Seòmar agus comataidhean

I clarify that local authorities have to do their own assessment, so accommodation would not be granted on the basis of someone else’s opinion or another form of assessment.

I hope that that reassures Martin Whitfield that he does not need to move amendment 136. If he moves it, I encourage members to vote against it.

I thank Mr Greer for lodging amendments 137 and 138. I welcome any proposal that will help to strengthen corporate parents’ understanding of how they can support the rights and the wellbeing of children and young people with experience of care. I fully support those amendments, which will ensure that ministers provide all corporate parents in Scotland with advice and guidance on how to fulfil their duties, and I hope that members will support them, too.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 already makes it unlawful for a public authority to act or to fail to act in a way that is incompatible with UNCRC requirements when exercising functions conferred by acts of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish statutory instruments made under powers under acts of the Scottish Parliament, or common-law powers. That duty also applies to functions of a public nature carried out under a contract or other arrangement with a public authority.

The corporate parenting duties or responsibilities under part 9 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 are within scope of the compatibility duty in the 2024 act, so Mr Whitfield’s amendment 140 is unnecessary. I hope that he will agree and not move it.

Mr Whitfield’s amendment 141 would require certain further matters to be included in corporate parenting guidance and would require ministers to ensure that adequate training was provided on those matters. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting corporate parents and to publishing statutory guidance on corporate parenting responsibilities as well as on aftercare and the definition of care experience to support the bill’s implementation, and we would expect relevant corporate parents to follow such guidance. Although it is for corporate parents to undertake staff training to ensure that they can fulfil those functions, the Government funds training and networking opportunities for all corporate parents in Scotland.

Ross Greer’s amendments 137 and 138 cover similar matters to amendment 141, and I hope that Martin Whitfield will not move his amendment but will support those amendments instead.

I understand the intention behind Paul O’Kane’s amendments 166 and 221 and Willie Rennie’s amendments 169 and 224. Reporting on progress in delivering the Promise is important, and I assure both members that work is under way in that regard through non-statutory mechanisms. “The Promise Story of Progress”, which was updated in December 2025, was developed jointly with COSLA and The Promise Scotland. It already provides a strong example of the partnership working that is under way to shape our approach to understanding change. A key aspect of that is the Promise progress framework, which sets out across 10 vision statements key national metrics against which progress can be measured, including in areas such as educational engagement, attainment and restrictive practices.

Many of those metrics are drawn from data that has been published by partner organisations that supports their interpretation, and I think that that provides a strong basis for understanding progress and directing further action. However, I acknowledge that transformational change is required and that progress must be understood not only through outcomes but through the lived experiences and activities that shape them. Two additional strands of the story of progress seek to do that by focusing on organisational activity and the experiential impact on the care community.

That work is supported by the Promise data and evidence group, which was established to identify and address the data and evidence gaps that exist around the Promise, which both members spoke to. A key principle of that work is to identify, wherever possible, solutions that utilise existing data and novel data linkages to address gaps, thereby minimising additional burdens for those who work at service level.

I am grateful to Linda Bauld, Scotland’s national social policy adviser, who is steering that work, and to the member organisations, including Public Health Scotland and the Improvement Service, for their productive collaboration. I definitely do not want to duplicate work, or, as Mr Mason pointed out, add unnecessary bureaucracy.

Sometimes, Government can manage to set in train actions that deliver in practice what is being sought in statute. I hope that Paul O’Kane and Willie Rennie might consider this to be one of those moments. We have already established the mechanisms to gather data and evidence, map progress and cultural change, capture experiences and make that all publicly available so that everyone can see whether we and all the delivery partners are keeping the Promise. I hope that Paul O’Kane and Willie Rennie will agree and not move their respective amendments.

Ross Greer’s amendment 143 would, through regulations, require public bodies in the exercise of their duties to have regard to the needs of care-experienced persons. The bill as introduced already contains provisions that would more appropriately take forward the definition of how and which public authorities would have regard to the needs of care-experienced persons through the development of guidance. Section 5 places a duty on public authorities to have regard to that guidance when exercising their functions in relation to care-experienced persons. I hope that that reassures Ross Greer and that he will not press his amendment 143. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it. I believe that further amendments that I intend to support in this group will appropriately meet the intention of his amendment. However, I am happy to discuss any further concerns that the member may have.

Paul O’Kane’s amendment 157 would include those who self-identify as care experienced within the ambit of the guidance under section 5(1) of the bill. Although I recognise that section 5 does not explicitly include people who may self-identify as care experienced, section 5(6) enables the guidance to specify other circumstances in which someone who is cared for or supported could be considered as care experienced. That would enable provision to be made in that regard. The guidance will provide clarity on how that works in practice, ensuring that actions are proportionate and respectful, but I am happy to look again at section 5(6) to see whether further clarification could be provided on that. Mr O’Kane asked for an update on the definition of “care experienced”. He will be aware that there was a consultation on that and a long period of engagement. I am more than happy to write to the committee if members would like an update on the progress so far.

