Chamber and committees

In relation to funding, I have already picked that up. I know that concerns have been raised around aspects of funding, and I will continue to discuss them and progress the matter with COSLA.

It is a positive measure that we are widening eligibility to aftercare so that more young people with care experience who are in need will be provided with person-centred support to enable more positive transitions to adulthood and help them to thrive. You referred to eligibility—if anything, the bill expands the pool.

We know that there are instances when children and young people’s care placements have broken down and they might have been returned home, which would mean that they would not be eligible for aftercare. The bill’s provisions change that. When you think about the experiences that a child or young person might have in their younger years that might not be seen to impact them but could in later life, that change is really impactful and a really positive move towards opening up support systems for more children and young people who have experienced care.

Of course, local authorities have the responsibility and ability to provide further support. I do not know whether Mr Rennie wants to get into specific examples around eligibility or that cliff edge. If there are instances where a young person was going to experience that cliff edge, I believe that local authorities have the responsibility to look into the situation that the young person might be in and to provide support where that is appropriate.

I will be very open and state that I am a little less in favour of including that in the bill. However, I am more than happy to continue the discussions around it.

There are mixed views in relation to family group decision making. I do not know whether additional legislation has a clear benefit, and it could contribute to an already complex landscape. There could be some issues around it. Local authorities already have the ability to lead on that, and there are many areas in Scotland where family group decision making is already used with success, such as in early support services, which I am sure that Mr Briggs is aware of.

However, I have heard from COSLA and Social Work Scotland that any further legislation in relation to it would not necessarily have the benefit that we might think that it would have. Informed by the discussions that I have had, I would like to allow for time to explore that further, and for it to grow organically from a local authority perspective. However, I am always more than happy to continue discussions on the matter.

We have family decision making in 21 local authorities at the moment, so it would be helpful for me to discuss with those local authorities the successes that they have had and—to come back to what we discussed earlier—where there are opportunities to share best practice. Again, this is not a closed book. I am considering the matter further, but not necessarily in respect of the bill.

Independent advocacy plays an absolutely crucial role in ensuring that the views and wishes of care-experienced individuals are represented. During the bill’s development, it was decided that further detail on the definition of independent advocacy would be set out in regulations. However, I have listened to the committee’s evidence on that, and yesterday I met Who Cares? Scotland, which raised the issue. I understand that there is a wish for the definition to be a little stronger in the bill. Although I cannot get into detail around it, I can assure Mr Briggs that I am considering the issue ahead of stage 2.

The other consultations that we ran were decided on and implemented, in some cases a year or two years prior to the bill’s introduction. In this case, the timescales would not have allowed for that. If we had consulted prior to the introduction of the bill, I would most likely not be sitting here today, because I would have wanted that provision in the bill and we would most likely—

No, because as I said clearly at the beginning of my answer, we are looking to engage further with the UK Government on that. That is not my specific portfolio responsibility, but I will be more than happy to provide the committee with an update on it.

Absolutely, considering that I know the engagement that has taken place—

I am sorry. I do not have that information, but I will ask Gavin Henderson to come in.

I guess that I was referring to that specific term. Don’t get me wrong: of course, with regard to young people, it is not all smiles and happy days, and challenges are absolutely brought to me from young people. I was just referring to the specific challenge that Mr Briggs raised about delivery of the Promise getting lost in the Government machine. That specific challenge has not been brought to me. However, I hope that my answer to Mr Briggs appeased the committee. We all know that we need to go further as quickly as we can. However, with regard to what I have said today about the non-legislative and legislative actions that we are taking, if I need to do more to draw out the different things that are going on or to highlight to people the work that is under way—including “Plan 24-30”, the stories of progress and the different reports that we are putting together to track, analyse and understand what is going on—I will absolutely take that on board.

No, I am not saying that in relation to this specific bill—

Yes, absolutely. I was giving the committee an idea of the general response to the UNCRC and highlighting the issues around that. I have already been clear in my answers about what I am doing in relation to the concerns that have been raised on specific aspects of the bill.