Getting it Right for Every Child
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5335, in the name of Adam Ingram, on getting it right for every child.
There is no more important task than ensuring that we get it right for Scotland's children. They are part of our society now, and they will mould the way in which Scotland develops and performs in the future. We need to create an environment in which children flourish and can fulfil their potential. By "we" I mean all of Scotland. As the 2002 child protection report stated, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright".
GIRFEC has a similar high-level objective: improving outcomes for every child and young person. That is a high aspiration, and it will not be achieved overnight, but it is a goal that we must all aim for. The goal was set by the previous Administration and it secured considerable support, but children, families and practitioners all want to know what it means for them. Since we took office, we have been working with partners to turn the aspiration into practical reality, to test it and to show that it can work.
The evaluation that has been carried out reports on the experience of pathfinder projects, especially in Highland. The evaluation report is lengthy and detailed. The message is that, at this stage in the journey, GIRFEC works. GIRFEC means improved outcomes, better information sharing and reduced bureaucracy. It ensures that children's views are heard and taken into account, and it places the child at the centre. Those are all issues that were raised in the report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, "How well do we protect Scotland's children?", which was published last week. GIRFEC shows how improvements can be made in those areas.
To ensure that GIRFEC works, we need joint leadership, commitment, planning and training, building on good multi-agency working. Practitioners and management need to reconfigure how they work into a single planning process across all agencies. That means working in a common language, to capture and share concerns, and engaging with families at every stage. That is major, transformational change, and I pay tribute to all the people who are working through that change.
GIRFEC can make a difference. In Highland, 29 different processes for dealing with children have been distilled into one main planning process. Any activity is part of one plan for a child. As a result, fewer meetings are required and support is provided more quickly. Further work is under way on savings in the workload of key staff, the number of meetings that are held and so on. A report will be produced in March. However, the initial signs are that one meeting is needed instead of the three or four that were held previously, non-offence referrals from the police to the reporter are down 70 per cent, and staff in health, schools and social work are noting that time is being freed up from writing reports, so there can be more direct work with children. Therefore, there are considerable benefits to be gained. As the ability to share information electronically throughout Scotland comes on stream in about 2011, there will be enhanced benefits.
If the approach is to be fully effective, there must be a common language among practitioners. The wellbeing indicators and the GIRFEC model provide that. The evaluation shows that after an initial period of anxiety and concern, practitioners across all agencies found that the model works well. The approach requires on-going training and use, but it helps to build trust and produces more targeted and better-quality information. It also provides the basis for measuring improvements in outcomes.
The motion and the amendment, which I am happy to support, refer to frameworks and how systems operate. That is right; those are the tools that the Parliament can use to create the environment in which change can happen. However, we must always remember that GIRFEC places the individual child at the centre of those frameworks. GIRFEC is the methodology that delivers the frameworks. It provides a personalised approach to service delivery.
That should mean that the child and their family are involved; that action is discussed and agreed with them; that there are as few meetings as possible; that the help that is provided is co-ordinated and seamless; that they understand why action is being proposed and what it is meant to achieve; and that they understand their roles and responsibilities. The evaluation report notes that that is happening under GIRFEC. Parents feel that there is one team to support them and understand better what is planned. When the wellbeing model is used to explain action, parents appear more willing to engage with and trust services.
There is much more detail in the full report, which sets out the complex interactions across all the services and the journey that has been taken to implement GIRFEC. Further work is needed, including on greater involvement with the adult sector and on extending the reach into the health service, where midwives and health visitors have been the prime focus to date.
The evaluation is of progress to date. Further short thematic reports will be issued during the next four months, drawing on the report that we have published and more up-to-date information, which is being gathered. We need to understand better the impact on longer-term outcomes and how the changes that have been introduced can be maintained.
In spring we will consult on the review of the 1998 child protection guidance. The review is set in the context of GIRFEC. It will bring powerful changes to child protection in Scotland and will build on the years of good work that started with the reform programme. It will embed a multi-agency, child-centred approach to ensuring that our most vulnerable children are identified, supported and, above all, kept safe.
We are developing a national toolkit for risk assessment, in response to what child protection practitioners have asked for and in response to the recent HMIE report. It will be founded on the GIRFEC model and the principles that are working well in Highland and elsewhere. With GIRFEC, we will make a step change in the way that all professionals who deal with at-risk children work with one another, among families and for children.
I commend the GIRFEC approach. Over the coming months, we will encourage community planning partnerships to ask themselves what they are doing to implement it and to secure for their agencies the resource benefits and for their children and young people the improved outcomes that it provides.
On the back of the positive evaluation report, we will produce an implementation guide that draws on the experiences to date of the pathfinders. The guide will set out the various steps and stages that have been found to work; the time needed for and the phasing of the work; and, most important, the tools that have been demonstrated to make a difference.
I am encouraged by the support for the GIRFEC approach from various partners. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the evaluation report, the findings of which will provide all authorities and their community planning partners with the foundations to debate the relative merits of GIRFEC and its component parts in their local areas. The Association of Directors of Social Work and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland have both voiced their support for GIRFEC. Time prevents me from quoting others, such the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, Barnardo's and Action for Children.
Momentum is building in support of change, and we are hugely encouraged by the evaluation, which affirms that the underlying concept of GIRFEC is right. It can be done. The development work has been progressed. We now wish to move to full implementation and will engage with community planning partnerships throughout Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) approach; commends Highland and the other pathfinder programmes for their work in developing the approach; notes progress under the eCare framework to enable secure, targeted information sharing across Scotland; welcomes the report by the University of Edinburgh on progress to date, particularly with regard to the pathfinder programme in Highland; welcomes Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education's summary report on its first round of multi-agency children's services inspections as providing a clear and comprehensive picture of how children's services are operating across Scotland, and encourages work to further develop and implement the GIRFEC approach as a means of public services and the third sector working with parents and communities to improve outcomes for children and deliver the Early Years Framework, Achieving our Potential, and Equally Well.
I welcome this important debate. There is nothing in the Government's motion with which I or my Labour colleagues disagree. However, we feel that a number of important issues need to be taken into account when we examine the success of the getting it right for every child approach, which is why we have lodged an amendment that is an addendum to the Government's motion. I am delighted that the minister has indicated the Government's support for the amendment.
GIRFEC was introduced by the previous Administration. I am sure that most members agree that, although the previous Executive may not win any prizes for coming up with the catchiest acronym, the thrust of GIRFEC was spot on. There was a need to ensure that children's services became more child centred and more focused on outcomes for the child and that they greatly improved the sharing and recording of information.
As members are aware, the GIRFEC proposals emerged from the review of the children's hearings system. The aims of the approach were broadly welcomed and I am pleased that the current Government has continued to pursue those principles.
Large parts of GIRFEC focus on improving the life chances of vulnerable children, although it must be recognised that the words "every child" are important and that the policy must apply to all Scotland's children and young people.
It is interesting to note that many of the issues raised in the GIRFEC evaluation report of early implementation in Highland mirror issues and concerns raised in the recent HMIE report on the findings of the joint inspections of services to protect children—in particular, the need for multi-agency meetings on the child's plan; the shared use of tools, processes and procedures; and a commitment to proper recording and documenting of casework that is consistent between agencies.
The report on Highland states:
"There is growing evidence that children's needs are being identified at an earlier stage".
However, the recent HMIE report concluded that, in almost half the 30 councils that were inspected,
"The assessment of risks and needs of vulnerable children and families was evaluated as weak or unsatisfactory".
We have referred to that in our amendment because although it is clear that using the GIRFEC approach can bring about the type of changes to children's services that we all want, the Government must accept that, at present, it is not happening in many parts of Scotland. I am sure that the Government will continue to work hard to address that problem and will redouble its efforts to improve matters.
Similarly, the Highland evaluation document concludes that the process of sharing information about children's needs improved during the pathfinder project. However, the HMIE report highlights that that is not the case in a large number of councils. Again, I hope that the Government will take into account that firm action is needed to resolve the problem sooner rather than later.
I congratulate South Lanarkshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council, NHS Lanarkshire and other key partner agencies on their efforts as learning partners. Significant steps have been taken in changing the culture in each of the partner agencies to ensure a common approach that is consistent with GIRFEC.
The evaluation report on Highland recognised that significant resources were provided to facilitate the many positive outcomes that are mentioned in the document. It also mentions the importance of seconded staff, and states:
"The time required for development work, establishing multi-agency links, consultation with practitioners and operational managers, trialling new tools, procedures and protocols, organizing training and reporting on progress was extensive. It is difficult to see how this could have been done across all children's services without staff from different services being freed up to do this on a full-time basis."
Both North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council make similar points on the need for additional staff and, importantly, for training. Clearly, in advancing the GIRFEC approach, the Government must take cognisance of the resource implications for councils. Too often, partnership working is seen as a panacea for cost savings. GIRFEC must not be used as an excuse for cutting services or jobs.
Given that the initial proposals for GIRFEC arose from a review of the children's hearings system, the minister will not be surprised if I say a few words about the review and the proposals for change. I acknowledge the need to change the children's hearings system. Indeed, I think that most people involved in the hearings system acknowledge that, too. However, it is important that any proposals for change are firmly focused on the wellbeing of the child—an ethos that is central to GIRFEC. I am not convinced that the introduction of any change that would make the hearings system more adversarial would fulfil that aspiration, irrespective of whether it might help to make the system more compliant with the European convention on human rights. I am sure that we will return to that issue when the Government introduces its proposals on children's hearings.
