Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendments in the group would introduce new provisions to the bill in respect of babies and infants. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that their needs and interests are represented and met through the children’s hearings system. However, I am not sure that the amendments in the group do that.

Roz McCall’s amendment 110 risks the adoption of a splintered approach to considering compulsory state intervention in children’s and families’ lives. Scotland currently applies a universalist, “whole child” approach to these issues. It is self-evident that when one group of children is prioritised for particular attention on the basis of age, other children are deprioritised. Prioritisation should not be done on the basis of age alone. However, the very youngest children have an inherent and unique vulnerability.

We have been clear in today’s committee meeting that improvements can be made in relation to the needs of our youngest children. The amendments in the group are not necessarily the way to do that. It is not about any form of prioritisation but about the support that our youngest children require. Perhaps more needs to be done on that front to ensure that we efficiently support them and really listen to their voice, even if they are very young.

I thank Ms McCall for amendment 117. I know from my conversations with children and young people that language is extremely important to them. Significant work has been done in that area already, much of it led by children, but there is certainly more to do. I am acutely aware of the evolution of Scotland’s unique approach to children’s welfare and justice through the hearings system. Chapter 3 of part 1 of the bill seeks to further modernise our approach and respond to calls for change, not least in the “Hearings for Children” report.

We have already acted to change some of the language by adding the term “support” to the referral criteria through section 17 of the bill. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to make that change twice through amendment 117. By its very nature, the children’s hearings system is a system of compulsion. We must ensure that its purpose is clear in all circumstances. We cannot lose sight of the justice role that children’s hearings perform, and that the role is growing—rightly—to accept 16 and 17-year-olds. The statistics show that some of the offence grounds that might be brought to a hearing will be serious. Applying control, as well as support, will be—and, indeed, is—an appropriate way for panel members to consider the right course of action for some children.

We have sought advice on the language of “treatment or control” from a range of sources. There is not a singular response; as with much of the bill, there are a range of views, though most agree that the language could be changed. There are practical and legal difficulties in trying to change the core language of a system that is more than 50 years old, without first weighing up all the consequences of doing so. However, I want to give more consideration to it. There may be a case to modernise the language around treatment, but keep “control”, for other reasons that I and others have set out. I am willing to consider that further ahead of stage 3.

I therefore ask Roz McCall not to press amendment 117.

I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence on the draft Care Leaver Payment (Scotland) Regulations 2026 and welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations.

The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to keeping the Promise to all our children and young people and to making Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. That commitment resonates strongly with me personally and I remain dedicated to ensuring that that commitment extends to all children and young people with care experience as they transition from care and move on into adulthood and independent living.

Moving into adulthood is extremely challenging for any young person of any age, but the challenges can be exacerbated when there are limited support networks in place. Many young people who move on from care do not have the same informal support networks that other young people have during the transition points in their lives. Financial stress and strain for young people moving on from care can quickly escalate to create a multitude of challenges and can lead to financial hardship. Our intention with the care leaver payment scheme is to provide additional financial support for young people who are moving on from care and into adulthood in order to help reduce some of the challenges faced during that transition.

The regulations will allow local authorities to make a one-off £2,000 payment to care leavers at the point when they leave care or continuing care. The payment will be made by the local authority that last looked after the young person and the regulations allow the young person autonomy over how they wish to spend or save the payment.

I have listened to the voices of care-experienced young people and understand how important it is for their experiences to be reflected in policy design. I want to get the new payment right and to ensure that its structures are based on solid evidence and real-time feedback from the care community and workforce. My officials have consulted extensively on the design and development of the care leaver payment and have co-designed it with people who have experience of care and those who provide support to care leavers in order to ensure that the voices of lived experience and of those with professional expertise have been incorporated into the design of the payment.

A full public consultation, a series of safeguarding workshops with practitioners and our targeted engagement with care-experienced young people have all contributed to the development of the payment to best meet the needs of our young people as they move on from care. Stakeholders have welcomed the new payment as providing an additional opportunity to reduce the vulnerability and financial barriers that young people face when moving on from care.

The Scottish Commission on Social Security has scrutinised the draft regulations and produced a report. I thank the commission for that thorough consideration and welcome the first observation within the report, which is that the new payment is a welcome addition to the existing support available to young people who are leaving care and is another step the Scottish Government has taken towards keeping the Promise. The Scottish Government’s response to the commission’s report was laid alongside the draft instrument.

I welcome the committee’s questions on the draft regulations and would be happy to provide any further information.

I will have to ask my officials to clarify that.

I accept that that is a lengthy period, but the committee has been given an answer on the legalities relating to the timescale. My focus was on getting the payment right for young people. Given that we are giving £2,000 to help young people to transition out of care, safeguards are needed to ensure that the child is effectively supported with the payment. My main priority was getting things right for young people.

In addition to the timings that we have already provided, as I said, the Scottish Commission on Social Security scrutinised the regulations. That took three months, so that added to the timescale, too.

A number of things added to the timescale, but I appreciate that, as the convener pointed out, there has been quite a lengthy period since the consultation.

I have nothing further to add.

