Chamber and committees

The phrase “no wrong door” is very useful. We also have amendments coming down the line about responsibilities with regard to corporate parenting. I think that the situation needs to be looked at as a whole; that challenge has been articulated by people with lived experience of care across the board, predating the bill, and almost from the start of investigations with regard to the Promise.

The fact is that there is a cut-off after which they no longer feel attached to what others would call their family. We have heard about the idea of home. What home means to individuals is very subjective and can be very different. I like the concept of there being “no wrong door”, so that the right advice can be put there.

To go back to amendment 130, “The Promise” states:

“Young adults for whom Scotland has taken on parenting responsibility

—that is an important element—

“must have a right to return to care and have access to services and supportive people to nurture them.”

The part about “supportive people” goes back to John Mason’s point about who opens the door to a young person, but the most important element of all, of course, is “to nurture them”.

I move amendment 129.

Will the minister take an intervention?

My understanding is that the age assessment that is made prior to the local authority’s involvement is made under guidance that relates to other areas of legislation and regulation and the local authority is essentially invited to accept that, irrespective of any evidence that is placed before it.

One of the purposes behind my amendment 136 and the other amendments is to remind corporate parents that they have the responsibility to undertake the assessments in the appropriate way. It might well be that they accept a previous assessment, but they should not take as a blanket fact something that is presented to them when the young person might present contrary evidence.

My amendment 165 deals with the question of restraint and seclusion. The Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill has already been discussed in the chamber, and my amendment relates to guidance on restraint and seclusion in care settings. It is very important that all of those involved in the system, not just our young people but the adults who surround and support them, are given proper and full guidance on the expectations in this respect, on the collection of data and on what is understood by these things.

I go back to some of the speeches that were made in the debate on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill, and the example of a child coming home from school with injuries that have no explanation, but which have happened because of seclusion, and the fact that parents will automatically have questions about what happened. However, in the settings that we are talking about, there is no physical parent for the child to go home to—they have a corporate parent. In such cases, guidance is needed all the more.

I wait to hear what the minister has to say, and I do so in hopeful anticipation that we are pushing at an open door with regard to the notion of guidance set out in the amendment, if not its wording.

Given the discussion on previous amendments this morning, does the member agree that it might be useful to put something in the bill at stage 2 to allow those discussions to go forward rather than to stay silent and potentially end up with the same challenge that we have found ourselves facing?

Does the member agree that, as he has witnessed this morning, the purpose behind his amendment could still be taken account of at stage 3, even if, for example, amendment 147 was agreed to?

Does the minister accept that the bill creates a difference between those young people who leave care before their 16th birthday and those who leave after, and that the purpose behind my amendment is to even the playing field for all young people who leave care?

I am grateful for the minister’s patience in this regard. In her contribution, she talked specifically about those children over 16. I am talking about those children who leave care before their 16th birthday, and the fact that a difference exists. I respect and understand the discussion about guidance but, fundamentally, a different statutory requirement will be set down and, as we have heard in other contributions, it is probable that it will be approached differently.

We have heard that the Government’s position will not change on this—that is on the record—but, as always, the minister has been very reasonable and she often indicates a desire to speak about things.

I understand that the Government’s position will not change on amendment 127, but it is happy to talk about it. I say that to give an indication of what I will do in a few minutes.

We have reached this point with UNCRC compatibility on a number of occasions and the Government’s approach has been to say that it is just too difficult.

The choice to answer the challenges that the Supreme Court levelled at the 2024 act and the approach that was taken by the Parliament to ensure that that legislation went through was founded on an understanding that the Government would use every opportunity to bring legislation within the scope of the UNCRC act. Is that genuinely still the Government’s intention, or are we just going around in circles and expecting our young people to eventually need to go all the way to Europe to enforce their rights?

10:15