I welcome our witnesses, who are with us in the committee room to give evidence on the Auditor General for Scotland and Accounts Commission report, “Improving care experience: Delivering The Promise”. From the Scottish Government, we have Neil Rennick, director general education and justice; Andrew Watson, director for children and families; and Gavin Henderson, deputy director for care experience, children’s services and the Promise. We also welcome the chief executive of The Promise Scotland, Fraser McKinlay; and David Anderson, chair of the oversight board for keeping the Promise. Finally, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we are joined by two witnesses, Nicola Dickie, director of people policy; and Fiona Whitelock, policy manager for the Promise.
We have a number of questions to put to you, and I say at the outset that you do not all necessarily need to feel obliged to answer all the questions that we put. However, if you feel as though you have something relevant to say, please indicate and we will do our level best to bring you in. Before we get to any questions that we might have, director general, I invite you to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate this opportunity to provide evidence today. I am particularly pleased to be joined by our partners from COSLA, The Promise Scotland and the oversight board. As Audit Scotland stated in its evidence to the committee:
“The commitment of individuals and organisations to deliver the Promise remains strong”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 November 2025; c 2.]
Since the publication of the care review in 2020, which was based on the experiences of more than 5,500 children, families and others, we have been working in partnership to drive forward the necessary changes to improve experiences and outcomes. That work has focused on embedding the principles of love, care and respect across services, and on addressing the systemic barriers that have historically impacted those with care experience. There is no question but that keeping the Promise is at the heart of the work that we do across ministerial portfolios, and I welcome Audit Scotland’s report and recommendations.
In particular, Audit Scotland identifies the benefits of strengthening transparency and ensuring that resources are targeted effectively. The prioritisation of sustained investment, workforce development and the whole-system approach to change must be our collective focus.
As Audit Scotland indicated in its evidence, its report does not look at detailed progress on how the Promise is being implemented in individual areas. The report, therefore, is best seen sitting alongside a number of other reports that have been published and which set out a range of evidence at national and local level on how the Promise is being delivered.
Taken together, those reports provide a consistent picture of changes being made, both in delivery and culture, but also of the need to increase the pace and scale of activity to meet the commitment to keep the Promise by 2030. The reports identify a number of headwinds that we and local partners have faced since 2020, including Covid, the cost of living challenges and the increasing complexity of care needs.
We are not blind to, nor do we shy away from, the challenges that remain. Delivering the Promise is a long-term commitment and, as Audit Scotland has indicated, it is not a single entity or programme and is complex by nature. It requires a wide range of delivery partners across the public and third sector to be dynamic in our approach and to remain agile in building on the benefits that have been realised so far.
We can talk more about the actions that we are taking collectively and individually in response to the lessons since 2020, and I look forward to discussing with the committee the findings of the Audit Scotland report.
Thank you, director general. For the record, could I ask whether the Scottish Government accepts the findings and recommendations of the Audit Scotland and Accounts Commission report?
Yes, we do. It is a helpful addition to a range of different reports that have been published, and I want to place it in that context. There are a number of reports that I can talk about and that provide a richer set of evidence of what has been delivered since 2020.
You will understand that we are here this morning primarily to discuss the report produced by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, but if you wish to refer to other reports, we will, of course, listen.
Mr McKinlay, from the point of view of The Promise Scotland, do you accept the findings and recommendations of the report?
We do, and conversations have started already about responding to them.
I ask because I noticed that you issued a press release in which you said that you take the report “seriously”, and that
“As an organisation we will make sure to review all the recommendations.”
What does that mean?
It means what it says, convener. We did that. I am sure we will get into it, but I accept the recommendations and we are responding to them. There will be a bit of discussion about exactly what the recommendations look like and what I think is the best way to respond to them. I think that the conclusions and the recommendations are clear, and we are keen to respond to them with colleagues around the table.
Okay, but, again, to be clear about it, the recommendations that are contained in the report set some very clear actions to be taken over the next six months, the next 12 months and so on. Do you intend to implement those recommendations?
Yes.
Okay—thanks for clearing that up.
Mr Anderson, from the point of view of the oversight board, do you have any view on whether the report makes a useful contribution, and do you accept its findings and conclusions?
Yes. First, I would like to clear up what the oversight board is—who we are, what we do and how we do it—because I think that that was one of the confusions set out in the report.
The oversight board is a group of around 20 people, over half of whom have direct experience of the so-called care system. However, everyone has a skill set that qualifies them to do the set tasks of the board. They come from backgrounds in politics, health, education, strategic planning and, very importantly, the provision of direct support to children and families in various services across Scotland. That is who we are.
We report on Scotland’s progress in keeping the Promise, we identify where progress has been made and, importantly for today, where barriers to change lie. I will hopefully discuss some of that as we go on. Within the confines of what is possible without statutory powers, we hold those with responsibility to account; again, that is something that I hope to go into today. We also support and influence, where possible. That is what we do.
On our primary audience, we report to our Parliament. We also report to the care-experienced community, and I was glad to hear during your previous session on the report that it has been agreed that they are the people who will decide whether the Promise has, indeed, been kept. We also report to the workforce, because they are the people out there who deliver the true care that is necessary for the Promise to be kept, day in and day out. All of us on the oversight board count ourselves among the workforce, because we all do that work as well.
How does the oversight board do its work? We analyse data and reporting. We speak to ministers, civil servants, public bodies and organisations—small and large—to try to understand what is actually happening and to see whether the reporting that we get from public bodies and Government matches what people are seeing within their organisations. Some things that we have done recently include meeting with the outgoing chief social work officer to discuss the new national social work agency and how that should align with the Promise recommendations—and we have further questions to ask in that regard.
We recently met with the Scotland Office to discuss cross-border issues and to promote the oversight board as a model that could be exported across the border and used in attempts to implement the care review there. We meet across the board to implement our tasks, and we do that well, I think.
Regarding the Audit Scotland report, we welcomed the report, we participated in it and we agree with most of it. The confusion, we think, is a historical issue. We have certainly worked towards ensuring that the independent oversight board is exactly that—an independent oversight group.
I have prepared some evidence for today’s meeting that builds on some of the discussion from the previous meeting. I hope that I get a chance to share that evidence. Mr Rennick speaks about driving forward change, but sometimes the car is in first gear. Mr Burns has spoken of our calls to action, and I have evidence around two of those—because we cannot discuss everything—where action has not moved at the pace necessary. This was amplified in the report, but when we speak about clear leadership and working at pace, I have some evidence that you may be interested in.
09:45
Mr Anderson, before we had the session with the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, you very kindly furnished us with a note, and you were very clear in your views in that note. If I can quote some of the expressions that were used in the first two paragraphs, you said that, as far as the Promise was concerned, things were “too slow”, “accountability remains unclear”, and
“planning ... has not been coordinated”.
You spoke of
“weaknesses ... lack of accountability, limited coordination”
and
“insufficient pace.”
You are quite critical, are you not, of the progress that is being made with the Promise?
Yes, but that was about one issue.
Well, you mention housing.
I think that it was Mr Simpson who spoke about that. The context of that was specifically around housing. There is a lot of progress—
Sorry—are you saying that those are not general criticisms that you are making of the implementation of the Promise?
They are general, in the sense of the examples that I have. I cannot speak to every aspect of the Promise, because it is a huge and very complex change process. However, I do have evidence that I prepared for today and that I believe backs up the assertions that I made around two of our calls to action, because, as I say, we cannot discuss the whole Promise change process. If you would like to hear about that, I can certainly give you the evidence that I believe shows—
We will get to that.
I turn to our representatives from COSLA. Do you accept the findings and recommendations of the report?
COSLA welcomes the report and we support the direction of the recommendations. Many key and critical questions have been posed, and we will continue working with partners—both those around the table and others—to implement the recommendations.
I do not know whether you can answer this. Why was it that, when the Audit Scotland report was published, a joint press release, or a joint response, was put out by COSLA, the Scottish Government, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—senior local authority officials—and Fiona Duncan? Does COSLA not have any differentiated analysis of what has happened, where responsibility rests and so on?
