Fostering
Resumed debate.
It would be nice if members always flooded into the chamber when I rose to speak.
I can barely imagine what qualities it takes to be a good foster-parent. I guess that infinite patience, a high degree of wisdom and an extended forgiving nature come very high on the list. Like the children in their charge, no two foster carers or foster-parents will be alike.
I was interested to read the aims for partnership of the Fostering Network, which state:
"We believe that the greater the involvement of children and young people, parents, foster carers and other relevant professionals in social workers' plans, the more likely it is that children and young people will have a satisfactory experience in foster homes."
I have no doubt that that is absolutely correct. However, constituency experience tells me that the aim is far from being achieved across the board. I have met a parent whose son was in foster care and who voiced concerns to social services about apparent bruising on his son. The boy was very quickly removed, but the foster carer continues to foster. Another constituent told me of a young girl in foster care in a very small village who was not having an easy time in the community and kept coming to him because she was not allowed back into her foster home after school.
I am acutely aware that there may be perfectly sound reasons in both cases and that there are two sides to every story. However, this morning we have heard from almost every speaker about the acute shortage of foster carers. Social work departments nationwide are desperately short staffed and often stretched to the limit. Obviously, the natural parents of the child in care have real problems of their own. There are problems with the number of foster carers, with the number of social workers and, naturally, with the parents. Those are three of the four elements that appear in the Fostering Network's partnership aims, with which all parties in the chamber agree.
I welcome the Executive's intention, as stated in the motion,
"to invest in the future of the fostering service to increase the number of high quality placements".
However, that phrase would seem to be a tacit admission that there is a degree of variance in the quality of foster care that is on offer. That alone demands improvement.
There is a simple, low-cost, family-friendly way of bringing about improvement. Several members, notably Donald Gorrie, Robin Harper and Christine May, have already touched on the issue. Currently, where there is no option except to take a child or children into care, the wider family of that child or those children is sometimes treated with something that borders on suspicion, but it may have a huge amount to offer. I believe that the wider family should be prioritised by the authorities to the extent that, where acceptable, the first choice for the care of children under consideration should be to place them in the protection of their wider family. That would not be practical or desirable in every instance. However, this week I was pleased to meet the group Grandparents Apart and I have also met a number of grandparents in my constituency who are desperate to help to bring up their grandchildren but are effectively estranged from them. I have no hesitation in stating that in many instances the wider family could and should play a far greater role than it is currently able to play.
Does Alex Fergusson accept that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 states that, before any child is removed from its home and placed in public residential or foster care, all options—especially family options—should be explored?
I respect the background and experience that Mr Barrie brings to the debate and am aware of the provision to which he refers. However, constituents' experience suggests that it is not being used as much as it should be. That is where I am coming from.
An emphasis on the role of the wider family would ensure—as is obviously intended—that the child was kept in the heart of the family, on which the Executive rightly places such strong emphasis. It could make up for a large percentage of the acknowledged shortage of foster carers and would serve the ultimate well-being of the child, the family and, possibly, the natural parents concerned.
Given the Fostering Network's recent statement that 91 per cent of local authorities are receiving funds at a level below the organisation's recommended minimum, it is absolutely correct to examine rates and funding. I hope that the minister's announcement today will allow a genuine improvement in this selfless service to take place. I fear that the £12 million may simply begin to close the gap. If the minister embraces actively the immediate wider families of these poor, disadvantaged children, a genuine improvement can be achieved. I welcome today's motion.
I have every confidence that Euan Robson will achieve his aim of bringing fairness into the fostering of children and into the attitude towards kinship carers who look after their grandchildren. The minister has worked and continues to work tirelessly on behalf of children in foster care, despite the fact that the outcomes for grandparents who care for their grandchildren because of drug and alcohol problems are not always those that we require.
It is essential that children should go to their grandparents. Kinship care is very important. Over the past 18 months we have met various groups. Some of the £12 million that the minister has promised must go to offset the traumatic hardship that is imposed on kinship carers, whose grandchildren are foisted or dumped on them by social workers. Those are the carers' words, not mine. In their opinion—not mine—social workers sometimes take the soft option and place children with their grandparents, instead of finding other foster care places for them. The Executive has set an acceptable level of financial support for kinship carers, but far too often carers get no financial assistance. The Executive must ring fence the money that is given to councils, to ensure that the money that kinship carers deserve reaches its destination.
Bill Aitken delivered a studied, logical speech on the problems of fostering. I enjoyed his reference to the culture of political correctness that arises all too often in this area. Often a grandparent does not have the legal qualifications that a fosterer requires, but they can bring other influences to the upbringing of the child. However, not every grandparent is a suitable person to foster children—some do not have the necessary capabilities.
