 Welcome to sixth meeting of the Citizens, Participation, and Public Potatoations Committee of 2023. Can I begin by offering an apology on behalf of the deputy convener David Torrance who isn't able to be with us this morning, sadly, which is a shame because he was with our petitioners last night and will be coming to that petition now in an agenda item 1 which is the consideration of continuing petitions. 1. Laetitio 1, 1958, i gyd yn dda i'r prifau gyda eu cwmnoedd ar angen i'r dweud y bethau allanol iawn. Dyn nhw i'r prifau gyda'r gysemesthau a gam. Rydyn nhw i'r prifau gyda'r prifau pili yn ystod i'r ddiolch yr oedd astaf biscuits, ac roedden nhw i'r paroleg hwnnau ar y diolch ar yr oedd honno ar gyfer gyflosor yn llawdio ar gyd yn teimlo i'r prifau gyda young people who left care before their 16th birthday on the basis of their individual need, to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people's lives on the basis of individual need and to ensure care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. This includes ensuring that the UN convention on the rights of the human of the child and the findings of the promise are fully implemented in Scotland. I'm delighted that we are joined this morning by the petitioner Jasmine and Laura, from Who Cares Scotland. Thank you both very much for coming to join us this morning to give evidence. Should I say before we get started, and for the benefit of anyone following today's proceedings, I should note that members of the committee that's Alexander and David, who were in Parliament yesterday, had an informal discussion with the individuals who have lived experience of the issues raised by the petition. I understand that that was a very forthright and interesting conversation. This discussion was supported by Who Cares Scotland, Aberlawer and the Scottish Refugee Council, and a note of this discussion will be published on the petition website in due course. As we get under way with our evidence this morning, I understand Jasmine that you'd like to make a statement to the committee, which, of course, the wider world will see and hear, and then we'll move to questions. I would like to, first of all, introduce myself. My name is Jasmine Casaiopilling, and I am a mum of two and a member of Who Cares Scotland. I brought this petition because some care experience people in Scotland today are finding services inaccessible due to arbitrary criteria relating to their age and when they left care. They are often left to navigate difficult issues without support that many of their care experience peers are entitled to. I am looking forward to discussing solutions with the committee today and reflecting on the powerful lived experiences that we heard online yesterday at the session. The promise is that the present definition operates does not ensure that those who leave care prior to their 16th birthday are able to access legal entitlements. Older care experience people must have the right to access supportive caring services for as long as they require them. Who Cares Scotland's advocacy highlights examples of care experience people not being able to access certain support because they are not formally looked after after the age of 16 or had to push to be kept on compulsory supervision orders when local authorities tried to remove them against their wishes before their 16th birthday. I have seen several examples of order ceasing when someone is aged 15, including 15 years and 11 months. I was fortunate enough to have access to services because I was looked after past my 16th birthday. However, a lot of my friends have left care and experienced homelessness, poverty and poor mental health with a lack of advocacy to access services. Ultimately, six of them cost their lives before they reach the age that I am today. Sometimes I feel guilty that such a small detail offered me the opportunities and support that had such a detrimental impact on them. More than guilt, I feel angry and this is partly why, since 2018, I reached out to my local councillor MP, MSP, First Minister and the then Children's Minister, but brought the petition with who cares support because I felt that I was not getting anywhere. I know that over 16s can have trouble accessing services due to a lack of knowledge of their rights and arbitrary age criteria. Whose Care Scotland's advocacy evidence tells us that they have had around 3,000 calls since they started their helpline, which provides lifelong advocacy support for care experienced people, recognising that the need for advocacy does not stop at the age of 26. Some of the common issues are homelessness, not being able to financially support, barriers to setting up bank accounts, applying for care experience bursary and not being entitled to council tax exemption. As we know, many young people come off their supervision orders. We are concerned that many young people want to come off their supervision orders. We are concerned that some young people are not aware of the consequences of coming off their CSO and their rights to support. Myself and Laura last night heard directly from lived experience alongside MSPs. Reflecting on Tuesday night's session, those are some of the main points that were highlighted. There was an overwhelming agreement that called for lifelong support for care experienced people, particularly to prioritise mental health and housing support, and that the age cut-off should be removed. Support should be on a needs basis and not an age limit. Many have not known that they were care experienced, which led to them not being eligible for support, and they missed out. Some could not get support as they were moved from different local authorities and wanted local authorities to collaborate on more of those issues together so that they could get adequate support. People felt dehumanised when trying to fit into bureaucratic processes, rather than systems being designed for them. It is very important that we are able to navigate those processes with the support for the young people. Furthermore, for asylum-seeking and refugee care experience young people, there were additional barriers such as delays in getting protected statuses, which affected their eligibility for support, and their rights to study, work and integrate into the society that they have grown up in. I am asking you today to help us to come to a conclusion that when we ensure that everyone in our community has access to support that they need, if and when they need it, everyone benefits. This petition is pushing for a fairer Scotland for all care experienced people. A date should not determine the opportunities and chances that care experienced people face in Scotland, and every care experienced person should have the right to thrive. In order to keep and uphold the promise and the rights of those care experienced people, if we are called care experienced people, all our care experiences should count. I look forward to working with you on the next stages and finally bringing about change. Thank you very much and very comprehensive. I mean, can I just go back to the first few words that you spoke when you talked about the fact that you did have access to services, which obviously you realise other people did not? How close do you think the service support that you received was to being a model of what should be available and to what extent was what you experienced still something in which you reflect that could have been different or could have contributed further to the support that you were looking for? The support that I experienced was honestly phenomenal. I had support from my local authority and Aftercare, which was provided by a charitable organisation. However, I also had my friend's mother who was a youth development officer and she attended my panels with me and she supported me to be kept on a supervision order because I was originally removed when I was 15 years and two months. Unfortunately, I fell into homelessness and I was then put back on a CSO because I had no parental support, I had no family around me and I was essentially homeless. She was essentially my first point of contact and she put me in contact with social work. If it wasn't for having that kind of advocacy and that support network, I probably wouldn't have thrived. Even after when I moved from that local authority to a new local authority, I kept in contact with my Aftercare support workers. However, she was the link in between that and I was able to access college. I became a parent during that time, so I was also able to access support for navigating towards that route. I essentially had a village around me and that benefited me. However, some people who, if I was in that category of being taken off my CSO order and didn't have that person, I would have been not entitled to housing support. I wouldn't have been able to benefit financially from the care experience bursary. I wouldn't have been able to have support moving into accommodation with my child. I would have been destitute, essentially, in a new city with people that I don't know. Although we say that CSO is a lifeline, it's an absolute lifeline, it's vital because you're essentially left to navigate stormy waters and you haven't got a parent to turn back to and reflect and ask those questions. You're essentially dependent on services, as we call it, corporate parents. That's our version of a parent. Essentially, what you're saying is that it was a very robust experience in your part, but it wasn't so much by design, it was by accident and chance that the advocacy that was able to be extended to you because of the connections through family and friends at the time made it so. For many other people, that just isn't the experience or the case. Absolutely. For so many people, that might not be the experience because they don't know their rights. I used to attend children's panels and I remember seeing a poster saying that a child is entitled to. I sat and memorised that, so I knew my rights, but some people don't know their rights. Removing people early from a CSO because, essentially, there's stigma attached to being care experienced, so you want to come off because you won't have any involvement with certain agencies and that can be detrimental to your future outcomes, and that's not explained to you because a lot of young people don't know their rights. Laura, from Who Care Scotland, is there anything you would like to contribute at this opening point? I think that, while Jasmine's experience of care was robust and phenomenal, it's also probably coming in this after. We know from research that they did last year that there are variations in provision of continuing care and implementation gaps, so while it is a massive opportunity, if you are on a CSO to be eligible for support thereafter, that support is not necessarily guaranteed and it's patchy from local authority to local authority, and what we heard last night as well was that you can have local authorities passing the buck over who's to support a young person who's maybe moved local authority, but their original local authority is presumed to be the local authority required to provide support. When housing points are involved, for example, you can have a young person feeling kind of stranded and not able to access the support that they require and they just need a local authority to provide the support and for it not to be seen as separate corporate parents, but, like Jasmine said, a village of corporate parents working together to support them? I'm sorry that David Torrance isn't with us this morning, because when we first considered the petition, David was the one who very much thought that we would value the opportunity to meet with the petitioner, but he has another personal engagement this morning, but he was with Alexander Stewart there last night, and I'm going to invite Alexander Stewart to take forward some of the questioning now. Thank you, convener, and good morning Jasmine and Laura, good to see you again. Can I thank you for last night because, as I already indicated, it was a very robust and it was a very strong feeling and flavour that was given at the presentation. I was part of and you were part of that. You've touched on this morning about navigating and barriers, and I think that from what we discussed last night with some of the lived experience people, that was one of the big issues they had about how you navigate and how you managed to cross some of the barriers. You've already identified, Laura, this morning in your Jasmine as well, that there doesn't seem to be a joined-up approach across some of the agencies that are required. So, where do you think that needs to change? That obviously needs to change for things to improve, and, as I said last night, people gave us that flavour of how they had to navigate and found it very difficult. You've already identified, Jasmine, that some people found that so stressful and so problematic that they ended up going down a different route, and for some people that was a final route in some aspects, and that's not what we want anyone to experience. So, I think that what you've identified, but it's the changes that you need to see to these barriers and the changes about navigation, I think that it will be useful to hear from you. I think that one of the changes would be to impact legislation in terms of including previously looked after young people on to the current legislation. Another one would be for committee members to write to the Scottish Government to ask them to work closer with local authorities in terms of ending the practice of forcing people to come off their supervision orders