Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I said, work is already under way in that regard between the Scottish Government, the Promise Scotland and partners. I want to make sure that the amendments that have been lodged are compatible with the discussions that are going on, hence, Ms Don-Innes and I would probably be able to meet Roz McCall and Pam Duncan-Glancy to discuss that in a more strategic manner. I am happy to take that forward. The offer is there to meet before we get to stage 3. Members will obviously be entitled at that stage to press their amendments, but I am asking them not to press at this stage and to take part in discussions with me and Ms Don-Innes on the points that have been raised.

The Scottish Government is committed to keeping the Promise to care-experienced young people. We recognise the current housing challenges that care leavers encounter, and we will work with our partners, including local authorities, on the best way to reduce those challenges.

That includes plans to refresh guidance for local authorities and corporate parents on supporting young people who are leaving care, to improve the information and financial support that is available and to continue engagement with the Department for Work and Pensions on how young people who are leaving care access its services in Scotland.

Accordingly, I urge members not to press or move any amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I ask members of the committee not to support them.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s question, under section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, local authorities are required to

“safeguard and promote the welfare of children ... in need ... by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children’s needs.”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated into Scots law in December 2024. Under section 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, public authorities, including local authorities, have a duty to respect the requirements of the convention. That means that they must consider the best interests of children in all decisions that affect them, and ensure that children’s views are heard and taken into account.

I come back to the point that Mr Doris made about the overall strategy. I do not believe that amendments at this stage are the best way to progress. It is about strengthening guidance and I will talk more later about what the approach would be.

What Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments cover is already catered for in the bill, with the power of Scottish ministers to prescribe the types of advice and assistance that must be provided to those who are threatened with homelessness.

Roz McCall made similar points about care leavers. Following the publication of the Care Inspectorate’s thematic review and analysis of our consultation on the current and potential package of support for younger people who are leaving care, work is under way across the Scottish Government and with our partners. We must consult those who are directly impacted to ensure that a response to the changes that have been called for enables young people to access the support that they need to thrive in young adulthood.

In relation to Mr Griffin’s amendment 1072, I recognise that housing first is a valuable policy intervention for those with more complex needs, but it is not defined in legislation.

Is it on this point?

The amendments in this group seek to make it clear that the interests of children must be taken into account when local authorities exercise functions in relation to the provision of social housing, and when relevant bodies exercise functions in relation to

“people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness”.

Although I agree with the purpose behind the amendments, I cannot support them as they would not add to existing statutory duties that have been imposed on the bodies in question. I will go into detail on that a little later.

Statistics highlight both the need and the potential for homelessness prevention duties to mitigate the risk of homelessness for children and young people. Ahead of stage 2, I have held many meetings, some of them as recently as last night. However, I have not had a chance to engage with Mr O’Kane or Mr Griffin on that particular point, to find out more about their amendments.

In my role, I do not engage directly with children, but I have engaged with organisations that work with and advocate for children and young people. Earlier this month, I was at the launch of Shelter Scotland’s new report. Yesterday, as Mr Griffin mentioned, members held a debate on children’s experiences of temporary accommodation; the report reveals the impact of long periods in such accommodation, and it gave me particular insight into those experiences and the importance of children having settled homes.

I cannot support amendment 1078, in the name of Paul O’Kane. The provision of social housing is a function of local authorities and housing associations, and it is for each local authority to set out its strategies, priorities and plans for the delivery of housing in its area. There is no statutory duty on local authorities or registered social landlords to provide more housing. The Scottish Government’s role is to support local social landlords in providing affordable accommodation in accordance with set standards and to ensure that landlords’ performance is monitored through the Scottish Housing Regulator. Other tools include the strategic housing investment plan—or SHIP—which was mentioned earlier, and the local housing strategy. I would be happy to engage further with Mr O’Kane between stages 2 and 3, and I extend that offer to him.

I agree with Mark Griffin that every child deserves a safe and warm place to call home—that is a fundamental human right—but I cannot support amendments 1053 to 1056 and 1059 and the other amendments in Mr Griffin’s name. However, that is only because the substance of his amendments is already provided for in statute. I offer to meet Mr Griffin to discuss the issue further, including how we might enforce those aspects.

I think that I agreed with Mr Griffin on the principle of where he was going with the amendments. However, when it comes to enforcement, statutory provision is already in place. Nevertheless, I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin and also Ms Duncan-Glancy between stages 2 and 3 to see what we can do on that particular point.

I will come on to that in the next part of my speech.

I come back to my point about reasonable preference. There are broader discussions on-going at the moment. Part of the reason to have a discussion with you and Ms Duncan-Glancy is to ensure that there is compatibility with what we are doing with the Promise legislation. We tried to speak to you before today’s evidence session, but I am happy to discuss the issue further. I include the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, Ms Don-Innes, in that regard, to ensure that anything that we introduce is compatible with what she is doing on the issue.

I will bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy and then come to you, if that is okay.

I am happy to meet both members on that point.