Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the convener and the committee for letting me attend today’s meeting, and I thank the minister for her very interesting answers. I am sure that the care community will be very relieved to hear the minister definitively state, in response to Mr Adam, that the Promise will be met by 2030. I am looking forward to that.

My questions are on the redesign of the children’s hearings system. The “Children’s Hearings Redesign—Consultation Analysis” report, which was published in February, said that 74 per cent of the people who responded thought that there should be a paid position for the redevelopment of the system. That came out of 500 hours of consultation and 12 sessions in which young people were involved from the beginning. Is there going to be a paid position for the redesign of the children’s hearings system?

I am sorry to come back on that, Mr Henderson. I understand why we need a definition, but I want to find out how we are progressing with the definition. Will that include adoption, including adult adoptees?

My concern comes from the fact that, although the minister has already stated that the issues with secure care are not related to the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, we know that the legal process is utilising care facilities as a sort of “young offenders institution lite”. That process is squashing the problem down, which is why we have those issues on the care side.

I am looking forward to hearing the minister’s statement to Parliament later, and I do not want to pre-empt any of it. However, I stress that any delays in coming forward with the revamp of the hearings process only add to the concern. How smooth will the process be with regard to the forthcoming bill? We heard questions earlier about not having a timeframe for when the bill will be introduced, but we have an assurance that it will be coming later this year. How smooth a process will there be? Which recommendations for the hearings system from the Promise board are being accepted and carried forward in the bill?

Thank you. If that is something that you are definitely considering, that is good to hear. As we heard earlier, relationships are really important for the care-experienced community, and continuity is essential. Will the redesign follow the format that has been laid out by the Promise board under its process? Can you give us any additional information on that?

I accept that—I am just nervous that any delay to the design will be having a knock-on effect on children right now. I look forward to any updates that you can give us on that process, and any timeframe for the bill would be greatly appreciated.

I also have a question on the definition of “care experience”. That has not been mentioned at all today, but it is a very important part of the process. If care experience is not clearly defined, how do we know that we are doing the job correctly for our young people? Where are we on the definition? Does it include adoption, and how will that affect adult adoptees?

Will the minister take an intervention?

The Promise is very clear about that being included in primary legislation, minister. Are you suggesting that any move forward would be done through guidance, and, if so, how can we meet the Promise that we are all tied to and which we agreed to meet?

I am grateful to be able to speak on this today. My amendment is very simple and would allow legislation to be amended to meet the promise that this Parliament made on housing to the care-experienced community. Ensuring housing priority for people who have experience of the care system is a fundamental part of the Promise, but we know that the process for housing varies between local authorities. From disparities in council tax to issues with permanent accommodation, guidance is not fulfilling the housing hope for the care-experienced community.

Groups including Who Cares? Scotland and the Promise oversight board have raised concerns on the issue. My amendment hopes to address that imbalance and ensure that the process is enshrined in primary legislation rather than in guidance.

Although I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 1058 and 1060, the care community is concerned about the assumptions with regard to leaving care. I know that we are looking at the younger people in the care community, but the community is very concerned about the care leaver process, in particular as we know that trauma is lifelong. The amendments would possibly limit the housing options by age, and I would prefer that the commitment in the Promise was met in full. Nevertheless, I understand the objective behind the amendments, and I am very supportive of them, especially considering the support that they would provide for our young people.

The Promise has been agreed by all parties and, as much as it is hoped that there will be progress made in the proposed Promise bill, it is concerning that, in that regard, time is scarce to meet the 2030 deadline. As I said, my amendment hopes to speed up that process.

I want to follow on from Bob Doris’s earlier points.

There are some elderly people, including in my family, who struggle because of the way the world has moved on and things have moved to digital—for example, my mum is not a big fan of doing anything online and gets confused by jargon. Have we made the process of claiming benefits a little bit harder for elderly people?

Is there an argument that we need to look not only at the benefits that are in place and how they stack up but at how we are going about the process? Are we putting in enough support at the right stages to allow people to apply for what they should be applying for? Only 65 per cent of eligible households are receiving pension credit. To me, that is just wrong. Have we got the process right?

That was very helpful, Debbie. Thank you.