Scott Barrie highlighted the consensual approach that is essential in this area. It has been good to see consensus across the Parliament this morning.
Every effort should be made to reduce the need for children to go into residential care. As Robin Harper highlighted earlier, much more work is also needed to ensure that children from broken homes and similar situations do not have to be placed in foster or kinship care. As was mentioned earlier, there are 4,500 foster carers and we are still about 700 short.
When I met a delegation of kinship carers the following points were raised. They stated that they aim to improve the quality of life for people in their situation and that they are campaigning for improved recognition, services and support. They also want to organise social activities and offer mutual support. One of the carers highlighted the fact that advice on welfare rights and benefits is crucial, as money is needed while benefits are sorted out. It is sad that often no benefit comes to the kinship carer. It is hard enough for a grandparent who is a pensioner to exist on their pension without having one, two or more children put into their care. As a caring society, we have to do better than that. The minister recognises that and he is taking action. The carer also stated that a
"clear statement of how the social work department will support the family in the long term should be made at the start".
Too often the family do not receive that clear statement when they need the information. The carer added that
"Information on support services and groups should be provided"
and that a list of useful contacts and telephone numbers would be of assistance.
Another carer said that little assistance is provided and that making discretionary payments is not good enough. She is looking for
"regular universal payments to grandparents and relative carers"
that are similar to those given to a foster carer. It is not acceptable that a grandparent gets nothing and a foster carer can get between £60 and £150 for looking after a child. Many have given up employment or cannot look for employment because of the parenting duties involved in the foster caring that they do for their grandchildren. As another carer said, they recognise their responsibility to the children, but they need support from the Government.
Another carer said that the services that exist are good but that more are needed. The health and age of many grandparents mean that respite is urgently required. It is all right for people who are in their 20s and 30s who are bringing up kids, but for people who are 50, 60 or 70, bringing up children can be a traumatic experience. More emphasis must be placed on respite care to give those people a break. That is very important.
Euan Robson has taken those points on board and has sent a strongly worded letter to every local authority chief executive in Scotland. The letter states:
"I have received a number of representations, generally and particularly on the subject of allowances, recently from families who care for a relative's child. This concept is often known or refered to as kinship care. There appears to be a significant difference across the country in the way such cases are dealt with, therefore I am writing to remind you of the guidance that exists on this subject … Volume 2 of the guidance on the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 states that for children who are either already known to the social work department or whose parents have approached the social work department for help, the social work department may play a role, by agreement with the parents, in facilitating or supporting a child to live with his or her relatives either by helping to negotiate the arrangement or providing some financial support or both. The child is not looked after by the local authority in either of these situations and the carers do not need to be approved as foster carers."
However, those relatives need financial assistance. An unacceptable example is that of a grandparent who applied to the social work department for help and had to wait for 13 weeks to get a single bed for a 13-year-old girl to lie on—she had been sleeping on the floor. We have a long way to go, but I have every confidence in the minister to take up the cudgel on behalf of all those children. I think that he will get support from across the board.
I congratulate members on the rash of unanimity that has broken out in the chamber. Frances Curran even made a moderate demand in her speech—I hope that Tommy Sheridan still has enough influence in his party to knock such revisionist thinking on its head.
As the First Minister identified, yesterday was an important day for public health in Scotland. Yesterday's debate on smoking was covered in the newspapers today and in the media last night, but in many ways the smaller things are equally important. Today's debate makes it clear that where there are issues on which there is agreement among parties and individuals—including independent members and single-member parties—we can do something different. Those of us who cared about the creation of a Scottish Parliament when it may have been unfashionable in our parties to do so believed that we could make a difference. We believed that there would be space in the timetable for legislation and that there would be a chance to bring together key opinion formers from inside and outside the system and give them the opportunity to articulate the arguments effectively.
In the speeches that members have made this morning there has been a sense that we can influence the situation. I welcome the announcement by the Executive of additional resources to address issues that for far too long were considered Cinderella issues or were not considered important enough to be developed. Nothing is more important than to try to deal with the uncertainty that is created in young people's lives by whatever happens in their family circumstances. There has been a seismic change in the social experience in Scotland over the past 25 years because of the implosion in many respects of family life and the impact of addiction, whether that is alcohol addiction, which is still prevalent in my constituency in the east end of Glasgow, or drug misuse, which is increasingly prevalent.