early, because there is an element of not knowing rights. I think that, if that was written into policy and legislation, that would limit a lot of those things. Absolutely. Lord, do you have any? Just to expand, I think that, in length with that last point, there was a really good quote from Klan child law that stated that continuing care is an area where we often see rights breaches focused on decision making on resources and capacity away from the individual needs of the young person. I think that that message needs to be communicated in line with the promise that people should be part of the decision around whether or not they're going to stay on their order or not and understand the implications of staying on their order or not rather than feeling like the process is being done to them. That applies to navigating complex systems, as well, that they should be through advocacy. We heard that a lot last night. They should be supported to be able to, for the process of accessing support, not to further traumatise individuals. I think that the point around legislation is really important, but if we look at what it says in the promise, I think that we need to be thinking longer term as well to thinking about how, in Scotland, we can seek care experience as an identity, not as an eligibility, because that's the main issue. That's where we need real transformation of the system. If the initial tweet could be that we include previously looked after people to be eligible for continuing care, that will make a massive difference, but longer term we need to be thinking about, for example, the upcoming promise bill, the upcoming human rights bill, how can we ensure that there's real lifelong support for care experience individuals that experience greater barriers in realising their rights throughout their lifetimes, not just when they're in care, but for being care experienced as an identity. Some individuals were unaware that they really were in a care situation. I find that very interesting last night to have that explained, because you would make an assumption that you would assume that if you were going through a process, then you were being supported, but that was obviously not the case for many people. You've identified that advocacy works extremely well, and it does support, but it continues that support when individuals grow and progress and do other things. If they relocate or if they have to change, then the whole system doesn't seem to add up. There needs to be much more of a partnership working or a co-operation working to ensure that... Do you think that that is something else that we need to look at to try and progress? Yes, I absolutely think that that's something that we need to look at, because as corporate parents we're all responsible for supporting care experience people, but I think that advocacy is vital in terms of people who are maybe older and experiencing barriers in poverty and housing. I think that it's essential that we have joint working so that we can create a system where it's a safety net as opposed to people who are struggling without anyone to support them. At the moment, a lot of the care experience people yesterday were receiving advocacy support from Who Care Scotland, the Refugee Council, Arbalower, and they're all national charities, and I think that that's where it becomes easier because they can do that, they can be your voice when you feel voiceless. But we shouldn't be relying on the third sector to actually do fulfil those needs, and that's where the gap that you've identified really does exist, Lord. I think that's what you have already said and are trying to say today here again. It's not sustainable currently, and I think there needs to be a recognition that there's a need for advocacy for care experience people under the age of 26, but also beyond that. We need to be thinking about what we can put in place to make sure that care experience people are aware of their rights and are supported to realise them because we're just going to reiterate that equity if we continue like this. The other thing I was thinking about was that last night a lot of the young people that didn't realise there were care experience actually were in informal kinship care, so looked after by their granny or their auntie, and they didn't realise that they were eligible for any support, and some of them were then moved back to their parents without having been part of that decision, and without realising that they had to say and then had very little support thereafter. The distinction between the support you get if you're in formal kinship care versus informal kinship care, as well as if you're a refugee and asylum seeker, if you have protected status or if you don't, it was a real problem in terms of accessing housing, financial support, the care experience bursary, education. We know from our advocacy that a lot of requests come through where our advocates are having to highlight parts of the promise that show that there's a broad definition of care experience for corporate parents to then use a bit of discretion to ensure that care support is there for the individual on a needs basis. It is possible to have that discretion and apply that flexibility, but that's only for the select few that are able to access advocacy. There are 13,255 children and young people looked after by local authorities. 534 young people were recorded as entering continuing care with 7,323 young people eligible for aftercare. I just want to be clear, because obviously from Jasmine's experience, where the advocacy was available and in place, she regarded the support package she received as being superb. I just want to understand, is it—there's obviously an appreciation of what it should be. In Jasmine's case, it happened. Is it that the resource isn't there for everyone for them to experience the outcome that Jasmine did? Or is it really that there is, as you both identified, a lack of understanding and availability of advocacy and this pathway to access the service that's actually there? In which case, then, I suppose, I would distill my question down to who needs to do what? I think that we need to work better as corporate parents, as local authorities do need to maybe work collaboratively. There's also the issue around definitions, because definitions determine your outcome. We need to make sure that we're not missing people based on a term. It should be needs-based. Stepping back into the question, who needs to do what? Who would you like to say to you need to change this so that this happens? I think that we need to work on the legislation and ask the Scottish Government to amend the current legislation that's in place. We need to also highlight young people being removed off CSO orders. There will need to be funding towards this process, and that might look like workforce, in line with the promise at the moment. Scaffolding is a massive area that we know we're going to be working towards, and I think that that's vital. When you, movingly, referred to the fact that, for some young people who haven't been able to find the right or to navigate the right pathway, it's ended up in them losing their lives as a consequence. In what circumstances do you think that they prevailed upon them that led to that being the case? Just frustration, bewilderment, a loss or what? It's a range of different things. Having to prove that your care-experienced is probably one of them when you leave. I guess you put this in a box and you put it aside, but when it comes to things like accessing priority for housing points or accessing support in terms of financial when you go to college or your council tax exemptions, you have to prove that. You essentially have to start gathering data on yourself and prove that you were care-experienced. That's correct, and you were care-experienced. That's great. You have that, but you still have to find it. It's very time consuming. If you're working full-time and you have to now go back and ask a social worker from six, seven years ago or the department if they know that you were looked after, that can take a lot of time. Then there's the process of if it was longer than that and you have to ask for a freedom of information on yourself to access your care records. Those records don't come back very quickly. I personally requested to access my care records in January. I'm still waiting and it can take up to six to eight months, even longer. Within that time frame, that person is still facing homelessness, they're still facing poverty, they're still waiting for someone to pass this information so they can prove that they're entitled to support. It can become very dehumanising, it can be mentally draining, because you're revisiting that trauma. We understand that childhood trauma is real. That doesn't go away because you grew out of a care system. That still stays. It can be very dehumanising if you don't have friends that are in the correct place or people that can offer you that helping hand. You fall through the cracks and mental health starts to persist and it grows increasingly. We also know that to access support for your mental health when you're trying to stay level, that can take a long time, long waits. That then leaves that person still without support. Someone who was vulnerable in the first place is a completely overwhelming experience and, for some, it just becomes too overwhelming. It becomes too overwhelming, it becomes too much and you're essentially broken. Thanks very much for all the information. I'm interested in your opening remarks. You said that you had done some work on that before you came to petitions. I'd be interested to know if there's anything there that we can follow up. What kind of commitments you've had that perhaps have not come to the fore as of yet? Just some of that work that you did beforehand in case we can build on anything that you've already put in place? I contacted my local councillor, who was fabulous. He directed me to speak to my MSP. I was also looking at and involved refugee and asylum backgrounds. I was also directed to speak to my MSP. I emailed the First Minister at the time. The response back was to take part in the 1,000 voices, which was something that was very important to me. I was also given a response back from my MSP and my MP, who contacted the then Children's Minister, who referred me to consider making an application form to join the promise. That's where it ended. At the time, the avenue for Jasmine was to take part in the independent care review, which led to the promise. This issue was highlighted in the promise, but it isn't one of the issues that was taken forward in plan 2124. It's outstanding. As an organisation, Who Care Scotland is also on the advisory board for the human rights bill. We feel that the concept of lifelong support for care experience people as an equality group, as an identity, is an area that we can progress through the human rights bill. I feel that we need some support from the committee today to shine a light on this issue with the Scottish Government, with other organisations, with local authorities. Obviously, there are quite a few things that could change. There is legislative change that could be a tweak or could be transformational or could be both. In the longer term, there are resource issues, and there are also conversations that need to be had around prioritising this issue. We are really grateful for the training from the Scottish Parliament that encouraged Jasmine to submit the petition, because she felt that she should try all relevant avenues. Being connected with the promise, she felt that she wanted to try something to shine a light on this issue. It's so complex, as we highlighted last time. It needs detailed observation, because it's such a complex issue. There is work to be done on those different levels. There may be layers of things that are required to be done, but the petitions committee can build on work. That is an important point that we have explored avenues, but there is some pressure that is required to get the important last part over the line. In the next session, you will talk more about addressing the issues of implementation for continuing care with current eligibility. We think that that is a major issue, but perhaps it requires a separate, connected petition in and of itself. Obviously, the issues there need to be addressed for the issues that we are raising to ultimately be addressed, so both need to be addressed. However, we do not want the outcome of Jasmine's petition to be to address issues with implementation with current eligibility, because the point of the petition is that lots of people are falling through the cracks with current eligibility. Fergus Ewing, it was your instigation that we had the two panels last night, in fact, of those with experience of all of this. I must apologise to witnesses that I wasn't able to come last night, but I was pleased that my colleagues were able to do so. I just wanted to pursue the points that Laura made about the answers to the earlier questions about what in particular you would like to see us do or recommend to be done. I think that there were a couple of points that you made. One, Laura, was that legislation may be required to be changed, and two, you made a reference to supervision orders. I just wondered if you could maybe expand on that. Obviously, we are all here. We want to try to help to identify precisely what needs to be done, both in terms of change to the law and change to practice. Also, I appreciate that, by the nature of things, care is a very general nebulous concept, which involves all sorts