It is worth remembering—the evaluation report points this out—that GIRFEC is not focused solely on children and young people in need of protection or with particular problems, but applies to all children and young people in Scotland. In fact, the executive summary of the report states:
"While some operational managers and key workers in children's services initially thought that Getting it right was targeted mainly on the most vulnerable children and young people that perception has now receded and Getting it right is now widely perceived to be having a significant impact on universal provision as well."
The aims of improving opportunities and focusing on outcomes must apply equally to children who never come into contact with child protection services. That is why issues such as the provision of youth services, the continued need to modernise and renew school buildings, the promotion of healthy eating and exercise, and provision in the early years should all be seen within the context of GIRFEC.
Within ever-tightening budgets, non-statutory youth services may be seen as a relatively easy target. However, I believe that targeting those services would be folly and would undermine the central aims of GIRFEC. Youth services, including those provided directly by local authorities and those in the voluntary sector that are supported by local government, play a vital role in nurturing and developing our children and young people. They provide positive and constructive alternatives to antisocial and criminal activities and stimulate community spirit.
Whether we are talking about the scouts, the Girls Brigade or groups that are run by council youth workers, such clubs often provide much-needed respite for children who live in families affected by alcohol or substance misuse, or domestic violence. Equally, workers in such organisations are often the first people to become aware that a problem is affecting a child. GIRFEC rightly aspires to ensure that such early recognition is taken seriously and followed up. Reducing funding to such services would reduce opportunities for early intervention and remove much-needed alternative activities from some young people who are beginning to offend.
I will say a few words about nurture services, which is an approach that is being piloted in North Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council, and which has the principles of GIRFEC at its heart. Nurture services target children in the first few years of primary education who come from families with a range of problems that, from the outset, impact on the way in which the child copes with school. The services provide intensive support for both children and parents in an environment that is quite different from a normal class. The child may spend some or all their time in such a setting, where support is provided by a range of professionals, including teachers, educational psychologists and social workers. The approach is proving very successful, but it is resource intensive.
I welcome the progress in taking forward the GIRFEC approach that is evident in the pathfinder projects. I commend the Government for the part that it has played in continuing the work of the previous Executive, but I feel strongly that, in light of the serious concerns that are raised in the HMIE report, there is no room for complacency. Far too many children remain at risk as a result of poor systems in our local authorities. I hope that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to ensure that we protect those children.
I move amendment S3M-5335.1, to insert at end:
"; recognises the scale of the challenge described in the HMIe report, How well do we protect Scotland's children?, which states that almost half of the 30 councils inspected were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs; further acknowledges that the report highlights the need for improved information sharing in relation to child protection, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the effective delivery of the Early Years Framework, Achieving our Potential and Equally Well."
The Scottish Conservatives warmly welcome today's debate on getting it right for every child and the continued programme of work to improve services for vulnerable children in Scotland. No one can deny that those issues deserve a united approach from all the political parties.
GIRFEC is crucial because it promotes certain key principles: the development of a much more local approach to policy making that better reflects the needs of the local community; improved communication between the different agencies that are involved in caring for vulnerable children; much greater consistency in the team that looks after each child; a reduction in the bureaucracy—on which the minister has given us good evidence today—that accompanies the process; and an end to the wide regional variations in the quality of care that is offered.
Therefore, I am particularly pleased to welcome the report on the results of the Highland pathfinder GIRFEC project, especially the progress that has been made on measuring outcomes much more effectively, making improvements in professional practice with better multi-agency working, and developing a more holistic approach to the needs of the child—something that we all agree is one of the most important issues.
There are extremely encouraging signs that those better approaches have led to a reduction in the number of children on the child protection register and an improvement in the educational attainment of the weakest-performing children. Better-integrated planning has meant that a wider range of needs can be met, with a greater emphasis on engaging with young people and more help on handling the transition from care into adult life—a process that can often be fraught with many difficulties.
In turn, there are signs that parents and children feel much more integrated in the process, such that there is growing confidence in the system. As a result of the different agencies speaking a common language, people are more aware of when things are happening and what the processes are likely to involve. Perhaps the most encouraging signs are the likely reductions in cost if problems can be detected at the earliest possible point.
As Karen Whitefield said, although much can be learnt from the progress in Highland, more needs to be done elsewhere, especially in areas that are showing an increase in the number of registrations. We need to pay particular attention to the harrowing cases that are referred before the child is born, and we must not lose sight of the fact that the number of looked-after children has increased every year since 2001.
The GIRFEC evaluation report recognises that change will take time, but central to making that happen is ensuring that staff who are involved in the care of children are engaged in the process of change, even if that means a slight shift in the culture of what is best practice in child care. Staff must be properly supported. I note that the workload of and burden of paperwork for health visitors and school nurses would be greatly reduced by the introduction of an electronic version of the paper record that was used in the Highland area. That is good news. Additionally, in a period when local authorities are financially stretched, the Scottish Conservatives maintain that far more must be done to utilise the work of the excellent voluntary sector, which is often staffed by people who are closest to the needs of our communities.
A key part of the process will be the reform of the children's hearings system. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Government's decision to delay the progress of the children's hearing's bill due to apparent flaws in the initial consultation process. We hope that the information that is provided by the minister in the intervening period will help us to address the issues so that we can consider ways of strengthening the system without, as Karen Whitefield said, losing the central ethos that was set out in the Kilbrandon report.
Children's hearings have traditionally brought many benefits to our Scottish justice system, but it is clear that there are issues that relate to representation at hearings and the fact that panel members do not always feel fully supported by their local authority. Credibility within the system is not as strong as it should be, and much more needs to be done to enhance the public's knowledge and understanding of children's hearings and to ensure a more holistic approach by involving the various professional agencies effectively.
It is vital that we respond to the main messages from the recent HMIE report that looked at inspections across Scotland. It found that around a quarter of inspections revealed serious weaknesses in aspects of child protection that increased the risk of harm to children. It is not satisfactory that serious problems were identified in 10 council areas. That shows that much work remains to be done. Improvements are needed in the quality and rigour of assessments and in planning. As we all know, the consequences of such deficiencies can be life threatening. The Scottish Government has stated that it is working with the local authorities that have been criticised to ensure that urgent action is taken. It was good to hear the minister update us on progress, and I look forward to hearing more on the community planning partners.
Members are well aware that, for the Scottish Conservatives, parenting skills remain at the heart of the continuing problems to do with looking after Scottish children. Family breakdown of one sort or another costs the United Kingdom more than £20 billion a year, and the resulting burden on society, especially on relatives, social work services and our justice system, goes much, much deeper than that. Only this week, key children's charities have produced some disturbing statistics.
We are pleased that the debate is being held and are pleased to support the Scottish Government's motion and the Labour Party's amendment.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate that enables Liberal Democrats to restate our support for the GIRFEC agenda. As others have done, I commend the Scottish Government for the work that it has done on the issue, which builds on the work of the previous Administration and is very much focused on delivering the best possible services for children.
This crucial issue encompasses a host of professionals, who often work in extremely difficult circumstances. We put on record our appreciation of their efforts. Among the professionals involved are teachers, social workers, speech and language therapists—if I do not mention them, I am not allowed in the door at home—nurses, police officers and everyone who is involved in the children's hearings and child protection systems. We must recognise the excellent work that they do and their continuing work to deliver GIRFEC, which involves the adoption of a personalised approach that is based on the needs of the child.
We must recognise that there are shortcomings. Where systematic, bureaucratic failings exist, they must be identified, worked through with colleagues and addressed to improve the situation. However, the key message is that GIRFEC is starting to work. Positive progress has been made on the numbers of children who are on the at-risk register and there is better multi-agency working. The factors that we have looked at in the context of the Highland report certainly seem to indicate a shift in a positive direction.
I put on record our thanks to the minister and his team for the extremely helpful briefing that they gave to members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee this week, which I found particularly useful.
There is no doubt that the evaluation overview of the GIRFEC pathfinder project in Highland contained a lot of positive signs. The holding of multi-agency meetings meant that a more co-ordinated approach was adopted and that individuals received a personalised service. I was pleased to note that levels of inter-agency trust were much higher at the end of the pathfinder phase than they had been at the beginning. That trust, along with a change of culture, will be crucial if GIRFEC is to be successfully rolled out across Scotland.
It is sensible to proceed with a single planning process and shared assessments. It is also sensible to ensure that a common language is used by all professionals so that they can understand one another. It is crucial, too, that information and communications technology is used as effectively as possible so that information can be shared as effectively and quickly as possible.
We were pleased to learn that every child who needed support from more than one agency was allocated a lead professional who was responsible for the co-ordination of services. It is important that families understand and buy into new processes and have their say on the services that are being developed and delivered for their children. That represents real progress, and it must be welcomed as such, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. There now needs to be a period of establishing good practice benchmarks to ensure that the initial progress is sustained. The Highland pathfinder report highlighted the fact that there is still work to be done, although the work undertaken in Highland will make the processes elsewhere in Scotland easier to implement.
At the information briefing, I raised the issue of resources. I did so not to have a go at the minister in the typical way, but simply to point out that the pathfinder project had received seed-corn funding that has probably made the process of taking GIRFEC forward slightly easier. It is clear that councils and partner organisations in Scotland will not have that resource. They will have to pull resources from existing resources at what is obviously a crucial time, given the funding difficulties that they face. We received assurances about that from the minister, and I have raised the issue again so that he can put on the record the real possibilities that GIRFEC provides for making potential savings in time and resources. Obviously, the most important issue is the delivery of the best possible services, but the approach would be more attractive to local authorities throughout Scotland if they had concrete examples of where they might make savings in resources, which they are concerned about.