As John Swinburne said, we must recognise the role of families. Where I disagree with him is that I think that it is right to place children with family members, where that is appropriate. The issue that he subsequently raised, from my understanding of his speech, was that we would need to provide more effective support for those grandparents. Where local initiatives have been taken, for example in Fife, there have already been welcome developments. Donald Gorrie touched on the kernel of the debate, which is that there is some very good local practice but it has not been shared throughout Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament can do anything, it can throw the debate into the public arena and identify, both through the public debate and through the provision of resources, ways in which we can address that issue.
I think that we need to have what we call the four Rs. There are three Rs for education—in fact there are only two, although the various problems with literacy might suggest that "writing" starts with an R.
There is only one that starts with an R.
Sorry. There is only one. That show why I was an English teacher rather than a maths teacher. I thank Scott Barrie.
There are four Rs that are required to make this noble debate even more effective. The first is recognition. The key issue that many members have raised is that we must recognise the value of the work that individuals do. The second is recruitment. We must ensure that we recruit sufficient foster carers and that the number of foster carers increases. Part of what is needed is to recognise the value of the work that is undertaken, but it also involves demonstrating to folk that if they are recruited as foster carers, they will not find themselves economically disadvantaged or put under financial pressure. The third is how we retain those skilled and experienced individuals, not only to enable us to have a sufficient number of foster carers but because they are useful allies in encouraging other people to be recruited and can play an effective role in the training and development of those people. The fourth is restoration, to ensure that the youngsters are placed back within the stable family unit that can be developed. We must address that issue.
We must deal with three or four fundamental issues. I hope that the resource allocation that the minister has announced can assist with that process. One issue is the support that is required for social work and children's services. Historically, too many authorities have depended on residential care. That has certainly been the experience in Glasgow, partly because of recruitment pressures. We also need to address the issue of assessment as too many social work units and departments are under pressure, largely because of the economic and social experience of the communities that they serve. We must find ways to provide support in those areas to improve recruitment and reward more effectively staff who operate within such a pressured environment. In my constituency there are hot spots where there are great difficulties but also great opportunities; although the experience is at its rawest there, such experience can make a real difference in professional development.
The second big issue that we need to address is how we support volunteers. I welcome what the minister has said today about providing much better support for them and ensuring that they have access to learning. One of the key messages is how we can use other tools to provide learning, not only for current volunteers. We can use distance learning and support courses to ensure that people who are located in remote areas can be given broad support, advice and encouragement.
The third issue is economic—ensuring that people are provided for. Good local examples have developed across Scotland and we should use those as a national template. I welcome the briefing note that the British Association of Social Workers provided for us, highlighting ways in which we might make progress. I hope that the minister will continue to address such issues.
Another fundamental issue is kinship carers and the support that we must provide to grandparents, in particular, who have taken on the care of their grandchildren. In my constituency, a number of organisations find themselves under financial pressure when addressing such issues.
We should never undervalue the work of foster carers and the people who support them. It is a noble commitment. I have benefited personally from the work of foster carers—the work of an elderly foster carer in the case of our daughter and the work of a younger family in the case of our son. Those people have provided support and the amazing thing is that they still take a genuine interest in the welfare and development of all the children whom they have had under their care. That is testimony to the kind of commitment that people can bring.
If we want to make a difference in Scotland, the resources—welcome though they are—must be part of a shaping and influencing of policy. How do we get information out to as many individuals as possible to ensure that we address recruitment and retention issues? More important, how do we demonstrate that we are making a difference? This morning's papers were full not only of yesterday's debate on smoking but of a survey that showed that people felt that the Parliament had made little or no difference to their lives. If we address the issue of fostering well—and, as the minister suggested, do things better—we can make a genuine difference for children in the future. I welcome the minister's commitment and, more important, the unanimous support of Parliament in the endeavour.
I apologise to the chamber for coming in slightly late—there was a points failure at Cowlairs while I was on my way here on the train. I did not hear all of the minister's speech.
I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland and as a consultant with Ross Harper solicitors in Glasgow. I declare that interest because the firm has been involved in one or two cases in which issues of fostering and grandparents' allowances have come into focus.
The subject of fostering and looked-after children is vital. Like others, I pay tribute to those who take part in that challenging activity. It is always interesting and productive to listen to people who are experts in their field and Scott Barrie's speech gave us considerable depth of detailed professional knowledge. The debate has been of high quality.
We should not forget residential care, because 1,500 children still live in one form or another of residential care. The issue ought not to become a neglected cul-de-sac. Not least because of the pressures on foster care, residential care will continue to have a place—although, as people have pointed out, we hope that its role will diminish. However, the benefits of a successful placement are obvious. Nevertheless, they are worth stating. The child protection report, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", pointed out that when children were placed successfully in foster care, their circumstances—in particular, their material and health circumstances—often improved.