of things. We have already heard that. It could involve access to finance to housing, arranging things, it could involve physical care, it could involve mental health provision, so it covers a whole wide spectrum, which makes it quite difficult to have clarity. Obviously, we need clarity in order to try to be of whatever help we can in recommending that necessary changes are made. The two questions are, can you expand upon what legislative change you think is required? Is it a matter of definitions, as was set out in the promise, to some extent, to avoid cliff edges and to remove anomalies resulting from certain care ending abruptly at the age of 21 or 26? Is that the definition you want changed? In supervision orders, I just wondered if you could expand what you think should be done in relation to them. Sorry, it is very long-winded. I used to be a lawyer, so you get paid by the word. It is hard to kick the habit, but we are here to help really. We just want to try to get as much clarity as we can. I mentioned the initial bit of legislation to consider and then the future legislation to consider. Section 66 of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, which amended the 1995 act, says that, from April 2015, any young person who ceases to be looked after on or after their 16th birthday—by looked after there, we mean on a CSO—is less than 26 years of age or potentially eligible for aftercare. That is the section in the legislation that we need to be looking at. That contains an age cut off if you come off your CSO before your 16th birthday, but also at the age of 26. So there are two issues there? There are two issues, so continue caring. Those who need care before 16 and who are cut out of the system and those who need care after they are 26, because it is just an arbitrary big day. Yes, so when Jasmine has been saying previously looked after, because we were talking about this on the train on the way here, that there is a lot of jargon that we are maybe now just used to using, that it may be as confusing. When we are saying previously looked after, what we mean is that you are no longer on a CSO and the issue here is if you come off it before your 16th birthday, so you could be living in a children's home. I am up until like 15 and a half, and then you maybe go back to love with your parents, for example, but then maybe when you are 17, that relationship breaks down and then you become homeless. That is just one specific example. I cannot generalise all of the case studies. That is really helpful, but you have clarified extremely well. The other issue is the supervision order. Are you able to expand on that? It was just a very short reference that she made, so I was not sure how significant it was. I just had a quick look at the definition of supervision orders, and it does seem largely to be part of the criminal sentencing world, rather than the social work care world, if you see what I mean. I am not an expert in this area, but I was just a bit puzzled because the supervision order seems to be issued by children's hearings, but there is provision for supervision orders to be made in respect of adults as well, but it is very much in the context of a sentence after somebody has been No, it can be, but it is also wider than that. There are lots of different types of compulsory supervision orders, and yes, some would be, for example, for you to be put in secure care or for you to be, until the care and justice bill, for you to be put in a young offender's institution, but you could also be on a compulsory supervision order to be formally looked after by a family member, so in kinship care or in a compulsory supervision order to be formally looked after by the local authority and therefore maybe in a children's home. There are lots of different types of compulsory supervision orders, and again that is something that we say CSO, as everyone knows what it is, but it is a formal order, but you can also be so that would be described as being formally looked after by the state, but you could also be you could be informally looked after, so the example I gave before of, for whatever reason, you can't be looked after by your parents and maybe your granny or your auntie or your grandpa takes on that role at kinship care. The local authority might have involvement with social work with your family, but you might not have a formal order of that agreement because everybody is in agreement, perhaps, so you might not be eligible for continuing care because you are not looked after in terms of the legislation, and it's the looked after, I can't remember the exact title of the guidance, but there's guidance on looked after children on the Scottish Government's website that states what you need to be on to be deemed looked after, and therefore eligible. That's the legislation that we need to look at initially, and in terms of definitions, like you said, the Promise Bill could be an opportunity to legislate for the definition that's given in the promise that we know that corporate parents, often with a bit of encouragement, are adopting when providing support to care experience people. It's a broad definition of care experience that takes into account lots of different types of care, and I think that that will make a big difference. I guess it's for Parliament and for Government to decide which legislation it would be best to include that definition in, but, from our perspective, we would like to see the definition that's in the promise legalised. We'd like to see it not in soft law but in hard law, so it's not negotiable. In terms of support beyond the age of 26 and all the different types of support that you were mentioning, where we feel like care experience people need to be prioritised, particularly, for example, with mental health support, because we have a report, Tenderlight, from last year, a participation research report that showed that children in care aren't being proactively offered mental health support, but that there's a real issue with not being able to access support later in life when you might be able to be better placed to process that trauma. I might have been pushed down for a while, and that's maybe when you actually do need to seek counselling, particularly when accessing your care records, there needs to be more support at that age, at any age, when you require it. We feel like, if care experience people were mentioned in the human rights bill, we could be taking a more equalities approach to access and support for care experience people. Obviously, the Scottish Parliament can't amend the Equality Act, but we'd like to see what we could do in Scotland with our public sector equality treaty and the upcoming human rights bill legislation to improve equal opportunities for care experience people, because that is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, and we think that there's a real opportunity in Scotland to be able to do that, and also for Scotland to lead the way, not just in the UK but globally, to be really recognising care experience people as a group that needs extra support and legislation. I've actually extended, such has been the interest that I think we have in the issue at hand. We've extended the session quite a little bit there, but before we move to the round table conversations, Rennie, you would like to say to us that we may be not covered this morning? I would just like to, first of all, thank you for having us here today, and I'd also like to thank the agencies that are going to be attending the round table discussion with us. Well, thank you both very much. I very much appreciate you contributing to the discussion this morning, and I'll now suspend briefly in order that we can invite others to join us. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Welcome back, and those of you following our proceedings this morning will know that we've just heard from the petitioner, Jasmine Pilling, and from Laura Pastanek from Who Cares Scotland. As trailed, we now move to a round table discussion, and I'm delighted to welcome Joanne McMeeking from Celsus. That's the Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection, Megan Farr from the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, and also Fiona McFarlane from the Promised Scotland. This is all, obviously, to continue our consideration of petition 1958. We'd also hoped to have a representative of the Scottish through care and after care forum, but they weren't able to meet us at this particular time this morning. So we'll move straight into questions, if I may, and I suppose just in general, obviously you were listening to the evidence that we heard from both Laura and from Jasmine. There were positives in all of that, as well as the issues arising from the petition that they identified as being the real problem. I suppose that an opening question is really in your opinion how is the after care and continuing care structure currently working in Scotland, and to what extent did you recognise and empathise with the issues that were being identified just a few moments ago? Sorry, any one of you can volunteer to jump in and then come back after. Joanne? I think I was nominated today. Maybe it's in the order that I made out the names. Maybe that's the simplest thing first off. Jasmine's petition and also for Laura, that was incredibly heartening to hear, but also quite sad at the same time. It's really good to hear that Jasmine had an excellent experience of being in care and also being supported in after care and continuing care, but it sounds like she had very strong advocates who had to really tussle and really argue for those rights as well. Where we're going with this in terms of the continuing care and the after care, can you go back to your question was very much around. So how does that resonate with your experience of through care, after care, continuing care within Scotland? We know it's patchy, we know that the provision is patchy. We have a very progressive policy and legislative framework in Scotland around continuing care and after care, but in Scotland we have a pervasive implementation gap. When I was listening to Jasmine, I was hearing her tell the story of the problem with implementation, the problem with consistency in terms of this type of care for young people who absolutely need it and should get it because in many ways young people are in these situations because things have not gone well for them at home and a lot of the time they're experiencing trauma, they're also experiencing difficulties in terms of education, difficulties in terms of family breakdown and if any young person needs more support it is definitely care leavers and care experienced young people. So what I would say at this point in time in Scotland is that the provision is patchy and it needs to speed up and it needs to be much much better. Can I just ask when you say the provision is patchy, do you mean the provision is patchy geographically or do you mean even within any geographical area the provision can then be patchy again? Yes, I think sometimes it can be patchy within a local area, within a local authority and some of the work that we've been doing in Celsus, we did a piece of research last year in March 2022 very specific around these areas about the implementation of continuing care and after care and the data is telling us that there can be a difference in practice from local area to local area and sometimes from team to team so it ain't just about one local authority or one area is absolutely getting this right, it's varied across the local authorities and the local areas and within teams. That's interesting, Megan. I just endorse what Joanne said again, we come across the same things, we get inquiries from a range of different local authorities and we've seen good practice in local authorities and bad practice within the same local authority frequently, so that's very much our experience as well. Did you recognise that sentiment of the overwhelming nature on an individual in the absence of advocacy, the kind of responsibility that they feel falling on them to try and progress anything on their own behalf? Yes, and actually that's a really difficult thing to do if you're any child or any young person, it's something that we all learn to do as adults and are supported to do by our parents, but in this case the children are challenging their parents, the local authorities, their corporate parents, so they're very much fighting an uphill struggle because there is this large corporate body of policies and complexities against them and it is insurmountable for many young people and that's just not acceptable, and the access to advocacy, and there is commitment finally to fund that from Scottish Government, but we still hear that people aren't aware of their entitlement to advocacy, the advocacy coverage is inconsistent, not all of it is necessarily of the quality someone like Who Cares might provide and that access to it is difficult for children to achieve, so I think that we hear about all the same inconsistencies that Celts has found in their research. Just to clarify my own mind, in what way is the Children's Commissioner's Office able to directly intervene in the way that the issue has progressed or understood? We have an enquiries service, it's not a large service and by and large we signpost to other organisations who are able to provide more in-depth and specialist support, but we do support some individual enquiries where we can, so there have been instances where we've been approached and we're particularly concerned about an area of practice where we might do what's called