Child protection remains everyone's major concern. In the wake of incidents such as the tragic death of Brandon Muir, it is alarming that a quarter of HMIE inspections revealed serious weaknesses in services. Progress has been made, and HMIE has been quick to point out that there has been improvement, but there are areas in which urgent action is required and enhanced service development must be immediate. Weaknesses were identified in the report "How well do we protect Scotland's children?" I am sure that we are all determined to work together to improve child protection services. We cannot say that there will never be another Brandon Muir or Caleb Ness, but we must put in place support resources and systems of working to share information that will reduce risks. In that context, we look forward to the review of the child protection guidance that is due in the spring.
GIRFEC arose from a review of the children's hearings system. We had concerns about the Government's initial plans to change that system, and we welcomed the decision to stop, think again and consult more widely on them. A wide consultation is important. We can rightly be proud of the children's hearings system, which puts the child centre stage—that is what GIRFEC is all about. We want the right reform of our hearings system, and the views of those who work in that system day in, day out need to be listened to and incorporated in any new policy. Change cannot mean centralisation. Keeping children's panels local, rooted in the community and independent is the best way to protect our children.
Back in September, the Liberal Democrats successfully called on the Government to report back in three months on the action that it has taken to focus attention on children who live with parents or carers with alcohol or substance abuse problems. We would welcome an indication from the minister about when we might expect further information about that.
There needs to be an improvement in risk assessments for vulnerable children. Much of what was covered in the Highland pathfinder report is encouraging in that regard. We know that some children living with parents who are dependent on drugs or alcohol or who have other problems have a dreadful time. Those problems will often stay with those children throughout their lives—they are not just faced in early life but can live with them for ever. That is why we have supported organisations such as Place2B, which addresses children's mental health needs in primary schools, including Craigroyston primary school in my constituency. We believe that such issues should be tackled as early as possible. Doing so is crucial in taking forward the GIRFEC agenda.
It is vital that services take into account an individual's specific needs. A one-size-fits-all approach clearly cannot be taken to individual children, and it is possible that what works in one part of the country will not necessarily work in exactly the same way in another. Highland was probably quite a good place to start, as that allowed us to see what has happened in and around Inverness and to take that further. It will also be interesting to see the results of the work that has been done in Lanarkshire and in other pathfinder projects around the country, particularly in relation to domestic abuse.
There is a need for proper training, quality assurance and staff mentoring, although that must be balanced against the concern of some that the programme is too heavily focused on processes rather than on outcomes. I think that it is fundamentally about outcomes, so I am reassured by the news that is coming from the Highland pathfinder project.
There is now a good level of recognition of the programme, but it is important that it is implemented throughout Scotland as quickly as is feasible.
On balance, I agree with the Aberlour Child Care Trust's conclusions on the evaluation of GIRFEC so far. It states in its briefing that much has been achieved but that there is still a job of work to do.
When it comes to Scotland's children, there is never room for complacency. The GIRFEC pathfinders give a significant early indication of better outcomes for children. As Margaret Smith has acknowledged, the number of children on the child protection register has fallen; reports are being submitted on time; children are seeing their supervising officers within target times; and the length of wait for adoptive and permanent placements has fallen.
The HMIE report is very much welcome, as it has provided us with the clearest and most comprehensive picture of how child protection services throughout Scotland are performing. It is based solely on the first reports, as opposed to any of the follow-up reports, in which sense it is slightly behind the times. Nonetheless, it has established a baseline from which to test progress.
I noted with interest how the 30 councils had performed across the 18 quality indicators—graded from excellent to unmet—which gave a total of 540 possible grades. There were only 12 grades of excellent and, at the other extreme, 13 of unmet. The bulk of the grades—438—were very good, good or satisfactory, straddling the middle of the range. That is a good start, but we should be aiming for excellence. We should aspire for good, very good and excellent because, to be blunt, even satisfactory is not good enough. It would not be good enough for my son if he were ever in need of care and protection. Why should we not aspire to and achieve the best child protection system in the world? The question remains: how do we do that? We talk about outcomes, but what we actually mean is how we can keep more children safe and how we can improve their prospects.
I recall the findings of the report "For Scotland's children", which said that the children who were most in need of services were those who were least likely to receive them. Although there are issues around difficult-to-engage families, there are also issues around difficult-to-access services. One of the positives to come out of the GIRFEC pathfinder pilots is the fact that the families have reported benefiting from and appreciating the support and care that has been provided through a one-team approach. Of course, we need to look through the eyes of a child to shape the services, but there is no getting away from the fact that, as adults, we must take the responsibility to do what is in the best interest of each child who is at risk.
The importance of universal and core services should never be underestimated. Public pressure and media scrutiny can result in politicians grabbing for the new trend, fad or initiative despite the fact that, in times of crisis, it is more important than ever to invest in and replenish bread-and-butter services. I cannot think of Baby P and others like him without getting angry. His injuries should have been obvious because they were so appalling and were sustained over time. It is correct and proper to focus on the high-profile, extreme cases to learn lessons, but the danger is that professionals and services can focus so much on the extreme cases that they neglect or miss the more numerous situations in which the symptoms and signs of abuse are far less obvious—more subtle but just as damaging. Our focus must be on prevention as well as on investigation.
It should not surprise us that risk assessment is the area that we need to improve the most. Risk assessment is complex: it requires skills, knowledge, experience, instinct and good old-fashioned common sense. It is multifactorial, interdependent with and underpinned by the achievement of other quality indicators, the obvious one being the timely sharing of information. To date GIRFEC has built the foundations for such assessment and, when fully implemented, it should deliver consistent assessment across professional and local authority boundaries and provide a shared language and understanding of risk.
Yesterday, we debated violence against women and many of us commented that gender-based violence is a cause and consequence of women's inequality. We described it as a human rights violation. I agree 100 per cent with Children 1st that there should be zero tolerance of violence against children in all its forms. Similar to the work on domestic violence and abuse, we need to challenge some of our cultural values and assumptions about children. Children need the safety and security of boundaries, consistency and routine. I have never subscribed to the view that children should be seen and not heard—many members who have met my two-year-old will say, "Just as well". We should take pride in raising our children and young people to question, challenge and change their lot in life.
First, I apologise in advance for having to leave the chamber after my speech in order to attend another meeting.
My colleague Karen Whitefield outlined Labour's position in her contribution. She reminded us that getting it right for every child applies to every youngster in Scotland, including those in early years provision.
I am delighted to take part in the debate because it allows me to return to a topic that I have raised in the chamber before—the free from three campaign run by my constituent Mrs Alexis Stevenson of Kirkintilloch. She came to see me two years ago because she was having a problem getting access to a free nursery place for her son Sam. He was born in the month of September, which meant that he could not access the free funding for a nursery place until the January intake date. When Mrs Stevenson inquired about availability of places she was told that there was no guarantee that there would be a place in January but that she could get one if she paid for a place between September and January. That struck Mrs Stevenson as unfair and she is right—it is unfair. Access to nursery education provided free at three, thanks to a Labour Government, should not depend on what month a child is born in. That is why together we mounted the free from three campaign.
We brought petition PE1116 to the Public Petitions Committee, and it was considered in September last year—I am glad to see the minister nodding in approval. The committee referred the matter to the Government for further consideration. During the consultation we discovered that a number of councils had a free at three policy but had been instructed by the SNP Government to stop pursuing it. Those included Scottish Borders Council, Stirling Council and Shetland Islands Council.
Just in case anybody thinks that the situation does not affect a large number of children, I point out that more than 4,000 youngsters were born in September 2006 and they will celebrate their third birthday this year. Unless their parents have paid for a place they will not currently be getting any nursery education and will not do so until January next year—that is, if they can find a place.
I wrote to Mr Ingram, the Minister for Children and Early Years, to request a meeting. To be fair, he met Mrs Stevenson and me in March this year. It is also fair to say that we were both surprised when Mr Ingram and his officials told us that they were considering two options to improve access. One option would involve introducing an October intake date; the other, and more radical, option would involve three-year-olds gaining funding for free access one month after their third birthday and presumably there being 10 intake dates, missing out the summer months.
Meanwhile, the minister was receiving other letters, including one from Mrs Sheena Nicol, head of St Mary's nursery school in Kirkintilloch, which is one of the most popular in East Dunbartonshire. She wrote to the minister in May:
"I would like to add my voice to the growing discontent with the current structure of Early Years Funding. At the moment the funding starts at the beginning of the term after the child's 3rd birthday for both ante and pre-school children. This can lead to parents being penalised and their choices limited merely due to their child's date of birth.
It is my hope that due consideration will be given to extending the existing funding to begin from a child's 3rd birthday, thereby eliminating the inequality of the current structure.
If granted it would remove the necessity of some parents having to self fund to secure their child's place in nursery."
What has happened since then? Absolutely nothing. Months came and went, and in September—a year after our original appearance before the Public Petitions Committee—I wrote to Mr Ingram again to ask for an update. In his reply, he referred to the 2010-11 draft budget and stated that the options discussed were still on the table, but—and this was a big but—there would need to be re-engagement with local government as it was going to get £174 million less than originally planned.