If you look at the detail, which I am sure that we will come to, there is nuance across our organisations, of course, in terms of our positions. Others can keep me right on this, but I think that the intention behind the joint statement was to show that unity. This is still a shared commitment; we have all signed up to it and we are working closely together to make it happen.
Obviously, there are some criticisms in the report that has been produced, and I wondered whether you were all being a bit defensive of one another.
Nicola Dickie, do you want to come in?
I agree with what Fiona Whitelock said about COSLA’s position on the report. We welcome the report. We have noted the recommendations and we have responded. COSLA’s children and young people board, which is our political board that looks after policy for children and young people, looked at the report in November and gave us some feedback, which very much matches the responses that we put to Audit Scotland.
I think that the joint press release shows the maturity and relationships that are at play here. It also says a lot about the spheres of government. As agreed in the Verity house agreement, where we can work in partnership, we should.
It is fair to say that every organisation that is referenced in the report—many of them are here today but there are many outside the room—have to hold themselves to account as well as holding one another to account, and I think that, in effect, the joint press release is us saying that. Of the partnerships that are involved, we are not splitting off and starting to become defensive. We are reconvening, we are getting together and we are demonstrating that there is will to deliver the Promise in Scotland.
Convener, the Audit Scotland report specifically says that delivery of the Promise requires a partnership approach.
Yes, I understand that. However, if that is the case and you all accept the findings and recommendations, why are we sitting here with a letter from the independent strategic adviser, who is also, I think, Mr McKinlay, the chair of The Promise Scotland, with some pretty harsh criticisms of the report. She says things such as that the report does not provide a
“constructive assessment of the wider landscape”,
or offer
“a realistic assessment of progress”.
That is a very harsh criticism of the report.
I do not understand how the person who chairs The Promise Scotland, who is the independent strategic adviser—presumably to the Scottish Government—has given such a damning criticism. There are two others, as well: she says that the report is not “acting as a catalyst”, and that it should “act as a catalyst”.
How do you reconcile that position, which has been expressed by the person who, among other things, is the chair of The Promise board and an adviser to the Scottish Government?
I will take Mr McKinlay first.
First, as members know, Fiona Duncan was invited to provide written evidence rather than being here, so she would, I am sure—
My understanding is that she could have appeared if she had wished to.
Indeed, and you have that written evidence. To me—and I am happy to talk about this—it is possible to accept the recommendations and conclusions as well as having some views about the report and how it was done. In my personal view, it was a bit of a missed opportunity. I am happy to get into that, but I think that both positions can co-exist. I think that it is okay—that it is legitimate—for the people who are subject to audit to have some views about a published report and at the same time be absolutely committed to accepting the recommendations and moving the work forward.
You will know better than most, Mr McKinlay, that there is a process involved in the production of one of these reports. I think that Ms Duncan refers to it in her letter of 4 September, which she has kindly shared with us and in which she talks about a “clearance draft”. She has given commentary on a clearance draft, pre-publication, as part of the process in which the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission very nobly invite the organisations that they are reporting on to give them any comment, presumably to fact-check and so on.
That is right. There is the fact-checking process at the clearance point. However, in the end, it is the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission that make the judgments in the final report, so quite often points that are made to the auditors at that stage in the process are not reflected in the final report. You would expect that to happen all the time with an independent audit organisation.
Okay. Mr Rennick, what is your view?
When people from Audit Scotland provided oral evidence to the committee, they said that they had not looked in detail at how the Promise was being delivered in individual areas. Certainly, from my point of view, I think that it is helpful to look at the Audit Scotland report in the context of a series of other reports that have been published over the recent period and which look at delivery within local authority areas, such as COSLA’s annual assessment of the Promise, the report from the oversight board and a range of other documents. The Diffley report that The Promise Scotland published also provides a rich set of information about what is happening locally and nationally in the delivery of the Promise. I do not feel that the Audit Scotland report is fundamentally inconsistent with those reports. I think that it is helpful to see the reports as a set of information that provides a fuller picture of where we are in the delivery of the Promise and, crucially, what more we need to do in delivering it. I think that the Audit Scotland report is an important part of identifying what those actions are.
Okay. One of the things that the report talks about is the confusion around governance, and Mr Anderson also referred to that in one of his submissions. I was interested in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Audit Scotland report, which try to explain the different hats that people wear. Fiona Duncan is not here today, but it is catalogued there that she chaired the care review, which we know, because it is a matter of public record. She became the independent strategic adviser. She chaired the oversight board until 2024, then became its co-chair. She held a post—as chief executive officer, then strategic director—at the Corra Foundation, which is the body that dishes out the money. As well as being the independent strategic adviser to the Government, she is also the chair of The Promise Scotland. I am a little bit confused that one person has had—and continues to have—all those roles. Mr Rennick, could you explain that to us?
I would separate the issue of a single individual and their role and how that role has developed, and clearly—
Indulge me—talk a little about that, as well as making wider points. As I understand it, this is a Government appointment.
It was before my time, but my understanding of the position is that, at the time that “The Promise” report was published and was accepted by the Scottish Government and other partners, the oversight board was established as a crucial part of the oversight of that work. Alongside that, an expert group gave advice on the establishment of The Promise Scotland, drawing on the skills and experience from those who had been involved in the care review. Fiona Duncan had a particular role in that.
As the work progressed, it was identified—and others can talk more fully about this—that it would be better to adjust that role. It was agreed that Fiona Duncan would become the independent strategic adviser to ministers—a role that was separate from the crucial work of the oversight board. That has been a developing picture over time, and it is separate from the governance arrangements that have been in place since The Promise Scotland was established, to reflect the complex and wide-ranging nature of the Promise and its delivery.
I have two quick things to say. One is to confirm that Fiona Duncan’s role now as independent strategic adviser also includes chairing The Promise Scotland, so those are the only roles that she now holds. The evolution that you can see in the report, convener, is a product of these things being built up from 2020 onwards.
The other important thing to stress is that it was Fiona Duncan who identified that it was not compatible for her to be both independent strategic adviser and chair of the board of The Promise Scotland, and sit on the oversight board. It was Fiona Duncan who said that she had to step off. As the report says, that took a little time, and she talked a little about that in her letter. She recognised that, as those roles developed and the roles of the different organisations came on stream, the position was not sustainable, so she acted on it.
I absolutely recognise the points in the report about confusion around the different groups. I should mention the fact that I worked for Audit Scotland for 16 years and, for 10 of those years, I was controller of audit and director of performance audit and best value. Some of the complexities in that governance set-up for public audit in Scotland are also quite tricky to follow, such as the difference between the Auditor General, the controller of audit and the Accounts Commission. I recognise the point and, as David Anderson said, we have been trying to be really clear that, although it is important that the three parts of that organisation, if you like, work closely together, it is also important that we have distinct roles. We will continue to work hard. I think that the changes in Fiona Duncan’s role have helped that, as well as the work that we have done with the oversight board.
Mr Anderson wants to come back in at this point.
When Fiona Duncan became strategic adviser, everyone on the board recognised that there were too many hats on that head, not least for her own wellbeing, and the decision was taken for her to step down. I personally asked Fiona to stay on for several meetings to help me to adapt to the role, because the oversight board is a unique model that has never been tried before, and her experience assisted me to adapt. She was in the background in those meetings, as support for me as I adapted to that new role. That is just to clear up the point about why she was there for so long after I took over the role. We were not clear about that in the minutes.
Thank you for putting that on the record—that is appreciated.
Good morning. I want to get some clarity on the letter from your organisation that we were given sight of. Before I do so, I should caveat this by saying that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with an Auditor General report. If Audit Scotland has said something, and you disagree with it, that is fine, but be honest about that. Unfortunately, in the opening statements, we heard phrases such as “we welcome the report and the recommendations” and “we accept the report and the recommendations”, but that is not what it says on this bit of paper.