As has come out in a variety of this morning's speeches, the key is stability. One hears of tragic cases of children with a long trail of failed placements. A successful and stable placement may require a lot of skill and dedication from the foster-parents, but it will give the child—who may have been abused or neglected in the past—a chance to recover and develop.
The alternative is stark. A UK survey has shown that young people who have been in care are 60 times more likely to be homeless, 50 times more likely to be sent to prison and 88 times more likely to be drug abusers. In the Education Committee's child protection inquiry, we were told that one in 56 births in Scotland is to a drug-abusing parent. Those are horrific and shocking statistics. If we consider the issue the other way round, we see that 38 per cent of young prisoners and 30 per cent of young single homeless people have been in care. Those statistics are on top of, and connected to, the figures that other members have mentioned showing the greater risk of exclusion from school, of having additional support needs, of a lack of qualifications, of future unemployment and of mental health problems.
There should be no great surprise in any of those findings, but they show the scale of the challenge and of the dividend that could result if society and improved arrangements make any impression on the life chances of the most needy and deserving of our young citizens.
I vividly remember meeting, about two years ago, some care leavers at a Scottish throughcare and aftercare forum. They all wanted to be social or youth workers. They had been there, read the book and seen the film. They knew what young people in care went through and believed, probably rightly, that they were as well placed as anybody to support and help those who came after them. They were also a tribute to the triumph of the human spirit in adversity.
How can we help? I have a number of points that I would like the minister to respond to. In some respects, they echo points that others have raised. The first point is that there is a great resource in grandparents, whom we do not properly support. Many grandparents take over children from a drug-abusing daughter or son. In an overwhelming number of cases, they are in necessitous circumstances themselves.
The Executive's review of services for vulnerable families with young children found a lack of practical and financial support for family carers, little support for people wanting to acquire parental or adoption rights, and often little or no financial support. An allowance can be paid by the local authority but it is discretionary. In any event, the amount of the allowance apparently varies between local authorities, as we have heard. I strongly welcome the input of resources that Euan Robson announced, but it is high time that this issue was sorted out. Local authority discretion is all very well in its place, but I struggle to find a satisfactory reason why fostering allowances should not be standardised across Scotland and why grandparents should not be supported like other foster carers—probably on the basis of need. The Scottish Executive's own guidance says that the child-rearing costs incurred by grandparents are unlikely to be very different from the costs incurred by anyone else. I appreciate that there can be difficulties in organising support for grandparents, but those difficulties have to be tackled—not least because tackling them will take pressure off fostering in the more, as it were, professional sense.
The second point that I want to put to the minister relates to skills support for foster carers. Bill Aitken rightly said that the issue is linked to that of fostering allowances. I am not sure what support and training are given at present—we heard something about that from Scott Barrie—but it is neither an easy nor an amateur matter to take on a child, with the traumas that they often have as a result of their previous life experiences. We must provide more targeted skills support, based on good evidence of what works, to foster-parents and to children's homes.
Does the member accept that we could also do more to support young parents, in line with Susan Deacon's recent motion?
Robin Harper makes a good point. These issues do not exist in a cul-de-sac but are part of a spectrum of social issues. The least-harm principle very much supports Robin's point. If we can impact on the risk factors that lead to lack of achievement, low take-up of educational opportunities and the threat of homelessness and criminality, we will make a big difference.
The final point that I would like the minister to address is on throughcare. Young people in care do not suddenly become competent and independent at the age of 16. They are like other teenagers. They need continuing and familial support, they need driving lessons and guitar lessons, they need someone to tell their problems to and they need someone to do the myriad supporting things that parents do, even for allegedly grown-up children. They need someone to be there for them and to keep an eye on them. In many cases that happens, but in some cases it does not. There must an effective, dynamic and flexible care plan that carries people through to adulthood.
I welcome the promises in the Executive's motion, which talks of "high quality", "resources" and a "fair … system of allowances". Far more than in most political topics, ministers and MSPs have a heavy responsibility to do more than their best to ensure that those things happen. I support the motion.
I am pleased to sum up in the debate. As others have said, there is a clear consensus in the chamber on the value of foster carers—although I agree with Donald Gorrie that that probably means that the media will pay absolutely no attention to the debate, because they prefer our rows.
It is good that approaching a third of all looked-after children are being cared for in a family setting. That can mean anything from an overnight stay in a crisis or short-term fostering to a longer-term relationship in which a young person is also able to maintain a relationship with their natural family. I was pleased that the minister was able to refer to the fact that 80 per cent of foster-children have contact with their natural families. I think that Frank McAveety said that he particularly appreciated the interest that foster carers continued to have in his adopted children.
