Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is fine—thank you. I thought that I would ask.

I understand the rationale behind Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 7 and I thank him for lodging his amendment, which allows us to debate these issues.

The landscape surrounding transitions is complex and young disabled people, in particular those who are moving on from care into adulthood, face multiple challenges. Aftercare already includes support for health and wellbeing needs, including any needs arising from disability. Currently, young disabled people leaving care from age 16 who need and want aftercare have the right to an assessment of their needs and a plan to meet those needs. Through the bill, that right will be extended to more care-experienced disabled children who left care before the age of 16, from their 16th birthday.

The type of aftercare advice, guidance and support that is required, and the way in which it is provided, will be specific to a young person’s needs. Any assistance by way of accommodation must have regard to the suitability of that accommodation to meet needs arising from any disability.

Only those young people who were looked after by social work would be eligible for aftercare, meaning that the vast majority of young disabled people would not be eligible for that support.

I share Mr Balfour’s ambitions in seeking to improve transitions for young disabled people, but I do not necessarily consider that making further provision in respect of aftercare is the best way to achieve that.

In June 2025, the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities published the national transitions to adulthood strategy to improve transitions to adulthood for all young disabled people in Scotland, including care-experienced young disabled people. The strategy emphasises that improving transitions needs a co-ordinated, collaborative approach that integrates the efforts of all relevant sectors and partners, for all young disabled people and not just those who are care experienced. That group of young people is one of the most vulnerable groups in society and I welcome all discussions around strengthening the support that they are given.

If Mr Balfour agrees, I propose to look at the matter in more detail ahead of stage 3, including to see whether there is more work that we can do in a non-legislative space to address those issues. I ask, therefore, that he does not move his amendment.

In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 5, 6 and 86 and to vote against amendment 88 if it is pressed, and against all other amendments in the group, if they are moved.

In light of our back and forth, I gave Martin Whitfield a commitment and said that I am happy to reconsider the matter at stage 3. I would like to understand members’ concerns, and I know that The Promise Scotland has concerns about the issue. There are a number of such areas in the bill. I do not think that I have been firm on anything; I will take away anything of great concern and look at it ahead of stage 3. My position on amendment 127 remains the same, but I give the commitment to discuss the matter further with Mr Whitfield and any other member who wishes to discuss it.

10:00

The aftercare provisions are tied up with other aftercare provisions in the 1995 act. In relation to fostering, decisions about the placement of children in foster care will still be made under the 1995 act and so will be outside the scope of protections for children’s rights in the UNCRC act. That is why I am saying that the amendments would build in further fragmentation.

I absolutely understand where Mr Greer and other members are coming from in relation to the UNCRC. On the timing, I respect Mr Greer’s comments about the fact that the review should perhaps have taken place before now. However, we have work to build on. There has been on-going work by The Promise Scotland on the legislative landscape, which is the work that the review by Professor Kenneth Norrie and CELCIS intends to build on. I have laid out a clear plan for that work and for when the review will report back.

Coupled with that, I have laid out points in relation to the children’s rights scheme and given an assurance that that process will take place. Obviously, there is engagement with the UK Government but, if we remain unsatisfied in relation to maximising coverage for children’s rights—Mr Greer is correct on the need for that, and my chosen way forward would have been to ensure maximum rights across everything—I have laid out a clear pathway for what the Government will do to ensure that the provisions fall within scope in future, taking into account a number of other matters that need to be considered. That is an appropriate way forward. I understand the temptation around the amendments, but I believe that they would lead to further fragmentation. We are on a course of resolving the issue once and for all.

I understand Mr Rennie’s points. However, I am being told by some people that the landscape is too cluttered and complex, and I am being told this morning that we can add to it further—for what I would say is no real benefit. The practical impact of bringing aftercare provisions within UNCRC scope is limited, because only 16 and 17-year-olds fall within the age range to which UNCRC requirements apply and, of course, aftercare extends to age 25, so there is a limitation there.

Proceeding to bring individual provisions within the scope of the UNCRC act on a piecemeal basis would quickly scatter the provisions—I have referred to the material across a number of acts. The amendments would undermine the clarity and coherence that people are calling for and run counter to the calls from stakeholders. I have tried my best to provide assurance that the concerns that the committee has relayed about the scope of the provisions will be considered and reviewed in line with the work on the review of the legislative landscape and the children’s rights scheme. I hope that that provides assurance. We should not add to the complexity of the landscape on a short-term basis.

Yes.