I will speak first to my amendments 5, 6 and 86. Those are interrelated and are needed to deliver quality care for young people in a well-planned way through the gradual roll-out of aftercare.

Amendment 5 would ensure the affordability and deliverability of the expansion of aftercare to formerly looked-after children who have ceased to be looked after before the age of 16. Stakeholders have indicated concerns over the pressure in staffing and resourcing that the expansion of aftercare might place on children’s services. I understand the need to be given time to adjust to the increase in the numbers of children and young people who will request and receive aftercare support, so that it does not impact on the quality of support for them or the support that is already offered to children and young people who currently receive aftercare. Amendment 5 would allow for such expansion in a managed way.

Amendment 6 is a technical amendment to give the Scottish ministers the power to accelerate the expansion of the new eligibility for aftercare to older age groups in the future by specifying a date that is earlier than the date of commencement of section 1 of the bill. In response to Roz McCall’s request, I see no issue with that happening through the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 86, too, is a technical amendment, to allow for maximised accessibility of section 29 following commencement. It is required for the same reasons as amendments 5 and 6. I hope that members can support all those amendments.

I am concerned that Roz McCall’s amendment 88 would be detrimental to the delivery of aftercare for young people leaving care between the ages of 16 and under 19, as it would place a duty on local authorities to provide aftercare for care leavers who do not need or want it. We have consulted extensively with young people and young adults about aftercare provision. At every stage, they have emphasised the importance of their voices being heard and respected in decisions that affect them individually and in the policy decisions that are made nationally. Creating additional provision for aftercare in the bill is not the best route to ensuring that throughcare and aftercare teams are able to support those whose welfare requires it. The best way to provide that clarity would be through strengthened guidance. The Government is already working with stakeholders on that.

I hope that that reassures Roz McCall, and that she will not press amendment 88. If it is pressed, I would ask members not to support it.

09:45

Martin Whitfield’s amendments 127 and 128 would also have the potential to negatively impact the delivery of aftercare for children and young people between the ages of 16 and under 19 who left care prior to their 16th birthday. Aftercare is, by design, an approach that recognises the importance of relationships and puts the needs and wellbeing of the young person at the very centre of the support that they receive. Section 1 seeks to promote a rights-respecting approach, including for young people who choose not to approach local services on turning 16 or who choose to make an approach at a later time.

I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that information about aftercare is clear, with good signposting to ensure that young people know their entitlements. There is a place for advocacy in there as well. As I outlined above, work is under way to expand and strengthen the guidance on aftercare, including to support the changes that we are making through the bill.

I would be grateful if Mr Whitfield could clarify that point further. Is he referring to the assessment in relation to children and young people who have left care prior to their 16th birthday coming back for aftercare?

I respectfully disagree with Mr Whitfield on that point. I believe that the assessment that will take place will take into account that every child’s needs will be different and that support will be provided based on the individual child’s needs. I do not believe that those young people will have any less of an entitlement; the provision will be what that child or young person needs to be supported. Given the concerns that Mr Whitfield raises, I will look at the matter again ahead of stage 3. However, I believe that what I have laid out is the position, and it is my position.

I will move on. Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of Roz McCall, would remove the upper age limit for those who are currently eligible to apply for aftercare and would give local authorities the discretion to determine the age range within which people may apply for aftercare.

My concern with those amendments is that they would create inconsistencies in different local areas for what we are trying to establish as a national entitlement that is the same for young people who need and would benefit from aftercare, no matter where they live in Scotland.

The amendments might also have unintended consequences that would affect the aftercare support that is currently received by young people with care experience. It is possible that some young people who are currently eligible by virtue of their age to apply for aftercare may no longer be able to do so if a local authority determines that they do not need it. The spirit of aftercare is to support young people with care experience as they transition to adulthood and to provide them with the tools and support that they need to be successful, independent adults. Local authorities already have the power to provide aftercare beyond age 26, and they already use it.

There is a danger that opening up aftercare to anyone over the age of 16 who was ever looked after could put real, unforeseen pressure on children’s services, rendering them perhaps unable to provide aftercare to the young people with care experience who most need that support while transitioning to adulthood, and for whom the support in section 1 was designed.

There are also more appropriate routes through which adults with care experience can seek support—such as adult services, trauma-informed services, lifelong advocacy and more—that do not necessarily involve pulling them back into the care system. I therefore cannot support amendments 89 and 90.

Roz McCall’s amendment 91 might have a similar effect, in so far as some young people who are currently eligible for financial support and assistance towards expenses of education or training may no longer receive it, as it would be up to local authorities to determine the upper age limit for support based on an individual’s needs, including for children and young people who are currently receiving that support. The same arguments regarding inconsistency and differential treatment apply, as they do for amendments 89 and 90.

I am conscious of how important financial support such as the care leaver payment, the job start payment, the care experience education bursary and the summer accommodation grant is in helping care-experienced children and young people to thrive. I propose to look in more detail for stage 3 at how local authorities can complement that support for those who are in receipt of aftercare using section 30 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I therefore ask Roz McCall not to move her amendment 91 at this time.

Convener, I would be grateful if I could listen to Jeremy Balfour’s comments—