Children's Services
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2480, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on getting it right for every child. [Interruption.] I ask members who are leaving the chamber to be quiet, please.
We now move from a debate on standards in the Parliament to one on the standards that we expect to be met when support is provided to meet the needs of vulnerable young children.
I am delighted to open the debate on the getting it right for every child programme. I hope that there will be a measure of consensus and that we all share the same fundamental aim, but it is right that we discuss, scrutinise and challenge how we achieve that aim.
Of course, getting it right for every child builds on previous work. I acknowledge the previous Administration's development of the programme, which we are pleased to take forward. Naturally, there are changes of emphasis to reflect the new Scottish Government's strategic approach. We are focusing strongly on practical development, implementation and testing. In line with the concordat, we emphasise working collaboratively with local government and other organisations. We want to encourage local determination of how outcomes are achieved. I hope that we can all agree on the direction of travel.
I regret the amendment in the name of Rhona Brankin, which I do not intend to accept. Although it has the implied merit of agreeing with the motion, it seeks to undermine it. Labour might not like it, but at the start of this school year thousands of children are in smaller classes than they would have been under the previous Administration. There is no evidence nationally of reductions in the number of teachers of children who require additional support for learning. If there is such evidence at local level, any constituency MSP is quite entitled to raise that with ministers in the normal way.
There is no evidence nationally of cuts in the number of health visitors, either. A pilot—which I understand was initiated by the previous Administration—is being conducted as part of the review of nursing in the community. Government ministers are open-minded about the results of that review and about any decision that they will take in the future. In addition, this Government is the first under devolution to take action to support kinship carers.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I want to move on to the substance of the debate.
Scotland faces big challenges.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not at this stage.
More than 14,000 children are looked after by local authorities. We know that, all too often, the support that is offered to looked-after children is not reflected in improved outcomes. We need to translate our aspirations into practical reality. That will require the senior management of all relevant public bodies to be committed to the common approach. Awareness and training of all staff who are involved with children and of adults who work with parents and carers—for example, in situations in which parents' misuse of drugs or alcohol impacts on children—will also be necessary. A common language will have to be used across services to underpin a shared assessment of children's needs and risks, and to ensure a common understanding when more than one agency is involved. In addition, of course, the child must always be at the centre, and children and their families must be involved in the process as fully as possible. That is the essence of our approach.
To achieve that shared approach, the Scottish Government is working in partnership with local authorities and other service providers at local level. A range of services are being brought together to work through how to achieve positive change. The early years and early intervention framework that we are working on collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners will be a key aspect of our approach.
Early intervention means responding to need when signs emerge rather than waiting until that need reaches a threshold at which action is thought to be justified. The pathfinders emphasise how we can work more efficiently and get better-quality information that can be shared securely so that the best decision can be taken in the interests of the child. I am pleased that we have been joined in the visitors gallery by several representatives from the pathfinder projects and from other bodies that are testing out the new approach. The voluntary sector will be a key player in the policy.
It is not just in the pathfinder projects and among learning partners that the getting it right approach is being adopted on the ground. Over the summer, I met 11 local authorities, often with their community planning partners, and in every case we spent time discussing the getting it right for every child framework. Developments are taking place across the country. They include work on integrated assessment from Dumfries to Shetland; a system in Dundee for supporting children who have particularly complex needs; and the work by Children 1st to link the family group conference service that it provides for half of Scotland's local authorities with getting it right principles.
What does all that mean in practice? I will give a few more detailed examples from the pathfinders. First, work has been carried out in the Highland area on referrals from the police to the reporter. Careful screening of referrals has led to a fall of around 70 per cent in the number of cases that go to the reporter. That does not mean that children are not being supported; it just means that their support needs are being met much more quickly as a result of direct referral to the relevant agency.
A second example is from a domestic abuse pathfinder site. A woman was threatened by her former partner, who was immediately arrested. The next day, the police passed the information to the pathfinder's multi-agency group, which collected more information on the family. It identified that the school was concerned about one of the children, who had previously been performing well but who had been absent for some time. The school was unaware of the family situation. The multi-agency group was able to make appropriate contacts in the school aware of the position, discreetly and securely, and with the consent of the mother and the child. The process took a week. The child has now returned to school and has been provided with additional support from school staff and the local Women's Aid children's worker to ensure that the transition back to school works.
Rapid and responsive support to vulnerable children in need is what our policy can and will deliver in practice. As that last example suggests, for practitioners the policy is about ensuring that a timely and integrated approach to meeting the needs of the whole child is adopted across all relevant agencies, and that there is appropriate involvement of children and families in decisions that affect them.
The pathfinders are showing the way and testing what is needed. That process has involved business process mapping to streamline procedures; agreement on a common way of recording concerns and on protocols for exchanging information; the provision of clear leadership commitment and the governance structures that are necessary to support the change at the top level of government; the building of awareness and training to promote the new approach; and management of the transition.
We are on a long journey together. We all need to understand how our actions contribute to the outcomes for individual children and how, collectively, we can make a difference for children. To help that process to work, the Scottish Government is building a learning community to help practitioners to exchange lessons and experiences.
Today we have published on the web a guide that sets out the practice model that is being tested in the pathfinders. The guide describes the emerging practice model that supports getting it right for every child, which will help practitioners to examine children's needs in the round and to identify how outcomes can be improved by the whole community working together to provide additional support. It is wholly child centred—it is not the preserve of any particular service. It can operate in a single-agency setting to plan for children's needs. It will support interagency or multi-agency activity to ensure a common approach to needs and risk assessment. It will help to structure the way in which information about a child's needs is captured, recorded and shared, which will feed into the development work that is being done under the eCare framework for secure information sharing across Scotland.
I know that members such as Richard Simpson have concerns about data sharing. In that regard, the commitment on the part of all the partners involved in funding and supporting data sharing is absolutely critical. Harriet Dempster, the director of social work in Highland Council said:
"Each agency is modernising its own system and developing better means to share information when this is necessary to protect vulnerable children. While new technology will always present challenges, effective communication is down to people working well, and we are all very committed to that here in the Highland partnership. The initial funding from Government to establish the partnership has been very helpful, but it is important that it becomes our normal business. Accordingly, all agencies have recently agreed to continue to support the partnership."
That is evidence of the commitment that I have seen. As I said, I have spoken to chief executives across Scotland about their commitment to this agenda. The issue is about ensuring that the information about a child's needs is captured, recorded and shared in a better way.
The web publication of the guide builds on the development work and helps shift the getting it right for every child programme into the implementation phase. We encourage all agencies that work with children to consider how the guide and model might be incorporated into interagency work with children, to ensure a common approach to needs and risk assessment. The model is generic, but does not exclude more specialist assessments where necessary, for particular needs and risks. It expects information obtained from those specialist assessments to be viewed alongside other analysis, so that all relevant issues are taken into account and action is tailored to address the individual child's needs.
Separate, but closely linked guidance on corporate parenting, which has been developed with key partners, has also been placed on the website today. The publication is called "These Are Our Bairns: A guide for community planning partnerships on being a good corporate parent", and it will be fully launched next Tuesday. It focuses on getting it right for a particular group of children for whom Scotland has seldom got it right in the past. It demonstrates how everyone can work together to provide children with the help that they need when they need it, in a way that is centred around children's needs, not the needs of services, in order to make a real difference to children's lives and improve their future chances in life.
The Government has a national responsibility for those children who are in need. We know that, in the past, Scotland has not served those children as well as it could have. Collectively, we can shape up and ensure that this country is in a fit position to support children's needs in the future. There is a shared commitment across the chamber and across the country to doing that.
