Chamber and committees

I understand that, on paper, that is exactly what it would look like and if we look at the workflow, we might think, “Yes, that works”. However, there is nothing in here to stop a single panel member from a different area, who does not really know the family or the circumstances to the full extent, making a decision on a family.

Panel members get very used to the people who are coming forward. They understand the process. That is why we all want to make sure that we have continuity, because that builds through time. However, in a rural situation where we do not have enough capacity, we could inadvertently have a panel member making a decision to put a safeguarder into a family that would be detrimental, because it would be a sole decision-making process.

I know that the minister wants to take the discussion offline, but how do we make sure that the bill does not inadvertently cause that issue?

Thank you for your comments, minister. In speaking to amendment 108, I do not want to add a huge amount, but I will highlight what Children First said in its submission. As the minister highlighted, Children’s Hearings Scotland has published a practical guide to support very young children, but questions about children’s voices of continue to be raised. Because there are such concerns and issues with the guidance, it is important that we utilise any way that we can to make sure that we put a focus on those voices.

Amendment 108 seeks to ensure that the bill will require there to be guidance so that everybody knows where they are and what they are meant to do. I wholeheartedly accept that there is already guidance in place, but questions about children’s voices continue to be raised.

That is a point well made. I do not think that this is an all-or-nothing situation. If we have the best interests of the child at heart, we must consider providing an advocacy service at different places down the line while ensuring that the child is fully informed of what that is. That is what my amendment 109 is trying to achieve.

We are not stating in amendment 109 that the child has to take up the service; the child would be referred unless they indicate that they do not wish to be referred. That referral will, however, give an advocate a chance to explain, thoroughly and properly, what support they can provide. With only one in five children saying that they want advocacy, that cannot be the system at the moment, but with amendment 109 there would be more uptake. That is what amendment 109 hopes to achieve.

Again, I will not move the amendment and take the opportunity to work with the minister.

Amendment 198 not moved.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Information about referral, availability of children’s advocacy services etc

Amendment 200 not moved.

Amendment 115 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendments 202 to 205 not moved.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

After section 18

Amendment 78 not moved.

Amendment 79 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 80 and 206 not moved.

Sections 19 to 21 agreed to.

After section 21

Amendment 117 is about language, primarily, and the philosophy that underpins our entire system of children’s hearings. Across multiple sections of the bill, the current wording refers to a child being subject to “treatment or control”. This framing is outdated and punitive, and it does not reflect the purpose of the children’s hearings system, which is to safeguard children and meet their development needs, not to impose control over them.

By substituting the term “treatment or control” with “nurture or support”, we would make the language child-centred, rights-based and reflective of the welfare principle. It would signal clearly that the focus of the hearings, investigations and interventions is to provide children with the care, guidance and support that they need to thrive, rather than to manage or discipline them.

The change would be systemic, and it would align with articles 3, 12 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Across every stage, whether that is information provision, investigation, grounds hearings, interim orders or reviews, my amendment would ensure that all the powers that are exercised by the system are framed in terms of nurture and support, not control.

I move amendment 117.

13:15

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.