Chamber and committees

Thank you. We met some care-experienced young people a couple of weeks ago—Paul McLennan and I were on the same panel. I was struck by a young person who had been at the beginning of this journey. They met Nicola Sturgeon at the launch of the Promise and they spoke about their real hope for us to do things differently. I was struck by what they said to me and I wrote it down at the event. They said that the Promise was being lost in the Government machine. That was their view. I wondered whether the minister understood that concern. Given where we are, and given all the issues that have been raised by members, how will she try to unpick that? I feel concerned that we could let down a lot of people, who we have spoken to in this building and who are expecting something from the bill. It does not feel like it is in the right place at the moment.

I know that some very good work is going on. For example, Barnardo’s is doing a lot of good work on housing models and peer support for care-experienced young people. However, in most of the casework that I have had over the almost decade that I have been in the Parliament, there has been a demand on care-experienced young people to declare themselves homeless before a package is put in place. I am talking about older care-experienced people, who will now potentially be told that a different model is coming. Expectation management will be problematic, because there clearly will not be a different model around housing.

If we are going to suggest that there will be a different model, the Government needs to consider that. The right to return is also part of that. What the issues actually look like in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025—probably because of how the bills landed in the Parliament—has not kept up with other legislation that has been put in place. It may be something to look at at stage 2 or stage 3, but it is an important area, and it is where most crisis is sitting for people: it is around housing issues.

The commentary on the Welsh model shows that one of the real concerns is disinvestment. There is a concern that some companies may be looking to exit the system by 2030, which means that there is no incentive for them to upgrade their facilities or invest in our young people. We must be mindful of the consequences, which is an issue that was also outlined by the young people we spoke to, who want to see investment in services. That is not necessarily a question, but I am putting it out to there because it is important that that does not get lost because of the bill.

That is useful to know. I really want to see that reflected in amendments, so I hope that that work can progress.

My next area of concern is that kinship care arrangements, which many children and young people experience, are not included in the bill. At this stage, ahead of amendments being introduced at stage 2, what are your thoughts on whether kinship care can be included and significantly improved in the bill?

As John Mason has highlighted, there is concern about unintended consequences. From looking at it, I think that the legislation model is the same as that in Wales. The Welsh model will not come into effect until 1 April 2026, so we will not have real-world experience of the impact that the legislation could have.

The majority of providers in Wales are from the private sector, as are 48 per cent in Scotland, as the minister outlined. Providers are telling us that they are already under significant financial pressures with staffing and energy costs, and providers exiting the market in some parts of the country will be a disaster if there is no additional capacity. The cost of that to the taxpayer has also not been factored in.

When we were speaking to the young people, it was interesting to hear that they support the principle of the legislation, but the unintended consequences have not necessarily been seen and, as I say, the Welsh model has not yet come into force. Will ministers be live to that? Wales is working towards implementation by 2030. Will that be a key principle that the minister will also include in the bill?

I appreciate that. Some progress has been made—the national kinship care payment is one example—but the general principle of equity between a young person in the care system and one in kinship care should be accepted. That is, I think, what the Promise was originally trying to suggest: that the country should provide that support for kinship care. I hope that that can be included in the bill, so that kinship care support is not an afterthought. A lot of families are looking for that support. They do not necessarily want the state to be in their homes providing it, but there are barriers to what support is out there for families and we need to use the bill to break them down.

It is not only this committee that has heard that. When I was on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, families were making that very view known. In fact, I think that we were on that committee together at the time.

I appreciate the point, and it is perhaps something that we can push the Government on in relation to stage 2 amendments.

I will move on to family group decision making. Children 1st has put forward an important argument and concern that there has been a missed opportunity to strengthen the legislation around family group decision making and to improve consistency in peer and financial support for kinship carers. It also wondered what amendments could be lodged to ensure family group decision making.

New Zealand made a lot of progress quite a long time ago—a lot of the principles of the Promise have perhaps come from that. I am aware that the Government is mindful of the potential to include family group decision making in the bill.

None of us wants the bill to become overly bureaucratic. However, it is about flexibility.

I would say that we have a crisis in relation to people coming forward to be foster carers here in the capital in Edinburgh. When I speak to care-experienced young people, they often highlight to me family members—such as uncles and aunts—who cannot take them on financially, but who they would have wanted to take them on. There is a real opportunity to include family members in that group decision-making process in a way that might open up more opportunities in the future. I am interested to pursue that and see what opportunities there are.

I return to Willie Rennie’s question about housing support. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 introduced specific new duties to act. Where there is not a crossover into homelessness services for care-experienced young people, what amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill will now be included on the back of what may be included at stage 2 of this bill, to improve homelessness actions for care-experienced young people?

Good morning. I want to ask about advocacy services, which have been raised with us consistently by the young people who we have spoken to about the bill. Minister, what is your position on independent advocacy as it currently stands in section 4 of the bill, and is the balance right? I have picked up a lot of concern about that.

It is important to consider how to change the gatekeeping model. We talk about trauma-informed services, but the current model in operation is to say that nothing can happen until someone has declared themselves homeless—here in the capital, anyway. That needs to be looked at as part of the bill.

Professor Seaton, do you think that the advice that the Scottish Funding Council is offering you is enough? Concerns have been expressed about the SFC’s proximity to the Government and, with regard to the future funding model, about an overreliance and overdependence on international students, which I do not think that Dundee university is suggesting is going to change. In the case of most universities, it is only on international students and accommodation that some profit is being made. What are your views on those matters?