That is the key to the getting it right for every child approach. It is concerned with the needs of every child, including looked-after children and any and every child who needs that extra support. Getting it right for every child is about getting on and doing the right thing for all Scotland's children and helping them all to fulfil their potential.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the continuing support for the Getting It Right For Every Child programme, initiated by the previous administration; acknowledges the significant progress in pathfinder activity, both in Highland and for children and young people experiencing domestic abuse, exploring how best agencies can work together to record and share information as necessary to inform effective decision making around children's needs and to redesign services to reduce overlap and bureaucracy; welcomes progress in developing the eCare Framework to support positive practice change across all services and the plans to develop a safe and secure environment for exchanging information where necessary and for a particular purpose, respecting both data protection legislation and the privacy of individuals, and supports continuing activity to develop understanding and awareness of implementation of Getting It Right For Every Child and how services can best work to improve outcomes for children and delivery of the national outcomes.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the getting it right for every child programme. As someone who, before becoming a politician, worked for many years with vulnerable children and their families, I am absolutely passionate about the need for us to get it right for every child in Scotland.
I also welcome those people in the gallery who have been involved in the pathfinder programmes, and thank them for their hard work and commitment.
I am proud to have been part of the previous Government, which initiated this work. Many of us who have been involved in joint agency approaches over the years have experience of bringing together various agencies at a range of integrated planning meetings. We did so in a well-meaning way, but, in some cases, we realised to our horror that we had created an environment that could be incredibly intimidating for children and families and contained unintentional barriers.
The child and the family must be at the heart of the programme. Getting it right for every child is a big challenge for the agencies involved. It requires them to examine their practices openly and to break down professional boundaries that have existed for years. It also requires practitioners and organisations to ensure that children, young people and families know that they are not just passive recipients of decisions that are taken by the so-called experts. I include myself in the system that has, in the past, not always worked for the benefit of children and families.
The focus on improving outcomes for children, young people and their families, based on a shared understanding of wellbeing, is critical.
I would like to focus on some of the other core components of the programme, beginning with ways of maximising the skilled workforce.
From my experience, including my involvement in delivering the then Scottish Office-funded inclusion modules, I know that we have been attempting to break down barriers to joint working between young people, parents, health, education, social work, the police and the voluntary sector for many years. Therefore, I ask the minister whether she believes that pre-service education for the various practitioners, including the police force, reflects the getting it right for every child approach. I have some issues with that, and would be interested to hear whether she thinks that meaningful work is now going on in that area.
My other concern in this area is how we develop common approaches at the pre-service level if the delivery of getting it right for every child varies across local authority boundaries. We know that one of the challenges around the additional support for learning legislation, and its precursor in the recording system, is the wide variation in implementation across different local authorities.
I believe that, in a country as small as Scotland, there is a real danger that the discrepancies between local authorities in how children, young people and families are supported can be barriers to getting it right.
With 32 councils of widely varying sizes, it is almost inevitable that decisions will be driven by the resources that are available. I know that smaller councils face huge challenges in supporting children with complex additional support needs, with parents feeling that they have no option but to take their case to the additional support needs tribunal.
I know that the Government has been considering the issue of additional support needs tribunals, and yesterday signalled its intention to legislate, but I think that we are still some way off finding a solution to the resource challenges.
The member makes an important point. There is a big issue about how local authorities support children, particularly those with residential needs. When I have been speaking to the local authorities across the country, I have said that that is one of the areas in which we can work co-operatively to ensure that the children who need support in their own council area can get it. We need to work collectively to ensure that we have a proper system that meets the needs of the child but which is not exponentially expensive for local authorities.
I look forward to hearing what the minister's solutions are. My party is examining the issue closely.
The concept of the lead professional is absolutely essential for the implementation of the getting it right for every child approach. I welcome the approach that has been taken by the Highland pathfinder, which involves ensuring that there is a named person for every child, from the community midwife and health visitor, through the primary head or depute, to the pupil support teacher in the child's secondary school.
That brings me to our amendment. When we were in government, we set the getting it right for every child programme in train. I could not argue with the sentiments that are expressed in the motion, although I am disappointed that the Government has chosen not to legislate at this stage. I have looked at all of the policy and practice documents, and I have seen the good work that is being developed by the pathfinders. However, when I look at what is happening on the ground in education and children and family services in many areas across Scotland, I see that the number of key professionals in the programme, such as pupil support teachers, is being reduced in many local authorities, including Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council.
We believe that health visitors play a vital role for children and families in the early years and are concerned that there are threats to their numbers. That worry is shared by many of the agencies that work with vulnerable children.
We know that good parenting gives every child the best start in life. However, in SNP-led Edinburgh, there have been cuts to the sure start programme and the council has recently decided to cut some of social work's most experienced managers.
Ruth Stark, of the British Association of Social Workers, said:
"Lord Laming, in his report on the fate of Victoria Climbie, highlighted the importance of the support and guidance needed by frontline child protection staff from senior managers and practitioners … Their skill and expertise is vital in keeping our children safe. Given the similar findings of the Caleb Ness Inquiry in Edinburgh, it is extremely short-sighted of the Councillors in the City of Edinburgh to be discarding this high level skill and expertise in child protection work and leaving their frontline staff in a very exposed situation."
We do not think that that is acceptable.
We also know that, despite the Government's promises to reduce class sizes, they are going up in many council areas, including SNP-led Renfrewshire. The Government has refused to fund nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds, despite successful pilots. I am delighted that Mary Mulligan will propose a member's bill to do just that. I know that it will be warmly welcomed.
We are all aware of the terrifying statistics that show that more than 60,000 children are living in drug or alcohol-abusing families. We also know that many grandparents step in as carers to support their families. They deserve our support. Last year, the First Minister promised financial support for kinship carers. Where is it? Many grandparents across Scotland are still waiting for that kinship care support.
What has happened to the £34 million that was Scotland's share of the money from Gordon Brown, for which the families of disabled children campaigned so hard? Ministers have repeatedly said that the £34 million has been included for the families of disabled children in the local government settlement. The minister should try telling that to the many families who have not seen a single extra penny of that money.
I am proud of the work on getting it right for every child that we started in government, and I welcome the fact that it is continuing under this Government. However, actions speak louder than words. That is why we have proposed an amendment to the Government motion. Like many parents and professionals, we think that the Government is in danger of getting it right for every child on paper but not delivering change on the ground. With cutbacks and instability in jobs and service delivery, the Government has failed to prioritise spending on education, children and families. The minister talks a good line but she is in danger of failing to get it right for every child in Scotland.
I move amendment S3M-2480.1, to insert at end:
"and therefore voices its concern at the impact on vulnerable children of rising class sizes, cuts in the number of health visitors and cuts in the number of teachers of children with additional support needs, and calls on the Scottish Government to honour its pledge to pay kinship carers allowance to grandparents."
Let me make it clear at the outset that the Conservatives fully support the need to improve services for vulnerable children in Scotland and the need for a united approach throughout the chamber.
Although the focus of this debate must necessarily be the scrutiny of the accompanying documents that set out the Government's proposals to improve services—two documents, one of them substantial, which incidentally did not appear on our desks until 4.30 yesterday afternoon, half an hour after the time for lodging amendments—some other issues need to be identified to have an overall perspective of improving the opportunities for our children. I will address those later.
In my speech yesterday, I was critical of the Government's education policy in other areas, but I want to make it clear that getting it right for every child is crucial because of the following key principles, three of which are successfully embedded in the pathfinder schemes: the local development of policies, dependent on the needs of the particular local community; improved communication between the different agencies involved in caring for vulnerable children; much greater consistency in the team that looks after each child; a reduction in the bureaucracy that accompanies the whole process; and an end to the wide regional variations in the quality of care that is offered.
The most frequent complaint that we hear—I am sure that this is true for many MSPs—is that a child is passed over to too many different individuals in the process of their care. That factor can create confusion and sometimes raise questions of trust for the child and for the parents or guardians. That is why it is so crucial that a lead professional is identified when several different individuals or groups are involved. It is good to see that that principle is at the heart of the Government's proposals.
