Seòmar agus comataidhean

To paraphrase, the minister has said that the amendments would create an untidy landscape with fragmentation, but I have not heard that there would be any disadvantage to young people with care experience. If her plan for the Norrie review results in another bill in future, and if the landscape is untidy, she can tidy it up at that point. We need to try to make improvements now, even if things are a little bit messy, to ensure that we give the best possible rights to care-experienced people.

I am prepared to be pragmatic about all this. I recognise that there are competing alternatives, and that is why I am keen to hear what the minister has to say before I decide whether to move my amendments.

The level of data is insufficient as it currently stands. We do not fully understand outcomes for care-experienced people, which might result in an unnecessary burden in that area. My amendment 169 represents a reasonable approach to the issue, given the data vacuum. We need that data in order to make better decisions about the public services that we provide for those people. Ultimately, my amendment is about improving public services for the longer term, which will lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Yes.

If care-experienced people had independent means and finance, that would ultimately be true independence. What we have now is too dependent on those who have responsibilities for care-experienced people to determine who their advocates are. We are looking for something in between, because we will not get the perfect answer.

It is frustrating that we have got to this stage without that clarity being worked out. I know that there is an advantage in leaving things to regulation once legislation has passed but, too often in this place, we agree the outline before we see the detail. The bill process is the maximum point of leverage for those who want to influence things because, when something is dealt with in regulations, it often does not get the limelight or spotlight that it deserves.

Ultimately, I would coalesce around Ross Greer’s amendment 147, as a staging post and so that we can come back at stage 3 to try to make a bit more progress. However, we need to try to get such issues worked out beforehand. Jeremy Balfour is right that we are not the people who should decide. Those who have much more of a stake in the issue need to determine the approach. It is disappointing that the issue has not been resolved before now.

Jeremy Balfour’s contribution was a devastating and pre-emptive move against my amendment.

Amendment 150 covers an awful lot of what was covered in the previous group, on independence, so I will not go back over that space. What is central to amendment 150 is the opt-out element. There is a balance to be struck because it might be that, in a very confusing and stressful environment, care-experienced people will not ask for independent advocacy. There needs to be not quite an insistence that they take it, but a full awareness that it is in their best interests to take that independent advocacy at that moment of stress. That is why I wanted, with the help of Duncan Dunlop, to use this amendment to explore that opt-out and opt-in balance.

Jeremy Balfour has set out compelling arguments around the issue, but I am keen to hear from the minister how she thinks that we can get the correct balance between those two elements. Every person will be different, and each person will require a different response from the authorities. The approach needs to be sensitive, but, equally, the service needs to be available to people who are stressed and might not want to seek advice from anybody, even though it might be in their best interests to do so.

I will leave it there and wait to hear from the minister.

It sounds like the minister is saying that her position on amendment 127 will remain the same, even though she is open to further discussion with Martin Whitfield. I do not want to be pedantic about this, but—

Certainly.

I think that it is worth doing at this stage, even if it adds further complexity, which can be resolved later, following the Norrie review. I would say that it is worth it. Does the minister agree?

On my amendment 135, I have been working with Duncan Dunlop, who is a witness who previously appeared before the committee and spoke very powerfully about his experience and offered his advice. He drew attention to North Yorkshire Council’s approach, which Miles Briggs has talked about today.

Whatever we do, the legislation needs to say clearly that we are always here, and that is what has been done in North Yorkshire. People will not have the time to read legislation or even to read guidance or advice sheets; they just want to know whether the system will be there for them when they need it.

All these amendments, and others, are aimed at trying to provide that collective assurance to people that we always will be here. My amendment 135 in particular seeks to give young people who leave care prematurely the right to return to a place of safety and belonging, recognising that a child’s need for care does not end on their 18th birthday. The child or young person who has been looked after by a local authority for cumulative periods of at least six months at any time before their 18th birthday shall have the right to request the right to return to care at any point up to their 21st birthday.