Child Protection Inquiry
Our next item is the child protection inquiry. A substantial bundle of paperwork has followed from our report, including the Executive's response, the Executive's comments on the Bichard report, a letter from Colin Boyd, the Lord Advocate, on child fatality reviews, and an update on Disclosure Scotland's performance, with associated documents from two stakeholders. We need to go through those in detail, and decide whether we are going to do anything further with the report and the information that we have received. Does anybody want to kick off? I am happy to take the item in whatever form members wish, but perhaps we can start with general comments and decide whether we need to go through the paperwork in detail.
I recently met the council of the Scout Association, which made a number of interesting points, some of which are echoed in our paperwork. Some related to incidental issues to do with disclosure. The timescale is one issue, as is the effect on people who are half in and half out of the system, such as volunteers, parents and incidental helpers. There is uncertainty and sometimes a tendency to take the letter of the law too far with regard to the need for disclosure and the speed with which things are done. Also raised with me was the possible effect on volunteers who sit on interview committees and conduct inquiries within voluntary organisations, and whether they are put off by the criminal and other sanctions that exist if they get it wrong.
There was also an issue with the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 and the time that it might take to run disclosure checks on everyone who is already in post. What burdens does that place on organisations and can they do that in anything other than a phased way? Bearing in mind that the reviews of scout commissions, Boys Brigade commissions and so on are taking place over a five-year period, I think that there is a concern about the ability of organisations to cope with those things.
We touched on those issues in the report and in the evidence that we took, but I do not think that they came out as clearly as they did in later discussions that I have had. Perhaps we should consider some of those issues further.
Yes. There are implications for people who volunteer to work in schools, such as parents and grandparents. What is the nature of the risk assessment for them? Children's safety is of paramount importance, of course, but measured risk assessment must be balanced against the benefits of people engaging in schools by teaching sport or providing support for reading activities. Did we mention that to the minister at one stage?
We touched on it in a slightly more tangential way than you have just done because we had not received firm evidence relating to the issue. However, I notice that your concerns are also mentioned in the Scottish Parent Teachers Council's letter and by YouthLink Scotland.
I thought that we should mention that to the minister.
I was wondering whether we should take formal oral evidence from Disclosure Scotland on some of the issues that have been raised.
That might be helpful.
I thoroughly endorse that suggestion. That issue is the most interesting side issue that has come out of the child protection inquiry.
The Executive's letter is quite reassuring because the fact that the system was in danger of breaking down at one point seems to have been dealt with and extra recruitment has allowed the process to be speeded up and the backlog tackled. However, the underlying problems are still there. In particular, there is a question of judgment and the over-bureaucratic application of the disclosure regulations. It seems to me that the requirement for disclosure is being applied rigorously to every adult who has any contact with children, to the point that it might be putting parents off. Further, it creates an impression that we live in an overly bureaucratised world in which strict adherence to guidance—not even law—is getting in the way of our ability to lead normal lives.
For several weeks, I have been helping with the walking bus that goes to my son's primary school, but I have not had a disclosure check. Until I have had it, I cannot lead the walking bus, which is a nonsense. The balance of risk surely must dictate that there should be an assumption that a volunteer such as me—not that I am saying that I am of perfect character—can lead a walking bus and that the disclosure check should come later. I am not saying that I should be absolved from having the check; I just think that it should be assumed that there is little risk and that someone should be allowed to volunteer to help children before the results of their disclosure check have come back. If I did not help with the walking bus on Mondays and Fridays, there is a chance—certainly on Mondays—that there would be no walking bus. It is quite important that such initiatives run every day when they are being established.
There is a need to look again at the legislation, which is well intentioned. No one doubts the need for disclosure checks generally or for an increased level of security to protect our children. However, perhaps we need to look at the way in which the legislation works in practice and, in particular, we need to hear from Disclosure Scotland, local authorities and organisations such as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council how the legislation is being implemented and what impact it is having on parents and volunteers in schools. I would like to do some work on that.
A mini follow-up—yes, I think that that is right.