Rather than taking a view on it, we are trying to get to the bottom of whether The Promise Scotland does or does not accept the report. You cannot come to committee and say, “We do accept it”, but then, on paper, say that you do not. The letter has your organisation’s letterhead on it and, on the back, it says “Chair—The Promise Scotland”, so we have to take at face value that this is the view of The Promise Scotland, and not simply that of an individual within the organisation. Which is it?
I tried to explain that earlier, Mr Greene, when I said that it is possible both to accept the Audit Scotland report and be committed to delivering on and responding to its recommendations, and to have some views about it.
10:00
Yes, but that is not what the letter says. It says:
“In short, at worst, the report could derail Scotland’s progress towards keeping the promise.”
That is not welcoming the report or accepting its recommendations, is it?
No, it is not, but, at the same time, I do not think that Fiona Duncan’s letter says that she does not accept the recommendations or that we are not going to deliver them. I accept that you might think that I am dancing on the head of a pin, convener, but there is an important conversation to be had about the nature of the report and the extent to which it will continue to be a catalyst for increasing the pace of change that we all recognise is required.
What is important for me is how we go about implementing the recommendations, because that is quite critical. I believe that the way in which we go about implementing the recommendations—which we are committed to doing, as is the independent strategic adviser—has a good chance of increasing that pace and depth of change. Doing that in the wrong way could slow things down. That was one of the points of feedback that I gave to Audit Scotland through the clearance process. The few changes that were made as part of that process were helpful, but how we respond to the recommendations is critical to how the pace is increased, as opposed to potentially slowing down.
There is an inference in what you have said and what is in this letter that, somehow, this Audit Scotland report is slowing things down or making things worse. I do not know how different the clearance report was to the final report, but the letter explicitly says that the clearance report
“will not accelerate pace of change, instead risks slowing the current one.”
In fact, it says that the clearance draft “misses” opportunities
“to drive pace and progress”.
I apologise if I am misunderstanding, but it is not the job of Audit Scotland to drive pace and progress. It is the job of Audit Scotland to comment on pace and progress.
I am happy to respond to that, convener. This is me talking—I am not putting words into the independent strategic adviser’s mouth. Again, I promise that I will not keep banging on about the fact that I used to do this for a living, but my worry about some of the early recommendations was that, when Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission recommend that something is reviewed over a 12-month period, there is a real risk that people down tools and review things for 12 months. Therefore, my concern was that, rather than cracking on with delivery, which is what we need to do, the system would take that as a signal that says, “Right, we need to stop and review things”. That is not what we have ended up with in the final report, and that is helpful, but there was a bit of a risk there.
I would have preferred that you came in and said, “Look, there is stuff in this report we do not like, so I cannot sign up to the report and its recommendations.” If you had been honest with us from the minute that you walked in the door, we would not be having this conversation. I will finish where I started in my supplementary questions—there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Auditor General, but be honest about it. That is all we ask for.
I am rather surprised at the analysis that, if you have a timeframe of 12 months for a review, it means that everyone is sidetracked into doing only that for 12 months. The whole basis of the Promise is meeting a promise by 2030. That is based on a date target, is it not?
That is exactly my point, convener. Time is marching on, and we need to focus on delivery. If you will allow me to do so, I will give you a concrete example of my concerns.
Sure.
One thing that does not get mentioned much in the report is the debate around the national care service. Some of the uncertainty around the national care service—in particular, whether children’s services were going to be in or out—impeded momentum around delivery of the Promise. There was an enormous amount of uncertainty, and an enormous amount of work and thinking on structure and change was being done. My worry about the report is that, sometimes, people focus on structural reviews at the expense of focusing on delivery. We have seen that happen in the past; that was my concern.
I will respond very quickly to Mr Greene’s point. I figured that we would get on to some parts in the report that we do not agree with, but I also genuinely believe that we are committed to delivering its recommendations.
Now I am a bit confused. You told us earlier that you accepted the findings of the report and now you are saying that there are elements of the findings that you do not agree with and that we will get on to those. We are getting mixed messages, Mr McKinlay.
I can only apologise for that, convener, but there is some nuance that is worth teasing out.
Mr McKinlay, this is one of the most extraordinary letters that I have seen in response to an Auditor General’s report. I have never seen anything like it. You are not dancing on the head of the pin—you are nowhere near the pin. According to this letter, you seem to be against what the Auditor General is saying. This section of the letter says:
“As it stands, the lead recommendation in the clearance draft creates a significant and entirely unnecessary risk to children, families and care experienced adults.”
That is incredible—it suggests that something that the Auditor General has written is creating a risk to people. What do you—or Ms Duncan—mean by that?
Convener, it might be helpful for me to get some advice. I am conscious that, in the interests of helping the committee’s consideration, Fiona Duncan included in our submission the letter that she sent to the Auditor General. Is that what you are referring to, Mr Simpson?
That is the letter.
The letter refers not to the published version of the Audit Scotland report but to the previous version, which we do not have in front of us. I am conscious that that might be causing confusion. As I said a second ago, to their credit, Audit Scotland, the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission responded to some of the feedback that they received, and the current version is different from the version that that letter is about.
Therefore, the published version does not create a risk to children, families and care-experienced adults. Is that correct?
That is absolutely my view, yes.
So what we have now is okay, but the previous version was not.
Again, I will speak for myself rather than for the independent strategic adviser but, yes, I felt that some of the recommendations were a bit problematic, and that was the feedback that we gave. Through the clearance process, the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission changed some of the recommendations.
What about the sentence that Mr Greene referred to earlier? It says:
“In short, at worst, the report could derail Scotland’s progress towards keeping the promise.”
That is quite a claim. Why do you make it?
Again, what is important is how we respond to the recommendations, and there is a way of responding to the recommendations that will not result in that eventuality. As I have already said, I am confident about the strength of the partnership that exists.
In answer to your point, convener, of course, there are tensions and disagreements among the parties, because that is part of the work, but we are confident that, by building on the recommendations and everything else that the Auditor General spoke about, we will get on and deliver the recommendations.
I am sorry, but how on earth can a report from the Auditor General derail progress towards keeping the Promise? That is just not possible.
You can argue about the language, Mr Simpson, but you know better than anyone that the power of these reports is significant. Depending on how people respond to them, they can either increase pace and delivery or they can, I think, create some issues in delivery.
How can a report from the Auditor General derail progress? These reports are about making progress.
I tried to explain my view on that to the convener. You may not agree with that, but my concern is that, sometimes, when recommendations are about reviewing things, some inertia can creep into the system, and that can derail progress.
Therefore, your view, as expressed today, is that the danger is that, if we start reviewing things, people almost down tools on doing other work. I found that comment extraordinary, as were the comments in this letter.
Why is Ms Duncan not here today? She was given the chance.
I will take full responsibility for that, Mr Simpson. She was not specifically invited; I was invited to the committee, and she was invited to give written evidence. I could have brought her along as an additional person, but that felt a bit odd, to be honest, given that she chaired the independent care review and she is the independent strategic adviser. I clearly misread the committee’s intentions with that invitation. There was also an issue in relation to the size of the panel. I take full responsibility for that. As she is watching this, I am sure that she will be thinking exactly the same thing.
I am sure that she will. You know the way that this committee works and you know that, if we have a letter like this in front of us, we will ask about it. Okay—you are reflecting on it.
Again, just for the record, the September letter was submitted to us on 1 December. Her 1 December submission not only attaches the September letter—about the pre-publication review of the clearance draft—but clearly reinforces the views that were in that September letter. She uses expressions such as:
“Although I agree with several of the recommendations, overall, I believe both the performance audit and the subsequent Report are missed opportunities.”
I will invite Colin Beattie to put some questions to you.
You will be pleased to know that I will not be referring to the letter. However, I do want to look at governance and implementation, which is clearly an area that has been shown to have certain weakness.
There seems to be no doubt that members and organisations are all committed to the Promise—that does seem sure—but the Auditor General’s report makes it clear that there is a lack of
“a consistent and shared understanding of what delivering The Promise would look like, and how this would be achieved, by 2030.”
