Official Report 564KB pdf
15:19
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 74A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The voting period for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in any debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or type RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group has been called.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Before section A1
Group 1 is on aftercare. Amendment 91, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8, 92, 93, 9, 96, 97, 13 to 15, 33, 209 and 88.
My amendments in group 1 all relate to the provision of aftercare and are needed to deliver quality care for young people in a transparent, organised and rights-respecting way. I listened carefully to the points raised during the stage 2 debate and have lodged amendments that I hope give assurance about our initial intention that all eligible young people who want aftercare can receive aftercare.
Amendments 91, 6, 7, 8 and 93 will ensure that the restated section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to aftercare is as coherent as possible as a free-standing provision in the bill. The amendments provide for the expansion of aftercare to formerly looked-after children who ceased to be looked after before the age of 16 and will ensure that aftercare support is provided in an equitable way to all young people aged 16 to 18 who left care before or after their 16th birthday.
Amendment 6 makes it clear that all eligible persons must be assessed according to their needs. Aftercare support must be provided to 16 to 18-year-olds unless their welfare does not require it, and to all 19 to 25-year-olds who have eligible needs.
Amendment 93 ensures that a local authority can seek the help of another public body, including another local authority, to support its efforts to deliver aftercare and financial assistance towards expenses of education or training for eligible individuals. The phased roll-out of the provisions that are enabled by amendment 91 will support the workforce in delivering aftercare to a wider group of young people in a considered manner, giving them the time needed to adjust to increased numbers of children and young people requesting and receiving aftercare support. That will protect the quality of the support that is available.
Amendment 9 makes amendments to primary legislation that are consequential on amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8. Amendments 13 and 14 remove sections 1A and 1B of the bill to enable my amendments 91, 6, 7, 8 and 93.
Although section 2 of the bill as introduced sought to extend section 29(7) of the 1995 act to care leavers from Northern Ireland, we now understand that no legislative reciprocity currently exists in relation to care leavers who have moved elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That means that it would not be desirable to have a legislative duty on Scottish local authorities to provide aftercare to care leavers from England and Wales.
Amendment 91 no longer includes the amendment made by section 2 of the bill as introduced in relation to extending the aftercare provisions to care leavers from Northern Ireland. Amendment 15 therefore removes section 2 of the bill.
Amendments 33, 209 and 88 create relevant definitions in the new provisions and clearly articulate the procedures that apply to the various regulation-making powers.
I support Roz McCall’s amendment 92, which allows local authorities to continue to provide financial support to young people who have been looked after at some point who are aged between 16 and 25 years, and to those beyond the age of 26 on the basis of their individual need.
Martin Whitfield’s amendments 96 and 97 are similar to his amendments 127 and 128 at stage 2, which helped to inform the approach to my amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8. We all want to ensure that aftercare provision puts the needs and wellbeing of each individual young person at the centre of the support that they receive.
My amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8 continue to promote a rights-respecting approach, including for young people who choose not to approach local services upon turning 16 or who choose to do so at a later time. That is missing from amendments 96 and 97. Also absent are provisions that hold to the principle of minimal intervention and that protect vital resources. Under the approach that is taken in Mr Whitfield’s amendments, resource for those who need it most would be used in identifying and approaching young people who do not wish to engage with the service. That is neither proportionate nor desirable.
It is important to stress that all the amendments that I have lodged in relation to the stand-alone aftercare provision have been carefully drafted to bring clarity for children, their representatives and local authorities, in so far as that is possible, while also working together with the connected provisions that remain in the 1995 act.
I hope that Mr Whitfield is assured that my amendments give effect to what he also wants to achieve while mitigating against some of the unintended consequences that his own amendments, as drafted, present. I ask that he support the Government amendments 91, 6 to 8 and 93 and not move amendments 96 and 97.
In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 91, 6 to 8, 93, 9, 13 to 15, 33, 209 and 88 and to vote against amendments 96 and 97 if they are moved. I also ask members to support Roz McCall’s amendment 92.
I move amendment 91.
I put on record my thanks to the minister for the work that she has done with me and the rest of us on the amendments. I am going to speak only to my amendment in the group. I am proud to have lodged amendment 92, which would allow local authorities to provide financial support for education, training or employment to a young person aged between 16 and 25 years of age who is no longer looked after. It would also promote a person-centred approach by enabling local authorities to continue that vital support to the young person beyond the age of 26 when that is clearly needed. I think that it is an amendment that we can all get behind, and I am glad that the minister is supporting it. I ask members to support amendment 92 in my name.
I remind members in the chamber, and those who are watching, of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
With regard to group 1, I echo Roz McCall’s thanks to the minister and to those supporting her for what has been an unusually active engagement with regard to this complex and long-standing bill, which comes very late in the session. It is very much to the credit of the minister’s leadership, particularly at stages 2 and 3.
Having got the compliments out of the way, I will speak to the amendments in the group. My two amendments 96 and 97 build on amendments that were lodged at stage 2. There is a challenge in differentiating between children and young people on the basis of when they left care. I know that the Government’s amendments go some way towards doing that, but there is still a challenge coming down the line. I therefore welcome the Government’s willingness both to seek to solve the problem in its drafting and, perhaps more importantly, to acknowledge that the issue exists. That issue can create what I believe to be an unacceptable additional barrier to access to support, particularly for children who left care just before they were 16 and would have had to apply for support. That goes against the fundamental principles of fairness that are outlined in the Promise. I hope that we will find greater agreement later on.
I can confirm that Scottish Labour will support Roz McCall’s excellent amendment 92 with regard to accommodation and maintenance.
I will leave it at that.
I will make just a brief contribution on this group. At stage 2, I lodged a series of amendments to include estranged young people in various provisions of the bill, including, to some extent, in relation to aftercare. I raise the issue now because, at that point, the minister kindly agreed to take those proposals away and consider how, either through the bill or by other means in the provisions relating to the bill and some of the powers that will be afforded to the Government as a result of it, the experience of estranged young people can be better taken into account.
I ask the minister to address that in her closing speech on this group. I am acutely aware—as, I think, we all should be—that care-experienced young people have built an incredibly powerful political movement in this country over the past 10 to 15 years. That is why we have got to this point with the bill, and they should be incredibly proud of that.
The estranged community in Scotland no longer has a single representative organisation. There was one charity that stood up for its interests, but it folded a few years ago. It is my view that it is the Parliament’s responsibility to ensure that estranged young people are not forgotten in the conversation. Some, but not all, estranged young people are care experienced. For the proposals in group 1 that relate to aftercare, I would be keen to hear from the minister how she intends to ensure that estranged young people are not forgotten as we take the provisions forward.
15:30
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on group 1, and I thank Ross Greer for raising the important issue of estrangement, which we discussed at length at stage 2.
The stage 2 amendments provided an important opportunity to further consider estranged young people during the scrutiny of the bill. At stage 3, I will provide some assurances on the record. I understand that young people who are estranged from their families can face additional challenges. Although they do not have formal care experience status, they do not have the same family support network as their peers. That is particularly important for those who are aged 16 to 25 years who are navigating the transition into adulthood without support and life guidance. At stage 2, I advised that further reflection was needed. I thank Scottish Green members for their engagement ahead of stage 3, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions on how we can give proper consideration to estranged young people in our work to keep the Promise.
Following the commitments that I outlined in my recent letter to Mr Greer, I am happy to put on record that further work will be progressed to raise awareness and build a better understanding of estranged young people, the challenges that they face and how we can ensure that they are properly supported. Through the development of guidance or regulations, depending on the outcome of group 8, on guidance related to care experience that will be published under section 5 of the bill, there will be a good opportunity to reflect further on estranged young people and inform public authorities’ understanding of the issues that they face and how to properly support them. The guidance will be co-produced and developed closely with young people with lived experience. I will ensure that estrangement forms a key part of that work. To complement that, wider work will be undertaken, including the mapping of existing local support for estranged young people in order to further develop our understanding of how that works in practice. Careful consideration is also being given to how estranged young people can be referenced in children’s service plans, further promoting consistency and understanding across Scotland.
I hope that those clear commitments provide reassurance to Ross Greer and others that the Government understands the importance of ensuring that there is proper awareness and understanding of, and support for, estranged young people.
I press amendment 91.
The question is, that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:32
Meeting suspended.
15:38
On resuming—
We come to the vote on amendment 91, in the name of the minister. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had trouble connecting. I would have voted no.
Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 92, Against 15, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 92 moved—[Roz McCall]—and agreed to.
Amendments 93 and 9 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Group 2 is on provision of accommodation and continuing care. Amendment 99, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 100 to 102, 98, 103 to 108 and 144.
I have the privilege of having lodged all the amendments in the group, so I look forward to hearing comments from members around the chamber.
There are essentially two elements to the amendments that sit in group 2. The first relates to amendments 98 to 107 and 144. I drafted amendments 99 to 102—the other amendments are simply consequential—to highlight the importance of the bill’s provisions as they relate to the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Members will be aware of the many efforts that have been made since the passing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 to ensure—and there have been assurances in this regard from the Scottish Government on many occasions—that our legislation will take into account pre-devolution matters, so that our young people can enforce their rights in a simple and straightforward way. The purpose behind these amendments is to address that. The amendments would provide a legal landscape around children in care. The situation urgently needs simplification, which is a key ask of the Promise that the legislation has failed to deliver on.
The bill is anything but simple, and members in the next session of the Parliament, which might look drastically different in terms of who comes here, will urgently have to look again at the situation. The purpose behind my amendments is to bring to the fore the importance of the UNCRC, which this Parliament and this Scottish Government absolutely agree on, and to start to see some evidence of that in legislation.
Amendment 108 takes a different approach. I am fully aware that there is a dichotomy and a challenge between amendment 108 and the other amendments in this group, and I look forward to hearing from the minister and perhaps others on whether we can resolve the challenge. Amendment 108 would build on the provisions that were introduced by Nicola Sturgeon at stage 2. It seeks to introduce a clear and unambiguous right for young people who have left a care setting to return. If the Parliament is serious about acting as a parent to children in care, that is one of the bare minimum standards that we should look to achieve.
For many parents, the idea that their own children would be unable to return to home is unthinkable, but that is the reality that care-experienced young people face, and amendment 108, alongside the provisions previously introduced by Nicola Sturgeon, would represent a transformational step towards ensuring that every care-experienced young person can grow up safe, respected and loved—a word that was first introduced as a concept in legislation when it was embodied in the Promise.
I move amendment 99.
Amendments in this group relate to sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of the bill, and, as Martin Whitfield has said, those sections reflect amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2. I am very grateful to the minister for accepting those amendments at stage 2—despite, I know, some reservations—and for not seeking to reverse them at stage 3. I am also very grateful to The Promise Scotland for all its hard work in this area.
15:45
Those sections represent significant improvements in care for vulnerable young people as they start to move on from care. They ensure that any person under the age of 18 who is homeless or in accommodation that is unsuitable for their welfare will be accommodated by a local authority as a child, not routed through adult homelessness services or, worse, given no help at all, which is what happens to many 16 and 17-year-olds right now.
The sections place a mandatory duty on local authorities, in place of the current discretionary power, to accommodate care-experienced young people who are aged 18 to 21 if their welfare requires it. That again ensures that any vulnerable young person whose move out of care does not go to plan will not end up in adult homelessness services.
The sections ensure that young people who leave and then return to care remain eligible for continuing care on the same basis as those who never left. They also give local authorities a discretionary power to provide continuing care up to the age of 25 if they consider that to be necessary for a young person’s welfare. I strongly support amendment 106, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which would raise that age to 26. That amendment would better align the section with the aftercare provisions that are in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Martin Whitfield’s amendments to replace sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D with rewritten provisions that are within the scope of the 2024 act are well meaning and, at first glance, I was minded to support them. However, as he has acknowledged, they risk unintended consequences and, more fundamentally, they are inconsistent with amendment 108, in his name, which is vitally important.
Amendment 108 would put it beyond doubt that a care-experienced young person can return to continuing care during any period that the right applies to. It would mean that a young person who was eligible for continuing care but who left to live independently of their own accord could return to care if things went wrong, in the same way as non-care-experienced young people can go home to their parents if they hit bumps in life’s road. That goes to the very essence of the Promise, which is to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, care-experienced young people get the same support from the state as the rest of us get from our families.
The transition to adulthood is tricky for all of us. For most of us, even in adulthood, we have the option of going home to our parents when life gets tough. The amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2, coupled with amendments 106 and 108 in Martin Whitfield’s name at stage 3, would take us much closer to that option being the reality for care-experienced young people, too.
I urge the Parliament to support amendments 106 and 108 and to reject the other amendments in the group if they are pressed, for the reasons that I have outlined.
I am grateful to Ms Sturgeon and Mr Whitfield for their engagement ahead of stage 3 on these sections of the bill.
Every member wishes to protect children’s rights in Scotland, and I fully support the intention of bringing legislation within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. However, that must be done in a careful way that does not further add to a confusing and disjointed legislative landscape or give rise to unintended consequences. The level of engagement on the bill between stakeholders and the Education, Children and Young People Committee has highlighted what I hear from families across the country, which is that keeping the Promise includes ensuring effective implementation of the laws that we pass in the Parliament.
As Martin Whitfield has acknowledged, his amendments 99 to 102 would give rise to an unintended consequence, which is that looked-after status would be removed from children who are accommodated under the new restated section 25 of the 1995 act. Those vulnerable children would therefore no longer be entitled to vital supports, which I think that we would all agree would have a negative impact on children and young people. If agreed to, those amendments would necessitate consequential amendments by future subordinate or primary legislation ahead of implementation to address that specific unintended consequence.
As I have said before, I am satisfied that the provisions in the bill and the relevant provisions of the 1995 act are compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under existing legislation, children in Scotland currently have routes by which they can appeal and challenge the support that they have been offered. That includes the right to reviews and appeals, access to local authority children’s rights officers, advocacy support and routes to complain to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
I therefore cannot support amendments 99 to 102, but I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 106, which would allow local authorities to continue providing continuing care for young people until their 26th birthday. I also support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 108, which would offer a right to return for those in continuing care when that is the right thing for their welfare.
I ask members to support amendments 106 and 108 and to vote against all other amendments in the group if they are pressed.
I am very grateful for members’ contributions on the group and, indeed, for Nicola Sturgeon’s articulate description of not only the situation but the challenge that young people who are on the cusp of adulthood face without the ability to return to care. I thank the minister for her very positive approach to amendments 106 and 108.
With nothing further to add—I do not want to waste time, given how little of it we have—I seek to withdraw amendment 99.
Amendment 99, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 100 to 102 not moved.
Group 3 is on family group decision making. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 94, 95, 79 to 83, 203 and 84.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 10. I thank Children First, whose advocacy for children in respect of family group decision making has brought us to this point. In particular, discussions with Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield have enabled a coherent package of amendments to be lodged.
Throughout the passage of the bill, members have emphasised the importance of ensuring that families are supported to play a meaningful role in decisions that affect children and that the child’s voice is heard in this process. The amendments in this group reflect that shared ambition. They also build on Scotland’s approach through getting it right for every child and the ambition of the Promise that children should be supported to stay within their families when and wherever it is safe to do so, and that families should play a meaningful role in shaping the support that surrounds them.
