The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on child protection. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:14
There is no doubt that every member in the Parliament is absolutely committed to ensuring the wellbeing and happiness of every child in Scotland. That is not so much a policy objective as a moral imperative that unites the vast majority of humankind.
That moral imperative includes the demand on us to do everything that we can, in whatever position we find ourselves, to protect those who are at risk of sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensure that the individuals who are responsible for such appalling actions face the full rigour of the law. There can therefore be no question but that this Government, like its predecessor, is completely and fully committed to doing everything that it can to ensure that all parts of Scottish life, and in particular all parts of the public sector in Scotland, are working together in an agile and responsive way to protect every child and young person from abuse, whatever form it takes.
Two weeks ago, I delivered the Scottish Government’s response to the action plan developed by the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s interaction process. On that afternoon, I met survivors of child abuse—sexual, physical and emotional—to listen to their demands of Government and society. I was very affected by their stories, their courage, their commitment and sometimes by their anger, but most of all I was affected by one who said to me that what he wanted more than anything else was to go from being “a survivor” to being able to “live and thrive”. That is what he and many others really want and that is what we have to help make happen, person by person, issue by issue, place by place. We will do so only if we approach the topic with a ruthless determination to see the truth told and the record written in order that there can be full accountability, surrounded by the best support and a holistic approach to healing.
I can say that the Scottish Government has accepted the main recommendations of the unique interaction process. I pay strong tribute to Alan Miller and his colleagues in the Scottish Human Rights Commission and to the work of the centre for excellence for looked-after children in Scotland, as well as to the agencies and the survivors who have taken part in a difficult and unique process that has resulted in a clear way forward.
I can tell the chamber today that, as a result of that process, we have committed to leading the development of a national support fund for survivors of historic abuse in care, and we will work with survivors and organisations on the most appropriate model; we have agreed to fund an appropriate commemoration, after actively engaging with survivors and relevant organisations on the format that it should take; we will give full consideration to the merits of an apology law and will continue to work constructively with Margaret Mitchell MSP as her detailed proposals for an apologies bill are developed; we have committed to working with the legal profession and survivors to understand why there might be barriers to exercising judicial discretion, such as a time bar; and we will review the lessons learned from previous inquiries and ensure that people who speak about their experiences in institutional care as children have that recounted through the national confidential forum’s published reports. We will join the survivors and the agencies in taking those issues forward together.
As a Government, we will continue the involvement of the three ministers who have been part of this so far—Michael Matheson, the Minister for Public Health; Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs; and Aileen Campbell, the Minister for Children and Young People—who will work with me to provide a cross-Government team of participants. I use that word advisedly because this is not a process that is completed. I have given a strong commitment to ensuring that the views and experiences of the survivors are integral to the decision making and action processes. The Government will be part of a wider grouping; we will ensure that we deliver, as is our responsibility, but will remain within the process that is much greater than the Government alone. That particularly applies to the one issue that is still unresolved from the interaction process.
There has been much debate as to whether a further inquiry should take place into historic abuse in Scotland. The interaction process produced a new paper on the matter in August, after a special session to consider the issue, which took a clear and unequivocal stance in favour of an inquiry, and I respect that view. However, the paper suggested a very different type of inquiry from that which is usually established by statute and by Government.
I have spent considerable time in the past few weeks examining that suggestion. I have consulted colleagues and professionals from a variety of areas, including social work, childcare, health and the law. I believe that there are still issues that require to be resolved before a final decision can be made on whether a further inquiry is appropriate and, if so, of what type.
Some issues need continued input by the survivors. Of course, the Shaw review, which reported in November 2007, and the Kerelaw inquiry, which reported in May 2009, have already considered some aspects of those matters in Scotland. I have therefore asked the Scottish Human Rights Commission urgently to reconvene a meeting of the interaction group to focus on the matters that have still to be resolved, with a view to allowing the Government to reach a final decision. I have also heard from some survivors outside the interaction process about the issue—they are strongly in support of an inquiry, it has to be said—and I will continue to seek and listen to such views.
It is vital to resolve the issue properly and positively. We can see only too clearly what has happened elsewhere when Governments have taken an ex cathedra stance on an inquiry and how it should go forward without listening and exploring enough. There are good examples of much better processes elsewhere—for example, in Northern Ireland and Australia—and we need to look at those, too. I will return to the chamber on the matter before Christmas.