We warmly welcome the Government's consultation process to look at reform in the children's hearings system—a system that has not been short of its critics in recent times, despite the fact that it has traditionally brought many benefits to our Scottish justice system. It is undoubtedly in need of reform, principally to ensure that its workings are much more efficient, but I hope that the Government will also accept that the reform process, as well as the developments set out by Fiona Hyslop this morning, can be strengthened if we adopt other measures too.
Before the recess, Annabel Goldie made clear our commitment to having the courage of our convictions to examine other issues on the parenting front—suggestions that are not always very popular. She made it clear that we need to show both compassion and determination when confronting the fact that a large number of parents in society today genuinely find it difficult to pass on parenting skills to their children because they themselves were the children of parents who did not possess those skills.
In 2003, the number of children referred to the children's reporter on the ground of lack of parental care was more than 16,000, and by 2006 that figure had increased to 19,500. When we consider, as Rhona Brankin mentioned, that many of those children suffer neglect because of drug or alcohol abuse, we cannot shy away from confronting the problem head on. A national debate is needed on the subject.
I want to stress our commitment in the Conservative party to policies at United Kingdom level that will encourage families to stay together and allow parents real choices when it comes to deciding what is best for their children. Family breakdown now costs the UK £20 billion a year, and if we do not have that underlying support through the UK tax and benefit system, the policies over which this Parliament has control will probably be much less effective. We believe that the foundation of the family unit is based on the institution of marriage, and it is vital that we end the perverse financial disincentive against couples who to choose to marry. The working tax credit received by couples should reflect that, and there should also be a transferable tax allowance for married couples.
In the previous session, the Education Committee and the Parliament both held important debates on the two issues of kinship care and child protection. As the minister will acknowledge, they are difficult areas of legislation but nonetheless important when it comes to proper care for our most vulnerable children. We are very supportive of the Government's ambition to improve support for kinship and foster carers, despite some of the complexities that such legislation involves. Such carers are hugely important, given that both kinship and foster care can often—though not always—provide a more stable environment than when children are placed in residential establishments. We will also do everything that we can to support the Government on the difficult issue of child protection.
I have no doubt that there will be much scope for controversy in other areas of policy debate, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on the basic principles. We would be letting down our children if that was not the case.
I have one serious word of caution. The services are both expensive and time consuming, given the specialist nature of professional care that is required. In a time of economic downturn—in all probability, recession—there will be even stronger temptations for local councils, which are largely responsible for the services, to make cutbacks. Councils are already facing severe difficulties because of other policies. The figures are plain to see, and it would be all too easy for exactly the same to happen with child care services, too. That is a very stark message if we really are to get it right for every child.
I am happy to contribute to this important debate. I am particularly keen to ensure that the support mechanisms for our most vulnerable young people and their families are robust, effective, well resourced, valued and—probably most important—understood by everyone involved.
As Rhona Brankin mentioned, the work of the previous Administration—including, I seem to remember, my colleague Robert Brown—in taking this work forward and tackling the issues was the genesis for much of the work that this Government is now taking forward. That is to be welcomed. The changes that enshrined co-ordinated support plans and various bits about additional support needs and support for learning in new legislation, and indeed the consultation responses to the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill before the election, indicated broad support for the direction of travel.
Sadly, as we heard from both Rhona Brankin and Elizabeth Smith and have heard anecdotally from across the country, there are clear indications that the Government's good intentions are not necessarily supported by the financial wherewithal. I have received a couple of calls from constituents in various areas in the region. I have heard that children with cerebral palsy are suddenly finding support services cut and that a council has allegedly suspended the recruitment of special needs teachers and other ASL staff. However, there is little point in my saying much more about that issue when it has already been more than adequately addressed by previous speakers.
Instead, I will concentrate on specific issues that are more relevant to the motion and to the Labour amendment.
As other members have said, GIRFEC is about the children and about ensuring that all those involved are charged with rolling out and participating in the joined-up approach that has long been needed if the whole process is to be a success for the most important participant—namely, the child.
Three areas in particular need to be clarified in more detail, so I hope that the cabinet secretary will address these in her closing remarks. Certainly, the Highland pathfinder pilot looks positive and encouraging, but more detail needs to be provided if the pilot is to be replicated or, indeed, trusted widely. Therefore, I look forward to the detailed national guidelines that will be issued by the Government. However, it is more than a little unfair to ask members to engage with the issue in a knowledgeable way when we receive the literature so late in the day. Quite frankly, that is just not helpful.
First, there is a need for a change of culture within all the agencies that are responsible for delivery. That presents some interesting challenges, many of which Rhona Brankin alluded to. The various agencies need to recognise the valuable contributions, knowledge, understanding and expertise that all the other professions bring to joint working and information sharing. Everyone comes to the issue from a different perspective. In my view, for such a culture change to be effective, we need to go beyond simply holding training days, seminars, in-service days and others sorts of continuing professional development for those who are already in the professions. We need to begin with how and what people are taught within the higher education and further education institutions that are responsible for turning out such professionals. There will be little value—and probably little success—in the new approach to working with children if those entering the professions do not understand or value the work of the other contributors. Such a culture change could be substantially achieved as part of the initial training process. That could minimise the areas of potential conflict that might be due to people's differing professional backgrounds.
Those who have any knowledge of systems—computer or otherwise—know how difficult it is to get something that is fit for purpose for all users, but eCare and the pilot project in Highland seem to offer a way forward. Agencies are rightly and legally protective of the information that they hold and disseminate about our children. Like many, I have concerns about centralising that amount of information in one place, given that we know how good Government is at not holding on to information. There must also be no room for an arbitrary "information is (my) power" attitude to disseminating information. We need to be careful to ensure that that is clear. However, from the briefings that I have had, GIRFEC looks very positive.
Thirdly, there needs to be a willingness to share good practice across and among agencies including, as Rhona Brankin mentioned, the 32 local authorities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, although the size of the wheel might need to be changed depending on the local authority. That needs to come across very clearly.
In conclusion, the principles underlining GIRFEC are right, but I urge the Government to ensure that the challenges that it sets for all the professions are met and supported. It will simply not be good enough for such a progressive step to be damaged by the Government, which has already shown, in other areas of activity, its willingness to pass the buck, but not necessarily the bucks, to local authorities.
Before we move to open debate, I advise that two members have not yet pressed their request-to-speak buttons, so I am not sure whether they want to speak.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate as an SNP back bencher. Like others, I congratulate members of the previous Administration—Labour and Lib Dem alike—on introducing the getting it right initiative. Working across agencies and sewing them together to ensure that they address the needs of children was a move for which we waited too long. I am pleased that the initiative came to fruition and that the current Government has signalled its intent to keep up the momentum. Previous and current ministers should be lauded for their actions.
Of course, the cross-cutting work that the initiative encourages has its mirror—and, in part, its operational effectiveness—in the concordat between the Scottish Government and Scotland's local authorities. Therefore, we should also ensure that the councils get the credit that they deserve for helping to deliver the vision of a safe and supportive childhood for all. All young people should have access to the tools that they need to lead a successful and fulfilling life. I believe that the strategy helps towards that.
Children's services have been taken down a new track with the pathfinder projects, which we are likely to hear more about over the next wee while. The Highland model, which involves the reshaping of service provision across the spectrum, is likely to refresh thinking on service provision across the country. However, it is to be hoped that service provision, reaching from new born through to school transition, does not create a bureaucratic box-ticking culture. I hope that the minister will ensure that the national guidance takes that into account.
Interestingly, the database that could be built from that operation could offer social researchers an invaluable asset if the data can be suitably anonymised and protected. I urge ministers to consider whether that might be possible, especially given that some of the lessons that could be learned could be used to improve the life chances and educational possibilities of future generations.