By bringing families together to identify their strengths, family group decision making helps to make that possible. I hope that members will support the amendments and extend the statutory framework around the provision of family group decision making in Scotland.
The amendments that are before Parliament today will strengthen the visibility, accessibility, consistency and national understanding of those services in four ways.
First, amendment 10 will introduce a right for children and families to request that a family group decision-making service be provided. Any person who considers themselves to fall within the definitions that are referred to in proposed new section 69A(1) of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 will be able to make the request. A local authority will need to consider and respond to a request unless it considers that there are good reasons not to do so.
Secondly, amendment 94, in the name of Willie Rennie, will bolster amendment 10 by making sure that local authorities promote awareness of that right to request FGDM and publish information about the service more broadly.
Thirdly, amendment 95, which is also from Willie Rennie, will require the publication of national guidance on family group decision making, supporting a clearer and more consistent understanding of how to use it.
Finally, amendment 84, which is from Miles Briggs, will strengthen national reporting with a duty on local authorities to provide information on the operation of services to the Scottish ministers, who will collate that information in a report to Parliament within three years of royal assent.
Other amendments in this group seek to make technical changes to ensure consistency of language when referring to family group decision-making services.
Taken together, the amendments will strengthen family group decision making in a practical and proportionate way, while maintaining the flexibility that is needed to respond to the circumstances of each child and each family.
I move amendment 10 in my name, and I invite members to support all the amendments in the group.
I thank the minister for her collaborative approach on this important issue. I also thank Children First for its very strong support in making sure that we get this right.
Family group decision making is at the heart of the delivery of the Promise. It is clear that it strengthens family networks, gives children a voice in decisions that affect them and can help to prevent situations from escalating into crisis—and I am sure that we are all supportive of that.
My amendments form part of a cross-party package in this group. I endorse amendment 10, in the name of the minister, on the right to request family group decision-making services. My amendment 94 will require local authorities to promote that right and to publish broader information about FGDM services in their area, so that what those services are and how to access them is widely understood.
The collaborative approach to this group reflects the strong interest across Parliament in ensuring that families are better supported and that children’s voices are heard in decisions that affect their lives.
Will the member give way?
Certainly.
I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. I merely want to articulate my thanks for the cross-party work with regard to this group, and to confirm that my party will support all the amendments in it.
On that point, I will conclude. I urge members to support the amendments.
I am pleased to speak to amendment 79 and the other amendments in my name in this group, which relates to family group decision making. As the minister and Willie Rennie have pointed out, family group decision making is a well-established approach that has been used by some local authorities in Scotland—including my own here in Edinburgh—over a number of years to bring families together to make plans for children where there are serious concerns about their wellbeing.
My amendments in this group focus on strengthening transparency and accountability in how family group decision making is used, and on ensuring that we all tie in to the same definition of the service. My amendment 84 would require the Scottish ministers to publish and lay before Parliament information on the use of FGDM nationally within three years of royal assent. That would help Parliament and the public to better understand how this important service is being provided across Scotland and where it could be strengthened. My amendments would also make technical changes to reflect the definition of family group decision-making services that the minister’s amendment 10 will add to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Importantly, my amendments form part of a cross-party package of proposals in the group, and I believe that the overall package of measures now strikes the right balance. It will improve visibility and understanding of family group decision making while continuing to respect the professional judgment of those who work with our children and families.
I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place across the parties, and I especially thank the minister for moving the agenda forward. I also put on record my thanks to organisations that support children and families, particularly Children First, which has long advocated for the wider use of family group decision making. I look forward to supporting the wider package in the group.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendments 94 and 95 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Section A1—Kinship care needs assessment
Group 4 is on kinship care. Amendment 11, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 12.
I, too, thank the minister for her proactive engagement. Although we will not agree on everything this afternoon and evening, I appreciate the way in which she and her officials have reached out. I also thank all the charities and organisations that have helped to shape my thinking and decision making on the bill. With regard to my amendment 11, which is on kinship care, I especially thank Children First, Scotland’s national children’s charity, for its guidance on the amendment to ensure that it is child centred and appropriately measured.
It has become clear to me during this session of Parliament that kinship care is a wee bit of a Cinderella service in Scotland. Those of us who sit on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee had a number of sessions with people who are involved with kinship care. There are many issues that still need to be addressed, and the support that they require still needs to be provided by the Government and local authorities.
Amendment 11 would reframe the wording in section A1 of the bill regarding kinship care assessment needs to ensure that we remove any barriers that carers and children in kinship care arrangements might face. The premise of amendment 11 is simple: rather than the local authority having to offer to assess a person’s kinship care assistance needs, there would instead be a guarantee that an assessment will take place. That would take the potential postcode lottery out of the process and ensure that the needs of the carer and the child are assessed appropriately and without question.
16:00
In its submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the draft vision for kinship care, Children First stated that
“asking carers to apply for an assessment may become a hurdle, especially for those who are unaware of the option or find it difficult to ask for help.”
Kinship carers are the backbone of our care community: grandparents and other relatives who, at a time in their lives when they should be enjoying retirement and relaxation, are instead stepping up to support and raise grandchildren, keeping families together during difficult times. Those people deserve the full backing and support of our local councils to ensure that a full, trauma‑informed assessment of a person’s care needs is performed and that pathways to assist and support them are identified. Kinship carers should not have to ask for an assessment or wait for a council to offer one; an assessment should be given without hesitation or demand.
Amendment 12 follows on from that and would ensure that the kinship assessment is carried out within three months of the application being received. That would ensure that the assessment is timely and that families are not left waiting and struggling. It would ensure that appropriate support—whether financial, practical or professional, such as social work support—is put in place at the earliest opportunity, and it might prevent the kinship care arrangement from breaking down.
For so long, kinship care has been misunderstood, mismanaged and undersupported. My amendments 11 and 12 would go some way to ensuring that kinship carers are recognised, listened to and given the appropriate assessment of support to ensure that they can care for children to the best of their ability.
I move amendment 11.
I understand the intention behind Mr Balfour’s amendments in this group, which seek to strengthen access to assessments for kinship carers. Like others, I have been very keen to improve and strengthen support for kinship carers throughout the bill process.
Section A1 provides kinship carers with the right to request an assessment or review of their support needs. It also creates enabling powers for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when or how a local authority must assess, or review an assessment of, a person’s kinship care needs.
Amendment 11 would change the provision that requires local authorities to offer an assessment to one that requires them to guarantee that an assessment will take place in all circumstances. However, the bill’s current wording allows local authorities to respond proportionately in cases in which needs have already been assessed or in cases in which a further assessment might not be necessary, which reflects the wider principle of proportionate and minimum intervention that underpins Scotland’s approach to children’s services. Changing the provision would mean resources being tied up in conducting assessments whether they are needed or not, which does not feel appropriate. Through section A1, we already have the ability to provide more detail on the assessment process, through secondary legislation, if it is necessary to do so. I hope that Jeremy Balfour is assured by that and that he will not press amendment 11.
Amendment 12 would introduce a statutory requirement for an assessment or review to be completed within three months of a request being made. I recognise the importance of ensuring that kinship carers receive timely consideration of their support needs and, on that basis, I am content to support amendment 12, because it would create a window within which assessments should be conducted. Local authorities will continue to prioritise assessments according to risk and need, and the statutory guidance that is referred to in the bill’s provisions will support authorities to implement the requirements in a way that reflects local circumstances and the needs of children and families.
I therefore encourage Jeremy Balfour not to press amendment 11. If he does, I urge members to vote against it, but to vote for his amendment 12.
I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up the debate and press or withdraw amendment 11.
I have nothing to add. I press amendment 11.
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 43, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.
Section 1A—Aftercare
Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.
Amendment 13 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 1B—Financial assistance towards expenses of education or training and removal of power to guarantee indentures etc
Amendment 14 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 2—Aftercare for persons looked after in Northern Ireland
Amendment 15 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 2A—Duty to provide accommodation for children in need
Amendment 103 not moved.
Section 2B—Provision of accommodation for care-experienced people
Amendment 104 not moved.
Section 2C—Extension of continuing care to children returning to care
Amendment 105 not moved.
Section 2D—Extension of continuing care to age 25
Amendment 106 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Amendment 107 not moved.
After section 2D
Amendment 108 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Section 3—Corporate parenting duties in relation to persons looked after before age 16
Group 5 is entitled “Corporate parenting: duties and guidance”. Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17, 109, 18, 19, 19A, 19B, 110 and 20.
I will first speak to my amendments 16 to 20. Amendment 16 will reinstate the position that corporate parenting duties and responsibilities apply up to the age of 26. The amendment relates to amendment 19, which will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance about corporate parenting. The guidance may include advice and information on when and how it might be desirable for corporate parents, in so far as they are acting within their powers, to continue their corporate responsibilities towards people aged 26 and over who were formerly looked after.
Amendments 18 and 19 will remove and reinsert amendments that were agreed at stage 2, with minor technical and consequential fixes.
Amendments 17 and 20 will remove provisions that were inserted at stage 2, which would most commonly affect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people. Those provisions related to corporate parenting responsibilities in relation to age and identity. There has been some confusion on that, so, to be clear, all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after and should receive the support that they need as looked-after children. Although the issues of age and identity are complex, I am firmly of the view that they would be better addressed for that particularly vulnerable group through strengthened responsibilities and a wider regard being given to corporate parenting responsibilities in respect of the UNCRC. I hope that members will agree with that view. That is also why I support Martin Whitfield’s amendments 19A and 19B, which cover similar ground.
I thank Willie Rennie for lodging amendment 109. Corporate parents are key to keeping the Promise and ensuring that looked-after children and young people get the best possible chances in life. Their role goes far beyond just adhering to statutory duties. They shape opportunities, nurture aspirations and help to create the foundations for children and young people to grow up loved, safe and respected. Requiring corporate parents to be explicit in corporate parenting plans about how they propose to exercise their responsibilities in a way that delivers on the Promise recommendations will make it easier to track progress, identify gaps and ensure that the needs of all looked-after children and young people can be met. I am therefore happy to support amendment 109.
I recognise the intent behind Martin Whitfield’s amendment 110, but it is neither necessary nor desirable. The Government’s no one left behind approach has established an employability system that is delivered through local employability partnerships and is supported by nationally consistent priorities and expectations. That approach already funds key workers to provide employability support that is tailored to the circumstances and needs of participants and includes consideration of work, education or training. That is important, because amendment 110 assumes that work is the best option for care-experienced young people, when further or higher education, an apprenticeship or other training might be more in their interests. Care-experienced people are a priority group for employability support. Since April 2019, almost 7,500 care-experienced people have accessed support through no one left behind. That figure has increased since the same amendment was lodged at stage 2, with 381 new care-experienced individuals accessing employability services in the past quarter. Amendment 110 would therefore result in unhelpful duplication of funding and provision that I believe are already working well. I hope that that reassures Martin Whitfield and that he will not move his amendment.
In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 16 to 20 and amendments 19A, 19B and 109. I ask members to vote against amendment 110, if it is moved.
I move amendment 16.
I am grateful for the minister’s support of my amendment 109, which was developed at the suggestion of Who Cares? Scotland. To reiterate, the amendment will require corporate parenting plans to include information on how corporate parenting responsibilities will be exercised in a way that delivers on the recommendations of the Promise. That is intended to increase accountability. Who Cares? Scotland has set out the need for stronger accountability in primary legislation for keeping the Promise, and that has been backed up by the Audit Scotland report of 2025, which evidenced confusion five years on from the Promise being made and the difficulty in distributing accountability. Together with my amendment 204 in a later grouping, amendment 109 will help to ensure policy coherence across corporate parenting, children’s services, planning and the Promise.
Amendment 19A seeks to require specific consideration to be given to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the guidance on corporate parenting that is to be produced under amendment 19. I thank the minister for her positive approach to this amendment; unaccompanied asylum seeker children have been overlooked on too many occasions, so it is right that a clear corporate parent owes a duty of care to those individuals and that they fall under the looked-after category.
16:15
Amendment 19B would require that the guidance for corporate parents refers them to the guidance issued under section 13(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 about the UNCRC requirements. This is an important protection, and I welcome the Government’s co-operation on this amendment. Like my amendment in group 1, it speaks to the importance of the UNCRC in these matters. I also welcome the support for amendment 109, in the name of Willie Rennie, with regard to the fundamental role that corporate parenting will play in this situation and the understanding that is needed. In particular, it is in the actions of the corporate parent that we will most successfully see the fulfilling of the Promise.
Amendment 110 builds on discussions at stage 2, when very powerful testimony was heard from Duncan Dunlop about the golden opportunity that the bill provides to create proper pathways to employment and training for our care-experienced young people, because, for a variety of reasons, those young people cannot or do not access the networks and support that families would normally provide. We should be bold in our ambition to support those young people and in arguing that representatives from our care-experienced communities, some of whom are in the public gallery today, are worthy of that support. They are worthy of the very same opportunities that everybody else has.
I recognise the concerns that we have heard recently from organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland. We are not in an environment in which policies such as those proposed in amendment 110 are feasible, and there is an overlap with existing work. I am very grateful that the minister was able to provide the current quarter figures, which show the success of that work. However, I urge the Government to continue to build on that, and I seek confirmation from the minister that that will be the case, so that: we can identify successes; challenges can be easily and quickly picked up; and, through the corporate parenting responsibilities under the UNCRC, work on those challenges can be supported. On the basis of the minister’s response, I will consider whether to move amendment 110.
I call the minister to wind up.
I will respond directly to Mr Whitfield’s comments. That aspect will absolutely have to be followed up. I have been clear that the provision exists and that children and young people are benefiting from it. However, we must absolutely ensure that we are making a tangible difference as a result of where we are making efforts and putting funding. In my earlier comments, I referred to ensuring that we provide the right route for children and young people, and employability is just one part of that. We need to look at the wider picture and ensure that all access routes and pathways for children and young people are progressing in the way that we intended. I reassure Mr Whitfield that I absolutely feel that further work must be delivered, but I do not necessarily believe that amendment 110 is the way forward.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 109 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
After section 3
Amendment 19 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
Amendments 19A and 19B moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Amendment 19, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 110 not moved.
Section 3A—Duty of corporate parents in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Amendment 20 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Advocacy services for care-experienced persons
Group 6 is on advocacy services for care-experienced persons. Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 22, 111, 23, 112 to 116, 24, 117, 25 to 27, 29, 29A and 86. If amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 112 to 115, due to pre-emption.
The Promise tells us of the importance of independent advocacy services and the role that those can play in supporting and upholding the rights of children who are currently in care and people who have experience of care. That is why we put into the bill a lifelong right for people to access advocacy services.
At stage 2, the Education, Children and Young People Committee agreed to a definition of independent advocacy, introduced by Ross Greer, that was directly taken from the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I raised concerns about directly lifting a definition from other legislation that was designed for a specific purpose within a mental health context and that had the potential to exclude some advocacy providers from being considered independent. I have, therefore, lodged a package of amendments that directly addresses those concerns and seeks to provide a definition that is both workable and desirable in meeting the needs of children and adults with care experience.
