Taking Children into Care
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08480, in the name of Stewart Maxwell, on decision making on whether to take children into care.
I call Stewart Maxwell to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee.
14:47
Today’s debate comes soon after the stage 1 debate on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. That discussion demonstrated strong cross-party support for the bill’s broad aims of effective early intervention and better support for our children and young people. Several members also stressed their commitment to making the bill even stronger and to ensuring that the legislation delivers real improvements in people’s lives.
I want today’s debate to build on those sentiments and aspirations, and for us all to consider how we can improve outcomes for looked-after children and young people in particular. To be blunt, that might not be too difficult. Our inquiry confirmed again that many young people who have been in care have worse education outcomes than other children. Many also have poorer health and are more likely to become homeless or to become involved in the criminal justice system.
Although the committee is united in its view that further improvement is necessary, it is encouraging that so much activity is under way to improve outcomes for young people. The Minister for Children and Young People will no doubt wish to highlight the various measures that the Scottish Government is taking, as set out in its response to our report. We welcome such measures, but I will use this debate to push the Government for more detail on some of our recommendations. I also hope that the debate will inspire other members and committees to consider their role in improving outcomes.
However, before I get into the detail of our recommendations, I will provide Parliament with some background on what was a complex and relatively long-running inquiry. Our remit was to consider the decision-making processes that are involved in determining whether a child should be removed from the family home and taken into care. More important is that we also asked whether those processes are delivering the best outcomes for children and their families.
We took an enormous amount of evidence across a wide range of decision-making processes, including social work, the children’s hearings system and the child protection system, and I wish to thank everybody who submitted evidence to us. We took evidence about and from children who have been in care, who were looked after at home or who may be at risk of becoming looked after.
Our remit developed throughout as we continually sought to focus on areas where we considered that the need for improvement was strongest. Although we are debating the committee’s final report, we also published an interim report to ensure that none of the many concerns that were raised with us were lost.
In order to frame our debate, I make it clear that nobody who contributed told us that the current system of child protection and welfare should be abolished and that a completely new system should be established instead. That said, there were suggestions for improvement across virtually every area that we looked at. To put it starkly, we consider that current decision-making processes are not always delivering the best outcomes for children and their families. That view was heavily shaped by the children and young people to whom we spoke, many of whom had harrowing stories to tell.
In Scotland, we talk a lot about putting children and young people at the centre of decision making. However, according to the young people whom we met, we do not always deliver on that promise, which is why we were determined to place the views and real-life experiences of young people right at the heart of our report. When teenagers who have been in care tell elected politicians that they were left too long at home when they should have been taken into care, there is a considerable responsibility on us all to listen and to respond. The problem that those teenagers described is easy to repeat to Parliament, but it is by no means easy to solve. Their concerns are at the heart of highly contentious issues such as the right of the state to intervene in family life, and how professionals make decisions about them.
Another aim of our inquiry was to encourage a public and media discussion of issues around care. We hear very little about child welfare and protection until something goes wrong, so we wanted to encourage a debate on questions including why some children are taken into care but others are looked after at home, whether general assumptions can ever be made about someone’s fitness to be a parent, and whether there is consistent decision-making across the country. Those questions can be hugely controversial, sensitive and difficult, but rational public discussion can make them less so.
I will provide a brief example of how our current approach to children who are at risk of coming into care is of considerable public interest. Without commenting on the merits of that development, I note that earlier decision making is resulting in more children coming into care at a younger age—something that the Scottish Government considers to be a “positive development”. We need to be aware of and to debate such changes, and we need to be alive to how they may impact on society.
Having provided the background, I will highlight some of our main conclusions and recommendations. I will focus on vision, resources, early interventions and the respective roles of the Scottish Government and local government. Above all, I will focus on outcomes.
No one could question the amount of activity that is under way to improve the position of looked-after children. Apart from the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Government’s response mentions a forthcoming care and permanence strategy, efforts to map the processes and bodies that are involved in decision making, a review of statistics on looked-after children, and several other pieces of work. We appreciate the efforts that are being made across the public and third sectors to reform the child protection and welfare systems, and we acknowledge that some improvements will take time to manifest themselves. However, our report highlighted the danger that the sheer volume of on-going work could give the impression that deep-rooted problems are being addressed incrementally. The committee also wanted a reassurance that all the reforms are being co-ordinated, that key findings will be acted upon and that they will result in better outcomes.
In seeking to improve looked-after children’s outcomes, we must know their current outcomes and the outcomes that are expected. The minister quite correctly considered that it is too crude to judge success for looked-after children in terms of the number of children who are being taken into care. She called for a
“better, more rounded picture of a looked-after child’s well-being”
to gauge whether an intervention has been successful. The Scottish Government’s response to our report stated that
“There are some encouraging signs that outcomes are improving gradually across almost all indicators.”
I would welcome further detail from the minister about which outcomes are improving and the ways in which life chances will continue to get better as a result of the current reforms.
Given the complexity of current decision-making processes, the number of bodies involved and the on-going reforms, our report called on the Scottish Government to establish
“a shared vision of what success would look like for looked after children”,
and to
“ensure that resources and processes are built around that vision”.
The Scottish Government has been commendably clear in stating that the policy aim is early permanence, which it considers will help to reduce the number of children on long-term supervision requirements and increase the number of children who find secure legal permanence. I am sure that the minister will expand on that aim in her speech. When she does so, it would be helpful if she could discuss the bigger-picture outcomes that it will deliver. Will we see improved educational attainment and better health and employment prospects, for example?
I would also welcome an assurance from the minister that the on-going reforms will involve children and young people themselves, because no one can speak with more authority about what improvements are still required.
Not surprisingly, the issue of resources featured in both our interim and final report. For example, we questioned the Scottish Government on evidence that suggested that decisions about removing children from the family home are affected by availability of appropriate placements. Given changing demographic patterns and the strong policy emphasis on the early years and preventative spending, we also asked for projections of the balance of care; that is, the likely number of children who will require to be taken into care.
At a time of budgetary pressures, it is critical that we know the level of spending, what it is delivering, and whether that spending is achieving optimal results. We therefore asked the Scottish Government to calculate the total sum of money that all the relevant bodies spend on protecting children, and whether that spend is providing value for money. The minister made clear the difficulties of disentangling spending in that way, but said that the total possible spend on children’s services is about £2.5 billion.
In response to our requests on planning and resources, the Scottish Government emphasised its view that an understanding of spending and need is best determined at local level. That said, the Government set out how it supports local authorities to promote strategic commissioning. The minister may wish to expand on that approach in her speech.
Our report concluded, however, that we still do not know whether public spending on supporting and protecting children is delivering value for money. However, we consider that existing resources—people, finance and time—could be used more effectively. For example, several witnesses told us that too many people are involved in the decision-making processes. We also recommended that all the on-going reforms should take value for money fully into account, so we would welcome the minister’s reassurance on that point.
I will now highlight a specific aspect of the resources discussion. The Scottish Government’s focus on early intervention and preventative spending has been widely discussed inside and outside Parliament, and there is broad support for the principles. The Scottish Government considers that although early intervention may lead to an initial rise in children becoming looked after, it can also help to ensure that fewer children are looked after in the longer term. In the light of that trend and the strong emphasis on the financial benefits that are to be derived from early intervention, we asked for an analysis of the likely delivery and financial implications for service providers. I would welcome any further detail that the minister could provide on that.
In recognition of its leadership role, our recommendations were aimed primarily at the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government’s response makes clear its role in
“holding partners to account towards ensuring that we deliver excellence”
and in
“helping service providers to set the policy and resource framework”.
We are fully aware that improvements to decision making and outcomes will rely heavily on the input of the people who work at the local level. However, it would be helpful to have clarity around lines of responsibility and accountability, given that the Scottish Government has a leadership role and local authorities have a delivery role. To illustrate that matter, our report raised concerns about social workers; namely, threats to their post-graduate training and councils’ ability to retain experienced staff on the front line. We were concerned by the Scottish Association of Social Work’s claim that social work training departments have
“disappeared as a result of the cuts that have happened to local government”
and that
“Post-qualification training … is now disappearing.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 May 2013; c 2524-5.]
Given social workers’ fundamental role in bringing about improvements, we asked for detailed information on the impact of the local government settlement on their post-qualification training and career development. We also asked the Government to confirm the action it would take should the evidence substantiate the claims that have been made. We note the Scottish Government’s view that matters of social work delivery, training and support are for local authorities; however, it would be helpful if the minister could respond to those claims and that recommendation in her speech.
Children who have been in care do not simply need to do better at school. They need to enjoy better health, they need more stable and better quality accommodation, and they need to be far less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. Those are hugely challenging problems, and it is to the credit of Parliament and our wider society that so many people are investing time and effort in trying to do better by some of our most disadvantaged fellow citizens.
Our inquiry was immensely challenging and, at times, very emotional; it also left the committee with somewhat mixed feelings. We welcome the widespread efforts across government, the public and third sectors to improve decision-making processes and outcomes for children and young people, but the rate of improvement is still too slow, considering the amount of effort and resources that have been committed over a long period.
As we concluded in our report, too many children have been left for too long in unsuitable home environments, and too few children move quickly enough into stable loving homes and go on to enjoy the same life chances as other children. The Education and Culture Committee will maintain its commitment to those children and young people. We will get updates from the Scottish Government on the outcomes that all the activity that is described in our report is helping to deliver. When we do so, we will speak again to those who are most directly affected by the reforms: the children and young people themselves.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Education and Culture Committee’s 10th Report, 2013 (Session 4): Report on decision making on whether to take children into care (SP Paper 386).
15:00
I welcome this afternoon’s debate, which the Education and Culture Committee has brought to the chamber following its recent inquiry. I congratulate the committee on its work; I know that we all share a passion for doing the very best that we can for the young people whom we are tasked with looking after.
I will touch on the themes in the committee’s report and comment on the action that we are taking. The Scottish Government believes that every child has the right to expect the very best start in life, the right to be safe, happy and nurtured in their own family, and the right to be in a loving and stable home with parents who have ambition and aspirations for their child—to have all the things that any parent would seek to provide for their child. Unfortunately, however, there will always be children whose wellbeing depends on alternative care, and for those children we need to make early and effective decisions to promote stability. We need to plan for and make decisions about their long-term futures as soon as they come into the looked-after system.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, among other things, aims to make public services more responsive to needs and more sensitive to working with families in order that they better support our most vulnerable children and young people. The committee’s work is useful and timely because it sets the scene on looked-after children ahead of stage 2 of the bill.
One of the ways to help young children in particular is childcare. Today, we have learned that the Scottish Government will receive £300 million in consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. Can the minister commit to putting some of that money into childcare for some of the youngest and most vulnerable children?