However, an inquiry is only one aspect. History must not be allowed to repeat itself, so the Scottish Government is equally committed to understanding current threats and criminal activity and how we stand against them. We are working closely in partnership with those across Scotland who have the greatest expertise in these matters and providing national leadership and co-ordination while being guided by those whose everyday work is with children and families in communities across Scotland. That means working with a wide range of people including the third sector, local government, the health service and Police Scotland.
All those organisations have worked with us on the first national action plan on child sexual exploitation, which we are publishing today. That work has been informed by the Jay report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, which is one of the reasons why it has taken a little longer than expected. The action plan is not a panacea for tackling child sexual exploitation. There is no single solution. However, it represents a critical milestone that outlines tangible steps for useful action that will move us forward in our efforts to tackle this vital concern.
For example, I am pleased to announce today our commitment to work with partners to develop a national awareness campaign on child protection. We will be looking to work with Police Scotland to develop guidance on child sexual exploitation indicators for night-time economy staff such as taxi drivers and hotel workers, who come into increased first-hand contact with children and young people at especially vulnerable times.
The recent establishment of the Police Scotland national child abuse investigation unit is another key innovation that will provide national specialist support on all child abuse investigations identified across the country. Police Scotland will have the specialist capability to investigate and target both current cases and cases where accusations of historic criminality are made. That parallels the establishment of the specialised national sexual crimes unit by the Crown Office.
Improving outcomes for children is a long road to travel. As we take steps here in Scotland to make each change, we will continue to pay attention to the developing discourse elsewhere, to ensure that we are well placed to respond to emerging findings and new examples of best practice and to reflect on how best the experiences of others can be adapted to circumstances here.
Earlier in the summer, ministers asked the Care Inspectorate to update us on the effectiveness of local arrangements for protecting children and adults. Its report on child protection, which was published last week, is very helpful. It highlights some excellent work but also potential barriers to improvements in protecting children and young people, and it will inform everything that we do.
In the context of the specific inquiries into historic child sexual abuse that are taking place elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in July, I commissioned the chief executive of Children in Scotland, Jackie Brock, to take an independent look at the working of the Scottish child protection system as developed by recent legislation. The purpose was to examine how robust our child protection systems are and to identify areas of improvement. Ms Brock’s report usefully complements that of the Care Inspectorate and considers the strategic issues in delivering child protection services efficiently and consistently across the country. It offers 12 recommendations about how the Scottish Government and partners can do that more effectively.
I am publishing that report today and I confirm that I support all its recommendations. I will, for example, bring together the chief officers of the 32 community planning partnerships, the chief officers of the shadow integrated health and social care partnerships and the child protection committee chairs in a summit to be held this year.
It is fair to say that the vast majority of children will have safe and happy childhoods without the intervention of public services or third sector agencies, other than through normal healthcare and schooling. For the other children, however, it is essential that we can identify and support their needs from the earliest possible age, and a preventative approach has long been the bedrock of our system. That is best expressed in GIRFEC—getting it right for every child—which is our national approach to improving children’s wellbeing. It was developed across several Administrations and in partnership with statutory agencies and the third sector, and it is improving our early-warning systems by helping us to pick up on signs of need more quickly and allowing services to make appropriate responses to prevent risks from becoming realities. The entire Parliament should embrace that whole-heartedly.
Some dreadful things happened in Scotland over many years to children who deserved so much better from those in positions of trust. Jack McConnell made an appropriate and heartfelt apology in the chamber in 2004 on behalf of the nation and us all. We must never forget what took place. We need to have an awareness of it that means that it can never be repeated, we need to prosecute those who were guilty so that they can never reoffend and we need to place in permanence the truth about who was accountable so that others never fail again.
We also need to help those who suffered to move from surviving to living and thriving. We all need to come together around that ambition, to ensure that Scotland is and will be from this time on the best place for each and every child to grow up in.
That work is not done yet. I have reported on substantial progress today, and I will come back to the chamber to report on the outstanding issue of an inquiry as well as to update members from time to time on how the details of the processes are being worked out and implemented.
We can never do enough for those who have suffered but, by working with them, we can at least try to make a difference for the pain of the past, a difference to our practice in the present and a difference to our plans for the future. I am happy to answer questions on the statement.
As the cabinet secretary said, he will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow until around 2.50 for questions.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. I am pleased to acknowledge that he is taking the lead on the matter so that we can finally deliver on the hopes of survivors across Scotland on the very important issue of child protection.
