Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be brief, because Mr Whitfield has laid out the rationale for the need for a review. Therefore, I suppose it is a question of what kind of review we are looking for and whether we can reach a level of consensus at this stage, or, as I think is more likely, whether there is broad agreement at this stage on the need for a review that will allow us to agree to more than one of the amendments now and then come back at stage 3 to resolve any potential differences.

In terms of those differences, my amendment 219 would put the onus to conduct the review and to prepare a report on ministers rather than on the Parliament. There is an argument for both approaches. I instinctively come at this from the position of being perfectly comfortable binding future Governments but less comfortable binding future Parliaments on what they should and should not do. I am interested to hear colleagues’ views on that.

My amendment 219 would require ministers to include in the report, subsequent to having completed the review, a statement about any further action that they believe is necessary to meet the Promise.

On the issue of timescales, which John Mason raised, I think that two years is probably right. With an 18-month timescale, I would be slightly concerned that some elements of the bill would not have bedded in by that point, particularly given the difference between whatever the commencement date is and financial years. However, we are in broadly the same territory. I therefore hope that there is broad consensus on the need for review and that it is just a question of exactly what direction we want to go in. I am particularly interested to hear from the minister on that. One possible significant difference is whether we put the requirement on ministers or on the Parliament. As I said, I am keen to hear from colleagues on that.

This is definitely where I begin to struggle, because the IFS has laid out its methodology for that. Have you challenged it on that question? To me, it looks like the IFS’s maths works—it has demonstrated why the marginal cost is lower based on the demographics of the independent sector versus the state sector.

You have made a clear case this morning that there is a distinct difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK—or rather, England, as we are talking primarily about the difference between Scotland and England. You have repeatedly made the point that a lot of the political rhetoric has been about Eton, Harrow and so on, and Scotland does not have those schools. However, we have some very elite schools. For example, Glenalmond is now owned by the former Qatari foreign minister. I was looking just this morning at school fees—they were for 2023-24, so they will be a bit higher now. Gordonstoun’s boarding fees were about 50 grand a year; Merchiston’s were 40 grand; and Strathallan’s were 41 grand. Those are elite schools, are they not? They are, overwhelmingly, elite schools for the children of by far the most privileged people in society.

Amendment 189, which is from Nicola Sturgeon and me, seeks to delete the provision in section 14 that the principal reporter must offer the child and each relevant person in relation to the child an opportunity to discuss whether the child intends to use children’s advocacy services. It would replace the provision with an opt-out model in which the child will automatically be referred to advocacy services unless they intimate that they do not wish to be.

The reporter should be looking for the most appropriate way for a child to communicate their views, and automatic referral can support the child before they have to make complex legal judgments.

During stage 1, we were given evidence that

“when advocacy is explained by an independent advocacy worker, around 98% of eligible referrals accepted the offer of advocacy.”

However, those who need referral to advocacy might sometimes be caught out by an opt-in system, so a small number of people might be falling through the cracks. Changing to an opt-out system could ensure that those who most need advocacy do not fall through those cracks. The child would retain the option to say no and to decide that they do not want to be referred.

I acknowledge that this is an area where balancing children’s rights is tricky, and I am sure that Nicola Sturgeon would also acknowledge that. We lodged the amendment primarily to probe with the Government its position on how those rights are balanced.

Amendment 205 simply specifies that section 18 should say that children’s advocacy services should be independent when it comes to information about referral, availability of children’s services and so on.

I move amendment 189.

To get it out of the way at the start, I note that I will not move amendment 205. I am happy to take up the minister’s offer in relation to that, bearing in mind that we are in the same place in principle and simply need to work on drafting.

On amendment 189, I will not repeat what Martin Whitfield said, because I agreed with much of it. If I am being completely honest, I struggled with the logic of a lot of the minister’s contribution, particularly for one of the reasons that Mr Whitfield highlighted: namely, that much of it could have applied equally as an argument against an opt-in model, as opposed to an argument against an opt-out model. There are inherent difficulties when we are trying to provide advocacy and support to very often traumatised children and young people who are, as John Mason said, quite rightly suspicious of adults full stop.

That being said, I recognise the particular concerns on privacy rights, which come from the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. On that basis, even though I do not yet agree with the Government’s argument and would appreciate further discussion on it ahead of stage 3, I have been a stickler when it comes to privacy rights, so it is only reasonable that I do not press amendment 109 at this point. I am keen to continue the conversation with the Government ahead of stage 3, although this should not be the end of the discussion. As Mr Whitfield indicated, it is clear that there is not a settled position in the committee or across the Parliament. That is justification for the conversation to continue in other forums ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 189, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 51 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].

As the amendments in this group introduce a new topic into the debate, these will not be the briefest of remarks. I promise, though, that all my contributions in subsequent groups will be far briefer.

Estranged young people fall into a black hole at the moment, but they still have important and largely unmet needs. Those needs are often similar—and, in many cases, identical—to those of young people and young adults who are care experienced.

When the state takes children into care and therefore takes on parenting responsibilities, we recognise the need for support into adult life, generally up to the age of 25, although I realise that such aspects are up for debate as part of these proceedings. The same applies even if someone leaves care at 16, so years of additional support in some manner are still available. If someone has a family breakdown on their 16th birthday, they have at least a decade more of the need for parental support, under the Government's own logic, even though they are already of an age at which they could live independently.

