Seòmar agus comataidhean

My problem with the definition in those two amendments is that some young people will want those bodies to advocate for them. If you hang around here long enough, these things come round again. During the passage of the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, there was a similar debate about the definition of an independent advocate to represent a person before Social Security Scotland or a tribunal.

I suppose that my worry is that, even if we can expand the definition further at stage 3, it will not include everyone. With respect to my colleagues and myself, I am not sure that we are the best people to make that choice. That is why the matter should be addressed through regulations at a future date. If the minister is at all sympathetic, it would be helpful if she could set a date for that to happen, so that this does not go on for too long.

Amendment 9 is designed to put something in black and white so that everyone is absolutely clear that advocacy services for care-experienced children must be provided on an opt-in basis. Children should always be made fully aware of their rights and options, but advocacy should never be forced upon them. If we go for an opt-out model, children might feel pressured to have to share their story with yet another individual whom they do not know and have no connection to, and might create a forced demand for the service of advocates.

Advocacy helps people to express their views and to make informed decisions. Advocates help children and their families navigate the complex landscape and support them to make their own choices. Advocacy is different from advice, and the two things should not be put together. It is different from having a friend or somebody else with you whom you want to be there, but it should never be forced on people on an opt-out basis. That goes against what advocacy means, and it could be viewed with suspicion. Aberlour says that insisting on advocacy will add more professionals to a cluttered landscape, and I believe that amendment 9 puts the child’s best interests at the heart of a consideration of what is good for them and what they understand to be good for them.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that advocacy is offered to children and their families at the earliest opportunity in the hearings process. Children need to be aware of their rights at the earliest point, not at some later point when someone else decides to tell them. Informing them at the earliest opportunity is key to ensuring that children and their families get the right support up front.

I hope that amendments 9 and 10 do what the Promise is meant to do, which is to give some of the most vulnerable people the best opportunity to progress.

To go back to the point about opting in and opting out, would the minister be happy to have the amendments accepted today and to redraft the provisions? That would be my preference, so that they are not forgotten about, rather than the amendments not being moved today and something else coming forward.

As a teenage boy—a long time ago, in the previous century—I remember my father being approached by another parent of a younger disabled child, who asked, “What one piece of advice would you give to another parent of a disabled child?” Without thinking, my father said, “Never take no as the first answer from a medical professional.”

My father was an educated professional who could stand up to most individuals, and I was very fortunate that I had two loving parents and supportive siblings, and that I went to a good school that supported me through my teenage years. However, from speaking to many disabled people and disabled people’s charities over the past nine years during my time as an MSP, I think that I am the exception, not the rule. That is particularly true for disabled children who are in some form of care in relation to their needs and relationships.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that all disabled children receive appropriate support from their local authority to assist their transition into adulthood. They should not be pushed to transition earlier than is necessary, which happens a lot. I have spoken to a number of charities, children and those who look after children, and there is real concern that disabled children are being moved into adult services too early—earlier than non-disabled children are moved into adult services. That is happening because it seems that, from a professional perspective—not from a child’s perspective—it is easier to manage a child’s case in those services. Due to pressure on social workers, disabled children are taken off orders more quickly than they should be, and they do not get the same level of advocacy, either.

Disabled children are perhaps the most vulnerable people in the system. At the moment, many of them are not getting the transition that they require, either in the way that they want it to happen or in the way that would be best for them. I think that we all agree, in principle, that a disabled child should not be treated any differently from how any other child of their age is treated. Amendment 7 would simply put that into law.

I hear what the minister has said, but there needs to be a statutory backbone to this; it is not enough to simply put it in guidance or policy documents. In the light of what she has said, I am willing to not move amendment 7 and seek further discussions with her before stage 3, but I will seek to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3 if those conversations prove to be unsuccessful.

That definition is not necessarily inclusive enough. In fact, it may be the opposite—it may exclude others from carrying out the role. There is a genuine debate to be had. Are teachers, social workers and citizens advice bureaux equally independent?

I absolutely agree, but the definition should be broader.

Why not?

I do not want to speak too much against my own amendment, but why has that not happened already? The bill has been coming for the past two years, and you now say that we need to consult appropriate parties. Why did that consultation not take place earlier, to allow you to include a provision in the bill or lodge an amendment with a clear definition, to which Parliament could have said yes or no? I am not sure why we are having to do that after the bill is passed.

At the moment, the cost is being met by each local authority, because the Scottish Government is funding it, so there is no cost. In addition, it cannot be budgeted for, because we do not know how many people will go into kinship care annually. It is a bit like the social security payments that we make. It is an open budget. We can give estimates. There should be no greater cost than at the moment, because kinship carers should be getting the moneys that they are due. It is about whether they are aware of that and whether they are accessing those services.

09:30

To be honest, putting a financial cost on this is coming at it from the wrong end. These families are taking in very vulnerable children at a very difficult time in their lives. Whatever the cost of that is, it will be far less than if those children had to go into care or fostering. The overwhelming majority of people who provide kinship care do not do it for financial gain; they do it to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I hope that we can look at something, perhaps at stage 3, around social work, health and education to make sure that those who take in vulnerable children are given the support that they need.