New Petitions
Kinship Care (Children’s Needs) (PE1365)
Item 2 on the agenda is consideration of new petitions. There are six new petitions to consider and we will take evidence on the first one.
PE1365, by Martin Johnstone, on behalf of the Poverty Truth Commission, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to attend a meeting with kinship carers, hosted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Poverty Truth Commission, to work on providing adequate financial and other support for kinship care children and on giving kinship care children an equal chance to foster care children, to urge the United Kingdom Government and COSLA to attend that meeting, and to urge the Scottish Government to include kinship carers in future detailed discussions on matters that affect them to maximise the effectiveness of new policies and legislation.
I welcome Martin Johnstone, Jessie Harvey and Anne Marie Peffer to the committee. I also welcome Bob Doris MSP to the committee. I invite Mr Johnstone to make an opening statement of no more than three minutes.
Martin Johnstone (Poverty Truth Commission)
Thank you, convener. I hope to speak for less than three minutes and I hope that Jessie Harvey and Anne Marie Peffer will also contribute.
I will say a tiny bit about the Poverty Truth Commission, which was launched in March 2009 and brings together two groups of people. One group is key policy makers, decision makers and civic leaders in Scotland: Jim Wallace, Alex Neil and Johann Lamont are included among our commissioners. The other group is people who understand poverty from the inside and struggle with it day by day. Over the past 18 months, they have been working together on a number of issues.
One crucial issue that we identified from the outset was kinship care. According to the latest figures from Citizens Advice Scotland, approximately 10,300 children are in kinship care in Scotland.
One principle of the commission is that we do not want those who exercise power and influence to be the only voices that are heard. We always want the experiences of people who really know about the issues to be heard even more. At this point I hand over to Jessie Harvey, who is herself a kinship carer, to give the committee a brief insight into some of her experiences.
Jessie Harvey (Poverty Truth Commission)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I am here on behalf of the four main Glasgow groups, the kinship carers and the children. We have to bring to your attention the fact that a high percentage of the children are badly damaged. We are left with very little support. As far as I am aware, we are saving the Government £5 million a year. We cannot keep sweeping the issue under the carpet. There are rights for other children but no rights for our grandchildren whose parents are addicts, have mental health problems or have died. We need to start acknowledging these children.
Martin said there are 10,000 children in kinship care. I am saying that there are 13,500. We cannot have all those children in elderly people’s care—with grans or extended family—and not get that addressed. We are asking for the three main parties to get round the table. We are the people with the knowledge here today. We live this life 24 hours a day, and we are asking you to consider the plight of these children. Take into consideration the fact that we have absolutely no input from psychological services, nursing services or respite care. We need to be catered for on the same wavelength as foster carers.
We are asking for some consideration. These wee children did not ask to be born into these situations. Everybody sitting here should know that this is going to be Scotland’s future, so sit up and take a wee bit of notice today. Thank you.
Anne Marie is one of the commissioners who represent the Frank Buttle Trust.
Anne Marie Peffer (Poverty Truth Commission)
The Frank Buttle Trust is a UK-wide charity that makes grants for essential items to families where the children are experiencing exceptional difficulties. I manage the trust for Scotland. I take applications from kinship care families all over the country who are struggling to obtain basic items such as washing machines, beds and bedding, and clothing for children. I read again and again about families who get a chap on the door in the middle of the night and are asked to take on the care of young grandchildren with whom they often have not had a previous relationship. There is no start-up grant and no consistent financial support. The families I help receive anything from nothing at all to £40 a week to £125 a week. There is no rhyme or reason to the support that is given.
The problem here is the fallout from the tragic years of addiction—the tragic generation that has already been lost to drug addiction. These are the children of those people. Part of the solution to that problem, which is everyone’s problem, is kinship carers. They are a ready-made resource. They provide in every way for these children, yet the children themselves receive little support compared with children who are accommodated. We ask that people get together and invest in this extremely valuable resource. Do not let it go under, because the pressure at the moment is enormous.
Part of our experience over the past 18 months is that everyone whom kinship carers and the commission have spoken to has acknowledged that we have a problem. However, when we speak to local authorities, they tend to say that the problem rests with the Scottish Government or the UK Government. When we speak to the UK Government, it says that the problem rests with the Scottish Government or local authorities. It has to be said that when we speak to the Scottish Government, it says that the problem rests with the UK Government or local authorities. It seems to me that we have already had that debate today.
We need to find a way to bring the parties into the room together, and not just those three groups. We believe passionately in the need for kinship carers also to be in the room when those conversations take place, to ensure that the conversation remains honest and that we can see the real progress that is required.
15:30
Bob Doris, you have one minute.