Amendment 29 will insert a new section to set out that local authorities and health boards cannot be regarded as providing independent care experience advocacy services and that members of those bodies are not independent advocates in relation to care services that are provided by the body of which they are a member. It will also set out that those who operate under contractual or other arrangements with a local authority or health board are not to be automatically treated as a service of the local authority or health board. That will mean that Barnardo’s and similar providers could continue to provide independent advocacy where they deliver other support services under contractual arrangements with local authorities; however, importantly, it will prevent any overlap between individuals who provide advocacy services and those who provide or make decisions about the care services to which a care-experienced person’s use of the advocacy services relates. That is an important boundary to put in place.
Amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27 and 86 are consequential to amendment 29.
I recognise that Nicola Sturgeon, through amendments 114 and 29A, and Martin Whitfield, through amendment 115, seek to protect against conflicts of interest by ensuring that care providers in a local authority area do not also act as independent advocates in that area. That is a legitimate concern.
Amendments 114 and 115 would amend the stage 2 definition of independence in section 4(2)(a) by adding that exclusion criterion. However, we already intend to insert a comprehensive revised definition of independence through amendment 29. Amendment 29A would simply add the same exclusion criterion to that definition, and supporting it would therefore achieve more comprehensively what amendments 114 and 115 seek to achieve.
I have reflected very carefully on amendment 29A. On balance, I consider that it reflects a principled approach that would protect against conflicts of interest. It would ensure that organisations that provide care services in an area under contract with a local authority are not regarded as providing independent advocacy for care-experienced people who are, or were, placed in residential or secure care in that area. That would create a clear structural boundary, preventing any overlap between those who make decisions about care and those who provide independent advocacy in such circumstances. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for lodging amendment 29A and allowing us to consider these important issues.
I also recognise that amendment 29A would affect third sector providers such as Barnardo's and Aberlour, which currently provide both independent advocacy and wider support services under contract with local authorities. If amendment 29A is agreed to, they will not be able to provide independent advocacy for care-experienced people in residential or secure care in areas in which they provide contracted care services. However, amendment 29A reflects a clear choice to prioritise absolute clarity about the independence of advocacy services from care provision by creating structural separation. By ensuring that organisations do not provide relevant care services and advocacy in the same area, we will remove any possibility of perceived or actual conflicts of interest. On balance, that feels right, and I support amendment 29A.
Amendment 25 seeks to protect choice. It states that giving a person the statutory right of access to care experience advocacy does not prevent them from choosing someone else to support and represent them—for example, a children’s rights officer or a trusted adult—when they are accessing services or making their views known to decision makers. That includes a child choosing a family member, care worker or someone else who is employed in the provision of care services as their advocate, albeit that they would not be an independent advocacy support worker.
Amendment 25, therefore, protects against care-experienced people feeling pressured into taking up advocacy support if it is not wanted or if it prevents them from accessing support from a person of their choosing. Without choice, we lose the benefit and strength of relationships from the service. Care-experienced people tell us that that matters hugely to them.
I hope that I have reassured Martin Whitfield on those key points, and that he will prefer my amendments to his own.
Finally, I welcome Mr Balfour’s amendments 24, 116 and 117, which bring refinements to amendments that he lodged at stage 2. I encourage members to support them.
I ask members to support amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27, 29, 29A and 86, and to reject amendments 111 to 115, if moved.
I move amendment 21.
I call Martin Whitfield to speak to amendment 111 and other amendments in the group.
I thank the minister for explaining the reasoning behind amendments 21 and 22. It is right that we needed confirmation of the requirement for separation so that there is independence.
My amendment 111 seeks to make allowances for advocacy services that do not meet the strict definition of independence. For example, arrangements where contractors might work with local authorities in the provision of some services or provide other services alongside advocacy should not mean that the invaluable expertise of those organisations is lost to care-experienced children and young people. Amendment 112 is consequential to that amendment. The minister picked up on and highlighted one of the organisations to which that would apply.
Notwithstanding that, I believe that we should have a definition.
I thank the member for taking an intervention, and I apologise if he is about to come on to his point, but his amendment uses the words “reasonably practical”. What does that mean? He will remember from his legal days that the definitions will be looked at by lawyers and courts in due course. Does that mean financial reasonability? Can he give a clearer definition, or does he think that it is clear enough, if the bill is passed?
I am grateful for Mr Balfour’s intervention. I will not attempt to stray into a long-forgotten land of lawyers’ definitions of reasonableness and practicability. However, the member was right to bring up one of the challenges with the bill, which is that, when we talk about keeping the Promise—and we talked about corporate parenting earlier—we need to consider the extent to which the definitions in the legislation will achieve what we want them to.
Section 4 seeks to define independence and challenges us to define what organisations have to be independent from. In essence, we mean independence from corporate parenting. That is a challenge, and it will continue to push against the Promise.
When we look around the United Kingdom and at other areas, we see the challenge with independence and have to consider what independence means if there is only a small pool of independent people to choose from. We need to go back to the principle of what the Promise is about and who it is speaking to. It is speaking to our care-experienced young people and their lives. The need for independence in certain circumstances is easy to legislate for but very hard to enforce. One of the challenges that we have had across the chamber, and it arose before stage 2, is defining independence.
I have gone a long way round to avoid answering the member’s question, but I will send him a very large invoice for my services in helping him to understand the point.
Amendment 115 seeks to provide a definition, but we have several options before us on that issue and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.
16:30
All the stage 3 amendments in my name, which are in this group and in groups 8 and 17, have been lodged in consultation with Who Cares? Scotland. Before I turn to my amendments 113, 114 and 29A in this group, I want to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Who Cares? Scotland. Bluntly, without its campaigning passion, skill and perseverance, we would not be here debating the bill today. It was the Who Cares? 1,000 voices campaign that persuaded me to establish the independent care review, which led to the Promise.
Some of the young people who came to Bute house around a decade ago as small children to persuade me to try to make life better for those who spend some or all of their childhood in care are here with us in the gallery. Back then, I had to crouch down to speak to them, but most of them tower over me today.
I am so grateful to them and to everyone in the care-experienced community, who have certainly burrowed their way into my heart, and, much more importantly, have ensured that life will be better for those who come after them. They deserve the gratitude and the respect of all of us in the chamber. [Applause.]
One of the massive achievements of Who Cares? Scotland in the context of the bill has been securing the right to independent advocacy for care-experienced people. I believe that that is important in its own right, but I believe that it is more fundamental than that. I believe that independent advocacy will become a catalyst to help young people to realise their rights overall and to help us to keep the Promise.
That takes me to my amendments in the group that relate to the definition of independent advocacy. Amendment 113 would remove language imported from the definition in mental health legislation that is not appropriate in this context. Amendment 114 would add more specification to the definition. It stipulates that, to be classed as independent as an advocate, in addition to not being a member of a local authority or health board in the same area that the advocacy service is to be provided, they must not provide care services under contract to a local authority in the same area. In simpler terms, a worker in a care home or a secure unit cannot be deemed to be an independent advocate for a child living in that care home or secure setting.
To be clear, and in response to those who say that that will unduly restrict the availability of good advocates, that would not remove choice from a young person opting to have the care home worker as their advocate if that is an arrangement that they are happy with and have confidence in. However, if they do not wish that—if perhaps the young person has issues or conflict in the care home or with their care provider more generally—it means that they will have the option of an advocate who is genuinely independent. That is essential to avoid conflicts of interest and to give proper protection for the rights of young people.
That also aligns with the definition of independence that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, which is advocacy that is
“structurally, financially and psychologically separate”
from services.
As the minister has highlighted, my amendment 29A would achieve the same provisions as amendment 114, but it is an addition to the minister’s amendment 29, which rewrites those provisions and, in my view, makes them better. I am grateful to the minister for indicating her support for amendment 29A. In light of that, I will not move amendments 113 and 114, but I urge members to support amendment 29A.
Advocacy plays a vital role in enabling people to express their views and make informed decisions. It supports children and young people, and adults, to navigate complex systems and have their voices heard.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to ensure that care-experienced people are offered advocacy at the earliest appropriate opportunity. The committee agreed to the amendment, and I am grateful for members’ support for constructive engagement with the Minister for Children and Young People and The Promise since then.
Today, thanks to the help of the minister and her officials, I introduce amendment 116, which preserves the intent of the amendment at stage 2 but sets out further detail to strengthen how the provisions will work in practice. That requires regulations under section 4(1) to specify how care-experienced people will be made aware of the right to access advocacy. It also places a duty on the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of a person being able to exercise their right at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
The principle of earliest appropriate access is important, but effective delivery depends on the practical details: deciding who informs the care-experienced individual, and when and through which channels, of their right to advocacy support; putting awareness-raising arrangements into regulations; and placing a duty on ministers to consider the desirability of early exercise of the right.
I recognise the diverse routes by which people enter, experience and leave care, and seek to support a flexible framework that can adapt as practice evolves.
Amendment 117 is consequential to amendment 116.
Care-experienced children and young people and adults must know about their right to access advocacy support at the right time. Ensuring early information and clear routes to early advocacy support is key to securing the right support up front. I believe that amendments 116 and 117 build on the amendment in my name that was agreed to at stage 2, and is an important step in our journey to keep the Promise in relation to the care community having the right to have their voices heard. I welcome the minister’s support, and I ask members to support the amendments.
On amendment 24, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 and received support from both the minister and many of my colleagues at the committee. However, through the vagaries of whip-controlled voting, the amendment was voted down by the committee—a mistake that needs to be rectified in the chamber at stage 3.
At stage 2, there was a great deal of discussion about the pros and cons of an opt-in model versus an opt-out model for advocacy services. Indeed, even those in the third sector, who have been instrumental in helping us to shape our views on this matter, have been split in their views. However, it is my belief, which I think is shared by the Government, that advocacy services should be offered on an opt-in basis for children in relation to care experience. I will briefly outline the reasons why, in my view, 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—a stranger whom they do not know and have no connection with. I have heard repeatedly in meetings with charities that work in the sector that children do not like having to tell their story multiple times, as that can cause upset, confusion and fatigue. It should, therefore, be a right—a choice—for a child to decide if they wish to use the services of an independent advocate, but they should never have to do so against their wishes.
Advocacy helps people to express their views and make informed decisions. Advocates help children and their families to navigate the complex landscape, and support them to make their own choices. To force advocacy on a person goes against what advocacy sets out to achieve, and it would be viewed with suspicion and not entered into fully or willingly. Making advocacy an opt-out would change the power dynamic, taking the power and choice away from the child, and many children might feel unable or uncomfortable when it comes to saying no to the advocacy that is offered.
Another reason for opt-in being the preferred model of service delivery is that opt-out could create a forced demand for the service of advocates. Aberlour, a national organisation that has been supporting fostering families since 2004, says that insisting on advocacy will add more professionals to a cluttered landscape—something that would be detrimental and would have negative rather than positive effects.
I say again that I am grateful to the minister for her meetings and for helping me with this, and I ask members to support my amendments.
I will speak against four amendments in the group: amendments 113 to 115 and, in particular, amendment 29A, which I note that the minister is supporting. The amendments would add to the definition of independent advocacy for care-experienced people and would limit the number of organisations that could provide independent advocacy. They would rule out charities, including Barnardo’s, in many circumstances. Although I recognise that the intent behind the amendments is to ensure that advocacy services are adequately independent, I believe that we should listen carefully to the organisations that have raised concerns.
Members will have noted the briefing that we received from Children First, which says:
“We are concerned that these amendments would prevent high-quality advocacy services, already working in line with The Promise and the National Advocacy Framework, from continuing. In our view, this Bill should increase advocacy support options, not reduce them. However, amendments 114, 115 and 29A would remove advocacy support options for children and young people by restricting who can provide these services. Organisations that deliver both residential support and advocacy can do so with independence and integrity, and we are not aware of any evidence suggesting otherwise. These amendments could have immediate and long-term consequences, reducing the flexibility of local areas to fund services that suit their needs best.”
Barnardo’s has also raised concerns. It says:
“We are concerned that the effect of these amendments could have both immediate and long-term consequences leading to significant disruption, increased confusion and added complexity to the commissioning and provision of advocacy support for children and young people. We believe these amendments could reduce flexibility and choice available to commissioners of independent advocacy and children’s care services, and could directly lead to … disruption to the structure and delivery of the National Advocacy Service for the Children’s Hearing System which has benefited from the creation of a strong network of advocacy providers focused on the delivery of high-quality independent advocacy since 2020.”
We all want the bill to work in practice, especially now that we have reached stage 3. However, I am worried that, if the change is introduced now, we would be at risk of seriously disrupting the good work that is being done and of restricting the choice that would be available in setting up the new advocacy service. I know that I am in conflict with Nicola Sturgeon on that and I recognise the work that she has done in the area, but I would urge her not to move amendment 29A and to follow the advice of Children First and Barnardo’s, which have a tremendous record and a good reputation. We do not want to disrupt what is already in place. Therefore, we should reject amendments 29A and 113 to 115.
I call the minister to wind up.
The time that we have spent debating the issue, both today and at stage 2, demonstrates its importance. The provision of a right to lifelong advocacy services for children and people with care experience is entirely new and is a real signal of progression towards keeping the Promise. There has been a lot of discussion on the balance that is required around the question of independence. My focus for stage 3 has been to ensure that potential conflict of interest is avoided. However, I absolutely recognise the challenges that Mr Rennie has outlined. I made many of the same points in my comments at stage 2.
The amendments that I have lodged in this group would provide a regulation-making power for ministers to specify additional independence criteria for the purpose of section 4(1). The power would be subject to a consultation requirement and the affirmative procedure, which would ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and input from the care community and stakeholders if the power is used.
Some of the challenges that Mr Rennie presented could be considered and scrutinised again in a new session of Parliament. Today’s debate demonstrates that we, as a Parliament—
16:45
Building on the request that Willie Rennie put forward, and listening to the minister’s language, is the issue not one that those regulations could specifically look at, rather than something that may or may not be considered? How that would be triggered would be open to both parliamentary and other procedures. Does the minister envisage that, at the first sign of any challenges, there would be a way of adding to the list through those regulations, which would allow the matter to be resolved?
It is something that has to be addressed now. There have been conflicting opinions from a range of organisations on a whole range of different issues in the bill. I will be the first to admit that it has been hard to navigate that and to ensure that we are doing the right thing. However, I have summed up the evidence, the discussions and the considerations at stage 2 and now at stage 3, and I believe that my approach at this point, in making further safeguards for children and young people, is the appropriate way to respond.
We know that we are finding it difficult to deliver the Promise on time; the interim reports have shown that we are behind. However, independent advocacy is one of the areas where progress has been made, and I do not understand why we are restricting it further, potentially undermining bits of the Promise on which we are making a bit of progress. I urge the minister to reconsider her approach. We do not have an opportunity to revise the provisions; we are at the end of the bill process. To introduce the approach at such a late stage, and in such a fashion, is a retrograde step. I urge the minister to reconsider her support for amendment 29A.
I have considered the matter very carefully. I do not believe that the approach will undermine efforts that have already been made or delivery in relation to the Promise. In fact, I think that it will help to bolster the right support for children and young people by ensuring that there is absolutely no potential for or possibilities of conflicts of interest.
Mr Rennie referred to the delivery of the Promise. We have provisions in the bill, and we are about to debate amendments in relation to reviews. If some of the unintended consequences that Mr Rennie refers to were to be considered, we could use the powers that we will have through the regulations to address them.
