Chamber and committees

At the moment, the cost is being met by each local authority, because the Scottish Government is funding it, so there is no cost. In addition, it cannot be budgeted for, because we do not know how many people will go into kinship care annually. It is a bit like the social security payments that we make. It is an open budget. We can give estimates. There should be no greater cost than at the moment, because kinship carers should be getting the moneys that they are due. It is about whether they are aware of that and whether they are accessing those services.

09:30

To be honest, putting a financial cost on this is coming at it from the wrong end. These families are taking in very vulnerable children at a very difficult time in their lives. Whatever the cost of that is, it will be far less than if those children had to go into care or fostering. The overwhelming majority of people who provide kinship care do not do it for financial gain; they do it to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I hope that we can look at something, perhaps at stage 3, around social work, health and education to make sure that those who take in vulnerable children are given the support that they need.

I start where Ross Greer finishes. There is a mass frustration in the community that we have not been able to come up with the definition of an independent advocate so far. Amendment 8 is a pragmatic solution to that.

Barnardo’s has said that independent advocacy should be defined in the bill. I absolutely agree, but we do not have a definition in the bill. Even in discussions between members this morning, there does not seem to have been clarity about what “independent” means. The Promise says that clarity about the definition is vital and needs to happen, but I do not see us, either this morning, or even in the two or three weeks before stage 3, being able to agree on a definition.

12:30

Why not?

Absolutely. The committee could, in theory, agree to amendment 147 and my amendment, and then we could tidy up the definition at stage 3.

My final point, without trying to labour it, is that, although we need independence, the definition needs to be broader and we need to consult further with the third sector, COSLA and those who have lived experience. The quickest and best way to do that would be by regulation at a future date. I might also come back at stage 3 to put some kind of time limit on that, so that the issue does not hang around for ever.

Good morning. Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that kinship carers are on an equal footing with others who provide care, such as foster carers. Both take in children at the point of need, and a relative should not be differentiated from a state-supplied foster carer. In particular, that should apply to financial support and social work support. The Social Justice and Social Committee—no, sorry. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee—on which I have sat for only nine years—took evidence on that some years ago. A number of kinship carers gave evidence in this very room. It was clear that they feel that they are a Cinderella service. I welcome the minister’s amendments, but I think that we can go still further in recognising the vital role that kinship carers play in our system.

Children First has stated that kinship care

“accounts for 35% of all children who are looked after in the community.”

However, the financial contribution and other support from agencies is not the same.

Many kinship carers will stop or reduce working to take on those additional caring responsibilities. Eighty per cent of kinship carers report financial hardship. Even in this parliamentary session, kinship carers were being paid different amounts, depending on the local authority area in which they lived. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is dealing with that issue at the moment, and that some of the amendments that we will discuss later seek to address it. However, I am still concerned that, during the tenure of future Governments, kinship carers could end up not getting the amount of money that they require to meet the financial needs that come with the responsibility they have been given.

My other concern, which, again, comes from kinship carers directly, is that they find it very difficult to access the services that they require, be those in social work, education or health. A distinction is made in most local authorities between foster carers and kinship care. I fully accept the minister’s point that definition is an issue, and I accept that amendment 4 is very broadly written. That was deliberate, so that we could start a conversation. When the minister winds up, I will be interested to hear about how we can look at not just the financial need but how we get the right support in social work, education and health.

My problem with the definition in those two amendments is that some young people will want those bodies to advocate for them. If you hang around here long enough, these things come round again. During the passage of the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, there was a similar debate about the definition of an independent advocate to represent a person before Social Security Scotland or a tribunal.

I suppose that my worry is that, even if we can expand the definition further at stage 3, it will not include everyone. With respect to my colleagues and myself, I am not sure that we are the best people to make that choice. That is why the matter should be addressed through regulations at a future date. If the minister is at all sympathetic, it would be helpful if she could set a date for that to happen, so that this does not go on for too long.

Amendment 9 is designed to put something in black and white so that everyone is absolutely clear that advocacy services for care-experienced children must be provided on an opt-in basis. Children should always be made fully aware of their rights and options, but advocacy should never be forced upon them. If we go for an opt-out model, children might feel pressured to have to share their story with yet another individual whom they do not know and have no connection to, and might create a forced demand for the service of advocates.

Advocacy helps people to express their views and to make informed decisions. Advocates help children and their families navigate the complex landscape and support them to make their own choices. Advocacy is different from advice, and the two things should not be put together. It is different from having a friend or somebody else with you whom you want to be there, but it should never be forced on people on an opt-out basis. That goes against what advocacy means, and it could be viewed with suspicion. Aberlour says that insisting on advocacy will add more professionals to a cluttered landscape, and I believe that amendment 9 puts the child’s best interests at the heart of a consideration of what is good for them and what they understand to be good for them.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that advocacy is offered to children and their families at the earliest opportunity in the hearings process. Children need to be aware of their rights at the earliest point, not at some later point when someone else decides to tell them. Informing them at the earliest opportunity is key to ensuring that children and their families get the right support up front.

I hope that amendments 9 and 10 do what the Promise is meant to do, which is to give some of the most vulnerable people the best opportunity to progress.

To go back to the point about opting in and opting out, would the minister be happy to have the amendments accepted today and to redraft the provisions? That would be my preference, so that they are not forgotten about, rather than the amendments not being moved today and something else coming forward.

I did not want to intervene on you, minister, because you were in full flow. Some concern has been raised with regard to negotiations between a smaller party and a bigger party. One of your amendments will allow bits of the contract to be agreed before other parts. I am looking for reassurance that you are not concerned that a smaller player will be affected by that in any way.