I have points to make about the paper. However, I am a bit concerned that when we raised disclosure issues, Disclosure Scotland and, to some extent, the Executive were a bit blasé. They were asking, "Where shall we put more people?" and seemed to believe that everything was going to be okay. My experience of speaking to constituents over the summer was that everything was far from being okay and that people were waiting even longer for their disclosures to come through. I want to be reassured that both Disclosure Scotland and the Executive continue to take the matter seriously.
There was some reassurance in the letters that we received. However, there was discord previously between the evidence that we got from groups and what Disclosure Scotland and the Executive said about timescales, so I am not entirely sure that I am prepared to take what we are hearing now at face value without digging further.
There might be two or three issues here. One relates to Disclosure Scotland and the timescales—we need to get a feel for that. Another relates to the guidance that is given. An awful lot seems to be left to the judgment of voluntary groups and schools that are floundering in different situations—Ken Macintosh gave a good example. We need to know more about that matter.
I suggest that we ask one or two organisations about their experience and their concerns in that direction. The council of the Scout Association springs to mind because it is a big organisation that could give us an idea of how it deals with the situation and there are other similar organisations. We could then feed questions to Disclosure Scotland at a subsequent interview session. As a result of the upcoming recess, we could not have such a session until November, but a provisional date of 10 November might be suitable. That would give us time to do some of the inquiry business beforehand.
Another aspect is the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 and the introduction of disclosure checks for all those who are currently in post. That will be a formidable bureaucratic enterprise, which will have all sorts of effects on the big organisations. There must be questions about exactly how that is to be done. The Executive says in its letter that it will deal with disclosure quickly and that it will be one of its next pieces of work, but I wonder whether that work ought to be done on a more phased basis. We need to know a little more about those plans. Are people happy with that sort of approach to disclosure?
My perception is that the local authorities also have a fairly good handle on the problems. For example, Dumfries and Galloway Council submitted 32 disclosure applications towards the end of June and six weeks later it had not heard about any of them.
Somebody told me that some councils have been making difficulties for organisations that book halls for events that are concerned with children unless all the people who are to enter the hall have been through disclosure checks. If I have that right, that is an over-bureaucratic approach. The ramifications are wide in a number of areas.
You suggested speaking to the Scout Association. I do not know whether we need to go into great detail with other organisations, but the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations or volunteer bureaux, for example, would have a pretty good handle on the matter.
We want front-line organisations and not umbrella organisations—we want the ones that are getting the disclosures and not necessarily those that are one stage back from that point.
If you are looking at the numbers of disclosures that are dealt with, I would not have thought that the Scout Association would be the biggest organisation. Many other organisations use many more volunteers.
Sure—I am not saying that the Scout Association is the biggest. We want to contact a range of perhaps half a dozen organisations to get a flavour of the situation. We could send them a letter.
Disclosure was the major issue in the report, but we will move on to deal with the other issues. We will take the correspondence in order. First, we have the Scottish Executive's response to the committee's report. We do not need to go through the response page by page, but are there issues that arise from it?
I want to raise four points. First, paragraph 1.7, on the recruitment schemes to deliver new social workers, states:
"Nearly 100 of the first trainees are graduating from the Fast Track over the coming months and up to 450 further graduates will be produced".
It might help if clarification could be provided that those graduates will not be rushed into the front line with inadequate experience and that the job will be done really well. Also, it might help to know whether experienced social workers are being recruited from other sectors and how far the provision of 100 new social workers will alleviate the staff shortage. We know that local authority social work departments employ about 5,700 social care staff, so will 100 be enough to meet the requirements?
Secondly, paragraph 1.12 states:
"The Executive has … launched a major initiative to develop a social work service fit for the 21st century. This will be led by a high level independent group".
It might be helpful if we could be informed who will take part in that group, whether the proposed members have been contacted and whether they have given consent. Where do we stand on that?
It would be useful to know what its remit is, perhaps.
Absolutely. The third point is on paragraph 2.4, which states:
"Extra staff were recruited and trained to provide appropriate processing coverage around the clock to help clear the backlog of cases and to improve performance overall."
I suggest that the committee might welcome assurances that those extra staff were recruited on a permanent basis and not just as a temporary measure to clear the backlog.
