Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 165 deals with the question of restraint and seclusion. The Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill has already been discussed in the chamber, and my amendment relates to guidance on restraint and seclusion in care settings. It is very important that all of those involved in the system, not just our young people but the adults who surround and support them, are given proper and full guidance on the expectations in this respect, on the collection of data and on what is understood by these things.

I go back to some of the speeches that were made in the debate on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill, and the example of a child coming home from school with injuries that have no explanation, but which have happened because of seclusion, and the fact that parents will automatically have questions about what happened. However, in the settings that we are talking about, there is no physical parent for the child to go home to—they have a corporate parent. In such cases, guidance is needed all the more.

I wait to hear what the minister has to say, and I do so in hopeful anticipation that we are pushing at an open door with regard to the notion of guidance set out in the amendment, if not its wording.

Given the discussion on previous amendments this morning, does the member agree that it might be useful to put something in the bill at stage 2 to allow those discussions to go forward rather than to stay silent and potentially end up with the same challenge that we have found ourselves facing?

Does the member agree that, as he has witnessed this morning, the purpose behind his amendment could still be taken account of at stage 3, even if, for example, amendment 147 was agreed to?

Does the minister accept that the bill creates a difference between those young people who leave care before their 16th birthday and those who leave after, and that the purpose behind my amendment is to even the playing field for all young people who leave care?

I am grateful for the minister’s patience in this regard. In her contribution, she talked specifically about those children over 16. I am talking about those children who leave care before their 16th birthday, and the fact that a difference exists. I respect and understand the discussion about guidance but, fundamentally, a different statutory requirement will be set down and, as we have heard in other contributions, it is probable that it will be approached differently.

We have heard that the Government’s position will not change on this—that is on the record—but, as always, the minister has been very reasonable and she often indicates a desire to speak about things.

I understand that the Government’s position will not change on amendment 127, but it is happy to talk about it. I say that to give an indication of what I will do in a few minutes.

We have reached this point with UNCRC compatibility on a number of occasions and the Government’s approach has been to say that it is just too difficult.

The choice to answer the challenges that the Supreme Court levelled at the 2024 act and the approach that was taken by the Parliament to ensure that that legislation went through was founded on an understanding that the Government would use every opportunity to bring legislation within the scope of the UNCRC act. Is that genuinely still the Government’s intention, or are we just going around in circles and expecting our young people to eventually need to go all the way to Europe to enforce their rights?

10:15

It would depend on what happened. If someone turned up at the door of a foster family and that family was capable of helping them, that should absolutely happen. I have spoken to a significant number of adults who take on fostering responsibilities, and they have all said exactly the same thing: of course they would open the door. Whether the individual would remain in that care is a different question, because, as we have talked about, what was right for that individual would need to be considered. What would be needed? What had caused the return? In the immediate instance, I hope that every person would put their hand out to someone who was facing challenges, but that immediate support could involve simply opening the door and letting the person come in and have a cup of tea.

Whether the right to return to care equals the right for someone to return to the specific situation that they were in before they left care is a different argument. It is right that we have that debate, because what happens needs to be right for the individual and—this goes back to the UNCRC—for the human rights of the other individuals in that environment at the time. We have a skill set to deal with that, when the legislation allows for that.

The amendments that I have lodged in this group relate to unusual instances and instances in which identifying the age of the young person can be challenging. I lodged them in relation to the corporate parenting duties and guidance provisions in the light of the purpose behind the Promise, which is to give our cared-for young people the best opportunity to be loved and set up for the future as they progress through life. My proposals form part of the obligation that I seek to place on corporate parents to do their best for those young people and to ensure that they have all the necessary legal paperwork and the best emotional and empathetic support.

My amendments 136, 140 and 141 relate to specific areas in which questions can arise. They seek to place on corporate parents an obligation to ensure that they do the best for the young people who come before them.

Does Ross Greer think that the areas covered in my amendments could be included in the guidance to ensure, in essence, that members of our cared-for community can expect the best to be done for them as they launch off into the future?