There seems to be no real shared understanding of what the Promise is, in some ways, or how it will be delivered. The different organisations seem to have different nuances in that respect. What is being done to enable that shared understanding of what the Promise means across the different organisations?
Since the Promise was committed to back in 2020, a range of work has been undertaken, part of which has been about identifying specific actions that have needed to be taken to deliver it. I would highlight, for example, the action that was taken through legislation and operational work to ensure that under-18s were no longer sent to young offenders institutions. A specific bit of work was required in that respect, and there is a range of other such work that we can talk about, too.
There was a set of work on changing the culture at national and local level in order to meet the commitment to focus on the love and support of young people, and there was a set of actions focused on more systemic change in the system as well as change at a local level through children’s services plans and children’s services planning partnerships. A number of strands of work were identified and have been progressed since 2020.
The Scottish Government published its own implementation plan in 2022, and updated it in 2024. The Promise Scotland also developed the Promise story of progress, which sets out and focuses on three key areas for assessing whether the Promise is being delivered. First, does the care community feel the impact of the Promise being kept? Secondly, how are organisations working to deliver the Promise? Thirdly, how is Scotland as a whole, at a national level, delivering the Promise? We have tried to focus on those three different levels in describing the progress that we are making, but others might wish to come in on that.
10:15
The comments about complicated accountability and “multiple routes of governance” are not good ones to get. How can you implement policies if the network that you are trying to deliver through has different frameworks and sets of guidance?
That reflects the point that Audit Scotland made in its report and to the committee that the Promise itself is not a single programme. This is not about the delivery of a single programme by Government, or of a single project; we are talking about a whole set of interventions and activities cutting across a range of governance arrangements.
There are, as you have discussed, specific governance arrangements for the Promise; there are local governance arrangements for delivery in local authorities; and there are arrangements for taking decisions on housing and on health. It is all about ensuring that the commitment to the Promise is spread across all of those areas and all those governance decisions, because that is the only way in which we can respond to the actual lives and needs of children, young people and families.
Is there not a risk of huge fragmentation?
What The Promise Scotland and the oversight board try to do is to ensure that everything is underpinned by a shared commitment to delivering the Promise in order to draw that range of activity together. However, you are right—we are counting on a range of individual decisions being taken at local and national level to help deliver the Promise.
I know that Nicola Dickie wants to come in on that.
I do not think that what has been said in the report is a reflection on the commitment of different organisations to deliver on this; it is perhaps more about the need for a common understanding to get the outcomes—I was going to say “targets”, but that is not right—that are required in the different areas. There has to be some common understanding, policy or approach, even with the diverse units that you are dealing with.
Yes, and colleagues and I can talk about the Promise progress framework that was published in 2024 and which was based on a set of vision statements and then specific outcomes and indicators. Those, for the most part, were not new things or things that we were not already measuring and which were not already reflected in our work programme, but it drew them together into a single document that was specifically related to the Promise to try to provide clarity with regard to outcomes and how they would be measured.
The Auditor General’s report draws attention to the Scottish Government’s efforts to “streamline ... governance and accountability”, but those changes have not yet been achieved. What is being done in that respect? Why have we not made the progress that is needed?
I suppose that what I would say is that progress has clearly been made, and I can talk about the specific actions that have been taken in that respect, as well as some impressive work at local level. I can tell you about what has been progressed and what is being delivered.
Over that time, though, there has been further refinement of our understanding of what is required to deliver the Promise and of how we ensure both oversight and monitoring in the structures. That was reflected in the initial work on establishing the oversight board, and in our 2022 implementation plan; it was clear that those elements needed to be built in, and they have been developed and refined over the period of the Promise. I am sure that we will continue to refine those things as we move towards 2030.
But we are moving into 2026 with a supposed delivery date of 2030, and all that we are seeing so far, according to the Auditor General’s report, is how slow the progress has been. Why is that?
I know that colleagues from COSLA will want to come in and give you their insights on this, too, but I mentioned earlier some of the headwinds that we have faced. Indeed, the committee will be really familiar with them—I am talking about the impact of Covid, the cost of living crisis and a whole range of other pressures. Moreover, mental health needs at local level are becoming increasingly complex, and there has been an increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children that we have been dealing with. We have had to respond to those matters at both local and national level.
We would always want to make faster progress on this. The consistent message in the Audit Scotland report, the reports that have been published by local government and The Promise Scotland and, indeed, our own report is that there is more to do—and more to do faster—to fully keep the Promise by 2030. I do not deny that I would like us to have made more progress and that, jointly, we will have to increase the pace of activity significantly to meet the commitment by 2030.
Colin, I think that Nicola Dickie and David Anderson want to come in on this question.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.
I have a great amount of sympathy for the Auditor General. This is a whole-system and highly complex programme that we are trying to deliver over a 10-year period. It was one of the first, and it will not be the last; I suspect that our audit colleagues will be turning their attention to, say, the population health framework, which is another 10-year programme that is sitting in different parts of the system. Please hear me when I say that this is an incredibly complex area and an incredibly difficult thing to do.
We are starting to use certain words interchangeably when what we are talking about are quite different things. Delivery is about voice and individual organisations being held to account collectively on how they are delivering. An awful lot of the organisations represented here, and those sitting outside, are responsible for developing and delivering policy, passing legislation and making political decisions, and with that comes accountability. Delivery is one thing, but the Auditor General’s report is trying to look at all of these things at once.
There are other tensions in what we are doing. We could have come in with a project plan that had green, low-risk status and everything on message, but what if the voice—that is, the Promise—was not feeling it on the ground? What I am saying is that there are tensions between national organisations that are accountable and national organisations that are attempting to monitor what is happening in individual areas or organisations.
COSLA is a membership organisation; we do not scrutinise our member councils, but we are trying to bring that evidence to bear. I do appreciate the complexity involved, and as we move towards other programmes with a longevity of 10 years, we will need some careful understanding of all of this.
Ultimately, though, the Promise was clear about what it was from the very start. I agree with the director general about its landing at the same time as Covid and the cost of living crisis, but it was always meant to be a non-traditional way of approaching a certain set of changes and outcomes that we were looking for. There is, therefore, a balance to be struck between traditional governance with regard to project plans, project management and so on and how things feel on the ground, and I think that what is coming through today is some of that tension.
David, did you want to come in on this?
Yes. I am glad that mention has been made of the pace of change, because I have prepared evidence on that. This is a complex change process, but the fact is that it is easy, sometimes, to put changes in place, and when I talk about the pace of change, I will provide, I think, a great example of how things could, and should, have been different. I say to Mr Rennick that there are direct lines of responsibility in that respect, and I am glad that he is here, because over the next five years, he will be making decisions in his job that will, I hope, make sure that the Promise is kept.
I have provided evidence on housing, particularly the care leavers pathway, which was agreed by Government back in 2019. Those recommendations were agreed with COSLA, across the sector and with experts in their field and the minister at the time said—gave a guarantee—that they would be implemented. In 2020, there was a Government update that recommitted to doing that; in 2021, there was a recommendation saying that housing was essential to the Promise being kept; and then, in 2022, the Government paused the pathway, quietly and without explanation.
We did not pluck this issue out of thin air for our report; our board had experts in the field—that is, people with direct experience of working with those who had experienced homelessness and housing issues and people who had experienced it themselves. When we realised what had happened, we asked for the pathway to be reinstated, but we did not get a response. We then wrote to the Minister for Housing at the time—Paul McLennan, I think it was—and the response that we got told us what the Government was doing but did not say that the pathway would be reinstated.
We did not agree with that, so we asked to speak to the director general, Gavin Henderson. He came to meet us and, bizarrely, asked us what the pathway would do that the Government was not already doing. Given that homeless applications for care-experienced people were rising by 15 per cent at that time, I felt that the question was the wrong way around, and we did not agree with his assertion that things were going well. We asked him to take it to the sub-committee for the Promise, which was to meet that May. We do not know whether he did, because he did not get back to us—and there are no minutes for that meeting, because I checked.