We have made clear within our bill our commitment to supporting children in their earliest years and we have set out our aspiration with the 600 hours of childcare for looked-after two-year-olds. We have also clearly set out our wider aspirations for childcare, which Neil Findlay can read in the white paper, if he would like to read it.
The importance of improving—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Neil Findlay needs to consider his tone during this debate, which is about trying to work constructively together on this important issue.
Improvement of corporate parenting is a crucial element of the bill because it encompasses all areas of our work, demanding that we get things right for those who are in our care. Our putting getting it right for every child on a statutory footing will provide a mechanism for early and effective intervention. GIRFEC’s principles underpin everything that we do and they place children at the heart of the design and delivery of services, aid improvement in permanence planning and delivery and, importantly, value the voice of the child.
There are encouraging signs that outcomes are improving gradually across almost all indicators. The main findings in the most recent publication on Scotland’s looked-after children show that looked-after young people who leave school are increasingly entering positive destinations. Some 75 per cent of looked-after young people who left school during 2011-12 were in a positive destination three months after they left school. The children’s social work statistics show that the rate of increase in the total number of looked-after children continues to slow, but that earlier and more frequent interventions can result in more children coming into care and, in particular, to their becoming looked after at home. The challenges around improving outcomes for that group are well known. Therefore, the partner policy aim here is early permanence.
Both early intervention and early permanence are needed if we are to meet our aims of reducing the number of children on long-term supervision requirements and increasing the numbers who find secure legal permanence. A focus on those two areas in the years ahead will enable us to achieve an effective, affordable and swift system of intervention and substitute care that wraps around the child. The benefits of investing in early intervention are fully realised when quality services are provided. We know all about the positive societal, emotional, educational and health impacts of early intervention, and there is economic evidence that every £1 that is invested in cause can save £9 in cure.
We are seeing a trend of children becoming looked after younger, which shows that social workers are acting more quickly to assess and intervene. We believe that social workers are right to take early decisions about children becoming looked after. We know from our work with the sector, including through the practice exchange workshops that the centre for excellence for looked-after children in Scotland has held, that social workers are feeling increasingly confident about using relevant evidence from previous interventions with families to hasten timescales for subsequent children. We support that approach; we want families to thrive, not just survive.
We are also making progress on permanence, with the number of children who are adopted from care increasing and the number of permanence orders rising year on year since their introduction.
However, too many children still remain on supervision for far too long, with all the uncertainty and distress that go with that. To reflect our commitment to permanence, we will in the coming months publish a care and permanence strategy that will set out the strategic framework for our work. It will recognise that far-reaching improvements in delivering early permanence for children can be made only by taking a whole-system approach that involves all those who contribute to the permanence process, including social work, wider community planning partnerships, children’s hearings and the courts. It will also include the voice of the child.
In addition, we will launch a permanence and care excellence—PACE—programme, which will work in two geographical areas and will use improvement science to develop improvement projects that look at all aspects of a child’s journey to permanence. It will focus on the child’s experience and will bring together local authorities, children’s hearings and the courts to identify barriers and delays, and to develop and test solutions. Those programmes will provide a powerful opportunity to deliver real improvement on the ground. By bringing the relevant partners together, the projects will address the interactions between systems in delivering permanence and will enable us to share learning across Scotland.
I turn my focus to the workforce. The Scottish Government’s approach to improving the quality of children’s social services centres on the needs of the child and the support that is given to professionals to make good judgments, and on continuously learning from what works. The Scottish Government fully realises the importance of developing a competent, confident and valued workforce, as is evidenced through the work of the Scottish Social Services Council and the investment that we make in other organisations, such as the Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services and CELCIS.
The SSSC provides various means of support to the sector and is, in partnership with a range of stakeholders, taking forward two further strands of activity to progress and support workforce development. That work will see the development of a national learning strategy for all practitioners, which will provide a framework for learning at qualifying and post-qualifying levels, and a career development pathway to support learning and skills throughout a career. In addition, a review will be carried out of the social work degree to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of students and employers now and in the future.
Furthermore, along with the chief social work adviser, I have established a social work strategic forum, which brings together partners from academia, the unions, the regulators and the Association of Directors of Social Work. It will allow us to move the sector forward strategically, and its work will include workforce support and continued engagement with front-line practitioners, among other things.
The inquiry also highlighted the need for more detailed information to be collected in order to provide a fuller picture of looked-after children’s outcomes, and to allow judgments to be made on whether interventions have been successful. The Scottish Government is currently working to review CLAS—children looked after statistics—data so that we can ensure that the data that we collect can be analysed to inform practitioners and policy making. The review is to be completed by the end of the year and should contribute to our understanding of service delivery and help us to articulate and anticipate financial implications for service providers.
The committee’s attention and report have been incredibly useful in ensuring that we do not take the foot off the gas when it comes to ensuring the very best for our looked-after children and young people. The committee has indicated—as the convener has done—that the systems and policies that we have should not be abolished. However, I believe that we must allow our approaches time to gain ground and to achieve the desired culture change and associated improvements. The challenge is about mobilising our combined efforts and resources more effectively, and directing more of them at families earlier to make it easier for practitioners to deliver involved family support.
GIRFEC is the policy and strategic framework that overlays our approach to all children who are in need or at risk. A range of interactions take place between concerned agencies, but what should unite them is the fundamental belief that every child has the right to expect the best start in life.
This is a difficult and complex subject area, but I do not doubt the passion and commitment of everyone in the chamber and across the relevant sectors to do our utmost to inculcate change and demand improvement. The issue is too important to get wrong, and we cannot be content with mediocrity. I look forward to the debate and to continuing to work with the committee on the journey to do our very best for our looked-after children.
15:09
As I am the newest member of the Education and Culture Committee, some might say that I had the luxury of considering the final report without having to undertake the hours of work that were required to pull together such a comprehensive review of the current systems and decision-making processes for determining whether to take a child into care. However, after reading the report and the accompanying documents, I think that I missed out on some useful evidence sessions at previous committee meetings. I was particularly pleased that the committee took the time to meet children and young people who are in the care system, to ensure that their voices were heard and that their experiences contributed to the report’s development.
The committee’s evidence gathering by listening to those young people is the most crucial point and it underpins the theme of hearing all voices in the decision-making processes. Sadly, it is too easy for many young people who are in care to become statistics and to be written off ahead of their time.
When we talk about how we support the most vulnerable young people in our society, we should think about our family, our friends and our loved ones. Looked-after children deserve no less than everything that we would do for our own families without a second thought. Looked-after children deserve no less commitment, no less patience and no less presence of a caring adult in their lives. Perhaps we as a society need to examine our attitude to looked-after children and the system that supports them and their families. Why is care perceived as a last resort or a response to family failure? I prefer to think of it as a declaration by society that every child matters and deserves the best. The system must deliver that.
A child being taken into care does not have to be a last resort. There should of course be concentrated support for families to improve the underlying issues but, as the committee’s convener highlighted, the move towards early interventions to take children into care sooner can—perhaps counterintuitively—be positive if it ensures that the decision leads to more permanence and stability in the child’s life and better outcomes in the form of improved life chances. Sadly, that is still not the case in many circumstances, but it is good that those areas for improvement have been highlighted by the committee’s work during the inquiry. I hope that we will see action on them.
Because of that room for improvement, I am pleased by the increasing emphasis on the need for permanence in a child’s life. Much of the evidence that the committee considered highlighted that, for too many children in care, the difficulties and complexities of decision making when considering outcomes can upset the stability in a child’s life not just at the start of their childhood but as they move into adulthood.
There is no arbitrary cut-off point in a loved one’s life when we stop caring about them or when they stop needing support. As the mother of two grown-up sons in their 30s, I know that only too well. To describe a parent’s relationship with their children in the drily technical language of the sector, it is about establishing a long-term framework of care and love. We support the development of that long-term framework when we want improvements to be made to the decision-making processes for taking children into care.
The Scottish Government has been keen to highlight how the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill goes some way towards meeting the challenges that are identified in the committee’s report. One of the measures in the bill that the Labour Party will support is the increase in the eligible age for aftercare for young people who have left care from 21 to 26. The permanence that we seek for children in care does not just involve ensuring that they have a roof over their heads. Stability does not mean just a house; it means having a home and friends and feeling valued, not just being accommodated.
One of the challenges of delivering public services is that the system that is in place in Scotland is a network of processes and multi-agency approaches that aims to develop a safety net that will catch and seek to protect the most vulnerable children in Scotland. It is vital that that succeeds, and we cannot afford for any child to slip through the gaps in our decision-making processes. We have guidelines for those vital processes, but a range of organisations expressed concern that the guidelines are still applied inconsistently across the country. Barnardo’s Scotland highlighted that each local authority has its own assessment process for handling risk assessment on taking children into care, which impacts on the potential outcomes for children according to where they live.
The report recognises the impact of GIRFEC and other child protection measures, but it acknowledges that current decision-making processes are not always delivering the best outcomes for children. We do not want to scrap the system and start again, but we need to make improvements.
Many of the points that are raised in the report, particularly about looked-after children, concern themes that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill covers. We will work with Aberlour Child Care Trust, Barnardo’s and Who Cares? Scotland to lodge a number of stage 2 amendments to improve the outcomes for looked-after children. However, we know that legislation alone is not enough and that we need a cultural shift in attitudes towards looked-after children. I look forward to working with colleagues to achieve that.
15:15
I put on record apologies from my colleague Mary Scanlon, who was due to participate in the debate. As a result of the travel situation she has had to head back to the Highlands for a constituency event rather earlier than she was anticipating, so I pass on her apologies to the Presiding Officer and to members in the chamber.
The extent of the challenge that faces the Parliament—and most especially the Education and Culture Committee—has never really been in doubt. In the past few years, during the most recent inquiry and the previous one, it has been patently clear that the Scottish care system is letting down far too many young people. In preparing the report we heard time and again from charities and third sector organisations and, most important, from young people in the care system, that most—though by no means all—of the concern centres on the decision-making process.
Before I turn to the report and to the Government’s response, I acknowledge the very real frustration, which stretches well beyond Holyrood, at the length of time that it is taking to meaningfully address the issue of looked-after children. All parties in the chamber have shared a common commitment to making the Scottish care system as effective as possible, and yet for all the goodwill and endeavour we seem to find ourselves back at first principles time and again. We have been very good at the diagnostic process, but much less good at finding a cure.
For instance, when the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration published its 2011 report there was real hope that progress would follow very soon after. However, two-and-a-half years on, we are still very much stuck with the same problems. Indeed, the minister indicated in her response to the committee’s report that the Scottish Government is aware of that situation and intends to review the care and permanence plan, with a revised strategy due early in the new year, which is good to hear. We all recognise the huge sensitivities that are involved in the issue, but we need to ensure that changes are well-balanced and properly implemented. Likewise, I think that we all feel a little guilty that the pace of reform has been too slow.
