Chamber and committees

That would be great—thank you.

Do you accept the point that the IFS has made that the marginal cost of a fee-paying pupil—if we filter out the parts of the independent sector that are special schools, where the pupils who attend are largely state funded but through a separate method—moving into the state sector is actually lower, because they are disproportionately far less likely to have the type of complex additional needs that would result in significant additional costs?

I am conscious of time, but I would love to have a wider discussion with you on that point, because I think that the net impact of private fee-paying education in Scotland is a contested space. Obviously, I come at it from a different perspective, but it is a helpful discussion to have. I am conscious that we probably do not have time for that this morning, so I will ask just one final question.

I think that John O’Neill mentioned parents’ choice and not inflicting harm on children as a result of choices made by others. There is a fair argument to be made there but, ultimately, the underlying philosophy of your sector is that parents should be allowed to make choices. As adults, though, we make choices, recognising that there are risks attached to any choice. A parent may choose to send their children into a form of education that is dependent on ability to pay, while the alternative is state school. I recognise that there will be some people for whom that alternative has not worked but, for the vast majority, that alternative of state education is not dependent on the person’s life circumstances; the state will continue to educate their child no matter what. If the parent has chosen to take an alternative path, should they not just accept that there are risks attached, and that circumstances can change?

You have mentioned a couple of times that, with regard to the previous decision in Scotland, you do not believe that the UK Government took into account non-domestic rates and charity relief. That brought back to mind a debate that I had with Lorraine Davidson’s predecessor, John Edward, on Radio Scotland. Has the sector reflected on the fact that a lot of the warnings that it made at the time just did not materialise? That is where I am struggling.

Now that the policy has been in place for some time, you are able to come and show us a reduction in your roll, but when I think about a lot of your projections at the time—for example, the 20 per cent figure—and the weight that was put on what would have been a significant impact, and I think back to the debates that I had with John Edward and the claims that were made about the catastrophic impact to your sector as a result of the NDR changes, the fact is that that impact did not really happen.

Amendment 189, which is from Nicola Sturgeon and me, seeks to delete the provision in section 14 that the principal reporter must offer the child and each relevant person in relation to the child an opportunity to discuss whether the child intends to use children’s advocacy services. It would replace the provision with an opt-out model in which the child will automatically be referred to advocacy services unless they intimate that they do not wish to be.

The reporter should be looking for the most appropriate way for a child to communicate their views, and automatic referral can support the child before they have to make complex legal judgments.

During stage 1, we were given evidence that

“when advocacy is explained by an independent advocacy worker, around 98% of eligible referrals accepted the offer of advocacy.”

However, those who need referral to advocacy might sometimes be caught out by an opt-in system, so a small number of people might be falling through the cracks. Changing to an opt-out system could ensure that those who most need advocacy do not fall through those cracks. The child would retain the option to say no and to decide that they do not want to be referred.

I acknowledge that this is an area where balancing children’s rights is tricky, and I am sure that Nicola Sturgeon would also acknowledge that. We lodged the amendment primarily to probe with the Government its position on how those rights are balanced.

Amendment 205 simply specifies that section 18 should say that children’s advocacy services should be independent when it comes to information about referral, availability of children’s services and so on.

I move amendment 189.

To get it out of the way at the start, I note that I will not move amendment 205. I am happy to take up the minister’s offer in relation to that, bearing in mind that we are in the same place in principle and simply need to work on drafting.

On amendment 189, I will not repeat what Martin Whitfield said, because I agreed with much of it. If I am being completely honest, I struggled with the logic of a lot of the minister’s contribution, particularly for one of the reasons that Mr Whitfield highlighted: namely, that much of it could have applied equally as an argument against an opt-in model, as opposed to an argument against an opt-out model. There are inherent difficulties when we are trying to provide advocacy and support to very often traumatised children and young people who are, as John Mason said, quite rightly suspicious of adults full stop.

That being said, I recognise the particular concerns on privacy rights, which come from the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. On that basis, even though I do not yet agree with the Government’s argument and would appreciate further discussion on it ahead of stage 3, I have been a stickler when it comes to privacy rights, so it is only reasonable that I do not press amendment 109 at this point. I am keen to continue the conversation with the Government ahead of stage 3, although this should not be the end of the discussion. As Mr Whitfield indicated, it is clear that there is not a settled position in the committee or across the Parliament. That is justification for the conversation to continue in other forums ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 189, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 51 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].

As the amendments in this group introduce a new topic into the debate, these will not be the briefest of remarks. I promise, though, that all my contributions in subsequent groups will be far briefer.

Estranged young people fall into a black hole at the moment, but they still have important and largely unmet needs. Those needs are often similar—and, in many cases, identical—to those of young people and young adults who are care experienced.

When the state takes children into care and therefore takes on parenting responsibilities, we recognise the need for support into adult life, generally up to the age of 25, although I realise that such aspects are up for debate as part of these proceedings. The same applies even if someone leaves care at 16, so years of additional support in some manner are still available. If someone has a family breakdown on their 16th birthday, they have at least a decade more of the need for parental support, under the Government's own logic, even though they are already of an age at which they could live independently.