We then met the Minister for Children, Young People, and The Promise who came in in the same month, and when we asked her about the pathway, she did not know that it had been paused. She was unclear about the wording—the wording seems to be quite an important aspect for Government—but when she turned to her adviser, Mr Henderson, he did not seem to clear the matter up. In fact, it was Fraser McKinlay who stepped in to confirm that the pathway had been paused. We terminated that conversation, because it was not going anywhere.
Several months after that, I asked whether things were happening. Nothing was happening. We eventually received a letter from Mr Watson, saying that what the Government was doing was adequate. He also referred to a report by the Rock Trust that had come out that October; we had read that report, and it did not demonstrate that enough was being done. Only half of the local authorities responded to the survey and, on three of the recommendations, there were no responses at all. Therefore, it was not much use in giving us a clear picture.
I would also note that it highlighted an 8 per cent decrease since 2022 in a number of areas with regard to arrangements in place to prevent young people from leaving care. Despite those concerns, the letter presented the situation almost in a reassuring way, noting, for example, that although homelessness was rising, youth homelessness was rising more slowly.
For a group that had been given specific commitments, that did not, I think, bring any comfort. We have live examples of young people who have been in care not for three or four months but for years; they put in housing applications two years before they left, as recommended—and what were they offered? They were offered homelessness accommodation. When pressure was brought to bear, they were taken to a flat, but what did they see when they opened the door? They saw mould on the walls. I know that that sort of thing is far removed from the lives of the people who have their hands on the levers of power, but that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to change that. The delay and drift around this issue are just unacceptable.
I did not accept the response, and the oversight board believed that there was more that could be done. So, I wrote to the director for housing and the director for social justice, saying, “We are going to be critical about this issue in our report.” Lo and behold, we received a response from the director of housing, in which they said that they were confident that they would be able to find the resources to progress further the homelessness prevention pathway for care leavers and that, as a first step, they would look to arrange a meeting to discuss this work and the areas that it would be best to focus on and prioritise.
For me, that meant going out, looking at local authorities to identify which kids were transitioning or were in homeless accommodation and sorting the issue out straight away with those resources. That was not the case—the answer was to create another sub-group. I know that that is a common Government response to problems, but it certainly does not answer the questions on the ground.
So, okay, we accepted the response, and I was quite positive in my media communications about it. We had had some movement from the Government, even though it had taken a long time. We are here to support the Government, and every corporate parent that is trying to make this change, but we have to tell the truth. Did that sub-group meet that month, the next month, or the month after? No, it did not.
Barnardo’s received £18 million to develop 50 gap homes across the UK, with five in Scotland. That was great news, and I initially said to Fraser McKinlay, “Can we speak to them to see how we can support them and see what support they need from the Government team, or a Promise team that is supposed to help deliver the Promise?” Did the Government contact Barnardo’s? No.
We asked Barnardo’s what support it needed, and we met the gap homes lead. We then organised a meeting with all the third sector providers to get a set of asks for Government to see what progress it could make—and this was in a moment of crisis, so the focus should have been on what it could do to help.
Has that sub-group met? No. We learned that there was a new permanent secretary, so we raised it to that level; I met him to raise these issues and told him that the delay is unacceptable, and we had an assurance from him that it would be dealt with. Lo and behold, there was a meeting of the sub-group, and there will be an action plan by the end of this month.
In short, we are talking about two years of unnecessary intervention by an oversight board that is not responsible for that sort of thing. If we had been listened to at the outset, this would not have happened.
I have an even better example for you, convener, but I will not go into it. I will let you move on.
10:30
The clock is militating against us.
I know. Unfortunately, it was just the particular issue that we were discussing.
Your example of the homelessness pathway was very clear. If we have time, we will come back to your other example.
Please do.
Colin Beattie, do you have any further questions?
My last question was about what has to happen over the next four years or so to deliver the Promise and how the work will be prioritised through the various organisations, but it sounds like there is an awful lot of work to be done internally to smooth the pathways that are needed. I will leave it there for the moment, convener.
Okay—thank you.
I said earlier that one of our committee members—Joe FitzPatrick—will be putting his questions to you via videolink, and I now invite him to ask his questions.
Gosh, I almost want to change my questions after hearing the points that David Anderson made in answer to Colin Beattie’s questions. I will try and shift a little bit, however.
David was mostly talking about the Scottish Government’s responsibilities and how it has interacted. I am keen that we all recognise that the Promise was made by not just the Scottish Government but other public bodies, too. It was a promise from the whole of Scotland that we all need to make sure that we are keeping.
I am keen to hear how we are managing to get the joined-up working that is required. I would be keen to hear from COSLA whether there is the correct engagement across local authorities. If we could hear from COSLA first, then maybe David Anderson could talk about the experience from his perspective on whether local authorities are managing to get the engagement that they require with the Scottish Government and with other significant public authorities, such as local national health services. Would Nicola Dickie or Fiona Whitelock want to come in first?
Sorry, could you confirm whether you mean engagement within children’s strategic partnerships or more nationally, or something else?
Sorry, what I mean is, on a local level, are we managing to get the people who are all committed to the Promise to work together? The Promise cannot be delivered in silos. It can only be delivered if we all work effectively as team Scotland to deliver something that we have all promised. We are all committed to this. I have not heard anybody saying that they are not committed to the Promise, so we cannot do it in isolation. Are we managing to break down the barriers that have sometimes made such a joined-up piece of work more difficult? Are local authorities experiencing that change and are they managing to work not just for the Scottish Government and not just across their own portfolios, but with big organisations such as the NHS?
Thank you for that question. You have touched on a key, pivotal part of the Promise. I think that that is a real strength and the Promise has done well to articulate the joint responsibility and the role that all partners play. We have known for a long time that corporate parenting responsibilities sit with a large range of partners, but the Promise helped to move that forward in terms of how we are working together locally.
With any change of this scale there will always be challenges but, broadly speaking, we hear from local areas that they are getting together and getting on board and that they are working collaboratively. That has its challenges in different areas but, broadly speaking, people are around the table. Often that is done through children’s strategic partnerships.
At a previous meeting, when you spoke to the Auditor General, there was mention of the evaluation of CSP plans from 2023 to 2026. I know that there was mention that the Promise was only a strategic priority in, I think, 15 of those plans. I would point out that when the evaluation looks at what all the strategic priorities were, the Promise or care experience was the fifth one. The top four were, first, child protection and safety; secondly, children’s rights and voice; thirdly, mental health was most commonly mentioned; and the fourth strategic priority was child poverty and inequality. All of that, while not specifically the Promise, contributes to the Promise and improving the lives of care-experienced people. We need to be clear about the wider ambitions of the Promise and how all that connects in terms of supporting children, their families and their wider communities. Those plans are developed collaboratively with partners, so the point that I am trying to make is that there is clearly joint agreement and sign-up commitment to that.
The other report that I will mention is “Keeping the promise: A local perspective”. I think that it was mentioned earlier. It is over 500 pages of examples of work that is happening locally, often through local authorities, but not all the examples are exclusively of local authority work. Some are examples of joint work with partners, whether that is the third sector, or health boards, as you said, or others. I do not know whether Nicola wants to add anything to that.
Just briefly, what Fiona has articulated is what is working well at a local level. What we have to recognise is that there is a whole public service reform agenda. I appreciate that the Auditor General cannot put everything in the report, but sometimes it can be quite distracting at a local level if things are changing en masse at a national level. We will not go back into the national care service discussion as it has been mentioned a couple of times, but policing is another big part of our public sector and policing reform programmes are moving on.
I think that we have to be mindful of whether there is enough flexibility in what other parts of the public sector, local government and, indeed, wider third sector partners can do at a local level. We need to be aware that there are many moving parts at a national level. We spend a lot of time helping our colleagues inside of Government with that. David gave an example of housing and homelessness, and until the Promise is everybody’s business, we will always have to be deliberate in reminding our colleagues who are delivering homelessness policy nationally—or indeed locally—that they are corporate parents.
