Seòmar agus comataidhean

There was engagement with children and young people—and, equally, with stakeholders—on a whole number of issues in the consultations that were carried out on the bill. I think that there was an underestimation of the mix of opinions with regard to the definition of “independent”, and it is something that we have now come to an understanding of through the stage 1 evidence and having heard the clear mix of views of stakeholders and members across the chamber. Obviously, it is an issue that I am committed to working on now, but we have what we have in front of us today.

As I have said, I would like the regulations to be developed in close consultation with the care community and service providers, and I would have been happy to go away and look at timings in that respect. The voice of care experience is absolutely at the heart of the Promise, and I would have thought it vital for that voice to continue to set the direction in the implementation of its key measures. How the right to advocacy is defined and delivered would be one such issue.

That said, I understand the comments that have been made this morning about the definition of “independent” and whether a child or young person has to take up that offer of independent advocacy. However, that will not necessarily impact on a definition being put in the bill.

Just one second, Mr Briggs. I want to ensure that a child will not have to take up the offer, if they have a better and proven relationship with another advocate who is not defined as independent under whatever definition we get to in the bill. They would be able to continue that relationship, and it would put their choice at the heart of things.

I will take Mr Briggs’s intervention and then I will sum up.

That may be, and I would be happy to debate that with Ms Webber, but I do not feel that the child’s plan is the right place for that.

Under current legislation and practice, all information that is relevant to the action taken to improve a child or young person’s wellbeing should of course be included in their plan. To include an assessment of alternative options in a child’s plan, as set out in amendment 87, would risk complicating a child’s plan for the child or young person and their family.

I am of course committed to keeping the Promise, which includes keeping families together where that is safe and in the child’s best interests to do so. I understand the intent behind amendment 87. I would be happy to consider what might be possible to reflect those principles through a targeted or more refined approach at stage 3. I therefore ask Sue Webber not to press that amendment. If she does, I would encourage members to vote against it.

Paul O’Kane’s amendment 225 holds some attraction, not least because we have all used and still use “the Promise bill” as shorthand for discussing it, myself included. A big reason for that is that I was talking about the bill long before its formal title was considered and chosen. I am afraid that the amendment would require us to deviate from existing practice and convention, whereby the title of any bill should reflect its substantive content—which includes measures that will help to keep the Promise.

Mr Greer raised an important point on the feedback that has been received. There is of course wider work entailed in the delivery of the Promise that goes far beyond even having another bill. It includes non-legislative measures. I feel that naming the bill “the Promise bill” could be misleading and could cause confusion.

I understand the intent behind the proposal, as I think I have said clearly. However, given the feedback that I have heard from young people on what the bill aims to deliver, I do not believe that that such a change is where our attention should be lying. I understand the point that I have been calling the bill “the Promise bill” in shorthand, which is because I was talking about it for a long time before it was introduced in June 2025. However, I believe that the current title of the bill represents what the bill does, and I have been clear that anything over and above that might lead to confusion or be misleading. I understand the intent behind amendment 225, but I ask Mr O’Kane not to move it. If he does, I ask members to vote against it.

Moved.

I have already outlined some of my concerns with that approach. I have been clear that I recognise the importance of ensuring that information about aftercare is clear. As I have outlined, work is under way to expand and strengthen the guidance on aftercare. I believe that the provisions that we are taking through in the bill will improve the rights to aftercare for children and young people who have been previously looked after. The guidance that has been developed will continue to promote the need for collaboration in order to ensure that a person-centred approach is delivered, acknowledging that every young person’s journey is different.

I would hope that that would reassure Mr Whitfield, but I assume, from his intervention, that it does not.

I am saying today that I will not support a lot of amendments at stage 2, but I am happy to discuss them further as we move towards stage 3. I do not believe that that is a unique approach.

I cannot confirm that today. I imagine that small tweaks might be required, as is usually the case and as I have said to other members about amendments that have not been pressed. As I said, this is the position that I am taking today. It is not far off some of the other conversations that we have had this morning.

Yes.

There is specific guidance on age assessment, so what Martin Whitfield says about being expected to take the age assessment from somewhere else—[Interruption.]

If Mr Whitfield wants to make another intervention, I would be happy to take it, as I would like to understand his point.

11:30