Scott Barrie mentioned that he was the chair of a fostering panel in a previous life. I served on the adoption and fostering panel of Strathclyde Regional Council and chaired South Ayrshire Council's adoption and fostering panels. I was always surprised—but not for bad reasons—by the rigour of the vetting that foster carers and adoptive parents had to undergo, which involved consideration of reports from social workers and other professionals, such as medics, and fairly intensive discussion among panel members about whether the people in question were suitable. That was done for all the reasons that Andrew Welsh articulated.
As elected members, all of us have come across many sad things in our time. From my days on Strathclyde Regional Council, I always remember being made aware of an adoption placement that had broken down. Not only had the young woman's relationship with her natural family broken down, but she had gone on to have a failed relationship with an adoptive parent. Robert Brown mentioned people who have gone through many placements. That is why it is important that people who foster or adopt are the most suitable parents for the young people concerned. I concur with what Scott Barrie said about distant placements. In some of the former regional councils, such placements were a problem in that they did not help young people to maintain their relationships with their own communities.
I welcome the £12 million that will be provided over two years to improve allowances and to further increase the proportion of looked-after children in foster care. That will enable young people to get the support that will allow them to achieve their potential. I note the statistics that show that 67 per cent of children in foster care achieve standard grades, whereas only 29 per cent of children in residential care do so.
I also welcome the support that will be provided for training, which will mean that the very complex skills that foster carers require and manage to develop in the course of their work as foster carers can be accredited. I know that the Fostering Network already offers 112 courses, in which 1,400 participants took part in 2003. Level 3 Scottish vocational qualifications are offered, but we want to build on such accreditation so that it becomes more recognised. I certainly hope that the measures that have been announced today will address the shortfall of 700 places that the minister referred to in his speech.
A number of members mentioned kinship carers and I am pleased that the ministers have written to local authorities about that. A constituent of mine who cares for her sister's three children—unfortunately, her sister had an addiction problem and was unable to look after her children any more—as well as her own children came to me because she was having difficulty in getting financial assistance to build an extension to her house. Rather than receive a sympathetic response to her request, she was told that her own children, who were a bit older, would grow up.
Scott Barrie made an interesting point about how foster carers must relinquish the role that they play. Those of us who have children who have grown up into adults sometimes have difficulty in relinquishing our role in looking after them. How much more difficult that must be for people who have put so much care and attention into looking after a young child or a baby and the child goes on to another placement. It is important to acknowledge their situation publicly.
Christine May and Frank McAveety stressed the importance of maintaining the family unit, which often involves the provision of short-term fostering support. As Christine May said, respite care is especially necessary for children who have profound needs. I want to mention the good work that Quarriers does in my constituency of Dumfries and in Galloway. It offers respite care for parents of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties or physical disabilities and so enables them to maintain the family unit.
Alex Fergusson spoke movingly about the feelings that young people have when their families break down, but I should mention that looked-after children are not necessarily removed from their families; many young people are looked after and supported within the family unit. We do not want people to think that because children are looked after they carry the stigma associated with children being removed from their families.
In relation to John Swinburne's speech, although it is unusual for me to praise the Conservatives, I want to say that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was a good piece of legislation. It does not force caring duties on relatives who are unwilling or unable to provide them; it means that any relative who is able to provide such care is looked for before non-relatives are sought.
Frank McAveety mentioned the four Rs. Given that he was an English teacher, I was a little concerned that he apparently does not know how to spell "writing". The four Rs of recognition, recruitment, retention and restoration offer a good, succinct way of examining the issues. I concur with Frances Curran, who made the important point that foster-parents do not have to form a nuclear family, as many other people have the right skills and abilities to provide a stable home to young people from a variety of different backgrounds.
I am happy to join all the members who have acknowledged and praised the work of foster carers, and I wish the ministers well in their forthcoming action to increase the number of foster carers in Scotland.
We agree with the points that the minister made. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I give our support to any measures that will help to address the many issues surrounding fostering that have been raised in the debate.
There is no doubt that fostering is a vital service provided by dedicated people, as the minister said. We endorse the principle that foster-children deserve the same chances as other children, but I remind the minister, as he considers his audit and review, that COSLA produced a report in 2000, the conclusions of which many members have mentioned. I will read out a quote about that report:
"A CoSLA report on Foster Care suggests that teachers' low expectations are a factor in low achievement … studies of children who had grown up in care and been educational successful have been critical of social workers, carers and teachers for stereo-typing looked after children as low achievers."
I think that that merits further investigation. The quote continues:
"The most consistent response from the high achievers was that they felt unsupported by social workers, care staff and teachers. Their ability had not been recognised or their achievement valued by social work staff and at school they experienced discrimination by teachers and bullying by peers."