My gut feeling is that all the organisations that are working in a local area understand their corporate responsibilities as corporate parents, but the system is incredibly busy and we do not want to slow down the progress that we have made so far. We need to be mindful that, in the next five years, public services in Scotland will change. As we change the governance arrangements that are referenced in the report, we need to be mindful of future proofing and that we do not upset the local partnerships that are working well.
Are you confident that, even where the Promise is not specifically a clear priority in a local authority area—as in written down—it is still at the fore? When we are talking about changes to policing, is the Promise still being remembered and not just put to the side?
That is certainly my sense, looking at it from a strategic perspective. Local government has three main areas for governance—not to go back to the governance conversation. We have the children and young people board in COSLA, with all 32 local authorities represented and other public sector bodies sitting on it, including public health and our heads of education. We have many professionals there. We have the local government Promise programme and then we have the Promise leads network.
Fiona referenced children’s services and we also have good oversight into the community planning partnerships, and the community planning improvement board, which is the national body that supports what happens at a local level. I am confident that local authorities and their partners at a local level understand their requirements as corporate parents for the Promise.
Do Andrew Watson or Gavin Henderson want to add anything around this? There are obviously many shared responsibilities.
I am happy to respond to that from my perspective. One observation is that day in, day out I see partnership working between local government, the Scottish Government, the Promise and other partners. That is a fact of life in terms of our delivery of the Promise. Just to give the committee that assurance, that is what I see happening at team level and at senior level. We do have a range of governance, to go back to the governance point from earlier. It can look complicated and there is a commitment from us all to streamline that going forward.
An observation would be that if you consider the Promise to be a wide portfolio of activity within which there are some particular projects and programmes, sometimes you need to put particular governance around a project or programme for a while. The example in my mind is the work on the whole family wellbeing programme for which we established some specific governance. The programme is now well under way and I have taken steps to integrate its governance with that of two other programmes within Government. I think that there is definitely a shared sense of purpose around streamlining.
At senior level, we also have a good opportunity to bring together the chairs of the different governance boards from The Promise Scotland, local government and the Scottish Government. That is a forum for us to look across the piece between the three different partner organisations. There are some positive steps there in relation to our shared governance.
Finally, I have leadership responsibilities in that I chair a range of groups of wider partners. The strategy that we have tended to take is to co-chair key groups of leaders across the public sector so that it is not just the Scottish Government chairing and guiding the discussions. I chair a couple of key bodies with partners from COSLA and SOLACE, for example, so we are very much doing that in partnership.
Thanks for that. That all sounds good. David, do you want to add your comments?
Obviously, in our report, we encouraged COSLA and the Scottish Government to work well together because, historically, there has always been a table tennis back-and-forth of responsibility on certain issues and when it gets difficult. We believe that the Promise calls for shared ownership of concrete plans with a timescale for actions. We received the latest COSLA report on progress for the Promise; we appreciate it and we recognise the commitment that it expresses to keeping the Promise and all the good work that is going on.
On housing, however, COSLA highlights positive examples—transition flats, aftercare hubs and dedicated housing support—but those are an isolated snapshot. There is no evidence that comparable support is available in every local authority or that care-experienced young people can rely on consistent access to safe and stable homes. More importantly, there does not seem to be much housing data in that report. How many care-experienced young people become homeless, how many spend time in temporary accommodation and how many supported tenancies exist in local authorities?
As we go on fulfilling our reporting, we will get into more detail. We have never separated out local authorities—we have always spoken about COSLA—but, as time goes on and if the Promise is not being kept and there are barriers to change, we have to become more specific about where the problems lie.
Thanks for that. My next question was going to be whether you were able to start doing that, so that we, as politicians, can make sure that we are putting pressure in the right place. If you have that in hand, that sounds good. Thanks very much. Thank you, convener.
Thanks very much. I will move things straight along by inviting Graham Simpson to put some questions to you.
I will be quite quick; I just want to find out where we are with establishing a framework for measuring progress. Anyone can answer that.
I will bring in Gavin Henderson, although the Promise progress framework is a joint framework.
In December last year, we published “The Promise Progress Framework: Plan 24-30” jointly with COSLA and The Promise Scotland. The intention was to bring together a common framework with outcome statements that clarify with specificity what change the Promise is looking to achieve and list the measurement indicators by which we will judge delivery. It is still a work in progress as of December last year. We will publish an update next week. The framework is one of three parts of the wider package on the Promise story of progress. It sits alongside the work on how organisations are delivering change as well as how the care community is experiencing change.
There is an update due next week, not a final version of the framework.
I think that there will be an on-going process of developing the statistical indicators and data. Last year’s publication included data across a range of areas, setting out transparently the progress from 2020 through to 2024, and there will be an update on that next week. The wider point is that the Government is being quite transparent and open about the measurements by which we will hold ourselves accountable for keeping the Promise by 2030. It is not just the Government, obviously; it is across the system.
I think that it was Mr Beattie who asked earlier, “What is the Promise trying to achieve?” The vision statements in the framework set that out in crystal clarity. For example, keeping more families together where that is safe; reducing the number of children in compulsory care; reducing the number of exclusions of care-experienced children in schools; reducing the number of restraints that are happening in residential childcare; and so on. It is a cross-portfolio package that is about not just the core care system but a wider range of measures that include mental health and drugs issues for care leavers up to the age of 25. I would encourage the committee to review that document as well.
10:45
Why has it taken so long to get the framework in place? All that we are getting next week is an update. When will we have it?
What we published last year is the thing. The figures and numbers will be updated regularly through to 2030 to have a real-time measurement of how we are delivering against the Promise. What we published last year was not a partial document; it was a complete statement of the measurement framework that we will hold ourselves to deliver against. It does have gaps in those indicator sets where we do not yet have the data points that we agree are necessary. For example, we are working with Public Health Scotland to develop datasets that will measure health indicators for care-experienced young people, which are currently not collected.
One of the gaps, as referenced in the Auditor General’s report, is that:
“The current framework does not yet capture the experiences of care-experienced people, or the workforce.”
Will the next iteration of the framework do that?
The experience of the care community is part of a separate piece of work that is intended to be published next week, as part of the Promise story of progress package.
Is that a yes?
Very briefly, the answer is yes. The idea was always that the story of progress, which is the overarching name that we give for the measurement framework, has three components—I think that Neil mentioned them earlier.
The progress framework that Gavin has just described has been out there for 12 months. It is the national tracker across a whole range of different vision statements and outcomes and that is important. I will give you a brief example: it includes things such as the number of children in temporary accommodation in Scotland. Our proposition, which is shared, is that for as long as we have 10,000 children in Scotland living in temporary housing, the Promise will be harder to keep. While it is not about the care system per se, it is an important indicator that we think needs to be progressed.
Alongside that, the work that has been happening this year has been to develop how we go about measuring the experience part of it—the qualitative part of the framework—and the third element is around organisational progress. Those second two are due for publication next week, but just to be clear, Mr Simpson, the whole idea of this way of measuring is that it will continue to evolve and be updated on an on-going basis. It is not that we publish it this year and then move on and step away from it. The work will continue into 2026 and, indeed, all the way through to 2030, the idea being that on a regular basis—on an annual basis—people can go into the framework and get a sense of and understand the progress that is being made in keeping the Promise.
Very briefly, from an oversight board perspective, our next support will focus on the care-experienced voice because we understand that it is time to hear their voice and determine whether there is a general opinion on how the Promise is being kept in the different groups that make up that community.
When is that due out?
That will be out next year. We also have a parliamentary event in February when we will be updating on various other aspects of the Promise to keep it in the minds of MSPs before the election. I hope to see you all there on 26 February.
Hopefully, we can all make it. It sounds like it will be a good one. I will leave it there, convener.
Thank you. We have a final round of questions from the deputy convener. Jamie, over to you.
I thank our witnesses for their responses to our questions thus far.
I will try to pick up some of the areas that we have covered, to give our witnesses the opportunity to make sure that they leave this public session having said everything that they think they need to.