During our deliberations we have all been considering why we have made so little progress, given the extent of the good will that I mentioned. There has been considerable cross-party support, and the issue has been placed further up the political agenda, for which I give the Scottish Government credit.
Have we been missing some key points, or failing to listen to the right people? Perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is whether we are relatively powerless when it comes to dealing with some situations. There might be a little bit of that—certainly that is what we were bluntly told by two of the witness panels—but the lack of progress is also due to the weaknesses inherent in some of the data that has been essential in uncovering the problems in the decision-making process. It has also resulted from poor transparency, although that was not intentional.
That said, there is no weakness or lack of transparency when it comes to the blunt statistics that define the problem. Some of them are truly shocking. Although 56 per cent of school leavers overall gain five or more qualifications, only 4.7 per cent of children who are looked after away from home and 0.5 per cent of children who are looked after at home can expect the same degree of attainment. That is not a small disparity but a gaping chasm that reflects very poorly on us all.
Moreover, while 87.5 per cent of school leavers are engaged in work, education or training, only half of those who are looked after at home are doing the same. We are really not doing them any justice whatsoever by not enabling them to acquire the relevant skills to participate in a modern workforce, and that has lifelong implications.
During our most recent inquiry we heard troubling evidence from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that, in Glasgow, two thirds of children who have left care to return home end up back in the system within a year. Oscillating between pillar and post, those youngsters are at serious risk of being left behind completely.
We have been good at the diagnosis, but what is the cure? There is no doubt that much of it will have to focus on the decision-making process, because it is clear that, as many of the witnesses told us, too many barriers remain in the way of good decision making. Those barriers mean that too many children are being left in unsuitable home environments. Decision making is inconsistent and variable across the country; the system does not use resources sufficiently well; and some groups find it far too difficult to have the courage of their convictions and remove a child—I can well understand why.
In response, perhaps the key recommendation is on early permanence: the idea that, by intervening earlier, children are removed from an unstable home environment and given the foundation that they need to grow and prosper. A consensus is emerging that, together, early intervention and early permanence can deliver much better outcomes for children, families and communities. The whole package, if I can call it that, is important.
The member will recall the debate that we had in the committee about the fact that early intervention does not relate simply to the early years. Does she share the concern that was expressed that, with older children and younger young people, there is sometimes a temptation to put in place temporary measures, as that is a less costly way of dealing with the issues that they face?
I absolutely share that concern—I do not think that we could doubt the evidence that was given to the committee on that point. However, we have had other careful evidence that, at the earliest stages, where the first signs of difficulties often arise, we have to do much more. We need a combination of early intervention and early permanence, as the minister has flagged up.
The Scottish Conservatives are largely supportive of the measures that the Scottish Government is taking. Later, in my closing remarks, I will mention a few issues on which we will request more detail from the Scottish Government. Above all, we must all ask ourselves why we are debating again many issues that we debated not that long ago and that we have not managed to resolve.
We now turn to the open debate. At this stage, I can offer speeches of around six minutes, with time for interventions.
15:22
The debate comes on the back of the Education and Culture Committee’s extensive inquiry into decision making on whether to take young children into care. As the convener, Stewart Maxwell, rightly said, it is powerful when a young person in his 20s tells the committee as a witness that he and his brother should have been taken into care a lot sooner. As I have said before and I will say again, that brings a reality to the debate and the issues that we are discussing.
Many children’s charities engaged in the process and they mentioned some of the difficulties. One of those, which has been mentioned by Jayne Baxter and other members, is to do with consistency and the fact that local authorities have different guidelines on how to proceed. For example, Barnardo’s Scotland said that it is
“concerned that there is not always consistency in the focus given to the rights of the child.”
It continued:
“We have witnessed some local authorities becoming too optimistic about the outcomes of maintaining the child in the family setting, at the expense of the needs of the child.”
That point also came across strongly when we spoke to young people. Like that young man I mentioned, when they explained their experience, they agreed that, at the time they probably wanted to stay with their family but, in retrospect, they saw that being taken into care made a difference to their life. I am not saying that that applies to every child, but the Scottish Government’s ideal of early intervention and a preventative approach is the way forward.
We have to consider some of the things that young people told the committee. A perfect example was another person in his mid-20s who also had a younger brother, who was a teenager. When we saw the two of them, the older brother felt guilty about the fact that he had not been there to support and look after his family and deal with the issues.
The younger brother had been taken into care earlier and he was, to use a local parochialism, quite gallus about the whole situation. That was a perfect example of how to make things work, given the difference between the two brothers. The younger sibling dealt with the situation a lot better because he was taken into care a lot quicker; the older sibling felt guilty and took it upon himself to deal with the situation.
I welcome the minister’s commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people. The GIRFEC principles in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill can make a difference. If we use those principles and they are legislated for at local authority level, that might ensure that in future young men like the older brother we met do not feel the way that he did. I am glad that he was able to open up to us, because it made it obvious to us how he felt and what a difference his situation had made to his life.
Another issue that came up was the fact that social work professionals are often promoted and taken away from the front line or leave to go into other roles with children’s charities or other projects. They are still doing good work, but their expertise is taken away from the front-line jobs that we really need people of their experience to do. The Scottish Government and local authorities have to work together to ensure that we retain such staff, because we cannot afford to lose that expertise.
In my days in the motor industry we used to say, “You never promote your best salesman, or salesperson; you always ensure that they are out there doing the job.” It should be almost the same in social work. We must have a way to ensure that good social workers stay at the front line in the profession and continue to do good work. We must give them the support that they need as well.
I mentioned early intervention and prevention. For me, the important aspect of the bill is that there is scope for early intervention and prevention. I said last week that I had been at the Polmont young offenders institution to find out about the Barnardo’s Scotland outside in project, which has made a big difference to the young people there. Many of them were there because they had come from broken homes, were in care and a violent situation had inevitably arisen at some point. When we started talking about things and discussing their issues, they thought that what is in the bill could have made a difference, not to every child, but to some of them. That is the way to go, because if we are to get it right for every child in Scotland and ensure that Scotland is the best place in the world to grow up, we have to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity, regardless of their background.
I agree with Jayne Baxter that there has to be a change of national attitude when it comes to looked-after children. We have to get away from the idea that they are other people’s problems. It is almost like the corporate parenting thing again; we are the ones who have to take on the responsibility.
We must also think differently. The Government needs to work in partnership with local authorities and find solutions to the problems and challenges that we face.
I welcome a lot of the work that we have done. One of the things that I really liked about the inquiry was meeting the young people who have gone through the system; listening to their evidence made it real. I hope that, having listened to it, we will move forward and make things better for children in Scotland.
15:29
I thank the committee for taking on this challenging and contentious subject and for producing such a thoughtful and, I hope, helpful report.
Given the broad consensus across the Parliament and across all sectors about the importance of early intervention generally in improving prospects for our children, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the question of when to take a child into care.
There was one particularly insightful comment in the report from Professor Eileen Munro that sums up the dilemma that faces us:
“Society varies in the message that it sends. There are times when it says that a child should never be left in any danger, but it gets into a paddy when a lot of children are taken away. It is always a pendulum that we are trying not to let swing too far in either direction.”
I certainly do not want the pendulum to swing wildly, but we should tip it in the right direction. We still need to be more timeous in interventions, not so much because it will prevent cases of abuse—although we always have to be watchful for that kind of deliberate and wicked cruelty—but to prevent the grinding and depressing prolonged neglect and the damage that it causes that are so much more common.
I will not pretend to bring any sort of expertise to this issue when the committee has clearly benefited from the evidence of so many caring and experienced professionals. However, almost all of the cases that have come to my attention—directly or indirectly, from constituents or other sources—and left me worried have pointed to the need for speedier decision making.
In its interim report, the committee asked:
“Are too many children left too long with parents who neglect or emotionally abuse them?”
The simple answer to that is yes. As the committee has made clear, however, it is not so simple to decide what we can do about it.
For example, it is encouraging to read about the strong public policy focus on achieving permanence for children more quickly. It is not so encouraging to read that the level of early intervention is more likely to reflect the resources that are available to front-line social workers than variation in need or the demand for families.
One of the other things that we heard about early intervention is that it is not just about intervening with a view to taking a child away; it is about arriving at a decision that is in the best interests of the child. That can be about maintaining the child in the family home. We also heard that, at that point, support needs to be put in place to ensure that the home environment is as stable and supportive as it can be. Too often, resources are withdrawn at that stage rather than added to.
I entirely agree with Mr McArthur. Although I was highlighting acute need, I will return to that point and the need for quick support, early intervention and speedier decision making in making that support available to families.
I return to the issue of resources and the way in which they shape our actions. It troubles me to see how often the decisions about children who might be in need of care reflect the facilities or options that are open to the public authorities rather than the needs of the children themselves. I would welcome the minister’s comments on the extent to which that is still happening. For example, public authorities that have access to residential care homes seem to be more likely to place children in residential care than those who do not have that option on their doorstep.
Many of us will have seen the adverts, which seem to have been more frequent in recent weeks and months, asking for foster and adoptive families to come forward. Although on the one hand that might highlight a shortage of such families, I take the emphasis on recruitment as a positive sign. Again, however, it is rather worrying to hear about the experiences of families, particularly those who are looking to adopt.
Those of us who have dealt with fostering or adoption cases will know that, in the majority of cases, the children who are up for adoption have a range of needs and challenges. Even when children as young as two or three are taken into care, the damage that has been caused by poor attachment in infancy can often play out in behaviours in the child’s teens or later years. There is now so much evidence that reveals the importance of the first few months, let alone the first few years, of a child’s life, but our systems for helping families who are in need seem to be incredibly slow and cumbersome.
I have previously cited examples in my own constituency, in which the authorities have indicated their intention to move a child from his or her parent and have lined up an adoptive family, and the whole process has taken not months but years. In that time, what damage has been done? Removing a child from his or her family is not something to be done in haste, but neither does it help anyone to drag out these decisions.
What can we do? I think that we all recognise how difficult it is to know exactly when and how far to intervene. We do not want to design policy around the worst examples, but surely we can agree that quicker decision making is more likely to produce more effective results. Families need to be more actively supported. People need to be offered help to become good parents, and not just inspected every now and then to see whether things are all right. It is all too easy for the fly and the sly to deceive the health visitor or the social worker. Those families are rarely evil; they are just incapable. When it is possible, we need to help them to look after their own children properly.
Putting the child at the centre of our thinking is what GIRFEC is all about and it is a good approach. I emphasise that there are aspects of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that are to be warmly welcomed, and I echo the point highlighted by Jayne Baxter earlier about the extension to young adults leaving care of the right to ask for support. However, I have already expressed my doubts about the named person approach taken in the bill, which could divert resources away from where they are most needed. I am not convinced that legislation by itself will do much good if we strip local authorities of the resources needed to provide the support.
