Children and Young People
We now move to the main debate, which is on motion S1M-406, in the name of Mr Sam Galbraith, on children and young people who are looked after by local authorities, and on an amendment to that motion.
Because of the two ministerial statements, even with a four-minute speech limit, there is no way in which the Presiding Officers will be able to call all those on the list of members wishing to speak.
In this debate—in which I will truncate my speech—I wish to consider the policies that are in place to help improve the lot of looked-after children. We can then look forward to some future developments that will make a difference in raising the status, self-esteem and life chances of those young people.
It is a constant theme of our commitment to improving our society that every child and young person matters. If anything, that commitment applies even more to children and young people who are looked after by local authorities on a statutory basis.
About a year ago, as a Scottish Office minister, I attended a conference in Perth, which Cathy Jamieson will remember, on looked-after children. The conference, which opened with presentations from the young people, remains vivid in my mind. I remember the words of one contributor:
"to sleep with the wind in my hair and a dream in my heart".
That was all she wanted. I am determined to give those young children that and even more.
I want every child to have the best possible start in life, equal access to high-quality support and services and every opportunity to realise their full educational, social and economic potential. Looked-after children should be no different from any other children or young people who are being brought up in their own families, whoever they might be. Let us never forget that we are their corporate mums and dads and that, all too often, we fail them.
The harsh reality is that many, though not all, looked-after children and young people are simply not achieving their potential or getting the quality of care, protection and support that they need to develop like other children. They might be looked after, but they can also be badly looked after.
Let us consider some of the facts. Looked-after
children make up less than 1 per cent of the child population. However, despite the fact that that figure is so small, growing up in care does not usually have good results. Up to 75 per cent of such children leave school with no qualifications; less than 20 per cent go on to further education; less than 1 per cent go to university; and between 50 per cent and 80 per cent are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 25. Those children are more likely to go prison and to have a child as a teenager. Even in care, children have not always been cared for and protected. Some have suffered great abuse at the hands of their carers.
At any one time, around 11,000 children and young people in Scotland are looked after by local authorities, which spend more than £150 million each year on those children through social work budgets alone.
Over half of all looked-after children are looked after at home, which means that they will be under a supervision requirement from a children's hearing, on grounds of either care and protection or offending. There should be a package of support and regular reviews to monitor progress made by the young person who is living within his or her family setting.
That is why I can announce our decision to commission a major research study into the quality and effectiveness of home supervision across Scotland, which will be undertaken over the next two years and will cost about £80,000. Its results will help us drive forward policy in an important but under-researched area.
Children and young people who are not on home supervision might be looked after in a foster care setting. There are around 2,500 young people in foster care every year in Scotland, and I have been particularly keen to see that service expand. We should do more to promote fostering so that every child who might benefit can have equal access to the service, no matter where they are in Scotland. I will say more later about extra money to develop that service.
There are around 2,000 residential places in Scotland for children and young people who have to live away from home. They are often the most vulnerable and damaged young people in our society and need the highest-quality care and support that we can provide. That is why, on 1 December, I announced that we have awarded a grant of more than £3 million to a consortium led by the University of Strathclyde to develop new high-quality training programmes for residential child care workers in the years ahead. A statistic that I always quote with some shame is that 80 per cent of people who look after children in residential homes are unqualified.
The consortium includes Robert Gordon
University, Langside College in Glasgow, Save the Children and Who Cares? Scotland. I am particularly pleased that Who Cares? Scotland is involved, as that will ensure that the views of young people in residential care will help shape the development of the initiative.
Some groundwork has been carried out on reviewing the use and effectiveness of secure accommodation; that work was undertaken by a national planning group, which produced a brief report in July last year. However, much remains to be done, and a number of important issues must be tackled to develop a more coherent and strategic approach than we have managed so far to the use of secure accommodation and its alternatives.
For that reason, I announce the setting up of a secure accommodation advisory group, with the participation of representatives from secure units, directors of social work, members of children's panels, chief police officers, representatives of the Scottish Prison Service and others with interests in criminal justice. I will seek an early report on some key issues, including the capital development programme, the scope for specialist units and the question whether we need a new mechanism to monitor the supply and demand patterns of admissions to secure places.
All I have said so far touches directly on the extremely challenging and complicated work undertaken by local authorities. They are the corporate mums and dads, and their elected members have, in my view, no graver responsibility than to ensure that they know about the quality of care and support that their young people receive.
As indicated in our white paper, "Aiming for Excellence", published in March last year, I want to set up a strategic framework for children's services. That will highlight the services that are needed most by the most vulnerable and damaged children and young people in our communities. That proposal is not an extra layer of plans: the strategic framework can be contained within children's services plans. It focuses on key indicators that will help policy makers at national and local levels.
Today, I am launching formally a consultation exercise on a draft strategic framework, to which I expect responses within the next three months. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will be particularly interested in considering what we have to say, and will let me have its views.
I want the strategic framework to come into operation in the year from April, although the first full-year reports on the various targets and measurement indicators will not be presented until
another year. We are starting a first phase. If our consultation produces a consensus among local authorities that they can move faster to include more extensive or detailed performance measures on a broader range of services and report accurately on them, I will be delighted to review the scope of the exercise.
Extra resources are going towards children's services. I launched a three-year development fund for children's services as part of the local authority grant settlement from 1999-2000 onwards. Last year, we made available £9.2 million for an expansion of foster care, for increased advocacy services for children who are looked after away from home and for extra input by social work departments into our sure start Scotland programme.
I can confirm that there will be an extra £3.3 million: the fund now stands at £12.5 million for the financial year beginning 1 April. I will suggest to authorities that £2.5 million of the increase should be directed to improving information technology support for care planning, to encouraging further work on specialist fostering and to enhancing through care and after care services for young people when they leave care.