action short of an investigation, so potentially write a letter expressing our concerns and things like that. By and large with individuals, we do refer on it where we can, because we don't have the expertise that someone like Who Cares in this instance would have. We do have formal investigatory powers, we use them in a targeted way, we're a small office, there's only 14 of us in total and our advice on investigations team is small, so we haven't done an investigation on this. We have done other work under it and obviously we have a policy function and so part of what we do is what I'm doing here today is relate some of the things that come to our attention that are brought to our attention by children, young people, by their families and also by organisations that we work with. Okay, thank you. Fiona. All right, so I told the author before you don't need to. So just to echo everything my colleagues have said in terms of what we're hearing on the ground, I think just to take a slightly different angle on it, I think what we're up, we also know is that we have had a history in Scotland of progressive legislation, we know what we want to do but we haven't really worked out how to do it and how to enable some of the rights and entitlements that we already have and support the extension of them. So I think sometimes when we think about these things we have to think about what a system that would enable the type of support that we should be meeting and that we would seek to hope to meet in the way that Jasmine is outlining today, so what does that look like? I mean in my mind that has to look like a system that understands the needs of the care experience population, so it has, I mean currently these duties sit with local authorities as implementing authorities, we know that the national care service bill was delayed yesterday which had a question about whether and not children's services should be included, so that has been a live question in Scotland for a while now but currently that's with the local authorities. So do elected members when they're setting budgets and prioritising the needs of the communities that this particular community are they at the forefront of their mind? Is there a prioritisation? Is there a flexibility? I think that's absolutely critical here that when you have a young person coming to, you know, presenting, firstly they shouldn't be presenting, we should know them anyway, we should know who they are so we are getting that upstream support but do we have a flexibility of offer so that we're able to meet need in a way and that means are we empowering those who are working and implementing authorities to provide a flexible offer and also do we have a workforce that has significant, that has not significant sufficient capacity within it to meet the needs that it has I think if you had social work Scotland here today they would say currently no we don't that there is a social work crisis happening at the moment and there is significant areas of capacity and problems that are sitting in systems that mean that it means that it means unfortunately when you have people in need who are who the state has led their duties towards who they are the corporate parent that we have the capacity of people able to meet those needs and do those people have the sufficiency of knowledge experience and crucially support for them to be able to meet the needs of quite a different group this is um John and I were talking in the outside beforehand this is a real skill set this is a community of young people it's very different working with young people transitioning into adulthood as it is from we people in a system so is this a workforce that's really supported has developed a skills and and set of expertise and to be able to meet those needs and then finally for I'll stop is where's the accountability in the system too so the thing that I'm just for folk who don't know the promise Scotland came out of the independent care review and we're a separate organization set up to support change and we work on specific long-term projects and one of the work projects we're working on at the moment that it's about to report is the hearing system working groups the whole issue that jasmine was incredibly eloquent on and I know and the celsus research has identified and other research has identified as this perverse incentive in the system of pushing children off an order at 16 and I think that is something we have to think very carefully about is what what the impact of legislation is on creating incentives in a system that we don't want to create but where the accountability should be sitting there at the children's hearing system for those decisions so it is absolutely about advocacy of course it's about advocacy and we need to when that needs to be in currently it should be accessible in the children's hearing system it needs to be more so we need to do more work on that and the promise Scotland is going to be doing some work on that shortly but also the panel that's signing off on that how much are we scrutinising how much are they scrutinising how much and what competencies do they have enabled to actually say do you know what I know there's a young person saying they quite want to get off the order and I know social worker and the local authority saying they want to get off the order but actually I'm going to really scrutinise that decision and really test whether or not it's the right thing to do and so you know we're producing a report shortly that hopefully address some of those issues so it's a it's a wide system issue but it's about more than the legislative entitlement as crucial as that is and I think there is a there is a mechanism to fix some of that if that's the route want to go down in the forthcoming promise bill but it's also about really scrutinising the how how does this system enable the intentions and aims that we are seeking for it to achieve because at the moment we're not quite there and we need to pay more attention to that okay thank you that's very helpful and for just for the benefit of those who might be following our proceedings elsewhere the promise Scotland you just confirm what the resource of the promise Scotland itself is in terms of the infrastructure of the promise yeah sure so we are a non-statutory company owned by Scottish ministers but we have an independent board and we're a relatively small organization I think we're put 2023 at the moment I think we have a support function so we're working across local authorities and implemented authorities supporting them to implement the promise and and do the work we also have a policy and data function so we've got some key projects one of them is the hearing system working group which is chaired by Sheriff David Mackie we're working with CHS and SCRA to redesign the children's hearing system we've also got a big project on data which is about how do we and actually which this is really pertinent to how we understand and support a wide understanding of who the young people that are living in the system are what their needs are what their experiences are and also we also provide support to the scrutiny body which is called the oversight board which Jasmine actually sits on and that is a group of 20 people from our care experience to report annually on progress to meet the promise and they will be reporting shortly so we provide a secretary at support function to them as well that's great thank you very much Alexander Stewart thank you canvina thank you very much for your your your presentations and your conversations so far but it's become quite evident from where we are and what you've said and what we've heard already and what we I had information last night that these are vulnerable individuals who are at crossroads in some times in their life and in some instances not all but in some instances they are being failed and they are seriously being failed in that some of them eventually choose to take their own lives because of the situation and circumstances they have found themselves in and I acknowledge that we have capacity issues I acknowledge we have workforce issues but it was very evident last night from some of these lived experiences that they've struggled and they continue to struggle even in present day from the experiences they went through and I acknowledge that all of you are doing your bit in your process but also you know the charities the third sector are doing a huge amount of work in this area and they seem to be the ones that sometimes have the safety net for some of these vulnerable individuals rather than the the authorities or the the statutory groups that are set up by government to protect and support and the whole area requires I would suggest some sort of root and branch review to ensure that this goes forward and I think Jasmine's petition has identified some of the areas that we need to consider and seriously consider if we are going to get this right because at the moment we are not getting it right for many individuals and you've talked about being patchy well that that in the current circumstance many organisations are facing that but I think for where you are when you are in a protective role when you're in a supervisory role to manage and look after vulnerable individuals as I say we are failing these individuals and we are failing in some of these communities so the legislation that's been talked about this morning I think is very important but there needs to be a realisation from all your organisations as to where and what you can achieve and what you might achieve going forward so it would be useful just to get a flavour of if do you think what I've said is correct do you see that is where the sector is at the moment do we have a crisis in some of these areas and if so what would be and what should be because if we're putting forward things like the promise can we actually fulfil that can we actually achieve that because my view what I'm seeing and what I've heard over the last few days and today is that we are failing some of these young people and that's not acceptable in any shape we are from so I'm not quite sure who you are I think I'd agree that we're failing in terms of what we're doing as a country what the state's doing the obligations into human rights terms lie with the state and that includes to ensure that there's maximum use of available resources to provide these services to to ensure the terms used as progressive realisation and I think Fiona touched on that we have progressive legislation with possibly having less of the realisation so far of that of those rights but the so the responsibility lies with with the state in terms of the UK government in terms of funding Scottish government in terms of funding within devolved competencies and obviously they they devolve that responsibility but not that not the obligation to local authorities largely I think it's probably fair to them to say that some of the service delivery is funded is delivered by third sector organisations by charities but funded by local authorities and by Scottish government and that's fine that's appropriate and they have an expertise so but when decisions are made about budgets they need to be made in terms of the children's rights obligations that those bodies local authorities Scottish government UK government what their children's rights obligations are and one of the things that we've talked about a lot and it's a little bit geeky and technical but is around children's rights impact assessment and having an understanding of the impact of those budget cuts so when budget cuts are made and particularly when they're made to third sector organisations and that's something that we've been looking at in the office nothing that that's an issue so I would absolutely agree that it's failing I think where the responsibility lies is sometimes poorly understood by the public at large but in human rights terms it's really clear so that that would be my view in terms of our statutory role we're not service delivery organisation we do what we can but we don't have a statutory function to deliver those services including things like advocacy and parliament has chosen not to fund us to do that parliament chose to create the office chose what our reaver is and ultimately funds us so we work within those confines we also work within a confine of a statutory movement that only extends to 21 in terms of care experience children and 18 otherwise so that we do what we can within our constraints but actually the issues lie with the state so it's a mixed picture the question of failing is a really mixed picture because you will not find a local authority in scotland that's not really working hard on the promise there are people all over this country and in national bodies who have picked this up and run with it and are owning it and there are really good stories to tell so I won't labour you with all of them but we know local authorities that are significantly and safely reducing their entry into the care system by the provision of much better family support we know that there are local authorities that have managed to shut residential children's homes and re-diverted that money into supporting children young people and communities in and home so it's it this is not a question of something that needs another review this is about the persistence in implementing what we already have and know and I think what I was trying to say earlier was we need to we need to flip and focus on how the system enables what we want to get to and we need to do that persistently and be thinking always about investment budgets governance