Education Committee, 26 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Child Protection

Good morning, colleagues. I welcome everyone, including people in the public gallery, to the 18th meeting in 2005 of the Education Committee. The first item on the agenda is the child protection reform programme. Does anyone have comments on the letter that we have received from the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People updating us on the programme?

I have two brief comments to make. First, could the committee be updated on the progress of the pilot project in which automatic messages are to be sent to all practitioners who are involved in a case when the social work system records a formal child protection activity? Could the committee be provided with evidence of the security of such a system? Secondly, could the committee be given clarification about why some local authority planning partnerships submitted their integrated children's services plans up to five months late? Could an explanation be sought as to what feedback and support the Executive might provide to local authorities in that regard?

I would like to probe a wee bit further into recommendations 7 and 12 in the Executive's update. Could we get some answers on how widely the training is being delivered, including training for drug misuse workers? I am thinking of, for example, family support workers who may be employed through funding streams other than core streams. Also, how much input is there into homelessness teams and hostel staff? Looking through the documentation, I do not see any reference to those. I would be interested to know just how broadly that training is being provided.

I would also like to know how the integrated plans are being monitored on a day-to-day basis in local authorities. I can see the bigger picture coming through, but I do not see exactly how that day-to-day monitoring of the integrated plans is going to work out.

Also, I would like a bit more elaboration on recommendation 14, which is on the grounds for referral to the children's hearings system. I would like to know exactly how that is done, in what circumstances those referrals are made and what recommendations are given to the professionals who make those referrals.

My first point follows up Lord James's point. Recommendation 15 is about the sharing of information using the computer-based system, which is taking a long time to roll out. We have comments on that from the Executive, but I do not think that that is enough. We need a timescale for the roll-out and we need to know the budget for it. The concern that I have heard is that the Government is keeping centrally the budget for the roll-out of the computer system. In Edinburgh, for example, there are difficulties because the different agencies want to go ahead, following the O'Brien recommendations, and set up a system within which they can share information. The lack of shared information is the bottom line in most of the cases. We should ask the Executive for the timescale and the budget of that roll-out. It would also be useful to know where pilots have taken place and what the results of those pilots have been. That is crucial to progress.

On recommendation 1, it is clear that the overriding responsibility of all the different agencies is to get together to form the child protection committee and to ensure that there is accountability and a child health performance framework. The chief medical officer's response—which is typed in bold in the update paper—is:

"All staff have a responsibility to act to make sure that all children are protected from harm."

The response goes on to say:

"All NHS staff are responsible for acting on concerns about a child - even if the child is not your patient."

We obviously know about the recent tragic case involving Michael McGarrity. People might be aware that the Fort, where the incident took place, is a stone's throw from where Caleb Ness died. We would expect a report to be produced, which the committee should consider, so we can make no judgments now, but it is clear that if Michael McGarrity's mother received a methadone prescription, the question is whether all NHS Lothian staff took into account their responsibility to the child.

That takes on board points about whether training of all staff has taken place. What is written in the update looks good; our problem is that cases continue to arise in which we do not know whether information has been shared in practice. We do not know whether practitioners such as health and particularly drugs workers have the training that they need, which might prevent such cases. That might not have happened in this instance—we will find that out when we have a proper report.

The update says that a bill on joint inspections will be introduced, so I suggest that it might be appropriate to ask the minister to make a statement when a bill is introduced, because of the sensitivity of child protection and the interest in it. That would allow all MSPs to ask questions about progress on child protection as well as on the bill that the Executive plans to introduce.

My comment is slightly more general and relates to points that other people have made. We have been given timescales for when some research is expected to be complete and when review processes will be brought into play. For example, under recommendation 6, we are told that research should be finished by the end of the year. However, under recommendation 12, we are told that research is being undertaken or that funding has been secured, but the document does not say when the research might be complete or when we can expect action. The same applies to recommendation 15. I would like a bit more of a timescale for when the Executive expects results.

I echo that point. I was going to comment on behalf of my colleague Wendy Alexander, who has just joined us. She has talked about the e-care system that is being introduced, which the Executive mentioned, and the lack of priority that it seems to have been given. I emphasise that the lack of a timescale in the Executive's update is rather worrying.

That was exactly what I wanted to ask about. I am grateful to Ken Macintosh for anticipating my question.

It is obvious that much activity is going on. The update is dense and difficult to get into. Could we ask the Executive to identify in future reports the various strands to which Robert Brown refers in his letter? The letter says:

"Along with other work all the elements of the recommendations are being tackled … through a number of threads of the work of the wider reform programme."

Could we ask the Executive to separate those strands? Much activity is going on, but I do not have the impression that we are near to putting in place a robust system. I do not have a clear picture of progress towards achieving the final objectives. The Executive should identify the strands and give an idea of the critical path that we are going down. It should give a clear idea of the timetable, of when each objective will be attained and of when we will have a robust system in place.

I thank members for those comments. To be fair to the Executive, it produced the report in the format for which the committee asked—we asked for responses to the recommendations. I suggest that we forward the Official Report of this meeting to the minister and ask whether he wishes to respond to members' points. We can ask for a follow-up progress report in six months' time. Do members agree?

This point might have been covered, but I read that, following the pilots, joint inspections are to require a bill. I ask for clarification on that.

I raised that issue. The minister should make a statement to the Parliament about progress on child protection generally, because of recent events, and about the need for legislation.

Do members agree with the suggestion that we forward the Official Report of our meeting to the minister and ask him for his comments?

Members indicated agreement.