I have been very heartened to learn from local authorities that we are close to having a network of children's advocacy services. I would like those services to be developed further, and have therefore decided to earmark £800,000 to encourage an extension of the service to include children in foster care.
I will conclude with a few words on care leavers. In our social justice targets, we have already publicised our desire for all care leavers to get standard grades in maths and English by 2003. That is a tough target from our present base, but all it means is basic literacy and numeracy—surely we must try to achieve that. We have linked that target to a supported accommodation package for leavers.
I shall comment on our proposals for transfer of Department of Social Security resources to local authorities to create a more unified approach to supporting young people leaving care—the main thrust of the nationalist amendment. It is a complicated area and we see merit in a more unified funding approach. We consulted widely on our proposals and there was majority support for the principle.
I am determined, however, to ensure that we get the right level of resources transferred and that all the implementation issues are carefully examined in advance. I have therefore set up a working group of all those involved to consider the operational changes that are necessary. No changes will be take place until that group has been able to consider the initial results of the current research into present care provisions. I therefore ask Parliament to reject the nationalist amendment.
I hope that, by highlighting the essential aspects of our policies on looked-after children and young people, I have left members in no doubt about our commitment to driving up standards for those young people. That promise must be at the heart of our social justice policies and targets. If it is not, we will have failed to deliver the kind of future that we all want for every child and young person in Scotland. I repeat that all of us are their corporate mums and dads. We must ensure that they have the same benefits as our own children. We simply cannot fail them any longer.
I move,
That the Parliament endorses the important action being taken to improve the quality of care and support for every child and young person looked after by local authorities; supports strengthening key services for those young people through extra resources to develop more integrated approaches to their needs, new performance measures to highlight actual outcomes for each child, especially those leaving care, and research to evaluate how well those looked after at home are supported, and recognises the importance of ensuring that each and every child or young person looked after by local authorities can share fully in the benefits of education, health and social justice programmes.
The Scottish National party welcomes today's debate. As the minister himself said, it is a shameful fact that children and young people who are looked after, or who are leaving care, form one of the most socially excluded groups in Scottish society.
The recently published report of the excluded young people action team, which was set up as part of the social exclusion strategy, commented that
"it is not uncommon for young people leaving care to lack basic skills and knowledge, like how to maintain a tenancy or cook for themselves, as well as lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills."
Surveys conducted by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and other groups show that between a fifth and half of young homeless people have previously been in care. For far too long, those young people have been left to exist on the margins of our society. They deserve, at long last, to have their needs and interests shunted up the political agenda.
In effect, as the minister said, the state assumes the role of parent in the case of looked-after children. Our objective must be to ensure, as far as possible, that those children and young people are afforded the same level of care and the same
opportunities in life as children who are brought up at home by their own parents.
Much of the action that the Executive has already taken and the announcements that the minister has made today have the support of the SNP, as does the additional funding available through the children's services development fund. However, although that money is extremely welcome, it is earmarked largely for the new initiatives that the minister outlined. I appeal to him to recognise the financial difficulties faced by core children's services in many local authority areas.
I welcome the strategic approach that the minister outlined. It is important that the approach is strategic as opposed to piecemeal—the kind of approach that was taken immediately after the Kent recommendations. A strategic approach is important, and that is what the first part of the SNP amendment addresses. We will respond constructively to the draft consultation on a strategic framework.
The minister made a number of helpful comments and announcements. I shall pick up on one or two specific points. First, he made several valid comments about the numbers of staff working in residential children's homes without qualifications—a shocking 80 per cent across Scotland. In some local authority areas, the situation is even worse, with the proportion of unqualified care workers increasing rather than decreasing. The minister is absolutely right to identify that as an area for priority action, but I ask him to consider—in the fullness of time—going even further than he announced today.
Alongside the training initiatives for workers in residential homes, the Executive has stated its desire to take children out of residential homes and place them with foster parents, a move with which most people in Scotland would agree instinctively. However, there is currently no requirement for prospective foster carers to undergo training and the support that is available to carers is generally considered inadequate. There is a strong case for placing the training and inspection of foster carers, as well as of fostering agencies, under the aegis of the commission for the regulation of care. I hope that the minister will consider that and will move speedily to implement the national standards for foster care, which were launched last year.
We must also ensure that children with foster parents have adequate protection against abuse. When local authorities are asked to provide statistics on, for example, children placed on the child protection register as a result of abuse—a process that is still not standardised across Scotland, despite the clear recommendations in the Kent report—they are asked to categorise them by those who have been abused at home or in residential establishments. No separate statistics are kept on children who are abused while in the care of foster parents. That must change, as the Kent report recommended it should back in 1997.
While on the issue of foster care, I want to make two further points. First, there is an assumption, which the minister articulated today, that, by and large, foster care is preferable to care in residential establishments. Most people, as I said, would agree with that instinctively. However, there is no research evidence to prove that the outcomes for children placed with foster carers are qualitatively better than those for children in residential homes. More generally, a lack of evidence runs through the whole area of children's services. There is, therefore, an important lesson to be learned.
We must ensure that all decisions and policy developments about child welfare are based on evidence and not simply on supposition. To that end, I welcome the minister's announcement about research into home supervision. The same principle should be extended to other areas.
Secondly, while I do not take issue with the desire to place more people with foster carers, that cannot happen at the expense of places being available in residential homes. There are too few foster carers, too few places in residential establishments and too few social workers. We should be trying to improve provision for looked- after children across the range of services. Again, I ask the minister to reflect on that point.
As well as improving structures and procedures for looked-after children, we must address the whole culture of children's services in Scotland. I was delighted to hear the minister repeat on several occasions that local authorities assume corporate responsibility for looked-after children. That should be reflected in policy and in practice at all times. As a society, we must ensure that we put the interests of children at the heart of policy making.