workforce support planning and these and we just have to sit in that and keep going with that and have a level of stickability with it and I think we will get there it is totally within scotland's gift to be able to implement the promise by 2030 because in effect it's two things it's absolute core it's the provision of really good holistic family support that prevents children going into the care system and if a child does need to go into the care system that that is a system that is characterised by love by fun by relationships and it has a lifelong quality to it so that if the state has made that decision you've got a lifelong commitment to that young person that's not beyond the wit of man those things are achievable we just have to orientate the state and its resources to get to the place where they can be done can I come in on this one and just to back up the statement around we don't need another independent care review we had an independent care review and it was incredibly thorough and there was many thousand voices telling us especially young people children and young people and families that things had to change and things had to get better so i certainly would urge caution around any root and branch review we've got a long history in scotland of having to sort of having to go back to the start again when we already know the answers and we just have to stay with it and we have to stick with it as well but what we do have and i've said this before and this is a really kind of crucial point in scotland i think it's just not it is just not exclusive to children and families i think it sits in lots of different areas and just listening yesterday to the first minister's speech you could hear the rub around implementation gaps the rhetoric around here's what we would like to do here's what we're saying we're doing here's what the legislation is telling us to do but here is the lived reality in the moment for people and that experience sits really firmly for children and young people and families especially with care experience and we also have to understand and also be empathetic that the workforce in terms of what they do every single day is they rock up and they really care and they want to make a difference but they will tell us that the system at times jars and stops then from them being able to do a really good job but what we also have is a pretty cluttered landscape in scotland politically in terms of the legislation and i would urge that we don't potentially step in and clutter that again we have not fully implemented the 2014 act that's clearly what jasmine is telling us what laura is telling us the focus needs to be on making sure that that's fully implemented in order that children experience what they should be experiencing as children in a caring environment and we also know in terms of the early help and the family support there has been a shift within scotland in terms of the funding there is more funding going towards that we have many local areas who are really looking and doing some really excellent work and that needs to continue we have to fund more upstream so that we've got less children coming into the care system in crisis and not being cared for properly and that's where the focus needs to be i think we've still got a long way to go with that but what i would finally say is especially around this area there hasn't always been enough priority and it needs to speed up the progress needs to speed up and it takes particular skill to do this type of work when you're working with young people especially older young people and we do not have at times the workforce skills and the capacity to be able to deliver that intense type of service that every young people deserves who's been in the care system or who has left the care system thank you thank you fergus you thanks give me i just wanted to ask a couple of questions the first one's just regarding the implementation of the 214 act which joanne referred to just a moment ago and it hasn't been fully implemented can you just clarify just for my benefit i'm sorry i don't really have any not detailed knowledge about this but do you mean that parts of the act haven't yet been brought into commencement or do you mean that they are all in force and in operation but they're not brought into practice yes ah it's the latter it's the latter so if we look at continuing care and we look at aftercare they are fully within legislation they are fully functional within a local authority within an organisation say like the third sector they are fully formed where we have a rub is it's not always being properly implemented and understood according to the letter so when we talk about the termination of cso's that jasmine and laura spoke about earlier we do have some evidence in our research that is suggesting that this is happening that some young people are coming off their orders too early and i do think the scrutiny within the children's hearing system is a priority here to fully understand when they have a young person sitting in front of them and they have potentially the caregivers sitting with them to fully understand is this the right thing for that young person at that point in time i have sat in from time to time on children's hearing system and when i've done so i've been very impressed by the evident care and thoroughness maybe i was shown the best ones i don't know but i suspect that the people there are very experienced on the panel and i was i was very impressed by it so what in particular is it that you think that children's panels are not doing that they should be doing i mean how and how can it be corrected is it a matter of the the kind of reporter to the children's panel not pursuing certain aspects or is it a failure of of the panel in in certain ways could you be more specific if that's possible because obviously we want to make recommendations about precisely what should be done and there's a whole range of things that we have already received evidence from earlier but you know what what in particular is it that the panels are not doing that they should be doing so i wouldn't say it was a failure of children's hearings per se and Fiona i think you remember of the children's hearings reform working groups will be able to come in with a level of news that i don't have so it's a combination of factors so when a young person comes into the hearing system or is in front of the hearing system especially as they're a little bit older and there is conversations about them no longer needing to be on compulsory supervision that is an assessment that is done by the social worker done by the people who might be sitting in and around and working with that young person and also the young person has a voice in that as well and then the decision sits with the children's hearing system and what i'm saying is at times the children's hearing system do not actually have that power to make sure that that supervision order is being properly implemented and that that is the right decision at that time so there needs to be more scrutiny but they're all legal power do you mean they don't have the in law the powers to they do but in terms of being able because what happens with the children's hearing system is they can say we really want this young person to be on a supervision order and in terms of the supervision of that order so they may actually attach a condition to that and say this young person needs to have camp support or they need to have life story work can the social worker go and do that can the social worker potentially refer that can the people around the team around that child go off and sort that out and sometimes that doesn't always happen so the way that the supervision order is supervised when the child leaves the children's hearing system isn't always robust and some of that can be a resource issue some of that can be a capacity issue some of that could be about not being able to kind of meet with that young person at that point in time so in many ways the supervision orders effectiveness happens out with the hearing yes okay so it's not really something that the children's hearing hearings themselves are failing it's the implementation after the follow-through but they also have a job on the day and in the moment to scrutinise the quality of support and the quality of decision making within that space I just wanted to ask you one other thing if I may convener which is I mean plainly the availability of sufficient funding is is obviously one of the major issues here and local authorities are under financial pressures and one one feels perhaps the third sector are very often a port of call when it comes to making funding reductions either in total or in part and I just wanted to ask about the whether if you think that this is a serious whether this is a serious issue in respect that very often voluntary organisations that are providing care in some respects for for this whole area get funding on a kind of hand to mouth year-to-year basis and you know my experience of working with many many such organisations in inverness and the highlands is that very often they spend as much time trying to raise the money they need to function as actually functioning yes and that the problem therefore is year to year funding or even less actually in some cases the uh so is that a serious issue in this particular area and if so is the answer to move to three or five year funding which provides more security for the organizations which enables them to hire to hire people more readily and people be more ready to be hired rather than you know not take up a position because they've only got 12 months security of 10. Yeah yeah I can quickly answer that and pass you over to Fiona who's jumping up and down at the prospect of answering this question it is incredibly difficult short term funding for organizations and especially in this climate and it is very difficult to recruit especially when they cannot give a commitment to their staff that they might be there in a year's time or possibly two years time you know people go to work because they care especially in this job but they also go to work to earn money and to pay their mortgage and it can be very very difficult to recruit the right people without the right level of commitment in terms of you can have a job for three years or five years year to year funding is tricky it causes a lot of problems especially in terms of the organization having to chase money potentially and it causes a high level of uncertainty in longer term planning it is a significant part of instability in this particular area of our work and I would urge that if there's any power that you have and any power that we have to be able to say you have to secure funding in a different way for these organizations then please do so of course the local authorities in terms of the commissioning arrangements and the voluntary organizations have to deliver we are not saying that we hand you a three pass and a golden ticket for three years you have to absolutely do your job properly and there will be evaluations and robustness around that but please lessen the unpredictability for organizations and for people and for their staff in their workforce and ultimately for their young people and families that they work with. I wouldn't add very much more than what John said but just to reference when we're talking about what the third sector are doing here they're providing statutory services on behalf of the local authority this is not an adult this is the provision of a statutory function here so when I talked about when we have to look behind the local authority desk and what the system is this is what the core of it is how do we organize our implementing authorities and support them to deliver really key statutory duties in a way that is ultimately best for the children and young people that come through I think the other thing on the social care workforce is obviously there's lots of conversations about rates of pay as well it's really important that the children's social care workforce are considered as part of that and we don't just siphon off the adult social care because then what we do is we create a system in which some parts of the system pay more and some parts pay less and it will be children and young people services who are at you know the the poor end of that which is which is absolutely not where we have to end up that's a real that's a real risk thank you thank you you know what's really been fascinating through the two sessions of evidence this morning is that is the is the contrary is the sort of contradictions in the sense that in response to Alexander Stewart there was an acceptance that we're not where we should be in terms of we're still failing from Fiona real enthusiasm in relation to the commitment by so many individuals to delivering on the promise and the good work that's being done but from you Joanne the fact that we have a very progressive structure but you know that the actual effectiveness of it is patchy in within authorities within departments you know all together and that what's not needed is a big review what's needed is really a commitment a sustained commitment to make all the bits that have been understood actually now come together and happen and I think in response to Fergus Ewing an appreciation that it's not assisted necessarily by the employment funding models which make it difficult for some people to see the attraction of it and I was about to sum up there and then I'm wondering if Carol's got a question that I've omitted to ask her if she would like to put it so Carol I come to you