Is there not an irony about, or at least a contrast between, our shared agreement across the Parliament on the committee’s report and the simultaneous knowledge that social workers are so hard pressed and so stressed with their case load that they scarcely have time to make the visits or have the room to make the balanced judgments that we all seek?
We should acknowledge that those working in child protection get mixed messages. The reaction to shocking cases of child abuse is often to point the finger of blame at social workers, and then to respond with many well-intentioned recommendations, but the net effect is sometimes to encourage those working in the sector to become ever more risk averse. They become more aware of the need to protect themselves from prosecution, rather than concentrating solely on protecting children from harm.
There was a good and thought-provoking article in The Scotsman recently by Stuart Waiton, who argued that the bureaucratisation of adult-child relationships has undermined our ability to exercise personal judgment. I believe that the answer lies not in ever more formal procedures or processes, whether clumsy or streamlined, but in creating an atmosphere where good judgment is at the centre of decision making, where social workers and other carers are encouraged to step in to support, not to condemn, and where good examples are heralded and lauded rather than bad examples simply being pilloried.
We know that we can never get it absolutely right and that there will always be examples that shame us all for their human cruelty, but if the report can tip the balance towards helping children with earlier and quicker intervention to help parents and, where necessary, to remove children, it will have been worth while.
As members will be aware, there is quite a bit of time in hand, which will allow for interventions and even the development of themes and ideas. I now call Clare Adamson. You may have a generous six minutes.
15:37
Presiding Officer, thank you for that challenge at the start of my speech.
I begin by associating myself with Stewart Maxwell’s comments about the witnesses and contributors who have worked with the committee during the past few months in coming to the conclusions in the report. I listened to Liz Smith talking about her frustration in dealing with this area, but I am also aware that we have done a considerable amount of work across the Parliament on the issues. In December last year, we had a debate in the chamber on permanence and adoption, and at that time Gil Paterson said that it was one of the debates that shows the Parliament in its best light. The report that we are discussing today also has the potential to meet that standard.
Clare Adamson has pointed to the frustration that I feel, and I do not deny that we have come some way towards addressing the problem. However, one of the most stark pieces of evidence provided to us was when somebody told us in fairly blunt terms that we were right back where we had been several years ago. For those who were around the previous time, the frustration arises from the fact that the progress that we have made is rather piecemeal and is not going fast enough to address the real problems that Ken Macintosh has just been speaking about, and that we do not have the courage of our convictions in some circumstances. Does she acknowledge that that is part of the frustration?
I absolutely agree, and I have had the same experience when listening to such comments. However, we must recognise that the committee’s initial inquiry identified that we were letting down our looked-after children. The second inquiry that we have undertaken in that area is a new piece of work, and perhaps enough prominence has not been given in Parliament to some of the issues and problems that existed before.
I would like to thank Jayne Baxter, a new member of the committee, and to recognise the hard work of colleagues on her own benches and across the Parliament in bringing together the report that we are discussing and that I am so pleased to be able to speak about this afternoon.
When we discussed permanence last year, my colleague Willie Coffey spoke about the scale of the problem. It is worth repeating some of the facts that he mentioned. He said that
“there are 16,000 children who are being looked after by Scotland’s local authorities, and that there are possibly up to another 15,000 being cared for by relatives under informal arrangements.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2012; c 13073.]
It is vital for families that the Scottish Government works with local authorities and other partner organisations in this area.
In December last year, I highlighted a report from Who Cares? Scotland, which has contributed a great deal to the committee report that is before Parliament today, both in its support of young people who wanted to give evidence to the committee and in its briefings.
In April last year, Who Cares? Scotland conducted a survey in which it spoke to 116 young people about their experience as care leavers in the system. One young woman said:
“It was all too quick and I never got the time to pack my things. I would have liked more time to prepare and also to be told that going into care was an option as it was all a shock to me when it happened. I never got to say goodbye to my friends either which I didn’t like.”
That quote sums up a lot of the concerns that were raised by many young people who we spoke to in the course of our deliberations.
I want to talk briefly to the four themes in the report. On the early intervention theme, we have made quite a bit of progress with the roll-out of GIRFEC across Scotland, which will be put into statute in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. That goes some way to improving what we mean by early intervention.
Ken Macintosh talked about the challenges for social work. Under theme 2, on assessments, we must not underestimate the huge amount of pressure to get it right for social workers to ensure that assessments are at a standard that is acceptable to decision makers about young people. Again, GIRFEC has gone some way to improve interagency and interdepartmental co-operation and to improve confidence that assessments meet requirements.
The report also asks the Government to consider the concerns that have been raised and the commitment to GIRFEC that a clear timescale should be given that will demonstrate that integration is working and that we have improved confidence in the decision-making process and assessments. We must not underestimate the importance of the establishment of CELCIS in contributing to the improved confidence in assessments. CELCIS was set up with the aim to
“promote effective professional engagement with families, promote the planning for and the management of high quality assessments, reduce unnecessary delays and drift in permanence planning and promote a new ‘whole systems’ approach to permanence planning.”
Again in 2012, the early years collaborative, which is looking at evidence-based decision making, was created. Together, the two have the potential to do transformational work in this area. The challenge for the Government and local authorities is to ensure that the sharing of the findings, the adoption of best practice and the research from CELCIS and the early years collaborative can be used to maximum effect across Scotland.
Mr Macintosh has already mentioned the importance of training and assessment in these areas. We must not underestimate the concerns that social workers have raised about the demographic challenges in their profession and the claim that post-qualification training and career development have disappeared. In paragraph 63, the report asks the Government to take seriously the concerns raised in that area.
The quote from a young person that I used earlier says all that we need to know about hearing all the voices in the decision-making process. That is theme 4 in the report. A lot of good work is going on out there and a lot of progress is being made. I am really glad that this report will play a small part in improving the lives of our looked-after children.
15:44
The issue of looked-after children and young people and how we improve the life experiences and outcomes for that group has dominated the work of the Education and Culture Committee in this parliamentary session. None of the committee members, either past or present, would make any apology for that focus or for the time that we have committed to getting into the detail of the issues involved. The issues are complex, and that is reflected in the latest report. The area does not lend itself to neat, far less to easy, solutions.
I add my thanks to all those who gave evidence and helped in the development of the committee report, and the report that preceded it on improving the outcomes for looked-after children. One inquiry flowed naturally from the other, although even now I have the sense that we have scarcely done justice to many of the issues. As the convener of the committee indicated, it is inevitable that we—and certainly successor committees—will return to the subject in the future.
As the convener explained, the approach that was taken to the report was rather different from before, with interim findings and a parliamentary debate as well as a special hearing that involved the wide range of stakeholders whose work in the field on a daily basis deserves our respect and gratitude.
Above all, we were committed to hearing the voices of children and young people with direct experience of the care system. Their testimony was particularly powerful and at times highly creative. We owe a special debt to Who Cares? Scotland for its help throughout the inquiry, not least in the session with those with direct experience.
As well as being moved by the piece of theatre that the young people performed, I was struck by what they had to say. They wanted to feel involved in decisions that profoundly affect their lives; they wanted a sense of belonging and not to be shunted from pillar to post; and, most of all, they wanted a strong, stable, supportive and loving environment in which to be brought up.
As Jayne Baxter rightly said, those are all things that we would expect for our own children and things that we should aspire to deliver for those for whom we have responsibility as corporate parents. The committee’s report is helpful in that regard, and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which the committee is currently considering, has the potential to deliver real improvements for those who are in care and those who are leaving care.
I will turn to those people shortly, but I first want to reflect briefly on the Government’s response to the committee’s report. I confess that, in places, the response left me a little frustrated. It is, of course, generally very positive, and I absolutely agree with the minister’s view that the focus must be on early intervention, particularly in the early years, and also on early permanence. Nevertheless, I felt too often that the message was either “We’re doing this already” or “This is nothing to do with us.” That may be unfair and it may reflect the iterative nature of two committee inquiries in which we have been in almost constant dialogue with the Scottish Government, but in some places the response still felt a bit unsatisfactory.
For example, the minister’s letter to the convener starts by declaring that there are
“encouraging signs that outcomes are improving gradually across almost all indicators”.
I agree that the picture is not universally bleak, but that statement seems unduly upbeat. For example, the committee found little evidence that outcomes for those who are looked after at home are anything other than shockingly poor, as the convener suggested, in respect of education, health, homelessness or involvement in the criminal justice system.
Later in the response, the minister talks of her
“programme of work to encourage strategic commissioning”.
That is very welcome, but again on the evidence that we received from those who are involved in the third sector, that is a way off happening in almost all parts of the country.
Likewise, the committee’s concerns about workforce training and retention in social work appear to have been rather brushed aside. I am not suggesting that no action has been taken by the minister in conjunction with local authorities—far from it—or that there are any easy answers, but we heard firm evidence that retaining staff in what can often be highly stressful roles in children and families social work is a problem in many areas.
I think that George Adam indicated that we heard that retaining experienced social workers on the front line was a particular challenge. Obviously, that is a concern, as providing high-quality assessment of difficult cases perhaps depends more on experience than training.
That said, I recognise the steps that the Government has taken and is taking. Indeed, I welcome the establishment of the permanence leaders group. I also acknowledge the opportunity that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill presents to make further progress, for which there is solid cross-party commitment.
Where can that progress be made? According to Barnardo’s, improving outcomes requires improvement in the consistency, speed and timeliness of decision making, and an absolute focus on securing permanency once a decision is made to take a child into care. That was entirely borne out by our inquiry.
On consistency, Barnardo’s has highlighted the different risk assessment processes that are used by authorities in Scotland and that uncertainty about what evidence needs to be gathered leads to needless delays. As such, a common framework across the country is necessary.
Speed of decision making is also crucial, notwithstanding that such decisions are probably the most difficult that an authority has to make. As the minister acknowledges, the issue is about not just speed but achieving permanency quickly. Barnardo’s proposes a six-month timeframe for conducting a parental assessment and highlights—as Ken Macintosh did—the need for much stronger support for parents when a decision is taken to leave a child in or return it to the family home. Often the reverse happens, which is a complaint that we hear particularly from parents of children with disabilities or additional support needs, although I hope that proposals in the bill for a named person and a single child’s plan will help in that respect.
Early decision making is also vital. As Stewart Maxwell said, the complaint from many of the young people that we spoke to was that they were left in a poor home environment for too long. The earlier that decisions are made—at whatever age—the better the outcomes for the child or young person.
