Hansard

Convener, to clarify my position on the amendments in the group, it may be helpful to set out the Scottish Government’s policy position on continuing care and aftercare.Continuing care and aftercare policies are tailored to support a successful transition into adulthood and independent living for young people who have been looked after in Scotland. As members will know, there is a range of statutory provision, through primary and secondary legislation, on both policies. The Government’s focus in the bill has been to strengthen implementation so that fewer young people leave care too early, the need to return to care is reduced and young people are fully supported when they leave care.Continuing care enables young people to remain longer in the place that they have called home and ensures they can progress in life at their own pace. Aftercare is the next step in offering independence through interdependence, to help them to continue to build the skills and resilience that they need as they become young adults.If young people who have been looked after at home want and need aftercare, it supports them from the time that they leave care. I absolutely recognise that transitions are not linear and that some young people may seek to come back to their local authority for support after a period of independent living. Aftercare supports that, and the bill extends it to a wider group of care-experienced children and young people.As we have discussed, existing legislation enables local authorities to provide aftercare beyond age 26 where appropriate, but it remains a support that is led by children’s services. The needs of many care-experienced or otherwise vulnerable adults are better supported through trauma-responsive universal and targeted adult services. However, I hear loud and clear the concerns from members and stakeholders.Martin Whitfield’s amendment 129 would extend continuing care up to age 26 and enable young people to return to continuing care after they have decided to leave. I will come back to some of the bulk of the issue in a second, but I accept that there is a need for more consistency on allowances for continuing care and I advise that the Government will work with local authorities and other stakeholders to provide clear guidance on the matter.As drafted, amendment 130 would create a right to return for young people who have ceased to be looked after or be subject to a kinship care order, extending that from age 16 to an upper limit that is yet to be specified, with specific provisions on accommodation by children’s services, whereas other services and provisions would be far more suitable, perhaps, for their age, stage and circumstances.I welcome Nicola Sturgeon’s careful consideration of how young people can be better supported out of care and into adulthood. I have carefully considered all members’ amendments in the group. We have had a question from John Mason about the similarity of some of the amendments and what they intend to achieve. Essentially, we want to ensure that young care-experienced people are supported in every way necessary. Therefore, although I believe that further work will be needed ahead of stage 3, the Government will support amendments 131 to 134 in the name of Nicola Sturgeon. As a package, they most closely align with the Government’s preferred overall approach.It would be good to have further discussions ahead of stage 3, as clarity is still required. It would be helpful to understand whether Ms Sturgeon intends to give local authorities a power to provide different accommodation to young people up to the age of 25 if the original accommodation is no longer available.I have other questions, but the Government is intent on supporting amendments 131 to 134 today. I ask other members not to press or move their amendments on the issue, but I would be more than happy to continue discussions. Members will be aware that meetings have been set up to discuss further points on the bill.Roz McCall’s amendment 98 would add care-experienced people to the “reasonable preference” categories for social housing allocations. Care leavers already have reasonable preference if they are homeless or threatened with homelessness and have unmet housing needs. The Scottish Government’s practice guide on social housing allocations sets out that“landlords will want to consider awarding priority to looked after young people.”I recognise that care leavers encounter challenges in their housing situations, so I intend that my officials will refresh guidance for local authorities and corporate parents, improve information on the financial support that is available and continue engagement with the Department for Work and Pensions on how young people who leave care access its services in Scotland.I believe that the issue was debated in proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Amendment 98 gives rise to a risk of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or in terms of article 14 of the European convention on human rights by elevating the needs of care leavers above those of people who flee domestic abuse or leave prison—those are just two examples. It is not obvious how that can be objectively justified for the purposes of article 14.I urge members not to press or move their amendments in the group, other than amendments 131 to 134, which, as I have intimated, the Government will support.