I am pleased to associate myself with the words of support that the cabinet secretary offered to all those who have contributed to decisions that he has acknowledged. I add to them the individual survivors and survivors groups, which have helped so much.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to give us further details of the action plan and implementation dates, which are important, because survivors and others who have been involved have too often not known when something was due to occur and when it would be delivered.
As the cabinet secretary indicated, a survivor wanted to live and thrive, but many of the survivors to whom I have spoken also want an answer on how and why the abuse that they suffered was allowed to continue. The answer to that question gives us the best opportunity to protect vulnerable children in the future.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the initiation of a support fund. I would welcome more detail about who would contribute to that support fund, as a number of organisations and agencies would do well to show willingness to contribute fully.
I hope that the commemoration that the cabinet secretary mentioned will take on board not only living survivors but those who—unfortunately—took their own lives in past years because they were unable to content themselves with the future, given the knowledge of what they had suffered.
The cabinet secretary’s statement mentioned supporting survivors to understand the interaction plan. I have to say that that sounded a deal condescending. I hope that he will explain that more fully, because I am sure that he did not mean what he said in the way that it looks in the cold light of the statement.
Many survivors will look forward to the introduction of a public inquiry. Christmas cannot come soon enough for them. They believe that a public inquiry will give us a full understanding of why we are where we are and how we can prevent things from recurring in the future in the way that they seem to have done in past decades. I am very grateful that the statement has been made.
I will respond to a number of points. On supporting survivors, the interaction process is exactly what it says it is: it is interactive. It is therefore important that the Government is part of the process, but there is and there will continue to be mutual support by all those involved.
The point about helping survivors to understand the action plan is to widen its impact because, of course, not every survivor is a member of the interaction process.
On the inquiry, I commend to the member the interaction survivors event report on views on an inquiry from 27 August, to which I referred. I am happy to ensure that a copy of that report is available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. The document is important. It tells us the issues that the interaction process is considering and the importance of things that need to be heard in an inquiry.
I will mention just one or two of those issues. It is important to publicly hear and acknowledge survivors’ experiences, as it is to enhance public understanding of institutional child abuse, give agencies the opportunity to tell the story of what took place and how they have changed, help survivors with their mental health and quantify the extent of the abuse. An important line in the report that we should all reflect on says that justice is more than apology or money; it is ensuring that there is a national record that we can move forward on.
This is not a conventional inquiry, so we need to address the issues in a different way. That is why we need to consider how it could be done, given that, as the member will know, the legislation on public inquiries is very different and is focused on different outcomes. That is why we will take some time to resolve the problem.
The action plan has been published today and contains details of the timescale. It says:
“Timescales for achieving actions on the Action Plan differ. A number have already been successfully achieved, while some have a longer timeframe attached.”
There is clarity in that document about the timescales.
As for the support fund and commemoration, there are a number of international models, such as the Irish model. A number of partners will require to be involved. That is a negotiation that I and my colleagues will undertake with the interaction process. The Government will play a role in being part of the fund and in making sure that we can negotiate a wider involvement.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Like others, we welcome the Government’s response to the Scottish Human Rights Commission interaction plan, and we appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments on the hard work done by my colleague Margaret Mitchell with her apologies bill.
We also welcome the cabinet secretary’s acceptance of the recommendations in Children in Scotland’s report, particularly the recommendation that the focus should be on children who are vulnerable and on the radar—in other words, children who are living at home but who are known to children’s services.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s explanation of why the Government does not believe that a further inquiry into cases of historic child abuse in Scotland is necessary at this point in time. Will he confirm that such an inquiry has not been fully ruled out if further cases come up that relate specifically to Scotland?
As a member of the Health and Sport Committee when the national confidential forum for survivors of institutionalised abuse was set up, I ask the cabinet secretary what reports he has received about individuals coming forward to use the forum. Can he provide members with an update on the forum’s progress? Will he now consider extending access to the forum for children who are in foster and kinship care?
The national confidential forum will start taking referrals next month—that is the timescale, which was, of course, established in legislation.