I have listened to Liam McArthur’s speech very carefully and I agree with what he says. Does he share my concern about the decision-making process that leads to one child being removed while a younger sibling is left in a home, where, in effect, both suffer the same abuse? We heard a lot of evidence about such situations and it is something that has left a permanent memory in my brain. We are leaving children in the home when evidence of abuse has been proved.
The committee convener is absolutely right on that point. It was one of the most striking aspects of the evidence that we received. Such situations almost seem to be an exercise in going back to first principles, rather than basing assessments on existing risks that seemed to be well known and understood.
As I said earlier, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill can help address a number of the issues that the committee’s report flagged up. In addition, I welcome moves to improve aftercare for those who leave the care system, though the eligibility criteria must be extended and a greater consistency in what is provided is also required. I will lodge amendments at stage 2 to that effect.
Moreover, following the UK Government’s announcement yesterday that children in care in England will have a legal right to stay with their foster families until their 21st birthday, I would welcome comments from the minister on what steps might be taken here in Scotland.
I am grateful to all those who helped in the production of the report and I hope—not least through the bill that is now before the committee—that we can make further inroads into improving the life chances of those who go through the care system in this country.
In that respect, I hope that, when ministers quite legitimately defend their record, they will guard against any temptation to downplay the serious gaps that still exist, the slow pace of improvement or the distance that we still need to travel to achieve our shared ambition to make sure that, for our looked-after children and young people, Scotland really is the best place in the world to grow up.
15:52
The inquiry has in some respects been difficult for the Education and Culture Committee. I for one hoped that, somewhere among the wealth of information and evidence provided, a magic bullet would be found that would point to a clear and simple solution, but alas that was not the case. What is clear is that successive Governments have rightly placed a high priority on children in care. Considerable resources have been channelled into this area and a multitude of groups and organisations have come into being over the years, with the laudable aim of providing much needed support, yet the fact is that improvement has been glacial.
I believe that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will make real progress and create a more consistent approach. It should help to create the environment in which solutions can flourish. It helps point the way in a more cohesive and focused manner. It is not a magic bullet, but it moves us in the right direction. At the end of the day, solutions still lie with people and how they respond to the opportunities that the bill will create.
The committee’s report highlights many of the key issues that surround the decision-making process. From an organisational perspective, the evidence points to the fact that, at present, no joined-up approach is in place across Scotland and there are therefore major inconsistencies across the board. Decisions are made through a mixture of processes that involve a wide range of stakeholders, from social workers to courts to children’s hearings. Beyond that, each local authority has its own assessment process to handle risk assessment when deciding whether to take a child into care.
When all those factors come into play, it may well be the case that what should be the true focus of the decision—the welfare of the child in question—is, in effect, put to one side. It must be clear that, in any such decisions that are made, the rights of the children and parents are carefully balanced.
At no point should we underestimate the fact that this decision-making process is potentially the most difficult that local authorities must undertake. I believe that the committee has been sensitive to that. Many competing viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, as a potentially wrong decision might result in further neglect or abuse, or worse.
In order to improve the process, one could make the case that earlier intervention provides the potential for stability or permanence to be put into effect as early as possible to minimise the potential for harm. Indeed, many of the young people with experience of the care system who spoke to the committee indicated that they felt they should have been taken into care earlier.
However, it has not always been proved that early intervention will produce the desired outcome for each family, especially given that circumstances will almost certainly differ from case to case. One size does not fit all. Fundamentally, early intervention should be seen in the context of whether it will lead to fewer children being placed in care over the longer term and whether those children will enjoy better outcomes as a result. In pre-birth cases, it must be considered whether providing parenting support would provide a positive outcome. If, as the Scottish Government proposes, early intervention is introduced in tandem with early permanence, we should see fewer young people remaining in long-term care.
The role of social workers and the support that they receive need to be carefully examined. The evidence that was supplied to the committee indicates that, at present, social workers lack confidence in their own knowledge and assessment skills. It has also been suggested that they take an overly optimistic approach, which can result in an unwillingness to remove children from potentially harmful or neglectful situations. Beyond that, we have been told that their evidence in court is not treated with the same legitimacy as evidence from other professionals such as doctors and psychologists. If social workers’ opinions are not given credibility, it is no surprise that the profession suffers from a lack of confidence. That could be remedied in the training that is given to social workers by, for example, expanding the social work degree to allow for more specialisation and making post-qualification training and career development more focused and targeted. I understand that the Scottish Social Services Council is reviewing the degree and I look forward to seeing its conclusions.
That leads me on to the provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill of a named person for those in care, the response to which has been overwhelmingly positive. However, one or two questions still remain. For example, if the named person is to be a teacher, it is assumed that the add-on costs will be minimal. What will happen during school holidays? Such decisions are in the hands of councils, but the bill indicates that the Scottish Government is taking the lead on implementing solutions.
It is also important that we do not forget parents with learning disabilities. International research suggests that two out of every five children who are born to parents with learning disabilities are permanently removed from their care. Although the statistic might not specifically refer to Scotland, the figure is unlikely to be significantly different here and, as a result, those cases need to be considered very carefully. There is evidence that prejudicial attitudes—for example, that people with learning disabilities are incompetent—have been the reason for removing children, but I would like to think that a modern, independent Scotland is capable of much more compassion and understanding than that. To that end, the Scottish Government has set up the child protection and disabilities ministerial working group, which will consider the needs of children and young people in families where disability affects a parent and will, I presume, also study the level of support that such parents or carers require.
One key issue is that the voices of children and parents must be heard throughout the decision-making process. The committee met young people who had recently come out of the care system and found their feedback to be exceptionally enlightening and thought provoking. Indeed, it provided us with a uniquely different perspective on the situation. The reactions to the children’s hearings system, for example, indicated several shortcomings with the current set-up. The committee heard that the hearings can be intimidating with too many people present, including professionals such as psychologists who could provide an opinion but had not necessarily seen the children regularly. There was also concern that some children who were reluctant to speak out in front of their family were unaware that they could speak to the panel on their own. It is not surprising that young people had better experiences at these hearings when there were fewer people present and when they genuinely felt that those responsible were listening to them.
That truly is the crux of the of the issue for children being taken into care. Throughout the process, they need to be listened to and their feedback needs to be properly considered in order to ensure that, when decisions are made on taking children into care, the voices of those who are affected most are those that are given the highest priority. The newly established children’s hearings improvement partnership will, I hope, take this feedback on board, to improve the process.
The Scottish Government is working to strike a balance on permanence decisions and, while results might not be immediate, and we rely on the responses of other individuals and organisations, I believe that we will have a bill that results in a much more considerate and empathetic care system for children who are taken into care.
16:00
I rise to speak in the debate with little expertise in this subject, but with a great interest in it. That interest stems partly from my years as the chair of East Dunbartonshire children’s panel advisory committee. I note that Kenneth Macintosh and I are again speaking in a children’s debate, and I wonder whether there is an umbilical cord taking us both back to that very first Education, Culture and Sport Committee in 1999 that means that we just cannot leave the subject alone.
I would like to consider three areas: early intervention; prevention; and, particularly, the idea in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill of a named person. I would also like to consider how the voice of the child is heard in this process. Given my background, which I have just explained to the chamber, I would also like to speak about the role of children’s hearings in the process.
Planning for permanence and the elimination of what I understand is now being called drift runs through everything that we are discussing in relation to looked-after young people. I note that those issues were a theme in the minister’s opening remarks.
A lot of my speech today is based on recent reading and research. The information that went into the committee’s report was useful and important. Running through the report and the minister’s opening remarks is the idea that GIRFEC is the foundation of everything that we should do in this area.
There is a great deal of evidence that early intervention and the preventative agenda are best not only for young people but for their families. When I was a member of the Health and Sport Committee, the chief medical officer told us that, in his view, it is the nine months before birth and the nine months after birth that set the foundation for a person’s life. That is extremely clear in what we are talking about today.
When I was looking for evidence on which to base my speech, I found that there was a lot of specific evidence about how the early intervention agenda is important when taking children into care. As someone who likes to find evidence, I found it comforting, at an intellectual level, to learn about all the work that the Scottish Government is doing to support teams that are conducting research so that there will be a strong evidence base for all decisions that are made. The work of the permanence and care team and CELCIS, which was founded in 2011 at the University of Strathclyde and which Clare Adamson talked about, is important. We need to ensure that, when decisions are made, either legislatively or by a social worker on the ground, they are based on evidence.
For me, that is why the named person is so important. My understanding is that the named person will allow for integration across the child’s life. It will ensure that there is consistency and co-ordination of help and support for every child in Scotland. In his speech, Colin Beattie listed the multi-agency involvement in the lives of vulnerable children. That stresses the importance of the named person. As someone who is not at the heart of the debate, I say absolutely genuinely that I cannot understand why Kenneth Macintosh and others in the Labour Party say that they have reservations about the named person. To me, it looks like a crucial measure. Having a named person will be supportive for every child in Scotland, but it will be vital for vulnerable young people and their families.
Will the member give way?
I will, but I probably will not understand Mr Macintosh’s point.
My question is simply this: why would it be helpful for my six children to have a named person?
I am a parent, like Ken Macintosh, and we never know when we might find ourselves vulnerable as a family. I do my absolute best as a parent, but that is not to say that it would not have been helpful for me and my son, who is now an adult, to have had someone to whom we could have turned.
Will Fiona McLeod give way on that point?
I know that we have plenty of time, but Mr Macintosh and I could end up having a debate across the chamber.
That is fine.
I point out that, should there be difficulties in my family, we have an enormous support network, although I recognise that I am fortunate. I have a mother and I have a brother and two sisters who all have kids. My wife has two siblings with families and her own parents are alive. We have family, friends and neighbours who would help to look after us. There are all sorts of people who would intervene, support us and know if we got into difficulty. Absolutely the last person on the list of people to whom we would turn would be a social worker. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is the last person to whom we should turn. To go to a social worker in such a situation is a total diversion of resources when so many people need urgent help right now.
You have been generous, Presiding Officer. That was a one-and-a-half-minute intervention.
My comments were genuine—I do not understand Ken Macintosh’s point. I do my best as a parent and I have my support networks. However, I registered my child with a general practitioner not when he was ill, but so that there was a general practitioner to take him to if he became ill. For me, a named person would have provided similar support—a resource that I could have turned to if my own family network had not been available. The named person will be a fantastic advantage for every child and family in Scotland but is an absolute necessity for vulnerable children and families, given the multi-agency involvement that Colin Beattie described.
When I was researching my speech, I found not just that there is evidence of the need for a named person but that there is almost universal support for the proposal. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents to the consultation on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill supported having a named person. When Children 1st surveyed kinship carers, 90 per cent of those who responded said that every child in Scotland should have a named person and 78 per cent reflected on their own situation and said that, if they had had a named person, it would have been helpful to them and their family. The support for having a named person exists as well as the evidence for it.