I ask the minister to ensure that his audit and review take into account the conclusions of the COSLA report.
Many members have mentioned kinship care, but a look through the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care's standards, "national care standards: foster care and family placement services", has led me to wonder whether kinship care falls outside the category of fostering. If that is the case, does it also fall outside the category that qualifies for training, financial support and advice? The minister should consider that as part of the review.
The provision of £12 million is welcome but, as the Fostering Network's survey shows, foster carers in 91 per cent of Scottish local authority areas are receiving sums that are below the organisation's recommended minimum rates. That means that their fostering expenses are not being covered, so foster-children are being short changed and carers are, in effect, subsidising the state. That is in spite of the existence of the national care standards that the Parliament agreed to when it passed the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, which state that all carers should be reimbursed for the full costs of fostering.
While listening to the debate, I have been flicking through some of the national care standards. I hope that members will bear with me if I mention some of them.
Standard 3 relates to Andrew Welsh's excellent point on individuality. It says:
"your identity and self-esteem will be valued and promoted."
Under the care standards, the care commission regulates
"issues of diversity, including sexuality and lifestyle choices."
Although that is the case, few members have mentioned the care commission's role—the minister did not—and I look forward to hearing about it.
Christine May made some excellent points about health care. Standard 2 talks about
"the provision of good quality care"
and mentions occupational therapy and psychology, which Christine May referred to. We have had the national care standards for three years, so why are we all so concerned? We need to ask whether the care commission is examining the standards of fostering that local government is responsible for as vigorously as it examines the standards in private care homes.
Standard 8 talks about the care commission's commitment
"to developing, preparing and training foster carers"
and to ensuring
"that they work within its standards, policies and guidance",
but successive members spoke about the absence of support and guidance.
If the fostering agencies, which are mainly our local authorities, are failing to provide foster carers with the standard of service that the care commission has set out, serious questions need to be asked, because the care commission is a powerful Government organisation, and I fully support the work that it does.
Standard 9 states:
"you receive payments to cover the cost of caring for any children or young people placed with you. Payments are based on their needs and in line with the cost of caring for them",
but member after member has asked why foster carers are not being paid the amount that they deserve. The care standards have been set out and approved by the Parliament, but we allow the issue to carry on three years after the care commission was set up. We have passed the legislation; now we need the care commission to be more vigorous.
Standard 10 mentions
"clear published policies and procedures on all payments made, and … information about the skills, training and qualifications that are needed for different payment levels."
Adam Ingram mentioned that only 11 per cent of carers have access to the proper qualifications. If they do not have access, what is the care commission doing to ensure that they are given support?
Standard 11 states that the fostering agency should have
"review systems in place to make sure that … good quality care"
is provided. It also promises carers
"the facilities you need to meet the needs of children placed with you, including their ethnic, cultural, language and faith needs",
which covers the point on individuality that Andrew Welsh raised.
I ask the minister whether the care commission is really doing its job. Is it doing what we asked it to do: to ensure that all fostering agencies are adhering to the excellent standards that we have in Scotland? I will probably lodge some parliamentary questions on that, because the Parliament seriously needs to ask those questions.
One issue that must be addressed is the postcode payment system for foster carers. The Fostering Network recommends £108 for babies and £191 for over-16s. The lowest actual payments are made by East Lothian Council and Midlothian Council at £63 for babies and £126 for over-16s, which is a shortfall of £45 for babies and £65 for over-16s. In Scotland, only Glasgow City Council comes close to the recommended levels, as its payments are within £10 of them in each category. We might say that different payments are necessary throughout Scotland, but surely that is not so in our two major cities. Glasgow City Council pays £34 more per young child and £60 more per adult than the City of Edinburgh Council does.
The Presiding Officer is indicating that I should close now. I am sorry that I cannot say any more.
Nanette Milne prefaced her speech by indicating that she was worried about repetition. She went on to mention kinship care, among other matters that members have raised, but she should not have worried about repetition.
Frank McAveety might have had difficulty with his Rs, but he did not have difficulty with his rhetoric. In a debate such as this, there is an opportunity for unanimity and for us to agree a position as a Parliament that represents broader society. Clearly, the issue does not fit the pattern of party-political debates, because it is not a partisan issue. It has nothing to do with how members view the imperatives of the economy or the battle between capital and labour, but is about how members view society. I am glad that all members seem to acknowledge that the children about whom we have been speaking are our responsibility as a community, whether or not they are our blood relations, and that, as the elected Parliament in Scotland, it is our responsibility to address that.
