Chamber and committees

I thank Mr Greer for the intervention, but I think that it is the other way round. When we have such restrictive processes in place, they end up being a tick-box exercise. The lines are so precise that, if someone falls on one side of the line, support is given, and if they fall on the other side, it is not. If we gave local authorities the ability to vary their approach in looking at that, they would be able to provide the support that is required. That is what these amendments are trying to achieve.

I turn to amendment 90. If we accept that needs, not birthdays, should drive aftercare decisions, the principle must apply consistently throughout the legislation. Amendment 90 would ensure that we do not undermine one part of the legislation by leaving a contradictory age threshold elsewhere. Finally, amendment 90 would, by strengthening a needs-based approach across the section, give practitioners clarity and young people confidence. It would protect the legislation from future challenges and ensure internal consistency.

I turn to other amendments in the group. On amendment 6, in the name of the minister, I ask for information whether, given that we are looking at an ability for the Parliament to change the age range, the minister would be willing to have the regulations changed to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, so that the scrutiny of any age-range changes could come back to the Parliament. I just want to highlight that.

I move amendment 88.

Amendment 95 seeks to align section 3 with the needs-based approach. The child is meant to be at the centre of the process, whether assistance is needed or should remain in the background. Having a process in which the person’s individual needs are not accommodated does nobody any favours.

Amendment 95 seeks not only to broaden the age range but to allow local authorities the flexibility to ensure that the needs of the individual are placed at the centre. Consistency matters, and my amendment seeks to ensure that section 3 reflects the same needs-led principle that is applied elsewhere. Without it, we risk sending mixed messages about who qualifies for support and why.

I will not speak to any of the other amendments in the group. Those are my reasons behind amendment 95.

I move amendment 95.

I thank the committee for considering my amendments. I will speak first to my own amendments rather than the others in the group. I will take them individually and give the committee an idea of where they are coming from.

Amendment 88 goes to the heart of whether aftercare is a right or a favour. At present, the bill proposes to retain the wording in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 that allows the local authority to decide that a young person’s “welfare does not require” aftercare. In practice, that wording gives too much room for subjective judgment and—to be frank—for financial pressures to influence the decision.

My amendment would remove that discretion and make it clear that aftercare should not be a starting point or something that a young person has to justify or fight for. In the real world, care-experienced young people already face instability in housing, education and mental health. They should not face uncertainty about whether the support that is promised to them in law will be there when they need it. If we leave that discretion in place, we risk enshrining inconsistency in statute. At present, the support depends not on need but on geographical budgets, which undermines the fairness of provision and the intent of the bill.

I come to amendment 89. Turning 26 does not magically resolve the trauma or the instability that a young person has gone through, so this amendment proposes to remove the fixed age limit and put in a needs-based approach. It recognises that care-experienced people tell us repeatedly that their journey does not follow neat timelines and that they need support when they need it. Some young people may be ready to step away from support earlier, so this amendment would simply allow the system to respond to the reality.

Amendment 92 seeks to replace section 1—it is a biggie—because the structure of section 1 is fragmented and overly complex. At its core, the support provided should be based on the individual needs of the child, who should be at the centre. The current system does not facilitate that, and amendment 92 seeks to change that. It would bring the legislation into line with the UNCRC. Given that the Parliament has passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, it is incongruous that the Government has not introduced legislation to comply with that.

Amendment 92 brings together the duties, applications, assessments and assistance into a single coherent framework. That matters because complexity in the law often translates into barriers in practice. For young people who are leaving care, clarity is not a luxury; it is essential. Amendment 92 would ensure that young people understand what assistance they are entitled to, how to access it and how long it will last. If we do not simplify and strengthen these provisions, aftercare will remain confusing and it will be de-prioritised all too easily.

Amendment 93 would restore the power to provide financial assistance for education, training, accommodation and maintenance, and it recognises that care-experienced people are far more likely to face financial barriers when they are trying to progress. In reality, that can mean the difference between someone completing a course and dropping out of it, or the difference between independence and crisis.

Amendment 94 is about making a good law. Section 2 adds complexity without adding clarity or protection, so removing it would streamline the bill and avoid duplication and confusion. Good legislation should be as clear as possible for those who must use it, particularly young people who are navigating systems that they did not choose to enter. Those are my amendments.

The only other amendment that I want to speak to is Martin Whitfield’s amendment 181, on which I seek some clarity. It seems to me that he is suggesting the incorporation of a new body to run the register, which could add another layer—another quango—to the myriad bodies that we have at the moment. I would therefore appreciate it if he could give me a little bit more information about what he is suggesting. Is it about using the current system? Is it about incorporating a new board, and, if so, how would it operate?

I move amendment 92.

This has been a very interesting discussion; I have been very quiet, listening to what has been going on.

We are in a chicken and egg situation here, especially with this group of amendments. We have a cluttered landscape and a legislative problem here. On the point about not taking the UNCRC into consideration and adding another layer of clutter, I would say that we have to deal with the clutter, and we will deal with it. I accept the assurances, but that does not get away from the question of the bill not aligning with the UNCRC in order to make that happen.