I will not waste time but will get straight on with it. I am delighted to be here. I have known Jessie Harvey for many years through kinship care issues, and I have great respect not only for the Glasgow organisations but for such organisations throughout Scotland. I will focus on the second part of the petition, which urges the Scottish and UK Governments and COSLA to get around the table and talk constructively about things, as I know they can. For example, the Scottish Government has managed to get some concessions from the UK Government in relation to council tax discounts and housing benefit for kinship carers. There have been modest successes, but they are the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can achieve.
Parties can work together to address the issues—this is the only time that I will mention party politics. Glasgow’s Labour-led council did not pay anything to kinship carers, so I met the council to discuss the matter along with other councillors on a cross-party basis, and the council is now paying £40 a week to kinship carers. That is still not enough, but it is something. That is an example of how, when different people at different levels of government and from different parties get together, they can achieve things. The only reason for my mentioning that is the fact that the second part of the petition is about finding a structured way—this organisation would be well placed to provide that focus—to get all the different tiers of government together to push things forward.
I believe that there has been progress, but it is not enough and we must push on. I am delighted that the petition is here to make that happen.
I am sure that, like me, other members will have had considerable contact with kinship carers in their constituencies. I thank you for bringing to the Parliament a petition on an issue that we are all concerned about and on which we are keen to make progress.
Do committee members have suggestions as to how they want to proceed with the petition?
I have a question first.
Yes, of course. We will have questions first.
We have all come across this important issue. Are you talking, by and large, about informal kinship carers or formal placements? I perceive, from the people who have been in touch with me, that there is a difference. Some of the kinship carers who have come to me have said that they think that some local authorities see kinship care as a cheap option. If granny takes the kiddie in the middle of the night she is stuck without any support, whereas if the child is placed by social work services, there is a bit of support. Is that an accurate reflection of the situation?
Glasgow City Council has now brought in legal experts and there is what is called a placement or recommendation policy. There are 38 carers in my group, and 30 of them are on placement policies with section 10 payments, which means that social work services see that the children are at risk. The other eight kinship carers were recommended. They are in the same situation as me, but because they intervened in the family after seeing the kids at risk—surely, they have got a moral right to care for the children—they are dismissed and are not paid one brown penny. The abuse of their human rights and the discrimination involved make for the most ridiculous situation that we have had in years.
Thanks for that, Jessie. That confirms what I had picked up in my area.
I have a question for Anne Marie Peffer. You said that there is no consistent, country-wide support for kinship carers. How many local authorities pay anything at all and how many pay nothing at all?
I think that you would struggle to find that information. My figures are drawn from the financial section in the application forms that I take. Most local authorities have the capacity to pay something, but they do not always do it, for the reason that Jessie has just outlined.
How many do not do it?
I could not tell you how many. Most local authorities pay something sometimes but not always, and they all pay different amounts in different circumstances. I think that you would struggle to get a complete answer to your question.
Would you say that we lack a coherent governmental approach at whatever level of government?
There is no cohesion or consistency at all.
Jessie, you seem to be saying very clearly that you require government at all levels to listen to kinship carers and to involve you in the decision-making process. Am I right in thinking that that is one of the petition’s aims?
I can speak for the 38 grans in my group. We have 68 children and we are in a very deprived area of Glasgow, but we have every right to be round the table with these policy makers. We are the ones who live this—we have every right to say so, and we have the expertise to explain to you the damage that has been done to the children and how we must try to adjust to that. Not getting a services input is horrendous.
Do you think that the lack of direct contact with kinship carers has led to the very patchy approach from government, especially local government?
I think so. As Rhona Brankin and Bob Doris can tell you, a lot of people do not even know what the word kinship means. That includes social workers, who when you speak to them on the phone say, “I’ve got a kinship carer here.” Those people are making decisions about our kids’ lives.
It is only in the past two years—we were formed more than six years ago—that we have fought hard and got £40 in Glasgow. We are the lowest paid throughout 28 councils. Every one of the kids has the same needs, and a lot of them are damaged, like my wee grandson who has never slept in six years because he was a methadone baby.
It is hard when I do not get respite or financial help with heating or the clothing that he needs. Why should he be excluded? Other people are paid to do that job, but because he is my kin he is excluded.
Jessie, I have met you before. I used to work for Bob Doris a number of years ago and I know that he has worked closely with you.
I expect that you will get a positive response to the petition and that the Scottish Government will be keen to talk to you. The purpose of bringing the petition to the committee is to raise awareness even further. As you said, a lot of people do not know what a kinship carer is. People are often interested in the human stories. When I met you and other kinship carers, I was struck by a lot of the stories that you told. I know that there are journalists here today, and that the meeting is going out on holyrood.tv.