The points that Frank McAveety made were correct. The outcomes of the Fostering Network's study might not make an earth-shattering difference to service delivery, benefits or the progress that we make in dealing with foster carers and those in foster care, but they make a significant difference to those people. They might not grab the press headlines, but to some extent, who cares? That is not why we are doing it; we are doing it to make a difference and to advance the interests of foster-children. Therefore, we should try to reach a view that will allow the Executive, the Opposition parties and councils of all political parties to go forward together, because it is not a matter of making narrow political points.
Earlier today, we had a moment of silence and reflection for the armistice and those who fell in the two world wars. Perhaps some members should have a private moment of reflection on the debate. Clearly, it has been about children who, in many instances, come from very difficult backgrounds and are troubled. We know that many of those children go on to commit offences and crimes. Some members could do with reflecting on why, when we debate the care and welfare of those children, we talk about troubled children who require care, assistance and support and about our endeavours to look after them, but when we discuss them in a debate on criminal justice, we talk about hammering them, hounding them and dealing with them in this way or that way.
That is not to apologise or make excuses for bad behaviour, because I do not think that any member of any political party condones that, but we must acknowledge that an holistic approach is needed. There is no rubicon that is simply crossed at the age of 16. A troubled teenager from a difficult background—such as a home with a drug-offending or alcohol-abusing parent—who has faced all possible disadvantages does not suddenly, because of an offence that he commits the day after his 16th birthday, go from being a child for whom we should care to a child whom we no longer look after, whose troubles and tribulations we no longer try to deal with and whom we seek to hammer and do down. Of course we must have rules and regulations, but we must also have an holistic approach, and if we want to address not only the care and welfare of children, but the misbehaviour of many teenagers and young adults, we must have continuity and must ask that some people reflect on the need for sympathy.
I accept everything that Kenny MacAskill says, but does he acknowledge that, although many children in the looked-after system go on to commit offences, many more do not? Does he accept that we should perhaps concentrate on what we are doing right that makes those children have positive outcomes and on how we can take that work into other care?
Absolutely. Statistics that the Executive has issued show that a small minority of our children offend. Rather than prosecuting a war on a generation, we should try to address the problems of some within it.
The minister was correct to come at the matter by discussing where we could try to work together to create a better society. There is no clear, simple solution, but obviously we need to try to improve the level of finance that we commit to foster care. The points that Opposition members and back-bench members from the Executive parties have made on the Executive's position have been made with the intention of seeking to assist; it is a matter not of being difficult, but of seeking to make constructive criticisms. Cash is clearly a problem—my colleague Adam Ingram pointed out that the ADSW has referred to a shortfall of £150 million. The £12 million over two years is welcome and beneficial, but it fails by a long shot and leaves us significantly short. We must address that.
We must also take cognisance of the fact that there are social difficulties that we must address and demographic trends that we cannot avoid. I am talking not simply about the trends of an aging population and a reducing number of children, but about the fact that there are changes to the nuclear family, which we must address. It is clear that one size does not fit all and that we need some flexibility. Adam Ingram correctly talked about a step change. We need to make a significant change because the society in which we live has changed under our feet. As the statistics that Christine May and others mentioned point out, the children who are in care now come in particular from drug-abusing parents. As I and others have stated in previous debates, drug abuse has changed our society fundamentally and we must address it.
The one point on which I disagreed with Bill Aitken was on our approach to adoption. There is an overlap, but fostering and adoption should be dealt with separately. There is a review of adoption, and that must be taken into account. Adoption is not necessarily the clearest solution in many instances. I hope that we will consider a more humane system of open adoption, which has greater flexibility, with long-term fostering.
It is clear from the debate that two aspects require to be addressed. One is the cash shortfall. We must ensure that we have sufficient resources for people to take part in looking after children. In particular, grandparents and others need to have the wherewithal to do that. Their opportunities are prejudiced. It is not acceptable for emotional blackmail to be used by local authorities, and that must cease. The minister, to his credit, has addressed that in his letter.
Fundamentally, we must develop respect in this area. It is not simply about remuneration. People carry out the job and the function of fostering because they believe that it is right and that it is something that they should do. They do not do it simply for financial reward. However, they do ask to be appreciated and respected, not to be denigrated or impinged upon with bureaucratic rules that are sometimes unnecessary and not to be treated badly. They need that respect, as well as any additional remuneration.
This has been a useful and important debate. I am grateful for members' contributions, some of which have demonstrated their professional expertise and some of which have demonstrated considerable emotional commitment to the subject. Their contributions have been immensely helpful, and they will inform how the Executive takes matters forward in the future. I am pleased that the extra investment that we have made has been welcomed. It is a substantial amount, and I expect it to improve the lives of children and young people in foster care and of those who care for them. As I said at the start of the debate, we need all our young people to succeed in life. We cannot afford anyone's talents or skills to be wasted. It is against that background that we make that investment.