before I rush to a peroration or anything noble I suppose I yeah and I'll be I'll be quite brief because the information has been very clear and I am incredibly supportive of what has come across but can I be clear do you believe the government know what needs to be done and are finding it difficult to make decisions about how to do that or are they just not clear about what has to be done because it seems to me that this you know being a corporate parent is about the state and we have responsibilities as elected members here to hold people to account and we have to hold the government to account so do we believe as really experienced people that the government understand what has to happen and are just unable to deliver it or that we need to be clearer about the stages that we need to go through to get it to happen would be quite helpful for us I think Megan's been trying to come in a bit I think thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak on that I think I think the promise actually makes it really clear I think and I think the earlier sort of discussion about review and I had meant to pick up that point earlier is that that no we don't need a route and branch review and actually we would be doing the children young people and adults who are care experienced who fit into the promise a real disservice if we decided to go and have another review you know it's really clear what needs to be done in terms of orders I think there's a there's a question that's been discussed today around this issue of what fair and referred to as the perverse incentive to have children coming off orders and coming off a compulsory supervision order could sound quite positive to a 15 year old but there has to be to be more done around the best interests as part of that that assessment and that best interest decision needs to also take into consideration the fact that a 15 year old comes off an order they currently lose the right to to to that continuing care so I actually think that there is a legislation change I think this was correct me if I'm wrong it was one of the recommendations around 16 year olds and that's to ensure that anyone who who has been looked after is entitled regardless of whether or not they was still on an order when they reach 16 I think that's a gap in the legislation that needs to be closed but it's a relatively easy one to fix it will have resource complications and they will have to be addressed but but but it is a gap where some children are not being afforded the same rights as other children who have very similar experiences we'll also remove that that issue where where there's potentially an incentive to take children off orders before they turn 16 and then the other thing is that they really need to address their implementation gap and that that lies with with Scottish Government and the promise has what they need in terms of what needs to happen and I think Fiona would like to go to more detail. So in terms of what this committee might say there is there was commitment in previous Scottish Government implementation plan to a promise bill and I didn't see that in the document that was produced yesterday but I certainly understand from civil servants that that is that is still in motion and in train so there is a legislative mechanism to fix things from the 2014 act if if the committee wants to recommend that so I think that's something that's positive do you understand what needs to happen yes I think they do and the commitment that is absolutely there in government in the same way that you see it in local authorities and national bodies is absolutely there I actually think the question about the national care service has complicated this a bit and that that the potential taking on of children's services just community justice services as well and then that decision now being delayed that has made where the where did the statutory duties sit a really live question and that has caused difficulties in what the government's plan is but there are other really important things in train as well around national social work agency about advanced practitioners in social work you know there are really good things happening but I think there there is probably a confusion at the moment about the central organising principle around that would sit and I think the national care service has made that a little bit trickier. I think it was also really disappointing the lack of detail regarding children and young people services that was in the national care service but we raised that when we responded to the Scottish Government consultation and also in evidence children's services children's social care services in particular if you start bringing in things like health visiting early years and child here are a complex landscape there are also a universal service in a way that adult social care isn't we already have the promise which has really detailed information about one segment of that and that was barely mentioned in the consultation as well there were literally two pages on children we then have in terms of the national care service a gap in terms of our understanding of the rest of children's social care including children with disabilities services so in terms of national care service I think it does complicate the landscape but it it makes that worse in a way by the fact that there is so little detail and I'll repeat what we've previously said in evidence in terms of that there needs to be proper scrutiny of how children's services are incorporated into any national care service and that's proper parliamentary scrutiny can I just add that there is a research group there is a piece of research that's now been undertaken specific to the role the potential role of children's services within the national care service in the future if it actually gets off the ground and I think that's something that the committee would I would urge you to lean into in terms of when that is completed in terms of what may be coming from that in terms of some questions around child children services coming to this particular area but just to to emphasise as well in terms of my colleagues and beside me that the lack of children services in terms of detail around the national care service bill has been a concern and is a worry that it will take us off where we need to absolutely be to kind of stay around the stickability piece and try and sort out the 2014 act and make sure that we deliver on what we've said that we would deliver for children young people and their families and then just the final point for me would be the piece around patchy and that can be really difficult to hear when you're a young person and you've received a patchy surface and that's really difficult to say that when you hear patchy because ultimately probably all points in our lives we will need the state to come in and help us and support us be it a child, be it a family member, be it an adult, be it an older person and I would not want someone to say to me that you might get a patchy service so what we do know in Scotland is we do not have socially significant outcomes for all our citizens because we have the progressive legislation and that's where the rub is for us. We have to have everyone telling us they've had a really good service, they've had the gold standard and they've had excellent quality and care and love from the care system and at the moment we can't say that with our hands on our hands and that's really difficult to say so I come to work every day to try hard to make that happen. Okay well on that note thank you very much that I don't need to complete my early operation because Carol in fact invited you to do exactly what I wanted to do was to invite you each to say if there were any further specific points that you wanted to put to us and each of you in fact has managed to do that and we've ended on a very high aspirational aim and goal and I guess we all as MSPs recognise that constituents contact us all the time and in relation to so many different issues where constituent A everything will have gone remarkably well on the contactus to tell us and then constituent B almost knocking on the same door comes back to say for whatever reason that didn't happen but I think as you say Joanne you can't you can't advertise that as a kind of lottery that people should expect to receive particularly at this end where people are so vulnerable and need to know that in fact they're going to get an outcome that was every bit as positive as the one we heard from from Jasmine earlier on so thank you all very much for participating in our work this morning colleagues are you content that we consider the evidence at a further meeting of the committee in which case I'll now suspend the meeting briefly thank you all very much and we are back we are now consider additional continuing petitions petition number 16 10 which the upgrade the a 75 and petition 16 57 the a 77 upgrade the first of those lodged by Matt Halladay calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the a 75 euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible and the latter by Donald McHarrie on behalf of the a 77 action group calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the a 77 from the air whittle it's round about south to the two ferry ports located at Cairn Ryan including the point at which the a 77 connects with the a 75 now we previously considered this petition on our at our meeting of the 28th of September and at that point we agreed to write the cabinet secretary for net zero energy to the then cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport the committee has received a response from Jenny Goldruth who was the minister at the time and her response acknowledges the need for improvements to both roads and highlights that stpr 2 recommends safety resilience and reliability improvements be made the minister notes that the south west scotland transport study does not recommend full dueling of either road but rather targeted improvements and the submission states that a delivery plan to prioritise stpr 2 will be released later this year now we've received written submissions from both the petitioners drawing our attention to a newly published a 75 a 77 economic impacts report and this work was commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway south Ayrshire and midden east antrum councils and undertaken by independent transport consultant how do we say that a swaco the study found that dueling would bring five billion pounds worth of positive benefits i quote positive benefits to the UK economy such as reduced journey times and vehicle operating costs finlay carson msp is unable to join us this morning but had provided us with a written submission and he's also highlighted the report noting its finding that dueling would bring environmental gains including co2 emissions reduction and we've also received at least i have and i'm hoping colleagues might have as well a submission from Emma Harper msp in relation to the petition in which she reiterates her support and draws attention to the objectives that they have been retained the recommendations that have been made and also her work with the representative action groups colleagues on the basis of the submissions we've received what would what suggestions might anyone like to recommend fergus ewing well i think we should keep positions open i mean i mean quite obviously these are very important matters not only petitioners but people in this part of scotland and whereas you know i represent islands and have been known to mention other roads to which we may come to which i expect we will come i think out of the interests of equity we should say that you know many parts of rural scotland have roads that are really not not up to scratch and fit for purpose and i think Emma Harper has made the point that one reason why the petition should be kept open is because we don't have timescales for the implementation of the proposed works and that is something perhaps that could be pressed i think on a wider note i mean i'm struck by the substantial cost of upgrading doing anything to roads dualling them certainly you know we're talking hundreds of millions of pounds usually for relatively short sections but i'm also conscious of the safety issue and the the issue of deaths particularly in in the islands but but in many trunk roads around the country there so i do think we should keep position open i think there are more questions that we need to ask i've just identified one but colleagues may have others alexander stewart thank you give me that i would concur with uh for issuing that this we do require to continue to seek more clarity and i think that we now do have a new uh transport minister uh in the form of kevin stewart and i think it would be useful to highlight the key findings that we've seen from the economic impact report and as our colleagues Emma Harper and from the cast have also identified within their submissions that what kind of response the government would have to that report and how it should be managed so i think that's something that we could do just to clarify and to move forward convener thank you so i think that recommendation is very sensible we're right to the minister particularly given that we've got this new economic impact uh with the projection of the billions that the economy could benefit from so are we agreed in that we are the next petition we return to petition 1896 callum isteds petition to provide every primary school child in scotland with a reusable water bottle and we last considered this on the 22nd of febru where we heard