As well as the pathfinder in Highland, four other pathfinders were set up to address the needs of children who are caught in domestic abuse situations. One pathfinder was in Falkirk, where the council has worked in partnership with Central Scotland Police, NHS Forth Valley, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and Falkirk and District Women's Aid to find the right path and the correct tools for intervention to enable the child who has lived with domestic abuse to set out on the road to recovery. Having fully engaged with the ethos and forward-planning aspects of getting it right, Falkirk Council will help to set out the future plans and guidance for rolling out the scheme across the country.
I do not mean to miss out the other councils that are also delivering on the new agenda, but I know a little bit about how Falkirk Council is going about things. With Central Scotland Police in the lead and council efforts coming from a range of departments, including education services and housing and social work services, the pathfinder project in Falkirk is ensuring that the principles that underpin getting it right are being enhanced. Under a programme that started at the end of 2006, Falkirk Council is integrating the new ways with enhanced services, including a new integrated children's services plan, an assessment framework for children and young people, and the development of a locality model for the delivery of children's services. Such progress, along with the advances that are being made by other councils, will feed into progress in helping children who have suffered as a result of being exposed to domestic abuse.
While the other four pathfinder projects improve how we deal with the domestic abuse aspect, the Highland model should improve all-round care. We should remember that getting it right for every child is about ensuring that we do what it says on the tin and cater for every child. That is why yesterday's announcement on corporate parenting guidance was so welcome—although such guidance on its own is not enough—as was the Minister for Public Health's announcement of record levels of funding to help to give children the best start in life by encouraging them to start eating healthily at an early age.
The announcement in yesterday's legislative programme that the children's hearings system is to be reviewed and updated as appropriate will also be welcomed, not least by some of my former colleagues. Over the years since Kilbrandon's first report, much has changed. Our system of justice and protection for young people has been lauded and copied, but we must ensure that it is as good as it can be. The price of that is not quite eternal vigilance but regular review. The review will be a start, but getting it right means that we must keep going, keep learning and keep developing the ground around the subject.
No child is an island, but all children are individuals. That was recognised by the previous Administration and has been built on and encouraged by the current Administration. We must keep moving forward.
I am pleased to be able to support the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop.
One of the unintended challenges of having wide-ranging debates of this nature when there has been no advance statement on the documentation that underpins the debate is that important things might be missed out. I will concentrate on getting it right for every deaf child, and on children and young people who are affected by domestic abuse, to ensure that those two areas are not missed out.
Getting it right for every child means delivering what every child needs when they need it. That is a worthy aim, but a massive task. There is a long list of attributes for children to attain, to which I add "happy". A child may unfortunately be unhealthy, but they can still be helped to attain happiness. We all want to give children the best possible start, but some children have great challenges in their lives.
Towards the end of the previous session I, along with many other MSPs, signed up to Mary Mulligan's motion on getting it right for every deaf child, which endorsed the call of the National Deaf Children's Society for national best practice guidance for multi-agency professionals who work with deaf children in their early years. We need to learn from best practice. The NDCS knows that in England and Wales there is guidance on how to provide an effective support network, which focuses on developing the deaf child's access to language and communication and on breaking down any barriers before he or she reaches school age.
In Scotland, there is currently no such national guidance. I urge the minister to consider that, given the universal newborn hearing screening that was introduced in the national health service in Scotland in 2005, we are missing an opportunity to provide deaf babies and toddlers and their parents with access to the best possible support. Getting it right for every deaf child means ensuring the best possible outcomes for every deaf child in Scotland from the moment of diagnosis.
Getting it right for every child means addressing their individual needs, whatever those might be, with the same due care and attention. I mentioned the huge challenges that some children face. Those challenges sometimes arise from birth and sometimes are due to particular circumstances, but children's needs must be met however they arise.
It has at last been acknowledged that there are huge implications for children in families in which there is domestic abuse. Perhaps that one piece of the jigsaw will mean that everyone will now recognise the essential nature of tackling domestic abuse and putting a halt to violence against women. Gender-based abuse can sometimes seem endemic in our society. Yesterday, I spoke to a woman from Zimbabwe who works with the organisation FRAE Fife. She said that she was shocked at the widespread abuse of women in Scotland. She had expected better, but, sadly, we know the truth. I welcome the continued commitment to and funding for work to tackle abuse, which has been a priority for the Parliament right from its inception.
It is essential that we break the vicious cycle for children who grow up in abusive families. Scotland must continue to examine closely how women are treated, and the Government must produce effective proposals to reduce men's violence against women. If that does not happen, our children will continue to need the protection, provision and prevention that the national domestic abuse delivery plan outlines. We can learn from the outcome of the pathfinder pilots. I welcome the fact that the findings of the domestic abuse pathfinder projects have been incorporated in the plan. Progress is being made, but we need to ensure that work with victims and their families and—very importantly—with perpetrators remains high on the agenda.
An example of good practice is the work of Dundee Women's Aid, which employs three children and young people's workers and a co-ordinator, who all deliver specialised support in the form of refuge, follow-on, outreach and preventive work. They have developed excellent services in line with the getting it right for every child criteria, with the aim of giving immediate help to identified children. However, they acknowledge that many children are still missing out and that many voices remain unheard.
There are still gaps between local authority services and voluntary services. The co-ordination and commitment of joint working with local authority children's services needs to be driven by senior management. Funding issues are often a concern, as they often create challenges and barriers. One main issue is how local authorities can incorporate those specialist services within their core service without adequate funding and legislation. If the vision that has been set out here today is to be a core part of service delivery, legislation is necessary to ensure that it remains a priority even under tight economic circumstances.
I welcome the proposed improvements in information sharing, but it has to be done in an extremely sensitive and careful way. We have to make progress cautiously, whether in introducing electronic communication—eCare—or the human papilloma virus vaccination programme, which is welcome. It was promised that the number of school nurses would be doubled, but so far only their workload has increased. The HPV vaccination scheme involves much more than just giving another jab, therefore school nurses need to be trained to deal with young people and to answer their questions.
That was a manifesto promise by the SNP. The numbers, which were given in a parliamentary answer to me, went down between 2005 and 2007, from 300 to 220. [Interruption.] Not only were the figures not going in the right direction in 2007, when the current Government took power, but they are currently going in the wrong direction—they are not doubling.
That concern is shared—and should be shared—on all sides of the chamber.
All those measures must be introduced extremely carefully with joint management, and they need to be properly funded. I welcome the progress that has been made, but I urge caution. I support the amendment.
Elizabeth Smith got the context right in speaking about the challenge that we face with regard to the numbers of children and young people who need care and protection, and who come into contact with services because of that. It is perhaps a tribute to the work that is already carried out by social work and other services throughout Scotland that that situation has not so far fed into what many of us thought might be a time bomb, in terms of the sheer number of people who are accused of criminal offences and go through the criminal justice system. I do not agree with Elizabeth Smith's remedies for that. The debate is for another day, but the idea that families can be encouraged to stay together by the sort of tax concessions that the Conservative party suggests is fanciful in the extreme.
I read the motion and the accompanying documents—which, as other members have mentioned, appeared fairly late—with considerable interest, but also with some practical concerns. As Hugh O'Donnell mentioned, I had some responsibility for the area when I was a minister, although as a minion to my colleague Peter Peacock, who was personally committed to the area and whose contribution should be recognised by the Parliament as moving in the direction of travel that we are discussing today.
The entire radical programme that the Liberal Democrats and Labour initiated when they were in government included school and education renewal, child-focused services, the social work review of GIRFEC initiatives, and additional support for learning. That seems, particularly in retrospect, to have been timely, comprehensive, forward looking and capable—I use the word advisedly—of causing a step change in the outcomes for many disadvantaged children. Leaving aside the contentious issues of teacher numbers, the scandalous number of teachers who cannot get a job and the stalling of the school building programme, it is fair to say that the current Government has continued to support much of that work, not least in the GIRFEC area. I am pleased that it is doing so, and I am happy to acknowledge the personal contribution of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Children and Early Years in that process.