I repeat the suggestion made previously, by the SNP and others, that a commissioner for children and young people should be appointed. The commissioner could act as an independent champion of children's rights to ensure that children's voices are listened to and that law and policy affecting children take account of children's needs. I was extremely encouraged to hear the minister indicate earlier today on "Good Morning Scotland" that he wants to encourage further examination of that idea, which is already practised in many European countries. I hope that Scotland can move quickly towards such an appointment.
I will turn briefly to the issue of care leavers and
the recent, hasty consultation on the proposal to transfer DSS resources to local authorities. At present, 16 and 17-year-old care leavers are entitled to claim jobseeker's allowance, income support and housing benefit. Under the Executive's proposal, that entitlement would be removed and the resources would be transferred to local authorities. I do not deny that a one-stop approach has attractions, but the SNP has a number of concerns about the proposal.
First, the speed of the consultation—which lasted only six weeks—seems to have been dictated by the fact that similar proposals are before Westminster and Scotland may be under pressure to stay in line. Where the decision will lie is an interesting question, since social security is a reserved and local government a devolved power. I would appreciate a decision by the Scottish Executive and Parliament in line with Scottish interests and not in line with Westminster's interests.
The proposals raise a number of substantive concerns. Removing care leavers from the benefits system creates a real risk of doing the opposite of what the Minister for Children and Education is trying to do and of further marginalising a group who already live on the outer margins of society. Many young people leaving care are estranged from local authorities and suspicious of social workers, and if financial and other support for them is concentrated in the hands of local authorities, we run the risk of cutting off a financial safety net.
There is also the amount of money—
I am trying to conclude, Scott—I apologise.
We do not know yet how much money will be transferred. DSS resources are demand led. If a specific amount is to be transferred to local authorities, the resources will become cash led. Local authorities already struggle to meet their obligations under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
We must not move forward without solid research to back up the supposition that our direction is right—there is no such research at present. We should not move in haste, but ensure that any changes are made because we believe them to be right, not because they are occurring elsewhere.
I welcome the debate and hope it will begin a process that will lead to looked-after children and young people being placed at the heart of the Parliament's agenda.
I move amendment S1M-406.1, to leave out from "the importance of" to end and insert:
"that much work still requires to be done through a co-ordinated national strategy to ensure that every child or young person looked after by local authorities can share fully in the benefits of education, health and social justice programmes; however expresses its concern at proposals to remove care leavers from the benefits system and calls upon the Executive to delay any such moves pending the results of its recently commissioned research into the effectiveness of current provision".
Most of us wish that we did not have to have a debate on such a depressing topic, as the Minister for Children and Education indicated. In general terms, we support the Executive proposals—we could do little else, as they build on Conservative proposals, in particular the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which was referred to by the Executive in a recent press release as making
"a very important step in improving support for children and families".
Having taken the odium for the Hampden debacle, perhaps we are entitled to some credit for that.
Hear, hear.
However, we hope that the Executive will address a number of issues. Research studies costing £80,000 are all very well but, if nothing happens as a result, the Executive will inherit some of the odium.
The number of children looked after in Scotland has risen slightly since Labour came to power, although the number in residential care has fallen. The reduction in the number of children looked after must be a continuing and vital priority, especially the number in residential care, which calls for a higher level of fostering and a more streamlined adoption service. The number of children in care is 9.8 per 1,000 of the child population in Scotland, as the Minister for Children and Education said. I am sure that he accepts that we must reduce that number still further.
The voluntary sector has a lot to offer. The good work of organisations such as Barnardo's and Quarrier's Homes is in stark contrast to the efforts of local authorities, whose attitude to child care seems more in tune with the 1950s than with the complexities of a new millennium. Local authorities have perhaps not performed as they should have and we must look towards the voluntary sector as the answer.
The procedures for adoption and fostering are complex and rather perverse. They seek to put children in a place of safety and in an encouraging and family environment, which we all want to achieve. Of course, I accept that the greatest care must be taken to determine the suitability of people who offer themselves as foster and
adoptive parents, but the adoption process should not take four years from start to finish. We must look at the way in which the process is carried out to see whether it can be expedited.
We must also consider carefully how we decide which children are suitable for adoption. The influence of a family—even though the child is not a member of that family—on a child's stability and on its educational and intellectual attainment is amazing. Do we really need the level of training that is currently required? The minister has three children. He is a good father. Did anyone train him in how to be a good father? No. For many parents, natural or adoptive, parenting comes naturally. We should recognise that and the fact that the current level of training may not be necessary.
The minister mentioned educational attainment. It is depressing that so few looked-after children— only one in a 100—get to university and that so few of them obtain standard grades or highers worth talking about. We must determine why that is happening.
We must look at the performance of local authorities. In my council days, I visited the children's homes in my ward on numerous occasions and was less than impressed with what I saw. The neighbours of those homes were even less impressed with the control over and conduct of the children. That is why we have to look at the broader picture to find the answer, which is not in Government control, particularly not in local government control. The people who have a record of success should be invited to do more in the future.
The fate of young people who have been in council care is a serious blot on our society. As the minister said, their futures are much worse than are those of people who did not go to council residential homes.
The fact that we are trying to tackle this issue is welcome. The aims of the proposal are excellent, and we have no quarrel with them. However, we share some of the concerns raised by organisations such as the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and Shelter about the mechanism of transferring the young people from the benefits system into a new system funded by councils. We would like clear assurances—I am happy to give way to the minister, or perhaps Mr Peacock can give assurances when he sums up— that the points I raise will be dealt with.