You do not necessarily need to talk about your own circumstances, as that might be a wee bit difficult for you, but you could give us an example of how someone came to be a kinship carer and tell us about the problems that the child and the kinship carer face that might be addressed if the issue is resolved.
I am willing to give you my own personal case. I have a lovely son, but he has had an addiction in his life for 20 years. He is now 35 years of age. He met a partner who also had an addiction, and my beautiful wee grandson was born. They tried to use the parenting skills that they had to look after my grandson, but it was not happening. I got a call from social work to say that my grandson was at risk. We were put round the table and I was asked if I would take him. Obviously, it pulls at your heartstrings—I have another five grandchildren who are fine—so you say yes without hesitation.
I did not know then that no package was involved. I had to wait a year for his benefits. I had no nappies or Ostermilk. I was on the bare benefit of £63 a week and I was trying to look after this wee tot. I had no beds—nothing like that. I am not an exception—this happens to the biggest majority of carers.
We are getting there slowly. We are starting to speak to people like yourselves and directors of social work, but the barriers cause me stress as a carer. They ask you to do this job. They wipe their brow and say, “Thank God this wean’s going with family.” We should call ourselves relative foster carers or something, because the word “kinship” is sticking and it is like saying, “That’s my brother. I’d better gie him hauf of my piece.” This is not like that. This wee kid who was brought into my life is a grandchild. His mother brought him in.
There would be nothing better than to see his mother and father recovering, but you give people 20 years out of your life—sons or daughters—and then they bring this wee generation to people of our age and the whole system is sweeping it under the table and saying, “They’ll dae it. They’re grannies.” Why should we need to do it? It is not about us. Please believe us that it is not about people in my position. It is about your future. It is about wee kids who should be getting the services and the financial help that is out there. Government has to sit up or you have to ask it to sit up and take notice of these kinship care children.
I do not know whether you have seen this, but it is horrible to deal with a methadone child. In six years, a beautiful, skilful wee kid cannot adapt and get a night’s sleep. It is not me who is hurting with not getting the sleep—I can do that—it is him. That wee kid is now at school and it must be hard to go into school when he is tired from tossing and turning half the night. These things have to be addressed. I have waited six years. I am kind of at the forefront of kinship care, but I have never been able to see a psychologist. All you get told is, “Oh aye, they can get withdrawn,” but they do not know about the long-term effects. It is time that they did a bit of background research and learned about them, because an influx of these weans are getting thrown on top of us.
Thank you for saying all that. I have not met your grandson, but I now have a picture of him in my mind. What you have said will really help as we continue the petition. On a personal level, I think that your grandson and your family have a far better chance of a positive outcome because your grandson is with you and has not been adopted by somebody else, so he has a far better chance of maintaining or resuming a relationship with his parents in the long term. We really ought to appreciate that.
Thank you also for illustrating exactly why you need the money. It is not about having money for yourselves; it is about being able to care for this child properly and accessing services. As you said, your grandson was a methadone baby and you are getting no support from psychological services.
It is really important that we have learned today that it is not just a point of principle. You do not think, “They’re getting that money. We should be getting that money.” You have a real need and you are doing a real service, not just for your family but for the whole of society. Thank you for coming and telling us about it.
You will have heard about a previous petition when you were sitting in the audience. It took this committee three years to bring Scottish and UK ministers round the table. Other committee members might agree or disagree, but I think that we got more out of today’s discussion from having the two ministers sitting in the room giving answers to our questions. That ties into the petition that is before us, which simply calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge key individuals to sit around the table.
15:45
I am aware of the issues around kinship care and the financial strain that is put on individuals who take on that responsibility, and I am also aware of the situation that was referred to earlier, which involves the UK Government blaming the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government then blaming the local authorities. We have to get representatives of those bodies around a table so that they can come up with solutions to the issues that the witnesses have identified.
We have to move this issue forward. I know that you have a personal interest in it, convener, as you initiated a debate in the chamber on this matter almost two years ago, and I know that Bob Doris spoke in that debate as well. Many members are concerned about the fact that we do not seem to be able to solve the problems that have been identified. The least that this committee can do is to ask the Scottish Government to try to bring people around the table. I know, from the submissions that have been received, that there have been attempts to have meetings with individuals and to bring together various bodies to discuss the issue but that they have been hampered by other issues. However, it is incumbent on this committee to ask the Scottish Government urgently to seek a meeting of the various parties, including the kinship carers, to try to find a way forward that will ensure that everyone gains.
The issue is not just about kinship carers being given a voice; it is about the children who are affected by circumstances that are not of their making and which have to be addressed. Poverty is one area that we are all concerned about and, clearly, the situation in which kinship carers find themselves is driving them further into poverty. If we can get the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities’ social work departments, the voluntary sector and kinship carers around a table, I am sure that we can come up with a solution that will enable society to move forward in the knowledge that we have addressed the issues that have been raised today.
