Chamber and committees

It would depend on what happened. If someone turned up at the door of a foster family and that family was capable of helping them, that should absolutely happen. I have spoken to a significant number of adults who take on fostering responsibilities, and they have all said exactly the same thing: of course they would open the door. Whether the individual would remain in that care is a different question, because, as we have talked about, what was right for that individual would need to be considered. What would be needed? What had caused the return? In the immediate instance, I hope that every person would put their hand out to someone who was facing challenges, but that immediate support could involve simply opening the door and letting the person come in and have a cup of tea.

Whether the right to return to care equals the right for someone to return to the specific situation that they were in before they left care is a different argument. It is right that we have that debate, because what happens needs to be right for the individual and—this goes back to the UNCRC—for the human rights of the other individuals in that environment at the time. We have a skill set to deal with that, when the legislation allows for that.

The amendments that I have lodged in this group relate to unusual instances and instances in which identifying the age of the young person can be challenging. I lodged them in relation to the corporate parenting duties and guidance provisions in the light of the purpose behind the Promise, which is to give our cared-for young people the best opportunity to be loved and set up for the future as they progress through life. My proposals form part of the obligation that I seek to place on corporate parents to do their best for those young people and to ensure that they have all the necessary legal paperwork and the best emotional and empathetic support.

My amendments 136, 140 and 141 relate to specific areas in which questions can arise. They seek to place on corporate parents an obligation to ensure that they do the best for the young people who come before them.

Does Ross Greer think that the areas covered in my amendments could be included in the guidance to ensure, in essence, that members of our cared-for community can expect the best to be done for them as they launch off into the future?

Is it not the case that, under current regulations and legislation, local authorities are expected to accept age assessments made by others rather than undertake that responsibility themselves?

I have three amendments in the group: amendments 148, 149 and 155. They concern the geographical challenges of our rural communities, which the committee heard strong evidence about during stage 1.

The purpose of the amendments is to specifically highlight that consideration needs to be given to rural and deprived communities, so that full access is available. To pick up on Willie Rennie’s earlier comments, if everyone was independently wealthy, we would not have this challenge, but that is not the case, and the reality is that those in our rural and deprived communities face some of the greatest struggles. The amendments would place in the bill an acknowledgment both that that fact has been noted, as was done by the committee at stage 1, and that it must also become a specific consideration in the provision of services.

Amendment 155 would define deprived areas by making reference to the Scottish index of multiple deprivation.

I am grateful to the minister for articulating what already exists in the bill and the proposals, and the absolute obligation that rests on Scottish ministers to ensure the availability of advocacy and other services across Scotland. I welcome that undertaking.

We are talking about young people and so we have to go back to the basis of getting it right for every child. The individual support and assessment that one individual child may need is very different from what others may need. The phraseology in Sue Webber’s amendment allows a very wide scope of input and support to prevent, as it seeks to, the removal of the child from the family.

Good morning. In this group, I will talk predominantly to amendment 127, as amendment 128 is consequential to it. In doing so, I look to the minister, who has an amendment to move in this group and a speaking slot, to find out where the Government sits on a lacuna that exists within the law that circulates around the 16th birthday.

If a young person sails off out of the care system before their 16th birthday, they have far fewer rights to advice, assistance and support than those who travel out of it on their 16th birthday or, indeed, the day after. Having spoken to people, my understanding is that the issue arose in the various original legislative slots because, when people talked about children under 16, rather than contemplating teenagers who bring their unique characteristics to the world, their thoughts were more of babies who might spend a short period of time in care then go back to families. The position seems not really to have been considered until this bill, which is very specifically drafted in that the difference occurs on the 16th birthday, which is inconsistent and unhelpful—and, frankly, I am sure, not what anyone expected until the reading of the bill was done.

The purpose of my amendments is to clarify that problem. Amendment 128 would be needed as a consequential amendment. It will be interesting to hear from the minister any other proposals that the Government may have to solve that problem, and I look forward to doing so.

The amendments in my name in this group fall into two categories. There are a substantial number that run from 178, and there is one that sits—and stands—on its own.

Before getting into my contribution, I point out that it is incredibly beneficial, although sad, that we have a group of amendments that again address the UNCRC act—in this case, in relation to restatement and application. On numerous occasions, First Ministers, the Scottish Government, ministers and this Parliament have undertaken to ensure that the UNCRC act, which we struggled to get on to the statute book, would be respected and that opportunities would be taken to bring Scottish law into its scope.

Let me make that more meaningful. Bringing Scottish law into the scope of the 2024 act would open up a vehicle for all our young people if they feel that their human rights have been challenged or taken away from them and would give them what I genuinely believe the people of Scotland want, which is a country, a legislature and a society in which young people’s rights are respected. As that has not happened in the drafting of the bill, I lodged amendments 178 to 184, using the process that the Scottish Government has adopted in relation to the UNCRC act. I refer to the ability to restate the law and bring the provisions on fostering into the bill to give young people who feel that their rights have been challenged or not fulfilled the right, should they wish to exercise it, to pursue that without the challenges and difficulties that exist at the moment and have existed for a substantial period of time. This is about restating various aspects relating to the register so that the UNCRC act would apply.

Roz McCall asked about amendment 181 and whether it seeks a new board. The amendment would provide for an appropriate board to hold the register if necessary in the future. We will all have been approached by individual fosterers and groups that represent the fostering community about the challenge that they feel in terms of parity not only with regard to whether fostering is or is not employment and whether it is paid or unpaid, but the postcode lottery—that is, where the fostering family lives in relation to where young people coming into fostering go. The purpose behind amendment 181 is to allow for something that is akin to the teaching register—I am thinking of a register that would be held by a non-Government body that would represent and speak on behalf of foster carers. It would also guide entry and retention in, and departure from, the register. It is a founding amendment that seeks to ensure compliance with the UNCRC act.

Amendment 217 allows me to wear two hats, the first of which relates to post-legislative scrutiny, which is important. During this session, we have started to recognise its importance for the first time in the Scottish Parliament’s history and we have started to build it into legislation.

I will put my UNCRC hat back on. I hope that amendment 217, which is effectively a sunset clause, will create an impetus. There is strong agreement—I hope that there is still universal agreement—that we seek to comply with the Promise by 2030. Amendment 217 is a gentle indicator that that should happen or else challenges will be made at that time. If acting on such a sunset clause is required, Scotland will be in a sad and disappointing place, but for reasons of clarity and to act as an incentive, it should appear in the bill.

That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that individuals should have the right to return to the environmental system that we call “care”. Returning to that system might involve someone returning to a foster family that they were previously with. In an emergency, it might involve a door being opened to them and a cup of tea being given while contact is made. Different situations could arise. In any situation, it is impossible for someone to return to exactly the same support as they had previously. If you redecorate your child’s bedroom when they go away, they might say that they do not like the wallpaper when they come back, but they are not entitled to have their old wallpaper back.

However, that is not what these individuals are seeking, and it is not the purpose of all the amendments in this group. It is about having a system that says to individuals that they will not be abandoned or thrown away because they are care experienced and that they have a right to return to care. They do not have an absolute right to return to the exact care package or care environment that they had before they left, because they might have been much younger, for example.

If we talk about 20 years’ difference, we could be talking about a child who leaves the care system at the age of six or seven. However, they would have a right to return to the system that we call “care”, which is being redefined by that which underpins the Promise. As we have talked about, that would actually affect a very small number of children, but they should have the same expectation of support from their parent, albeit a corporate parent, that individuals have from their own parents.