Seòmar agus comataidhean

Moved.

I absolutely welcome the proposal that the minister makes. In essence, if we all leave the amendments in the group in abeyance ahead of that discussion before stage 3, we will not pre-define anything. We have not heard any new evidence, but there has been some discussion about a different aspect of the role of the single-member panel. Does the minister agree that not moving the amendments in the group would indicate everyone’s intention to work in good faith to reach agreement on the matter?

Will the minister take an intervention?

In essence, the amendment shifts the onus to a presumption of attendance; it does not impose a mandatory requirement for attendance where the questions have been asked. Rather than what the minister said earlier, the amendment is about reaching the right decision with regard to the young person. That starts with a presumption of attendance, which can then be rebutted.

In a similar vein, an opt-out model will not present advocacy for a child in the dark—the advocacy will be explained and will allow for relationship building—so the minister’s argument works just as well in relation to an opt-out model as it does in relation to an opt-in model, because relationships and understanding are needed in order to make a decision.

12:15

I can provide the minister with the space to do that beyond this meeting, so I will not push the matter now.

Good morning. I remind everyone of my entry in the register of members’ interests in respect of having been a teacher in a period that overlapped with this parliamentary session.

This group of amendments is entitled “Permanence”. The amendments are about the situation when young people—in particular, very young children and babies—go into care and the time that is taken for a decision to be made about what the future holds for the young person. One of the most important elements of stability for a young person is understanding what their future will hold, because having stability, even at a pre-verbal age, allows a level of security to develop; without it, the young person constantly questions the unknown that is coming down the line.

I recognise that different views are taken, not about the importance of permanence but about the time for a decision to be made and whether there should be provisions in the bill to force the system to deal with the question of permanence in an acceptable time. It is of note that, in England, decisions about permanent care are taken four and a half times faster than in Scotland.

Looking at the history of the care-experienced community, even predating the Promise, we see that there have been discussions for 20 years about the need for permanence to be discussed early on, appropriately and in the best interests of the child. Throughout that time, Governments and individuals—certainly those who support the care-experienced community—have said that this is an outstanding sore that has not been addressed. We have received promises in the past on how the system would be sped up and how we would ensure that we get it right for every child, yet we find ourselves at the tail end of this parliamentary session with, to quote Ross Greer, the “last opportunity” to deal with this crucial issue.

Different standpoints as to whether setting a time limit in primary legislation is the answer are taken by those outside of this place—and, indeed, inside of this place. If we set a time limit in primary legislation, it has to be kept to by the system. The question then arises as to what happens if, in an individual case, that time limit means that a decision is taken that perhaps will not be in the best interests of the child. I suggest that the overriding philosophy, if not quite yet the statutory provision, is that we should get it right for every child and that there would be an opportunity to make it right. However, I understand those positions.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak with the minister about the matter, and I look forward to what the minister can say by way of reassurance. We should all agree that, in the right circumstances, permanence at the earliest date in a child’s life is crucially important. However, there are situations in which that is challenging. The Government, the Parliament and those that support the more formal way in relation to our cared-for community have an obligation to meet that responsibility. In the right case, permanence is the right decision, and it should not be lost because it is kicked down the line to the point at which permanence ceases to have any substantial function in supporting the development of a child. With that, I will move my amendment and I look forward to other contributions.

I move amendment 167.

Section 10 will create a register of foster carers. My amendments 172 and 173 relate to safeguarding and the information that the register needs to contain. There is a risk that any register can be misused and, indeed, on some occasions, abused. In this day and age—as perhaps it should always have been—it is important to be clear about who owns the data on the register. It is also important that corrections to the register can be sought if errors have been made. My amendments specifically relate to that. They also concern how the information about individuals who have been considered but not approved as foster carers appears on the register. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the right information is provided and to protect against any erroneous information being added to the register.

Amendment 173 seeks to encourage the Scottish ministers to consider and take into account foster carers’ ownership of their personal data when drafting regulations about the register. That is good practice that should, in any event, be followed.

Amendments 175 to 177 are more than probing amendments. The register would enable a developmental approach for foster carers. They are an important group but one that is, I am afraid to say, often overlooked in our care system. They often feel that they bear the brunt of difficult and challenging situations, without full and adequate support. They are also expected to go above and beyond in difficult circumstances, often late at night and over weekends.

It is time that the Parliament, the Scottish Government and, indeed, the people of Scotland recognise the incredible work that foster carers do. The register would allow a developmental approach, in that it would give professionalism to foster carers, recognise their expertise and give proper and true credit to their role in our system.

My amendments propose something that is not unlike the model that is followed by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which governs the registration and entrance of teachers into the profession. It is governed and controlled by teachers, but other statutory bodies, including the Scottish Government, the trade union movement and COSLA, have a role to play, too.

That model has worked incredibly successfully. I absolutely admit that the model could not be adopted straight away for foster carers, but I am curious as to whether the Government would be inclined to develop the environment that would allow that to happen. We have seen the strength of non-Government and non-local authority bodies, such as the GTCS, which has worked successfully to govern entrance into the teaching profession and to monitor the skill sets of those in the profession. A similar model would ensure that the people of Scotland can be confident that foster carers are exactly the right people to deal with some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

I move amendment 172.

Not moved.

Amendment 177 not moved.

To capture the last part of the minister’s contribution in respect of the amendments that I have lodged, it is about understanding not only the capacity, but the reality of the situation. At present, there is conflicting guidance and support as to whose voice will be heard and taken forward, and that is a challenge.

The purpose of my amendments was, in part, to be provocative. There are five-year-olds who certainly have a great deal of understanding of some things and less understanding of others, and if we are talking about five months or 12 months, those are very different scenarios.

Indeed, to revert to some of our earlier discussions, there will be a challenge around decisions that are taken, and on whose authority evidence was taken, with regard to young infants in particular. There needs to be scope to explore that, because there will come a time when either a single chairing member or a panel will be confronted with conflicting evidence that is brought before them as to what is in the best interests of a young child. One of the obligations that we already place on the children’s hearings system is to make a decision in that situation. The panel will need support and guidance to take that decision—that is crucial to avoid conflict or tension or the wrong decision being made.

If the minister is open to further discussion in respect of UNCRC and human rights and how those issues can be articulated—not necessarily in the bill, because there are other vehicles that might be helpful—and if that can be placed on the record, I certainly will not pursue these two amendments today.