We know how the SNP has managed to mug local government into paying for a share of the reduction in the health capital budget. It seems that that money will be found at the expense of Scotland's children.
The minister went on to say that the UK Government's proposals to extend free provision to two-year-olds meant that there were complex issues that needed to be resolved.
We have all heard about these famous national conversation events. The minister kindly held one in Bishopbriggs in my constituency last month. Mrs Stevenson went along and asked him for a progress report, but I am afraid that I have to report to Mr Ingram that she was not impressed to be told that the free at three proposal was unlikely to happen in this session of Parliament. It was no so much a conversation as a dialogue with the deaf.
I wrote to the minister again last week to seek clarification and I am waiting for his reply. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten me today in his summing up. Do his proposals have any chance of being implemented—yes or no?
As I said at the beginning, getting it right for every child involves their having access to good quality nursery education—all the experts agree on that. Labour's policy is to guarantee a free place for every three and four-year-old who wants one; places for vulnerable two-year-olds are also in the pipeline. Done properly, that would mean that every child gets six sessions in a nursery, which could make a huge difference when they reach primary school. It is up to the minister and his new cabinet secretary to deliver. The children of Scotland are waiting.
No member in the chamber will argue against the principles of getting it right for every child—who can sensibly take an opposing view? However, it is one thing to support principles and quite another to work out what needs to be done to progress towards that agreed goal. It is even more difficult to put such plans into action and demonstrate how effective they have been in getting things right for more and more children.
I support strongly the research-based initiatives described by the minister. The progress that has been made is recorded in the evaluation of the Highland pathfinder approach. It is always satisfying to witness evidence-based policy being put into action. Nothing that I say today should be taken to minimise those achievements.
Getting it right for every child must start well before those initiatives. Events not only in very early life but even before birth can irrevocably shape a child's future. I will give some examples from my previous work as a general practitioner in Edinburgh. Repeated surveys of my former practice population, which largely covers an area of socioeconomic deprivation, regularly show a much higher perinatal mortality rate—the rate of deaths of babies either around childbirth or shortly after—than the more affluent parts of the city. That is certainly not getting it right for those children, but, to put it bluntly, a dead child gives no further problems of the kind dealt with in the "Getting it Right for Every Child" document.
The statistics show that the problem does not end there. A 2004 profile of south-west Edinburgh showed that the incidence of babies born with a low birth weight—babies whose birth weight is below the 10th centile for their gestational age—was 30 per cent higher than the Scottish average. Given that south-west Edinburgh includes several better-off districts, it is reasonable to conclude that the picture for my former area was even worse than that.
Why does that matter? It matters because lower-birth-weight babies are much more vulnerable than others. They are more prone to long-term ill health and retarded development, and they need more care in the neonatal period. They are frequently born to women who find it difficult to provide even basic care. Those mothers are often young—the rate for teenage pregnancies in the area is 90 per cent higher than the Scottish average—and unsupported, and they perhaps have physical and mental problems. The care of such babies as they grow up and into adult life demands a huge input from various agencies and is not always successful, so getting it right for those children involves doing what we can to remedy those issues before birth.
What can we do? I will not extend the debate into sex education in schools and the home, contraception for adolescents or similar controversial issues. I will say simply that any effective action that lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies can only be beneficial. Poor diet, smoking or drinking alcohol in pregnancy and taking recreational drugs are all factors that predispose babies to poor birth outcomes, but all are remediable if vigorous action and support are offered.
Skilled and relevant antenatal care is a must. High blood pressure, vaginal infections and the development of anaemia are all conditions that are amenable to treatment but which threaten a baby's long-term health if they are left unchecked.
The effect of targeted interventions was shown spectacularly as long as 35 years ago in my practice. Public health specialists told us that, of the then 23 council wards in Edinburgh, our ward was fourth from the bottom of the league table for perinatal death; was fourth for the proportion of children with a physical handicap; was third for the incidence of congenital malformations; and had a higher than average rate of children who were taken into care. All our mothers had their babies in the hospital that most of the city used; the only difference was that a much higher proportion booked late and defaulted on their antenatal appointments.
I have no time to describe how a group of us altered the antenatal care system to suit our patient group's needs. I say simply that, after five years, our figures for neonatal mortality, admissions to the special care baby unit, premature birth and low birth weight had all fallen to below the Lothian average. The message is that careful tailoring of services can affect outcomes positively, to the benefit of children, mothers and society. It is unfortunate that the figures that I cited earlier in my speech show that the benefit has not been maintained. I have no time to give a detailed explanation, other than to say that it concerns a shift in focus in the delivery of maternity services away from prioritising safe pregnancies to satisfying more emotional or societal desires.
My message is that getting it right for every child means starting before birth, tailoring services exactly to meet the needs of the women in the communities that are served, and continuing that specific care and attention in the equally vital months after a baby has been born. In that way, the ambitions of GIRFEC might be more easily realised.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and discuss the motion. Members are right to highlight the progress that has been made, but we must recognise that the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education notes several concerns. The report says that 25 per cent of initial inspections identified serious weaknesses in services to protect children. It highlights the fact that more needs to be done to ensure that all families and staff who have contact with children are clear about their requirement to share relevant information quickly and clearly when there are concerns about a child's welfare.
Neither the motion nor the minister mentioned the inconvenient report on child referrals that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration published about two weeks ago. That report makes horrific reading and should have set alarm bells ringing in the ears of us all, including the Government. While we give out praise today, it might be worth while to clear the air of any complacency.
The SCRA's report reveals that, despite a fall in the number of children who are referred to the SCRA, the number of referrals is still more than 47,000—more than 5 per cent of Scotland's child population. That is the good news in the report; the bad news is that more children under the age of two have had to be placed on supervision orders and emergency measures and that the number of children in such high-risk situations that emergency powers have been needed to prevent them from coming to harm is growing.
The report rightly points out that that trend is against the policy and practice of early intervention, which was designed to prevent and reduce the need for compulsory measures to protect children. Indeed, research confirms that early identification and intervention do not have the desired impact and might well reflect the fact that more young children are actually at increasing risk.
Will the member give way?
Yes, but I ask the minister to be quick. I do not have as much time as he has.
At the moment, early identification and intervention are not embedded in our systems. That is what we hope GIRFEC will do if it is implemented throughout the country.
We live in hope but at this point we cannot ignore the SCRA's hard, hard messages.
The SCRA report also highlights specific issues about the power of child protection services to get access to children whose parents are unwilling to engage with them. The matter has already been raised in evidence with the Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, and I, too, have raised it with the minister in this chamber. It certainly does not need an inquiry; it needs the minister and his colleagues to do as much as possible to ensure that social workers get access to children when they need it. We cannot allow this situation to continue or allow parents who are unwilling to deal with the services to become barriers to the protection of children. We have to put the children first.
As far as getting it right for every child is concerned, the fact is that the police are the main source of referrals, accounting for 83 per cent, while the number of referrals from social work and the health service is falling. It might be some comfort if they were only single referrals, but they are repeat referrals. These things are happening again and again. At what point do we stop putting children back into such circumstances?
The SCRA report also highlights failures in permanency planning when the child is removed from the home for their own protection. In one sample, the report found that only 4 per cent of referrals of children under two had any form of permanency planning with a view to removing them from the home. However, 12 per cent of those children had brothers and sisters for whom permanency planning was already under way.
The report's most damning revelation is that, in the past six years, 144 children who have been referred to the reporter have died. Of the 75 children under the age of 15 who died, 30—or 40 per cent—of them did not even reach their second birthday. Of those 30 children, two were subject to supervision requirements at the time of death and 15 had open referrals. The background factors will of course come as no surprise—parental substance misuse, domestic violence, drug withdrawal symptoms at birth and so on—but, tragically, the report admits that the number of children who died while under referral might have been greater, because no one can bring the facts and figures together and establish the causes and dates of death for those children.
It is a pity that the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has had to go somewhere else and has not been able to follow the whole debate, because in his new role he has a job to do. For those 144 children—and indeed for the future of all our children—he needs to institute an inquiry to find out the exact circumstances in which they lived and died to ensure that we fully understand how to prevent another 144 from dying over the next six years.
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate and welcome the Highland GIRFEC report's measuring of outcomes, putting the child's needs at the heart of decision making and ensuring that there is less bureaucracy and improved communication between agencies, which my colleague Liz Smith referred to.
On the back of this morning's education debate, it is worth acknowledging the improvement in the educational attainment of the weakest children. In these financially challenging times, all that can be achieved with potential reductions in cost—as Margaret Smith referred to—and, I hope, the earlier detection of problems.
I particularly commend the action taken in Highland given the tragic death of Danielle Reid in Inverness some years ago. The death of that child highlighted many failings in interagency working and communication. Although we welcome the excellent progress that Highland has made, we cannot ignore the issue that the Labour amendment raises today, acknowledging that the HMIE report said that half of Scotland's councils
"were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs".
This week, the Health and Sport Committee held a discussion on information technology, clinical portals, patient confidentiality, telehealth and telemedicine. Although I note that the SNP motion
"notes progress under the eCare framework",
there is no doubt that we have a long way to go to embrace, share and utilise the new technologies that will undoubtedly enhance the care and support of people across Scotland. Leadership is sadly lacking on that project, and for too long children and others have suffered as agencies work in their silos, refusing to share information that would lead to a holistic approach to addressing a child's needs. I commend the work done in Highland to address that issue, but everything that we welcome and commend today can work only when the agencies are aware of the needs of the child or young person.