Shall we take that up with Disclosure Scotland?
Yes. My fourth point is on paragraph 4.2, which states:
"We also note the Committee's wish to receive evidence of the implementation of policy in this area in due course."
I suggest that we would welcome the establishment of a timescale for the receipt of evidence.
I am happy to write to the minister about those points. Are there any other observations on that section of the report?
I have a brief observation on paragraph 4.1, which mentions
"the importance of ensuring that ‘practitioners have access to the right information at the right time'".
I am still concerned that teachers will not get the appropriate training or receive the right information. Teachers are key players in the matter, given that they spend five hours per day with the children. Teachers are at the front line, so they are the ones who are most likely to see at an early stage any signs of difficulties in children's lives. I note that the Executive has examined initial teacher education and considered input into that, but there should be a mandatory, stand-alone part of initial teacher education on child protection and all teachers who have already gone through their probationary period should go through a mandatory course to bring them up to scratch. The problem with relying on continuing professional development is that not all people will choose to go down that route. We need to ensure that every teacher has a background in and knowledge of the subject. That can happen only if we set a timescale for every teacher to undergo training on child protection.
Should a greater emphasis be placed on requiring the management in particular schools to ensure that senior or key people receive training in the subject and that the information is disseminated in practice? When I worked in the law, it was one thing to learn about a subject through a module, but it was more important to embed the subject in practice to ensure that things happened at a practical level on the ground.
Both approaches are needed. The procedures are in place, but I do not know whether teachers are always aware of them. That is part of the problem.
Is not that a management issue, rather than a matter to be dealt with through modules or CPD? That is the point that I am trying to make.
Someone must organise the courses that teachers attend, so there is a responsibility—whether for the local authority or the Executive—to ensure that courses are available. To leave the matter to individual schools is to take an ad hoc approach and in the light of our inquiry we should recommend not ad hoc approaches but the embedding of the subject, so that every teacher has the appropriate background information. There should be much more significant training for people who are in a management role or who will deal with the problem, but every classroom teacher should have some training in and knowledge of the subject.
It might be helpful to read paragraph 4.13 of the Executive's response to the committee's report, which says:
"The Executive will consider mandatory training".
The Executive provides a timescale: it will introduce new guidelines around the end of the year and then assess whether mandatory training is required. Perhaps this depends on how one reads the paragraph, but is not the Executive doing exactly what Rosemary Byrne calls for?
Paragraph 4.13 continues:
"any action in this regard will be considered".
I would like that to be strengthened so that the message is that every teacher should receive training in the area.
Perhaps there is another way of tackling the matter. Paragraph 9 of the clerk's covering paper suggests:
"the Committee may wish to request an update on progress against all 17 recommendations at an appropriate point in the future".
We should bear it in mind that we cannot snap our fingers and bring 'em hame. Perhaps in six or nine months' time we could come back to the matter to ascertain what is happening. Does that seem a reasonable approach?
Yes.
Before we move on, I raise a further matter in relation to paragraphs 4 and 4.1. The Executive has not answered the committee's concern that
"there was still a need for a succinct and readily accessible chronology of significant events."
Although the Executive agrees that such a chronology is necessary, we heard evidence from the Headteachers Association of Scotland and Glasgow City Council that that was not happening. Our recommendation was therefore quite important. Perhaps we should go back to the Executive and say that it is all very well that the Executive agrees with the committee, but we raised the point because that approach is not happening and we want to know what the Executive will do to make it happen.
We need to deal with a number of issues in that way. The Executive has responded in detail to our points and recommendations, but many of its responses are along the lines of, "Well, a review group is looking at the matter", or "We have put the matter out for consultation", and do not tell us what action the Executive will take. We will need to come back to those issues to re-examine the Executive's commitments. For example, the Executive makes statements such as:
"The Executive is committed to ensuring that Child Protection Committees are constituted in such a way as to support agencies, individually and collectively"
and:
"a positive set of aspirations and expectations for all Scotland's children and young people, including, for example, to ensure they are safe, healthy, respected and included underpins our work".
Those are fine statements, but they do not tell us what the Executive is doing and we need to toughen up on that.