Like many MSPs, I have been involved in supporting young carers through my work in Parliament and my work in the cross-party group on children and young people. I recall that, 10 years ago, it was estimated that there were around 3,000 young people in kinship care. Now, however, the estimate is that there are around 30,000. You said that there might be 10,000 or more carers, which is a rather frightening figure, but is there any suspicion in your minds that the size of the problem has been seriously underestimated?
The papers that we have before us say that, in 2007-08, there were 2,382 formal kinship care arrangements. What is meant by formal kinship care arrangements? Does it mean only the ones that were arranged through the children’s hearings system or does it include those that were arranged through social work and so on? Is there any evidence to suggest that kinship carers have a better chance of getting support if they go through the formal hearings system placement procedure?
We have on occasion called people to give evidence directly to the committee. Do you think that it would be helpful if we cut to the chase and invite some directors of social work to appear before us to answer questions about how they handle kinship care in their areas? Perhaps we could ask for advice from Anne Marie Peffer to ensure that we get a wide spread of representatives.
Evidence suggests that the number of children in kinship care might be growing at a rate of roughly 25 per cent a year. We fear that, at present, we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
As for whether children who are formally looked after receive a higher level of support, that would be the case not necessarily in relation to psychological services but with regard to the funds that are available. Given that the concordat agreement between the Scottish Government and local authorities focused largely on formally looked-after children, local authorities are responsible for deciding whether to give money to children other than those who are formally looked after. That is worth looking at, and we are appearing before you to galvanise every form of support possible to make the push. It would certainly help with the process if the committee drew evidence from various directors of social work to bore down into some of the detail.
Can I—
Before we continue, let me say that I am conscious of time and we have yet to hear from another petitioner who needs to leave quite soon. However, I do not want to bring the discussion to a close before we have had the chance to explore all the issues.
Do you want to come back, Robin?
I just want to point out that if greater levels of care can be accessed through the formal arrangements, there is always, with the encouragement of carers, the possibility of self-referral to the children’s hearings system. I hesitate to load that system with the amount of work that I think would come its way, but I know from experience on the children’s panel that people are occasionally encouraged to self-refer to get the formal help that they need.
I do not have a lot of experience with panels. However, I know that when the £40 came in, kids were actually being taken off supervision reports and, because there was no social work involvement, it looked like the number of formally looked-after weans was going down and down. Things were looking good, but what was happening was that the kids were being put back on to us with all the problems and none of the financial help. You started to notice, because people were coming to us and saying, “Our weans are getting taken off of supervision reports.” You had to wonder why, because the kids really needed social help. All you had to do was put two and two together and start watching the figures, because, like the unemployment figures, they would go down and then up again. We were not in a position to monitor the figures for carers and weans, but we saw that what was happening was having a lot of impact on them.
In the same vein, you also have to remember that there are hundreds and hundreds of kinship carers—the figure is maybe 13,000, but it could be as high as 20,000—who do not want social work to be involved and are frightened in case the weans are taken off them for whatever reason. Certainly that figure is a lot higher.
Jessie Harvey has hit on a very important point. I always get the terminology the wrong way round—I apologise if I do so this time—but there was a feeling among kinship carers that before the kinship care joint commitment between local authorities and the Scottish Government, they were encouraged to take out residency orders to ensure greater security and provide more assurance that the kid would be kept in the kinship care home. However, as such children are no longer designated as looked after, they are no longer counted in the numbers in order to receive the cash. Permanency orders stop that happening and now provide the same rights, but we need a culture shift at a local level to ensure that social work departments see themselves not as givers of benefits but as assessors of need. There is real resistance in some parts of the country. Social work departments do not want to be handing out the pennies under a benefits system, which brings us back to the initial point about getting to the UK Government, which is the chief benefit giver in the UK, as well as the Scottish Government and COSLA.
I apologise, convener—I spoke for longer than you probably thought I was going to speak.
There’s a surprise. Thank you.
I ask members of the committee how we should proceed.
From all that we have heard, I think that we should continue our consideration of the petition. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will attend the meeting that the petitioner has proposed and whether it will make representations to the UK Government, with a view to asking it to attend, too. More generally, I think that we should ask the Scottish Government what its views are on the issues that the petition raises. I do not think that we should let this one go.
I agree with all that Bill Butler said. I wonder whether, pro tem, we could also decide that if we are not satisfied with the communications that we receive from the Government following its meeting with COSLA and the directors of social work, we reserve the possibility of approaching them ourselves.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The committee agrees that we will continue our consideration of the petition.
I thank everyone for coming. In particular, I offer a big thank you to Jessie Harvey for sharing her story with us.