Education Committee, 20 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Child Protection

Item 4 is on child protection, an issue with which we are familiar. Paper ED/S2/05/7/3 contains an update on the Scottish Executive child protection reform programme. One of the issues that came out of our report was the need for a standardised statement of the key facts. As we are aware from Glasgow City Council and others, such statements were not always made, but I do not think that the update report deals with that crucial aspect. Without an aide-mémoire or reference point in the documentation, things are more likely to slip through the net. We should perhaps make that point specifically to the minister following the meeting, as well as other observations members might make.

One of our main concerns was about the integrated assessment framework and the computer systems and information-sharing that would be needed as a result. In particular, Wendy Alexander pursued the issue of the work done by Professor Norma Baldwin.

I refer members to paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 on page 6 of the update. We were already concerned in our committee report by the delay in implementation of integrated, shared computer systems. Paragraph 23 refers to the proposals from Norma Baldwin's integrated framework working group and states:

"given the role of the IAF as one of a number of support structures for systems of wider services for all children in need, and therefore links with the proposals on the relationship between the Hearings System and wider services for children to be addressed in Phase 2 of the Hearings review, full consultation on the proposed IAF will issue after that consultation has issued."

That is very serious. As part of a constituency issue, I have, with members from other parties, been looking into the City of Edinburgh Council's problems in developing a computer system to share information. Post Caleb Ness, the council is keen to progress that matter. I have arranged a separate meeting with the minister about that.

I understand the implication in paragraph 23 that children's services and the hearings system review are connected, but it is worrying that the review is being used as a reason to postpone even further the integrated assessment framework.

Do we have any indication of when phase 2 will issue?

No. The frustrating thing is that we are not told that in the update. Paragraph 20 just says:

"Proposals are currently being finalised and consultation on Phase 2 will begin shortly."

When I read that, I reached the same conclusion as Fiona Hyslop. There is not even a timetable for phase 2 of the children's hearings system review on which the further review is contingent.

Do the clerks have any information about that? We should take up the matter again.

If members require information, we can write to the Executive and seek a response.

The Executive has taken a view on the matter, but I agree with Fiona Hyslop. It does not seem to me that a consultation on how one has an integrated information technology reporting framework is necessarily contingent on a review of the policy role of the children's hearings system; I fail to see that connection. However, the Executive has reached that view, so we should certainly write and ask for clarification.

We should also write to Professor Baldwin and ask whether she is satisfied that any progress on the matter has to await a policy consultation on the future of children's panels. After asking her to lead in the area, we should seek her view on how we progress matters as speedily as possible and what the earliest possible date is for having an integrated IT system in place.

The slightly depressing point is that, four years on from the Dumfries case, we have not even reached the consultation stage. I presume that that means that we are talking about a decade before the integrated assessment framework system is up and running. Therefore, I want to seek Professor Baldwin's views on the maximum speed with which what was a recommendation in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" can be actioned, as opposed to consulted on.

A similar issue arises in paragraph 11—the timescale for considering child death and significant incident reviews does not seem to have progressed far, either. That proposal has been hanging about since the earlier report was made. It does not seem to be that complicated to set up a group, but action is only now being taken.

Like Fiona Hyslop and Wendy Alexander, I am concerned about the integrated assessment framework. We have the rather cheery statement that, because nothing is happening nationally, local authorities are going their own way and doing well. The danger is that local authorities will become frustrated because, although they are making progress, systems will not necessarily be compatible. We could be missing the opportunity to have a nationally compatible system.

I assume that, although Disclosure Scotland is discussed in the document, we will raise issues relating to it under the next agenda item. Paragraph 11 concerns the handling of child death and significant incident reviews.

The document states:

"A chair has been identified and most of the membership confirmed."

That is good, but why has it happened so late?

I agree that we need to query what is happening. The table at the back of the document—on page 12—contains an abbreviated list of the aims of the child death and significant incident reviews. It states that the programme will

"Develop proposals for future arrangements that"

meet those aims. One of the aims that I thought was missing was to move away from a blame culture and to find a different way of reviewing child deaths.

You are referring to paragraph 11, on child death and significant incident reviews.

Yes.

That is important, but not much progress has been made on the issue.

Exactly. My concerns relate both to the timetable and to one of the hopes of the review—to move away from the current system, which is quite damaging to social workers and other people.

It is also complicated, because of the successive reviews that take place.

Paragraph 3 on page 2 of the document concerns the letters of assurance. Ministers have issued a response to those letters. I believe that the answer to my question is on page 12, under the heading "Ministerial letter of assurance".

The document refers to

"Provision of feedback by PAs in each individual area".

