Nicola Sturgeon
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“If you pick up this baton and run towards the finish line with every ounce of your energy, you will hear me cheering you on, but if you do not, be in no doubt—you will definitely hear from me.” Presiding Officer, I have an eye on the clock, but I hope that you might indulge me for just a moment longer.”
“This will be my final contribution in the Parliament, so forgive me if I get a bit emotional. It feels fitting—fated, even—that I am making this final speech on an issue that is as close to my heart as the Promise is and always will be.”
“For as long as those with care experience are more likely than the rest of us, through no fault of theirs, to end up homeless, incarcerated, addicted or dead, Scotland will have no right to claim the mantle of equality. Changing that is what the Promise is all about. The bill represents, in the words of Who Cares?”
“What we do with those chances is up to us, but the circumstances of our birth should not place limits on what we can achieve. I believe that we have made progress towards that during my time here, but the global moment that we live in warns us that it cannot be taken for granted.”
“Since I have not always lived by these principles, I should probably frame what I am about to say as advice to my younger self, rather than to those who will come after me. Either way, here it is. Make friends in other parties.”
“I also say thanks to my own staff, who have worked with me in the Parliament and in my constituency. To my constituents in Glasgow Southside—the best constituency in the country, bar none—thank you for the incredible honour of representing you.”
The complete record
Every one of 160 lines we hold for Nicola Sturgeon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“I want the very final words that I utter in this chamber to be for those children and to those who will occupy these benches in just a few weeks’ time. Those words are simply this: keep the Promise. [Applause.] 18:23”
“This Parliament was hard fought for, and it will outlive all of us, but there are those in the ascendancy in politics today who do not want that to be the case, so do not take this Parliament for granted. Do not live life on social media. Use it, but never forget that there is a real world out there, and it is the people in it that you are here to serve. Finally, every day that you walk through these doors and into this magnificent chamber, remember that it is a privilege—a rare privilege. For 27 years, it has been my privilege, one that I must now draw to a close. Let me do so by urging everyone here today to vote for the bill, for the sake of the children who rely on the state—who rely on us—to look after them.”
“Since I have not always lived by these principles, I should probably frame what I am about to say as advice to my younger self, rather than to those who will come after me. Either way, here it is. Make friends in other parties. Opponents need not be enemies—on that note, I thank one of my good friends from another party, Ross Greer, who has given up some of his speaking time for me today. Reach across the aisle. No matter the depth of your loyalty to your own political tribe, do not forget to think for yourself. Keep a sense of perspective. If everything is a scandal or an outrage, nothing is, which means that those who deserve to be held to account get off scot free. Even when trying to bring your opponent down in debate, elevate this institution.”
“If you pick up this baton and run towards the finish line with every ounce of your energy, you will hear me cheering you on, but if you do not, be in no doubt—you will definitely hear from me.” Presiding Officer, I have an eye on the clock, but I hope that you might indulge me for just a moment longer. Over my years here, I have seen politics and political discourse change almost beyond recognition, and not always for the better. That is true globally, but Scotland has not been immune— and, yes, I know that I bear my share of responsibility for that. This session of Parliament has been the most fractious and divided that I have served in, but the past couple of weeks have reminded us, through our consideration of the assisted dying legislation and now this bill, that it does not have to be that way. So, let me offer some parting thoughts.”
“[Applause.] The Promise must be kept by 2030, and I believe that it can be, but that will require a monumental effort from the next Government and the next Parliament. It will take commitment, courage, investment and a ruthless determination to put the lives of children ahead of the established practices of the systems that they rely on. I may have been the First Minister who made the Promise, but the real place in history will belong to the First Minister who keeps the Promise. I hope with all my heart that that will be my friend, John Swinney, but whoever it is, I say to them: “Do not fail these children.”
“For as long as those with care experience are more likely than the rest of us, through no fault of theirs, to end up homeless, incarcerated, addicted or dead, Scotland will have no right to claim the mantle of equality. Changing that is what the Promise is all about. The bill represents, in the words of Who Cares? Scotland, an incredible step in the right direction. That is, in no small measure, down to the hard work and dedication of the minister, Natalie Don- Innes. As she also prepares to step down, she should feel extremely proud of what she has achieved. I am very proud of her. She has stewarded the bill with diligence, care and skill, and I echo what everyone before me has said today: that she should never, ever doubt herself. She is a first-class minister, and the Parliament will be poorer without her.”
