Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are talking about young people and so we have to go back to the basis of getting it right for every child. The individual support and assessment that one individual child may need is very different from what others may need. The phraseology in Sue Webber’s amendment allows a very wide scope of input and support to prevent, as it seeks to, the removal of the child from the family.

Good morning. In this group, I will talk predominantly to amendment 127, as amendment 128 is consequential to it. In doing so, I look to the minister, who has an amendment to move in this group and a speaking slot, to find out where the Government sits on a lacuna that exists within the law that circulates around the 16th birthday.

If a young person sails off out of the care system before their 16th birthday, they have far fewer rights to advice, assistance and support than those who travel out of it on their 16th birthday or, indeed, the day after. Having spoken to people, my understanding is that the issue arose in the various original legislative slots because, when people talked about children under 16, rather than contemplating teenagers who bring their unique characteristics to the world, their thoughts were more of babies who might spend a short period of time in care then go back to families. The position seems not really to have been considered until this bill, which is very specifically drafted in that the difference occurs on the 16th birthday, which is inconsistent and unhelpful—and, frankly, I am sure, not what anyone expected until the reading of the bill was done.

The purpose of my amendments is to clarify that problem. Amendment 128 would be needed as a consequential amendment. It will be interesting to hear from the minister any other proposals that the Government may have to solve that problem, and I look forward to doing so.

The amendments in my name in this group fall into two categories. There are a substantial number that run from 178, and there is one that sits—and stands—on its own.

Before getting into my contribution, I point out that it is incredibly beneficial, although sad, that we have a group of amendments that again address the UNCRC act—in this case, in relation to restatement and application. On numerous occasions, First Ministers, the Scottish Government, ministers and this Parliament have undertaken to ensure that the UNCRC act, which we struggled to get on to the statute book, would be respected and that opportunities would be taken to bring Scottish law into its scope.

Let me make that more meaningful. Bringing Scottish law into the scope of the 2024 act would open up a vehicle for all our young people if they feel that their human rights have been challenged or taken away from them and would give them what I genuinely believe the people of Scotland want, which is a country, a legislature and a society in which young people’s rights are respected. As that has not happened in the drafting of the bill, I lodged amendments 178 to 184, using the process that the Scottish Government has adopted in relation to the UNCRC act. I refer to the ability to restate the law and bring the provisions on fostering into the bill to give young people who feel that their rights have been challenged or not fulfilled the right, should they wish to exercise it, to pursue that without the challenges and difficulties that exist at the moment and have existed for a substantial period of time. This is about restating various aspects relating to the register so that the UNCRC act would apply.

Roz McCall asked about amendment 181 and whether it seeks a new board. The amendment would provide for an appropriate board to hold the register if necessary in the future. We will all have been approached by individual fosterers and groups that represent the fostering community about the challenge that they feel in terms of parity not only with regard to whether fostering is or is not employment and whether it is paid or unpaid, but the postcode lottery—that is, where the fostering family lives in relation to where young people coming into fostering go. The purpose behind amendment 181 is to allow for something that is akin to the teaching register—I am thinking of a register that would be held by a non-Government body that would represent and speak on behalf of foster carers. It would also guide entry and retention in, and departure from, the register. It is a founding amendment that seeks to ensure compliance with the UNCRC act.

Amendment 217 allows me to wear two hats, the first of which relates to post-legislative scrutiny, which is important. During this session, we have started to recognise its importance for the first time in the Scottish Parliament’s history and we have started to build it into legislation.

I will put my UNCRC hat back on. I hope that amendment 217, which is effectively a sunset clause, will create an impetus. There is strong agreement—I hope that there is still universal agreement—that we seek to comply with the Promise by 2030. Amendment 217 is a gentle indicator that that should happen or else challenges will be made at that time. If acting on such a sunset clause is required, Scotland will be in a sad and disappointing place, but for reasons of clarity and to act as an incentive, it should appear in the bill.

That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that individuals should have the right to return to the environmental system that we call “care”. Returning to that system might involve someone returning to a foster family that they were previously with. In an emergency, it might involve a door being opened to them and a cup of tea being given while contact is made. Different situations could arise. In any situation, it is impossible for someone to return to exactly the same support as they had previously. If you redecorate your child’s bedroom when they go away, they might say that they do not like the wallpaper when they come back, but they are not entitled to have their old wallpaper back.

However, that is not what these individuals are seeking, and it is not the purpose of all the amendments in this group. It is about having a system that says to individuals that they will not be abandoned or thrown away because they are care experienced and that they have a right to return to care. They do not have an absolute right to return to the exact care package or care environment that they had before they left, because they might have been much younger, for example.

If we talk about 20 years’ difference, we could be talking about a child who leaves the care system at the age of six or seven. However, they would have a right to return to the system that we call “care”, which is being redefined by that which underpins the Promise. As we have talked about, that would actually affect a very small number of children, but they should have the same expectation of support from their parent, albeit a corporate parent, that individuals have from their own parents.

