Seòmar agus comataidhean

:It just makes sense to me: if an inquiry publishes the recommendations as it goes along, it gives people a better chance to discuss them and say, “Well, that’s a good idea, but this is the sticking point.” It means that people are not faced with the final conclusion, when all they can do is say, “Well, great, we agree with this, but how are we going to do it?” Therefore, what you are suggesting makes a great deal of sense—to me, anyway.

Mr Naylor, do you want to come in?

11:45

Good morning—it seems a wee while since we started. I take the opportunity to thank you all not only for coming along today, but for the briefings that you provided and for the private briefing before the meeting. As difficult as it can sometimes be to hear such information, it is very useful to us.

We have heard about the work that has been undertaken in England and Wales on child sexual abuse and group-based child sexual abuse. How will the learning from that work be used to inform the work that is now being undertaken in Scotland?

:I will not go into details, but were some of the recommendations not taken up because there were sticking points for particular organisations that meant they were unable to act? If that were to happen in Scotland, could there be a way to unstick those problems?

:Thank you.

How are survivors being engaged with and involved in the national review of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation? How will the review ensure that they are being involved in a meaningful and trauma-informed way?

For clarification, I totally understand and agree with that. My fear was that we would put pressure on future foster carers to have to step up when, as Ms McCall said, normally, there is no “have to” about it. That was what I was trying to get at. I would not want us to discourage people from coming forward to be foster carers.

I have carefully reflected on the evidence that we heard during stage 1 and on stakeholders’ concerns regarding the lack of clarity about the definition of independent advocacy in the bill and I believe that my amendments 144 and 151 will address those concerns.

If passed, the amendments would create a requirement that the regulations that are currently provided for under section 4(1) must specify that care experience advocacy services should be independent and that those regulations will set out what criteria care experience advocacy services must meet in order to be considered as independent.

I have carefully considered the amendments from Roz McCall, Martin Whitfield and Ross Greer, which all seek, in varying ways, to add a more prescriptive statutory definition of independence to the bill. I am sympathetic to the intentions behind those amendments and their desire to provide greater clarity about how independent advocacy services will be delivered under the bill. However, I believe that, given the intended breadth of the lifelong right to access independent advocacy services under the provision, and its application across a range of circumstances, the inclusion of a restrictive definition might significantly impact on the range of persons who would have the capacity and competence to provide those services.

When we held a private session one evening with young people from Who Cares? Scotland, I heard them saying that they wanted to be able to choose who their advocate was. That person might be a teacher or a social worker. One young person said that a social worker could read by the expression on her face whether she wanted something or not. I think that some of the amendments that are before us might prevent young people from having such a person as an advocate. Local authorities have many different departments and services, but if we lump local services together as one—

I agree, but I also believe that they should have the option of the person they trust the most, if that is their wish. I do not want them to be prevented from having the person they trust just because of, if I am being honest, a consideration about who pays that person’s wages.

I move amendment 144.

I said that they could be.

A teacher would not make decisions on the care-experienced person’s care, but they would be there to listen to the care-experienced person, if needed. I am not saying that the advocate should be a teacher. I am saying that the young person should have the right to choose. I was just using a teacher as an example, given what we heard in our evening session with young people. One young person said that they would want their social worker to be their advocate. Whether that is right or wrong is not for me to decide—that is for the young person to decide for themselves. It is a case of ensuring that we get it right for every child.

My intervention is similar to the question that John Mason asked. I do not know whether you have come to this point yet, but I am genuinely not sure whether you are suggesting that foster parents would need to sign up to opening their door 20 years or more down the line. I worry that that would stop foster parents coming forward.