I just want to be clear about what I said about an inquiry. Although my statement was clear, Nanette Milne seems to have slightly misinterpreted what I said. I indicated that, at the moment, I have taken no position on the final decision on a further inquiry. A strong and persuasive case is coming from the interaction process, and other cases are being made. I have committed myself to continuing to listen and having further discussions about that, and the interaction process is coming back together to discuss it. Work remains to be done across the whole area in terms of an inquiry that is different from the type of inquiry that convention has established—for example, an inquiry under the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005. I will come back to Parliament to report further on that. I do not want people to think that I have taken a position.
If Nanette Milne reads and considers the action plan, she will see that we are proposing something different from what has gone before. We should not undervalue the unique nature of the interaction process and how important it has been, but other considerations need to come in, so I will come back to Parliament on that.
I just want to make sure that everyone is entirely clear about the action plan. The action plan on child sexual exploitation is on-going; we published it today in response to the Public Petitions Committee, which Mr Stewart will know about. There is also the interaction process on historic sex abuse. There are links between those matters, but we need to be clear in our minds about a number of things that are linked by appalling criminal behaviour but which are different and require different approaches.
At the Justice Committee on 7 October we heard from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service evidence that echoed Professor Jay: it is undoubtedly true that low conviction levels do not necessarily means low levels of child sexual exploitation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is public concern about the extent of child sexual abuse and that information gathering on the subject is vital?
I absolutely agree with the member. It is dangerous to make assumptions about the level of abuse of any description. I have seen some slightly careless remarks about whether abuse is taking place at what is described as Rotherham level, for example. We have to be very careful about that. The police are determined to prosecute and to secure the conviction of anyone who is accused in the matter, if they are guilty. We must be careful about the assumptions that we make about the scale of what we are talking about.
It is true that a low conviction level does not necessarily mean a low level of child sexual abuse. Equally, it does not necessarily mean a higher level of child sexual abuse.
I absolutely agree with the member that we must ensure that information is available about what is taking place and that we must have our eyes and ears fully open. When I made the point about workers in the night-time economy, I meant that we need to enlist people across Scotland in the process. One of the many lessons in the Rotherham report is that people found it difficult to take their minds from where they were to what they were seeing in front of them. We need to ensure that people are prepared to do that—and sometimes that requires us to think things that we would rather not think.
I commend the member for saying that information gathering is vital. Awareness is perhaps even more vital.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that Scotland is the only part of the UK that does not currently have an inquiry into historic institutional abuse. This is not a new issue. As the cabinet secretary said, Jack McConnell gave an apology in 2004 when he was First Minister. A number of my constituents have been calling for an inquiry for years, and I support their call.
Given that millions of pounds have been spent on reports, frameworks and consultations on the best way forward, will the cabinet secretary give the Parliament more detail about what he thinks needs to be resolved before a decision on an inquiry can be made?
I used the term “further inquiry” advisedly. There have been two inquiries, there has been a range of reviews and investigations and, of course, there has been an active process of prosecution. I am sure that the member did not mean to give the impression that nothing has happened; a great deal has happened, which has arisen from the apology that he mentioned and other things that have taken place.
I commend to the member the interaction process, which has been unique. I regard myself as privileged in having been able to see what has taken place, although I came into the process only towards the end. It has been quite extraordinary how the agencies, survivors and others have come together to negotiate and discuss a careful way forward. I am struck by the paper on an inquiry, which was produced late in the process. The paper has changed my thinking. It is extremely important that we think carefully when we are presented with information and evidence.
In my statement I mentioned some of the issues that need to be resolved, which include whether there is any law in existence that can underpin a different type of inquiry. The member referred to what is taking place in other jurisdictions. In Northern Ireland, specific legislation was passed, which in essence tailored the inquiry to what was needed, so that it would not have to fit into the straitjacket of existing legislation. It is fair to say that the Inquiries Act 2005 is good legislation in the context of inquiring into things in relation to which a clear, specified question can be asked, for example about how an accident or disaster took place. However, the public acknowledgement of wrong and the enhancement of public understanding are not clear questions to be answered. What we must do is discuss, through the interaction process, how we can shape the inquiry.
I would not commend the approach that has been taken south of the border, where a decision on an inquiry and its remit seems to have been announced ex cathedra to the people who would be most affected by it. That is not the right way to do it, and I do not think that it is how the Scottish Parliament will want to do it.
Let us take time to discuss the matter and consider the right way forward. That is what I intend to do over the next few weeks. I have deliberately set a timescale for that discussion, so that I can come back to the Parliament before Christmas to explain my conclusion, one way or the other, and be open to question from members about that conclusion.