We should also toughen up our questions on progress on the information technology issue that was raised in the Bichard inquiry. That ties in with the point that the convener made.
There are two categories of issue: those on which we need a clearer view now because our concerns have not been properly answered; and those in relation to which things are happening, but we will want to know how much progress has been made by a certain point down the line. The matter that Elaine Murray raises belongs in the former category. We need to know now what is happening, because it does not appear that the Executive has taken that point on board as clearly as it might have done.
It would be interesting to ask how HMIE plans to evaluate school effectiveness in terms of child protection.
That is a good point.
There is also an underlying issue about timetabling, which was one of our main considerations. Other points may emerge from the other documents, but would it be acceptable if we went back to the minister now on one or two of the points that have been raised? What do members think the timetable for returning to the subject might be? Would it be reasonable to come back to it six months down the line?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we shall put the matter on the agenda in six months' time. Prior to that, the clerks will ask for an update from the Executive on some of the specific points that we have emphasised.
For the benefit of the committee, I would like to mention that the report of the working group chaired by Professor Baldwin, on the national reporting framework for children in need, is due this October. It will be helpful to us to have that as soon as it becomes available.
It is to be followed by a consultation paper as well, so that is an on-going bit of work. Thank you.
We now move on to the correspondence about the Bichard report. Elaine Murray touched on that in passing in relation to IT. Do you want to elaborate on that, Elaine?
Given that the IT issues were highlighted in the response that we have in our papers, I felt that we should keep a handle on what is happening with IT in the Executive. That is a point that Wendy Alexander raised on a number of occasions during the inquiry and I do not think that we have had a particularly satisfactory response from the Executive as to how it intends to take those issues forward. We had questions about whether there would be a helpline or a database, because the guidance made it look as if there would be a database and it turned out that there was to be a helpline.
In its response to recommendation 15, the Executive suggests that it will receive Professor Baldwin's report in October, then go to consultation and then produce "a framework" by August 2005. I think that we should ask Professor Baldwin to write to us saying what she thinks is necessary to achieve IT integration. The vast majority of witnesses said to us that the last thing they want is another set of guidelines; they actually want some leadership on a common IT system. Our capacity to push that really depends on what Professor Baldwin recommends, so I think that we should invite her to write to the committee after the publication of her report about what it would take to act on the recommendations. That might be a way back into the area, because it is not clear to me that all that she will do is to recommend a framework. If she does, so be it. If she does not, we might want to pursue that at a later date.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
It is also a question of bringing the two systems into line. That is another issue that we should come back to in the six-month review.
There is a letter from the Lord Advocate about fatal accident inquiries and other inquiries. It is fair to say that the issue is at an early stage and that the response does not add greatly to the sum of human knowledge, but that is something that will come back to us at a later point. As members will recall, there were concerns about the various interests that need to be reconciled and about the need not to make scapegoats of people.
There is another timescale question here, in the sense that there was a specific recommendation in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". We got a big document that listed all the recommendations and what has been happening about them, but nothing seemed to be happening on one of the recommendations.
This is not an unimportant issue. Our discussions revealed that there has been a degree of confusion between the remits of different inquiries. Shall we pursue a timescale with the Lord Advocate?
Members indicated agreement.
We have received a letter from Cathy Jamieson on Disclosure Scotland. We have probably dealt with most of the points already. We can pursue some of the issues with Disclosure Scotland when we take evidence from it.
We have received correspondence from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and YouthLink Scotland. Both letters raise issues that we touched on in our earlier discussion. Apart from taking on board the points that they make, there is nothing new that we need to deal with at the moment.
It would be useful for us to send both letters to Disclosure Scotland before asking it to give further evidence.
Yes. The letter from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council in particular raises a number of detailed issues about the voluntary sector that we discussed earlier.
Three or four months ago, the SPTC sent us another letter that contained a set of similar but different points about Disclosure Scotland that are also relevant.
We have received a fair bit of additional material that relates to our child protection inquiry. Does the committee agree to send appropriate letters to all those who have been mentioned and to re-examine the matter in six months' time?
Members indicated agreement.