evidence indeed from the minister for green skills circular economy and biodiversity law on a slater slater and the head of the scottish government support and wellbeing unit laura mico now members will recall at that evidence session the minister reiterated the scottish government's view that it is up to local authorities to decide their budgets and how to drinking water is provided although the authorities are required to ensure that drinking water is available free of charge and provided in a sustainable way we heard that the ongoing monitoring of the duties under the schools health promotion and nutrition scotland act 2007 takes place through nutrition inspections and engagement with catering services and education authorities however members raised questions about the availability of detailed evidence from each local authority as members may recall there was an outstanding commitment from the former first minister to invite young callum round bute house which i'm afraid now can't be fulfilled because i understand the building is covered in building tape and closed for renovations which may take some quite considerable time to complete but notwithstanding that that unfulfilled promise do colleagues have any suggestions that we might make fergashewing well i think we should encourage the the current first minister to meet callum whether perhaps not in bute house i'm sure first minister would like to do that and i think also we should seek from the minister an assurance that she will request information from each local authority on water provision in schools specifically seeking detail on the methods of provision and how sustainability requirements are met in addition to that in the letter to minister occurred to me that it would be remiss of us not specifically to invite the minister in her letter to to to refer and describe the petition by callum and it specifically asked local authorities if they would wish to be part perhaps of a national procurement scheme which could implement callums petition and whether that actually would be more efficacious in providing a reliable and continuously available supply of water to children because you know the minister said well provision provision of water it's up to schools and they do it in different ways for example water fountains and so on but very often these don't work or they're not really available when somebody wants a drink of water um i mean everybody knows that a bottle of water is very handy to have you can take it with you everywhere and you can keep hydrated all the time and hydration is so important for children and they don't really realise it in those cases if i could be perhaps maybe that's a patronising remark but i think there's a risk that they don't appreciate how important it is to be hydrated in order to be alert and able to concentrate so i think there's a big difference between a water fountain which might be available for several hundred kids that can be closed in a national pandemic aside from it again well indeed so so i think we shouldn't encourage the the minister to set out in a letter this as a potential option would local authorities like this to be done and would they like the the scottish government to take on responsibility to look into procurement because as i pointed out to the minister somewhat in vain but i pointed out to the minister if a national procurement scheme could would be better able to get the best price possible for such an exercise and to do so in enough way that really i think would improve the provision i think we owe it to callum and the minister owes it to callum that this should be done thank you and we consent were you going to come in as well there can i fully agree with the furgus hearing i mean obviously at heart here is the introduction through some method of a reusable metal bottle and i would have thought the minister would be particularly keen in that because it would alleviate the pressures on her with regard to the implementation of her deposit return scheme if in fact young people weren't contributing to it because they had reusable facilities that they were able to to adopt as an alternative in which case i think there were the clerks have absorbed the suggestions in all of that and we look forward to hearing from the minister and also from the first minister who we think would benefit from the commitment and enthusiasm and sustainability to his cause that young callum has managed to offer petition number 1941 to stop the destruction of headstones within community cemeteries this was lodged by council andrew stewart a calling on the scottish parliament towards the scottish government to monitor and regularly actions by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemeteries and colleagues will remember that on the 8 of febru we heard evidence from council wood himself and from desmond bar from the friends of hawkhead cemetery and i mean really during that evidence session witnesses raised concerns that a policy established as a consequence of a very tragic fatality from a large headstone had led to regulations now being applied to much smaller and less dangerous headstones in a destructive way and without notice and we heard that the scottish government guidance and health and safety in graveyards is very good but that it is not always followed by local authorities due to budgetary pressures and witnesses highlighted improved communication within layer owners as a key part of any change and suggested the introduction of an independent auditor to check the local authorities are following the scottish government's guidance the petitioner was in favour of introducing a national standard to ensure that processes are followed and communication with layer owners is maintained quite a tricky narrative in relation to the petition do colleagues of suggestions as to how we might proceed alexander stewart thank you canina yep i think there's much more to this as we found out when we took evidence and and i think there are options that we can look at but i think it would be important to us to now write to the scottish government with reference to the burial and cremation team highlighting the issues that we received during some of the the evidence sessions and seeking information on the on the planned public consultation and the draft regulations under the burial and cremations act of 2016 and including ex-expecting timescales because i think that timescales are very important in this whole process as to how we would we would share that and i think that's important for the petitioner so that would be my recommendation can be now colleagues are we content to proceed on that basis any extra issue is i think i'm correct in saying i just looked but couldn't find it in in the oral evidence that we got that there is a lack of clarity about the legal responsibilities here for safety and ensuring the safety of people who visit cemeteries and the risk of headstones falling over so that that that issue if if there is a lack of clarity then i think we could invite the scottish government to indicate whether or not they believe that they should provide clarity by allocating specific legal responsibility for this quite possibly to local authorities as they would appear to be the only public body that that could be endowed or given that responsibility because if there is lack of clarity then in the event of any further a ghastly incident or accident then the the the victim or families of the victim involved could be left in a virtually legally impossible situation of having no address no clarity or no redress against anybody so i think it behoses as a committee at least to ask the scottish government to consider whether that can be done and if not why not because there does need to be in a modern civilized society clarity about these things and of course property owners do have very clear responsibilities in law but if you don't know who the property owner is then you're really on on a kind of very difficult task indeed and that must although it probably that happens only fortunately rarely something that i think we should ask at the very least it could be clarified by the scottish government okay thank you we're happy to accommodate that proposal as well we are thank you so we'll keep the petition open and progress on that basis petition number 1948 improved the way that unexplained deaths are dealt with lodged by alex o cain and this petition calls on the scottish ballot towards the scottish government to encourage police scotland to review their practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to the support that is offered to family members now i'm sure we will all recall that on febru the 22nd we heard evidence from Stephanie Bonner it was very difficult evidence to hear in relation to the experience that she had investigating the death of her 19 year old son Reese and the concerns about the way the police handled the issue the presumptions that were being made the assumptions that were being made based on her son's age and where he lived and and really left her in the invidious position of having to intolerable position really of having to conduct her own inquiries to try and establish answers on the issue of support to families i mean Stephanie shared that she did not feel she was supported by police scottland and really because she felt that she was met with nothing more than a wall of silence following the fact that she initiated a complaint and she called for unexplained deaths to be treated as an investigation straight away that it you know that it should be that there is a proactive standard expectation that doors will be knocked family liaison officers will be embedded into the process now while we're unable to look into the specifics of Stephanie's experience because that goes beyond the reference of the petition committee her evidence i think was definitely helpful in illustrating the issues raised by the petition and having had an opportunity to reflect i wonder of members of any suggestions that they might want to make about what actions we might take now. Alexander Stewart thank you can mean it as you identified the the the session we had was quite compelling and and i think there are areas that we might manage to ask from from police scottland as to where we would take this forward it might be useful to find out how many complaints it has received about the way it has investigated unexplained deaths in the past five years and of those how many were upheld and of the complaints upheld what were the main failings and identified within those and i also think it's important that we possibly then also look at the review of the investigation of deaths and the national guidance that we have and the steps that it plans to take to ensure that updated guidance is fully implemented because as you identified convener there were many issues that came out from the evidence session but we are not able to as you identified go specifically but i think these areas would give us a clarity as to what police scottland are and how they are moving forward to manage the the process that was identified during during the sessions that we heard. I mean i agree that we would like to i mean i would very much like that letter also to be framed in the context of the evidence that we heard during the session in particular because i think you know i'm i would like police scottland to be aware you know that um we did hear quite harrowing testimony and we felt that it was quite compelling and that is what is underpinning the questions that we're asking we're not just asking them because you know we felt we should ask something we're asking them because we um really felt motivated to do so given the experience that we'd heard from Stephanie. Petition number 1950 ensure immunosuppressed people in scotland can access the ever shelled antibody treatment lodged by Alex Marshall calling on the Scottish Government via the NHS to make this treatment available for people who have zero or weak response to Covid-19 vaccines and again members will recall we are considering this petition now having heard evidence on the 8 of February from remotely from both Mark Oakley and Nicola Brigden members of the ever shelled for the UK campaign group um and their view at the time was that while it might not be a magic bullet it can support immunosuppressed individuals to have more confidence when undertaking activities such as spending time with family and friends or using public transport and i do think that the evidence session as much as anything identified to the committee that you know while the world has moved on from the Covid pandemic there are still within our society a number of people whose everyday life is seriously compromised by it i'm very struck having just come back from a few days in london that you know you wouldn't know in fact that there had ever been a pandemic in the sense that life has moved back and i think everybody can just assume that is the case for everyone when in fact i think our evidence demonstrated that for some it still is a very very live concern however since that last consideration members may be aware that nice have issued draft guidance which does not recommend ever shelled for preventing a Covid-19 in adults who are unlikely to have an adequate immune response to the Covid-19 vaccination or who can't be vaccinated and as part of this announcement nice also indicated they are developing a new review process to update recommendations on the cost effectiveness of Covid-19 treatments so that they can be made available much more quickly to patients i mean it was obviously the case that by