Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to the minister for taking a third intervention. Indeed, the provision as described in the statute is that, if the young person leaves when they are under 16, they are, in effect, entitled to assistance, whereas if they leave after 16, it is assistance and more. The challenge is that, unless they fight hard and stay until they are 16, they have fewer rights, and that in turn will potentially lead to a United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child claim that a differential approach is being applied to those young people.

Will Willie Rennie give way?

The title of this group sums up succinctly what we are looking at, which is care services for young people, continuing care and, most appropriately, return to care and housing. This group of amendments deals with the realistic and, unfortunately, all too common situation in transition, in which our young people—and not so young people—have challenges in their right to return to care.

I will speak to amendments 129 and 130 in particular. Interestingly, amendment 129 is based on Office for National Statistics data. The ONS analysed young people across the UK and found that the average age at which they leave home is 24, so the current age of 21 as the upper threshold for care provision makes little sense. Sadly, care-experienced adults are twice as likely to experience homelessness, and one and a half times more likely to have financial issues. As we heard from Roz McCall in relation to earlier amendments, the idea of home is as important to our cared-for community as it is to others. We cannot take their home away too early.

Amendment 129 would extend the upper age limit for continuing care to 26. In consultation with the sector and others, it was agreed that, when aged under 26, individuals may suffer events that would cause those who are not in the care sector to return home. However, those in the care sector do not have that opportunity.

Amendment 130, which is an important element in this group, is on the right to return to care. I am sure that many individuals, including me, have experienced that strange time when their children suddenly and unexpectedly return to their doorstep. We do what every parent and carer wants to do, which is to open the door and welcome them back in. The Promise says:

“Young adults for whom Scotland has taken on parenting responsibility must have a right to return to care and have access to services and supportive people to nurture them.”

In essence, that encompasses what all parents undertake to do, to the best of their ability, when their offspring return.

John Mason picks up on an element that is frequently discussed, not only by young people but by those who work in the sector. We need to remember that the care sector is much wider than just care homes. That is not to take away the point about staff changes. I have seen young people who are two years into high school return to their primary school, only to discover that there are no faces that they know left there.

It also speaks to something that the Promise encapsulated. My understanding is that, possibly for the first time anywhere in the world, there needs to be a genuine concept of love underlying the approach. If a young person returns to a care home in which there are no familiar faces, they should still expect the door to be opened and for them to be brought in, because the world of corporate parenting is not about individuals—although individuals are very important in young people’s lives—but about the moral drive that sits behind it. That is a challenge, and it might be a greater challenge with those children than it is in more usual family situations, unless a child returns home to discover that their parents have moved, as I have been tempted to do on a number of occasions.

It is about trying to encapsulate—I emphasise the word “trying”—and to achieve what has sat behind the Promise since it was made all those years ago: allowing those who support our cared-for community to offer the sort of support that other people get in their family home. I absolutely admit that that is a challenge—there could be challenges in how we might define, teach and assess that support—but, if an individual’s last resort is to go back to a foster family that they have not seen in a while or to go back to a care home that might have moved, the Parliament can send an important signal that that door should open when that individual knocks on it.

The phrase “no wrong door” is very useful. We also have amendments coming down the line about responsibilities with regard to corporate parenting. I think that the situation needs to be looked at as a whole; that challenge has been articulated by people with lived experience of care across the board, predating the bill, and almost from the start of investigations with regard to the Promise.

The fact is that there is a cut-off after which they no longer feel attached to what others would call their family. We have heard about the idea of home. What home means to individuals is very subjective and can be very different. I like the concept of there being “no wrong door”, so that the right advice can be put there.

To go back to amendment 130, “The Promise” states:

“Young adults for whom Scotland has taken on parenting responsibility

—that is an important element—

“must have a right to return to care and have access to services and supportive people to nurture them.”

The part about “supportive people” goes back to John Mason’s point about who opens the door to a young person, but the most important element of all, of course, is “to nurture them”.

I move amendment 129.

Will the minister take an intervention?

My understanding is that the age assessment that is made prior to the local authority’s involvement is made under guidance that relates to other areas of legislation and regulation and the local authority is essentially invited to accept that, irrespective of any evidence that is placed before it.

One of the purposes behind my amendment 136 and the other amendments is to remind corporate parents that they have the responsibility to undertake the assessments in the appropriate way. It might well be that they accept a previous assessment, but they should not take as a blanket fact something that is presented to them when the young person might present contrary evidence.

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?