It says that that has happened and that

"Ministers have also indicated their intention to request a similar exercise".

I am unsure about the effectiveness of that action at the moment. I would like to get a feel for whether it has worked. Clearly, the intention is to ensure that those at the top of the tree ensure that everyone below them engages in the joined-up working that we are discussing. However, I would like to get an idea of whether the letters of assurance have achieved their objectives.

The issue may be how they are monitored and inspected. I am not sure whether there is a method of getting the information that you seek. It is all very well having assurances, but the issue is whether things are happening and checks have been made, regardless of what assurances have been given.

That is the issue. It is all very well getting letters of assurance, but what has been the result of that exercise? Has it resulted in chief executives of organisations, such as chief constables, taking more direct responsibility? Has it focused their attention?

You want to get a flavour of the outcome. Are most authorities complying? Are there difficulties with particular authorities?

I imagine that we will be told that all the authorities have signed letters of assurance. However, that is not all that we want to know. We want to know whether the letters have focused their attention and been effective in improving our child protection framework.

On page 12, the table tells us what has been happening. I am not sure what "LOA 2" is—presumably it is an Executive abbreviation for something. However, the document seems to indicate that authorities are supposed to complete a template that indicates how they are complying with the ministerial letter of assurance. All the indications are that that is happening at the moment. Perhaps we could have more information on the issue.

The Executive has said that a similar exercise will be conducted, probably in the autumn.

There will then be evaluation and feedback for next year. However, it might be useful for us to know what the thinking is concerning the template for completion and what questions are being put to chief officers.

On paragraphs 13 and 14, which relate to multidisciplinary inspections, I notice that draft reports are being produced on the two pilots. Will the committee get an opportunity to examine those draft reports and, if necessary, to bring in witnesses to discuss them? Given that the inspections will start in the summer, it is clear that these matters will be fast-tracked. We should scrutinise this key area and it will be important to have a look at the draft reports.

Do other members agree to that suggestion? I realise that we do not want to be overwhelmed with technical documents, but a report on the pilots might be available.

Members indicated agreement.

I want to raise two issues, the first of which is that the child protection reform work programme reflects what the Executive wants to do, not what "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" recommends. For example, members will recall that we had some anxieties about IT issues. I realise that IT is a tough subject and that people do not want to take it on, but we had a long discussion with the Executive about whether it was going to implement recommendation 15 in the report—the Executive said, "Oh, yes, we're going to do that." However, IT does not feature in the work programme at all.

Indeed, I wonder whether the committee is really interested in receiving this kind of internal work programme document. Perhaps we would be more interested in seeing what progress has been made on four-year-old recommendations that were unanimously endorsed at the time. I think that asking the Executive to update us on its progress in implementing the recommendations in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" would ensure that we did not lose sight of some of the tougher parts of the agenda. Perhaps we can raise the matter in writing.

On paragraph 30, which concerns

"Children of problem drug users",

the committee has run up against the recommendations in "Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of children of problem drug users", which was published in 2003. The Executive's response, which was issued in October 2004, came out after we had discussed the matter at length. It has now decided that there will be a series of seminars and that it will come up with an action plan in due course. That means that we will probably reach the action plan stage two years after the publication of the initial report.

Nevertheless, people who work in the area have told me that a number of "Hidden Harm" recommendations are not being taken forward. When we write to the Executive, we should ask it to itemise the recommendations in "Hidden Harm" that, in light of its formal response, are not being implemented. That would be useful for the committee. Given that the Executive made a formal response in October, it should be able to say at this stage which of the recommendations it is willing to move forward on and which it is not. I will not go into detail now, but the professional community is somewhat distressed by the fact that the Executive is not progressing certain recommendations.

It might also be helpful to ask for an indication of the broad timescale for the action plan and whether any interim measures could be introduced quickly that might make a difference. We all agree that the issue of drug misusing parents is central to many matters that the authorities have to cope with and it would be quite helpful to find out whether things can move forward before the bureaucracy is put in place. After all, the subject will involve a lot of administration, which people will need to get right. I understand that there is a need to speed on, but there are still many issues to deal with.

I have a minor point about paragraph 39, on the central registered body in Scotland. We might take up the matter later on, but I am not entirely clear about the nature of the on-going work that is mentioned. We should seek some clarification on that point, because I thought that we had managed to get through all those issues.

We are reasonably clear about what needs to be taken forward. Following the meeting, I will write what will be not so much a letter as a dossier to the Executive and we will await the response to our questions. On Wendy Alexander's point about the action plan and whether the recommendations are being taken forward or sidelined, it strikes me that the Scottish Parliament information centre might be able to do some work on our behalf, perhaps after we have had a response from the Executive and can see where we are going.