Chamber and committees

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Amendment 88, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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.

That is very helpful.

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?

Thank you for providing clarity on that. Stakeholders have stressed that the legislation in this area needs to be future proofed so that it can deal with new ways of forming contracts. Is the bill sufficiently future proofed?