“What we do with those chances is up to us, but the circumstances of our birth should not place limits on what we can achieve. I believe that we have made progress towards that during my time here, but the global moment that we live in warns us that it cannot be taken for granted. The arc of history might be long, but I have never believed that it automatically bends towards justice—it must always be pushed that way. It was a group of care-experienced children who, 10 years ago, reminded me of that and persuaded me that, no matter how much progress we make in other ways, Scotland will not be a fair and equal country until those who spend their childhood in care enjoy the same support, stability and love—I underline the word “love”—that most of us get from our parents and families.”
“I also say thanks to my own staff, who have worked with me in the Parliament and in my constituency. To my constituents in Glasgow Southside—the best constituency in the country, bar none—thank you for the incredible honour of representing you. When I look back across the past 27 years, in opposition and in government, through all the triumphs and, yes, the occasional disasters, the thread running through everything that I have sought to champion and achieve is this: equality. I seek equality for my country—hence my passionate belief that Scotland should be and will be independent—and for everyone in it. Each of us, regardless of background, class, gender, sexuality or ethnicity, should have the same chances in life.”
“This will be my final contribution in the Parliament, so forgive me if I get a bit emotional. It feels fitting—fated, even—that I am making this final speech on an issue that is as close to my heart as the Promise is and always will be. I am one of the few remaining 1999-ers—those of us who were almost literally in with the bricks of this place—which means that I have been here for 27 years. That is almost exactly half my life. Even though the time is right to move on, I will not pretend that leaving is not a wrench—it is. I say a heartfelt thank you to those whose support has meant so much, to MSP colleagues past and present and to the staff who work so hard behind the scenes. From catering and cleaning to security, the mailroom, IT, the clerks and the official report, you truly are the unsung heroes of this place.”
“The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“I recognise the concerns that have been raised, but I think that, with patience and sense, the practical challenges of implementation can be worked through without compromising the principle that is at stake. Natalie Don-Innes: That sums it up perfectly. I have been very clear that I have decided where to lend my support based on having the best interests of children and young people at the heart of the provisions. I have been very clear that the element of choice is extremely important and will remain. Members’ amendments have allowed us to debate the issues fully. I ask Martin Whitfield not to move his amendments and to instead support my amendments, Jeremy Balfour’s amendments and Nicola Sturgeon’s amendment 29A. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“They have been raised with me as an issue several times over the years by care-experienced young people in residential care homes and in secure settings. That is what I am trying to address. However, I welcome the minister’s comment about consideration of transition in her last contribution. That is important, and I am the last person who would want to see immediate disruption. Finally, I will underline the minister’s point, and perhaps ask her to underline it again, about choice, which exists thanks to one of her amendments. This is not about imposing something on young people. Young people will continue to have the choice of having an advocate if they wish one, but amendment 29A recognises that, to be genuinely independent, there cannot be conflicts of interest.”
“Are we considering a transition towards a model of the most effective kind of independent advocacy, and not a sudden switch from one system to another that would see some people’s advocacy disrupted? Natalie Don-Innes: Yes. That would absolutely be my intention. The amendments in relation to choice for young people also speak to that. Of course we would not want to see something ended abruptly where young people are being supported. I would expect that support to continue as we move to the new system on a transitional basis. Nicola Sturgeon: I have sympathy with the points that Willie Rennie has raised, and I have great respect for the work done by organisations such as Barnardo’s. It is important that we establish in the bill a clear principle that conflicts of interest are an issue.”
“If some of the unintended consequences that Mr Rennie refers to were to be considered, we could use the powers that we will have through the regulations to address them. Ross Greer: On the point that Willie Rennie has raised, and on behalf of organisations that provide a lot of excellent service in this area, I ask whether the minister could provide some reassurance on the issue of immediate disruption. Whether through how we commence the provisions of the bill or the steps that are taken in the immediate aftermath, is it the Government’s intention to ensure that, during the transition period, there will be no scenario in which any individual young person has an advocacy service that is currently working well for them taken away?”
“We do not have an opportunity to revise the provisions; we are at the end of the bill process. To introduce the approach at such a late stage, and in such a fashion, is a retrograde step. I urge the minister to reconsider her support for amendment 29A. Natalie Don-Innes: I have considered the matter very carefully. I do not believe that the approach will undermine efforts that have already been made or delivery in relation to the Promise. In fact, I think that it will help to bolster the right support for children and young people by ensuring that there is absolutely no potential for or possibilities of conflicts of interest. Mr Rennie referred to the delivery of the Promise. We have provisions in the bill, and we are about to debate amendments in relation to reviews.”