I pay tribute to the work of the pathfinder projects and the other good work to which the cabinet secretary referred. It is important that rapid and responsive action takes place when issues emerge with regard to young people. The principles were all agreed on—I do not think that there has been any dissent in the chamber about the principles underlying the GIRFEC process—but we will have to tease out the practice a little bit. My concern is that the documents that have been submitted for the debate are extremely densely worded, to such an extent that I found their purpose as a focus of meaningful action and change to be rather obscured.
The documents are meant to be not substantive policy documents but illustrations to assist members. The subject matter is complex and difficult, so we are bringing forward the publication of the website documents, such as the guide for professionals on getting it right for every child. We are advancing the publication of a document that we are launching next week on corporate parenting. I apologise if members took umbrage at the late delivery of the documents, but we were trying to be helpful.
I am grateful to the minister for that explanation, which puts the matter in context. However, it raises a further matter, which is the context of today's debate, the background to it and what the Government is telling us about the progress with GIRFEC and the five pilots that the former Scottish Executive initiated. What valuable lessons have been learned from the process and how can they be extended throughout Scotland? It is important that we know the Government's intentions for funding the process and how it will support the work that is developed throughout Scotland. I ask the minister, when he sums up, to give us some insight into how success in the area, which is difficult to achieve, can be measured and monitored effectively so that there is a check on whether the process is achieving the results that we want.
I have three concerns about the process. First, the worthy objective of multi-agency working should not obscure the need for the individual professional who is most in contact with the child to take personal responsibility for making things happen. Secondly, the objective of focusing on the child should not be undermined by a plethora of agencies engaging with the child but not affecting his or her situation as they should. Elizabeth Smith rightly spoke about a problem of which we are all aware—the number of people who engage with young people in such situations. Thirdly, there is a worrying sense of process, recording and the writing of action plans, which can absorb resources that should be focused on real change for the child. I hope that the minister will assure me that the formal process is not excessive and will not obstruct a step change for children who need it.
I confess that previously, as a layperson, I took the view that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration stood at the centre of the web, taking an overview and directing the traffic, as it were. When referrals to the reporter were increasing in a seemingly inexorable fashion, I was presented, as a minister, with requests for more funding. I discovered that 80 per cent of reports to the reporter did not lead to referrals to the children's hearings system but were, in effect, referred back to services. I became convinced that part of the secret of success was to release unnecessary and costly process from the system, and we set in motion steps to achieve that.
You have one minute.
I am glad that the upward trend appears to have been reversed. I hope that, as a consequence, the reporter can concentrate resources on the serious and complex cases that require compulsory input while other children are swiftly and directly referred to the support that they need.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer. Do I have a minute left or did you say that my time was up?
You have 45 seconds.
Thank you.
Looked-after children are at the heart of what we as a society need to do for the most disadvantaged young people, so I welcome the elaboration of the concept of the corporate parent in the paper to which the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning referred. I well remember being struck by the words of the social work inspectorate that there is nothing inevitable about poor educational outcomes for looked-after children.
In closing, I will touch on a couple of points. First, we should not be bureaucratic about the cut-off point being 18, which is mentioned in the documentation. Many young people need support way beyond then. I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of that. Secondly, it remains necessary to listen to those people who have left care and to have in the process ways in which we can respond to them and ensure that their voices are heard. We must ensure that our work is centred on children's needs and the needs of services. We are agreed on that objective, but let us not lose track of the practical implications of doing that on the ground throughout Scotland.
I have thoroughly enjoyed this morning's debate, which has been constructive for the most part. I particularly thank Elizabeth Smith and Robert Brown for their fascinating speeches, which added something to the debate.
I will focus on kinship care, which is mentioned in the Labour amendment. I have spoken on the topic before, and I have fully endorsed the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities' joint commitment to introduce payments to kinship carers of looked-after children on a par with the payments to foster carers. I acknowledge that "looked after" has a legal definition and that other kinship carers will not qualify. I am glad that the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities acknowledge that and are considering a variety of other ways to provide the support that such carers need.
There has been a giant stride forward for the 2,000 or so kinship carers of looked-after children, 500 to 600 of whom are in Glasgow, the area that I represent. I must say, however, that many of them will not fully believe that there has been such a stride forward until they see hard cash in their bank accounts. I will return to that point later. It is certainly true of the kinship carers in Glasgow, including the kinship care group in north Glasgow, which I have met several times, and the national kinship care network that was established recently. However, we are building up trust with kinship carers.
Given the years of inaction and delay from politicians, it is little wonder that expectations are high and that impatience exists. I hope that those expectations will be met before too long. It is only right that support is provided because, in the role of corporate parent, local authorities would otherwise have to place many children with foster parents or in residential care. It is widely acknowledged that, where kinship care is possible, it is far more beneficial for the child, the wider family and society as a whole.
I realise that, when we reach the point at which a kinship care arrangement is necessary, something might already have gone wrong. GIRFEC is about identifying problems and providing support way before kinship care arrangements are necessary. I take that fully on board, but, as I have been involved with kinship care, I wish to develop that point.
Does the member agree that, pending the results of the free school meals pilots, the Government should absolve kinship carers from being tested for the provision of free school meals, which still happens in some areas?
The Scottish Government is actively reviewing ways in which to increase school meal provision and entitlement. I look forward to the successful pilots being implemented fully throughout Scotland as soon as possible.
In discussing the implementation of kinship care payments, I will comment on the Glasgow experience. Initially, I found the situation disappointing. The local authority was not ready to deliver. It was unprepared and there was a dispute about funding the kinship care payments commitment. As many members know, the Scottish Government gave £4 million to provide a range of services for kinship carers, including money for training and a national information and advice service for kinship and foster carers through Citizens Advice Scotland. I am sure that we all welcome that. However, the figure was seized upon not just by the administration of Glasgow City Council but by some Labour politicians in the Parliament, who wrongly claimed that the commitment to kinship care payments was not being delivered. That is not the case. The £4 million figure was wrongly used as a headline figure for paying for delivery of the commitment. To clarify, in a joint statement, the Scottish Government and COSLA said:
"The Scottish Government and COSLA have agreed that sufficient resources have been included within the total financial settlement for local authorities to meet the commitment."
The money exists and it should be used for the intended purpose.
Rather than use kinship care as a political football, I asked for a meeting with Steven Purcell to discuss the matter. At the meeting, I and Councillor Phil Greene—the SNP council group spokesperson on kinship care—had constructive talks with Steven Purcell about delivery. The result was that a sub-group was convened to prepare for delivery. I hope that kinship carers will benefit soon.
Glasgow City Council could have moved much more quickly to deliver for kinship carers in the city. Payments could and should have started by now. However, rather than stand on the sidelines and grumble about it, which would not have achieved anything, I tried to be constructive and proactive in my approach. I ask all members who have an interest in kinship care to do likewise. They should contact their local authorities and have constructive discussions with them about achieving delivery.
There are wider issues in relation to supporting kinship carers. Scottish ministers are trying to discuss with United Kingdom ministers the fact that the complexity of the UK benefits system has an impact on kinship carers. The issues of child benefit and income maximisation for kinship carers need to be worked through. I hope that UK ministers will appreciate the approach that Scotland is taking on kinship care and work constructively with us. Again, that is something that all politicians in the Parliament can try to support.
The kinship carers whom I have met provide a vital service for the children they care for, their families, the wider community and society in general. They deserve gratitude, respect and dignity, and we are moving in the right direction in that regard.
Earlier, I described developments in kinship care as a giant stride forward. I expect some local authorities to deliver very soon. As I have said, I believe that local authorities have received funding to do so.
I do not know whether members have seen the film "Jerry Maguire"; if not, my next reference will be lost on them. However, I think that many kinship carers now find themselves in the position of the character Rod Tidwell, as played by Cuba Gooding Jr, who said, "Show me the money." Kinship carers are saying the same thing to local authorities.