I am a great fan of article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—I used to have the T-shirt—which is all about the child’s voice needing to be heard in the process. I found the evidence that Who Cares? Scotland gave to the committee interesting. Who Cares? Scotland is good and supportive at an organisational level, but the young people whom we met through it just blew us away with the stories that they told us. I quote from the evidence that Who Cares? Scotland gave to the committee:
“Young people should be better informed and included in the decision making process before, during and after leaving care”.
I would have liked to concentrate on the children’s hearings system at this stage. With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I will do so.
When I was in children’s hearings, I often used to hear that the child’s presence would be dispensed with. For me, however, as article 12 says, that is where the child’s voice must be heard. Therefore, it has been lovely for me to find out about all the work that has been done recently, such as the Scottish Children’s Reporters Administration setting up a participation in hearings group in 2009, the children’s hearings improvement partnership being set up in 2010, and the involvement of the Children’s Parliament. It has been lovely to come across a fantastic document entitled “Hearing Scotland’s Children” and to read about the changes made to the hearings system, including to the waiting rooms and the format of the information that goes out to young people. It has been useful for me to learn about all those things.
What I have learned in researching for the debate is that the policy is a work in progress. It looks to me that the intent is there by all parties, so I hope that we will all keep on the path and ensure that we get it right for every child.
16:10
Do we still have plenty time in hand in the debate, Presiding Officer? I know that you were encouraging us to develop ideas and, in doing so, I hope that I do not misrepresent Clare Adamson—I would never dream of doing so—but I think that she mentioned that this Parliament was at its best when discussing permanence orders during a previous debate. I think she implied that, because Parliament came to a consensus, that was Parliament at its best. I argue that this Parliament is sometimes at its best when there is no consensus and we are debating big ideas and topics. Of course, that has nothing to do with the debate; rather, it is a comment to help the Presiding Officer on timings.
This is a vital report on young people in care and their future. The committee is correct to observe that
“Few issues are of greater importance”
than improving the outcomes for some of our most disadvantaged children.
I start by thanking the committee of which I was a member for almost all the inquiry. The report asks some very searching and legitimate questions of the Scottish Government and society as a whole. I will be candid. When we consider the outcomes for looked-after children, only one conclusion can be reached: we have failed and are failing looked-after children very badly, despite the heroic efforts of front-line staff in some cases and the resilience of the young people themselves.
Various measures evidence that failure. Liz Smith gave the stark educational attainment figures for looked-after children. The Scottish Prison Service’s bulletin from the 13th prisoner survey on “Prisoners who have been in care as ‘looked-after children’”, which was published in 2011, shows that 28 per cent of all respondents—prisoners in Scottish jails—had been in care at some point and 20 per cent had been in care at the age of 16; 38 per cent of young offenders had been in care as a child and 26 per cent at the age of 16; and 37 per cent of female prisoners had been in care as a child and 28 per cent at the age of 16. However, only 2 per cent of children are in care at any given time.
The same survey found that 82 per cent of prisoners who were previously in care were using drugs in the 12 months before going into prison, compared with 60 per cent of those who had not been in care, and that 33 per cent reported being prescribed methadone compared with 19 per cent of those who had not been in care.
Prisoners who had been in care also had greater problems with reading, writing and numbers. A range of other differentials exist between such prisoners and the population.
Those figures and many other sets of statistics represent our collective failure of young people in care. The committee acknowledges those failures but also underlines the need for sufficient resources to be provided to ensure that those who are in care and who are most disadvantaged get the best and most effective support and help available. If we genuinely believe that how we are judged as a society depends on the support that we provide to our weakest and most vulnerable people, it will be the actions following the report that will, to use a cliché, test that to the full.
One of the main issues examined was about the decision to remove children from their home and place them in care, as many members have mentioned. The decision to remove a child should always be based on what is best for that child. Will the child be better protected, cared for and nurtured and given more opportunity to develop well if they remain with or are removed from their family? Some young people who we met very powerfully argued that they should have been removed much earlier from their family; others suggested that leaving the young person with their family was the better option. It became absolutely clear through the inquiry that each case has to be considered individually and that the young person and their rights have to be at the centre of any decision making. I think that we can now put to bed the view that removing children is a last resort, as that is simply wrong.
The committee heard that young people who remain at home, and their families, need much more intensive family support than they appear to get at present, and that requires resources. Unison, which represents many of the front-line staff, told the committee:
“Our members are reporting more and more cases involving mental health issues. We are taking some children into care in cases where, if the proper services had been around and if their parents had received the mental health support in the community that was required, they should not have needed to come into care.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 May 2013; c 2514.]
The same is true of young people who are removed from the family home. They have often experienced trauma in their relatively short lives and they need help to move on. In their lives, they have often been badly let down by adults for a range of reasons that may include addiction, abuse, crime, illness, homelessness or a parent being in prison. Too often, these young people are moved from placement to placement, separated from siblings or moved back and forth from home to placements, more often than not without the adequate support and tailored care that they need, and without counselling and psychological or emotional support that is tailored to their needs. The care that they do receive often finishes way too early in their lives.
Those who have come through the care system positively, who are the exception, often point to a key individual who they trusted and who cared for them, respected them and treated them with dignity. That is fundamental to a successful young life for any child, but especially for those who need to be cared for outside their natural family.
I think that the committee took a bit of convincing to take evidence from young people themselves. I am glad that it did that. Their evidence and their experiences were—
I would not want to misrepresent Mr Findlay any more than he would want to misrepresent me. My understanding is that the committee was concerned about the public record and the impact that that might have on the young people. It was not that we did not want to hear their voices. They were given plenty of opportunities. The concern was about the public record and how that might have been interpreted by some areas of the media. That is where our concern was—it was for the young people.
I think that that is the position that we eventually came to, but my view is that, at the beginning, there was some reluctance. I am not trying to do down the committee. It has done a fantastic job. However, I think that that reflects the reality of the discussions that we had at the time.
It does not.
We can disagree on that.
The young people’s evidence and experiences were the most powerful evidence that the committee took, and if the report lies on a shelf and effective action is not taken, I hope that they will hold every member of this Parliament to account for our collective failure.
The issues are not unique to Scotland as countries across Europe are wrestling with the challenges, but we have a duty to do as much as we possibly can.
16:18
To address the point that Mr Findlay has just made, I note that, as a member of the committee from the outset of the current parliamentary session, I have made it clear that I have always wanted to hear young people’s voices in both our inquiries into young people in care. The teenagers whom we spoke to in a round-table session that was organised by Who Cares? Scotland gave harrowing accounts of their lives and, as my colleague Clare Adamson said, they were given a good amount of time to do that. That meeting was not held in public because it was felt—quite rightly, in my view—that we have a duty of care to the young people, so we should not expose them to media scrutiny because many are already traumatised by a lifetime of abuse and neglect.
The young people who came to see us first staged a short play about the experience of being in care—or, as we now call it, being looked after. It was a physical piece of drama with little dialogue, but it spoke volumes. The young protagonist was pushed between the adults who were supposed to care for him and was constantly rejected. The more he was rejected, the worse his behaviour became—he was uncommunicative, angry and silently aggressive. Therefore, when an adult offered help, the boy rejected them; he mirrored the rejection that he had had to deal with all his life. As a result of his challenging behaviour, which was caused by emotional damage, he was, of course, rejected by adults even more.
Afterwards, what alarmed me about those teenagers’ experiences of care was the fact that they had been identified as being in need of protection very early in their lives—many of them had been taken into care before the age of five. Despite that, none had achieved permanent placement; most had had multiple placements and had experienced foster family rejection and breakdown. Their life experience certainly vindicated the central purpose of our inquiry.
Many of the young people said that they would have gained more stability and permanence in a small residential unit in their teenage years—I was certainly impressed by the residential unit in Glasgow that we visited—albeit that they would have liked such residential care to have allowed them to have as normal a family life as possible, for example by having friends round for sleepovers and all the other things that are part of growing up for most young people in our society.
It is also important to emphasise, as other members have done, that the majority view of the young people whom we spoke to was that they were better off in care than they would have been with their birth parents. One boy who was doing well in his education and who was an extremely engaging and articulate young man said that he believed that being taken into care had saved him from disaster and turned his life around.
However, the young people want the experience of care to be improved. They want more permanence and, above all, they want to be listened to. They also want their privacy to be respected and their views to be considered. Sometimes, that simply means that those in authority should adhere to their own recognised good practice.
Other members have mentioned the meeting at which young people talked about the children’s hearings system. They said that if they wanted to make their views known to the children’s panel privately, they had to ask others, including their birth parents, to leave the room. Many of them had felt too inhibited and intimidated to make that request in public. Those children loved their parents, even when they had not, for whatever reason, been capable of providing them with the nurturing home and stability that they needed. Those young people did not want to articulate their own needs because they were afraid of hurting the feelings of their birth parents and—on some occasions—the feelings of other family members and professionals who were involved in their lives. All a children’s panel would have to do is ask the child in advance whether he or she would like a private session.
For anyone who is interested, that issue is dealt with on page 13 of the committee’s report. I was interested in the evidence that we took from the children’s reporter, in which the problem was acknowledged. As I understand it, the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 will improve the situation. However, as the report says, the committee is concerned about the issue, so we will return to it to find out how the 2011 act is working in practice and whether it has resulted in improvement in some of the areas that the young people complained about.
As the convener has already detailed, the committee’s long-running inquiry dovetailed with the introduction in Parliament of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, and many of the concerns that were identified in the inquiry will be addressed by measures in that bill. Indeed, the Government has already put in place measures, such as the establishment of CELCIS at the University of Strathclyde.
Other members have expressed their gratitude to the large number of witnesses who gave their time to speak to the committee during our inquiry. I reiterate those thanks and take the opportunity to say how impressed I was by the oral evidence from CELCIS. It gave me a sense of encouragement that we are taking the problem very seriously indeed at the highest level. From now on, we will have a body of research and expertise to draw on to tackle the issues that the most vulnerable children in Scotland face. I very much hope that the work of CELCIS will inform good practice on the ground. I know that it is working closely with local authorities, just as it has helped to shape Government policy for the good.
I welcome the Government’s response to our report and the minister’s letter to the committee, which reiterates the commitment to early intervention in tandem with early permanence. I note, too, that the young people whom we spoke to had been affected by mistakes in the system that are already being addressed, and that there is already evidence of change. For example, the trend for children to become looked after—and the trend for them to become looked after at an earlier age—shows that social workers are now acting more quickly to assess families and to intervene.
