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.

I did not want to intervene on you, minister, because you were in full flow. Some concern has been raised with regard to negotiations between a smaller party and a bigger party. One of your amendments will allow bits of the contract to be agreed before other parts. I am looking for reassurance that you are not concerned that a smaller player will be affected by that in any way.

I am grateful. Thank you, minister.

Arguably, both the UK and Scottish Governments should be tackling those social issues. If we got them right, the level of ADP and other disability payments might then reduce.

Professor Roy, you are too young, but for those of us who are slightly older and go back to the dark ages, PIP and its predecessors were all set up to help those with disability get into employment. They were meant to help with the costs of doing that. Has any work been done on whether, if we reduced ADP or took people off it, that would have any effect on the employment rate? Would those people be less likely to go and work, which would mean an increase in other benefits, such as universal credit?

Good morning. I have two questions.

I welcome the regulations, but I would like clarification on a couple of issues. From your discussions with social landlords, has there been any evidence that, when they carry out checks, they might be less willing to rent accommodation to couples with a history of such issues? We do not want people to be penalised when trying to get social housing, and I wonder whether that might be an unforeseen consequence.

09:15

Going back to look at the other side of something that we discussed previously, I am a wee bit interested in knowing what evidence would be required. In some very exceptional cases, malicious claims will be made by a man about a woman or by a woman about a man. What is the burden of proof? I appreciate that that would not be a court order, but if I were simply to make a claim of domestic abuse against my wife, would that be enough? What safeguards are there for people who are wrongly accused of doing something?

That is helpful.

There is quite a lot of responsibility on social landlords. What training are you planning to provide over the next six months, up to August, to help social landlords, who will have to come to a view on this? Some people will have experience of this, but others will not. What training would you expect social landlords to have before August and when can we expect to see the guidance?