First, the Scottish system will have to be introduced through primary or secondary legislation. The mechanisms must be fully in place before the system starts working. There should be designated support workers and councils should have robust systems for dealing with housing benefit—at present, some of them do not. Those measures should be in place before the minister presses the button and the new system starts.
Secondly, after the minister's research—which is welcome—has fully identified the problems, he should ensure that councils have enough money to deal with them. It is not enough to base the budget on councils' current budgets for funding measures under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, for example, because that funding is inadequate. There must be a guarantee of enough money for councils, and the money must be ring-fenced.
The third assurance that I seek concerns a safety net for young people. A lot of 16-year-olds who have been in council care in one way or another are, for various reasons, not the most enthusiastic fans of local social workers. Many of them might have difficulty with the fact that local social workers are their only route to the new benefits system. There must be a proper safety net that can sort out and in some way support the kids who are not going to go along with the system that we are trying to set up for them.
My next point is that there should be an efficient appeals system. A young person might, for example, apply for and receive benefits, but it might then be discovered after some months that the youngster had come out of council care and so was not eligible for benefits—we have all had experience of such things. The roof falls in on those people and they get demands to pay back hundreds of pounds. Such youngsters might disappear down the plughole without trace. There must be a proper appeals system.
The final assurance that I seek is that no one will be worse off under the proposed system than they are under the present system. A lot of initiatives start off meaning well but end up finance-driven and cheese-paring. We must make sure that that does not happen to this initiative.
The Liberal Democrats want assurances, first, that a complete structure for supporting those young people will be in place before the financial system is changed. Secondly, there must be enough ring-fenced resources for councils, and the necessary research must be done so that those necessary services can be delivered. Thirdly, there must be a safety net—an appeals system—for young people who might in some way fall foul of the system. Lastly, we want an assurance that no one will be worse off under the new system.
There is time to get the details right, but the organisations that express concerns know what they are talking about and we must take their concerns seriously. I hope that the minister can
give us the assurances that we seek. We are in general, however, very supportive of the announcement.
The level of debate today has been higher that it often is; it has not shown the Parliament in its yah-boo mood and that is very welcome.
We are very tight for time, so I ask members to keep their eyes on the clock. Members have a maximum of four minutes in which to speak.
It is difficult to know how to cram somebody's lifetime of experience into four minutes. I must declare an interest—I used to work for Who Cares? Scotland, the organisation to which Sam Galbraith kindly referred. There are a number of representatives of Who Cares? Scotland in the public gallery today and they are very interested to hear what members have to say.
Unlike Bill Aitken, I am not at all depressed about what I heard today, before I came to the chamber, from young people. It is not stretching the point too far to say that every young person I met in my time working for Who Cares? Scotland was an inspiration to me. That is part of the reason why I am here fighting for a better deal and for social justice for all young people, but particularly for young people in the care system.
I welcome the announcements that Sam Galbraith has made today. I welcome the fact that there will be increased resources for advocacy because I well remember when children's rights officers were scarcer than Tory MSPs elected under the first-past-the-post system. I can remember when there was very little in the way of through care. Through care and after care are nothing like as good as they should be, but local authorities in many areas have attempted to work along the right lines. I can remember when Who Cares? Scotland, as an organisation that represented the views of young people in care, was fighting for its life—it was only because of those local authorities that put funding, resources and commitment into it that there is a powerful voice for young people.
I, too, want reassurances. A review of secure accommodation has been mentioned and I hope and trust that young people and young people's organisations will be involved in the on-going process of that review and in examining what happens in secure accommodation.
We talk about the corporate parent, but the first thing that good parents want to know is where and in what circumstances their weans are living. I say to anyone here who has not been in a children's home or a secure unit—I say it also to those who are not able to be in the chamber this afternoon— that it is their duty as a corporate parent to go and find out about the issue and to talk to young people in such places. Young people who are looked after by local authorities are not somebody else's problem—they are our responsibility. It is time we lived up to that responsibility, as suggested by the minister and by some of the constructive points that have been made by the SNP. I wish, however, that we could have had the debate without a division.
The depressing statistics can be read out, and things have been very bad in the past. I say to Bill Aitken that there is not a good old days of residential child care that we can look back to. Some of the organisations that Bill mentioned would admit that they got it badly wrong. I received a letter this week from NCH Action for Children, talking about the positive work that it does now, but recognising that it got things wrong in some of its big children's homes.
As a former member of the inquiry team that dealt with child abuse in City of Edinburgh Council, I know that people took on board the fact that local authorities had got things wrong. Religious organisations that ran residential provision for children have admitted that they got things wrong. We should not pretend that we can go back.
Bill Aitken asked who should train a good parent. I do not know whether I am a good parent—I hope that I am. If so, I got that from my parents and people who took an interest in me and encouraged me to understand my rights, to speak up for my rights and to ensure that, collectively, our rights were respected. The reality for many young people living in residential care, foster care and moving on from care is that they do not understand their rights, as they have never been given that information. They do not understand how they can move forward unless they have support to do so.
The need for basic education was mentioned. Running a tenancy on one's own is not a basic skill; it is a complex and difficult arrangement for any of us to take on for the first time. For a 16-year-old who has spent most of their life in a residential unit, it is not easy. Who Cares? Scotland always took the view that support should be provided to children and young people up to the age of 21 as a statutory responsibility. We did not get that in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, for all the good aspects that Bill Aitken mentioned. As he took credit for that act, he should not blame Sam Galbraith now.
The good news stories are out there as well. Every one of those people sitting in the public gallery from Who Cares? Scotland represents a
good news story. The reality of the 1 per cent of looked-after children who go on to university or to training is that those are the ones who do so directly from school; many will go on to education and training at a later stage. Those are the ones whom we must support. We must make lifelong learning available to everybody.
I ask members please to listen to young people and not to make assumptions without checking with the people who matter—the people who are on the receiving end of the services.