On the point that Willie Rennie has raised, and on behalf of organisations that provide a lot of excellent service in this area, I ask whether the minister could provide some reassurance on the issue of immediate disruption. Whether through how we commence the provisions of the bill or the steps that are taken in the immediate aftermath, is it the Government’s intention to ensure that, during the transition period, there will be no scenario in which any individual young person has an advocacy service that is currently working well for them taken away? Are we considering a transition towards a model of the most effective kind of independent advocacy, and not a sudden switch from one system to another that would see some people’s advocacy disrupted?
Yes. That would absolutely be my intention. The amendments in relation to choice for young people also speak to that. Of course we would not want to see something ended abruptly where young people are being supported. I would expect that support to continue as we move to the new system on a transitional basis.
I have sympathy with the points that Willie Rennie has raised, and I have great respect for the work done by organisations such as Barnardo’s. It is important that we establish in the bill a clear principle that conflicts of interest are an issue. They have been raised with me as an issue several times over the years by care-experienced young people in residential care homes and in secure settings. That is what I am trying to address. However, I welcome the minister’s comment about consideration of transition in her last contribution. That is important, and I am the last person who would want to see immediate disruption.
Finally, I will underline the minister’s point, and perhaps ask her to underline it again, about choice, which exists thanks to one of her amendments. This is not about imposing something on young people. Young people will continue to have the choice of having an advocate if they wish one, but amendment 29A recognises that, to be genuinely independent, there cannot be conflicts of interest.
I recognise the concerns that have been raised, but I think that, with patience and sense, the practical challenges of implementation can be worked through without compromising the principle that is at stake.
That sums it up perfectly. I have been very clear that I have decided where to lend my support based on having the best interests of children and young people at the heart of the provisions. I have been very clear that the element of choice is extremely important and will remain.
Members’ amendments have allowed us to debate the issues fully. I ask Martin Whitfield not to move his amendments and to instead support my amendments, Jeremy Balfour’s amendments and Nicola Sturgeon’s amendment 29A.
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Gibson. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Robison.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Ruskell.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Fairlie.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 94, Against 1, Abstentions 15.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 92, Against 1, Abstentions 16.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendment 111 moved—[Martin Whitfield].
The question is, that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 111 disagreed to.
I remind members that, if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 112 to 115 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 23 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendments 116, 24 and 117 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.
Amendments 25 to 27 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Group 7 is entitled “Structure of Act”. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30 to 32, 34, 42, 43, 87, 89 and 90.
All amendments in this group are technical in nature and will not change the policy intent of any of the bill’s provisions. Amendments 28, 30, 31 and 34 will reorder the sections of the bill so that its free-standing sections, including a local interpretation section, are placed together in chapter 1 of part 1.
Amendment 32 will make it clear that section 7 is a local interpretation section for the purposes of chapter 1, in which it is placed. The definitions in that section will apply only in respect of the provisions in that chapter.
Amendment 89 will create an interpretation section that is applicable to the whole bill, which will make it clear that the definition of “child” applies to the whole bill.
17:00
Amendments 42 and 87 will ensure that all the regulation-making powers sit together under section 24, with amendment 43 being consequential to amendment 42.
Amendment 90 will ensure that, where a provision in the act refers to a day on which a section comes into force, ministers may specify the date.
All the amendments seek to maximise accessibility and enhance clarity and coherence across the bill as a whole.
I move amendment 28.
As no member wishes to comment, I call the minister to wind up.
I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 28.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
After section 4
Amendment 29 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
Amendment 29A moved—[Nicola Sturgeon].
The question is, that amendment 29A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Robison. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 103, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29A agreed to.
I call the minister to press or withdraw amendment 29, as amended.
I press amendment 29, as amended.
Amendment 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Guidance in relation to care experience
Group 8 is on guidance in relation to care experience. Amendment 118, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 119 to 133.
My amendments in this group relate to sections 5 and 6 and the duty on ministers to issue guidance to public authorities about care-experienced people and their lived realities, and the duty on public authorities to have “due regard to” such guidance.
The amendments will replace references to “guidance” with “regulations” throughout the sections. Let me be candid: I realise that this might seem a bit esoteric, but it goes to the heart of one of the biggest issues that I have heard time and again from care‑experienced people over the years—namely, a lack of trust among care‑experienced young people that public authorities will always do what they are supposed to do.
We can argue about whether that criticism is justified, but it is very real in the minds of many care-experienced people, past and present, across the country. There are concerns about variation and postcode lotteries of care, and there are concerns that what is meant to happen in theory does not always translate into practice. Those are perennial problems and concerns. They operate to undermine trust and confidence, and, on occasion, they have a real impact on the day-to-day experience of care-experienced people.
I will take a moment to address the concerns that have been raised about the amendments, which I am sure will be raised during the debate. The first is that regulations take longer to prepare, conclude and issue than guidance does. I recognise that, although I would say, from some experience in Government, that there is no hard and fast reason why regulations cannot be passed at pace. Also, with parliamentary engagement, what emerges from that process will be stronger and more likely to stand the test of time.
The other concern that I anticipate being expressed is that regulations are more difficult to change in future than guidance is. However, if the Parliament gets the regulations right in the first place and if they command confidence, they will not need to be regularly changed. The challenge is to get the regulations right so that they have the confidence of the care-experienced community.
Crucially, as regulations, they will be binding and not optional. They will have to be complied with consistently and in all parts of Scotland. That is important for building trust and confidence and for ensuring that we do not have the kinds of variations in care that we have seen all too often. However esoteric the proposal might seem, I think that it will help us with the overall delivery of the Promise and help to build confidence in that delivery as we go on.
In other areas where guidance is relied on, we have seen the postcode lottery that Nicola Sturgeon has spoken about. To go back to an earlier intervention from Jeremy Balfour, with regulation, the interpretation is far better understood and everyone follows it.
Martin Whitfield puts it perfectly. That sums up the reasons for my amendments. Regulations are binding in a way that guidance—even guidance with a due regard provision in legislation—is simply not. One of the important objectives in the delivery of the Promise is to ensure that it is delivered consistently right across Scotland. Only if that happens will the process have the confidence of the care-experienced community.
I move amendment 118.
I call Roz McCall to speak to amendment 121 and other amendments in the group.
My amendment 121 builds on an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and which was agreed to by the committee. Amendment 121 would allow for the care-experience guidance to promote best practice for public authorities in respecting the rights of those with care experience and taking a trauma-informed approach when delivering services. I consider that that would strengthen the position that was agreed to at stage 2.
The guidance will be key to shaping day-to-day practice, ensuring a shared and consistent understanding of care experience across services and settling on a national and consistent direction for the language that is used in and around the care system. It is therefore essential that the rights of those with care experience are respected; that the guidance allows for interactions to take into account the effects of any trauma; and that it seeks to avoid further trauma or the reoccurrence of past trauma.
I urge members to support amendment 121. We support all the other amendments in the group.
This is not getting personal, but I object to Nicola Sturgeon’s amendments in this group as well. She has already anticipated my objections, but I want to reiterate my concerns. Her amendments relate to defining care experience in regulations instead of guidance. I understand that the amendments have been lodged with the intention of strengthening the definition, making it more binding on public authorities and better influencing future policy. However, I am concerned that, in practice, the amendments could have the opposite effect.
Even with regulations, guidance would still need to be issued. Given the complexities of the legal definition of care experience, there would be a risk of splitting different aspects between regulation and guidance, which could leave a definition that is less clear, not more. It also appears that including the definition in regulations rather than guidance would not bind public authorities any more than sticking with guidance would. Therefore, it is not clear what real benefit the amendments would bring, and they must be weighed against the potential for delays to implementation.
I have great respect for Willie Rennie on these issues. Does he recognise that there was a considerable degree of disappointment in the care-experienced community that a definition of “care experienced” did not appear in the bill? For some care-experienced people, regulations are themselves a compromise, but they are better than guidance. I say from experience in Government that there is a difference between guidance, even with a “due regard” duty, and regulations in the way that public authorities perceive that they are required to abide by them.
I fully understand the perception in this area and the disappointment in the sector, but we have a responsibility in the Parliament to implement law that will be most effective and will help care-experienced people in the way that they would like. We need to understand that introducing such regulations could make the process more complicated and create division and greater complexity as a result, which is why I am cautious about doing it in that way.
It would be far better if there was a definition in the bill, but there is not, so we need to ensure that we put in place the most effective way to implement what the care-experienced community is desperately looking for.
Amendments 118 to 120 and 122 to 133 seek to update sections 5 and 6 to require Scottish ministers to lay regulations, instead of statutory guidance, in relation to care experience. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for setting out the rationale behind the amendments. I understand the strength of feeling on the idea that placing requirements in regulations will provide a greater degree of compliance and consistency in public authorities adhering to those requirements. I agree that there is a difference in perception between regulations and guidance.
I understand many of the concerns that Mr Rennie raised. However, in response to the point about confusion and complexity, I note that it will be up to the Government to ensure that the regulations are as clear and coherent as possible.
I will therefore support amendments 118 to 120 and 122 to 133, and I ask members to vote for them. I also support amendment 121, in the name of Roz McCall, which is the only other amendment in the group, and I encourage members to vote for it.
I call Nicola Sturgeon to wind up the debate and press or withdraw amendment 118.
I recognise Willie Rennie’s concerns, but they are not insurmountable, particularly those around consistency. The minister is absolutely right: it will be incumbent on the Government and the Parliament to ensure that inconsistencies do not occur. Through the introduction of regulations, the duties will be given a power and import that guidance does not have, which will go some way to allay the concerns of many in the care‑experienced community that guidance often results in a postcode lottery. That is what we are trying to get away from through the Promise.
I thank the minister for her support for my amendments and I ask members to support them. I press amendment 118.
Amendment 118 agreed to.
Amendments 119 and 120 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 121 moved—[Roz McCall]—and agreed to.
Amendments 122 to 126 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Guidance under section 5: further provision
17:15
Amendments 127 to 133 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 31 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
After section 6
Group 9 is on permanence. Amendment 134, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, is grouped with amendment 135.
Amendments in group 9 relate to permanence for children who are or have been looked after by a local authority.
I note at the outset that amendment 134 is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote. Instead, I am inclined to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 135. I thank the minister and Mr Whitfield for their engagement on the issue.
At its core, permanence is about a simple but fundamental principle: every child has the right to grow up in a safe, stable and loving home without unnecessary delay. Permanence cannot be considered as a solely technical or procedural matter; it must be regarded as central to a child’s wellbeing, development and sense of security and belonging.
When it is not possible for a child to stay with their birth family, permanence can be achieved through kinship care, foster care or adoption. Whichever route is taken, what matters most is that timely decisions are made so that children are not left in prolonged uncertainty.
Research compiled by the NSPCC, which helped me when drafting amendment 134, has consistently shown that children wait far too long for decisions to be made about their permanent home. On average, it can take more than two years for a permanence recommendation to be made. Many children then wait many months and, in some cases, years before they are living in a stable and permanent placement.
That level of delay would be unacceptable in any context, but it is particularly harmful for babies and very young children. The first few months and years of life are critical for attachment and development. During that time, children are especially dependent on consistent and secure care-giving relationships. Instability, uncertainty and repeated moves can have profound and long-lasting impacts.
We all know that delays affect outcomes. The longer a child remains in the system without permanence, the greater is the risk to their wellbeing, their relationships and their future stability. In the context of adoption, international evidence is clear that factors such as age at placement, early adversity and the number of moves all have a direct bearing on the likelihood of adoption breakdown at a later stage.
Despite a range of welcome policy initiatives, guidance and improvement programmes over many years, the issue of delay remains persistent, and it has remained persistent for a long time. That should give us all pause for thought. It suggests that the current approach might not be sufficient and that further, more focused consideration is required.
That is the purpose of my amendment 134. It would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound review of permanence in Scotland. It would ensure that ministers consider the substantial body of Scottish research, examine practice from across the world and assess whether different approaches, such as the use of statutory timescales, might help to reduce delays and improve outcomes. Importantly, the amendment would also ensure that the review was informed by those with lived experience, as well as by practitioners, local authorities and organisations working across adoption, fostering and kinship care.
I welcome the minister’s strong indication at stage 2 and during my discussions with her that a review of permanence is intended to take place early in the next parliamentary session. The purpose of my lodging and speaking to amendment 134 is to seek reassurance that the proposed review will be comprehensive in its scope, that it will be undertaken within a clear and timely framework and that it will lead to meaningful and measurable change for children. I would be grateful if the minister could set out how the Government intends to ensure that babies and very young children, who are often the most affected by delay, will be properly considered in that work and how progress will be monitored and reported to the Parliament.
I move amendment 134.
In this group, the chamber has a fine choice of amendments, which all flow from the very important work, and challenges, of ensuring permanence. I thank Fulton MacGregor for this report and for the work that we did at stage 2 to find a consensus on that important matter. His contribution so finely articulated the real need to look at permanence to ensure stability, love and the creation of a seated connection as early and as swiftly as possible for children and, in particular, babies who go into care.
The drift and delay that children, particularly young children and babies, face in reaching a permanent setting through the children’s hearings system is hugely important. For far too many children in Scotland, the time taken to reach a permanent setting is too long. That has been outlined extensively in work such as the research of the permanence and care excellence programme, which has already been commented on, and the beST? services trial. It can be particularly damaging for children in their early stages, as has been articulated. As is set out in Fulton MacGregor’s amendment, it is very important that any review references evidence from the rest of the UK, because any further work on permanence must account for that. Permanent decisions are made with significantly less delay in England and Wales than they are in Scotland, so we need to learn why that is and how we can improve the system. I welcome the minister’s engagement at stage 2 and beyond with regard to that very important matter.
I note that Fulton MacGregor intends not to press his amendment, which I would have supported, so we have a situation where, as I say, there is a relative choice. I hope that the Government can indicate its position on the matter. My amendment sets out that that most important review should be undertaken no later than two years after the section comes into force.
I thank Fulton MacGregor and Martin Whitfield for their amendments and for their continued focus on improving permanence outcomes for children.
Although I recognise and empathise with the purpose behind Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 134, I do not consider that legislating for it is the right approach at this time. The amendment would place a very detailed and prescriptive statutory duty on ministers and would create a statutory definition of permanence, but there has not been an opportunity for those to be designed and developed in collaboration with partners, stakeholders and, importantly, children and families. Furthermore, the proposed definition does not align with current policy and practice on permanence. That, in itself, would create challenges in terms of implementation. However, as I said, I understand and I am sympathetic to the concerns that Fulton MacGregor has raised. I hope that what I am about to set out will go some way towards reassuring him that permanence is a Government priority and is a priority within the work that is being delivered on the Promise.
Regarding amendment 135, in the name of Martin Whitfield, I recognise the Parliament’s strong interest in improving understanding of how delays in decision making in relation to permanence affect children, particularly younger children and infants. The amendment would provide a more focused way to support that aim by requiring that a review of the impact of delay be carried out within two years of the section coming into force. Ministers would then be required to publish the findings of that review, strengthening transparency in an area where members and stakeholders have highlighted the need for much clearer evidence.