“I will be the first to admit that it has been hard to navigate that and to ensure that we are doing the right thing. However, I have summed up the evidence, the discussions and the considerations at stage 2 and now at stage 3, and I believe that my approach at this point, in making further safeguards for children and young people, is the appropriate way to respond. Willie Rennie: We know that we are finding it difficult to deliver the Promise on time; the interim reports have shown that we are behind. However, independent advocacy is one of the areas where progress has been made, and I do not understand why we are restricting it further, potentially undermining bits of the Promise on which we are making a bit of progress. I urge the minister to reconsider her approach.”
“Today’s debate demonstrates that we, as a Parliament— 16:45 Martin Whitfield: Building on the request that Willie Rennie put forward, and listening to the minister’s language, is the issue not one that those regulations could specifically look at, rather than something that may or may not be considered? How that would be triggered would be open to both parliamentary and other procedures. Does the minister envisage that, at the first sign of any challenges, there would be a way of adding to the list through those regulations, which would allow the matter to be resolved? Natalie Don-Innes: It is something that has to be addressed now. There have been conflicting opinions from a range of organisations on a whole range of different issues in the bill.”
“My focus for stage 3 has been to ensure that potential conflict of interest is avoided. However, I absolutely recognise the challenges that Mr Rennie has outlined. I made many of the same points in my comments at stage 2. The amendments that I have lodged in this group would provide a regulation-making power for ministers to specify additional independence criteria for the purpose of section 4(1). The power would be subject to a consultation requirement and the affirmative procedure, which would ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and input from the care community and stakeholders if the power is used. Some of the challenges that Mr Rennie presented could be considered and scrutinised again in a new session of Parliament.”
“I know that I am in conflict with Nicola Sturgeon on that and I recognise the work that she has done in the area, but I would urge her not to move amendment 29A and to follow the advice of Children First and Barnardo’s, which have a tremendous record and a good reputation. We do not want to disrupt what is already in place. Therefore, we should reject amendments 29A and 113 to 115. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. Natalie Don-Innes: The time that we have spent debating the issue, both today and at stage 2, demonstrates its importance. The provision of a right to lifelong advocacy services for children and people with care experience is entirely new and is a real signal of progression towards keeping the Promise. There has been a lot of discussion on the balance that is required around the question of independence.”
“We believe these amendments could reduce flexibility and choice available to commissioners of independent advocacy and children’s care services, and could directly lead to … disruption to the structure and delivery of the National Advocacy Service for the Children’s Hearing System which has benefited from the creation of a strong network of advocacy providers focused on the delivery of high-quality independent advocacy since 2020.” We all want the bill to work in practice, especially now that we have reached stage 3. However, I am worried that, if the change is introduced now, we would be at risk of seriously disrupting the good work that is being done and of restricting the choice that would be available in setting up the new advocacy service.”
“These amendments could have immediate and long-term consequences, reducing the flexibility of local areas to fund services that suit their needs best.” Barnardo’s has also raised concerns. It says: “We are concerned that the effect of these amendments could have both immediate and long-term consequences leading to significant disruption, increased confusion and added complexity to the commissioning and provision of advocacy support for children and young people.”
“Members will have noted the briefing that we received from Children First, which says: “We are concerned that these amendments would prevent high-quality advocacy services, already working in line with The Promise and the National Advocacy Framework, from continuing. In our view, this Bill should increase advocacy support options, not reduce them. However, amendments 114, 115 and 29A would remove advocacy support options for children and young people by restricting who can provide these services. Organisations that deliver both residential support and advocacy can do so with independence and integrity, and we are not aware of any evidence suggesting otherwise.”
“Willie Rennie: I will speak against four amendments in the group: amendments 113 to 115 and, in particular, amendment 29A, which I note that the minister is supporting. The amendments would add to the definition of independent advocacy for care-experienced people and would limit the number of organisations that could provide independent advocacy. They would rule out charities, including Barnardo’s, in many circumstances. Although I recognise that the intent behind the amendments is to ensure that advocacy services are adequately independent, I believe that we should listen carefully to the organisations that have raised concerns.”