On advocacy, the needs of 16 to 25-year-olds are obvious. We do not expect 16, 18, 21 or even 25-year-olds to be completely self-sufficient in all circumstances. In fact, as Roz McCall said last week, the need for advocacy or support can arise at any point throughout one’s adult life. Many young adults continue to receive housing, food, clothing and financial support from family members, but there is also the bigger-picture stuff such as crisis support, housing guarantors, emotional support and general life guidance. If you are 18 and you have just moved out to go to university, the prospect of securing funding, housing, jobs and healthcare without somebody giving you some kind of advice, guidance or advocacy will be really daunting, and most young people get that sort of thing from their family.

Care-experienced young people are entitled to at least some support, and through this bill we are trying to improve the support that is available to them. However, the transition to adulthood is often the point at which family breakdown and estrangement happen in a way that does not result in a young person entering the care system. Sadly, it is often the first opportunity for those who have experienced abuse in childhood to escape that abuse, but, as a result, they are simply, and usually quite suddenly, alone in their life. They often have obscure or complex needs due to neglect and abuse that they have survived, and they are at far, far higher risk of homelessness, poverty, addiction and other health issues. They typically do not know what they are entitled to—for example, crisis grants through the Scottish welfare fund—and the lack of advocacy and support often compounds the harms that are already done to estranged young people. If you are estranged because of coercive control or similar and your healthcare records have been withheld from you, you will often not know how to access them for yourself, and it is then far harder to access the healthcare that you need.

A number of colleagues will know Blair Anderson, who works with me in Parliament but is also a campaigner for estranged young people who have survived abuse in childhood. He mentions his own example, in which his community health index number was withheld from him to prevent him seeing a general practitioner other than his own family’s doctor, as part of the coercive control that was inflicted on him. Like many people—probably like most people, and certainly like most 18 and 19-year-olds—he did not know how to get that information for himself. However, unlike most young people, Blair did not have anyone to advocate for and support him at that point, as he was going through estrangement. As a result, he went through the first 18 months away from home without any treatment for severe, life-threatening depression and substance abuse. The lack of awareness of sources of financial support very often results in young people maintaining partial contact with their abusers, who maintain control by being the source of money that they need for things such as food and housing.

I have lodged these amendments to test the interest of Parliament and the Scottish Government in doing something for estranged young people. I am certainly not wedded to the approach that I have proposed, but the fact is that, when I raised issues that affect estranged young people a number of times in this parliamentary session, I was told repeatedly that they were not the right points at which to raise them and that the bills to which I was lodging such amendments were not the right ones. I do not think that there are any bills that are more appropriate than this one; it is not the perfect bill, but there are no more appropriate bills. Indeed, there are no more bills in this portfolio area, so this will be the last opportunity to have this debate, and it is an opportunity for us to commit to doing something for estranged young people.

I am looking for a commitment from the Government to take on further work in the area. As I said, I am not wedded to the amendments, and I would not be particularly taken aback if the Government did not support them. However, we have got through this entire session of Parliament and we have gone backwards on support for estranged young people. In 2021, there was one charity in Scotland that supported such people, but I believe that it folded in 2023. No one is advocating for and supporting that group in our society, and I think that the Government needs to take on some responsibility for doing that.

I move amendment 152.

I am grateful to the minister for her remarks, and particularly for her commitment to work with me and others who are interested in the issue ahead of stage 3. As I said, I am not wedded to the approach that I have set out in the amendments. I wanted to raise the issue and gently challenge the Government on it. Given the minister’s very welcome commitment, I will not press amendment 152.

Amendment 152, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 153 not moved.

Amendment 154 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Section 63 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 requires corporate parents to

“have regard to any guidance … issued by the Scottish Ministers”,

yet ministers are not required to publish such guidance. Ministers may do so, and thus far they always have done, but I think that that should be a requirement. If corporate parents are required to follow the guidance, there should be a requirement that the guidance must always exist.

Amendment 137 would require ministers to issue guidance in relation to corporate parenting. It seeks to change the provision in section 63(2) of the 2014 act whereby that guidance “may” include advice or information about certain matters by providing that it “must” do so. Rather than setting out an exhaustive list, I have sought to provide a starting point or baseline for the areas that the guidance must cover.

In order to keep the Promise by 2030, the guidance that ministers produce should include regular renewal of corporate parenting training. In our stage 1 report, the committee recommended

“that consideration should be given to mandatory training for all corporate parents, and that there should be a requirement to update this training on a regular basis.”

To be effective, the guidance should be accompanied by training. Alongside amendment 137, which seeks to make the change from “may” to “must”, amendment 138 would therefore require

“training (including renewal of training) in relation to corporate parent responsibilities”

to be included in the guidance that is published by ministers.

I am not proposing a dramatic change in the current system; I simply want to ensure that the guidance that must be followed will always exist and that it must include training content.

That would probably be helpful. It would be advantageous to reconcile the two issues at stage 2. If Mr Whitfield’s amendments and mine are agreed to, a little bit of tweaking might be required at stage 3, but I absolutely agree on that principle, and I will certainly be supporting Mr Whitfield’s amendment 136.

I have a lot of sympathy with what is intended here. However, it strikes me that amendments 88 and 89 are actually trying to do the opposite. With regard to amendment 88, the member rightly pointed out that, where local authorities are given too much discretion, things such as financial pressures come into play. My concern is that amendment 89, in giving the local authority the discretion to judge whether support is necessary, would result in local authorities cutting off support earlier than would have otherwise been required. Does the member share my concern about what might happen if we empower local authorities more to make that judgment themselves? We would be having the system, rather than the young person, make the judgment.