As I set out at stage 2—I also say this to reassure Mr MacGregor—in the next session of Parliament, it would be this Government’s intention to consult urgently and gather evidence early on, in order to build a whole-system picture of where delay arises and why. Amendment 135 would align directly with that work and would allow us to understand, in particular, the impact that delays on decisions in relation to permanence have on children. The amendment would ensure that future approaches to tackling drift and delay were shaped by the right evidence; informed by learning from other nations, including the rest of the UK; and developed collaboratively with partners. The statutory review that would be introduced by amendment 205 would give the Parliament a clear update on the implementation of the act within two years of royal assent, and the findings from the review under amendment 135 would help to inform that reporting, ensuring that the Parliament received both the focused analysis on the impact of delay and the broader picture emerging from consultation. I am satisfied that the work that is required by amendment 135 can be factored directly into that wider programme, complementing the co-design approach that stakeholders expect us to take.
Mr MacGregor will be aware that there is a dedicated workstream for infants and babies in the children’s hearings system working group, so not only do we have the consultation and the work that I have set out today, but there are other on-going workstreams to ensure and improve support for our youngest children.
For those reasons, I will oppose amendment 134 and support amendment 135, and I encourage members to do likewise.
I call Fulton MacGregor to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 134.
I accept the views that the minister just set out, and I strongly welcome her commitment to, and focus of energy on, this area. There is certainly something to take forward in this area for whoever is returned in the next session of Parliament, for which I thank the minister. On that basis, I seek the Parliament’s permission to withdraw my amendment 134, and I ask members to support amendment 135, in the name of Martin Whitfield.
Amendment 134, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 135 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Interpretation
Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Children’s residential care services: profit limitation
Group 10 is entitled “Children’s residential care services: profit limitation”. Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 36, 136, 137, 37, 138, 139, 38, 140, 39, 40, 2, 141, 3, 142, 41 and 143.
Amendment 35 will improve the effectiveness of the financial transparency measures in section 8. It will ensure that the Scottish Government is able to obtain a fuller picture of residential service providers’ finances, including from parent—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Oh, I will take an intervention.
My apologies—I pressed a button by accident.
I was wondering a little bit—I thought, “What have I said?”
Amendment 35 will ensure that the Scottish Government is able to obtain a fuller picture of residential service providers’ finances, including from parent or subsidiary undertakings, when that is relevant to the assessment of a service provider’s profit levels, for the purposes of considering whether to impose a profit limitation requirement in accordance with the criteria that are set out in the bill.
I apologise—I must correct myself. I referred to amendment 35, but I was speaking to amendment 36. I will come to amendment 35 later.
Amendments 37 to 41 are consequential on amendment 36. Amendment 35 makes a technical adjustment to the placement of the new sections of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 that will be inserted by section 8 of the bill. I hope that the Parliament will join me in supporting my amendments.
I thank Mr Rennie for his amendments 136, 137, 139 and 142, which would exempt charities from the profit limitation requirements but not from the financial transparency provisions. Mr Rennie’s amendment 2 takes an alternative approach to that. Having discussed the matter with him, I believe that his amendments 136, 137, 139 and 142 would more effectively meet his aims. Among other things, they would cover charities that are registered in other parts of the UK rather than only Scottish charities. I believe that those amendments strike an appropriate balance for charities and the wider children’s residential care sector and I therefore support amendments 136, 137, 139 and 142 in the name of Willie Rennie. I ask him not to move his amendment 2.
I thank Mr Rennie for raising the point about ensuring that the wellbeing of looked-after children is the priority in decision making. His amendment 3 covers the same ground as amendment 141, but I believe that the latter is stronger in promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people. Therefore, I will support amendment 141, and I ask him not to move amendment 3.
Section 8 was amended by a stage 2 amendment that Martin Whitfield lodged to ensure that other types of service providers could be included in financial transparency and profit limitation measures. I thank him for his amendments 138, 140 and 143, which would update the wording of those provisions, and I support those amendments.
In summary, I encourage members to support all amendments in the group, other than amendments 2 and 3, where Mr Rennie’s alternative amendments are preferred. I again thank my colleagues for their willingness to work together on these issues.
I move amendment 35.
17:30
Members will have noticed that I have two sets of amendments in the group. Amendments 2 and 3 were drafted at the suggestion of Aberlour, with the intention, first, of exempting charities from profit limitation requirements if they can demonstrate that any surplus is reinvested in the delivery of children’s services, and, secondly, of creating a statutory duty that decisions on profit limitation must be made with the wellbeing of children and young people as the primary consideration.
I am grateful to the Government for working with me to bring forward alternatives to those amendments that would achieve those aims more effectively. Amendments 136 and 137 would exempt charities from the profit limitation requirement provisions. That exemption is appropriate and proportionate, because charities are already legally bound and required to ensure that any surpluses that they generate are used for charitable purposes. As is already defined in section 9, the provisions would include service providers in Scotland that are registered as charities in other parts of the UK.
Amendments 139 and 142 are consequential and would ensure that the rest of the provisions continued to operate as they should, given that the charities will still be subject to information requirements.
I am grateful to the minister for assisting in relation to amendment 141.
I thank the minister for her confirmation of support and I ask other members to support those amendments, which would ensure that charities were not subject to unnecessary burdens, while the bill’s provisions on information gathering were enabled to operate as intended. I confirm that I will not move amendments 2 and 3, which sought to achieve the same effect as the other amendments.
Amendments 138, 140 and 143 would provide scope for the Scottish ministers to add other persons to the list of entries of those who are subject to a profit limitation requirement. I thank the minister and Government officials for their co-operation and assistance in developing those amendments, which, as the minister said, build on stage 2 amendments.
Given the dynamic and evolving nature of the care sector, it is important that the bill provides flexibility to ensure the effectiveness of the profit limitation requirements that are set out in section 8. Profiting on the backs of children in care has no place in Scotland. In order to fulfil the Promise, we must ensure that we can address new challenges that will be thrown up for the Parliament and the Government to deal with.
Although we totally accept that profit should play no part in residential care, we have some concerns about the group of amendments, in that we need to make sure that there is no reduction of provision in Scotland. There is a real concern that looking into parent organisations could have unintended consequences in the sector and lead to a reduction in that provision. As a result, we do not support amendments 36, 37, 140 and 41.
I will respond briefly to Roz McCall’s points, because we have actively considered that challenge. The Government has taken a gradual and incremental approach, to try to ensure that that does not happen. I assure members that that has been a key consideration.
The evidence that we took at committee demonstrated some of the concerns about the Welsh model. Although the Scottish Government has not directly taken that forward, the approach may present a loss of capacity if we are not careful. That is the last thing that any of us wants.
What safeguards will ministers have in place? If the bill causes organisations to move away from Scotland, who will pick up the need for that additional capacity?
I think that Mr Briggs has answered that question himself. We have seen the challenges that are faced by the Welsh model, so the Scottish Government has taken a different approach to try to ensure that we do not see a mass exit from the market.
The situation will be monitored to ensure that there is balance and that we do not see a mass reduction in providers, so that we can ensure that children and young people are supported as they should be.
I will make no further comments.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendment 36 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
I had been hoping that all members were back in the chamber for the vote. The vote that has just taken place should have been one minute long, but it was closed after 30 seconds, and I can see that a number of members want to make a point of order. We will rerun the vote, but it will be a 30-second vote.
To be clear, the question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 86, Against 23, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments 136 and 137 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 37 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 23, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendment 138 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Amendment 139 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 38 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 140 moved—[Martin Whitfield].
The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Nicoll. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 84, Against 23, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 140 agreed to.
Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Amendment 141 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Amendment 142 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 41 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 85, Against 24, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
17:45
Amendment 143 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Section 10F—Register of foster carers: procedure for regulations
Amendment 42 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Section 10G—Register of foster carers: interpretation
Amendment 43 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 144 not moved.
Section 10H—Allowances and other payments
Group 11 is on allowances and other payments. Amendment 145, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 146 to 152 and 210.
This is the second exciting grouping in which members have to listen to my dulcet tones, as I have lodged all the amendments in this group.
Amendments 145 to 152 and 210 seek to address concerns that the fostering community has in relation to fees and other payments. Amendment 145 would require the minister to make regulations about payments for foster carers. Amendments 146 and 147 seek to include payments to independent fostering agencies—IFAs—in the regulations, and amendment 150 provides a definition of “fostering service”, which would include such organisations.
Amendment 148 would ensure that local authorities’ reporting duties in relation to rates and payments paid by them to foster carers are broken down by type of payment, because that would ensure that there is full transparency. Amendment 149 would require regulations on payments and fees to make provision for Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland’s duty to monitor and report on payments made by local authorities and IFAs.
Amendment 152 would require the Scottish ministers to ensure, either by regulations or otherwise, that Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland includes gathering information on fees and other payments as part of its inspections. Amendment 151 would include payments made to kinship carers in uprating requirements.
I lodged these amendments because fostering, while hugely challenging, is incredibly valuable and is too frequently the forgotten profession that underpins care for care-experienced young people. The bill has provided an opportunity, for the first time in a long time, to acknowledge the contribution that foster carers make, and we must ensure that, whatever the outcome of these amendments, there is further work following the bill to appropriately recognise and support foster carers and to appropriately protect them in certain situations.
I look forward to hearing, and I will welcome, any commitments that the minister can make before I consider whether to move and press these amendments, but, in order to start the ball rolling, I will move the lead amendment in my name.
I move amendment 145.
I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 148, which helpfully separates allowances, fees and other payments. However, I cannot support the other amendments in the group.
I start by saying that I echo Mr Whitfield’s comments: I absolutely acknowledge the immense contribution that foster carers make, and have made, in supporting our children and young people. However, amendment 145 is unnecessary. Ministers have already made regulations—the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009—which make provision in relation to payments to carers, and they can utilise that power should policy development, informed by consultation, support a national fee framework.
Amendments 146, 147 and 150 would enable ministers to make regulations about payments made by a fostering service to foster carers and would place a publication requirement on such services. I feel that that would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Fostering services carry out functions towards looked-after children on behalf of local authorities; they are contracted under arrangements with local authorities for that purpose.
Where ministers specify rates under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in respect of payments made by local authorities to carers, those rates will apply to all fostering services. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for ministers to interfere with the arrangements that local authorities make for fostering services. The written agreements, which are provided for under the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, are the appropriate place for fee rates for fostering services to be dealt with.
Amendment 151 would extend the new uprating mechanism in the 2007 act beyond allowances to include foster carer fees. Ministers already hold broadened powers under the bill to regulate payments to foster carers, should policy work indicate that that is the right direction. Additionally, no amendment has been lodged to make a corresponding change to the uprating provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which relates to payments that are paid to kinship carers. If amendment 151 were to be passed, it could create an inequity in treatment of the financial support that is provided to foster carers and the support that is provided to kinship carers.
That said, I know that it is important that we continue to consider how financial support for carers evolves over time. I am committed to engaging with stakeholders and those with lived experience to monitor implementation to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and centred on children’s needs.
As I indicated, ministers already have the necessary powers to bring forward further provision on payments if that is shown to be required, and we will keep that under active review as part of wider reform. We also need to look at the bill as a whole, and remember that, under the provisions, all independent agencies would become charities, which will be subject to scrutiny by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, including financial behaviours and information.
Finally, amendments 149, 152 and 210 would significantly extend the Care Inspectorate’s remit and statutory role by asking it to monitor fee and allowance levels. It is not clear why that would be appropriate for the Care Inspectorate to undertake, nor what purpose that would serve. None of those amendments have been subject to the consultation or scoping that would be needed in order to assess workload, capacity or cost.
Crucially, for independent fostering agencies, which will be required to be charities under the bill, financial oversight is already the statutory responsibility of OSCR. Placing parallel duties on the Care Inspectorate would duplicate responsibilities and risk confusing accountability.
For those reasons, I would encourage Mr Whitfield not to press amendment 145 or to move amendments 167, 147, 149 to 152, and 210. If he does, I invite members not to support them. I encourage members to vote for amendment 148.
I call Martin Whitfield to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 145.
It was my misunderstanding, but there is absolutely no intention for individual fostering families to be required to register as charities in order to be covered by the bill. I am sure that that is correct: charitable status relates to the IFAs.
I thank the minister for her discussions at stage 2 and before stage 3, and I believe that she recognises the importance of fostering. Whoever is in the Scottish Government and has responsibility for keeping the Promise by 2030, more work will need to be done to support our fostering communities in the widest sense of the word. I welcome all the commitments that the minister has made on that.
Although Mr Whitfield might be getting on to it, I want to point to the on-going work that is being done in a non-legislative space on the future of foster care.
I welcome the confirmation. I know that the fostering community is looking at that work as an opportunity to engage so that their voice is heard on a plethora of matters. It is about supporting an essential element of Scotland’s ability to keep the Promise.
I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek the chamber’s permission to withdraw amendment 145.
Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 146 and 147 not moved.
Amendment 148 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Amendments 149 and 150 not moved.
Section 10I—Uprating of allowances
Amendment 151 not moved.
After section 10I
Amendment 152 not moved.
At this point, I give members the glad tidings that we will have a comfort break of 20 minutes. Therefore, we will see you back here at 18:15 after the suspension.
17:55
Meeting suspended.
18:19
On resuming—
Group 12 is on guidance on use of restraint and seclusion in relevant care services. Amendment 44 is the only amendment in the group.
I just need to put my card in.
It has been a long week, minister.
Thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 44 will require the Scottish ministers to consult on and issue statutory guidance on restraint and seclusion and to keep that guidance under review. Managers of children’s residential care home services, of secure accommodation services and of school care accommodation services that are provided in the same facility as a secure accommodation service will all be required to “have regard” to the guidance. Tomorrow, the Parliament will consider stage 3 amendments to Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. My amendment is separate from the provisions in that bill but takes it into account, particularly in ensuring that the guidance for schools and care services will cover the same issues.
It will be important for members in the next Parliament to ensure that guidance for education and care settings and for mental health settings is as closely aligned and consistent as possible, while taking account of the different considerations that might be relevant in different settings. My amendment 44—
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
I am very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention just before launching into her explanation, but I think that it is right that we note the Government’s welcome movement on this issue, particularly when it comes to this bill and Daniel Johnson’s bill. I thank all the stakeholders, some of whom are in the gallery, for their contribution in moving us to the point that we are at today.
I am grateful for Martin Whitfield’s intervention, and I absolutely agree with him about those who have been driving the bill forward. The issue came up during the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, and also at stage 2 of this bill. I am glad that we could come to a position that I hope is supported by members from across the chamber.
My amendment 44 is a start to further work on this important issue. Taken together, the two bills will benefit children and those working with them by creating a statutory basis for guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion. They will bring Scotland closer to achieving the ambition that is set out in the Promise of being
“a nation that does not restrain its children unless in exceptional circumstances”.
I move amendment 44.
Thank you, minister. No other members have sought to speak. Is there anything that you wish to add by way of winding up?
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
Group 13 is on reports on deaths of care-experienced persons. Amendment 153, in the name of Willie Rennie, is the only amendment in the group.
I have lodged amendment 153 in partnership with Duncan Dunlop, who gave incredibly forceful and informed evidence to the committee throughout proceedings.
Amendment 153 will place new duties on Scottish ministers to lay before the Parliament an annual report on the deaths of looked-after children and those up to the age of 26 who are in receipt of a continuing care service or an aftercare service. As a result of amendment 153, there will be a new, focused and proportionate reporting duty, which will strengthen existing statutory notification processes and improve transparency and learning so that we can reduce the number of preventable deaths in Scotland and better inform policy design and service delivery for our care-experienced community.