“Making advocacy an opt-out would change the power dynamic, taking the power and choice away from the child, and many children might feel unable or uncomfortable when it comes to saying no to the advocacy that is offered. Another reason for opt-in being the preferred model of service delivery is that opt-out could create a forced demand for the service of advocates. Aberlour, a national organisation that has been supporting fostering families since 2004, says that insisting on advocacy will add more professionals to a cluttered landscape— something that would be detrimental and would have negative rather than positive effects. I say again that I am grateful to the minister for her meetings and for helping me with this, and I ask members to support my amendments.”
“I have heard repeatedly in meetings with charities that work in the sector that children do not like having to tell their story multiple times, as that can cause upset, confusion and fatigue. It should, therefore, be a right—a choice—for a child to decide if they wish to use the services of an independent advocate, but they should never have to do so against their wishes. Advocacy helps people to express their views and make informed decisions. Advocates help children and their families to navigate the complex landscape, and support them to make their own choices. To force advocacy on a person goes against what advocacy sets out to achieve, and it would be viewed with suspicion and not entered into fully or willingly.”
“Indeed, even those in the third sector, who have been instrumental in helping us to shape our views on this matter, have been split in their views. However, it is my belief, which I think is shared by the Government, that advocacy services should be offered on an opt-in basis for children in relation to care experience. I will briefly outline the reasons why, in my view, 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—a stranger whom they do not know and have no connection with.”
“I believe that amendments 116 and 117 build on the amendment in my name that was agreed to at stage 2, and is an important step in our journey to keep the Promise in relation to the care community having the right to have their voices heard. I welcome the minister’s support, and I ask members to support the amendments. On amendment 24, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 and received support from both the minister and many of my colleagues at the committee. However, through the vagaries of whip-controlled voting, the amendment was voted down by the committee—a mistake that needs to be rectified in the chamber at stage 3. At stage 2, there was a great deal of discussion about the pros and cons of an opt-in model versus an opt-out model for advocacy services.”
“The principle of earliest appropriate access is important, but effective delivery depends on the practical details: deciding who informs the care- experienced individual, and when and through which channels, of their right to advocacy support; putting awareness-raising arrangements into regulations; and placing a duty on ministers to consider the desirability of early exercise of the right. I recognise the diverse routes by which people enter, experience and leave care, and seek to support a flexible framework that can adapt as practice evolves. Amendment 117 is consequential to amendment 116. Care-experienced children and young people and adults must know about their right to access advocacy support at the right time. Ensuring early information and clear routes to early advocacy support is key to securing the right support up front.”
“The committee agreed to the amendment, and I am grateful for members’ support for constructive engagement with the Minister for Children and Young People and The Promise since then. Today, thanks to the help of the minister and her officials, I introduce amendment 116, which preserves the intent of the amendment at stage 2 but sets out further detail to strengthen how the provisions will work in practice. That requires regulations under section 4(1) to specify how care- experienced people will be made aware of the right to access advocacy. It also places a duty on the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of a person being able to exercise their right at the earliest appropriate opportunity.”
“As the minister has highlighted, my amendment 29A would achieve the same provisions as amendment 114, but it is an addition to the minister’s amendment 29, which rewrites those provisions and, in my view, makes them better. I am grateful to the minister for indicating her support for amendment 29A. In light of that, I will not move amendments 113 and 114, but I urge members to support amendment 29A. Jeremy Balfour: Advocacy plays a vital role in enabling people to express their views and make informed decisions. It supports children and young people, and adults, to navigate complex systems and have their voices heard. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to ensure that care-experienced people are offered advocacy at the earliest appropriate opportunity.”
“To be clear, and in response to those who say that that will unduly restrict the availability of good advocates, that would not remove choice from a young person opting to have the care home worker as their advocate if that is an arrangement that they are happy with and have confidence in. However, if they do not wish that—if perhaps the young person has issues or conflict in the care home or with their care provider more generally— it means that they will have the option of an advocate who is genuinely independent. That is essential to avoid conflicts of interest and to give proper protection for the rights of young people. That also aligns with the definition of independence that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, which is advocacy that is “structurally, financially and psychologically separate” from services.”
“Amendment 113 would remove language imported from the definition in mental health legislation that is not appropriate in this context. Amendment 114 would add more specification to the definition. It stipulates that, to be classed as independent as an advocate, in addition to not being a member of a local authority or health board in the same area that the advocacy service is to be provided, they must not provide care services under contract to a local authority in the same area. In simpler terms, a worker in a care home or a secure unit cannot be deemed to be an independent advocate for a child living in that care home or secure setting.”
