Family Support Services Inquiry
Next is our proposed family support services inquiry. I refer members to the clerk's note, which sets out a suggested remit and timescale for the inquiry that Mary Mulligan has proposed. As members will recall, she is the committee reporter on family support services. I invite her to say a few words about her proposals.
I do not want to add too much to the information that members already have. I will simply highlight two issues from the committee paper, the first of which is dealt with in paragraph 8, which mentions service types—a reference to the different ways in which family support services are provided. During our deliberations on the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, a number of questions were asked about what is meant by "family support services". We have tried to list the various meanings, but I am acutely aware that when one makes such a list, one tends to miss something out. If there is anything that members want to pick up on, I will be happy to hear from them. In our previous discussion on the subject, reference was made—by Marlyn Glen, I think—not just to the type of services that are provided, but to the type of organisations that provide them. That issue will be dealt with in the same context.
Paragraph 12 of the paper deals with issues that are likely to be considered. I want to highlight two points, the first of which is on joint working. It is clear that although joint working is operating effectively in some areas, in other areas people are trying to do too much on their own but are not succeeding in doing anything. That issue needs to be examined in more detail. The second point is on funding. When we considered the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, we avoided getting into discussions about funding arrangements for support organisations because that did not fall within the scope of the bill. However, we must be realistic and accept that funding is crucial to ensuring that some of the bodies in question continue to exist and can provide the services that they currently offer. I intend to examine the funding situation, which has been difficult at times.
My aim is for the report to be as thorough as possible, but I also want it to be concise. The timetable proposes that the committee be reported back to in early autumn. I think that that is doable, but I do not want to go much beyond then, for obvious reasons—people's minds will start to focus on other issues next year. I think that the committee had a sincere commitment to ensuring that something happens around the issues, so I would like the committee to do that work in time for us to influence what is being provided in our communities.
I am happy to answer any questions.
I welcome the excellent brief that has been prepared for us. I want to make one relatively minor but important point. Paragraph 12 refers to
"joint working between local authorities and local groups",
but it is equally important that we consider joint working between local groups themselves, because the Executive's policy is to try to draw such groups together. In my constituency and other constituencies in the north-east, there are already good examples of local groups working together and, as a joint group, working with local authorities and national Government. I am sure that what is written in the note is not meant to exclude that, but I just thought that it was important to record my view that it should be included.
The note is helpful, as was the contribution from Mary Mulligan. I ask her to encourage the group that will consider the issue to examine local authorities contracting of services from voluntary organisations, to see how that works, what costs are involved and what funding is made available to various programmes and organisations at local level, so that we can see the differences between local authorities. If there is any way of comparing the centrally funded organisations and the locally funded ones, I would urge the group to do that, so that we can see whether we are getting value for money.
I also found the note helpful, and I agree with the comments that have already been made. I realise how wide the issue is and I do not want to make it any more difficult, but the letter from Hugh Henry reminded me of some other loose ends that remain from our discussions. The focus is on families who are facing difficult times and the letter refers to a helpline for advice, but perhaps we could write to Hugh Henry to ask whether there is any room to consider a proactive approach. I know that counselling for couples is proactive and that people do not want to wait until a split-up is imminent.
The same is true of parenting. I know that there was a positive parenting leaflet; I asked at a previous meeting what had been done to follow up that good initiative, but it seems that nothing has been done. Can we find a space to consider that proactively? We could thereby push positive parenting, which can also help families and couples, rather than their just waiting for a break-up to happen. Such consideration would not necessarily involve looking at the parenting agreement and the grandchildren's charter, but we could at least write to Hugh Henry to ask about progress.
I shall respond to those points in reverse. Marlyn Glen's comments clearly show that she wants to examine the pre-dispute situation, which will be important if we are to see a complete view of family circumstances. Some good work has already been done in pilot projects, but we could write to Hugh Henry and then decide whether to progress the issue in any other way. I know from discussions that I have had with Executive officials that a number of things are going on that we will need to pick up on. I shall be reporting back on those issues anyway, but Marlyn Glen's suggestions are useful.
Bruce McFee's point was about local authority funding of the voluntary sector—there is clearly an issue there. There is no member who has not received letters from various organisations in their constituency that feel that they have suffered because of that.