Duncan Dunlop wanted a much more expansive provision for those of all ages, but this is a start, and it is a start that he has welcomed. I ask members to support amendment 153 in my name.
I move amendment 153.
I welcome Willie Rennie’s amendment 153 and his willingness to work with me after stage 2 to find a suitable way to address this very important issue in the bill. There is clearly more to do to reduce the number of premature deaths among care-experienced people of all ages, and I hope that our work to keep the Promise will help to make that happen.
Although statutory notification processes are in place, improving transparency of the overall picture will help us to know whether what we are doing is making a difference, and it will also signal what more we might need to do to reduce the risk of premature death. That is what amendment 153 aims to do in a sensitive way that respects the right to privacy of the family who have experienced the death of a care-experienced child or young person.
I encourage members to support amendment 153.
I call Willie Rennie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 153.
I have nothing else to say. I press amendment 153.
Amendment 153 agreed to.
Group 14 is on support for adoption. Amendment 154, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, is grouped with amendments 155 to 159.
I am pleased to open this group and to speak to amendment 154. Peer support is one of the issues that is most consistently raised with me and others by adoptive parents and prospective adopters. Families tell us that connecting with someone who has lived experience of the adoption journey provides reassurance, practical insight and a sense of community at key moments.
Across Scotland, peer support is typically delivered by specialist third sector organisations. Given that provision and practice differ between areas, the amendment will place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to promote awareness and uptake of peer support services where they exist. Promotion of awareness and update will be targeted to those who are provided with adoption services under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007.
This is a refined amendment, and it continues to reflect my original aim at stage 2 of ensuring that adoptive families can access meaningful, structured peer support throughout their journey. I place on record my thanks to the minister and her team for working with me on the amendment.
Like my previous amendment in group 9, my other amendments in this group are intended to be probing amendments. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments, which focus on strengthening adoption support in Scotland and preventing adoption breakdown. I also raised these issues at stage 2, and I am keen to hear from the minister about what commitments the Scottish Government can make in dealing with what I am seeking to achieve through the amendments.
Again, I thank the minister and the Scottish Government for their constructive engagement, as well as the cross-party group on social work, whose work with practitioners, adopters and care-experienced people has shaped the proposals. Their voices are at the heart of the amendments.
Taken together, the amendments aim to ensure that adoption support is recognised as a sustained and essential part of the system.
Amendment 155 seeks to strengthen support by ensuring access to specialist post-adoption social work. Too often, families describe a cliff edge, where support falls away once an adoption order is granted, despite increasingly complex needs.
Amendment 156 highlights the importance of sustainable funding to prevent adoption breakdown, which is both traumatic and costly. Early support is more effective than crisis response.
Amendment 157 would ensure that adopted children’s care-experienced status is properly recognised, particularly in accessing mental health services, including child and adolescent mental health services, in line with the Promise. Through the work of the cross-party group, we found that accessing CAMHS for adopted children is a particular difficulty and very different from the experience of other care-experienced children. I know that CAMHS and the health service officers do not fall under the minister’s portfolio, but I appreciate her acknowledgement of the work in that area.
Amendment 158 would introduce a definition of “adoption breakdown” and improve data collection, enabling better understanding, prevention and learning.
Amendment 159 calls for a report on funding for therapeutic support, including the potential for a national fund to improve consistency and access across Scotland.
The amendments are grounded in lived experience and professional expertise, with a clear message: adoption support must be sustained, specialist and preventative.
Although I said that most of the amendments would be probing amendments, I consider amendment 154 to be a positive and practical step, and I encourage members to support it.
I move amendment 154.
I thank Fulton MacGregor for lodging these amendments. I will be interested to hear what the Scottish Government has to say about them, particularly on amendment 158, which concerns the collection of data on adoption breakdown.
As I have said previously in the chamber, my wife and I sought to adopt a number of years ago, but, sadly, the adoption broke down for different reasons. Having spoken to many other individuals and parents who have been in a similar situation, I know that there are multiple reasons why that can happen. However, if we dig down deep enough, we see that there are two or three core reasons why adoptions do not work out, whether that is to do with placement or lack of support. It would be really helpful—not only for the Scottish Government but for the agencies that are involved and for parents—to learn the lessons and to understand whether there are national trends or whether issues arise more in some areas than in others.
I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on amendment 158, but I encourage Mr MacGregor to move it, even if the Government is not in favour of it.
I place on record my thanks to Fulton MacGregor for his continued focus on this very important policy area and for bringing it to our attention through his amendments to the bill.
I share Fulton MacGregor’s desire to strengthen adoption support. Peer support is highly valued by adoptive families, and amendment 154 provides a proportionate way of strengthening expectations around promotion. I invite members to support it.
Amendments 155 to 159 address matters relating to specialist post‑adoption social work support, sustainable funding arrangements, recognition of adopted people’s experiences, improving national consistency in understanding and responding to adoption breakdown, and access to therapeutic support.
18:30
As I stated at stage 2, although those matters are extremely important, placing new statutory duties in the bill at this point would risk creating expectations that are not yet fully scoped or deliverable across Scotland. However, I want to clearly restate two commitments that I have made to Fulton MacGregor. First, I will make clear to an incoming Government and minister that they should take forward work early in the next parliamentary session to develop a shared definition of “adoption breakdown” and to consider improvements to the collection and sharing of data. There will be a need to work with local authorities, the Care Inspectorate, adoptive families and the third sector in taking that forward, and there will be a clear benefit from doing so.
Secondly, I will make clear to the incoming Government and minister the need to review, early in the next session, the adoption support sections of the 2011 adoption and looked-after children guidance, and to consider issuing new statutory guidance on adoption support services under existing powers in the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007.
Although I would like to try to bind my successors to such a commitment, I of course cannot, but I will make clear my strong view that this work should be prioritised—and I have absolutely no doubt that Mr MacGregor and others will press a new minister on that.
Amendment 157 seeks to ensure that adopted people are recognised as care experienced when they are accessing services. I am aware that this issue is particularly important to Mr MacGregor, and I wish to reassure him that the guidance and regulations to be published will include a broad and inclusive universal definition of “care experience” that explicitly encompasses adopted children and young people. The guidance will also set out best practice for public authorities on how to engage with and support people with care experience, including by facilitating access to public services. It will be co‑produced and supported by a programme of engagement, which will include the adoption community.
I hope that those commitments reassure Mr MacGregor that the needs and interests of people who have been adopted, and of adoptive families, will be addressed. I encourage him not to move amendments 155 to 159, while I encourage members to support amendment 154.
I welcome the minister’s remarks. I am convinced by her stance that most of my amendments in this group do not need to come under statutory requirements. I also note her strong commitment regarding a future Government, and I really appreciate that.
Despite Jeremy Balfour’s best attempts to tempt me to move amendment 158, I will not do that, but I am pressing amendment 154.
Amendment 154 agreed to.
Amendments 155 to 157 not moved.
I call amendment 158, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, already debated with amendment 154.
Not moved.
Amendment 158 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].
The question is, that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 158 disagreed to.
Amendment 159 not moved.
Section 11—Single member children’s hearings and pre-hearing panels
Group 15 is on children’s hearings: composition, functions and location of members. Amendment 160, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 161, 45, 46, 162, 47, 163, 164, 49 to 51, 165, 166, 52, 167 and 168. If amendment 161 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 45 due to pre-emption. I call Martin Whitfield to move amendment 160 and to speak to other amendments in the group.
I rise with a level of enthusiasm and welcome the opportunity to speak to these amendments. The message from children and young people is very clear. They think that it is enormously beneficial to be able to see the same faces, hear the same voices and, probably most importantly, not to have to tell their stories at each and every hearing. I am pleased that the minister and other colleagues share my desire to enhance the continuity of panel members in children’s hearings. I note that the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland is similarly supportive of that approach, which I welcome. I thank the minister for her on-going consideration of these matters and welcome the introduction of new provisions that will ensure that on this issue, which will be a key part of the hearings process, decisions on continuity are taken in the child’s best interests.
My amendments 160 to 164 have, alongside the Government’s amendments, given the group an interesting dynamic—I apologise to members for that. There are certain areas in which I would like to cautiously push the Government to go further. In doing so, I will explore the other amendments in my name and in others’ names in this group.
To understand how the issue has arisen, we have to look at the test that is placed on the national convener, which is to
“have regard to the desirability”
of continuity. Earlier, we discussed the meaning of words and the challenges that we have had with their interpretation, not only in this bill but in others. There remains a challenge around how effective that approach will be. I absolutely understand that the Government, the national convener and those who deal with this issue have the desire to respond to what children and young people tell us—that they want to see the same faces and hear the same voices. The question is the extent to which having regard to the desirability of that fulfils that aim.
My amendment 167 would address that by introducing a test of reasonable practicability. We have a choice —I reassure the minister that a choice will be made thanks to the amendments that I have proffered—because I am cognisant of the concerns that the minister raised at committee that the test of reasonable practicability can prove problematic. Shall we try “logistical matters”? When there are logistical challenges, there could be changes, but otherwise it should stay the same.
There is an alternative approach. Amendment 168 would tie the chairing members to hearings in a certain local authority area. I welcomed Roz McCall’s amendments at stage 2, which addressed the geographic nature of the challenge that has arisen—that the people who are required to make decisions about young people, to be honest, have no idea what their day‑to‑day life is like because they come from one environment and make decisions about young people who come from another. A way around that would be to tie the chairing members to specific local authorities. It would resolve the geographic problem, which has been the case due to questions of legislative competence, and because amendment 168 would attach the process to a specific building and hearing area, by the very nature of the young people who go through that system, the vast majority would come before the same faces and voices who understand the environment in which they live.
Amendment 165 relates to concerns that I raised at stage 2 about the role of the chair. It would require the Scottish ministers to produce regulations on the criteria that the national convener must consider when deciding whether to appoint someone as chair. I am satisfied that utilising regulations, rather than putting the requirements in the bill, is a more appropriate way to address the valid concerns that were raised about the stage 2 amendment.
The criteria draw directly from the “Hearings for Children” report. Ensuring that chairing members meet those criteria should be a vital component of introducing remuneration for chairs. If we are to have paid chairs, they must possess the necessary competence to fulfil the expanded role that is envisaged in the “Hearings for Children” report.
Amendment 166 would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
I am interested in hearing the position of colleagues and of the Government on Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 45, which seeks to introduce similar regulations but perhaps in a less prescriptive way.
I have lodged a range of amendments in this group, so there are options that are open to members. I go back to the point that I started with: the clear message from children and young people is that they benefit when they see the same faces, hear the same voices and do not have to keep telling their story at each and every hearing.
I move amendment 160.
I thank Martin Whitfield for lodging his amendments and for going through the various amendments in the group. We have a choice tonight, and it is important that we agree to at least one of the amendments so that such provision, ultimately, appears in the act.
I will speak to my amendment 45 in a moment, but I am interested in Roz McCall’s amendment 47. I am concerned that, in some circumstances, it simply might not be possible to find somebody who lives in the local authority area. I am sure that she will address this point in her comments, but does she feel that the amendment is too restrictive? I absolutely understand and agree with her intention, but I am slightly concerned that the amendment would tie our hands too much.
Amendment 45 seeks to ensure that the role of the chair in children’s hearings panels is clearly defined and set out in secondary legislation to ensure consistency across local authorities and to ensure that the role achieves our aims and objectives. I think that we can all agree that the role of the chair in children’s hearings will be vital in the future, as it is at the moment.
For 20-plus years, I had the privilege of being a member of the tribunal that looked first at disability living allowance and then at personal independence payments. I know from experience that the role of the chair in bringing together the tribunal—or, in this case, the hearing—is important. He or she has far greater influence than other members, whether that is deliberate or just based on having that role.
When the bill was introduced, it proposed remuneration for the roles of chairs and panel members. Up until now, those roles have been voluntary and unpaid. In meetings that I held in advance of the stage 2 proceedings, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration was clear that remuneration for chairs is not about enhancing or expanding the role but about improving the quality of the candidates who are selected to the position. By paying chairs, we will, I hope, be able to recruit people with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications for the important and demanding position.
Given the importance of the role and the influence that chairs will have, following their remuneration, amendment 45 sets out that the chair’s roles and responsibilities should be clearly worked out and documented through consultation and, subsequently, through the laying of regulations.
That would ensure that current best practice from across the country can be shared, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery, and that future appointed chairs will be fully aware of the position that they are taking on, so that they can work out what their role is. Amendment 45 would provide consistency by making sure that the 32 local authorities do not have different systems.
18:45
Although this point does not, strictly speaking, sit with this group of amendments, does Jeremy Balfour share the concerns that have been expressed about the appealable nature of some of the decisions that have been made by single chairs, and does he feel that it is worth putting those concerns on the record? I accept that that is not what amendment 45 is about, but there are provisions that could be considered in the guidance that he is talking about to ensure that, when hearings are redesigned, they would have a proper structure whereby decisions that are made erroneously—however well meant they might be—can be put right.
I agree with Martin Whitfield—I think that I raised my concern about giving too much power and authority to the chairs at stage 2. Chairs will often get it right, but we are all human and we all make mistakes.
Consulting on the functions of the role of the chair will also ensure that existing chairs can feed into the process and not be excluded from moving on to the paid role, which would cause us to lose their valuable experience, talent and service. Any regulations that are laid would be subject to the affirmative procedure in order to allow for proper scrutiny by the Parliament before coming into force.
Amendment 45 is a way forward that would protect the chair and make sure that tribunals and hearings across the country are carried out in a similar way. I ask members to consider and vote for the amendment.
Amendment 46, in my name, is a minor technical amendment that amends the proposed new section 6B, and I encourage members to support it.
I will not move amendment 49 and the consequential amendments 50 and 51. Those amendments sought to provide scope for a single chairing member to discharge a referral in certain circumstances. Following additional engagement and feedback on those provisions from operational partners in the SCRA, I have concluded that the focus of decision making by a single-member panel should be on whether grounds are established rather than assessing evidence as to whether compulsory measures may or may not be required.
Not moving those amendments will not affect the wider scheme; instead, it will ensure that the scheme remains as effective as possible. In all cases, following the establishment of grounds by a single-member panel or a full three-member panel, it will be for a three-member panel to consider whether a compulsory supervision order is required.
I turn to amendment 45. As I advised Mr Balfour at stage 2 when he lodged a similar amendment, section 177 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 already gives the Scottish ministers powers to make rules for children’s hearings, including the functions of the chairing member. Rather than in the bill, procedural rules would be the more appropriate place for that level of detail while still providing proportionate parliamentary oversight. I hope that Mr Balfour will agree and will not move amendment 45. If he does, I urge members to vote against it.
Amendment 47, in the name of Roz McCall, and amendment 168, in the name of Martin Whitfield, would potentially limit the ability of the national convener to hold hearings in every area of Scotland. We have previously legislated to create a national framework to support children’s hearings and panel members, an approach that operates around panel members’ local living and working connections. Those arrangements work well and every effort is made to ensure that panel members are from the same area as the child at the centre of the hearing. If there are issues with availability, neighbouring local authorities will be the first port of call. It is also not uncommon for conflicts of interest to emerge, thereby creating a need for an urgent replacement from a neighbouring authority.