I welcome Roz McCall’s amendment 100 and am happy to support it, although minor adjustment may be required at stage 3. The amendment would make it explicit that rights-based, trauma-informed best practice may be promoted in the statutory guidance for care experience. The guidance will shape day-to-day practice and ensure a shared, consistent understanding of care experience across services, and set a national and consistent direction for the language used in and around the care system. Embedding rights-based, trauma-informed practice is essential to reducing stigma and improving outcomes for care-experienced people.

I agree with Miles Briggs on the importance of ensuring that kinship families receive the guidance and support that they need, but I cannot support amendment 158. My concern is not, by any means, the principle of whole family support for kinship families; it is that the guidance that will be published under section 5 of the bill is not the right place for his proposal. More appropriate guidance—some of which I have spoken to this morning—is already in place and is being developed to address kinship care more directly. I want to avoid the potential for confusion and conflation of those two important issues. I believe that guidance that is focused on care experience and kinship families is given the stand-alone prominence and direction that it rightly deserves. For those reasons, I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 158.

Roz McCall’s amendment 99 highlights the importance of sensitive decision making for infants and their families. I assure Roz McCall that we are working to address that. National material on infant contact already exists, including Children’s Hearings Scotland’s infant guidance, which is aimed specifically at panel members. The forthcoming Association for Fostering, Kinship and Adoption Scotland’s permanence guide, which is due for publication in April, will provide advice for practitioners. My concern about amendment 99 is that introducing infant contact into section 5 could change the focus of the guidance and create uncertainty about its intended role. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.

I recognise the intention behind Roz McCall’s amendment 159, which is to ensure consistency when care-experienced people move between local authorities. However, the amendment fails to account for variations in local capacity and service delivery models within local authority areas and does not consider the nuances and differences in service provision between local authority areas, which could potentially create a national approach. For that reason, I ask Roz McCall not to press the amendment. If she does, I ask that members vote against it.

There are three amendments with broadly the same intent: Roz McCall’s amendment 101 and Paul O’Kane’s amendments 160 and 161. All three seek to change the duty on public authorities to “have regard to” care experience guidance that is published as required by section 5 of the bill to either “give due regard to”, under amendment 101, or “have due regard to”, under amendments 160 and 161. I support the intention of the amendments, as they respond to the views raised by stakeholders during stage 1 that the duty should be to have due regard to the guidance. Although both members’ proposed amendments aim to have the same effect, Paul O’Kane’s amendments 160 and 161 would provide more consistency in section 5. If Roz McCall is content to accept that approach, I invite her to consider not moving her amendment 101.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 165 allows us to debate an important issue, which I thank him for. The Scottish Government supports the Promise’s ambition that Scotland will be a nation that does not restrain its children unless in exceptional circumstances. For that reason, we are currently funding the holding differently project, which aims to strengthen our evidence base about practices that work in reducing restraint and, therefore, allow for better training and support for staff in care settings. We had originally seen merit in waiting to see the results from that project before legislating on restraint in care settings. However, we recognise that the Parliament is currently considering legislation on restraint in relevant education settings, which is likely to create a statutory basis for guidance on restraint in those settings. We also note the views expressed by Mr Whitfield, The Promise Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and others that we should take the opportunity to legislate on restraint in care settings in the Promise bill.

I want to do that, but there are two reasons why I am not able to support Mr Whitfield’s amendment 165. First, the scope of the amendment needs to be considered carefully. As drafted, Mr Whitfield’s amendment would cover home-based settings such as foster care and kinship care. We know that home-based care is fundamentally different from institutional care. Applying statutory guidance to family homes, as well as to institutional settings, risks blurring that distinction. I am not convinced that Government guidance on restraint in home-based settings would be practicable or workable.

Group 10 covers a range of amendments relating to how the right to access care experience advocacy services should be delivered. A number of the amendments are connected, and I want to address the areas that they cover and explain my position clearly.

As drafted, section 4 seeks to provide a right to access advocacy services for care-experienced people, in order to ensure that their voices are heard and that their views are accurately represented. Paul O’Kane’s amendment 145 would expand that right to advocacy support to the family members of people with care experience. I agree that families should be properly supported, but I am mindful that advocacy is not always the answer. It is important that we understand the role that other routes to providing support to families, such as through whole family support, can play. I have concerns about whether a widening of the right to access advocacy support that will be designed for the specific needs of people with care experience is the most appropriate route to making sure that families have the support that they need.