Leaving statistics and cold facts aside, we should remember that the trauma of someone leaving their home, their school, their family and their friends and being cared for by a local authority cannot be overestimated. The experience is painful for everybody concerned.
Despite the emphasis on preventive measures and increased support for families—new funding for that work is gratefully acknowledged—there are circumstances in which the only option is to remove children from home. Unfortunately, as the minister acknowledged, that frequently prefigures an uncertain and often negative future.
Research has confirmed what many of us have known for years—children and young people who are care leavers are massively over-represented among disadvantaged groups, such as the long- term unemployed, the homeless, teenage parents and substance misusers. That is not a criticism of local authorities, social workers or foster carers. It is widely acknowledged that social work in general and children's services in particular have been starved of resources for years. If looked-after children had been a priority, resources would have been made available to train all residential workers and foster carers would have been given enhanced rates and adequate support; those measures and others would have been fully implemented years ago.
In 1997, the Kent report addressed the shortcomings of the care situation and produced more than 60 recommendations. The Government rejected a lot of those and there has been no national strategy for implementing key recommendations. Local councils have been left to implement what they can, which often comes down to what they can afford. Some councils— such as Angus—have been very committed and have responded to most of the key recommendations, but that is not the norm.
On the removal of benefits for care leavers, the consultation paper states the obvious—the current system is failing care leavers and should be reformed. No one would dispute that, but it is hard to see how the proposed system would do anything other than make things a whole lot worse for care leavers. If the young people concerned had been consulted on the idea, they would certainly have made it clear that they did not want to be singled out and treated differently from other young people, especially in a way that made them further dependent on the local authority. It is difficult to see how removing eligibility to general benefit would improve social inclusion.
My experience with Angus Council was that the problems faced by young people leaving care can have more to do with the impact of their difficult life experiences on their ability to cope with living independently. The focus should surely be on improving the support systems that are available for young people leaving care and on the development of services to meet their needs. Those services could include mentor and befriending services, counselling schemes and access-to-employment schemes. We could also add such measures as the retention of young people up to the age of 18 in the hearing system, more diversionary and non-custodial schemes for young offenders and better drug rehabilitation services for drug users.
It is right to try to assess—even with crude indicators—what we do to looked-after children and what their outcomes are, so that their future can be brighter and more assured. For too long, the system has failed those children—the cost to society has been immense. Looked-after children need to be a priority. They deserve a fully implemented and co-ordinated national strategy, and not piecemeal actions restrained by financial considerations.
In the child care debate on 17 November, I expressed a wish that we consider the issue of looked-after children. I congratulate the Executive that this afternoon, in our first debate of the 21st century, we are discussing that important subject.
Bill Aitken seemed somewhat muddled—he seemed to consider looked-after children as meaning children who are necessarily away from their own homes. As the minister said, more than 80 per cent of children who are looked after by local authorities are at home with one or other, if not both, of their birth parents. That has to be remembered. It is also important to remember that only a very small minority of looked-after children are looked after in children's homes or residential schools.
In the regulations and guidance that accompanied the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Scottish Office issued some good structured
documents on what should happen to children who were still at home but subject to statutory supervision. The fruits of better planning and more structured approaches by local authorities are being seen.
This afternoon, however, I want to concentrate on children who are accommodated away from home, in foster care or in a residential unit. In the social inclusion document that was launched at the end of last year, our ambition was clearly stated that children who left local authority care at the age of 16 should have attained at least standard grades in English and maths and should have access to appropriate housing options. That is a worthy aim. We have already heard the damning statistics on those who have left care up to now and have unfortunately not attained those things.
I do not wish to have an unnecessary go at my former profession, but for a number of years there have been relatively low expectations among local authority social workers for those in long-term care. That was not because social workers were not interested, or because they did not wish to do better for those children. However, the complex demands that were placed on social workers, together with a lack of resources and, more important, a lack—sometimes—of strategic direction, meant that, rather than trying to promote positive outcomes, we judged young people on the absence of negative outcomes.
By that I mean that we thought it a success if a young woman reached the age of 16 without getting pregnant; we thought it a success if a young man left local authority care at the age of 16 and had not entered a young offenders institution by the time he reached 16 and a half. That is not how we should be measuring outcomes in child care—we must do something better.
Before I was elected to Parliament, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the piloting of looked-after children materials in Fife. Those materials are an adaptation of the Department of Health materials that have been used successfully in England since 1990. The materials will create a much more structured and improved direction for local authority social work, through better corporate planning and parenting, as Cathy Jamieson said. They are age related and contain seven clear dimensions for young people—not just the obvious ones such as health and education, but important ones such as identity, family and social relationships, social presentation, emotional and behavioural development and self-care skills. Such a package will ensure that young people who are currently being looked after by local authorities will have far better outcomes than those who were looked after in the past.
The document is called "Looking After Children in Scotland: Good Parenting, Good Outcomes". The subtitle describes exactly what we want for the looked-after population. As has been said this afternoon, we are trying to achieve for those who are looked after by the state the same positive outcomes that we would wish for our own children. Only by acting corporately—by having the various parts of the voluntary and statutory agencies working together—are we likely to achieve that.
I welcome the minister's statement and its many positive elements. I would like to add a few comments and ideas of my own.
First, I would like to give members an example of the desperation that some young people feel when they are about to leave care for an unknown future, unsupported by their families. There is one children's home that I know very well. Every so often there is an outright rammy at it, for which I do not blame either the youngsters or the over- pressed care workers.
One night, a chair came through a large upstairs window and suddenly a young girl was out on the windowsill, screaming, crying and saying that she was going to jump. Fortunately, the police were already in the building; I saw an officer race into the room and snatch her back through the broken glass. The girl was led away to the police station.