I will reflect on the example of housing that was given by Mr Anderson as chair of the oversight board. He raised a practical example of how the Promise is essentially not being kept. Although I think that it is useful to talk about the specifics of that issue, I simply ask the Government, based on that example, what the point is of having that new model of oversight in the oversight board. It is clearly a new way of doing things: it is attached to the Promise but independent enough to critique progress—or otherwise. However, what is the point in having an oversight group if the Government does not react or respond to the warnings that it is given? We heard a classic example of two years of dither and delay in responding to a very specific problem, when instead a huge difference could have been made for a cohort of young people.
I am pleased that you have asked that question, because it is on something that I wanted to come back on. I really appreciate the level of challenge from David Anderson and the oversight board. Their job is to challenge us and to ensure that we are all responding to the issues. I will let Gavin Henderson or Andrew Watson answer in terms of some of the work that has been happening on the pathways that David mentioned and the engagement with housing colleagues.
As David said, there are some fantastic examples of delivery at a local level. I recently visited a project in Midlothian that is working with 16 to 26-year-olds who are leaving the care system, ensuring that they have permanent housing solutions. It is not about just providing a flat but about ensuring that they have a cohort of peer support, that the flat is painted and decorated and that they have access to support and on-going advice and help. There are fantastic examples across different local authorities.
That project told me that housing is a significant challenge, not just for care-experienced people but more broadly. It has not ignored the wider challenges that are facing the housing system in its local authority area but has worked with its housing partners and the local authority. That was the best way of ensuring access to housing but also that the project had the support of the local community in decisions around prioritisation. That is a good example of a local solution that tries to respond to a wider challenge that goes across a number of local authorities.
It is a good example of that. However, David gave a really good example of the oversight group going to ministers and civil servants at the most senior level and saying, “We have a problem here as this policy has been paused”—and nothing happened. That is not the local authority’s fault.
I will bring in Andrew Watson and Gavin Henderson. I will be hugely disappointed if nothing happened. Everyone around this table is aware—more so than I am—of the wider housing challenges that Scotland and individual areas face. There is a huge amount of work and effort going into that, and the needs of care-experienced young people and young people generally are a key priority in that work. It is not the case that that is not identified and being reflected. I do not know whether Andrew or Gavin wants to say more about the discussions around that.
I am happy to add to that. I was at one of the meetings that David Anderson referenced in his chronology. My first point of assurance around the particular example that he gave is that when issues relating to the Promise are raised with us, we act on that. We raise them with other parts of Government that have direct responsibility for those policy areas. I can recall clearly some of the discussions that David mentioned and my action afterward, which was immediately to raise what was happening with the housing area.
On the overall Government position, it is as Neil Rennick says: do not underestimate the challenges around housing and homelessness. We have the national emergency housing and a number of local emergencies as well. We would want to give further assurance that the Government is seriously looking at these questions.
Another element in the timeline that David set out is the Parliament’s recent scrutiny of, and the discussions around, the Housing (Scotland) Bill. There will be another conversation around the duties to ask and act, but there has clearly been progress around that bill.
My final point is on our governance structures and accountability around the Promise, where we have the Cabinet sub-committee on the Promise. The sub-committee recently heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, who was able to give us assurances about progress in this area.
There is more work to be done, but I think that there has been that guarantee offered within Government by the portfolio leading work in this area that it will be looking at the issue and taking it forward through the sub-group that David mentioned, but also through a wider programme of activity.
You say that progress has been made. Since the Promise was first made, a third of councils in Scotland have declared a housing emergency. Our briefings from COSLA and Shelter Scotland state that nearly 17,000 children are homeless in Scotland and more than 10,000 are in temporary accommodation. Does that sound like we are keeping the Promise for those 17,000 children? It does not sound like it to me.
I would probably agree with Fraser McKinlay’s earlier comment that this is a key area of action that we need to address in order to keep the Promise. I would agree that the numbers that you mention present a significant challenge. The Government and partners are looking to address that. It is not straightforward, but the Government has set out the level of its commitment in this area. It is not all to do with the Promise; it is a much broader issue, as you know. However, from our perspective in keeping the Promise, we will do all that we can to make sure that these particular questions are prioritised in that broader piece of work.
I will move on to COSLA.
We received a letter from COSLA just two days ago, ahead of the session. I appreciate that you did not write the letter but it has your logo on it, so I will ask you about it. It is from Councillor Buchanan, who is your children and young people spokesperson. He made the valid point that local authorities make annual budget decisions within the confines of the funding arrangements that they work to. However, he then went on to say that
“COSLA cannot comment on gaps within each of our 32 councils.”
That leads me to ask what the point of COSLA is in this area. You have a commitment to keep the Promise, but you can talk only about the generality of what local authorities do and are clearly unwilling to criticise individual councils. The impression that I get is that, if there are specific failures in specific parts of Scotland, which we know there are, COSLA seems quite unwilling or reticent to unearth those local failings. Ultimately, it is local delivery that will meet local needs, is it not?
There are two issues here. First, we do not scrutinise our councils. We have many organisations in the room whose primary function is to scrutinise and assure, and, obviously, the electorate scrutinises local authorities. We are a membership organisation, but I do not know that criticism is the easiest way to change practice. What you have heard this morning is about collaboration and about supporting individual local authorities to improve their performance. Publicly criticising people does not always get you the best result. From COSLA’s perspective, we will go alongside individual local authorities and find out what the issues are, whether those are to do with the Promise, delayed discharge, housing or homelessness.
Secondly, on the finances, one of the things about the Promise and finance, and how much has or has not been invested, is that it is almost impossible to find and follow the totality of the investment made by local government that benefits people who are care experienced or indeed the investment that goes into getting it right for every single child.
One of the challenges is that, if you asked me to go around the 32 local authorities and find out, in pounds and pence, what they are short and what they require, I would not be able to do that. If I could, that would probably suggest that there were silos in individual local authorities that meant that we were not getting a whole-system approach.
The COSLA manifesto and lobbying campaign for the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections are clear that a strong settlement for local government in Scotland is an investment in our communities. Given that care-experienced children and adults live in communities the length and breadth of Scotland, that is the most powerful thing that we can do.
Whole family support funding has come up a couple of times on the periphery, and £500 million is a welcome investment. A sum of £500 million invested in the local government settlement, without any ring fencing and with the flexibility to deliver for individual councils and communities across Scotland, is where COSLA is at the moment.
11:00
I am glad that you mentioned that. I received your manifesto asks the other day. It is interesting. You say that it is difficult to quantify how short councils are in terms of their ability to deliver the Promise, but we have specific asks from COSLA, and it is not a small amount of cash that is being sought—it is a £16 billion inflationary uplift to, I presume, the block grant funding. There is £750 million for social care, which COSLA claims would increase the social worker workforce by more than 19,000—I will come on to the workforce in a moment; £844 million for the capital grant; and another nearly £1 billion for affordable housing supply, which may address some of the housing issues.
Mr Rennick, I imagine that you do not have £16 billion sloshing around your coffers at the moment. However, do you see the point? If local councils are not properly funded, there is no way on earth that we will deliver the Promise by 2030.
There will be an on-going dialogue between local and national Government, as Nicola Dickie says. It is crucial to understand the Promise in the context of specific bits of funding that we provide. The whole family wellbeing fund is a great example. I go around the country and speak to local authority colleagues, and they are using that funding to provide some innovative projects, with real variety in what is being delivered and a lot of flexibility in how that money is being used.
We also need to think of it in the context of the bigger mainstream budgets that we have for local government, health, justice and so on. It is about how we make use of the totality of funding.
The other thing that I would say is that part of the message of the Promise is around how we shift resources. It is not just about additional resources but about how we make sure that we are shifting resources towards prevention, so that we do not need to spend money further down the line in responding to the crisis when it arises.
Let us talk about the whole family wellbeing fund. How much of the £0.5 billion that was promised has been spent?
So far, £148 million has been spent.
When will the rest of it be administered?
It is spread over the coming period. That partly reflects discussions with our partners about when they will be ready to spend that money. I do not know whether Andrew or Gavin wants to say more about that.