The Health and Sport Committee recently conducted an inquiry into child and adult mental health services. The report has not yet been scheduled for debate in the Parliament, but it is appropriate to raise some of the issues on the back of some of the points that Ian McKee made. A particular point is the lack of health visitors in Scotland to advise and support parents with young children. In Inverness, after their 15-month immunisation, a child will next see a health visitor at the age of five, when they start school. Without the standard health checks and support, there can be no doubt that many children slip through the net.
An Audit Scotland report from July 2008 stated that 40 per cent of children in Highland waited for more than eight weeks for a first assessment by the community mental health team. Some waited for more than a year. For very young children, we were told, there is a window of opportunity for addressing mental health issues at a certain age. If that opportunity is missed, the consequences are lifelong poor mental health and many other issues. In committee, Dr Phil Wilson pointed out that there is a
"big increase in the evidence base on what works to stop the bad things happening"
and that early neglect, before the age of two, is the strongest predictor for later childhood mental health problems. There is strong evidence that children with problematic behaviour at two-and-a-half years of age are highly likely to end up with major problems later in life. Dr Wilson also told the committee that
"it is possible to predict at the age of three as many as 70 per cent of the children who will end up as in-patients"—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 25 March 2009; c 1728, 1734.]
in psychiatric hospitals or in prisons.
For all those reasons, I welcome the GIRFEC approach. However, as Dr Wilson stated, children had been completely forgotten and, as a result, no health visitors are being trained in NHS Highland. Elsewhere in Scotland, the service is patchy, to say the least. Although we can all congratulate and commend GIRFEC, it works only when the children who are in need are identified. Unfortunately, the demise of the health visiting profession means that many more children will not be identified at the early stages and will not get the help that they need.
I am pleased that Adam Ingram is the minister in charge of the programme. He has a proven record of commitment to mental health, given that he chaired the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on mental health in the first two sessions of the Parliament. I am aware of that, because I was his vice-convener for all those years. I place on record my congratulations to Highland Council, but I highlight the many failings in the system in identifying children in need. I have no doubt that those issues will be given greater prominence when the Health and Sport Committee debate on child and adult mental health services is scheduled in the Parliament.
The amendment states:
"almost half of the 30 councils inspected were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs".
Eleven were assessed as weak and two were assessed as unsatisfactory. The two that landed in the unsatisfactory bracket will have taken immediate action to address the problems that the inspectorate identified. The 11 that were assessed as weak will take stock of the report, and the professionals who are involved in the care of children will take steps to make their service better. They are caring professionals who deserve our support. They will accept constructive criticism from the inspectors, because it helps them to do their jobs properly—it helps them to improve the services that they offer and to make things better for children in their area.
As my colleague Angela Constance said, we should aspire to excellence in the service. On the indicator "Children benefit from strategies to minimise harm", only one council showed weaknesses and none sits in the unsatisfactory category. That is one of the primary indicators—it is not among the secondary indicators that are mentioned in the amendment.
There might be cause for concern over another primary indicator, on which one council has been assessed as unsatisfactory in meeting children's needs. However, politicians should allow the professionals and inspectors to work together to improve the service. We should wait for the follow-up reports and then take stock. Only then will we see whether the system is working properly.
Resources are available for the services and councils will review their deployment in the light of the reports that they have received so that they can improve their services. I pay tribute to North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and NHS Lanarkshire for the progress that they have made on the implementation of their GIRFEC pathfinder project. "Pathfinder" is a very appropriate word in that context.
Getting it right for every child is about rebalancing and refocusing support so that it tends towards the child-centric. The one-team support for families, and greater trust and information sharing between professionals, lead to better services for the child. The programme is a framework for developing multilayered service provision in a simple and easy-to-understand way. The initial results have been impressive and significant indications of better outcomes for children are coming from the pathfinder programmes. There also appear to be social advantages; a welcome consequence of earlier child-centred interventions has been that more time is freed up for social workers to do their job and therefore to take on more cases.
The programme is a continuation of work that was begun in 2004 under the previous Administration. We had waited too long for that work, so it was a welcome step when it was begun, and its further development is equally welcome. The cross-cutting work that the programme encourages knits agencies together in delivery. We should acknowledge those agencies' efforts in that delivery. That applies especially to Scotland's councils, which should get credit for helping to deliver the vision of a safe and supportive childhood for all.
No child is an island, but all children are individuals, which I believe is reflected in the GIRFEC ethos. The early intervention that GIRFEC has facilitated and enabled comes from the enhanced capacity of professionals to gather a holistic assessment of the child using the better information that is available as a result of cross-agency working. That early intervention delivers results. There is evidence across all the wellbeing indicators that progress is being made and that children are reaping greater benefits. Some of that might come from one important innovation, which is that the professionals have turned round service delivery, so that they ask the children who are involved for their views and seek to ensure that the children understand the decisions and the options that are given to them.
No longer will parents and children have to try to find a way of negotiating their way around a confusing system; streamlined services will be delivered. We are talking about wraparound care that embraces the child and the family, ensuring that their needs are met. The involvement of all agencies working together will make it less likely that any child will fall through the gaps.
As a Parliament, we have a duty to work to keep our young people safe from harm and to do everything we can to safeguard them. The framework, together with input from HMIE, will give us the clearest and most comprehensive impression of how children's services are performing across the country. With the report in our hands, we can ask the professionals on the ground to use it to improve outcomes for children, through improving service delivery. The mutual respect that is created when professionals in their various fields take a considered approach creates an open exchange and a central role for the children who are involved. That policy shift is welcome; it is long overdue.
Praise is due to the ministerial team who started the work in 2004, as it is to the ministerial team who continued the work after 2007. I am pleased to support the motion.
I call Hugh Henry. You have quite a long time really, Mr Henry.
That was a dangerous exhortation, Presiding Officer.
There is no doubt that, as is wider civic society in Scotland, all members are committed to the principle of getting it right for every child. It is a principle that is based on common sense, a caring philosophy and understanding. The minister is right to talk of the progress that has been made—progress that all parties, those in the previous Administration and this one, supported. He was also right to point out some of the issues that are essential if getting it right for every child is to be implemented effectively. We need joint leadership, commitment, training and a single planning process.
It is also right to pause and reflect on some of the challenges that face us. It would be wrong to dwell solely on all the positive things that are happening and to be blind to the risks and dangers. I was shocked—as I am sure other members were—to hear the statistics that Duncan McNeil articulated. If nothing else, hearing his encapsulation of the figures, which are in the public domain, should make us pause and question whether Parliament and ministers need to investigate the situation further. We heard the horrendous death toll of vulnerable youngsters in this country. We rightly talk of our shock and horror at deaths from drug addiction and say how committed we are to dealing with the problem, but we seem to say little about those 144 children, the plight of whom Duncan McNeil raised. Perhaps a warning bell should be rung on the issue.
I turn to Angela Constance's speech. As she said, there is never room for complacency. She pointed out that only 12 councils were given excellent reports and also, rightly, that satisfactory was not good enough. She would not accept a satisfactory rating for her child. Like her, I would not accept a satisfactory rating for my grandchildren. I am sure that no member would accept satisfactory for any child who was associated with them.
I repeat what I said in a previous debate on the very point about the HMIE reports that Angela Constance raised:
"If a school were to get a ‘satisfactory' report in an HMIE inspection, there would be an inquiry into the school's performance because that would not be good enough. A ‘satisfactory' report is barely scraping a pass."
In terms of HMIE definitions, "barely scraping a pass" is essentially a "satisfactory" report. I went on to say:
"I refer to ‘The Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE inspections, 2009', which reveals that out of 30 councils, 16 are barely passing or are failing on the quality indicator that ‘Children's needs are met'; 24 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on the ‘Recognising and assessing risks and needs' indicator; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on ‘Operational planning'; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on ‘Leadership and direction'; and 18 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on ‘Leadership of change and improvement'."—[Official Report, 24 September 2009; c 19945.]
That is not good enough for our children and should not be good enough for anyone here or anyone who has any influence to do anything about it.
There is still a challenge. Members are right to point to professionals' commitment and to the challenging and difficult job that they do. However, we ignore at our peril the damning indication of weaknesses in our system. If we do that, the figures to which Duncan McNeil referred will continue to grow, which is unacceptable.
We need to look at what is happening as a result of our actions. I refer to Parliament collectively—I am not trying to damn the present Administration, because the problems have existed for a number of years. Collectively, we need to do something to achieve more success. What are we achieving from our political and resource input?
In the light of the reassurances that I have repeatedly received in Parliament in response to questions about home visiting, and given the figures that Mary Scanlon cited, I am extremely concerned. Does Hugh Henry agree that there is a strong case for the Government to institute a review of the national health service's provision of home visiting, which seems to be failing? It might even want to ask Audit Scotland to become involved in that review.
We are duty bound to review any area of activity in which there is a sign of weakness. Home visiting is critical, because often it can pick up some of the weaknesses and dangers that Duncan McNeil highlighted. I hope that ministers will listen carefully to what Robin Harper has said.
Do we spend enough time listening to our children and young people and to the concerns that they articulate? Often, when I speak to teachers and health workers, I hear stories of young children pouring their hearts out about the circumstances that they face at home because of their parents' addiction to alcohol or drugs. Are we listening to them? Do we sometimes brush them off when their behaviour is a bit aberrant, without understanding what is causing that behaviour?