On impulse, my husband and I followed the police car to see what happened to the youngster—we did not know her personally. The police were very kind. They told us that the lassie should not have been there at all—she was no ordinary vandal. The girl had gone wild because she was due to leave care, the only stability that she knew, and that day one of the younger children had killed her only companion of the past few years—her wee hamster. She just could not take any more. Her story did not have too unhappy an outcome, but there are many like her, children who are getting too old for the old-style type of home care.
We should have positive discrimination in favour of those young people throughout their young lives. If we can have positive discrimination for women—even those elected to the Parliament— let us have it for those kids, who so deserve it.
If I had a wish list of people to help quickly, I would say that we should give more money to Women's Aid. Women's Aid meets the children who often become homeless later. I alert the Parliament to the fact that Glasgow Women's Aid could face closure because of a shortfall of £30,000. We cannot let that happen. I remind members that £30,000 is about a third of the cost of a spin doctor. People in politics would not need
spin doctors if they used all public money to do a bit of public good—they would be rewarded with public appreciation.
Youth protection is also important. We should give more money to ChildLine. On hogmanay, I found that the office districts of Glasgow were in total darkness—naturally. However, one light was still shining and I headed for it. It turned out to be ChildLine, which was working throughout hogmanay and new year's day because more and more calls come in from abused children at those times.
Only one in 10 children in Britain get through to ChildLine on their first call, which is such a protective call for them. ChildLine Scotland has only 10 lines for the whole country. Even £100,000 more, out of the new budget that Mr Galbraith proposes, could revolutionise its work. We cannot have children endlessly going out to phone boxes after they have once plucked up the courage—and it takes real courage to make that first call about abuse.
Social workers are in the front line of child protection. People have been hammering social workers a bit this afternoon, but I defend them. I know social workers who need to be protected themselves. In the east end of Glasgow, in the Gorbals, a fine man called Iain Fergus was sacked last year. He was a social justice social worker, whose job was to protect children from known paedophiles. He had committed no offence and had an exemplary record. The problem was that he was a shop steward who had defended a colleague who was being interrogated behind closed doors. He was sacked for daring to stand outside those doors in silent support. Those children in the Gorbals no longer have an experienced protector.
Children's organisations are tired of living hand to mouth, month to month, and young people are tired of soundbite sympathy. I hope that the Executive shows real sympathy and real cash. Because the amendment is tougher than the motion, I ask members to support the amendment.
This is another important debate for this Parliament, which addresses the real needs of Scotland's people. Children and young people are not tomorrow's society—they are today's. It is our duty and responsibility to ensure that those children have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
I congratulate the Executive on the lead that it has taken. The recognition of the responsibility of the state as a parent is important for this reason: it shows a change of mindset that affects the sort of care that children will, and should, receive. More can be done to ensure that those who work as carers are aware of the training that they can receive. At present, many people join the profession and receive little or no additional training. Training will benefit not only the children and young people in their care but the carers themselves, as they will be better equipped to handle children with a variety of needs. Many folk have spoken about people learning parenting skills from their own parents; there is a bond between parents and children. Carers and children in care do not share that bond, which is why training is important.
Levels of pay should also be considered, as a couple of issues are involved. The first is that an increase in pay would reward those people who give their dedication and time often in difficult circumstances. The second is that a better pay structure would encourage more people into the caring profession, which would benefit children and young people. Connected with pay is the issue of having a proper career structure. It is important that carers feel that they have a future in the sector in which they work, that they are rewarded for their skills and training and that their expertise is put to the best possible use.
The ideal way of looking after children is to bring them into smaller caring units. In the past, children with different problems have been lumped together. To some extent, that has led them to learn from each other. Instead of learning important skills that will help them in life, they end up becoming more socially excluded. To end that situation, the way forward is to bring children into either a family or a unit that has children with similar problems but whose number is limited.
Perhaps the biggest problem for children in care in rural areas is the large distances that they must travel to access care. For example, those who live on islands may have to move to the mainland to receive care. That causes disruption, as those children are separated from their family and friends, and a change of schools is often required. Local authorities have a duty to maintain the contact between children and their family, but that is often expensive to provide in sparsely populated areas, due to travel constraints. It would be preferable to have care provided in the local area, so that children could receive the support that they needed without losing contact with family and friends. That would enable children to attend the same school.
A professional fostering scheme, made up of highly trained foster parents looking after small numbers of children, is an attractive option. However, those people must be properly trained and remunerated. Part of the problem is that they might not be used often, and may be lost from the
system if they seek full-time employment. Those people could be used to provide respite care for young, disabled or elderly people. That would ensure regular employment for them.
I hope that the minister will address some of those issues when he replies, particularly the issues of training, pay and proper career structure.
I can call Robin Harper to speak if he will take only three minutes.
I have only three points.
I worked on a children's panel for three years. I assure the minister that if he wants further evidence of the failings of the system, he need only consult members of Scotland's children's panels. Children's panels try to take all decisions in the interests of the child. My experience was that, although we did so, we were unable to find the facilities that we required and a decision that was not nearly as suitable was the result.
I want to back the points that were made by Cathy Jamieson and Rhoda Grant about the training of people for working with young children. Some of the people about whom we are talking are very young indeed. They have not had the experience of bringing up a child from birth to the age of 12 and can be faced with children who are extremely unhappy and highly stressed. They need extra training to deal with that kind of situation. With that in mind, I hope that Bill Aitken will withdraw his remarks about the training of young people to work with such children.
I want to stress the points that were made by members of the SNP about supported accommodation and further support for young children from the moment they leave care right through to the ages of 20 or 21. We need joined- up thinking throughout that period of interface in order to support young people until they are in employment and enjoying the full fruits of the society in which we live.
