Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome that intervention. I absolutely agree—it would certainly not be for this section of the bill, but there are other sections in which the matter can be dealt with.

With that assurance, convener, I seek to withdraw amendment 167.

Amendment 167, by agreement, withdrawn.

09:45

I thank the minister for her comments. This is certainly a case of great minds thinking alike, as we are both seeking to extend the section in a similar way. However, as my colleague Jeremy Balfour says, the minister’s comment that she prefers her own amendment reads like most of my school reports—“Could do better.”

In the circumstances, I am content to listen and will support the minister’s amendment. I welcome the Government’s support for amendment 171. I had much harsher words than “innovative” for such providers coming in in the future, but I like the word “innovative”, so we will stick with that for the public record. I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendment 170 not moved.

Amendment 171 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 19 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Register of foster carers

I have nothing really to add, except to say that I will press amendment 172.

Amendment 172 agreed to.

Amendment 173 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.

Amendments 174 to 176 not moved.

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.