This comes back to Robin Harper's point: are we spending enough money to ensure that we achieve the desired outcome? The voluntary sector in Scotland—as the statutory services are—is under pressure and struggling. There are cuts and redundancies in many voluntary organisations across Scotland, but we depend on high-quality services to make a difference. As the minister and others have said, we need to improve information sharing and to ensure that our GIRFEC principles are at the heart of any proposed legislation.
My final point relates to our children in care, both those who are looked after in foster care and those who are in residential care. For years, we as a society have failed those children. It is remarkable how some survive and, indeed, thrive, but too many are left vulnerable to homelessness, addiction and prison once they leave care. We need to put that issue back at the heart of our commitment and discussion, in order truly to make a difference for every child in Scotland.
I rise in support of the motion in the name of the minister. I am heartened by the progress that has been shown in the getting it right pathfinder project in the Highlands. On the surface, good progress has been made. I do not wish to repeat too many of the points that members have made, but I stress the hard work of the professionals who have been involved in the project and of those who are still working outside it. I make no apology for putting those thanks on the record again.
From my point of view, as a member who represents a diverse and scattered Highland constituency, the report "How well do we protect Scotland's children?" and its findings raise slightly different issues that are more specific to rural areas. Many of the findings emphasise that roll-out is more challenging in more rural and isolated areas. That is no bombshell, but it should open our eyes to the specific needs of smaller and more scattered communities.
The report identified weaknesses across the board, to which Margaret Smith alluded in her speech. In addition to the practical issues, there are strategic challenges, which need to be addressed if roll-out across Scotland, including its many rural areas, is to be successful. Fundamentally, it comes down to whether systems and procedures that have been developed in a largely urban area can operate in rural communities and the remote corners that are peculiar to much of Scotland. Simple things such as the use of information technology can prove to be more burdensome in parts of constituencies such as mine, where we do not always have connectivity and, if we do, it is not always there all day long.
In rural areas, interagency communication, which we have discussed, can often be a challenge and it can be hampered completely by the fact that colleagues will be many miles from one another. They can be kept apart by inclement weather, and sometimes by roads being blocked altogether. The Government needs to ensure that the infrastructure and mechanisms for governance and planning that are currently in place are the right ones—they should ensure that GIRFEC is rolled out effectively and embedded across the whole of Scotland, including the Highlands, which means that it must address as a matter of urgency some of the findings of "How well do we protect Scotland's children?".
It is concerning, although perhaps not surprising, that the report concluded that
"Some children and families living in rural areas did not have the same access to services as those living in larger towns or cities."
I do not pretend to be an expert on what services work best, and how exactly they should be implemented, but I firmly believe that Scotland's children and young people should have access to appropriate services regardless of where they live. I have made that point in the chamber again and again. That is a challenge for the minister and his team, but I am confident that it is one that they will seek to address. Nothing that I have heard from the minister contradicts that.
That is not the only weakness that has been indicated. There were potential delays for children who were not already on the child protection register. In certain cases, when it was decided that a child could not remain at home, an assessment of the suitability of friends and relatives to provide care was not carried out before the child was placed with them. When a move had occurred, children were not always as well supported as they might have been, and the level of support that was provided to the carers varied. Because of the waiting lists for specialist support services, children have often not received the help that they need quickly enough. We must remember that we are operating in a period when budgets are more constrained and might potentially be contracted further, with more and more pressure being put on limited resources.
That takes me to some further points that relate to what Hugh Henry said and to what I have just said about limited resources. Members with more time served will recall the playlet that was put on in the old Parliament headquarters during the first session by young carers from east Sutherland. It was about children in school getting a heck of a ticking off by the teacher for not having done their homework. The fact was that, because they were young carers and because of the peculiar awfulness of their home circumstances—looking after drunken parents, siblings or whatever—they were simply unable to complete their studies. I see Margaret Smith and Hugh Henry nodding. That playlet was very moving at the time.
My plea is to remember that the children we are speaking about today all too often become carers at a slightly older age, but still as children. If there is not continuity of support, from the very good efforts that we have heard about from the minister and others today for children who, sadly, become carers, that is the ultimate betrayal. Children need the support to continue into the future.
The Young Karers East Sutherland—TYKES—and the young carers Caithness group are in the same situation with regard to funding. The funding of voluntary sector organisations, such as Crossroads East Sutherland, is very often uncertain. In fairness to the Scottish Government and the minister, I should say that I do not doubt the genuineness of their intent to ensure that worthwhile and thoroughly laudable organisations continue to be supported. That is not easy, but if the minister and the Government consider all such organisations in the round in Scotland, they might come up with cleverer ways of combining finance. The main point is that we must keep such organisations going.
Does Jamie Stone share my concern about the demise of health visiting, especially in his home town of Tain? Health visitors have provided an excellent service there for many decades, but their jobs are threatened and there is no recruitment, so they will not be able to help other people, including young carers.
The issue is perhaps not entirely connected to the subject of the debate, but Mary Scanlon makes a valid point. The issue will have been raised with her as much as it has been raised with me and, I am sure, other members in the Highlands. We have not quite got to the heart of why the problem is happening, but Mary Scanlon is right to put it on the record. Even if the minister does not address the issue when he sums up, the matter will at least have been brought to the Scottish Government's attention.
My party supports the Scottish Government's motion, which is well put together.
Presiding Officer, is there still some leeway in the time that you are allocating to speeches?
There is a certain amount.
Thank you. In that case, I will declare an interest. I recently became a father—[Applause.] The debate seems to have greater relevance for me than it might have had had it taken place a few weeks ago. I place on record my thanks to members—including you, Presiding Officer—for the good wishes that they have expressed, which my wife and I have sincerely appreciated.
I welcome the broad consensus on the getting it right agenda that has been demonstrated in the debate, even though there might be differences in some areas. It should be acknowledged that work on developing the principles behind GIRFEC began before the 2007 election. The Parliament has demonstrated that it is at its best when parties work together towards a common goal.
There is considerable positive feedback on how the getting it right agenda has worked in the pilot areas, in particular the Highlands. We hear much talk about the need for joined-up government, and it is clear that GIRFEC provides a positive example of what that means in practice.
One of the biggest causes of frustration that constituents describe to me is the feeling that complaints and concerns, which are often to do with health and social services, are passed from pillar to post. People are frustrated by the difficulty of making headway in situations that seem intractable. Under the getting it right principles, all the different services and agencies that are concerned with the wellbeing of an individual child are brought together and there is a clear focus on the child's needs and rights. Although a range of providers and agencies continue to be involved, services are presented to the child and their family or carers as a single service, through which it is hoped that the child will be listened to and helped to understand the decisions that affect them. Families in the pilot have reported that they feel that one team supports them and their children.
The evaluation of the pilot in Highland identified other achievements. The proportion of children who are seen by supervising officers within 15 days is now 100 per cent. The length of time that looked-after children wait for permanent and adoptive placements has fallen during the past four years. There has been a significant decrease in exclusions from secondary schools. Workers are reporting that there is better information, greater trust, more advice and greater capacity for early intervention. Those achievements demonstrate the potential of the GIRFEC approach.
A pathfinder initiative on domestic abuse was undertaken in Falkirk, in Central Scotland, which is the region that I represent. The aim was to inform our understanding at a national level. The Falkirk project was established to address the effect of domestic abuse on children, by intervening at an early stage to provide children who experience domestic abuse with the help and support that they need.
In the report of its June 2009 joint inspection of services to protect children and young people in the Falkirk Council area, HMIE cites the pathfinder as an example of good practice and highlights the way that the pathfinder group,
"comprising staff from police, health, social work, education, the Children's Reporter, Women's Aid and"
the Camelon and Larbert support to parents group,
"met on a weekly basis."
The report found that
"Support was provided quickly and impact was monitored.
By adopting Getting it Right for Every Child ... principles, children affected by domestic abuse and their parents, in the Denny area of Falkirk, were provided with help and support much more quickly when they needed it most."
That is an excellent example of the GIRFEC principles literally getting it right, so I congratulate those involved on their success and look forward to other parts of the country learning from it as the agenda moves forward.
There is some discussion about the best way to ensure that the agenda is implemented effectively at a national level. There have been calls for fresh legislation, but the Scottish Government's approach so far has been proven correct. The point of the GIRFEC principles is that action be taken on the ground. Guidance, regulations and legislation can achieve only so much; individuals have to put them into practice, and the strategy is about doing that as clearly and consistently as possible.
As the motion makes clear, getting it right for every child means ensuring that all aspects of public policy that affect young people work to the same principles. It means ensuring that the goals of the early years framework, the poverty reduction strategy and the approach to tackling health inequalities are also joined up and put child wellbeing front and centre.
Getting it right for every child means not simply protecting children from harm but actively investing in their future potential. That is why I welcome the Government's continued commitment to rolling out free school meals. All parents want their children to have the best possible start in life and the best possible education. Ensuring that our younger pupils are provided with sufficient sustenance for a day's learning is important. That is why I was disappointed by the remarks of the man who would be king of Labour in Scotland—Steven Purcell—who has called into question the need for free school meals. I trust that that stance is not shared by his colleagues in the Parliament. The need to ensure that our children are sustained was illustrated starkly by the depressing cover story in the recent edition of Third Force News, which reported that 10 per cent of children who are admitted to Yorkhill hospital are malnourished. That such a thing occurs in the 21st century is a salutary reminder of the work that is to be done.