It was interesting to discover in the discussions that we have had with Executive officials that they are emphasising the need for the voluntary sector to improve its standards of provision and that local authorities sometimes see that as an excuse for not funding organisations because they do not think that they are professional enough, which seems to me to be at least a bit obtuse. We need to ask what discussions have taken place with such organisations about what was meant by being professional. Sometimes, such organisations have provided the only service so there was nothing once that was withdrawn.
Our finding out what services are being provided and deciding how we will develop them are significant issues. As Stewart Stevenson said, there are good examples of organisations working with local authorities and with one another. I want to consider those; Stewart Stevenson can take it as read that I will visit the examples of partnership working in Grampian that he has often cited.
Members' comments were helpful and I will take them on board.
I congratulate Mary Mulligan on her comprehensive report. The inquiry will consider what provision exists at present, how it is delivered and how it could be improved. For the avoidance of doubt, it will include voluntary organisations, so I hope that the inquiry will consider direct funding of voluntary organisations, not just their being funded through local authorities.
Will Mary Mulligan give us an idea of where she plans to go on her fact-finding visits and which organisations she will meet? I see that she is considering meetings with national bodies and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; I hope that she will include some voluntary organisations.
Perhaps we should focus on the minister's letter. It is helpful that an awareness-raising campaign will follow up the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006; that is vital. I particularly welcome the pilot scheme to introduce contact compliance officers to facilitate the resolution of contact-related disputes. Contact was a contentious aspect of the 2006 act and it is excellent that the pilot, along with the grandchildren's charter and other work on contact, is taking place. It is also excellent that there will be more campaigning to highlight and to try to resolve the thorny and vexing disputes about contact with children.
I welcome the minister's letter and Mary Mulligan's report.
We need to respond to Hugh Henry's letter, because there are other matters in it on which we should keep a watching brief. I have a special interest in the contact compliance officer pilot project because its introduction is an important concession—which the Executive made at stage 3 of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill—to the committee's work on contact. We might want to think about how we will pursue the matters in the minister's letter. Members who are interested in those matters could pursue them individually or we could think about how to follow up the letter as a committee.
On Mary Mulligan's proposals, would it be fair to say that the remit that she proposes is about establishing and mapping what provision exists? I ask because, during the passage of the 2006 act, we discussed emphasis being placed on relationship support services and organisations that deal with mediation and break-up. I am particularly interested—as Mary Mulligan is—in relationship support, which is important in the context of the debate that we had about time limits for divorce. Where would that fit in? Would Mary Mulligan take a view on some of those issues when she reports back in October?
That would be part of the inquiry. Although the inquiry would also be a mapping exercise, at its conclusion I intend to recommend to the committee advice for the Executive and local authorities on how they can make progress.
In response to Margaret Mitchell, I say that the inquiry is an example of the committee following up on legislation. This afternoon, Parliament will discuss whether it has ensured that its legislation has been delivered in the spirit that was intended. Our work therefore fits into a bigger picture.
I know that the convener has a strong interest in contact compliance officers—she was instrumental in bringing their introduction about. In discussions with Executive officials, I have been encouraged by their progress. They have found people in courts who are enthusiastic about the idea, and that enthusiasm will ensure that the idea works properly. I feel that we will see results.
Margaret Mitchell asked whom I would visit. I have not yet drawn up a list, but I reassure her that I do not intend to visit only the national bodies. Let me explain part of the reason for that. Although there are national bodies and umbrella organisations, local bodies have a lot of autonomy. The Executive clearly does not want to continue direct funding to local authorities; at one time we thought that passing the funding to the national bodies for distribution would be a way round that. However, the national bodies do not have the control over local bodies that one might imagine, so even the national bodies would not be an adequate route for funding. We will have to consider the dynamics of the relationships, which are different within different organisations. It will be important to meet local groups as well as national groups. We will have to meet local authorities and voluntary sector organisations, and we will have to consider how they relate to the Executive and Parliament.
I am quite happy with the proposed remit; I think that other committee members are, too. I am especially keen for you to pursue paragraph 14 of your remit, which is about making recommendations: that is vital. A total of £300,000 of additional money has been announced and it will be important for us to influence how it is spent. Mary Mulligan's report will paint a picture that will allow us to develop a view on priorities for the additional money.
Marlyn Glen spoke about positive parenting and about grandchildren and grandparents. Will you clarify how those issues will fit into our work?
I wondered whether they would come into Mary Mulligan's inquiry, because they are part of the whole issue of family services.
