Chamber and committees

I am sorry, but you are simplifying something that is very complex. I am not agreeing or disagreeing; I am just saying that I do not believe that it is quite a simple as saying, “Okay, we’ll just make an amendment.” I have to discuss these concerns further, and I have committed to looking into this further.

I have heard about the concerns in relation to corporate parenting. Again, that is something that I want to delve into a little further. I believe—I get the sense that Mr Adam does, too—that corporate parenting really lies at the heart of Scotland’s commitment to care-experienced children. The extension to corporate parenting duties offers a strengthened lens through which public bodies, with an understanding of the experience and potential needs of children, can continue to provide the best trauma-informed and rights-respecting support for them and their families to ensure that they thrive.

Legislation is very clear that corporate parents can act only in ways that are consistent with the proper exercise of their other public functions, such as within legal and budgetary competence and authority. For example, the provisions do not mandate compulsory reviews for non-looked-after children or force care-experienced children to share their status.

I heard some of the concerns around that issue come up at committee. Off the top of my head, I do not know exactly where they came from, but I plan to discuss that issue in an effort to alleviate some of those concerns. As I said, I hold the importance of corporate parenting very high, and I see it as lying at the heart of our commitment to care-experienced children.

On the general point, I know that there are concerns and I am more than happy to consider whether there is any way in which I can make things clearer.

On the point that Mr Rennie raises about kinship, I am very much aware that there are a number of complexities, notably about informal kinship care. Again, it is down to the local authority. It is very likely that the local authority will already have come into contact with the child, so it will be aware of that child’s circumstances and needs and would be able to assess the situation adequately.

I take the point, however, and I am more than happy to consider whether there are ways to make things clearer.

No, but my officials have done that in the background. If you will allow me to bring in Gavin Henderson, he can speak to that.

I ask Gavin Henderson to come in on the details.

It is really important to have a level of consistency and to break down some of the local barriers that we all know exist and can prevent bodies from working with one other. I know that that concern has been raised in evidence to the committee, but I want to mitigate that because I believe that it will make services fit for the long-term future. The issues we are trying to resolve were identified in the independent review of adult social care—the Feeley review—and in other reviews. CELCIS recently undertook some research that emphasised the potential for that provision to encourage shifts, break down silos and barriers, and enable better community planning.

We are looking at the provisions and thinking about IJBs and their responsibilities. I know that the committee heard evidence about the focus on adult services and you may have been given the impression that children’s services are not relevant, but that is a dangerous way of thinking because children’s services undoubtedly relate to adult services. Many children come into care because of family breakdown caused by addiction, violence in the home or a number of other factors that are related to adult services. We must be clear about that. Also, children who are in care or who experience difficulties in childhood will become adults with their own difficulties if they are not supported. It is important to look at a long-term strategy and to really understand that services are linked together, because we will be able to make better local decisions for our families and communities if those decisions are taken at the same time.

I have been clear in telling everyone that I appreciate that we may not see the benefits when the bill is passed, but I believe that it will have long-term benefits in improving consistency and breaking down local barriers.

I will bring in Gavin Henderson in a second, but I want to pick up on two points. First, you mentioned housing specifically designed for care leavers. Organisations are focusing in on that transition point, which is key in providing support so that young people, or even older care-experienced adults, do not end up in that situation. Some of what Mr Briggs refers to takes us back to the importance of advocacy. As you said, there are instances where young people or older care-experienced adults are having to declare themselves homeless. Some key interventions could happen prior to that point that would stop that happening. The offer of lifelong advocacy speaks to that.

I do not know whether I have said what you were going to say, Gavin.

I saw the evidence session with Sheriff Mackie, and he wrote to me directly to explain some of his concerns. I discussed those matters at great length with Sheriff Mackie and provided him with a bit more data around the reasoning for our approach, and I think that we are in a better position. Of course, I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I think that Sheriff Mackie was a little more favourable towards the proposals after our discussions. I feel that we are in a better place, following the engagement that I had with him on the issue, in which I sought to provide him with a greater understanding of why I have taken the approach that I have taken.

Every child’s case is different. If specific offence grounds were being considered, there could be a need for that. We will need to work through and consider the detail of that. Tom McNamara, do you want to come in?

I think that I have been wanting to get a fair idea of the evidence to the committee. I will now have a lengthy period of engagement, during which I will be engaging with a range of stakeholders. COSLA will, of course, be included in that. As we speak, COSLA is working in the background with my officials on a range of the bill’s provisions and on different data requirements in relation to specific aspects of the bill. I am confident that that work is under way. As I said, if that point of contention is still there following COSLA’s evidence, I am more than happy to discuss it further. Perhaps Gavin Henderson could allude to—