the word “discretionary”—for local authorities to continue providing continuing care up to age 25 where that would safeguard or promote a young person’s welfare. It would not impose a blanket duty, but it would allow flexibility where young people might not be ready to move on from care at age 21.

Again, that approach encompasses the notion that a care-experienced young person should have the same opportunities, at various stages of their life, that most of the rest of us are able to take for granted.

I will listen carefully to the minister’s response. I make it clear, however, that I am very strongly minded to press or move my amendments today. I recognise that they might need further work ahead of stage 3, but, in my view, they are so important to the final package that the bill represents that I have a strong desire to see us put these commitments into the bill at stage 2—we can then, by all means, work to improve any flaws ahead of stage 3—rather than leaving a gap at this stage in the hope that we might do something at stage 3. That is why I am strongly minded—subject, of course, to listening to the minister—to press or move these amendments this morning.

For my part, I want to be very clear that, if the final bill at stage 3—the bill that the Parliament is ultimately asked to vote on—contains the amendments as they stand now, I would be perfectly happy. I am indicating—I think that this is reasonable—that if the Government thinks that the amendments can be improved in some way, I am open to that discussion. It would then be for the Parliament as a whole to judge the stage 3 amendments when it sees them.

Will Jeremy Balfour take a further intervention?

I will be very careful what I say there.

Again, I will be slightly light-hearted here—I sometimes hear descriptions of how Mr Salmond’s Cabinet operated, and I wonder whether I was part of the same one.