“I am so grateful to them and to everyone in the care-experienced community, who have certainly burrowed their way into my heart, and, much more importantly, have ensured that life will be better for those who come after them. They deserve the gratitude and the respect of all of us in the chamber. [Applause.] One of the massive achievements of Who Cares? Scotland in the context of the bill has been securing the right to independent advocacy for care-experienced people. I believe that that is important in its own right, but I believe that it is more fundamental than that. I believe that independent advocacy will become a catalyst to help young people to realise their rights overall and to help us to keep the Promise. That takes me to my amendments in the group that relate to the definition of independent advocacy.”
“All the stage 3 amendments in my name, which are in this group and in groups 8 and 17, have been lodged in consultation with Who Cares? Scotland. Before I turn to my amendments 113, 114 and 29A in this group, I want to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Who Cares? Scotland. Bluntly, without its campaigning passion, skill and perseverance, we would not be here debating the bill today. It was the Who Cares? 1,000 voices campaign that persuaded me to establish the independent care review, which led to the Promise. Some of the young people who came to Bute house around a decade ago as small children to persuade me to try to make life better for those who spend some or all of their childhood in care are here with us in the gallery. Back then, I had to crouch down to speak to them, but most of them tower over me today.”
“I merely want to articulate my thanks for the cross-party work with regard to this group, and to confirm that my party will support all the amendments in it. Willie Rennie: On that point, I will conclude. I urge members to support the amendments.”
“My amendments form part of a cross-party package in this group. I endorse amendment 10, in the name of the minister, on the right to request family group decision-making services. My amendment 94 will require local authorities to promote that right and to publish broader information about FGDM services in their area, so that what those services are and how to access them is widely understood. The collaborative approach to this group reflects the strong interest across Parliament in ensuring that families are better supported and that children’s voices are heard in decisions that affect their lives. Martin Whitfield: Will the member give way? Willie Rennie: Certainly. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention.”
“Taken together, the amendments will strengthen family group decision making in a practical and proportionate way, while maintaining the flexibility that is needed to respond to the circumstances of each child and each family. I move amendment 10 in my name, and I invite members to support all the amendments in the group. Willie Rennie: I thank the minister for her collaborative approach on this important issue. I also thank Children First for its very strong support in making sure that we get this right. Family group decision making is at the heart of the delivery of the Promise. It is clear that it strengthens family networks, gives children a voice in decisions that affect them and can help to prevent situations from escalating into crisis—and I am sure that we are all supportive of that.”
“Thirdly, amendment 95, which is also from Willie Rennie, will require the publication of national guidance on family group decision making, supporting a clearer and more consistent understanding of how to use it. Finally, amendment 84, which is from Miles Briggs, will strengthen national reporting with a duty on local authorities to provide information on the operation of services to the Scottish ministers, who will collate that information in a report to Parliament within three years of royal assent. Other amendments in this group seek to make technical changes to ensure consistency of language when referring to family group decision- making services.”
“First, amendment 10 will introduce a right for children and families to request that a family group decision-making service be provided. Any person who considers themselves to fall within the definitions that are referred to in proposed new section 69A(1) of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 will be able to make the request. A local authority will need to consider and respond to a request unless it considers that there are good reasons not to do so. Secondly, amendment 94, in the name of Willie Rennie, will bolster amendment 10 by making sure that local authorities promote awareness of that right to request FGDM and publish information about the service more broadly.”
“They also build on Scotland’s approach through getting it right for every child and the ambition of the Promise that children should be supported to stay within their families when and wherever it is safe to do so, and that families should play a meaningful role in shaping the support that surrounds them. By bringing families together to identify their strengths, family group decision making helps to make that possible. I hope that members will support the amendments and extend the statutory framework around the provision of family group decision making in Scotland. The amendments that are before Parliament today will strengthen the visibility, accessibility, consistency and national understanding of those services in four ways.”