I will not sit here making excuses. I understand and appreciate the point that we could have embarked on this work earlier. Other work has been under way in relation to the review that The Promise Scotland was undertaking, and the Government had to consider whether we felt that that was full enough for us to begin on this path of re-enacting the legislation, or whether that work would have to be built upon further. Through the review by Professor Kenneth Norrie, that is the position that we have taken.

I do not have to tell the committee about the raft of work that is under way to deliver on the Promise. When I speak to children and young people, they talk to me about things that they want to be changed, and those are the things that the Government has been moving on. My focus has been on trying to deliver real change for children and young people, right here and right now.

Decluttering of the legislative landscape is of course important, for all the reasons that I have laid out, and noting everything that the committee has been discussing this morning, but our attention has been focused on where children and young people have told us it is important to move.

That does not take away from the importance of the work that has been done, and that is why I have set out assurances that the Government will be moving on the issue further.

That may be the normal practice, convener. However, I think that I have been clear. I have heard very strong calls from the committee about the need for continuing care and the right to return. This is the approach that I have taken, much in line with all the other conversations that I have had this morning about continuing discussions ahead of stage 3. That is exactly what I plan to do with Ms Sturgeon in relation to those amendments.

I have nothing further to add. I am looking to strengthen the provisions in any way that I can. I believe that there is support across the committee for the provisions, and I will work to make them as strong as they can possibly be.

Absolutely, I give that assurance—I am coming to that.

Secondly, the amendment as currently framed does not address important issues such as what the guidance would cover, who it will be addressed to and what duty they should be under to apply it. I think that it would be helpful to cover those and others issues in primary legislation, along with provisions on other matters. I acknowledge that, by the end of the parliamentary session, we may well have separate legislative provisions for statutory guidance on restraint in educational settings and children’s residential care settings. There is a risk of both applying to a setting that provides both education and residential care. How we implement those provisions will need to be carefully considered. It will be important, in the next session, for Parliament to ensure that provision in those settings and in mental health settings is aligned.

Although I cannot accept Martin Whitfield’s amendment at stage 2, I commit that the Scottish Government will work on an amendment at stage 3 that will provide for statutory guidance on the use of restraint in care settings. At the very least, that amendment will cover children’s residential care settings and secure care settings. On that basis, I ask Mr Whitfield not to move his amendment 165, and I understand that he is not going to.

In relation to amendments 102 and 124, I absolutely share Sue Webber’s ambition to keep families together in Scotland, where it is safe to do so, and to ensure that they are well supported. I value and understand the importance of ensuring that any decision made in relation to family separation is carefully considered and is based on robust assessment. There are currently statutory duties on local authorities to assess looked-after children and to provide a plan for their long and short-term needs, and there are also duties on local authorities to provide services to children in need who may be at risk of becoming looked after and to promote the upbringing of such children by their own families.

Supporting families to stay together is important, but, for some children, continuing or resuming residence with a parent would not be safe or in their best interests and the law must preserve professional judgment to act where separation is necessary. The best interests of the child are absolutely paramount and should be the prime consideration for local authorities in their assessment of a child’s needs. I am committed to continuing to improve the experience of care for children across Scotland and to promoting awareness of the services that are presently available. I ask members to resist amendment 102, on the basis that the provision would not enhance or improve the support that children and families receive to remain together.

Group 8 covers a wide range of important concerns across the bill and I thank members for lodging these amendments and enabling us to debate them. In conclusion, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask Ross Greer not to press amendment 143, Paul O’Kane not to move amendment 157, Miles Briggs not to move amendment 158, Roz McCall not to move amendments 99 and 159, Martin Whitfield not to move 165 and Sue Webber not to move amendments 102 and 124. I also ask members to support amendments 100, 160 and 161.

I knew that this would be a good debate, and it has been. I sense that there are mixed feelings on the issue, and it is good to air some of those. I will give some of my thoughts and then speak to points that have been raised in the debate.

The Promise tells us the importance of independent advocacy services and the role that they play in supporting and upholding the rights of children who are in care and people with experience of care. That is why we put into the bill a commitment to provide such services on a lifelong basis. I thank everyone who informed the development of the provisions in section 4, including The Promise Scotland, through its advocacy scoping report.

I recognise that the issue of independent advocacy generates strong feelings. I understand that there is a desire for greater clarity in the bill on what constitutes independence. I want to set out clearly my position on the amendments and explain why I think that Jackie Dunbar’s amendments 144 and 151 strike an appropriate balance on this important matter. The bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers, through section 4, to make arrangement by regulations conferring rights of access to care experience advocacy services. The intention has always been to set out how independence is defined through regulations. Those regulations will be developed in close consultation with the care community and service providers, as required.