To echo Roz McCall, who is perhaps on the other end of the debate, this has been a very interesting area to discuss. I am glad that the Government has accepted at stage 2 that we need to discuss including in the bill the right to return to care and continuing care. It is perhaps late in the day, but I welcome the Government’s confirmation on where it stands on the matter. It is important to include amendments to the bill at stage 2 that can then be worked on.

I have some concerns about the extent of the amendments that the Government has agreed to support and with regard to—I always have concerns about this—with regard to the UNCRC. However, given the minister’s assurance that discussions will continue, and on the basis that the bill will be amended today, I seek to withdraw amendment 129, and I will not move amendment 130.

Amendment 129, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 130 not moved.

Amendments 131 to 134 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 135 not moved.

Section 3—Corporate parenting duties in relation to persons looked after before age 16

If the minister is able to confirm that an amendment relating to guidance on restraint and seclusion in care settings will appear in the Promise bill, I confirm that I will not press the amendment.

This section of the bill goes to the heart of what the Promise should be about for our cared-for and care-experienced community. In primary legislation, we are giving a young person the right to an independent advocate.

Jackie Dunbar talked about the challenge in relation to it being the local authority that pays. The reality is that civil and criminal legal aid, for example, is paid for by the taxpayer through the Government, but those advocates are independent.

We are talking about a different type of advocate. We are not talking about a friend or a confidant, such as a teacher or a trusted adult, that a young person chooses. In this case, we are talking about an individual who is there to represent the voice of the care-experienced person. The need for that individual to be independent is important on a number of levels.

Most importantly, the care-experienced young person needs to know that they have someone on their side who does not answer to anybody else, and they should be able to choose that person. Similarly, the advocate, as an experienced and professional person, needs to be able to advocate on behalf of the child without any other influences coming into play.

In relation to the comments about the roles of teachers and employers, there could be a conflict of interest with a significant number of individuals. It could be incredibly challenging for such an individual to explain that to the young person and for them to remain in the role of advocating for the young person while remaining independent. The fact that it has taken us to this stage to try to identify what “independent” means speaks to the challenge.

A number of amendments in this group are, quite frankly, not dissimilar to each other. It could be suggested that great minds think alike or, alternatively, it could be said that we have a very experienced drafting team that can see through politicians’ gobbledygook. A number of options are available, but key to them all is the point that the advocate should be separate from and independent of an agreed group, including the local authority, the health board, the national health service trust, members of those bodies, the corporate parent and a lead children’s service planning body, although that list is slightly more extended in my amendment 146 than it is in others. Everyone who has lodged amendments in the group in this vein has considered that, even though the care-experienced young person might not be able to see it, society should be able to say that the advocate is independent of people who are making judgments and taking decisions on behalf of that young person.

I look forward to hearing from other members and the minister, but I feel that the point about independence needs to appear in the primary legislation, in part, as a result of some of the amendments that have been agreed to. We can then look forward to coalescing around that at stage 3.

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2026. The only item on today’s agenda is consideration of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill at stage 2. This morning, we are joined by: Graham Simpson MSP, the member in charge of the bill; Graeme Dey MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans; Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP; Mark Griffin MSP; and Kevin Stewart MSP.

For anyone watching, I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow during today’s proceedings. Members should have with them a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. Those documents are available on the bill webpage on the Scottish Parliament website for anyone observing. I will call each amendment individually in the order of the marshalled list. The member who lodged the amendment should say “moved” or “not moved” when it is called. If the member does not move it, any other member present may do so.

The groupings document sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to move and speak to that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members with amendments in the group to speak to but not to move their amendments and to speak to other amendments in the group if they so wish. I will then call any other member who wishes to speak in the debate. Members who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention or the clerk’s. I will then call the minister, followed by the member in charge, if they have not already spoken in the debate.

Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and press their amendment or seek to withdraw it. If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member seeks to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will immediately put the question on the amendment. Later amendments in the group are not debated again, and, when they are reached, if they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away.

If there is a division, only committee members are entitled to vote. Voting is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names. If there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote. Should the result of any division be a tie, my position will be to use my casting vote against the amendment.

The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section and schedule of the bill and the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point.

I aim to conclude proceedings today at around 11.30 am and would like us to make as much progress as possible. To aid in that goal, I would appreciate it if contributions to our debates could be as focused and brief as possible, while ensuring that issues before us today are properly discussed. I will now turn to the marshalled list.

Section 1—How a member becomes subject to a recall petition process

Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5, 10 to 16, 18, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 51, 53 to 56, 59 to 68, 70 and 79 to 83. If amendment 117, which is in the group entitled “Criminal offence ground for recall”, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 33, due to pre-emption. If amendment 97, which is in the group entitled “Signing of petition”, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 40, due to pre-emption.

Ms Webber—