I will now turn to the numerous points that members have made in the debate. I will not be able to cover them all, but I will try to get through quite a number. Adam Ingram referred to the step change that we need to make in this area, and I agree with him. I also agree with him that foster carers have a difficult task. He was right, too, about the necessity of investing in training and on-going support, which a number of others members also mentioned. We await the Fostering Network's audit, which is due to be published early next year, and we will need to address the issues that it raises.
Bill Aitken and others echoed the tribute that I made to foster carers. He mentioned the shortage of foster-care homes, and the investment that I have outlined today is meant to address that. He referred, as did another member, to low teacher expectations of foster-children. Let me make it quite clear that teachers should not have low expectations of any child. We should ensure that all children have the best possible start in life, whatever their background. If there are teachers out there with low expectations, that must change.
Bill Aitken also referred to matters around adoption. He will be aware that phase 2 of the adoption policy review group's work is under way. The group is examining how to provide security and stability to children in foster placements, particularly those in long-term placements. Kenny MacAskill mentioned issues around adoption, too. We will need to return to the Parliament once the review group has produced its report, which will raise a number of important issues for the Executive and the Parliament to consider.
Does the minister accept that we should not fall into the trap of automatic acceptance of adoption in the case of adolescents with a long-term stable foster placement, which may be the best placement for them? Will he accept that there are two distinct elements to the debate?
That is quite correct. I endorse that point and the review will consider it.
In his speech, Scott Barrie addressed the variety of tasks that foster carers must undertake. We should not think of what foster carers do as just one activity. Foster carers' roles vary according to the child or young person who is placed with them. Foster carers will bring a variety of skills and expertise to their situation. Scott Barrie also made a telling point about the distance of foster placements from the natural home.
Donald Gorrie said that we should value foster carers. He said that they often feel isolated and unrewarded. We hope to host a reception for foster carers by way of a small token of thanks to them for all their efforts. We will do that in the spring, and the First Minister has kindly agreed to come—we will have to find a space in his diary. That is an important example of the recognition that the Executive and the Parliament can give to foster carers. Donald Gorrie also mentioned isolation, and there are a number of ways in which we can address that. The idea of having an internet conference for foster carers, through which they can share ideas, worries and concerns, is one that we could well develop.
Andrew Welsh made an important point about ensuring that a child's or young person's circumstances are stabilised. He also referred to throughcare and aftercare. I remind him that the throughcare and aftercare regulations came into force on 1 April this year. Their overall aim is to reinforce the responsibility of local authorities for young people who might have no other support at what is a difficult time of transition for them. We gave £10 million of funding over three years to assist local authorities. In addition, we provided £1.2 million to support a two-year pilot programme for care leavers with Columba 1400. We can talk more about that in due course, if Andrew Welsh wishes.
Robin Harper's contribution highlighted the educational achievement of looked-after children. I agree with him that there are some good examples of good practice turning trends around, which we will learn from.
I say to Christine May that I enjoyed my visits to Fife and acknowledge the work that is going on there. I would welcome an opportunity to go back there on another visit in due course.
Alex Fergusson referred to the shortage of social workers. In fact, there have never been more social workers in Scotland than there are at present. We have taken a great deal of time and trouble to ensure a further supply through an extended fast-track system, although I recognise that it will take some time before extra social workers arrive in local authority departments.
John Swinburne mentioned kinship care, as he has done before. He was kind enough to quote from the letter that I sent to local authorities on the important matter of allowances for relatives. I also said in that letter:
"Where relatives or friends are approved as foster carers for a child it is unlikely that the cost of caring for a foster child will differ markedly from that of other foster carers."
I encourage local authorities to recognise that fact.
Robert Brown made a number of important points, in particular about the fact that ministers have no power to set minimum rates.
As I said, this has been a useful and important debate. It has contained many valuable contributions, which we will take away and consider. We intend to return to Parliament in the spring with a further debate or statement, as appropriate.
For me, listening to foster-children and fostered young people has been one of the guiding lights of my experience during the past 14 or 15 months as Deputy Minister for Education and Young People. One young lady told me that she had been in eight different placements in eight years, from Inverness to Dumfries and back again. We must do better for those in foster care and for foster carers. I am guided by the thought, "What if it were my child?"
Will the minister give way?
No—the minister is closing.
If I ask myself what I would want for my child in such circumstances, the answer can be only the best possible service, which our announcement today is working towards, and which we aim to achieve.