Education and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Official Report 461KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Kinship Carers (PE1420)

Item 2 is consideration of petition PE1420. Members have received a copy of the petition and some background briefing notes. Do members have any comments at this stage, given the evidence that we have heard this morning and the details of the petition?

One of the points that we raised was the lack of information about the level of support that is available to kinship carers in Scotland. The minister gave a commitment to provide us with additional information, and we should certainly follow that up with the Scottish Government. Given that we have heard from the Scottish Government today, it would be helpful to ask the petitioners—Clacks kinship carers—to return to give oral evidence and to give their response to the Government.

That first point is valid and I suspect there is agreement around the table for that. The more we are informed, the better. I have an open mind about whether we need oral evidence from the petitioners.

I welcome the commitment of the minister this morning to provide that additional information. I think that we should leave the petition open and revisit it after we have scrutinised the bill.

I agree. It would also be helpful to have additional information from those councils that have already provided it. We need to look at the trend, because what we have here is a snapshot of the current situation but the argument is that there is a move in the right direction. We are dealing with a different issue from what we would be if the position that is set out had been in place for two or three years and had not really moved.

Oral evidence would fall very well into the consideration of the children and young people bill.

We should also make an effort to convince Councillor Chapman to come before us again, given that COSLA has a significant role to play in this regard. If he were to give evidence, it might provide an opportunity for the petitioners to be here at the same time and everything could be done and dusted in the same session.

We should keep the petition open because it is clearly very relevant to our work on the bill.

There seems to be general agreement that we will keep the petition open because we have not come to any conclusions at this stage and it is very relevant to our work on the upcoming bill. I have a sense that members are keen to seek further and more detailed information from the Scottish Government and from local authorities—whether through COSLA or from individual local authorities. I certainly agree with Liam McArthur’s suggestion that we seek to close the gap and increase from 20 to 32 the number of local authorities that we have information from, in order to get a fuller picture across the country. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and the missing individual local authorities in order to fill the evidence gap.

This will be under consideration in the forthcoming children and young people bill. If members agree, I suggest writing to the petitioners to urge them to submit detailed evidence to us before we consider evidence on the bill and before we decide whom to invite to give oral evidence. I suggest that we make decisions when we consider our witnesses.

I agree entirely about seeking information from the 12 councils from which we do not have information, but I suggested that we should ask how the numbers have changed—

I apologise—you asked about the trend.

That would give us a slightly different and clearer picture.

We will ask for that information, too. I do not know whether the Scottish Parliament information centre can help us to seek some of that information.

The petition came from Clacks kinship carers, so we should hear oral evidence from that group. I do not suppose that anyone will have a problem with that.

I just suggested that we should decide on witnesses when we consider who will give oral evidence on the bill. As we know, questions on kinship care are included in the consultation on the children and young people bill. As the minister said, the kinship care order is intended to be part of that bill. I suggest that, when we have the bill, we should decide who will give evidence.

I suggest that we should have historical trend information on kinship care allowances from 1999, if it is available.

We will get as much as we can, to try to give us a fuller picture.

If the Government’s point is that progress has been made since 2007, it would be perverse to start the historical trend at 2007.

The issue relates to the concordat, but I have no objection to the suggestion.

We will ask for the information.

When will we decide whether to invite the COSLA spokesperson?

As I said, COSLA declined our invitation to give oral evidence on this occasion, but it provided written evidence. I have sought an urgent meeting with the COSLA spokesperson, Mr Chapman, to try to ensure that he is available for our next invitation. I fully expect COSLA to be here to give evidence on the bill and on kinship care. We will see whether an opportunity arises before then. I share the disappointment that I am sure you are expressing that COSLA was not available today.

So we intend to get COSLA along at some point.

Absolutely.

Do members agree to the course of action that we have roughly outlined, which involves obtaining additional information, discussing from whom we will take oral evidence when we discuss all possible witnesses and encouraging the petitioners to submit to us further detailed information to assist us in the process?

Members indicated agreement.

10:58 Meeting suspended.

11:00 On resuming—