My apologies to the five members who have not been called. We now move to wind-up speeches.
I have enjoyed this afternoon's debate as much as any that has yet taken place in the Parliament. I congratulation the two members of the press in the press gallery. It is a shame that more of their colleagues are not present as we have heard some fine speeches today. I pay tribute to speakers from all the parties but I felt that Cathy Jamieson's speech was particularly good and got right to the heart of the matter. Dorothy-Grace Elder also spoke well. The quality of the debate shows how high up the issue is on the Parliament's agenda. We can be proud of that.
I had some experience of dealing with the issue when I was the Ross and Cromarty area chairman of social work. I remember that children's homes and children's care were almost the great unmentionable of local government. Mr Peacock will recall that. One used to be telephoned with news of problems or fighting in a children's home. I was thankful that I did not have to deal with the situation directly. Children in care are perhaps the last pariahs of our age. Tremendous advances have been made on race, creed and gender; yet, at the back of our collective national cupboard, a small nastiness lurks. We should put that right
I enjoyed Bill Aitken's speech. The only issue that I have with what he said relates to his comments about privatisation. I will quote from a speech that was made by William Hague on 16 December 1999.
"Councils have sometimes shown themselves tragically unable to deal with the conflicts of interest and the impulse to cover up which arise when things do go wrong.
So the next Conservative Government will legislate to separate local authority ownership of care homes from the responsibility of social services departments to ensure that a place in care is available. This would be a first step towards transferring the management and, if appropriate, the ownership of councils' care homes to the independent sector."
I enjoyed Bill Aitken's speech, but I take serious issue with that policy, if it is indeed Conservative policy. It is sometimes a bit hard to tell with wee Willie these days. You gentlemen do it an awful lot better in Scotland.
I see Ben Wallace sitting there. So good was Cathy Jamieson's speech that Ben was absolutely rapt. I have never seen him stare so intently across the chamber. However, given recent articles in Sunday newspapers, I am not sure whether Cathy should take that as a compliment— although it was a compliment, in whatever shape or form.
I take issue with Nicola Sturgeon only in terms of the main thrust of the SNP amendment, where it refers to the proposal to remove care leavers from the benefit system. Dorothy-Grace Elder seemed to support Sam Galbraith rather more than she supported Nicola, when she talked about the young person leaving care whose hamster was killed. Surely that is where social services should kick in. To my mind, social services have a continuing role, and that is where Sam's proposals make sense. Financially, they will work, although he has stolen the SNP's thunder by considering
and consulting on the issues.
The point has also been made that we should stop rubbishing social workers. There has been a wee whiff of that today, although I am sure that it was unintentional. If young people perceive social workers to be the problem, we should go back and help social workers.
All in all, I support Mr Galbraith's motion. I am afraid that I cannot support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment, no matter how well worded and persuasive it may be. To my mind, we are moving into a new age that we should be proud of. I beg members to support the motion.
As Bill Aitken said, we in the Conservative group are pleased to support the Administration's motion, to welcome much of what the minister said and, in many ways, to agree with what has been said during the debate. I particularly wish to express our welcome of the minister's announcement of a major research study, the grant for training and the consultation exercise on the draft strategic network, in which we will look to play a part.
It is interesting to note that there has been so much agreement today. That agreement is carried forward from Westminster debates, prior to devolution, when there was a great deal of consensus on these matters. Members who know about this subject will be aware that there was a good deal of cross-party support for the Conservative Government's introduction of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Following a number of concerns about care homes, we also commissioned the Kent report, which was published after the election of the Labour Government. We are pleased to support some of the initiatives that the Administration is taking in following up that report.
Times have changed from those awful days when children were shipped off to Australia and when there was a belief that big homes were beautiful. Now, there is a greater realisation that small is beautiful and that the family unit is preferable to and can do more than care homes. We should appreciate as much as possible the option of fostering and adoption. In a sense, what Bill Aitken said about training was a little misunderstood.
I heard the suggestion that additional resources would be helpful and, of course, I do not disagree that more resources will always help to make a difference. However, it is worth pointing out that, on many occasions, families with fewer resources than care homes and local authorities manage to raise children more successfully. I tend to think that the difficulties lie with the structures, not with the people who work in them, as I do not think that we should bash social workers or those who care for children.
We have to recognise the difficult task that these people have. We can and should accept that the family is the preferable way to help children who have difficulties. Scott Barrie was right to point out that so many looked-after children already live with their family. He raised the important issue of the lack of strategic direction. It is to be hoped that the consultation exercise will help to solve that problem.
Too many children are in care, but I am glad that the small increase can be put down to the rise in the number of children in that age group. We accept that; we are not here to score party points. In response to Jamie Stone, we do not feel that there is any room for complacency, which is why it is worth considering the separation of roles. Its role here allows the Conservative party to make its own policy on these matters, and members can be assured that we will do so. The idea of separation of roles has some merit, as it allows the local authority to take a greater interest in provision.
I reiterate that we should support the great deal of work that is being done throughout the nation by people providing the care, and that we should commend the motion put forward by the Executive, look forward to the success of the new initiatives and give them our whole-hearted support.
Many of us in the chamber signed up for the children's promise and gave our pay from the final hour of 1999 to recognised children's charities. I hope that the Parliament's millennium promise is for Scotland to cherish all her children. The tone and the content of today's debate sends out that message loud and clear.
The Scottish National party supports the Government in its work to help these vulnerable children for whom, as Cathy Jamieson reminded us, we all have a responsibility. We will be supporting the Government in today's vote. The SNP's amendment expresses a very real concern—a concern that has been expressed today in the chamber, but more especially by concerned professionals and volunteers who are working with children leaving care.