Our joint ambition to deal with what is a massive problem in Scotland is obvious, and many of us have sometimes taken the opportunity provided by debates on this subject to express our frustration at a lack of speed, focus or clarity in dealing with the issues. I did that with my own ministers in the previous Administration and, indeed, I will do it again this morning.
I welcome the proposal in the programme for government that was outlined yesterday to review and update the children's hearings system, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2,800 volunteers who serve on children's panels. The panels' capacity is certainly significant, and those people do what they can to deal with the many, many children who come before them. Indeed, having spoken to the people who serve on the panels in Inverclyde, I am well aware of what they get out of their involvement.
I also welcome the minister's support for those volunteers in a press release that was issued some weeks ago on a consultation covering the recruitment of more people for panels. After all, those ordinary people can bring their own experience to bear in helping children who are in real difficulties.
According to the same press release, in 2006-07, 56,000 children were referred to the reporter. That figure, of course, has to be seen alongside the 60,000 young people who have to live with drug abuse and the resulting break-up of families. There is no doubt that the problem is massive, and no Government or Administration will be able to deal with it without addressing the thorny issue of providing resources at a local level or recognising the role that foster and kinship carers can play. Without those people, we would be in an even bigger mess.
I do not underestimate the task ahead; in fact, it bears down on resources and the ability to address the problem. Many on the front line are struggling to deal with those who have already presented at the children's panel and are in dire circumstances. Indeed, because resources do not seem to be available, local government, police, the health service and others are being prevented from carrying out their own duties and providing risk assessments of children who have not yet become statistics and are still living with parents who are abusing alcohol and drugs. The needs of those children are not being met and the risks are not being evaluated. All that we can do is wait until they appear before a panel or until they—tragically—become the subject of a fatal accident inquiry.
Duncan McNeil cuts to the heart of the issue. We cannot use crisis management to support children's needs. The fact is that all children need support. However, some have not yet hit our radar screen, and this process is meant to anticipate where support might be needed to ensure that all children's needs are recognised. The challenge, as the member makes clear, is huge, but that is what our focus must be.
I agree with the minister that the getting it right for every child programme is a massive job that requires resources at a local level. However, I am not confident that those resources are readily available to allow those who are in the front line to identify the children in question and to deliver the necessary services. Those people are already burdened with the scale of the problem elsewhere.
That brings me on to kinship carers who, as Bob Doris has made clear, do a good job. Last December, we welcomed the fostering and kinship care strategy as a worthy ambition, although I remember at the time asking where the funding would come from and who would get it. The fact is that my local council in Inverclyde cannot identify any new moneys in its budget to deal with kinship care. Of course, I will take Mr Doris's tip and speak to the council again on the matter.
Grandparents and members of the wider family are doing the job now. In fact, they are trading off their benefits to do so. The benefits stay with the addict and then go to the drug dealer. By intervening at an earlier stage, when social work should be intervening, other family members sacrifice their own benefits and exclude themselves from the support and benefits that we want them to have. Again, the problem is massive, but I understand that some of the issues are being dealt with.
In addition, as we made clear in last December's fostering and kinship care debate, the benefits system works against those who are deemed to be carers. We all recognise the role that is played and the commitment that is shown by kinship carers, and we acknowledge what they do for society by looking after children, but surely we cannot offer them money for providing such care on the one hand if it means that, on the other, we reduce their overall household income.
Politicians in local government, in the Scottish Parliament and in the UK Parliament face a massive task in getting it right for children in Scotland. However, those children need the help, focus and support that we owe them.
Getting it right for every child lies at the heart of our country's future economic and social wellbeing. We must deliver the best possible life chances for all our children, from the most gifted to the most challenged, and have systems in place to deal with not only the most troubled young people and families, but children who might temporarily find themselves in difficulty. For example, a young person might suffer from the consequences of having to care for a parent who is suddenly taken ill. I echo Robert Brown's comments and acknowledge his contribution to this work.
The publication of "Getting it Right for Every Child" was one of the most commendable achievements of the previous Scottish Executive, which recognised that the project would be challenging and long term. The SNP Government is therefore to be congratulated on taking forward the agenda. There are certainly signs of progress on effective joint working and information sharing in children's services, which have involved a great deal of hard work across a range of professions. Training is crucial, and I echo Hugh O'Donnell's points about the need for such matters to be embedded in initial professional training.
The key objective of the getting it right for every child programme is to ensure that children get the help that they need when they need it; as a result, our focus must be on the individual child's experience—in other words, the child's life and the services and support that they require. Although getting it right is aspirational, the programme has to be delivered on the ground, which is why the pilot projects across Scotland are so important and why the work on delivering the information technology and administration back-up is necessary as we move towards implementation. Another critical aspect is proper deployment and planning of the workforces that will help to deliver this worthy aspiration.
However, as we have seen time and again at our surgeries and in our postbags and e-mail accounts, the reality is very different for kids and young people with special needs who need additional support for learning or respite care. Parents still feel that they are up against the system, because, often, even if a need is acknowledged and accepted, it is still quite likely that there will be budget problems or that professionals will not be available to provide the necessary services and support. That is the reality. We do not want to be harbingers of doom and gloom, but we need to take a reality check of the difficulties on the ground that we face as we take forward our aspiration to get it right for every child.
We accept that it is not all about funding; we can do things better. That is central to the pilot schemes that we are taking forward. We can spend to save with more informal and earlier interventions, so that we do not have to get to the crisis point, which we know is how things are often handled at the moment.
When we hear proposals that health visitors will not be able to make routine checks on babies and children in Glasgow because of the pressures of caring for the most at-risk children, we are concerned. When we know that here in Edinburgh and throughout the country we cannot find the thousands of extra foster carers who we need to care for children in need, we voice our concerns. When we know that 15,000 pupils who do not have English as a first language are being let down because there is a shortage of specialist teachers, we have to speak out. That does not mean that we underestimate in any way the challenge that the Government faces or that we do not see ourselves as party to finding the solutions to those problems.
The member raises an important point about health visitors. I reiterate the Government's view that the health visitor service is a universal service. "Health for all Children 4" and the current review were initiated under the previous Administration. I share the view that we should have universal access to health visitors to help our early years framework and the getting it right for every child model.
I welcome the minister's comment, which might well help allay the fears of general practitioners and parents in Glasgow and throughout Scotland, given that many professionals are concerned about the review that is under way.
Many members, including Elizabeth Smith and Robert Brown, have spoken eloquently about Scotland's most disadvantaged children—those who are born into poverty, disability, danger and neglect and into homes in which the next fix is more important than the next meal. It is essential that children who are born into particularly difficult circumstances be given the same chances as those who are more fortunate. There should be early intervention, so that the safety and protection of the child is put above all other considerations. As the cabinet secretary said, the early years and early intervention agendas are crucial to getting this right.
We should be particularly supportive of the dedicated people who give their time to care for these children. Many members have spoken about kinship carers, who, as Bob Doris said, need to see hard cash in the bank. We need to try to find a way through the morass that Duncan McNeil talked about, so that we can make this happen.
I join the Government in welcoming the progress that has been made in developing the eCare framework of partnerships for electronic information sharing. It is crucial that information can be shared where necessary. That is the absolute bedrock in ensuring that we have the correct care plans and the best possible support for children in place.
We must find constructive ways to deal with young offenders. The children's hearings system in Scotland is unique. It recognises that children who offend and those who require care and protection are equally deserving of being considered children in need. That is crucial. We welcome the news that there will be legislation to modernise the system.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I cannot.
We have a number of questions about the implications of having a centralised single national body instead of the 32 advisory committees. Part of the strength of the existing system is the involvement and input from local people who know the local circumstances. I seek assurances about how we will retain that strength. Will the new structure be backed by the greater financial and administrative support for hearings to tackle the needs that Duncan McNeil set out eloquently? Will there be a new focus on family issues and family conferencing and an expansion of the disposals and options that are open to hearings?
