The joy of coming last in such discussions is that you are either repeating what everybody has said or you have nothing to add. It is interesting that the phrase “great minds think alike” has been used a couple of times—we are all trying to come together to make sure that we have a definition of independence and put it in the bill. Unfortunately, the opposite is “fools seldom differ”, so I do not know where we want to go with that.

My amendment 97 tries to define a genuine independent advocacy position, and I understand that it might be a little stronger and more structured than some of the other amendments in the group. I think that we have progressed in the debate today. It seems that we are in agreement that there needs to be something tangible and that we want something to happen now. Based on that, I am minded to agree to amendment 147 and not move amendment 97, but I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.

I will not speak for long. Amendment 96 is designed to ensure that we have the right type of trauma-informed advocacy available, to ensure that the right focus is given to care-experienced people and to ensure that that provision is there across the board, rather than looking at alternative forms of advocacy that are not quite as specific or are delivered by people who are not as trained as others.

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.

Good morning. Minister, I state for reasons of clarity that we have met a few times on this issue. It is pertinent not only in my area but to me.

Thank you very much for the answer that you have just given the convener. You say that engagement has been extensive, so why did you introduce the bill before the UKIMA position was resolved, given the extent to which the unresolved issues affect the core policy framework?

That is very helpful.

Good morning. Minister, you have alluded to the dissenting view, which I think was from Dr Jonathan Brown of the University of Strathclyde, that legislative reform of contract law is not needed and that the bill risks damaging the coherence of common law. What is your view on that?