I, too, welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement and the action plan. It is clear that a considerable amount of work has been done by a variety of groups and a significant amount of thought has gone into this complex question. I also commend his suggestion that a strong and persuasive case is emerging for a possible further inquiry.
However, the Care Inspectorate’s report highlighted serious shortcomings, with planning of child protection services stalled, progress deteriorating and important or major weaknesses in the effectiveness of initial responses.
The report also highlighted that social workers who had been in the job for as little as one month were having to deal with complex cases. The cabinet secretary has referred to further training for professionals, but does he agree that there is need for urgent action to look at whether local teams have the correct skills mix and to ensure that experienced social workers are paired with or working alongside those who are newly qualified?
I do not have any difficulty with acknowledging that although there were positive things in the report, there were also things that required urgent attention. That is why a team of ministers is involved in this, and why Aileen Campbell met the Care Inspectorate at lunch time today. We are putting in place the actions that are required to take this forward.
I assure the member that we want to make sure that, where criticisms exist, they are attended to. I do not believe that social workers with very limited experience should be exposed to the most difficult cases.
As my role includes responsibility for social work, I have spent part of this year meeting front-line social workers across Scotland in a variety of private discussions. Those meetings have persuaded me of a number of things. One is the very high quality our social work staff in Scotland. Another is the fact that those staff can suffer from burnout, for example, and can be placed in positions where they are not able to fully respond. We need to ensure that we are supporting them. Last week, I met a group of directors of social work to take forward those issues.
The member’s point is well made. We note the objections within the report to certain things that have taken place and the recommendations for improvement, and we will take them forward.
I welcome the national child protection awareness campaign. As the cabinet secretary knows—as most of us know—child abuse often takes place in the family home behind closed doors and in families that are not known to social work. How can members of the public report their awareness that something untoward may be happening, and to whom should they report it?
There are a variety of ways. I will start within the confines of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The provisions on the named person gives people the opportunity to seek help and advice at an early stage, and it is important that that happens. A criminal action should always be reported to the police, and there is no doubt that it is essential that that should happen. Suspicions of problems and difficulties could also be drawn to the attention of a variety of agencies, including social work and the Care Inspectorate.
There is no shortage of people to whom information can be given. However, the member will know that the important first step is to recognise that something may be wrong and, in those circumstances, to be determined to do something about it—not in a negative way but in a way that supports children. I outlined in my statement the importance of supporting every single individual child.
I very much welcome the national action plan and, of course, the proposals for a national child protection awareness campaign. However, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that schools have a vital role to play in tackling and preventing child sexual exploitation? Can he outline what preventative education is currently available for our children and young people and what further plans the Scottish Government has in that area?
It is important that we ask Education Scotland to consider that at an early opportunity—that will be done. It is also very important that individual teachers, both in their training and in their continuing professional development, are alerted to the issues.
The national campaign that we announce in the action plan is about raising awareness right across society and I expect teachers and schools to be an integral and central part of that.
One of the recommendations in Children in Scotland’s report calls for chief officers’ groups to
“receive a report from Child Protection Committees (CPCs) on the impact of the Health and Social care Partnerships on child protection and wellbeing”
and to implement an urgent review. How will that work in light of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ expectation, as expressed in evidence to the Education and Culture Committee this morning, that only one third of children’s social work and health services will be integrated?
The legislation passed by the Parliament allows for a variety of models. The reason for that was that the models have to be appropriate to local circumstances. As I said in my statement, we will bring together all those who are involved, whether they are involved in the newly integrated models or not, to do that co-ordination, and we will have that meeting this year. We need to bring together child protection committees, local authorities and those who are involved in health and integration so that, in all parts of the system, those at chair and senior officer level are absolutely focused on the requirements. I make a commitment to the member that we will do that. Where the models vary, we will ensure that everybody is involved, because nobody should be excluded.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for his statement on this important issue. The chief executive of the Care Inspectorate has said:
“Generally, arrangements for protecting vulnerable children and adults in Scotland are good, but there is no room for complacency.”
Will the cabinet secretary outline how he will ensure that there will be no complacency in this regard?
