Chamber and committees

::The cabinet secretary supports amendment 21. Does she also recognise that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has suggested that the proposals that RO should be

“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”

have the potential to create ambiguity and to be open to interpretation or to potential challenges about the denominational nature of education in Catholic schools?

::Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, which is a good example. In Catholic schools across the country, children will learn about Lent. They will learn about it in an academic sense, probably write down what they will do for Lent and likely write a prayer to help them do that. They do all that in an RE class, but it is also RO. Does Maggie Chapman recognise that that is what I am talking about?

::As we have concluded the amendment stages of the bill, I join others in thanking the legislation team for their ever-present support with drafting amendments, all those who have taken an interest in the bill and who have engaged with me and colleagues on it, those who have prepared briefings and, of course, committee colleagues for their work at stages 1 and 2.

At the start of the bill’s passage, the cabinet secretary sought to reassure Parliament and the wider public that it would be a short technical bill and that she was seeking consensus across the Parliament. Instead, she has managed to unite some unlikely bedfellows in opposition to the bill. What has been created is a halfway house that appears to please nobody.

Coming to today’s proceedings, we were faced with a range of amendments that could shift, change or reset whole parts of the bill and amendments that could result in fundamental shifts in the position of parents’ rights, as we have heard, and in the position of denominational schools and how they deliver RE and RO in Scotland. That cannot be the outcome that the Government was looking for at the start of the process, and it speaks to much of what I referenced in the proceedings on amendments.

The heart of the matter is that the Government has introduced a bill without a clear answer to the fundamental questions that we should all ask ourselves when considering legislation, which are, “What is it for?” and, “Why are we doing it now?” As a consequence, the bill has had a chaotic, short journey and has caused a level of uncertainty. Due to that, I want to put on record that I cannot support the bill at decision time.

The detail of part 1 of the bill is, I think, confused, and was further confused by the amendments that were lodged at stage 2. Fundamentally, I regret that the Government did not support my amendment, which would have sought to offer a degree of reassurance to those in the denominational sector. I do not believe that it was too much to ask that the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 be put into the bill for the avoidance of doubt.

I say that because those pieces of legislation are totemic for those in the faith sector in Scotland and, in particular, for those in the Catholic education sector. I referenced in my contribution on my amendment the reason why those pieces of legislation came into being and the opportunities that they have afforded generations of young people and their families in this country. As I said at the weekend in reference to that amendment, if people do not have a problem with faith schools in Scotland or with the continuation of Catholic education, they should have had no problem in backing that amendment. That is why I am disappointed that the amendment was not agreed to by the Parliament tonight, because it was an opportunity for the first time in the history of devolution to put those acts into and on the face of an act of the Scottish Parliament.

Substantial changes to practices in Scottish schools that have existed for decades—particularly those changes that affect denominational settings—should not have been rushed through by way of amendments in the last months of a parliamentary session. This policy required a much more considered approach and a fuller discussion. In my opinion, there has been a lack of understanding throughout the consideration of the bill about how denominational schools operate. We have seen that in the varied amendments that were considered earlier, which have resulted in the confused bill that we have ended up with.

It was remarkable to see some of the interventions that were made in the intervening period. The Bishops Conference of Scotland gave a stark warning about its concerns at the conclusion of stage 2.

Labour members are supportive of the long-standing position in Scots law on the protection of faith education, but we also understand that, if we are going to have a wider debate about the UNCRC and children’s rights, we cannot rush that through our consideration of the bill. I referred to that in relation to many of the amendments that were offered by Green colleagues today.

There is a fundamental and complex relationship between the rights that are advanced for children and young people and the rights of their parents. That will take a longer debate and a longer time to understand, and it cannot be rushed at this point in parliamentary proceedings.

Of course we cannot disregard the concerns that have been outlined. We cannot simply walk by and pass a piece of legislation because we believe that it has to be done by the end of the session. I outlined that more widely in relation to the question of what has changed between the reconsideration of the UNCRC incorporation legislation and now to make the bill before us so urgent and so necessary—particularly in its latter parts, in relation to the UNCRC. I do not think that we received an answer on that point. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will be able to say, when she sums up, what has changed and what her concerns are that have led us to where the bill is now.

Finally, and looking more widely, with mere weeks of this parliamentary session left to run, and at a time when resources for schools are already limited, I remain unclear as to why the Government felt the need to introduce the bill in the manner it did, and to allow it to be amended in such a way as to leave a bill that I think is confused and may do more harm than good.

For those reasons, I and Scottish Labour colleagues will vote against the bill tonight.

19:22

I am speaking on behalf of Willie Rennie, and will speak primarily to amendment 168, which was developed at the suggestion of Duncan Dunlop. Mr Rennie has spoken about Mr Dunlop’s involvement with the Promise, both at stage 1 and in our initial stage 2 proceedings. It is important to recall his evidence to this committee prior to stage 1, in which he highlighted many of the complex issues that he hoped the bill would explore. He also highlighted many persisting issues with understanding how we support care-experienced people, improve their lives and deliver the Promise.