Parents also want their children to be educated locally—in their communities and among their friends—by teachers who have the knowledge and experience that come from working in that community. That is why I have been concerned by proposals to close schools and nurseries in North Lanarkshire—proposals that I will work against.
As I said in my introduction, we often hear about the need for joined-up government. Sometimes the expression can sound like the kind of jargon that it is supposed to represent a move away from but, when we consider the success of the pathfinder projects, we see that joining up the services that are delivered by local and national Government, as well as the third sector, is eminently achievable.
I agree that the frightening statistics that Duncan McNeil laid out—as Hugh Henry rightly stated, they are shocking—demonstrate why we must not be complacent about getting it right for every child. When we get it right for every child, the benefits are felt throughout society. Part of the human impulse is to seek better for our children; getting it right for every child can be a key component of achieving that. If children can avoid health problems and a propensity to crime or antisocial behaviour, and if they can lift their heads and aim for the highest educational attainment and excellence throughout their lives, that will reduce costs elsewhere in the community and raise standards across the board.
I hope that, from getting it right for every child, we will soon reach the day when we—politicians, the Government and society as a whole—get it right for every person in Scotland and make our country the best that it possibly can be for future generations to inherit.
Liberal Democrats have always supported the getting it right for every child policy. That is not surprising, because it touches on elements of Liberal philosophy that are dear to us. One element of that is the idea of concentrating the solution to a social problem on the individual and building that solution upwards rather than creating a solution for the cohort, because doing that would not get the right answer.
I congratulate Parliament's most recent father, Jamie Hepburn. I do not wish to discourage him, but I must make an observation. For those of us who had the benefit of a good upbringing and who enjoyed support from our parents and others, and who brought up our own children with that background, the phrase "cutting the umbilical cord" is a bit of a myth. However, for those who have not had the benefit of such a background, cutting the umbilical cord is not just an act that takes place at birth: it is the removal of the very necessary support that is so vital to children. That is why we are having this debate.
I discern no disagreement on the GIRFEC principles in the chamber at all; our concerns are about how we take GIRFEC forward and what lessons must be learned, even from the pilots and some of the reports that have been mentioned. The two reports that have been specifically referred to—although Duncan McNeil referred to a third—are instructive. The University of Edinburgh report refers to focusing on outcomes. I advise the minister that some organisations have given reports on outcomes to members. Organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust are concerned that, while getting the structures right was correct, the emphasis is perhaps too focused on process—they believe that we must consider outcomes. It is therefore welcome that the University of Edinburgh report is very much focused on outcomes in the way that Margaret Smith and Liz Smith mentioned in their opening remarks. There is much to be learned from that approach—which, of course, is wholly consonant with what the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in his speech this morning.
The HMIE report is equally vital. It makes absolutely clear to every one of us that there is no room for complacency. Although it does not specifically address all GIRFEC issues, it highlights elements that need to be addressed. I make clear to the minister the Liberal Democrats' whole-hearted and total commitment to progressing and applying GIRFEC. However, without intending to be negative, we say to him that a number of issues must be addressed and that he and the Government must satisfy Parliament on them.
We all know, of course, that GIRFEC came out of the review of the children's panel system, as a number of speakers have said. If that system is to be reformed, the Liberal Democrats want the reforms to be compliant with the European convention on human rights. However, if the drafters of the new legislation focus on the GIRFEC principles, we have great difficulty in believing that they will end up offending ECHR principles. For the life of me, I cannot see how that would be possible. I am glad that the minister has taken away the earlier, slightly misguided proposed reforms of the children's hearings system. I hope that a version will return to us soon that applies the GIRFEC principles.
Of course, the first, elementary principle of GIRFEC is the involvement of the child. Again, I say to the minister that we support that, and we know that he does. However, we should be aware that some people are rather concerned that the greater involvement of children in decisions about themselves is not entirely evident. The reports of the national residential child care initiative, which were published on Wednesday, identified that more than one third of looked after children are not aware of their care plan or what it contains. The principle of why they need that is not disputed. Evidence has been brought before us that must be addressed.
Similarly, we totally support the development of early intervention. That element has probably occupied most time in this debate. I was very interested in the remarks of my colleague Margaret Smith and of Elizabeth Smith and Ian McKee on focusing on and understanding the fact that early intervention really means early intervention—indeed, it might mean intervention in the families of individuals who are about to give birth.
The recent Scottish Children's Reporter Administration report that Duncan McNeil referred to focused on another aspect that we must be careful about. However, I am bound to say to him that we Liberal Democrats view that report as a clarion call to apply the GIRFEC principles more quickly. Duncan McNeil did not suggest that the SCRA report was a criticism of GIRFEC, but he raised a number of serious issues that need to be dealt with. Having read the SCRA report, the Minister for Children and Early Years must respond by ensuring that the GIRFEC pilots are rolled out.
Of course, early intervention must deal not only with children who live with alcohol or substance abuse but with the earlier stage, where potential parents live in such circumstances. Having that focus at the earliest possible stage is a matter of real concern.
Finally, we support Mary Scanlon's point about child and adolescent mental health services—
I am afraid that I must hurry you.
The issue is highlighted in the Health and Sport Committee's report on that matter, which I hope the minister will respond to constructively. I hope that the Government will pick up the issues that are pertinent to the implementation of GIRFEC.
The Liberal Democrats will support the motion. We hope that we will receive reports from the minister on continued and rapid progress in implementing GIRFEC.
When I saw that a debate on GIRFEC was scheduled for this afternoon, I wondered why we were having another debate on the subject just short of three months since our previous debate. Certainly, this afternoon's debate stands in marked contrast to this morning's rather more lively kick-around on education policy. Nonetheless, the debate has been valuable and, if anything, might prove to be more important in the long run than our debate earlier today.
We have heard some excellent speeches from different sides in the debate. In particular, I was struck—as I always am—by Duncan McNeil's speech, which brought to our attention some startling and sobering statistics about the high mortality rate among young children who are under referral. His comments should be a wake-up call to us all, but I particularly want to hear from the minister, when he winds up the debate, what action he intends to take to address the issues that have now been brought to the Government's attention.
The Highland pathfinder report was mentioned by several members—Mary Scanlon went into it in some detail—including the minister. In his opening speech, he set out some of the pathfinder project's successes, especially the important outcome of a reduction in the number of children on the child protection register. From my reading of the report, a key success of the Highland pathfinder project has been the reduction in bureaucracy, which has allowed professionals to spend less time writing reports and attending internal meetings and has freed up more time for direct work with children. Another outcome is better information sharing, with a move away from using paper records, which are terribly time consuming and hard to access, to keeping electronic records. That has also reduced the burden on staff. Therefore, I very much welcome the minister's commitment to implement the GIRFEC programme throughout Scotland on the back of the successful pilot in the Highlands.
The important role of midwives and health visitors was mentioned by the minister and by several members, including Dr Ian McKee, who highlighted the important role that they play in dealing with low-birth-weight babies. On Monday, I met members of NHS Tayside's community midwifery service at Perth royal infirmary. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that my family has recently—albeit not as recently as Mr Hepburn's family—utilised the midwives' excellent services. From my encounter with them, I discovered an extremely interesting point about midwives' level of contact with families—both mothers-to-be and new mothers—in the home. Given that GPs now perform very few home visits and none at all out of hours—the situation has moved on considerably from perhaps a generation ago, when many GPs were familiar, through home visits, with the environment in which their patients lived—the few health professionals who still visit people in their homes include midwives and health visitors. That contact with families in the home enables those health professionals to identify, at an early stage, likely problem areas and potentially vulnerable groups.
We have heard a great deal about the importance of early intervention. Mary Scanlon mentioned the consequences of the neglect of children under two, which is a crucial factor in poor health outcomes later in life. Given that we understand the importance of early intervention, we must be able to identify the problem areas, which is why midwives and health visitors play such an important role. As my Conservative colleagues have said on a number of occasions, we support additional investment in health visitors and think that we should protect the investment in midwives, on whom more and more responsibility is being placed. They are doing a vital job, but they need to be properly resourced.
There has been some discussion of children's hearings, about which Karen Whitefield and Elizabeth Smith raised concerns. I agree with Ross Finnie, who welcomed the withdrawal of the Government's initial proposals on the children's hearings system. We look forward to engaging with the Government when it brings new plans to update and reform that system.
I was struck by the excellent points in the briefing from Children 1st, which I read in advance of the debate, two of which I want to highlight. First, it states:
"The Scottish child protection system does not need more strategies or tick boxes around child protection. Instead it needs the resource, training and confidence to allow professionals to make good, supported decisions that are in the best interests of the child."
In other words, we must focus on resources and training. Secondly, there needs to be
"Stable and adequate funding for the voluntary sector, particularly for services which provide therapeutic support after abuse".
We all know—because we have debated the issue many times—that serious times are coming for the public finances and that serious cuts will have to be made. The temptation, particularly at local government level, is to let the voluntary sector bear the brunt of those cuts in the first instance. That is what often happens, because councils want to preserve core services and direct employment. Children 1st asks us to ensure that we do not put the voluntary sector in the firing line and that we safeguard the vital services that it provides.
We will support the Government's motion and the Labour amendment, which makes the important point that the HMIE report showed that
"almost half of the 30 councils inspected were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs".
That was referred to by Karen Whitefield and elaborated on by Hugh Henry. We must put that right. I hope that we can now begin the process of ensuring that our councils are up to the job of protecting our most vulnerable children.
