Chamber and committees

Cedars was already struggling to attract pupils. That was one of the problems. I think that there were 75 pupils in 2023 although it had capacity for 120 pupils. There were a number of issues over many years that I will not go into, but there were clearly financial issues. As I understand it, the church was subsidising much of the work of the school. Is it your view that Cedars would still be here if it were not for the 20 per cent VAT? Is that the contention?

On the Cedars issue, Lorraine, you said that the closure put pressure on state schools in Inverclyde—or that is what I took from your comments. I recall that, at the time, my colleague Martin McCluskey, who is a member of Parliament, asked Ruth Binks, the director of education, directly whether there was capacity in Inverclyde schools to support those young people and what the ASN provision would be. She confirmed that there was indeed capacity in Inverclyde and that there were plans around ASN. Will you clarify what you meant?

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.

This has been a fulsome debate on the importance of advocacy and understanding the scaffolding and ancillary services that are required to support care-experienced people. I acknowledge much of what the minister said regarding her willingness to engage with other colleagues ahead of stage 3. It is important that we explore the issue of the wider role of advocacy, particularly for parents and families. I recognise what the minister said about provisions that already exist to support advocacy and the differences that exist in how people access and require advocacy.

Given the minister’s undertaking to engage ahead of stage 3, and also the undertaking that she gave to Mr Whitfield in relation to his amendments, I am happy to withdraw amendment 145 and re-engage ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 146 not moved.

Amendment 147 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendments 148 and 8 not moved.

Amendment 9 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].