To illustrate the issues that could be caused by amendment 47, a panel member could live within a mile of a hearing centre but be ruled out because they reside in a neighbouring local authority. Conversely, a panel member could live in the same local authority as the hearing centre but be over 100 miles away—in particular, that could be the case in large rural areas.
For those reasons, amendments 47 and 168 are not desirable. They would limit the flexibility that is needed for panels to operate, which is managed by the national convener as a key part of his independent role. I hope that Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield will be persuaded not to move their respective amendments. If they do, I urge members to vote against them.
It is also for the national convener to recruit and train panel members, including chairing members. I am satisfied that plans are in hand for a robust recruitment programme that is based on the qualities, competences and skills that the national convener deems appropriate for the role of remunerated chair. The detail of that has been shared with members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Once finalised, that will form the basis of open recruitment to those roles. I hope that Martin Whitfield will agree that his amendments 165 and 166 are unnecessary and will not move them.
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind Roz McCall’s amendment 52 and Martin Whitfield’s amendment 167. We have shared ambitions and are in broad agreement on the issue, recognising that children and young people have repeatedly told us that enhanced continuity would be a significant improvement to the children’s hearings system. The key issue is whether the test that is being introduced is the right one. I remain of the view that the practicalities of delivering continuity must be balanced with the best interests of the child. Ms McCall’s amendment would significantly complicate the test for national convener.
I am right to say that that is one of the things that will be monitored by the data that is captured down the line. If it becomes apparent that continuity is not matching the expectations of our young people, it will be noted.
I thank Mr Whitfield for that point, which reaffirms many of the things that have been discussed today. We are four years away from when the Promise is to be delivered, and we will have to ensure that the policy and non-legislative changes that we are making are having the intended effect.
Similarly, Martin Whitfield’s amendment 167 would create unworkable tension with his amendments 160 to 164, which I support. Those amendments set appropriate parameters while preserving the necessary limited flexibility. They ensure that the national convener applies the necessary tests in accordance with his role, but they can take into consideration recommendations from the chairing member. I believe that they deliver an appropriate balance, with decision-making power in the right place, and I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for bringing them forward.
I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 52 and Martin Whitfield not to move amendment 167. I ask all members to support Martin Whitfield’s amendments 160 to 164.
I call Roz McCall to speak to amendment 47 and the other amendments in the group.
My amendment 47 seeks to strengthen the role of local knowledge in children’s hearings. At present, the requirement for a panel member to come from the child’s residential locality is qualified by the words “so far as practicable”, which is the point that has been made by basically everybody so far. Local knowledge should not be optional; it is so important when we are looking at single-member panels. As I mentioned at stage 2, the geography and the locality are of utmost importance. After I mentioned that at stage 2, I spoke to a panel member who lived in Glasgow but had had to go to Inverness. Although I understand that that is acceptable when the process involves a three-member panel—because it would mean that only one person on the panel lived outwith the locality—in the case of single-member panels, we do not have that option. It is essential that local knowledge is part of the process. Children’s hearings were designed to reflect the communities that they serve. A panel member from the child’s area is far more likely to understand the local service availability, the environment that the child is growing up in and the practical realities of any decisions made. Amendment 47 would ensure that decisions are better informed and more grounded in the locality. That is why it is essential that we ensure that panel members are from the local area.
My amendment 52 focuses on continuity for children in the hearings system. As we have heard, attending a hearing can be an anxious and unsettling experience for many children. Children have told us time and again that they want continuity. Too often, they are faced with different panel members, who require them to repeat their story over and over. That is not acceptable. Amendment 52 seeks to promote continuity in the chairing of hearings, so that, wherever possible, the same individual is involved in a child’s journey. The importance of that has been recognised. I note the minister’s points on the matter, and I will reflect on them. However, we need consistency that builds trust, reduces the need for children to relive difficult experiences and allows for a deeper understanding of the circumstances over time.
I call Martin Whitfield to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 160.
Although this has been only a short debate, it highlights some of the complexities of the developing children’s hearings system, including in relation to the role of the national convener and the chairs. Worrying and sadly, it is possibly an issue to which we will need to return.
With that, I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 160.
Amendment 160 agreed to.
Amendment 161, in the name of Martin Whitfield, has already been debated with amendment 160. I remind members that, if amendment 161 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 45, as a result of pre-emption.
Amendment 161 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Amendment 46 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].
The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 23, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment 162 moved—[Martin Whitfield].
The question is, that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 24, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 162 agreed to.
19:00
Amendment 47 moved—[Roz McCall].
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 disagreed to.
Amendments 163 and 164 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.
Group 16 is entitled “children’s hearings: general”. Amendment 48, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 53 to 62, 175 to 177, 63 to 73, 73A, 178 to 180 and 76.
My amendments in this group are mainly technical in nature. Many of them were developed after close engagement with the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration to identify where refinements might assist in ensuring that the bill will operate as intended.
Amendment 56 will add the “undeeming” of relevant persons to the matters that may be considered by a pre-hearing panel where the reporter makes a direct application for proof. That will ensure that, in the rare cases where that is needed, it can be done at an early stage to appropriately safeguard a child’s rights.
Amendments 58, 59 and 61 will make essential technical changes to clarify how a grounds hearing considers a child’s understanding of the grounds and ensure that the hearing can proceed appropriately and proportionately. Amendments 48, 57, 62 and 71 are consequential to those amendments.
Amendments 60 and 63 to 70 will ensure that a children’s hearing can proceed in the absence of a relevant person who does not attend the hearing, where that is appropriate. That will help to minimise drift and delay and ensure that children are not subject to unnecessary additional hearings or court proceedings.
Amendments 175, 176 and 177 will make minor changes to the bill to ensure the correct operation of the provisions that apply where the child is not in attendance and a grounds hearing is not satisfied as to the child’s acceptance of a ground.
Amendment 72 will make a minor drafting correction.
Amendments 73 and 73A will enable the Scottish ministers to make rules under section 177 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 specifying the circumstances in which the procedures that are set out in sections 69B to 69E of the act may appropriately be disapplied, or applied in a modified form, in relation to a referral by the principal reporter to a grounds hearing. That could, for example, take account of urgent referrals to a grounds hearing, such as where a child may be the subject of a child protection order or be in a place of safety, or where a relevant person in relation to the child is not likely to be in attendance at the grounds hearing. Such rules would be subject to Parliament’s approval under the affirmative procedure.
I thank Sheriff David Mackie for all his work in support of the Promise, not least in leading the work on the “Hearings for Children” report and his subsequent engagement with me and Government officials on key issues. I know that getting the right culture in the hearings system matters hugely to Sheriff Mackie and indeed to us all, because that means that it will operate with the best interests of children at its heart throughout its approach.
We are already making significant strides in embedding inquisitorial principles by changing the culture of all the key actors in and around children’s hearings, and we intend to continue to work closely with Sheriff Mackie in that regard. I am grateful for his input, honesty and detailed contributions. I am aware that he has some reservations about amendment 76, so I will not move it. I am incredibly sorry that, despite efforts and good intentions, we have not been able to find a way to give effect in the bill to one of the key aims of his work with the “Hearings for Children” report. If we are going to put something into law, it needs to be right and to have the support of all who believe in our hearings system.
I share Sheriff Mackie’s desire to have an inquisitorial approach at the heart of the system so that the way in which it operates reflects the best interests of children at its core and in its key processes. Although it would be positive, a single statutory provision is not necessary for us to fulfil our objectives and create meaningful change in the system. Even without a statutory provision, I assure Sheriff Mackie and members that inquisitorialism will be a cornerstone of the modernised system. The substance of the changes that will be made in this area will be done through regulations and guidance that supports the enhanced chair and through the vital work of the redesign board.
I understand the intent behind Roz McCall’s amendment 53. However, it would not be appropriate for ministers to direct children’s hearings, which are independent tribunals. It is for the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland to provide guidance on attendance. Moreover, the national convener already provides comprehensive guidance for panel members, which will be updated as part of the implementation of the bill.
Similarly, Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 54 and 55 would inappropriately cut across the independence of the principal reporter. It is not for ministers to direct the principal reporter or his staff, particularly as it is essential for them to be able to take an individualised and child-centred approach in each case. However, I assure Mr Balfour that the principal reporter will issue detailed practical guidance for his staff as part of the bill’s implementation.
I welcome Martin Whitfield’s amendments 178 to 180 and I am happy to support them. I hope that members will support them, too.
In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments in the group, which are largely technical, and Martin Whitfield’s amendments 178 to 180. I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 53 and Jeremy Balfour not to move amendments 54 and 55. Should they move those amendments, I encourage members to vote against them.
I move amendment 48.
My amendment 53 would introduce guidance on a child’s attendance at hearings. Every child is different, and although some may wish to attend and participate, others may find the experience overwhelming and distressing. My amendment would ensure that decisions about attendance take into account the child’s age, maturity and emotional wellbeing. It is about moving away from having a one-size-fits-all approach and ensuring that participation is appropriate, supportive and in the best interests of the child. Importantly, my amendment suggests meaningful participation and it would allow the child to be enabled to engage in a way that they feel is right for them.
I urge members to support amendment 53.
My amendments 54 and 55 deal with pre-hearing meetings with the principal reporter. Pre-hearing meetings between the principal reporter, the cared-for child and their family do not currently take place in the children’s hearings system but will be a new procedure as set out in proposed new section 69A of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011. They have caused concern and confusion in the children’s hearings sector, and those concerns were raised at stages 1 and 2. However, I am not sure that the Scottish Government has answered those concerns from those who are at the coalface of the work.
Pre-hearing meetings are a good idea. They will allow the principal reporter to meet the child and their family outside the hearing room in a more relaxed and informal setting. The principal reporter will be able to explain the format of the hearing as well as who will be in the room and what support will be available to the child, such as advocacy or legal aid. The reporter will also be able to help to calm nerves and reassure families about what will happen during what can be a stressful time.
Although well intentioned, however, the meetings could create unforeseen problems. What if a child or a family member starts asking questions that would be better heard in a grounds hearing? What if the principal reporter accidentally strays from the brief and starts discussing details of the case or how it might proceed? There is also no clear indication of how such a meeting will be documented, recorded or used in any future hearing.
Although I and others see the benefits of such meetings, it is our duty as parliamentarians not to leave it to others but to ensure that there are clear standards and rules about the meetings in order to safeguard children and families and ensure that reporters clearly understand what can—and, more important, what cannot—be discussed outside the grounds hearing.
The bill refers to
“such other matters in relation to the children’s hearing or, as the case may be, the hearing before the sheriff as the Principal Reporter considers appropriate”.
I am concerned by the wording “considers appropriate”, which is too vague, open to interpretation and thus confusing. It is possibly overspill. I therefore brought back what is now amendment 54, as I believe that it would provide a safeguard for children, their families and the principal reporter and ensure that pre-hearing meetings are dealt with in the right way.
My amendment 55 simply proposes that the new regulations regarding pre-hearing meetings be subject to the affirmative procedure. That would allow Parliament to scrutinise and vote on them, ensuring that, when they come into force, members have had their say.
I intend to move both amendment 54 and amendment 55.
I thank the minister and the Government for working after stage 2 on what now appear before us as amendments 178 and 180. They address the concerns that I raised at stage 2 about the UNCRC not being sufficiently integrated into the bill. They will require consideration of a child’s UNCRC article 16 right to privacy to be considered alongside their European convention on human rights article 8 rights, when it is being determined whether to remove relevant person status.
Amendment 180 provides clarity on what the sheriff appeal court must satisfy itself of in order to quash an appeal on a determination by a sheriff about relevant person status.
I call the minister to wind up on the group.
I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendments 49 to 51, 165 and 166 not moved.
After section 11
Amendments 52, 167 and 168 not moved.
Section 13—Child’s attendance at children’s hearings and hearings before sheriff
Amendment 53 moved—[Roz McCall].
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 72, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
Section 14—Role of Principal Reporter and grounds hearing
Amendment 54 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].
19:15
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 54 disagreed to.
Group 17 is on children’s hearings: advocacy. Amendment 169, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 170, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 197, 78 and 198 to 200.
I think that it was Jeremy Balfour who said earlier that the basis on which independent advocacy services should be provided has been hotly contested during the passage of the bill. Should a young person have to opt in, or should there be a presumption of advocacy that a young person has to opt out of? I have always tended to the latter view, not because I think that advocacy should be imposed on young people—the right to opt out, of course, ensures that that is not the case—but because I have a concern that putting the onus on a young person to opt in will inevitably mean that many fall through the cracks, either because they are not aware of, or do not have the confidence to ask for, the advocacy that they are entitled to.
However, rather than push a general opt-out approach through amendments to the bill—because I do not think that there is consensus around that—my amendments are an attempt at a principled compromise. They seek to provide for an opt-out approach in cases where a hearing is considering an order or a variation of an order that would place a child in secure accommodation or that would otherwise restrict the liberty of a child, or where the child is suspected of a criminal offence.
To me, it seems important that in those circumstances, there should be a presumption that a child has independent advocacy unless, of course, the child himself or herself opts not to have it. However, all that said, I recognise that these issues are extremely complex. I also recognise and accept—I have had this conservation with the minister—that there are concerns about creating a two‑tier approach to advocacy whereby some young people receive it on an opt‑in basis and others on an opt‑out basis.
On that basis, and taking account of the minister’s comments—while acknowledging that she cannot bind her successor—if she were able to give a commitment today, on behalf of the Government, that it intends to consider the overall effectiveness of advocacy, which would encompass some of the amendments that were passed earlier, and, in particular, to examine the opt‑in versus opt‑out question as part of the wider review of the act, I would be minded not to press this amendment or to move my other amendments in the group.
I will listen carefully to the minister’s comments and to the wider debate. Having said all that, I will move amendment 169, because I understand that it is required to allow the debate to proceed.
I move amendment 169.
I am very grateful to the member for moving her amendment so that we can discuss this group.
We recognise the challenge of having an opt‑in and opt‑out approach, and it is clear that we have not reached a consensus on that. I agree with the previous speaker that the resulting two‑tier system could end up being the worst of all worlds. My amendments 185, 187, 190, 193 and 196 to 198 seek to introduce an opt‑out system for advocacy. That was a key ask for children’s hearings, and voices across the care sector, including 93 per cent of care‑experienced people, have called for such a system for a long time.
Independent advocacy is a vital tool that allows care‑experienced children and young people—who, for far too long, have been left voiceless and marginalised—to have their views heard. We know that advocacy makes a practical difference in young people’s lives.
Social Work Scotland and the British Association of Social Workers have raised concerns about the dangers of introducing uncosted measures into an already struggling system, and those concerns are relevant for advocacy provision. However, we must ensure that whatever measures are included in the bill, or introduced subsequently, are properly funded.
With all respect, I do not believe that the arguments about the cost of the opt-out model advanced by the Government hold water. The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance estimates that, for every £1 invested in advocacy services, £12 is saved in other areas. I understand the discussions that have been taking place and the assurances that have been indicated.
Of all the amendments and sections, this is the issue on which the minister is most challenged. As we saw at stage 2, the voting indicated a desire to add provisions to the bill that could subsequently be changed. We do not have that privilege at stage 3. I fully accept what the minister has said and take her at her word. She cannot—rightly—bind future Governments, but a commitment to resolve this is essential. That commitment must be plain and simple, and the work on it should begin as soon as the next session of Parliament starts, in line with the provisions in the bill that allow for the review.