We set out the latest approach of the whole family wellbeing funding in the Promise implementation plan update, which I think Neil mentioned was published in 2024. As he said, that set out the point about the feedback from not only delivery partners but from families, which was that a longer-term approach to funding and support is needed. However, we are looking at that in the current period and are very mindful that, with the election coming up, there are some challenges about pre-committing too far into the future.
We have set out a timeline that will be used to make decisions about the profile of future funding over the years, which will be very much based on the cycle of evaluation around the impact of years 1 and 2 and, subsequently, 3 and 4 of the programme.
Where did the figure of £0.5 billion get plucked from? Who said, “That is how much we need to deliver the Promise”? It sounds like an arbitrary number. Having read the Audit Scotland report, it also sounds to me as if the Government has no idea whether that money is being effective in delivering what it has to deliver. It is virtually impossible to follow the money, so before you spend another £250 million, how confident can you be that the money will be well spent?
I have a couple of remarks to make about that. On the impact of the funding, I mentioned a second ago the role of evaluation. One of the findings from the year 1 evaluation was that local partnerships—the money goes into partnerships and not just to councils; it is routed through the children’s services planning partnerships—have taken some time to recruit staff to do particular things. We should see in successive evaluations that demonstration of impact.
Neil mentioned that when you visit particular projects, you get great evidence of delivery locally. However, because there is a fair amount of flexibility locally around how the funding is used, there is not a single line around how it is being deployed. There is a complexity in what is being delivered, but we think that there is good emerging evidence of impact.
On where the figure of £500 million came from, that was before my time in engaging with the Promise. However, my understanding is that it was based on an estimate of 5 per cent of community health funding as a benchmark or a frame of reference for the amount of investment that might be needed to support the objectives of the fund.
Overall, progress will be measured in the Promise progress framework that Mr Simpson was asking about earlier. The wider story of progress needs to be seen in that wider context of whether we are making overall progress.
I appreciate that time is ticking on, so I will try to make my last two questions brief. Workforce is an important issue that is covered in the report. Exhibit 8 provides us with a nice visual way of understanding the scale of the problem that we have at the moment. To pick a few examples, 13 per cent of social workers who were asked were very likely to leave their jobs in the next 12 months—I presume that that is a fairly high figure—half of foster carers have considered resigning, half experience burnout and poor wellbeing and some 40 per cent of children and young people social care staff do not feel safe at work. Those startling statistics paint a worrying picture of the workforce required to deliver the Promise, do they not?
We recognise that a range of different people in the public sector and the third sector workforce play a key role in delivering the Promise. We are taking a number of specific actions to respond to some of the issues that have you mentioned. For example, we have committed to establishing the national social work agency, which is currently in shadow form. The new chief executive and chief social work adviser took up posts earlier this week and will be fully operational from April next year. They will play a crucial role in looking ahead to the future workforce requirements for the social work profession and in ensuring that we are considering the factors that help the existing social work workforce respond to the challenges that they face, including how we do more to support retention and recruitment into the profession.
We have a strand of work focused on supporting foster carers. We supported a national campaign earlier this year on the recruitment of new foster carers and we are doing work on the immediate support that new foster carers need in taking on that role and responsibility. A lot of work is also being done locally on foster care—you will see the adverts for that if you walk around Edinburgh.
We recognise that it is not purely about the number of staff involved and how they are deployed but the support that we provide to them, particularly on things such as trauma support and training. I do not know whether Andrew Watson or Gavin Henderson want to say more on that.
You have covered quite a lot. I have just a couple of comments; I know that we are a bit short of time.
We recognise that another key factor is the pipeline of future social workers and other members of the workforce. Investment in graduate apprenticeships in social work could be one example of support in that space. We recognise that some of the issues around the cost of living are significant, too. We have looked at allowances for foster and kinship care—there are particular developments on that.
A theme across the report is complexity. Exhibit 8 mentions the different legislation and so on that social workers and other practitioners have to apply. Further guidance was issued earlier this year for the Scottish Social Services Council, which pulls together some of the key building blocks of professional practice to help give clarity and guidance about how the different pieces of legislation fit together. That is an area that we could possibly look at further going forward.
My final question is simply this. We are now five years on from the Promise being made. There is clearly an ambition and a lot of good will in the room among stakeholders to meet the Promise, but in your professional judgment are we on track to do so by 2030? I am happy to go along the panel to hear answers.
Are we on track? We have to go by what we see in the oversight board’s reports and the Audit Scotland report. I hope that you have seen our annual report, which was published a couple of months ago. We had some clear asks in there about what we need to succeed. We are very clear that unless some of those are met, we will not be able to keep the Promise. It is very hard to answer the question whether we are on track, but I think that the coming months and years will be pivotal for that. Not all hope is lost. We still have the opportunity to do this and we have been clear in our annual report about what we need from the local government perspective.
I echo what Fiona Whitelock said and reiterate the point that I made earlier. An awful lot of public service reform will have to go on in the next five years. Can we deliver the Promise by 2030? Yes, but we will need to be very deliberate about remembering it in all the public service reform and the efficiency drive that we will probably see in public services as we move forward.
The short answer is no, at the current pace. The oversight board report has the qualified hope that the Promise could still be kept. I will leave this meeting today somewhat frustrated that we have not been able to touch on things such as the whole family wellbeing fund and long-term trust-based funding or demonstrate again who is responsible for the lack of pace. A specific example is the Children 1st proposal on family group decision making.
Mr Rennick’s office contacted me twice last week to arrange a meeting, but when I saw that the meeting was for only 15 minutes I declined. I ask him if we can meet and discuss this. We are a forward-looking oversight board and we have solutions to some of this—we understand the complexity and about the progress and so on, but we have to focus on where change could happen. There are some things that could happen now to up the pace, so I look forward to meeting Mr Rennick, if he agrees to progress that conversation.
If you have any other questions for the oversight board, we are happy to provide more information.
I agree with that assessment. We are not on track and not where we want to be, but this is still very doable. We all recognise the amount of work and change that need to happen.
My only other point, which is related, is that one of the really stark findings in the evaluation of the children’s services plans is that only eight out of 30 met the criteria for shared resourcing. For me, that is the key to unlocking some of this. We need to better understand that resource—the money and the people who will build the whole thing—and what we have locally. Time would be well spent understanding how investment can happen locally as well as doing the national piece. The fact that in children’s services planning partnerships we still do not properly understand the totality of the public resource in our local communities is a critical part of the work.
That is helpful feedback. Mr Rennick, will you give Mr Anderson more than 15 minutes of your time? This is an extremely important matter.
Yes, absolutely. I know that the minister is due to meet the oversight board this afternoon, which clearly demonstrates the commitment, but I am more than happy to meet Mr Anderson separately to talk through those and other issues.
In answering your question, the oversight board captured it really well by saying:
“We remain hopeful and determined ... but there is not a moment left to waste”.
The young people who spoke to the Education, Children and Young People Committee earlier this year also captured it well. They said that there are moves in the right direction and that change is not happening fast enough but there is still time. I think we have to take them up on that challenge.
The Promise is not immune to some of the challenges that affect public service delivery across the piece, given the current public finance position, the economy and so on. I hope that we have shown in the evidence today but also in some reports, particularly the implementation plan update from last year, that good progress is being made. The key point for me is that we have some really strong foundations in order to deliver over the next few years. We have spent some time developing those, but I think we should be confident that they will help us reach the target by 2030.
To echo what has been said, I would like us to be positive. I think that we are making change—things are changing. When we speak to people on the ground who are delivering change, they tell us that things are better than they were. We just have to make sure that we are delivering all aspects of the Promise for the next few years to meet it by 2030.
Thank you. That draws this part of this morning’s agenda to a close. Mr Anderson, we do not normally have as many as seven witnesses, so if we did not get round to things that you wanted to raise—and this applies to you all—or if there are things that on reflection or contemporaneously you determine it would be useful for the committee to see, we are very happy to receive written submissions from you. Once again, thank you very much for your evidence this morning. I will now suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
11:14 Meeting suspended.