Meeting of the Parliament 18 March 2026 [Draft]
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.
Those sections represent significant improvements in care for vulnerable young people as they start to move on from care. 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. 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.
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. 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.