Paul O’Kane’s amendment 154 would place a requirement on Scottish ministers to consult with families of care-experienced people when developing regulations. However, section 4(7) of the bill already provides that Scottish ministers may consult with other persons in developing regulations. That allows Scottish ministers to consult with family members if they deem it appropriate. There is no need for an additional requirement on the face of the bill. I hope that that reassures Paul O’Kane and that he will not press his amendments.

Martin Whitfield’s amendments 148, 149 and 155 seek to ensure that care-experienced people in rural and deprived areas have access to advocacy services through the bill. I know that the delivery of advocacy services in rural and island communities can be particularly challenging and that there are often fewer advocates covering vast geographical areas.

Section 4(3) will already place a duty on Scottish ministers, stating that

“It is the duty of the Scottish Ministers to ensure that care experience advocacy services are available … to each person who has the right.”

That duty does not distinguish between urban or rural areas or between deprived and less deprived areas—it is universal. To fulfil that duty, Scottish ministers must ensure that every care-experienced person, wherever they live, can access advocacy services. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, although it is important to highlight those points.

I agree that it is difficult to strike the right balance—that is a good point. However, having an opt-in will still leave the choice in the child or young person’s hands, rather than making them feel that they need to say that they do not want to take the option of advocacy. An opt-in will be more centred around their opinion. As I said, we agree on some points in the amendment—but not all of them—so, ahead of stage 3, we could consider what could be done.

Although I cannot support some of the drafting in amendments 9, 10 and 150, I welcome the opportunity for further discussion on them ahead of stage 3 so that we can reach a point at which we are confident that they are drafted in a way that best reflects the intentions behind them.

If Paul O’Kane, Martin Whitfield and Roz McCall are minded to press or move their amendments, I urge the committee to vote against them. If Jeremy Balfour moves amendments 9 and 10, I would be happy to support them, given the agreement to have further discussion. If Willie Rennie moves amendment 150, I ask members to vote against it.

As I have just laid out, I do not believe that the bill is the be-all and end-all of delivering the Promise. As I have stated in committee before, a huge amount of wider work is under way, in a non-legislative fashion, which is in line with delivery of the Promise. That work is not all focused on the provisions in the bill. There has already been six years of work to deliver on the Promise.

Sorry, convener, I was a little bit behind—I am organised now.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments, which relates to kinship care assistance. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 form a coherent package of Government amendments designed to strengthen the statutory framework for kinship care. Together, they introduce a clear right to a comprehensive needs-based assessment, ensure that local authorities have regard to statutory guidance, and improve national oversight through proportionate information-sharing powers.

For kinship carers and the children they care for, the amendments are about making support clearer and more reliable, so that families know what help they can ask for and how it will be considered, and can expect greater consistency across Scotland. At their heart, the amendments are about ensuring that children growing up in kinship care are properly supported, in line with our commitments under the Promise. They introduce a clear right for eligible kinship carers to request and be offered a comprehensive needs-based assessment, so that support is considered in the round and reflects families’ individual circumstances. The assessment is intended to be child centred and align with existing GIRFEC practice and the child's plan, supporting rather than duplicating current assessment and planning processes.

My amendments are also intended to strengthen the role of statutory guidance and introduce proportionate information-sharing powers, helping to improve consistency, transparency and national oversight, so that we can better understand how kinship support is working across Scotland, while respecting local delivery.

I understand the intent behind Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 4. Indeed, kinship carers should be properly supported and treated fairly; my amendments seek to achieve that. However, I am not able to support amendment 4. The parity in assistance envisioned by the amendment is unclear. Although kinship care assistance is a defined concept in legislation, there is no equivalent concept in respect of foster care. As drafted, the amendment would introduce a broad and undefined parity requirement that risks blurring the long-established distinction between kinship care as family-based care and foster care as a commissioned service, delivered on behalf of the state through formal arrangements. That could give rise to unintended legal, practical and financial consequences.

In particular, amendment 4 does not distinguish between assistance intended to meet the cost of caring for a child and payments associated with foster care as a commissioned care service. Ministers already have the power to specify and require payment of allowance rates for foster and kinship carers, and we are strengthening that further through amendments 20 and 21, in a later group in relation to uprating and transparency. I consider that to be a more targeted and proportionate route to fairness. I hope that Jeremy Balfour agrees and will not press amendment 4. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 126 appears to align closely with the commitments that are set out in the draft kinship care vision statement. That vision emphasises the need for greater transparency, clearer local offers and improved access to information so that kinship carers are better able to understand and access the support that is available to them in their local areas and nationally. One purpose of the bill is to ensure that children and families with care experience feel supported, informed and empowered. Mr Briggs’s proposal contributes meaningfully to that aim. However, I seek to clarify what Mr Briggs intends in relation to local and national levels, and I would be happy to work with him to bring back a suitable alternative amendment to remedy that at stage 3.

I encourage members to support my amendments 1, 2 and 3, and I move amendment 1.

