Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not able to clarify the point about the parliamentary timescale, so I will need to ask my officials.

I thank Ross Greer for lodging the amendments in this group. The amendments, and Mr Greer’s comments, highlight the impact that estrangement can have on young people who do not have the same family support network as their peers. I have spoken with Mr Greer about my keenness to ensure that we plug that gap, which I recognise exists. However, we need to do so in a way that does not impact on the rights of the care-experienced community.

Amendments 152 and 153 would include in the bill children who are, and people who were as children,

“cared for or supported as a consequence of being estranged from their family”

as having the right to access care-experienced advocacy services, which will be implemented through regulations under section 4. However, it is important to be clear that the reasons for estrangement can be wide ranging and go far beyond the aims and the reach of the Promise and care experience.

The regulation-making powers in section 4(6)(a) that will enable Scottish ministers to set out that care experience for the purposes of section 4 can include those who are

“cared for or otherwise supported in such circumstances as may be specified”.

That means that, if it is deemed appropriate, following consultation and engagement, Scottish ministers can make provision for people who are estranged from their families without express amendments to that effect being required, so far as those people are considered to have been in receipt of formal care or support in some way, such as through arrangements with a public authority. Amendments 152 and 153 would pre-empt the consultation that will inform the regulations, but I can commit to ensuring that consideration is given to estrangement during the engagement that will inform development of the regulations.

Amendment 156 seeks to provide Scottish ministers with the power to define by regulations those who are cared for or supported as a consequence of being “estranged from their family”, for the purposes of section 4. That is beyond the guidance-based approach to defining care experience that is being taken forward in section 5. The amendment would set out a stronger position on estrangement than on care experience when the purpose of the guidance is to promote best practice and understanding of care experience and language use in interacting with and supporting people with care experience. I am keen to explore whether there is a suitable way to include estrangement while developing the wider guidance on care experience, and I would welcome further discussion with Mr Greer ahead of stage 3.

I am also concerned about the need to define “family” that would arise through amendment 156. We know that the term can have different meanings to different people, and particularly for care-experienced people, so we would need to be careful to avoid setting what could be seen as arbitrary parameters around that.

Amendments 162 and 163 relate to the care experience guidance under section 5. The amendments seek to take a prescriptive approach by including in the bill that additional category that must be covered in the guidance. However, that would move away from the flexibility that a guidance-based approach provides. Amendment 164 raises similar concerns.

I want to put on record and assure Mr Greer that I am very sympathetic to the intention behind his amendments. I recognise the importance of ensuring that people, especially young adults, who are estranged from their families are properly supported and that public authorities fully understand the difficulties that they can face. That is why I have suggested looking at provisions in the bill relating to child support plans and at whether there is scope to address issues of estrangement in that way. I am happy to confirm my intention to work with Ross Greer and with advocates for estranged young people to develop amendments for stage 3. I therefore ask him not to press the amendments in the group, given the assurances that I have laid out.

I will.

Section 10 is deliberately drafted as a flexible enabling power to allow the detailed design of a national foster carer register to be shaped through further consultation and co-production with foster carers, care-experienced people and fostering services. The policy memorandum is clear that that approach is essential to ensure that the final model genuinely reflects the realities of fostering and the voices of carers, services and care-experienced people.

The response to the consultation on the future of foster care showed strong support for the principle of a national register and a recognition of the potential benefits for consistency and transparency. However, the response also made clear that key decisions about scope, safeguarding information, data handling and carers’ rights require substantial further engagement before they can responsibly be set in law. Stakeholders emphasised that any register must be proportionate, should not deter recruitment and must support rather than burden services. Above all, the register must work in a manner that is in the best interests of children and of the carers who look after them.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 172 would help to avoid the perception of blacklisting prospective carers, whose circumstances can change. That would support recruitment and retention, which is an issue that has been raised repeatedly by the sector. Martin Whitfield’s amendment 173 would strengthen carers’ ability to access and correct their personal information, which would align with clear consultation messages about transparency and strong data protection standards. I support those amendments and am grateful for the constructive way in which they have been lodged.

Roz McCall’s amendment 174, however, would place detailed operational requirements for the register directly into primary legislation, which would fix key elements of how the register would operate before it has been shaped with foster carers and stakeholders. Although stakeholders may tell us that those are the sort of requirements that they want to be reflected in how the register operates, and I agree that those issues matter deeply, I am not comfortable with making those decisions at this stage without having heard from foster carers and others through the consultation and co-production processes that the bill deliberately provides for.

Likewise, I ask Martin Whitfield not to press amendments 175 to 177, which would create a Scottish foster carers council. Those amendments would fix in primary legislation the existence and certain functions of a new national body before any consultation has taken place on whether such a body is needed or what form it should take. The consultation that has taken place did not propose or test the creation of such a body, nor did any respondents identify that as a way to ensure that foster carers’ voices are heard.

Okay.

Proposed new sections 30D and 30E of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 will give ministers the flexibility to explore and develop appropriate oversight arrangements for the register. However, creating a statutory body at this stage is premature without the consultation and co-production that are provided for in the bill.

In addition, amendment 176 does not appear to reflect the distinct statutory frameworks that exist for foster care and kinship care, as it would permit kinship carers to sit on a body overseeing a foster-specific register. That risks blurring roles and responsibilities in a way that could create confusion rather than clarity for carers and services. Amendment 177 is, of course, consequential to amendment 176.

I support amendments 172 and 173 and encourage members to vote for them. I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 174 and Martin Whitfield not to move amendments 175 to 177. If they do so, I encourage members to vote against them so that we can continue to work in partnership with the sector to design the register carefully and in a way that best supports children, young people and foster carers.

I would like to take this discussion with Roz McCall offline and discuss it ahead of stage 3, because I would need a little bit more clarity on her point.

There is no geographical dimension to safeguarders. It is a national panel. However, I think that she was also speaking about panel members and issues around rurality. We are facing those issues at the moment, given that we need to increase the number of panel members. The provisions that we are making in relation to introducing single-member panels are intended to directly impact that by reducing drift and delay and improving efficiency in the children’s hearing system. I believe that those provisions will help with the issues in rural areas.

I would prefer to move my amendments today, Mr Whitfield, because I think that the issue that we are talking about is a need for clarity on specific aspects of when a single-member panel should be utilised. The amendments that I have lodged are necessary technical amendments as well as safeguards. I really want to work with members of the committee, but I feel that we can still get to the place that members are requesting us to get to, and provide that clarity, even if I move my amendments today.

As I said, I want to work in a co-operative way, so if the issue is purely down to amendment 30, I would be happy not to move that amendment today and continue the discussion following stage 2.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Amendments 26 and 27 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 105 not moved.

Yes—I would absolutely be happy to continue that discussion further. I fully agree with Mr Whitfield that there are alternative non-legislative options. There is also a place for non-instructed advocacy, for example, in relation to the rights of our youngest children. There are a number of areas that we can discuss further, and I would be happy to do so.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendment 29 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Amendment 32 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 106 and 33 not moved.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

After section 11

Amendments 107 and 186 not moved.

Section 12—Remuneration of Children’s Panel members

Amendments 226, 187 and 227 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13—Child’s attendance at children’s hearings and hearings before sheriff

11:30

I do not have too much more to say in winding up, but I want to reflect briefly on Mr Whitfield’s comments.

From what I read of his amendment 188, it does change—