The Scottish Liberal Democrats remain supportive of the getting it right for every child programme, the progress that has been made to date through pathfinder activity and pilot projects and the continuing work to develop more effective joined-up services that support each and every one of our children. I hope that the Government will ensure that the key partners involved have the resources that they need to get this right for every child.
This has been a good debate. We have had fine and well-informed contributions from throughout the chamber. I particularly appreciated the well-informed speeches from Robert Brown and Duncan McNeil, who both spoke with great authority about the issue.
The debate has been generally consensual. However, there were two points of division with which I should deal at the outset. First, I reiterate the point that Elizabeth Smith made, which a number of other members backed up: when we have a debate such as this, it really is not helpful to have publications that would inform the debate arrive at our desks so late in the day. I appreciate the explanation that Mr Ingram gave, but I hope that ministers will reflect on the matter for future debates. If we are to have a properly informed debate, Opposition spokesmen and back-bench members throughout the chamber need time to consider documents properly. I hope that ministers will take that on board for the future.
The second point of division was the Labour amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment and with many of the points that Rhona Brankin made in her speech. The cabinet secretary might think that everything in the garden is rosy, but that is patently not the case. There are problems throughout Scotland. Rhona Brankin pointed out a number of examples of cuts in provision locally.
Rhona Brankin made a good point about the huge cost burden on councils in providing for children with complex special needs and severe learning difficulties. I can certainly think of a number of constituency cases that I have pursued. I am sure that that is the case for all members in the chamber. Margaret Smith made that point in her speech. I can think of a number of cases in which parents have come to me to seek help when they are involved in an energy and morale-sapping fight with local authorities to try to get adequate services and support for their children.
In some ways, we can sympathise with the local authority officials and directors of social work who have a budget within which they have to try to operate. There is no extra cash available, so the director of social work has to try to manage his resources. We often end up in the unfortunate situation in which the appearance is given that the council simply does not care about the needs of the children concerned. Parents in such a situation can get extremely depressed and frustrated and, of course, it is the youngsters who end up losing out. There is no easy answer to that. It is all a question of resources.
I hope that the member appreciates the efforts that we have made to help support parents in particular. Adam Ingram announced support for parents' advocacy and further support for parents in cases that they might want to take forward with councils. Situations should not have to be resolved in the courts, but we have made efforts to ensure that parents are supported in those circumstances. An announcement on that was made in recent weeks.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and welcome her reassurance. Of course, the worst thing that can happen in the situations to which I referred is that the parents have to resort to court action, which becomes an added pressure and an added drain on resources. Anything that can be done to avoid their having to go to court is extremely welcome.
The question of resources is fundamental and it cannot be ignored. It will be expensive to get it right for every child—there is no point in pretending otherwise. That is a real challenge when money is tight. The cabinet secretary's colleague Mr Swinney is always telling us that he operates within a tight financial settlement. We understand that. The situation is not likely to improve, given the current economic circumstances. Tax receipts coming into the Treasury, such as from corporation tax and stamp duty, have already fallen dramatically. It is likely that in the next five years there will not be substantial uplifts in the amount of cash coming to the Scottish Government. Therefore, the current situation is not likely to improve. The minister has to be careful not to overpromise in relation to what the Government can deliver in this area.
I turn to a couple of points of consensus. A number of members mentioned the Highland pathfinder scheme, which is all about sharing information at an early stage. I do not think that there is any doubt that that has been a great success. Of the 250 children who came to the attention of the police in the past nine weeks, only 53 required to be referred to the reporter. That saves resources in the long run and it makes perfect sense. Practitioners report that they have saved a significant amount of time; they have freed up time that was previously spent writing reports. If we manage things properly, we can save resources and ensure that they are targeted more effectively.
Elizabeth Smith raised a point about parenting skills. We all know that there are parents who are not well equipped to bring up children. Having become a parent not that long ago, I am probably not best equipped to talk about such issues. In some cases, there are second or third generation children who simply do not have parents with the skills to be able to parent properly. We need Government action in that area. However, we do not need the Government to come in with big boots on and create a whole set of new programmes. Excellent work is already being done by the voluntary sector. Off the top of my head, I can think of two organisations—Care for the Family and Barnardo's—that run excellent parenting classes. We should consider supporting the voluntary sector in providing information, recognising that the lack of parenting skills lies at the root of many of the problems that young people face.
I commend to the cabinet secretary the nurture group project at Hill primary school in Blairgowrie, which I visited recently. The nurture group was established for youngsters with difficulty at home—not youngsters with educational difficulties, but those with social difficulties due to their home environment. Some of them might be from homes where their parents are suffering from addiction to alcohol or drugs, where there is worklessness, or possibly where there has been family breakdown. The nurture group seeks to replicate in the school a caring home environment, whereby meals are provided, homework support is given and out-of-school activities are offered. It is about providing youngsters with social skills and building their confidence if they are not getting the necessary support at home. The intention is to take children into the unit for a short time—a maximum of one or two years—so that they can then go back into the school main stream. So far, the nurture group is showing tremendous success. When I visited the school, I was extremely impressed with the commitment of the staff who were involved in the project. I am sure that they would welcome a ministerial visit, if the cabinet secretary or her colleagues have time. It is an excellent example of making a real difference, which is exactly what the debate is about.
I truly welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. The way in which the debate has been conducted so far shows how important many of the issues are to members throughout the chamber. As other members have said, the debate has been consensual, and I wish to allay any fears that the cabinet secretary might have that I will spoil that. I will, however, return to a couple of issues that must be raised.
The reports that we are debating were a little late in coming to us. I appreciate what Mr Ingram said about that—the reports were brought forward—but perhaps we should have moved back the debate a little to allow ourselves time to get a good grasp of the reports. From the little that I have been able to grasp of them so far, I think that they are useful.
My main concern about the consensual nature of the debate is that we have been here before, having previously agreed on what our priorities should be. There are still major challenges, which we need to address.
Like other members, I will refer to the continuing consultation on the children's hearings system, which should bring about an amalgamation of support services. I welcome that—of course I do, given that it was my colleague Peter Peacock who set the consultation in motion, as Robert Brown mentioned. I was puzzled when I heard it being announced at the beginning of the summer, because I thought that it had in fact been announced back in January—however, I will gloss over that.
My understanding was that the consultation was important to ensure a sufficient number of people to serve on local children's panels. My colleague Duncan McNeil has paid tribute to those people. One aim was to ensure that panels are not hampered by operating in fairly small local authority areas. Another was to streamline training and other support arrangements for travel expenses and so on. If that is the current thrust of the review, I welcome it.
I hope that we can ensure that there is still local input into the children's hearings system, so that we do not lose its benefits. Margaret Smith referred to that. I support what the cabinet secretary proposes, but we must continue to monitor how the system is operating. Hearings operate under fairly pressured circumstances, and not just because of the increase in referrals. We need to be sensitive to how we manage the situation.
In the previous session, much was made of the dropping of a section of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill that related to information sharing. The cabinet secretary is very much aware of that, having been a member of the Education Committee when the bill was being considered. That was probably the right thing to do at the time, but we are all aware that each time there has been a failure in child protection, information sharing has been at the top of the list of contributory factors. No one doubts that the issue is difficult to tackle, and I am sure that none of us wishes to ignore the rights of the child or young person to have their privacy respected, but I and other members know—the cabinet secretary faced this issue as a member of the Education Committee—that we can get round the matter only by legislating. I was therefore a little disappointed yesterday that there was nothing in the programme for government on legislating on the issue.
The responses to the "Draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill Consultation" from the professionals, including COSLA, the Association of Directors of Social Work and Glasgow City Council, strongly recommended that we should not rush to legislation on the matter, and that we ought to use the available information and learn the lessons from the pathfinder project. We are listening to the professionals in not legislating.