My entire statement indicated that the Government has no complacency. Everyone who is involved in the issue—that should be every single citizen in Scotland—can do nothing other than recoil with horror at some of the things that have taken place, and we all need to recognise that we have an individual role in preventing it from taking place in the future. Therefore, none of us can rest on the issue. In my statement, I outlined in detail a range of actions that can and will be undertaken by a range of organisations to ensure that we make progress. Alexis Jay memorably observed in the Rotherham report that, in an area where everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. We have to ensure not that everyone is responsible but that each individual takes responsibility. That means that each individual knows what action is to be taken. That is what we want to do.
The cabinet secretary will be well aware that the Public Petitions Committee, which I convene, after 12 months of exhaustive inquiry provided a comprehensive report on child sexual exploitation, which concluded with 26 powerful and pertinent recommendations. Will the cabinet secretary use our 26 recommendations, which were based on expert testimony from across the UK and beyond, as part of the national action plan? For example, they included recommendations on using risk of sexual harm orders more often and developing strategies to disrupt perpetrator activity.
Broadly, I am entirely happy with that. The committee made an important contribution and nobody is rejecting it. Of course, we have to drill down into each of the recommendations. Decisions on taking forward risk of sexual harm orders are for the police and prosecutors to take, based on individual circumstances. I would not want to create a blanket circumstance in which we say that such orders are available and should be used. We must be aware of the many variations in circumstances that exist.
If the member accepts my support for the conclusions that have been reached and my desire that everybody plays their part, I hope that he will also accept that I want to ensure that we act appropriately in every case and do not necessarily apply blanket prescriptions, which might not be appropriate in some cases.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in many cases, children do not recognise their exploitation until some years after the abuse took place. Does he agree that that is one of the biggest barriers that we must overcome in tackling child sexual exploitation? How does he feel that it might be overcome?
That is a considerable issue with various aspects that raise particular concerns. Some people recover their memories—I do not use the word in its technical sense—and are concerned by that. They need strong support and help during that process, so it should be available. The whole idea of the interaction process is to provide strong support and holistic help for those who have difficulties. That is an important issue.
There are also those who go on suffering. I was struck by somebody who told me a story of being taken into care when she was very young and being told that she had no family, but then discovering many years later that she had a family, and she had never known them. That was a continuing abuse throughout her life.
We need to recognise that this is not a simple matter and that, for many people, it is not something that finishes. Therefore, we have a commitment as a society to lifetime care for those who are in such circumstances, but that care is not simply of one nature. I go back to the phrase that I used twice in my statement: the care must also aim to help those people to move from surviving to living and thriving. That is what we need to do and all of our actions should be focused on that.
Given the importance of the statement, I intend to make sure that the three remaining members are called.
Can the cabinet secretary give details of any additional funding for the development of the national awareness campaign on child protection, which was highlighted in the national action plan, particularly in relation to training, co-ordination and—importantly, as I am sure he will agree—monitoring of such a sensitive and complex strategy?
I have given a commitment to support implementation of the campaign and, therefore, the costs will be met. I am sorry not to be more precise than that, but it was important that we made the right proposals and then said that a way would be found to support them. I undertake that that will be done. Of course, as time goes on, I will attach a projected and actual expenditure to what we have undertaken.
In his deliberations with the considerable experts in the field and with the police, is the cabinet secretary considering specific models of local authority organisation that are best placed to produce best practice in this policy area?
That is an important question. I want to ensure that the most effective models of practice are replicated or imitated and that there is broad knowledge of them. That does not mean that I want to impose a particular individual practice on every local authority. I want to ensure that, as the work continues—much good work is going on—we learn where it is most effective and encourage others to take it forward.
There is a desire in each local authority to get it right—there is no doubt about that—but, where the practices have not been as good as they should be, they should move forward. We benefit from the work that the Care Inspectorate has done over a period on children’s services. It is fair to say, if I can put it this way, that we know what does not work. We know where we have experienced problems and the Minister for Children and Young People has been involved, with my support, in ensuring that we make it absolutely clear that that is not acceptable and that substantial improvement is sought. We also know where good practice exists and we will encourage its replication.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. Tackling child sexual abuse requires better information. Is Police Scotland using the new database that has a specific marker that allows accurate identification of individuals who may be at risk? How are other agencies sharing that information?
I will require to write to Alison Johnstone about that. Police Scotland databases are a complex issue. New databases are being built and developed. I know that the police are observing best practice on the matter, but I do not want to answer Ms Johnstone without absolute knowledge of that, and I will ask my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to provide information so that she has it.
That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary on child protection.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Human Rights