There is some way to go, but there is no doubt from the minister’s speech and the work that she has done on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that she is extremely committed to addressing the problem, and in no way underestimates the job that needs to be done. By putting the key elements of GIRFEC in statute and introducing measures such as the named person, the bill will legally require local authorities to improve permanence planning and collaborative working, which our report shows to be essential in tackling the issue. Although much work needs to be done, I feel optimistic that we are going in the right direction and that we will do the young people justice.
16:25
The debate has been interesting, despite one or two scraps about contentious issues. The subject is interesting because it deals with a complex and difficult situation. As I said in my opening speech, it is incumbent on all of us to accept the complexities, and to accept that we have not got everything right in the past. I was just thinking that, if we look back to the Orkney inquiry in 1992, it dealt with some of the complex issues in terms of when it is right to remove children from their parents and take them into care.
In an eloquent speech, Ken Macintosh raised a central dilemma that we all face—I am not talking about the named person, which involves a political argument that we will have fairly soon in Parliament. The dilemma is challenging because, as he said, although we know in some circumstances that the categorical answer is that we should remove the child from the parents, it is sometimes difficult to do. I absolutely agree with the convener’s comment that, when a sibling might be involved in the situation that Mr Macintosh described, it is not appropriate for that other child to be left. Given the grave difficulty that faces the parents or family concerned and those who look after such children, we cannot easily put ourselves in the places of the people who must take such decisions.
I make it clear that I do not underestimate the complexity of the difficulty for professionals who face such situations. Every case must be considered individually, but given the evidence that we received, I feel that in the past mistakes were made in clear-cut cases.
The convener is absolutely right. There is probably no question but that this is the most complex issue that we have come up against. It has been one of the reasons why people have held back from decisions to take the child into care—that did not happen just because of the past mistakes that he mentioned—although the decision was intrinsically correct, as Mr Macintosh said.
I do not think that the minister in any way underestimates the task in hand, but I understand what Mr McArthur was getting at; we need to deal with a few issues in the report in more detail. I will flag them up to the minister. We say clearly in paragraph 34 that terminology could
“be used more clearly and consistently.”
Perhaps we need to address that. People who gave evidence were slightly troubled by some of the wording that has been used, so it would be helpful for the terminology to be more consistent. It would help if the minister would reply to that point.
In paragraph 39, the committee raised reasonable concerns about children falling through the gaps. The committee seeks clarity on the adequacy of current resources, which a couple of members have mentioned. The minister’s response was that
“We take our role in helping service providers to set the policy and resource framework very seriously”,
but we would expect that. If she will forgive me, we want her to give a little more detail on how that will be done and not just to make the point.
At paragraph 51 the committee asked the Government
“to explain how it will work with local authorities to help child social work carry out its role more effectively.”
The Government response states that
“It is a matter of public record that the Scottish Government’s approach to improving the quality of children’s social services centres on the needs of the child”.
We know that, but it would be enormously helpful if the minister could expand on it.
It is all out there.
Perhaps the minister can give us a bit more detail in her reply. If we are to convince some of the doubters—
Liz Smith has characterised some of the Government’s responses in a wholly negative way. What she has described is not the sum total of our response. I noted in my speech that we have established a strategic forum that brings together all the parts of the social work force so that we can move the sector forward strategically and draw on the expertise that is out there.
Liz Smith is being a bit unfair in her characterisation of some of our replies, which we had hoped would be met with some of the spirit of consensus and co-operation that should exist between Government and the committee in carrying out its work.
I think that I was pretty constructive and positive in my earlier speech, and I think that I am being positive now. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the Government’s responses; I am simply indicating that we need to go a bit further in order to give clarity and direction to those who—we must be honest—have been quite critical on some issues in the past.
Stewart Maxwell spoke earlier about the issues that have stayed with him over the course of the committee’s deliberations. One thing that struck me and which has stayed with me throughout the process is the very strong criticism that we heard in evidence from one of our witnesses, who was clear that we had not moved on sufficiently quickly because there has not been enough detail from the Scottish Government—not just the current Scottish Government—over a period of time. I go back to that sense of frustration; I do not think that we are doing enough to allay fears because we are finding it difficult to go into sufficient detail.
The committee’s deliberations have been enjoyable, but challenging. The report has certainly thrown up some interesting issues that we still have to resolve but—in a spirit of relative consensus—I think that we have dealt with that.
I thank the convener for his guidance throughout the committee’s inquiry. We have a lot to think about. I welcome much in the Scottish Government’s responses, but there is still a great deal to do if we are finally to resolve what must be one of the most challenging social issues in this country.
16:32
The debate has contained a number of interesting and thoughtful contributions from members on all sides of the chamber, and a wee bit of drama around the named person provision. With the Presiding Officer’s forbearance, I will clarify the Labour Party’s position on the named person provision. We fully support the principle and have no problem with it, but we are very worried about the resource implications. We agree with the Royal College of Nursing and the Educational Institute of Scotland that a bit more work is needed in that respect. For example, we could be looking at a requirement for an additional 450 health visitors, which would be an issue in terms of the successful implementation of the provision.
It is clear that there is, among members on all sides of the Parliament, a real willingness to improve the decision-making processes that lead to children being taken into care and—perhaps most important—to improve the outcomes for those vulnerable children and young people in our society. I was struck by Liz Smith’s comments about the frustration that is felt on all sides of the Parliament and beyond about the lack of progress on the issue.
I do not wish to set a negative tone—I think that we all agree that we would like to make progress as fast as we can, and I hope that where we are today is a good starting point for moving forward without further delay. In her response to the committee’s report, the minister said:
“Both early intervention and early permanence are needed to meet our aims of reducing the number of children on long term supervision requirements and increasing the numbers finding secure legal permanence.”
I was heartened to hear the minister say that she is committed to improving outcomes for children and young people across all levels of government. The care and permanence strategy is to be welcomed, as is the minister’s reference to a whole-system approach, which is important, as we cannot have a piecemeal approach. Because the field is so complex and so many agencies and organisations are involved, as well as families, children and professionals, we need a whole-system approach to making improvements. The minister also referred to the important role of social workers. That is perhaps stating the obvious, but they are fundamental to improving services, as the minister acknowledged.
A number of concerns have been raised. I am pleased that George Adam referred to the support that is available to social workers and other staff. We need to consider whether that support is sufficient and is available when it is needed, and where staff are left if they do not get support and help. They feel exposed and might well leave the profession or seek promotion to get away from the pressures of being on the front line. Any reduction in support or training for a workforce always leads to worries about morale, skills development and staff retention. We need to be mindful of that and keep the needs of the staff very much at the fore in our thinking as we move forward.
I was struck by Ken Macintosh’s comments. He raised the question whether access to resources influences decisions on where to place children. That made me think because, clearly, if there is good access to foster carers, children’s homes and social workers, that might widen the choices and influence the options for a child. However, if that access is not available, the choices are much more limited, which might influence decisions. It is not for me to say whether that happens, but Ken Macintosh’s comments certainly made me think. He also made thought-provoking comments on the culture in social work. He made valid points about the role of judgment and good decision making, and on how staff can be protected in exercising that judgment.
To return to the named person, as the minister is aware, we need to do more work on when the named person passes on responsibility to the lead professional, which is a different role. That will also be a judgment, and how it will work needs to be negotiated and agreed. We are not at that stage yet, but we know that we need to do more work on it.
As we have heard, one of the report’s conclusions is that
“the sheer volume of ongoing work could suggest that deep-rooted problems are being addressed on an incremental basis.”
I agree with the convener’s point that any future action must be co-ordinated and happen across the system. Everybody has to understand their role. Just doing a lot of work does not necessarily achieve a lot of benefit, so we need to ensure that we work effectively and well together to make the changes that are needed.
In future, we must ensure that any progress is co-ordinated and, where possible, that the outcomes of reforms are measurable and make real improvements to the decision-making systems, which have a huge impact on the lives of children and their families. Several colleagues have referred to the starting point. If we are to start measuring the difference that we make, sadly, on some of the indicators, we will be starting from a low point. Liam McArthur, Liz Smith and Neil Findlay gave sobering figures that point clearly to the size of the challenge in improving those outcomes. Some of the worrying statistics apply to children in all settings—whether they are looked after at home or in a children’s home—and of all ages, so not just in the early years but as they grow up in care and move out of it. Neil Findlay referred to the link between outcomes for young people in the prison system and their time in care. The situation is not good enough and we have a chance to make it better. We have to take that responsibility seriously.
Ahead of today’s debate, I was in touch with a number of childcare charities and excellent organisations such as Who Cares? Scotland that do their very best to put the voices of looked-after children at the centre of debates such as this one. It might interest colleagues to know that I used to work in childcare and I can remember Who Cares? being set up more than 30 years ago. It is great to see the way in which it has continued to work and fight. It has never given up its campaign to have the voices of children built into our decision making, and I pay particular credit to it in relation to the committee’s report and the work that we are doing on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
George Adam and others spoke about the impact on them of hearing the evidence from young people. We really cannot go forward without continuing to listen to those young people. They want to know that we are serious about what we are doing. We need to demonstrate that we have conviction and that we want to make progress. They are watching us and they have expectations of us. I do not know whether they are here today, but I hope that they will note that we want to work to improve the life chances of children in Scotland and that this issue does not end with this debate.
The challenges that face our most vulnerable children have been described as a hidden problem, which would shock the majority of Scots if they knew the day-to-day reality of life for looked-after children. One campaigner said that the solution lies in Scots caring and feeling a sense of responsibility for all children in Scottish communities and Scottish society. In my opening speech, I referred to the need to change attitudes and culture.
The report that we have debated today goes some way to exposing the hidden problem of our children in care. I look forward to hearing the minister respond to a number of the points that were raised today on the actions that we will be taking to improve the lives of Scotland’s children.
16:41
This has been a thoroughly constructive debate. The committee’s report and work have highlighted many areas that require further attention. The debate has shown that, regardless of political party or ideology, each of us here shares the dedication, commitment and passion to get things right for our looked-after children and young people.
I hope that I have never tried to portray a situation that is all okay. We understand that we are on a journey to try to make things right for children and young people, particularly those who need our care. I hope that in that spirit we can work together to ensure that the policies and opportunities that lie ahead allow us to work together to ensure that we can get things right.
I will break down my closing remarks into themes, hopefully to capture much of what has been said, to demonstrate real and tangible actions that the Government has taken and of course to recognise the progress that previous Administrations have made, because I do not think that this issue is owned by any one party. That has been clear from the passion that members have shown this afternoon.
In my opening remarks, I said that early intervention and early permanence are crucial in securing the best possible outcomes for children who need us to look after them, as is finding a way to intervene with care that wraps around children and is effective and swift. I welcome Liz Smith’s acknowledgement of the need for early intervention and early permanence. I understand what she said about making sure that our language is clear. Of course we will always make sure that that is the case. We are clear that early years is different from early intervention.