I think that other professionals would recommend that we need to legislate. The cabinet secretary's motion mentions
"respecting both data protection legislation and the privacy of individuals".
That wording suggests to me that there is a way out—a way for practitioners to explain why they might not share the necessary information. The only way to get round that is by submitting the proposals to the scrutiny that they would have to undergo if they were to become legislation, making their provisions clear to people so that they are protected. We will continue to debate that matter.
Yesterday, I asked the First Minister about a number of policy issues affecting children and young people. We know that the best way to protect our children is to ensure that contact is maintained with them; children are at most risk of harm when they are hidden away or unprotected by the community and services. Two of the services that I mentioned yesterday are particularly important. There has been some discussion today about the health visitor service, and I appreciate what the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has now said on the matter. I am concerned, however, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing told us that it was up to health boards to decide on that service. I would hope to have a national service. I appreciate that pilot projects are going on; I hope that the outcome of those pilots will recognise that the health visitor service should be standardised throughout Scotland, and that different health boards should not be making proposals to withdraw health visitor services—particularly at this stage, before the pilots have even reported.
The other issue that I raised with the First Minister yesterday—unsuccessfully—was nursery provision for vulnerable two-year-olds. I have just spoken about the need for contact. Contact with vulnerable children can be maintained and their welfare monitored in a non-stigmatising way through nurseries. Judging from the examples that I have seen of that approach working, the nursery place and the care that is provided there for the child allow for support to be given to the mother and, in some cases, the father, too. The biggest influence on a child's life comes from their parents. As Elizabeth Smith and others have said, we need to provide the right services to parents to help them raise and nurture their children.
Perhaps this is a debate for another day, but the provision of nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds has allowed for support to be given to parents, too. I and many other members were disappointed that the Scottish Government abandoned the programme for nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds before the pilots had even been evaluated.
That is not correct.
You say, from a sedentary position, that that is not true, but Glasgow City Council seems to be the only authority that is now able to run with that programme. Perhaps the minister will be able to answer that point.
I cannot let you intervene at the moment, minister. Perhaps you could address the point in your winding-up speech.
The member should not use the second person.
Sorry.
You are now in your last minute.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that the Minister for Children and Early Years will be able to say that he is reconsidering the matter.
This has been a useful debate, in which other issues have been raised. The cabinet secretary's comments on looked-after children were welcome, as were my colleague Marlyn Glen's remarks about provision for deaf children—not just because she talked about the motion that I lodged. Many members, in particular my colleague Duncan McNeil and Bob Doris, mentioned kinship care.
There is much agreement on some issues, which is why there is frustration that the results that we want are not necessarily being delivered in practice. We have touched on a number of issues that are worthy of a debate in their own right. I see that the cabinet secretary is nodding and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate such issues. The cabinet secretary and other members are right when they say that if we get it right for our children we will make a big contribution to Scotland.
The subject of the debate is not the easiest one to grapple with, and I congratulate all members who made constructive speeches. Like Robert Brown, I pay tribute to the work of Peter Peacock—I also pay tribute to Robert Brown's work—in getting the ball rolling on the getting it right for every child programme under the previous Administration.
I will try to respond to issues that were raised. Rhona Brankin's point about pre-service education was valid. It is obvious that multi-agency training is key. Work is going on to identify the core competences for pre-service training and we are discussing with the universities and colleges how to incorporate the issue into workforce development.
I thank Elizabeth Smith for her supportive comments and I agree with her that parenting skills—and the lack thereof—are a central issue. Indeed, the issue is central to the development of our early years framework, in which we will tackle, for example, pre-school provision and early years provision for vulnerable one and two-year-olds. That work is being actively developed with COSLA and other partners and we will be in a position to bring our proposals to the Parliament later this year. I hope that we will all have a chance fully to debate issues to do with parenting, family support and so on.
I reassure Hugh O'Donnell that the approach in Scotland is not to create a central database. Information will be held and controlled by agencies and data will be brought together only when required. We are not going down the road that has been taken in England. There will have to be justification for access to information, and databases will not be open to being searched without there being a clear reason for doing so.
I hope that the cabinet secretary answered the points that were made about legislation. It would be a big mistake to legislate too early—we have made some mistakes in the Parliament in previous legislation. It is important that we work through the pathfinders and learn all the lessons that we need to learn. I am not ruling out legislation. However, we are not in a position to introduce a bill and we have not identified areas in which legislation would be appropriate at this stage.
I agree entirely with Duncan McNeil's analysis and with what he said about what requires to be done. I welcome all members' assistance in that regard and I hope that we can build a consensus in the Scottish Parliament on the way forward, in particular on difficult issues to do with the benefits system, in relation to which we could work jointly on our approach to UK ministers.
As usual, the minister is only too keen to have a pop at Westminster. Does he acknowledge that many kinship carers in Scotland are still waiting for money from the Scottish Government?
I was not having a pop at Westminster; I was trying to suggest that we need to work out how the benefits system dovetails with our plans. We need to negotiate constructively with Westminster. I think that Bob Doris answered the relevant questions about kinship care. If Rhona Brankin had listened to Duncan McNeil's speech, she would have found that it was much more constructive than her own speech was.
I say to Marlyn Glen that we need to address broader issues to do with male violence against women, to improve outcomes for children who are affected by domestic abuse. The national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people is just one of the measures that we are taking forward. We have allocated more than £40 million to take forward the wider agenda during the next three years. Of course, we are learning from the pathfinders in that context.
The getting it right for every child programme is the foundation for work with all children and families. It builds from universal health and education services, to change the way in which adults think and act to help all children and young people to grow, develop and reach their full potential. It is the means by which we can shift the emphasis in the provision of children's services from crisis intervention to prevention and early intervention—a number of members pushed for such an approach in their speeches.
In simple terms, the getting it right for every child approach is how practitioners and professionals across all children's and adult services will work together to meet children's needs. It overcomes interdisciplinary barriers and eliminates wasteful duplication and bureaucracy, thereby releasing resources, to ensure the outcomes that we want for all our children. It is building a common approach throughout Scotland, although local needs and circumstances will shape approaches locally. The getting it right for every child approach is the methodology that delivers—and the thread that stitches together—all our various substantive policies: the early years framework, the curriculum for excellence, the youth framework, health for all, and the better health, better care action plan.
However, as members are aware, there is no simple, quick fix. Transformational change does not come easily but requires a raising of awareness, a redesign of how practitioners go about their business, multi-agency training that is based on common language and processes, and the fostering of trust and understanding across services and with children and families.
The pathfinder experience has involved lengthy discussions, testing, refining and the reappraisal of how wholesale change can be managed. That has always been challenging and at times it has been frustrating, as progress has been slow and planned activity has had to be rescheduled or scrapped. However, as time has gone on, results have become increasingly encouraging and positive. It is exciting when children and families report that they understand better what is happening and why. It is exciting when individual agencies experience the benefits of different ways of working, which mean that help gets to a child earlier. It is exciting when a health visitor can identify a need for social work support and can commission the resource directly, without being required to refer to line managers or another department. It is encouraging when a police officer at a domestic abuse incident can capture information that better informs the school, social work services, or whoever is best placed to give support, so that the children are helped more quickly and effectively. It is exciting when agencies can work together to decide how they can best help a child and then go ahead and take action, minimising bureaucracy and—more to the point—getting the child the right help much earlier, within a day or so of the decision.
Much remains to be done. The formal evaluation of the pathfinder process and the impact on individual children's outcomes will not be available until next year. However, the early signs are promising. What we have achieved so far is the development and testing of a practice model that can be applied by any practitioner, whatever the child's circumstances. We have developed a common approach to recording information and assessing risks and needs.
We have begun, with the University of Edinburgh, to map out how we can systematically measure improved outcomes for individual children, not just in relation to their needs but in relation to how services are working together and what the experiences of the child and family have been. Much more needs to be worked through and developed into an evaluation model that can inform performance, but we are on the way.