the time we were considering this petition the national situation had advanced considerably from that which obtained even at the point that it the petition was lodged and had in fact ever shelled been effective it would have been a heck of a long lead time before potentially it would have been made available so i think that review of the way in which they're going to progress the review of treatments is is very is very much to be welcomed do members of any questions or comments i think in the circumstances mr stewart yeah thank you can mean i think under under the circumstances i think we we don't have much other than we wish to close the petition under a rule 15.7 of standing orders because as you've already identified nice do not recommend the use of ever shelled for vulnerable adults who are at high risk of Covid-19 because there's not enough evidence and the petitioner itself no longer wishes to pursue due to the ineffectiveness of ever shelled against emerging viruses so i don't think we have any other course other than to close the petition are we agreed and we do so while noting continuing understanding of the situation for a significant number of people which is not now so obviously in the public eye as they continue to deal with the ramifications of Covid-19. We now move to agenda item 2 which is consideration of new petitions and as always to those who may be following our proceedings i indicate that we do take soundings in relation to the petition in particular an initial view from the Scottish government and from the Parliament's impartial research service so that we even from the start of our consideration have got some informed opinion. The first of those petitions is petition 1998 which is to end legal loopholes for the monarchy. Our first new petition is from Tristan Gray on behalf of our republic and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to abolish adaptations and exemptions to legislation requested by the monarchy, ensure all future communications between the monarchy. Scottish Government Scottish Parliament with representatives of the monarchy are fully transparent and public to publish details of all cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the monarchy and to prevent any such alterations to our laws from being implemented in the future. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that seeking crown consent is a requirement act under the Scotland Act 1998 and that it is required to follow the same rules that apply to UK bills when it comes to seeking consent from the royal household. For the avoidance of doubt, the Scotland Act is out with the responsibility of the Parliament here. On the issue of sharing correspondence between the monarchy, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the response notes the importance of confidentiality in order to hold free and frank discussions. The Scottish Government also states that it does not record how bills have changed as they have been developed or where stakeholders have queaded aspects of that legislation, presumably at all. Do members have any questions or suggestions in view of the directive response that we have received from the Scottish Government? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. You have already explained really where our position is on this, and I think that the petitioner must understand that too, that in reality there is very little that can be really achieved under the circumstances. I do not think that we have any other course but to close the petition because the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation to remove the legal requirements as seen with consent. According to the Scottish Government correspondence that we have already had, the royal household is confidential and such confidentiality is not recognised and respected in order to maintain the ability to hold free and frank discussions. According to the Scottish Government, details of this case where laws have been adapted at the request of the monarchy cannot be provided as the Scottish Government does not record such bills. I think that for all of those reasons we acknowledge the petition itself, but unfortunately I do not think that we can do anything else but close the petition under these circumstances. Colleagues, content to close the petition in those circumstances, given the advice of the Scottish Government and the limitation of the powers of this Parliament, you are content. So I thank the petitioner for raising the petition, but as you will understand, it appears that there is no open route for the committee to take forward the aims of the petition. Petition number 2000, ensure universities are held accountable to students under consumer law lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or creating a new body similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which could enable students to access redress without the need for court action. Members will be aware that a similar petition, in a petition 1769, was considered by our predecessor committee in the previous session and was close to the basis that the Scottish Government had no plans to seek to extend the existing powers of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and that the Scottish Funding Council had stated that there was no evidence that the current approach was not effective in protecting the interests and rights of students. In responding to this new petition, the Scottish Government highlighted that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies with their own arrangements for handling complaints from students and that any individual who is not satisfied with the outcome of the university's complaints process may refer the issue to the SPSO. As noted in response to the previous petition, the remit of the SPSO does not apply to matters of academic judgment. The briefing that we received from SPICE also notes that the consumer protection legislation remains a reserved matter, with the Scottish Government highlighting that Scottish ministers have no power to legislate on the redress enforcement aspects of consumer protection. We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which Dr Oldfield calls for the consideration of a more joined-up approach from existing bodies, including the SPSO and Quality Assurance Agency. Dr Oldfield also raises concerns about the policy and decision-making processes of those bodies. Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might take matters forward on this basis? We have the opportunity to write to University of Scotland and to the National Union of Students in Scotland to seek their views on the issue, which has been raised by the petition, specifically whether they would support the review of the complaints procedure for higher education institutions and the remit of the SPSO in relation to those processes. That would be my recommendation, convener. I would agree with Alexander Stewart that perhaps in the letter, though we could point out that just for the sake of clarity, redress and enforcement aspects remain reserved to the UK so that it is clear that our remit is constrained. Perhaps I will also refer to the fact that there has been a previous petition and briefly append the petition and the outcome and the reasons therefor. I am keen to hear from University of Scotland and NUS that it may well be that we find ourselves in a rather similar situation to our predecessor committee when we hear from them, but I think that we do all them a hearing, but I think that we should not raise expectations too high that we could not be able to fulfil. I think that that is perfectly reasonable and our colleagues agree that we are. We move then to petition number 2001 to withdraw the supporting transgender young people in schools guidance from Scottish schools lodged by E. Phillips on behalf of safeguarding our schools Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the supporting transgender young people in schools guidance for Scottish schools resource and await the outcome of the CAS review before developing a new resource. In response to the petition, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Anne Somerville, stated that development of the guidance for schools was informed by key stakeholder groups, including LGBT organisations, women's groups, education organisations and teaching unions. The cabinet secretary also suggested that it is wrong to claim that the guidance recommends young people are encouraged to socially transition. The cabinet secretary's response also noted that while the CAS review only extends to the current and future services offered by NHS England, the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland will closely consider the on-going findings of the review within the context of NHS Scotland services. The committee has received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights that the Equality and Human Rights Commission are reviewing their technical guidance for schools with regard to evolving policy on issues of gender identity. The petitioner also raises concerns about the statistics used in the Scottish Government's guidance and the organisation's sign posted as part of the guidance, as well as highlighting an impact statement from a parent with personal experience of how the guidance subsequently impacted on their family. I think that some important issues raised in the petition do members of any suggestions as to how we might seek to proceed. I might suggest that we might write to some of the stakeholders who would be able to help inform our understanding, including COSLA, the national gender identity clinical network for Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland. Are there any other suggestions that colleagues might make to that list? Alexander Stewart? I think that these are all very important, convener, but I also think that we need to talk to the Scottish Trans Alliance, because they have a role to play in all of this, and the national parent forum for Scotland would also be someone that we could get some views and connect the Scottish Parent Teachers Council, I think, but it might also be useful to write to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to seek information on the review of the technical guidance for schools in Scotland as well, because, as you have already identified, there is not the same situation south of the border, but we need to look at what we are doing here in Scotland itself, and I think that that would be useful. I am aware that there is considerable interest in the petition. Are colleagues content that we progress by contacting those various organisations for review? Petition number 2002 to ensure access to legal aid for people with disabilities. This has been lodged by Grant White and urges the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases for people with disabilities. The spice briefing highlights the Law Society of Scotland's campaign on access to legal aid and its research, which found a lack of solicitors offering legal aid based in deprived communities. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that the Scottish Legal Aid Board applies means and merits tests to determine eligibility to the legal aid fund. It states that neither the ministers nor the Scottish Legal Aid Board—I do not think that I will use the acronym—can compel solicitors to provide advice and representation. The response also outlines measures being introduced to improve legal access to legal aid, and the petitioner's written submission details his experience, which highlights the challenge in obtaining a solicitor. He states that he has contacted nearly 100 firms and all stated that they could not take on his case. His written submission concludes by stating, and I quote, my experience is that there are too few solicitors who carry out legal aid work, and those who do legal aid cases do not have the capacity to take on anymore because of the lack of funding. Well, there we are. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed in relation to this petition? Yes, I think that this is a problem of access to justice. It does seem to be growing. I'm aware that the Scottish Government does intend to introduce a legal aid reform bill and an uplift of 10 per cent to legal fees, so that is welcome so far as it goes. I do think that for someone to be unable to access legal aid at all is a serious matter. No access is justice denied effectively. We should write the law society seeking its view on the action called for in the petition and information about its campaign on access to legal aid, and in particular as it relates to people with disabilities. I think that we have a duty to explore that. I think also to write to the legal aid board to ask whether it intends to undertake a monitoring report on access to legal aid for people with disabilities, and if not, why not, because I think we really have got a duty here to make sure that this particular category of vulnerable people do have access to justice and find out what barriers there are. I think that information could be useful to be provided to the Scottish Government to inform their intended law reform and perhaps influence that process down the line. Colleagues, I'm content. It does seem ridiculous that an individual in these circumstances should have contacted 100 people to receive only 100 rebuffs as he tried to access justice, so an important petition, I think, and we will take that forward. That is, in fact, the final of our new petitions this morning, so I now close this meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 3 May. We'll move into private session.