Chamber and committees

I am sorry, Mr Ross—I would need to look at the Official Report, but I do not believe that I said, “Yes,” in a one-word answer to Ms Duncan-Glancy. I misunderstood her question.

Thank you, Mr McLennan. That is very important. We must remember what children and young people and, equally, care-experienced adults are saying about the system and the changes and priorities that they would like to see. I could not rhyme off all the engagement that I have had with children and young people.

Most recently, I have met the hearings experts by experience and the OHOV group that I mentioned at the beginning. I engage regularly with children and young people and I would be more than happy to send the committee a record of the different ways in which I have done so. We need to be clear that that is the commitment.

I heard some of the feedback from the committee meeting with children and young people, which was really positive, and I know that children and young people were very positive about aspects of the bill. We need to remember why we are doing this, which is to change the lives of children and young people who are growing up in care. The feedback that I have had from young people so far—officially and anecdotally—has been very positive.

We discussed a number of areas.

That is certainly something that I am more than happy to look into further. I would reinforce what I have already said, in that local authorities already have the ability to provide aftercare beyond the age of 26, and they would be best placed to understand the specific needs of a child or young person or of a young adult and to decide whether that was required.

There are complexities around a right to return, but our aftercare provisions and our policy on continuing care allow for young people to return to a local authority area for that support where it is required.

I do not know whether Mr Rennie has specific examples of where there is a cliff edge, but I appreciate what Mr Rennie has brought to me with his example, and I am more than happy to look into what it is that is running so successfully—in West Yorkshire, I believe he mentioned.

Again, we will probably need to look at the data once the policy has been put in place, but if a child or young person who has left care requests an assessment, it is very likely that they have needs, and I imagine that a local authority will have to step in and provide that support. Gavin Henderson can speak on the policy in a little more detail.

I have been clear that we are progressing work on the “Improving Care Leavers Housing Pathways” report. If there are ways to enhance our support to local authorities in relation to housing and other aspects, I am certainly happy to consider those further. As I have said, local authorities already hold the power to provide support to care-experienced people, specifically in relation to housing.

As with a number of aspects of the Promise, we have to remember that ensuring that people with care experience have adequate access to housing is a preventative measure. It would help local authorities to prioritise that from an early point. As much as the Scottish Government can work to support local authorities—we will do that, and we continue to do so—there is a role for local authorities in supporting themselves, thinking ahead and taking preventative measures that will provide ways to save later down the line. I would put housing in that category.

I discuss a number of aspects of my whole portfolio in relation to the budget, and the finances for this bill are certainly included in that. I could not speak specifically to the budget proposals, though.

I understand the implications of adding provisions by making amendments to UK acts in devolved areas. Although we have tried to avoid doing that as much as possible in the bill, the member has stated the two areas in which that has not been possible.

A range of members and stakeholders have brought me that issue; I have listened to and heard the concerns that have been raised and I am still taking advice on the matter. Although those are the two areas that do not fall into compatibility with the UNCRC, both are being drafted in the bill in a way that is compatible with the UNCRC. For example, the register for foster carers would be fully produced in scope with the UNCRC. Please be assured that, as I have said, I have heard the calls for concern around that area and I am still considering advice on it.

Mr Briggs can correct me if I have picked up his question wrongly but, at the moment, I am not considering any further amendments in relation to housing under the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill were passed that will impact on care-experienced young people, such as the duty to ask and act. That is not to say that this is a closed book, in that work is on-going in relation to the recommendations in “Improving Care Leavers Housing Pathways”. That continues to be a priority, despite it not necessarily being in the bill before us.

No. It would lead to duplication and unnecessary complexity if we were to do so. However, I have heard the concerns that have been raised. I am committed to UNCRC and I am getting advice on it, so if I find a way forward that combats those issues, I will act on it.