To pick up on the points that Liam McArthur made, we can intervene effectively in a child or young person’s life at any time. If there are other areas in which we can improve clarity, I am happy to embrace that.
I am grateful to the minister for that. The example that I was referring to, which came through in evidence on the bill, is the fact that we use the term “service providers” in very different categories throughout the bill. That causes a bit of confusion about who the service providers are and the duties that are put on them. If we can tighten that up, it would be helpful.
I understand. I am sure that some of that will come through in the further debate that we will need to have on the bill. It will also be clarified further in any guidance that accompanies the bill. There is always the opportunity to ensure that we consult fully on guidance to ensure that things are absolutely clear in the minds of the people whom we are trusting to deliver the services that benefit the children we care so much about.
Some members suggested that there was a degree of complacency in our approach. I absolutely refute that. Our priority since the SCRA report in 2011 has been to inject pace into reform. PACE is specifically designed to change practice sustainably across different systems. The whole-systems approach needs to bring together councils, children’s hearings and the courts to identify barriers and delays and to test solutions. That approach, which I think has been universally welcomed by members across the chamber, will be a good step forward. I am very grateful to Aberdeen and Renfrewshire for agreeing to bare all and to show all local authorities how it can be done and where there is room for change.
In response to Ken Macintosh, I agree absolutely that we need to intervene earlier, support families and make quick decisions, but it is not just about quicker or firmer decisions. In many cases of low-level need, providing low-level, long-term parenting support could be better for that child as opposed to rehoming them permanently. That is important because of the understanding that we have of the importance of attachment.
Our efforts on the strategic commissioning of resources within community planning partnerships for children’s services will help to deal with some of the issues around resourcing. The bill contains an explicit commitment to family counselling to help families and help children’s services to avoid having children taken into care.
Jayne Baxter mentioned in her closing speech that Labour agreed with the principles of the bill but that there could be resourcing issues. The SNP’s white paper says that childcare for 50 per cent of two-year-olds would cost nearly £100 million. Considering today’s autumn statement when nearly £300 million is coming in consequentials, does the minister agree that £100 million from the consequentials—
That is not a question.
I am always happy to take interventions from members who have contributed to the debate. John Pentland asked about the resources, and the bill has an accompanying financial memorandum that sets out that information clearly. If the member wants to refer to that, I am sure that he can get a copy of it.
GIRFEC is our overarching approach for delivering children’s services and ensuring that they are at the centre of design and delivery. I do not need to remind anyone that the letters “EC” in GIRFEC stand for “every child”, including our looked-after children. GIRFEC is about co-ordination of approach and the evidence of its positive effect is bearing fruit. I do not know why Fiona McLeod started her speech by saying that she had no expertise, because she went on to say that she was the chair of a children’s panel advisory committee. That is a very good qualification for today’s debate.
Fiona McLeod spoke about GIRFEC and the named person issue. I do not wish to rehearse previous debates about the named person, but I want to correct some members’ misunderstanding of the issue. It is not a scheme for a social worker for every child and it will not dilute the role of the parent. It is about a support network for parents that will have a light touch, and will knit together information about a child to ensure that appropriate interventions can be made. As has been proven in the Highlands, the results have shown a reduction in inappropriate referrals to reporters, a greater ability to target resources at the most vulnerable, and the ability to redeploy saved resource into bolstering services. If that holistic approach is delivered throughout Scotland, it will have a hugely positive impact for children, particularly those whom we are talking about today.
That leads me on to talk about the voice of the child, which has been a strong theme. Colin Beattie, Jayne Baxter, Clare Adamson, the committee convener, Joan McAlpine and George Adam all mentioned the importance of hearing the voice of the child, and it has had a profound impact on members who have had the privilege of listening to our looked-after young people. Those real-life stories add poignancy to the crude statistics and remind us of the impact of our decisions on young people. It is always impressive to hear from young people who have been through the care system about how keen they are to put something back into the system that will make improvements so that other young people do not have to suffer the same problems that they have had to deal with.
I want to mention two young people to whom I listened at a recent LACSIG event at which we launched the staying put guidance for young looked-after people who are going through aftercare. I heard about two different experiences of the care journey, one of which was less positive and one of which was very positive indeed. That shows that we can get things right for people. We need that good practice to become the norm as opposed to the exception.
Joan McAlpine talked about the children’s hearings system, and I agree that the new national system gives an opportunity—
I regret to say that you must close.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, I thought that I had eight minutes.
You have now had exactly eight minutes.
The new system allows us to ensure a consistent approach. We should remember that next year is the 50th anniversary of the Kilbrandon report, which set Scotland apart because of the way that we dealt with children who need additional help.
I want to mention one final issue.
You are in your final 15 seconds.
I want to mention the voluntary mentoring scheme, because the committee said that we should make use of volunteers. The mentoring scheme that I launched the other day will take us further towards embracing the contribution that volunteers can make to providing a stable relationship for young people who have lacked that in their lives.
There are opportunities to make things better for young people, and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill is one of them. I appreciate the committee’s work and look forward to working further with committee members as we create improvements for young people who are looked after.
16:50
I welcome the opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to close the debate on an important subject. It has been a good debate with a number of thoughtful and constructive contributions, and I join other committee members in thanking all the individuals and organisations who have given evidence throughout the inquiry for their valuable contributions. I also thank the young people who have been through the care system and from whom we heard directly, at the Who Cares? Scotland office in Glasgow and here in the Parliament, and in particular the young people from the Kibble who performed a thought-provoking play in the Parliament for the committee.
We know that all too often looked-after children have poorer outcomes than other children and, as Stewart Maxwell set out at the start of the debate, the purpose of the inquiry was to investigate the decision-making processes involved in determining whether a child should be removed from the family home and whether those processes are delivering the best outcomes for children and their families. It is quite clear, both from the evidence presented to the committee and from the contributions that we have heard this afternoon, that that is not always the case. We can do more to improve those processes and we can and must do more for looked-after children.
The committee’s inquiry covered a number of areas and, as has been said, recommendations for improvements were made in almost every one. It is clear that there is work to do and action that needs to be taken. Many of the questions and issues raised are difficult and often sensitive, but Stewart Maxwell was quite right when he pointed out that open, public discussion of those issues is positive and I welcome the wider discussion that the committee’s inquiry has stimulated around the issue of children and young people in care.
As members have highlighted, there is a great deal of work going on in that area, not least the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which we debated in the chamber recently. However, there is a fear and a danger that a lack of overarching strategy means that that work is not tied together. We need to be absolutely sure that problems are not being missed, that reforms are co-ordinated and that the key priority is that any changes that are made lead to better outcomes for children and young people.
In the report, the committee recognised the role of local authorities, community planning partners, social work and the relevant public and third sector bodies in bringing about change, but what is clear is the importance of the Scottish Government’s role in leading the process. I hope that the minister and the Government will listen to and act on the issues and challenges highlighted by the inquiry and will do so in a timely fashion. It is recognised across the chamber that the pace of progress in improving the experiences of looked-after children has simply not been good enough. Things need to improve and they need to improve more quickly.
I welcome what the minister said about supporting the social work workforce, listening to young people, early intervention and the care permanence strategy. Those are clearly good intentions. I welcome the minister’s responses to a number of the committee’s questions and I hope that she will follow up on the points that she has not had time to address today and respond to the report in full. I know that a number of issues have been raised about the use of terminology, about more detail on preventing children from falling through the gap and about other matters on which we would welcome more detail.
A number of members have mentioned resources. At a time of budgetary pressure, the issue of resources is, unsurprisingly, extremely important. As members have said this afternoon, the committee heard evidence suggesting that decisions about removing children from the family home were affected by the availability of appropriate placements. That is why the committee repeatedly pressed the Scottish Government to outline the total sum of money that all relevant bodies spend on protecting children and to say whether that spending is providing value for money.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that work on understanding spending and future demand is best undertaken at a local level. However, as Stewart Maxwell said, it is critical that we know the level of current spending, what it is delivering and whether spending is achieving the best possible results. The committee is right to question in its report how the Government’s approach will allow for the establishment of a national picture of future spending and placement needs. Again, I press the minister to address how that fits in with and is fundamental to the Scottish Government’s leadership role in this area.
More than one member has referred to social work training. I do not think that anyone would disagree that social workers have a key role in implementing improvements, so I would expect the Government to take action if the evidence supports the claim that cuts to local government are having a severe impact on social work training.
We know that the decision to remove a child from his or her home is always extremely difficult. The committee report recognises that and states:
“deciding whether or not a child should be removed from the family home and taken into care is one of the most difficult tasks carried out by public authorities.”
It has far-reaching consequences for the child involved, for the parents and for other members of that family. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the child is at stake and therefore the decision has to be made at the right time and for the right reasons. It is essential, therefore, that we do everything possible to support the decision makers to get the decisions right.
The committee was determined to listen to the views and hear about the experiences of children and young people and put them at the centre of its report. Like other members, I have talked many times in the chamber about the importance of listening to young people rather than just talking at them. That is especially important here.
Does the member agree that we need to ensure that we watch our language around young people? Rather than talking about them failing, we must ensure that, where we can, we talk positively about young looked-after people. Does the member support our investment in Who Cares? Scotland and our collaborative approach with it on the anti-stigmatisation campaign?
Who Cares? Scotland is a fantastic organisation and I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the good work that it does in the campaign that the minister mentioned.
It is key to listen to young people and it is our responsibility to take their views on board and address the many challenges that that presents in relation to intervening in family life. Those challenges are not easy to address but we must work to tackle them if we are serious about improving outcomes for children and young people in care.
Barnardo’s Scotland states that the biggest improvement to outcomes for looked-after children and young people would come through improving the consistency, speed and earliness of decision making on whether to take children into care. It also made the point that once that decision has been made, there should be an absolute focus on securing permanence for that child. On that point, I welcome the Scottish Government’s policy aim of early permanence. When developing the care permanence strategy, I urge the Scottish Government to act on the committee’s call for it
“to establish a shared vision of what success would look like for looked after children, and ensure that resources and processes are built around that vision.”
I also urge all those active in the process of reform to involve children and young people who are in care and to listen to their opinions. The overriding aim must always be the improvement of outcomes for looked-after children, which is more likely if we listen to the very people we are trying to help.
The committee recognises the good work that is being taken forward as a result of GIRFEC and other child protection measures. On behalf of the committee, I, too, pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of social workers, education professionals and healthcare professionals throughout Scotland and to the very challenging work that they do, often in extremely difficult circumstances.
However, the reality remains that current decision-making processes are not always delivering the best outcomes for children and their families. We need action to improve those processes and the outcomes for looked-after children, and we need to improve the pace of reform for the benefit of those young people. The inquiry report says that the Scottish Government should take a leading role in that process if we are to see the improvements that we all want in outcomes for children and young people in care.