Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Education, Children and Young People Committee 04 February 2026 [Draft]

04 Feb 2026 · S6 · Education, Children and Young People Committee

Item of business

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Don-Innes, Natalie SNP Renfrewshire North and West Watch on SPTV

I will speak first to my amendments 5, 6 and 86. Those are interrelated and are needed to deliver quality care for young people in a well-planned way through the gradual roll-out of aftercare.Amendment 5 would ensure the affordability and deliverability of the expansion of aftercare to formerly looked-after children who have ceased to be looked after before the age of 16. Stakeholders have indicated concerns over the pressure in staffing and resourcing that the expansion of aftercare might place on children’s services. I understand the need to be given time to adjust to the increase in the numbers of children and young people who will request and receive aftercare support, so that it does not impact on the quality of support for them or the support that is already offered to children and young people who currently receive aftercare. Amendment 5 would allow for such expansion in a managed way.Amendment 6 is a technical amendment to give the Scottish ministers the power to accelerate the expansion of the new eligibility for aftercare to older age groups in the future by specifying a date that is earlier than the date of commencement of section 1 of the bill. In response to Roz McCall’s request, I see no issue with that happening through the affirmative procedure.Amendment 86, too, is a technical amendment, to allow for maximised accessibility of section 29 following commencement. It is required for the same reasons as amendments 5 and 6. I hope that members can support all those amendments.I am concerned that Roz McCall’s amendment 88 would be detrimental to the delivery of aftercare for young people leaving care between the ages of 16 and under 19, as it would place a duty on local authorities to provide aftercare for care leavers who do not need or want it. We have consulted extensively with young people and young adults about aftercare provision. At every stage, they have emphasised the importance of their voices being heard and respected in decisions that affect them individually and in the policy decisions that are made nationally. Creating additional provision for aftercare in the bill is not the best route to ensuring that throughcare and aftercare teams are able to support those whose welfare requires it. The best way to provide that clarity would be through strengthened guidance. The Government is already working with stakeholders on that.I hope that that reassures Roz McCall, and that she will not press amendment 88. If it is pressed, I would ask members not to support it.09:45Martin Whitfield’s amendments 127 and 128 would also have the potential to negatively impact the delivery of aftercare for children and young people between the ages of 16 and under 19 who left care prior to their 16th birthday. Aftercare is, by design, an approach that recognises the importance of relationships and puts the needs and wellbeing of the young person at the very centre of the support that they receive. Section 1 seeks to promote a rights-respecting approach, including for young people who choose not to approach local services on turning 16 or who choose to make an approach at a later time.I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that information about aftercare is clear, with good signposting to ensure that young people know their entitlements. There is a place for advocacy in there as well. As I outlined above, work is under way to expand and strengthen the guidance on aftercare, including to support the changes that we are making through the bill.

Search Hansard contributions

Education, Children and Young People Committee 04 February 2026 [Draft]

In the same item of business