We will not solve the issue this afternoon, but I believe that the Government can still show a way forward that allows the matter to be settled and brings together people on both sides of the argument. We can find common ground where it exists, however it is articulated. Most important, we can ensure that those marginalised and forgotten voices do not suffer any longer than they need to. I look forward with interest to hearing what the minister has to say.
I think that we are of one voice. The intention of my amendment 78 is to move towards an opt-out model for the reasons that have been so eloquently put. I understand the surrounding issues. However, that highlights that all members are aware of the issue and that children must have the voice that they so desperately need.
I will not add much more. I am interested in hearing what the minister will come back with. We are all in agreement that more needs to be done in this sphere, so I await with bated breath what the minister will say.
Amendment 200 would change section 122 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which is the section that makes provision for advocacy services to assist a child in relation to their involvement in a children’s hearing. Amendment 200 would amend the definition of “children’s advocacy services” in subsection 122(7) to clarify that those services could still be provided if a child was unable, due to age or capacity, to instruct that such services be provided to them.
At stage 2, in agreement with the minister, I did not move my amendment on non-instructed advocacy—as it is known—so that we could work on an agreed solution ahead of stage 3.
There has been strong cross-party interest in strengthening children’s independent advocacy provision and representation. Amendment 200 clarifies that the provision of children’s advocacy services in relation to those hearings could include non-instructed advocacy. That would ensure that all children’s rights were upheld in children’s hearings, especially for those who are unable to indicate for themselves that they wish to be provided with advocacy.
I will touch briefly on Nicola Sturgeon’s amendments on opt-out referral to advocacy, which I have supported, and on the equivalent amendments from colleagues. As other members have acknowledged, balancing rights in that area, particularly rights on privacy, is tricky, but I am worried about those who fall through the cracks for the reasons that Nicola Sturgeon outlined a moment ago. My amendment 200, on non-instructed advocacy in relation to hearings, is a very specific safeguard against that, but I still believe that an opt-out system, rather than an opt-in system, is the closest that we can get to ensuring that no child or young person falls through those cracks while preserving their right to make the choice for themselves where they have the capacity to do so.
I therefore echo that ask of the minister—that the Government consider the effectiveness of advocacy and that specific question. A further bill on this area will be needed in the next session of the Parliament, and that bill could—I believe that it must—be an opportunity for us to revisit the question once the Government has conducted further work to explore what our options are.
At this point, I incline very much towards an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system, but I recognise that the Parliament cannot proceed with that at this stage.
I thank members for explaining the intent of their respective amendments in the group.
I welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 200, which would clarify non-instructed advocacy provision for children’s hearings, and I encourage members to vote for it. I also support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 197, which would strengthen the obligation of the chairing panel member to connect children with advocacy services.
However, issues with the framing and drafting mean that I cannot support the remaining amendments in the group. At a basic level, in different ways and at different points, the amendments seek to change the model of advocacy for children in the hearings system from being opt in and demand led to being opt out. I have listened, I understand and I respect the competing perspectives on the issue. I maintain that, at the moment, to legislate for an opt-out model would not be right, due to some of the challenges that have been touched on by members. I will further explore those in my comments.
The current approach, which has been operating well for more than five years, is not just opt in but opt in and demand led. We have repeatedly uprated and have now nearly doubled the levels of provision since the scheme’s introduction in 2020. I want more children and young people to benefit from advocacy through the bill and related activity. We have already expanded provision to meet the growing demand, and we should continue to do so. Other changes in the bill will help us to increase awareness and take-up by ensuring earlier and broader signposting by statutory bodies, engaging with children and making referrals to the children’s reporter.
I know that members want an assurance that those measures are proving effective in boosting uptake and in connecting more children with advocacy opportunities. The post-implementation review and reporting arrangements should track and monitor whether opt-out needs to be revisited. That should happen in good time to allow any further or required changes to be implemented within the Promise-keeping timeline. We can do that work with justified confidence.
The existing national practice model was co-designed with advocacy providers and children’s organisations. It empowers children to make informed choices. Repeated offers of advocacy are already made, and children can change their mind at any time. In all local authority areas, children are offered a choice of two fully funded advocacy organisations, the aim of which is to manage conflict of interest and promote choice and continuity in pre-existing relationships.
19:30
Making an automatic referral to one state-selected provider would remove some of that choice and control from children, which are two issues that continue to matter to them. As I reported at stage 2, children have told researchers that they want to be the boss, and opt-out takes that empowerment away from them. Choice is key. It means that children can ask for advocacy support at any point in their engagement with the children’s hearings system. Unfortunately, amendments 169 and 170 would create a fixed point at which children would have to receive advocacy.
I have been persuaded by the minister of the benefits of an opt-in system, but surely the test is what the minister has referred to, which is the take-up in the longer term. We need to measure that at every stage. If we are not sharing the information and encouraging young people to take up the service, we will need to come back and look at the issue again. For now, however, I am a supporter of the opt-in service, for the reasons that the minister has set out.
I thank Mr Rennie for setting that out.
I was just getting to my summary. Absolutely, the issue needs to be monitored and considered again in a future session of Parliament to understand whether the service is working appropriately for our children and young people. I would look to come back to that.
To follow up on Willie Rennie’s points about monitoring uptake, I emphasise to the minister—I hope that she agrees—that it is not just about overall uptake rates. We know that, when advocacy is offered to young people, 98 per cent of them take it up, but we should be focusing on the 2 per cent who do not take it up and the reasons for that. In some cases, that might be a perfectly legitimate choice that they have made. In other cases, it is the most marginalised young people in the system, and those are the cases in which we need to consider whether an opt-out model is necessary.
Mr Greer makes an excellent point. For that small minority of young people who are not taking up the advocacy offer, we absolutely need to understand why.
I recognise the intention behind amendments 186, 188, 191, 194 and 198, but the founding Kilbrandon principles of our children’s hearings system recognise that there is often a blend of issues in a child’s life, across justice and welfare grounds. The entire ethos of the system is founded on the recognition that an integrated approach remains the right one. Scotland deals with deeds by addressing needs.
The amendments assume a clear distinction between the advocacy needs of children being referred on justice grounds and the needs of those who are dealt with on welfare grounds, but that distinction often does not exist. Ms Sturgeon highlighted that point. Essentially, we would end up with a two-tier system. It would not be right to split children into different entitlement groups based only on the legal ground of referral.
I acknowledge that the upcoming Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 reforms will bring more older children into the hearings system. Taking more children’s offences out of our courts will be challenging. The modernised hearings system needs to be able to respond credibly and effectively to older children’s deeds, some of which will be serious. I expect the new remunerated chairing panel member to bring more profile to those issues.
I am aware that the consistent application of children’s advocacy entitlement needs to be better. I look to all agencies and system leaders to ensure that that happens and to assist us when we look again at opt-out questions. The reforms mean that advocacy and rights and voice support, especially for older children, should be broadened and strengthened. As I indicated, we will meet that need as it emerges.
Advocacy is not a replacement for legal representation. Both need to be available and complement each other where required and appropriate. That is why legal representation is already available for many of the cases that are addressed by the amendments. We are also strengthening the legal offer to children who are involved with offence referrals elsewhere in the bill.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the best way to take forward support for the children who will be served by the redesigned hearings system. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support amendments 78, 185, 187, 190, 193, 196, 199, 169, 170, 186, 188, 191, 194 and 198. If they are moved, regretfully, I ask members to vote against them. However, I support Ross Greer’s amendment 200 and Martin Whitfield’s amendment 197, and I encourage members to vote for them.
I call Nicola Sturgeon to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 169.
This has been a really helpful debate. I certainly recognise the points that the minister has made, and I readily accept that there are technical issues with my amendments; she set those out very well.
I am, in principle, in favour of an opt-out approach, but I recognise that we are not, in general, in a position to move to that today. I also concede the point—which was made by Willie Rennie and Ross Greer, and by the minister—that, if the take-up rates under an opt-in approach are sufficiently high, it may be possible to persuade me and others that that is the right approach and an opt-out alternative is not necessary. That remains to be seen, however, and monitoring of that will be extremely important.
I also accept that my amendments, in seeking in good faith a compromise, might actually raise more issues than they would solve. I say to the minister that a reference to the Kilbrandon report will always be highly influential with me, so that was well targeted.
In the light of the minister’s comments and the assurances that she has given, and the wider debate, I will not press amendment 169, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in my name in the group.
Amendment 169, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 170 and 55 not moved.
Group 18 is on children’s hearings: timescales. Amendment 171, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 181 and 182.
As has already been outlined extensively in relation to the amendments on permanence, drift and delay in decision making in the children’s hearing system can be extremely harmful to the development of young children in particular. The three-month timeframe that is proposed in amendment 171, which was argued for by Hearings for Children, is based on evidence, because after that point, instability in the lives of young people becomes increasingly harmful.
The evidence from England and Wales, where there is a 26-week time limit for care proceedings, tells us that a blanket ideological opposition to time limits is not based in reality. We know that the measures that exist south of the border are working, that children in Scotland are forced to wait longer and that change must happen. Amendment 171 would provide scope to extend the time limit in exceptional circumstances, but it would help to embed a culture that does not tolerate drift or delay, and it seeks to achieve that.
I turn to the other amendments in the group: amendment 181, in the name of Bill Kidd, and amendment 182, in the name of Roz McCall. I look forward to hearing from those members on their amendments, because we are all dealing with the same challenging problem. One of the most pernicious challenges is where delay happens in a young person’s life, and when it happens in the life of a baby or an infant—we will get on to that—the damage can be, and only too frequently is, catastrophic.
I look forward to hearing from the minister on the Government’s position with regard to timescales. I know that we batted that between us during stage 2, and it will be interesting to see where that has got to. For the purposes of debate, therefore, I will move the amendment in my name.
I move amendment 171.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this seminal bill, which is the last piece of Government legislation that I will have the privilege of seeing this Parliament pass into law before I retire as an MSP.
Amendment 181 would place timescales on the establishment of grounds before a sheriff, as was just mentioned. Currently, a court must hold a hearing within 28 days of the application for proof of grounds. This amendment would put in place an additional timescale of 90 days for a decision to then be made on the establishment of those grounds.
The 90-day period would be from the point at which the application for proof is made by the principal reporter to the court. Sheriff Mackie, in his “Hearings for Children” report, specifically stated that the benefits of such an approach should be explored, and I thank colleagues, specifically Martin Whitfield, for lodging amendments on the topic at stage 2.
However, in lodging this amendment, I am mindful of the need to ensure that any provision in this space is properly directed and addresses the root of any issue. We must also recognise that the role of managing any case before the court is a matter for the sheriff, and I thank the office of the Lord President and the sheriffs principal for their engagement with the Government on this topic since stage 2.
Establishing grounds in a timely fashion is key to an effective and efficient system that operates as best it can for children and their families. Cases that are prolonged are often done so for good reason, but amendment 181 will ensure appropriate and effective judicial oversight and that cases will go beyond the timescale only where it is appropriate and necessary to do so, having regard to the best interests of the child who is the subject of the referral.
We are all keen to ensure that cases are dealt with effectively and efficiently, minimising delay and ensuring that no child or family is unnecessarily waiting for decisions to be taken or actions to be implemented. I therefore urge members to support amendment 181.
I am pleased to speak to amendment 182. Members will recall that, at stage 2, we discussed the need for measured timeliness in the children’s hearings system, and we agreed that that should happen in a refined, future-proof fashion. I initially lodged amendment 198, on waiting times, at stage 2, but I agreed not to move it so that I could work on the strengthened provision that is before Parliament today.
I thank the minister for her engagement on this amendment. She advised committee colleagues at stage 2 of existing work on setting out standards and reporting expectations with regard to timescales for the relevant steps in the current children’s hearings system. Amendment 182 aims to build on, extend and update that good work.
The policy intention and legal effects of amendment 182 are that the reporting obligation would be given to ministers, given the cross-system, multi-agency scope. It would require ministers to prepare and publish an annual report, which would also be laid before Parliament.
We all share a desire for enhanced future transparency when it comes to the performance of the modernised children's hearings system in responding in a timely way to support the children who are referred. The core system partners recognise the need to address delay and have established an effective, but partial, mechanism in the current system. An updated, extended and sustainable scheme will enable Scotland to measure performance in order to pick out areas for improvement.
Amendment 182 would put timeliness reporting on a statutory footing and future proof it, and I hope that it will attract the support of members across the chamber.
Martin Whitfield’s amendment 171 speaks to our continuing interest in efficient and timely decision making in the children’s hearings system. We all want grounds to be established in a timely manner without unnecessary delay.
Since stage 2, there have been further discussions with key agencies and representatives, including the office of the Lord President, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and sheriffs principal. Those discussions have made plain a shared desire to continue to work to address drift and delay, where it occurs, but have also highlighted that the creation of statutory timescales would be unhelpful in achieving improvements and risk compromising the ability to treat the most complex and sensitive cases with the scrutiny and consideration that they deserve.
Bill Kidd’s amendment 181 achieves Mr Whitfield’s objective and, I think, better reflects the outputs of those intervening discussions. The amendment will reinforce or set out appropriate timescales for hearings in relation to the grounds, while allowing appropriate discretion for the sheriff. There are some circumstances in which timescales will necessarily require to be extended; that can happen for a variety of reasons, but the discretion inherent in the provision will ensure that it will happen only where the sheriff has had regard to whether that would be in the child’s best interests. Applications will be dealt with in as timely a manner as is practicable.
If I may, Presiding Officer, I want to thank Bill Kidd for agreeing to lodge this amendment and for his long commitment to issues of fairness and justice over his parliamentary career. Bill has always championed the interests of those with the greatest need in his constituency and in Scotland, and this small, but important, amendment is entirely in keeping with his values and feels like a good way for him to sign off on his contribution to legislation in this Parliament. [Applause.]
I hope that Martin Whitfield will agree that Bill Kidd’s amendment 181 achieves a similar objective and will not press amendment 171 so as to keep the good favour going.
I thank Roz McCall for lodging amendment 182, which concerns future national and local reporting on timely decision making. The amendment reflects positive joint work with the Government on our shared objectives on the topic, so I support it.
Therefore, I encourage members to support amendments 181 and 182 and to resist amendment 171 if it is pressed.
19:45
I call Martin Whitfield to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 171.
Perhaps by chance, this allows me to add to the minister’s kind comments about Bill Kidd. He may or may not remember this, but he was the first colleague in the chamber to say hello to me when I came into the Parliament in those heady days all those years ago.
Members: Aw!
Bill Kidd has continued every day to ensure that, at the very least, my health is in good keeping. For that, I will forever thank him. I also echo the minister’s comments about him. When he contributes in committees and in the chamber, he always ensures that the smaller and quieter voices are heard. I think that people outside the Parliament will be forever grateful to him for that. [Applause.]
The minister invited me to show courtesy on the back of her compliment about the excellent amendment that Bill Kidd has lodged. It is perhaps easiest if I say that I have no challenge in supporting his brilliantly drafted amendment. On the basis that, through Bill Kidd’s amendment 181 and Roz McCall’s amendment 182, we will start to address a very significant problem, I seek to withdraw amendment 171.
Amendment 171, by agreement, withdrawn.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Air ais
Business Motion