I thank members for their comments. I will keep this brief. On support for kinship carers, I am pleased to have lodged the amendments on that at stage 2, as members will be aware. I have been on many visits and, of course, my interest goes back to my time on the Social Security and Social Justice Committee, when we took evidence from kinship carers. I knew then that something needed to change to support kinship carers further.

Kinship carers play an absolutely vital role in keeping children with their families. Kinship care is a preventative measure. As Mr Briggs or Mr Balfour highlighted, it leads to a reduction in the number of children going into care. We absolutely need to ensure that those families are appropriately supported.

In December, we published our draft vision for kinship care, which sets out a clear national direction for how such care should be supported in Scotland. It sets out a shift towards earlier, clearer and more consistent support, rather than families having to reach crisis point, as Mr Briggs highlighted. The vision is currently a working draft and we are continuing to test and refine it through engagement ahead of the final publication in spring. That goes hand in hand with the amendments and the legislative changes. I believe that, in taking both those approaches, we are presenting a strong package for kinship carers that will mark a step change in support and, as I said, I will be pleased to work with Mr Briggs ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 4 and 126 not moved.

Section 1—Aftercare etc for persons looked after before age 16

I understand the intention behind Roz McCall’s amendments 92 to 94 and Martin Whitfield’s amendments 179 to 184. They all seek to strengthen the protection of children’s rights by extending the reach of the 2024 act’s compatibility duties. I have given careful consideration to introducing the provisions on aftercare and the register of foster carers as stand-alone provisions that separate this legislation from the 1995 act, but I am not able to support the amendments in this group.

As I have explained previously, the approach taken in the bill to amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is deliberate and necessary to maintain coherence with the existing legislative framework governing aftercare and foster care. Re-enacting those provisions as freestanding ones in this bill would introduce significant complexity, require duplication of related secondary legislation and risk fragmenting closely connected provisions across multiple acts.

In relation to the register of foster carers, the provisions are administrative in nature and do not substantively determine individual placement decisions, which will continue to be made under the 1995 act.

I strongly disagree with Mr Whitfield on that. I advise that that is still the intention and absolutely still a commitment from the Government. I will get into this when I come to my speaking note, but there is work that will be getting under way on the review of the landscape by Professor Kenneth Norrie as well as the work that has been laid out in the children’s rights scheme.

The aftercare provisions in the bill will amend sections 29 and 30 of the 1995 act. Those provisions are closely connected to other parts of that act. Piecemeal change would add to the cluttering of the landscape that some bodies, including The Promise Scotland, have raised as an issue. It would also make it harder, not easier, for those who will benefit from the provisions—people who are entitled to aftercare, foster carers and children in foster care—to navigate the law.

As I have stated, the Scottish Government’s commitment to the UNCRC and to delivering the Promise also underpins the commissioning of an independent review of the legislative landscape that relates to the care system, led by Professor Kenneth Norrie and CELCIS. The review is responding to concerns that the current framework for care-experienced children and young people has become complex and difficult to navigate in practice. It provides an opportunity to consider the concerns that have been raised regarding the applicability of the UNCRC act and whether re-stating existing laws more broadly might be more appropriate. The review will report later this year and will inform the next Government on whether further legislation is needed and what other practical activity would help to support children, families and those who support them as they interact with the law.

That is in addition to commitments that we have made through the children’s rights scheme, which was laid before the Parliament in November. The scheme includes a commitment to on-going engagement with the United Kingdom Government to explore whether there might be a straightforward and effective way to ensure that key legislation that impacts children and young people is within the scope of the UNCRC act. I would welcome the support of members from across the political spectrum in finding such an overarching solution. Subject to progress in that regard, the children’s rights scheme also includes a commitment to potentially review key UK legislation in devolved areas to determine whether re-enactment is necessary to bring them within the scope of the UNCRC act.

It will be for the next Government to decide how to proceed in light of any progress that is made with the UK Government and in light of Professor Norrie’s recommendations. Proceeding with a new children’s bill to replace some or all of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 could be one of the possibilities at that time. Certainly, such an approach would assist with legislative decluttering and bringing functions that were conferred by the 1995 act within the scope of the UNCRC act. However, it would be premature to commit to doing so now while those other pieces of work remain in progress.

As I say, the difficulty with many aspects of the Promise bill is that I hear different calls from different stakeholders. I imagine that some people would agree with Willie Rennie, and I imagine that some will think that the amendments would complicate the landscape even further and could have a negative impact on children and young people. I cannot weigh up the benefits there.

The committee needs to consider that and the assurances that I have put on record on the work that the Government is going to undertake, and the potential to consider a new children’s bill, which I mentioned earlier, and that would address all of these issues in the round. I hope that the committee will agree that that would be a much neater and better way to proceed, so as to declutter this area—