On advocacy, the needs of 16 to 25-year-olds are obvious. We do not expect 16, 18, 21 or even 25-year-olds to be completely self-sufficient in all circumstances. In fact, as Roz McCall said last week, the need for advocacy or support can arise at any point throughout one’s adult life. Many young adults continue to receive housing, food, clothing and financial support from family members, but there is also the bigger-picture stuff such as crisis support, housing guarantors, emotional support and general life guidance. If you are 18 and you have just moved out to go to university, the prospect of securing funding, housing, jobs and healthcare without somebody giving you some kind of advice, guidance or advocacy will be really daunting, and most young people get that sort of thing from their family.

Care-experienced young people are entitled to at least some support, and through this bill we are trying to improve the support that is available to them. However, the transition to adulthood is often the point at which family breakdown and estrangement happen in a way that does not result in a young person entering the care system. Sadly, it is often the first opportunity for those who have experienced abuse in childhood to escape that abuse, but, as a result, they are simply, and usually quite suddenly, alone in their life. They often have obscure or complex needs due to neglect and abuse that they have survived, and they are at far, far higher risk of homelessness, poverty, addiction and other health issues. They typically do not know what they are entitled to—for example, crisis grants through the Scottish welfare fund—and the lack of advocacy and support often compounds the harms that are already done to estranged young people. If you are estranged because of coercive control or similar and your healthcare records have been withheld from you, you will often not know how to access them for yourself, and it is then far harder to access the healthcare that you need.

A number of colleagues will know Blair Anderson, who works with me in Parliament but is also a campaigner for estranged young people who have survived abuse in childhood. He mentions his own example, in which his community health index number was withheld from him to prevent him seeing a general practitioner other than his own family’s doctor, as part of the coercive control that was inflicted on him. Like many people—probably like most people, and certainly like most 18 and 19-year-olds—he did not know how to get that information for himself. However, unlike most young people, Blair did not have anyone to advocate for and support him at that point, as he was going through estrangement. As a result, he went through the first 18 months away from home without any treatment for severe, life-threatening depression and substance abuse. The lack of awareness of sources of financial support very often results in young people maintaining partial contact with their abusers, who maintain control by being the source of money that they need for things such as food and housing.

I have lodged these amendments to test the interest of Parliament and the Scottish Government in doing something for estranged young people. I am certainly not wedded to the approach that I have proposed, but the fact is that, when I raised issues that affect estranged young people a number of times in this parliamentary session, I was told repeatedly that they were not the right points at which to raise them and that the bills to which I was lodging such amendments were not the right ones. I do not think that there are any bills that are more appropriate than this one; it is not the perfect bill, but there are no more appropriate bills. Indeed, there are no more bills in this portfolio area, so this will be the last opportunity to have this debate, and it is an opportunity for us to commit to doing something for estranged young people.

I am looking for a commitment from the Government to take on further work in the area. As I said, I am not wedded to the amendments, and I would not be particularly taken aback if the Government did not support them. However, we have got through this entire session of Parliament and we have gone backwards on support for estranged young people. In 2021, there was one charity in Scotland that supported such people, but I believe that it folded in 2023. No one is advocating for and supporting that group in our society, and I think that the Government needs to take on some responsibility for doing that.

I move amendment 152.

I am grateful to the minister for her remarks, and particularly for her commitment to work with me and others who are interested in the issue ahead of stage 3. As I said, I am not wedded to the approach that I have set out in the amendments. I wanted to raise the issue and gently challenge the Government on it. Given the minister’s very welcome commitment, I will not press amendment 152.

Amendment 152, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 153 not moved.

Amendment 154 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

That would probably be helpful. It would be advantageous to reconcile the two issues at stage 2. If Mr Whitfield’s amendments and mine are agreed to, a little bit of tweaking might be required at stage 3, but I absolutely agree on that principle, and I will certainly be supporting Mr Whitfield’s amendment 136.

I have a lot of sympathy with what is intended here. However, it strikes me that amendments 88 and 89 are actually trying to do the opposite. With regard to amendment 88, the member rightly pointed out that, where local authorities are given too much discretion, things such as financial pressures come into play. My concern is that amendment 89, in giving the local authority the discretion to judge whether support is necessary, would result in local authorities cutting off support earlier than would have otherwise been required. Does the member share my concern about what might happen if we empower local authorities more to make that judgment themselves? We would be having the system, rather than the young person, make the judgment.

I hope that the minister can help me out, because I am honestly struggling with what to do with the amendments in this group. I understand that a lot of the issues were caused as a result of a Supreme Court judgment, which was obviously outwith the Scottish Government’s hands. However, they have also, in part, been caused by the fact that a legislative review initiated by the Government should have taken place long before now. There is a bill in front of us now, while the Government is saying that there will be a legislative review, which will conclude at the start of the next parliamentary session, and that it will be for the next Parliament and Government to make decisions in the light of that.

I accept the minister’s point that the approach that has been taken with the amendments in the names of Martin Whitfield and Roz McCall in this group is not an ideal way to make law. I accept that there would be additional fragmentation from agreeing to those amendments. However, I am weighing that up against the fact that, if we do not make those amendments, young people will lose the recourse that they would have had if there were to have been a UNCRC-compliant version of these particular provisions in the bill.

The minister said that the amendments would risk fragmenting provisions across different acts. Will she specify what the practical negative effect of that would be for care-experienced young people and others who are in the system? I am trying to balance that negative effect with the negative effects that there would be if we were to pass a law that is, in part, not compliant with the UNCRC, and which would therefore cause young people to lose the ability to try to take action to receive redress via the UNCRC’s provisions.