“I thank Children First, whose advocacy for children in respect of family group decision making has brought us to this point. In particular, discussions with Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield have enabled a coherent package of amendments to be lodged. Throughout the passage of the bill, members have emphasised the importance of ensuring that families are supported to play a meaningful role in decisions that affect children and that the child’s voice is heard in this process. The amendments in this group reflect that shared ambition.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful for members’ contributions on the group and, indeed, for Nicola Sturgeon’s articulate description of not only the situation but the challenge that young people who are on the cusp of adulthood face without the ability to return to care. I thank the minister for her very positive approach to amendments 106 and 108. With nothing further to add—I do not want to waste time, given how little of it we have—I seek to withdraw amendment 99. Amendment 99, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendments 100 to 102 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on family group decision making. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 94, 95, 79 to 83, 203 and 84. Natalie Don-Innes: I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 10.”
“That includes the right to reviews and appeals, access to local authority children’s rights officers, advocacy support and routes to complain to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I therefore cannot support amendments 99 to 102, but I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 106, which would allow local authorities to continue providing continuing care for young people until their 26th birthday. I also support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 108, which would offer a right to return for those in continuing care when that is the right thing for their welfare. I ask members to support amendments 106 and 108 and to vote against all other amendments in the group if they are pressed.”
“Those vulnerable children would therefore no longer be entitled to vital supports, which I think that we would all agree would have a negative impact on children and young people. If agreed to, those amendments would necessitate consequential amendments by future subordinate or primary legislation ahead of implementation to address that specific unintended consequence. As I have said before, I am satisfied that the provisions in the bill and the relevant provisions of the 1995 act are compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under existing legislation, children in Scotland currently have routes by which they can appeal and challenge the support that they have been offered.”
“However, that must be done in a careful way that does not further add to a confusing and disjointed legislative landscape or give rise to unintended consequences. The level of engagement on the bill between stakeholders and the Education, Children and Young People Committee has highlighted what I hear from families across the country, which is that keeping the Promise includes ensuring effective implementation of the laws that we pass in the Parliament. As Martin Whitfield has acknowledged, his amendments 99 to 102 would give rise to an unintended consequence, which is that looked- after status would be removed from children who are accommodated under the new restated section 25 of the 1995 act.”
“The amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2, coupled with amendments 106 and 108 in Martin Whitfield’s name at stage 3, would take us much closer to that option being the reality for care-experienced young people, too. I urge the Parliament to support amendments 106 and 108 and to reject the other amendments in the group if they are pressed, for the reasons that I have outlined. Natalie Don-Innes: I am grateful to Ms Sturgeon and Mr Whitfield for their engagement ahead of stage 3 on these sections of the bill. Every member wishes to protect children’s rights in Scotland, and I fully support the intention of bringing legislation within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.”
“Amendment 108 would put it beyond doubt that a care-experienced young person can return to continuing care during any period that the right applies to. It would mean that a young person who was eligible for continuing care but who left to live independently of their own accord could return to care if things went wrong, in the same way as non- care-experienced young people can go home to their parents if they hit bumps in life’s road. That goes to the very essence of the Promise, which is to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, care- experienced young people get the same support from the state as the rest of us get from our families. The transition to adulthood is tricky for all of us. For most of us, even in adulthood, we have the option of going home to our parents when life gets tough.”
“They also give local authorities a discretionary power to provide continuing care up to the age of 25 if they consider that to be necessary for a young person’s welfare. I strongly support amendment 106, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which would raise that age to 26. That amendment would better align the section with the aftercare provisions that are in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Martin Whitfield’s amendments to replace sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D with rewritten provisions that are within the scope of the 2024 act are well meaning and, at first glance, I was minded to support them. However, as he has acknowledged, they risk unintended consequences and, more fundamentally, they are inconsistent with amendment 108, in his name, which is vitally important.”
“They ensure that any person under the age of 18 who is homeless or in accommodation that is unsuitable for their welfare will be accommodated by a local authority as a child, not routed through adult homelessness services or, worse, given no help at all, which is what happens to many 16 and 17- year-olds right now. The sections place a mandatory duty on local authorities, in place of the current discretionary power, to accommodate care-experienced young people who are aged 18 to 21 if their welfare requires it. That again ensures that any vulnerable young person whose move out of care does not go to plan will not end up in adult homelessness services. The sections ensure that young people who leave and then return to care remain eligible for continuing care on the same basis as those who never left.”
“Amendments in this group relate to sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of the bill, and, as Martin Whitfield has said, those sections reflect amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2. I am very grateful to the minister for accepting those amendments at stage 2—despite, I know, some reservations—and for not seeking to reverse them at stage 3. I am also very grateful to The Promise Scotland for all its hard work in this area. 15:45 Those sections represent significant improvements in care for vulnerable young people as they start to move on from care.”