It has been an interesting debate, in which there have been many significant speeches by members of all parties.
It seems to me that the Labour amendment acts as a valuable counterpoint to the Government's motion, which highlights the achievement of consensus around GIRFEC and some of the good things that have emerged from the Highland pathfinder report. It is important to consider those positive points in the context of the concerns that were expressed in the HMIE report, which said that the ability of planning to meet the needs of vulnerable children was weak or unsatisfactory in 10 council areas, and which gave 13 local authorities similar ratings on their assessment of the risks and needs of vulnerable children.
Hugh Henry was right to point out that only 12 local authorities received excellent ratings, which, given how HMIE prepares its reports and uses its rating system, gives significant cause for concern. Almost a quarter of inspections found serious weaknesses in aspects of child protection that increased the risk of harm to children.
Duncan McNeil was right to point out that that follows a report by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration that found that one in 20 of all children under two across Scotland was referred to it last year and that a growing number need to be placed on supervision requirements for their protection. He also gave us the very striking figure that 144 children who were known to the children's reporter had died. Those statistics are striking. We have in GIRFEC a framework to progress child protection, but those statistics serve as a valuable reminder that we have a huge amount to do. A lot needs to take effect if we are to improve child protection in Scotland.
The situation is not getting better, although that is not necessarily the fault of the authorities. The circumstances that give rise to children needing protection—they may have alcohol-abusing or drug-abusing parents or parents who have serious behavioural problems, or different factors could have accumulated that place them at risk—seem to be increasing in society. In particular, such problems seem to be increasing in areas with the highest levels of multiple deprivation.
That is why it is a bit of a shame that the pathfinder report that has been published is on what is happening in the Highlands. The approach would have been more balanced if we had reports on some of the other pathfinder areas—on West Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Edinburgh city and Dumfries and Galloway. That would have given us different perspectives from areas around Scotland. West Dunbartonshire, which is probably the area in that group with the greatest deprivation problems, has excellent services, particularly for care leavers and people who are going through the care system. That happens by dint of significant emphasis, the development of services and resources being made available. Such an approach needs to be emulated and replicated throughout Scotland if we are to achieve the same outcomes that West Dunbartonshire and other areas have achieved.
The HMIE report is crucial, because it gives us a systematic way of analysing the picture across Scotland. I was a wee bit concerned when I looked at the remit of the new chief inspector of HMIE and found that their responsibilities relating to the area of inspection that we are discussing did not appear to be explicit. I am not sure whether that was an oversight or a misunderstanding, but I serve notice to the minister that if the Government's intention is to withdraw HMIE from that area of inspection or work, the Labour Party will not support that. I hope that the minister will respond clearly to that point. It is vital that HMIE maintains its role in and responsibility for inspection in the area and that we can count on its good offices to ensure that child protection vigilance is maintained at a high level.
There are many interesting issues around child protection. Members have talked about health visitors, low birth weights and services that need to be brought together, which is a key aspect of GIRFEC. We know that many children who are at risk are not identified early enough. Early identification and early registration of children who are at risk are needed. The process must be followed through and maintained by all the agencies. Somebody must take responsibility. Whenever something goes wrong, we start to consider who should have accepted responsibility, and it is often the poor social worker who is at risk in such circumstances: they are accused of negligence or unprofessional practice. Members and the responsible authorities know that such problems exist. We must support the people who are asked to accept responsibility by giving them the appropriate resources and a clear indication of what is expected of them, and by ensuring that an identification system is properly in place. We cannot blame people after the fact for things that go wrong if we do not will the means to ensure that things do not go wrong. There may well be particular cases that involve individual malpractice by social workers, but we cannot blame individual social workers if poor results are a product of systematic neglect or of the system not working properly.
We need assurances from the Government that the good intentions that are expressed in GIRFEC and the framework that is being established will be replicated in the systems that exist to ensure child protection; that the system of inspection by HMIE will be maintained; and that the Government's aspiration in that system—which it will make achievable—is not for satisfactory grades, but for excellent grades throughout the country.
It has been an interesting debate. Karen Whitefield, Liz Smith, Margaret Smith, Hugh Henry and, latterly, Des McNulty have highlighted the weaknesses that the HMIE summary report identified in our child protection system across Scotland. There are generic weaknesses, especially around risk assessment and information sharing. However, I hope that I reassured members, in my opening speech, that those issues are being addressed. New child protection guidance will be forthcoming in the new year, which I hope will improve performance dramatically.
I reassure Mr McNulty that the second round of HMIE inspections is currently under way. I emphasise that the inspection process in Scotland is extremely robust. The inspections are proving to be a catalyst for improvement. The first two reports that we have received back in the second cycle of inspections—for Orkney and Aberdeenshire—have noted a significant shift, of the type that Mr McNulty and Mr Henry were looking for, from satisfactory to good. That is encouraging, and the inspection process will continue.
Margaret Smith asked for further information on children who are affected by parental substance misuse. A written update on those issues, along with others, is being prepared and I intend to circulate it to MSPs once we have had a meeting with child protection committee chairs on 16 December. Margaret Smith can look forward to receiving that information before Christmas.
David Whitton, who is unfortunately no longer in the chamber, failed to mention that the situation that he described regarding access to nursery education derived from regulations that were introduced by the previous Administration. I intend to fix that problem before the end of the current parliamentary session.
Today's debate has reflected the fact that children's services are a complex area. Every member would support action to improve the lives of Scotland's children, to ensure that they are healthy and happy, that they stay safe and that they are not hindered in achieving their potential in life. [Interruption.]
Order. I ask members who are entering the chamber to respect the fact that a debate is going on.
It is more difficult to work out what that means in practice. Each child is an individual—I heard what Mr Finnie said on that front—and each child will have a different experience of growing up and coming into contact with different services. So, how can teachers, social workers, police officers, health workers and youth workers ensure that each boy and girl gets a personalised, consistent experience that is focused on the delivery of what is best for them?
Again, the answer seems simple. Our practitioners need to work together. They need a shared set of values and principles. They need to share information about the children with whom they work, and they need to intervene as soon as possible when they see something starting to go wrong. That was mentioned in some of the speeches this afternoon. Angela Constance pointed out that we should not wait for crises to happen before we intervene, and Duncan McNeil also made that point vigorously in his remarks.
Mary Scanlon highlighted the need for early identification of needs and emphasised the important role of health visitors. I agree, although I do not recognise her description of the situation in Highland, with health visitors being phased out. The latest information that I saw was that health visitor numbers were increasing in the latest statistics.
On Ian McKee's points about midwifery services, under the GIRFEC pathfinder projects, midwives act as a named person. They work with the mother to identify any problems in pregnancy that are likely to impact at birth or in early life. The midwife works to put a plan in place even before birth. The health visitor then takes up that plan, and we hope that we can get GPs involved as well. Murdo Fraser made the valid point that GPs are perhaps not as involved as they ought to be in our child protection systems.
The point about health visitors is included in the Health and Sport Committee's report on its inquiry into child and adolescent mental health services, during which we were given evidence that no health visitors at all were being recruited in Highland.
I would certainly want to discuss that issue further with Mary Scanlon. The Government has set up a modernising community nursing board and we are looking to develop our community nursing, which would include health visitors, in the coming months.
The methodology of GIRFEC will help us to bring about early identification. The other week, in Edinburgh, I heard examples of practitioners from public services—
Sorry, minister. Could we have a bit less noise in the chamber, please? There is a debate going on.
I heard examples of work that involves practitioners from public services and the voluntary sector. I acknowledge Liz Smith's points about the important role of the voluntary sector in dealing with children and families. Through the use of the GIRFEC model, the language and planning processes, the practitioners have begun to make a real difference for the children concerned. One child who had been facing a range of issues including antisocial behaviour and poor school attendance over several months had just completed a full week of attendance and was engaging with services. That was a real step forward for that child.
The recent report by the children's reporter identifies 144 deaths in the past six years. Does the minister agree that that is a shocking figure that deserves our concern and should be investigated so that we can put the situation right?
I certainly agree with Duncan McNeil that it is a very striking figure. My understanding is that we do not have information on the causes of death or how the figure relates to the general population, but I agree that it is worth investigating and finding out more about the issue.
Another issue that was raised in the debate is information sharing. That requires some sensitivity. We must balance our duty to protect the wellbeing and welfare of the child with their right to privacy. There will always be differing views on where the line should be drawn. Where child protection is concerned, information must be shared. We are working with practitioners to develop practices that make sense and are workable where the concerns are less intense. Hopefully, our e-care system will also enhance our services in that regard.
You must close please, minister.
Okay.
We have come a long way, but the journey is far from over. We will continue to work across a range of fronts with the aim of getting consensus next year on what will best support the GIRFEC approach.
I support the motion in my name. As I indicated earlier, I also agree with the amendment from the Labour Party.
Since I took the chair about an hour ago, a number of speeches have been interrupted by BlackBerry or mobile phone signals. Members should know by now that, according to the code of conduct, those items of equipment should be turned off in the chamber. I therefore find the fact that some members—they know who they are—have been using them quite blatantly this afternoon somewhat discourteous.
I also refer to the point of order that Murdo Fraser raised. In fact, I cannot refer to it, because, as he probably knows, it is not a point of order in that I am not here to adjudicate on the accuracy of what is said during exchanges. However, the points that he raised are now in the Official Report and therefore on the record.