In his letter, Hugh Henry talks about "Parenting Across Scotland", a "telephone helpline gateway" and so on. The response to the original leaflet was excellent—everybody talks highly of it—but it was a one-off and that really is not good enough. Hugh Henry does not actually mention the leaflet and the work that was done. As in any other field, a one-off is no good; there are new parents all the time. At one point, it seemed as though Hugh Henry was saying that the Executive would revisit the leaflet. I know that children's charities are hoping for something along the lines of a positive parenting campaign but I am not convinced that there is any such commitment in his letter.
I suggest that we ask Hugh Henry for further information. If necessary, I could then pick up on the issue later. I accept what Marlyn Glen said; I will be aware of the issue in any discussions that I have in the meantime. However, we should try to get a response from the minister first, to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication.
Given that we are about to agree the remit, I want us to be clear about where those issues might fit in. Part C of the inquiry's proposed remit is
"to consider any ways in which service provision can be improved."
Would the issues fit under that heading and be seen as to do with service improvement?
I hope that when Mary Mulligan looks at the range of existing support services under part A of the proposed remit she will find some parenting advice or guidance. It would be shocking if she did not.
I am aware that Scottish Marriage Care is presently involved in a project in Easterhouse to do with providing parenting support before difficulties arise. There are probably other examples of such exercises throughout the country. That is the kind of thing that Marlyn Glen wants to pick up on—projects that are about supporting people before difficulties occur. If such projects exist, we should pick up on them at this stage, although we might find that they do not exist.
I cite as an example a couple who have a child with special needs of any kind, whether it is autism, Down's syndrome or behavioural difficulties. That creates stresses and strains for a family so, quite often, the parents split up. However, if there were proper support for the children and the parents in the first place, the family would be more cohesive.
I am reluctant to change the proposed wording of the remit, but Marlyn Glen made an important point when she said that we might want to record issues that demonstrate the kind of change that the committee wants to see in service delivery. Mary Mulligan can address that in her recommendations.
Perhaps we could list potential issues for Mary Mulligan to look at without changing the proposed remit. I suggest that we should include positive parenting. It strikes me that the use of the parental agreement will be a new aspect in the delivery of services. Marlyn Glen mentioned the grandchildren's charter. There might be a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of areas that relate directly to the issues that we discussed. What do members think about that? Perhaps all we need to do is record the issues in the Official Report, or somewhere, and attach them to the proposed remit of the inquiry.
The remit should probably remain unchanged. The minute we start listing matters that we should look at, the remit might begin to focus exclusively on that list. It should be taken as read that we expect those matters to be examined in the course of the inquiry. An informal list as an aide-mémoire might be useful, but it is not necessary to change the remit.
I am trying to avoid amending the remit because I think that it is broad enough. However, it might be useful to attach to it a general checklist—nothing more—of the issues that members are interested in carrying on the debate. It would assist Mary Mulligan, too.
That is not unreasonable.
I suggest that we agree Mary Mulligan's proposed remit and that we keep a checklist of issues that might come up in the inquiry. We have covered the main aspects: the use of the parental agreement; positive parenting; supporting parents in particular circumstances; and the use of the grandchildren's charter. Those are Marlyn Glen's suggestions. If any others come up, I suggest that we e-mail them to Mary Mulligan, and she can use them as a guide.
The committee is grateful to Mary Mulligan for agreeing to be the reporter. As she says, it is vital that we continue our work on what is a hugely important piece of legislation.
Hugh Henry's letter of 26 January raises issues other than family services, so we might want to think about how to respond to them. On the contact compliance officer pilot project and the research into child contact issues, one thought that I had is that we should keep track of what is happening, although we should not go as far as to appoint another reporter, given that we are all so busy. During the visit to a sheriff court on Monday, I picked up that the pilot project might begin as early as the end of this year. We would certainly want an insight into how the project will be organised. Of course, members outwith the committee also have an interest in the issue. Is it worth our while to ask for a briefing from the relevant officials, which we could make available to other interested members?
As Mary Mulligan said, she has had a meeting with the officials. Lewis McNaughton is drawing up minutes from that meeting which covered, among other issues, the two pilot projects that the Executive proposes. In the first instance, it might be useful for the minutes to be circulated to members because they will give a good flavour of what is going on.
That would be helpful. The minutes will give members the complete picture and allow them to decide how to respond to Hugh Henry's letter of 26 January. Do members agree on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.