During Mr Dunlop’s stage 1 evidence, he highlighted—quite starkly—that the number of premature and avoidable deaths among care-experienced people remains significant, and that we still do not have the range of data that is needed to understand why and how those happen, or how we might design and shape services to improve outcomes in that regard.

Amendment 168 is intended to ensure transparency, accountability and learning. One of the most urgent indicators of systemic failure is the premature deaths of care-experienced people. Where the state acts as a corporate parent, it is incumbent upon it to know when children die and why, and to act to prevent further loss. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to lay before Parliament an annual report on the premature deaths of care-experienced people under the age of 65. The report would include the total number of deaths in the reporting year; the cause of death as officially recorded; the type and location of care setting in which the person lived during their time in care, where known; and any identified trends or learning, to inform prevention measures and policy development.

I am sure that colleagues on the committee, and more widely, would recognise the importance of that level of data. We certainly gather that on other groups in Scotland. It is crucial that we take action and take forward work to understand, when a tragedy occurs in which a care-experienced person dies, why that happened and how to prevent it.

I understand from Mr Rennie that he is willing to hear what the minister has to say and to consider working collaboratively in advance of stage 3.

I move amendment 168.

I recognise the points made in the debate that we have just heard. I am speaking on behalf of Willie Rennie, so I do not have much more to add, other than that I will take the minister at her word on the commitment to further engagement ahead of stage 3. Although I appreciate what she said in relation to Mr Rennie’s amendment 168 about the complexities of collating and collecting data, and the work that the Government currently does to collate data of care-experienced young people in the system, there is a wider issue when it comes to understanding demographic trends and existing challenges.

With that, I will seek to withdraw amendment 168 and commit to further work ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 168, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 169 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

After section 7

I realise that there is a shared ambition on the agenda and I recognise what the minister has said about existing services. However, I suggest that putting this on a statutory footing would allow for a far more dedicated focus on the specific requirements for care-experienced young people in particular.

In my opening remarks, I pointed to the good practice in Wales and what has been done there in taking a dedicated corporate parenting approach and family business. That happens in certain authorities in Scotland, such as with the family first team in East Renfrewshire, which I know particularly well. We could do more, which is why a provision in the bill is the right place to set this on a statutory footing and to formalise some of the supports that the minister refers to.

I appreciate that the minister wishes to have further discussion and debate, and that seems to be the tenor of this morning’s debate. I am, of course, willing to do that, but given the importance of this issue, I will press amendment 139 at this point.

Amendments 145 and 154 would ensure that the right to access advocacy services is extended to include parents who are in contact with the care system. We know that many parents of care-experienced people struggle to effectively interact with the process around hearings.

The Promise states that advocacy must be readily and quickly available to all families who are in contact with the care system. I believe that the amendments would ensure that that could be realised.

The Promise Scotland and National Youth Advocacy Services Cymru argue that, often, parents who interact with the children’s hearings system and social work services have great difficulty engaging with the system. I think that many members will recognise that through their discussions with care-experienced people and their families and with many of the support organisations that are set up around them, and through evidence that has been led here and elsewhere.

Amendment 145 would enable families to access advocacy. It would make the system more equitable and go to the heart of delivering a fairer system that can deliver on keeping the Promise.

I move amendment 145.

In her opening remarks, the minister referred to the fact that she has referred to the bill as “the Promise bill”, both at the committee and in the chamber. Why did she do that? I appreciate what she is saying about naming conventions for bills, but does she believe that this bill is a crucial opportunity to keep the Promise, as was outlined by the Oversight Board? If so, why would she not be willing to name it as such?

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the bill is the be-all and end-all. In fact, we are quite far away from that. However, thinking about a statement of intent, does the minister recognise some of what has been outlined in relation to naming the bill, as an aspiration?

My amendment 166, along with its consequential amendment 219, would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations regarding data collection and reporting for corporate parents. It would create a more streamlined and effective data collection and reporting requirement for corporate parents, to ensure that accurate information about care-experienced people is publicly available.

The data collection requirements should include longitudinal data on the outcomes of care-experienced people throughout their lives—in particular, on their ability to access housing, employment, education and training—and equalities data on children taken into care and on the families they have been removed from, which could include information about protected characteristics and care experience, so that patterns could be identified and any systematic bias addressed. The requirements should also cover opportunities to better target early intervention and family support.

For local authorities, the requirements should cover data on the extent to which advocacy services are being utilised and on how care-experienced young people are engaging with advocacy more broadly—for example, whether they use a phone line, access information online or have face-to-face meetings with an advocate. The requirements should cover any other data that is deemed relevant, based on consultation with care-experienced children, adults, stakeholder groups and corporate parents within the state.

My amendment 166 seeks to ensure that we make progress toward keeping the Promise by having the most accurate data available and understanding exactly what the picture is across Scotland. As well as ensuring greater accountability, it would go some way towards setting out actionable parameters for what keeping the Promise actually means.