Having listened to the debate, I wish to press amendment 92.

I thank the minister for agreeing to make the regulations that are set out in amendment 6 subject to the affirmative procedure. That is very reassuring to hear. It is important that there is scrutiny of any changes that involve varying, by age, eligibility and what can be offered.

I will give members an idea of where I am coming from with my amendments. Who is the parent of care-experienced children? I went through a horrific year last year, when I had to go home. For me, home was my mum. I am 56. I managed to go back to an environment that I knew and understood because it was there for me. When we talk about care-experienced people, we must recognise the variations in their home, their parents and who they can rely on.

In some ways, the bill blends child and adult services, which is why the minister is looking at utilising integration joint boards. There cannot be a hard line with aftercare. We have to look at moving forward in this country in a way that means that people who have gone through the care system can always go back to find the support and help that they need—and that is who their parents were. That is what my amendments try to achieve.

I will not press the amendments today—I will go back to work on them and see what I can do for stage 3. However, if we are really serious about what we are trying to achieve as we move forward, we have to accept where care-experienced children are and what they need. Hard lines do not allow for that. I will not press my amendments today, but I reserve the right to bring them back at stage 3.

Amendment 88, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 127 moved—[Martin Whitfield].

This has already been a very interesting discussion on a subject that we have broached previously. I am very much in agreement with the concept of there being “no wrong door”, which Miles Briggs mentioned.

On my amendment 98, I believe that housing should be a foundation and not an afterthought. We cannot talk about wellbeing, education or employment without having housing in the mix. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon. The current process is that this issue is looked at as one relating to homelessness rather than as a continuation of care. That is the fundamental point.

Amendment 98 would require statutory guidance to improve access to secure and suitable housing for care-experienced people. In real life, housing instability is one of the biggest drivers of crisis, homelessness and disengagement from services.

I tried to lodge a similar amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but I was very politely informed that that was the wrong avenue and that such a proposal should be put forward through an education bill or the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. I have taken the Government at its word and have lodged amendment 98, so I respectfully ask the minister and the committee to finally provide support for the housing needs that I believe the Promise lays out.

In general, on the other amendments in the group, I will comment quickly to John Mason and Jackie Dunbar. As much as a foster carer is the person who was assessed as offering the right support and care for an individual at one time, I do not believe that any of us is stating that any foster carer therefore needs to step up again, because the assessment of anybody returning would be different. Their needs, desires, hopes and requirement for support would be different. However, I have spoken to many foster carers in the course of this job, this process and over the years, and every single one has stated to me that care does not end when the placement ends.

I accept that concern. I am sure that we will speak about foster carers further in the bill process and about anything that might cause concern about prospective foster carers continuing to come forward, because they are such an integral part of the process.

However, as has been stated, this is about a right to return to care. That door has to be open for care-experienced people. That is what my amendment 98 seeks to do.

I listened carefully to what the minister had to say. However, I do not believe that what she said is what my amendment 95 would do. For more than 20 years, GIRFEC has been at the heart of everything that has been done regarding children’s services. That is supposed to mean getting it right for every child and putting the child at the centre of every process. If the minister is stating that my amendment would allow councils to opt out of their responsibilities, it must be the case that every other policy that has been introduced is not working.

A theme in a lot of my amendments is consideration of the age range to which care applies. If we continue to put limits on that, there will always be a cliff edge, and that is what I am trying to change.

I do not have anything more to add with regard to the rest of the amendments in the group. I press amendment 95.

I will begin by speaking to amendment 100. Trauma-informed practice should not depend on a postcode or a leadership culture. Amendment 100 would embed such practice in statutory guidance, making it an expectation rather than an aspiration. In the real world, that would shape how children and families experience services and whether they feel heard, respected and safe. That is what amendment 100 tries to do.

Amendment 99 would protect infants through informed decision making. Decisions about family time for infants have life-long consequences. The amendment would ensure that any guidance reflects the evidence on attachment, trauma and development and would not remove professional judgment but strengthen it. Without that, we risk inconsistency and the making of decisions that prioritise process over a child’s development needs.

Amendment 159 would ensure that support and advocacy entitlements follow the person and are not tied to the postcode. The purpose is to prevent any loss of support when care-experienced people move between local authority areas.

Regarding amendment 101, there is a world of difference between a requirement to “have regard to” and one to “give due regard to”. The amendment would strengthen the legal weight of guidance so that it must meaningfully inform any decisions. Without that, there is a risk that guidance will be acknowledged but ignored.

I have some comments with regard to amendment 157, in the name of Paul O’Kane, with which I am having some difficulty. We do not have a comprehensive definition of care experience, so it is impossible to self-identify. I think that there needs to be a better assessment process, and better support when support is needed, but muddying the water by including self-identification will maybe make the situation worse, not better.

I am supportive of the other amendments in the group, but I would like to hear more from Mr O’Kane on amendment 157, if possible. I will certainly listen to what the minister has to say, because I am concerned that what he is proposing will make the situation worse, not better.