The minister said that the majority who replied to the consultation process supported the transfer of Department of Social Security benefits. That is not my understanding from reading the papers that were submitted to that consultation. I would be
grateful if the deputy minister could enlighten me further on how many, and which, organisations support the transfer of DSS benefits.
It is an important issue, which is why the SNP has put forward this amendment and will continue to argue the case on the transfer of DSS benefits on behalf of these young people. That transfer further marginalises young people. At the start of their adult life, it labels them, yet again, as different. In order to receive benefits, they have to go to a social worker; they cannot go along, as other adults do, and be treated as adults. That is important and it is why we are putting forward the amendment.
As with all children, the needs, concerns and, indeed, rights of these children would be better safeguarded and highlighted by two simple steps: the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into the practices and policies of the Government and the appointment of a commissioner for children and young people. Those two SNP commitments should be considered urgently by the Government.
In today's debate, we heard the minister tell us of his anger at past practices and his promises for the future. The SNP welcomes those promises, but we and others have raised a number of practical issues in this debate, which I hope that the deputy minister will address.
Why has the Government not accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Kent report? We also raised the issue of the registration and training of social workers and those involved in looking after children. There has been an announcement of £3 million for training, but how long is that training to take and when will we have a fully trained work force? Is that £3 million it, or will more money be forthcoming?
Another issue is the move towards foster care. As Nicola Sturgeon said, most of us feel in our guts that foster care is better than residential care, but we need to ensure that the practice that we put in place for the 21st century is evidence based and that it is what young people need. We need a needs-led care system and not a finance-driven one. We must examine research that has already been done among foster carers, and look to putting in training and support for foster carers. Two of the key difficulties that foster carers say make them leave foster caring are lack of training and lack of support. will finish by reminding members that the people we are talking about are the young people. We should not be talking about them, but talking with them. I always come back to the theme that we must involve young people in discussions about their future. We must consult them. We talk about an £800,000 grant to extend the advocacy network, but we must ask the young people what they want out of that. As well as advocacy, they want adjudication. They do not want someone just to talk to or for them, but they want somebody who will adjudicate their case and take it forward for them. At the end of the day, we will support this motion, but I remind the ministers to listen to, to consult and to involve the young people.
Despite the truncated nature of this debate, because of the statements that were made earlier, it has been very wide ranging and there have been good contributions from all parties. This is an area that has not received enough attention over the past years. It is right and proper that, as we move into the new century, we shine a light on this particularly dark area of policy and try to make whatever improvements we can. Many points have been made in debate, and I want to answer them to the best of my ability before I sit down.
I thank Nicola Sturgeon and all the other party spokespeople for the very constructive way in which they have engaged in this debate and for the support that they given to what the Executive is trying to do. There are always things that we will want to do better and that we will want to extend with regard to future practice. We are making what we hope is a fresh and positive start to dealing with the issues that surround looked-after children, and I welcome the constructive way in which today's debate has been conducted.
I want to pick up some of the issues that Nicola Sturgeon highlighted in her speech. Like other members, she was absolutely right to make a point about the basic skills that are available to young people who are being looked after and how the absence of educational attainment blights their life chances. It is fundamental to the chances of those young people that we improve their education and their other basic life skills, so that they can thrive when they leave care. That is partly why we are improving the system in the way that Mr Galbraith outlined earlier.
Nicola Sturgeon, Rhoda Grant and others made a point about the qualifications and career structure of staff. They asked whether the profession is attractive enough and whether there was more that we could do in that regard. I think that there is much more that we can do, and I want to address that in future. Unless we have a well- motivated and well-rewarded profession, and unless training for members of staff is adequate, we cannot expect the desired outcomes that Scott Barrie referred to in his speech and that the improved materials that we are making available to those who work in residential care settings are
intended to bring about. We will take further action on that in due course.
The point about the lack of evidence that exists on which to base future policies in this area was, again, well made. That is why we are starting a major research study, which will give us a whole range of insights into how we ought to improve policy in the future. Cathy Jamieson spoke about the need to consult young people as part of that process. It is very much our intention to do that and to ensure that we will hear the views of young people who have been through the care system and understand it more intimately than any of us can. Indeed, some of the people in the research team who will examine that issue will be young people who have come through the care system and who have been recruited because they will be able to relate to, and gain the views of, people currently in the system. We will try to base policy more on evidence as time goes on.
Nicola Sturgeon raised the question of the DSS resource transfer—it was raised by Donald Gorrie and many other members as well. I will take a few minutes to deal with some of the issues that arise from that.
We should be quite clear about what the underlying objective is. I hope that nobody will disagree that we have to find a way of better co-ordinating the existing range of services for young people as they move through, and begin to leave, the looked-after system, and to find a single point of entry to ensure that we support them in the best way possible. If one speaks to young people about their experiences, one will know that that is exactly what they are looking for.
No doubt there are a number of ways in which that objective can be achieved, but we have alighted on a particular one. We have consulted widely on this. I will be happy to write to Fiona McLeod about the nature of the consultation and about who responded. The majority of consultees have clearly supported the principle of the way in which we want to move forward. There are concerns about implementation and about the level of the transfer resources. We have set up a working group involving Scottish Executive officials and representatives of other interest groups to address concerns about implementation early on.
To pick up on Donald Gorrie's point, I will say that there is no desire to implement the objective urgently, before the other support services to which he referred are in place, so that nobody falls foul of the new system. None the less, there are clear merits in moving as quickly as possible to a single fund.
Nicola Sturgeon sought an assurance about the speed of implementation. As I have said in answer to Donald Gorrie's point, when we implement the changes will be entirely at our discretion.
I am sure that when the changes will be implemented will be at the Scottish Executive's discretion. However, will the minister confirm that it is at the Executive's discretion to decide whether to implement the changes? That was my question.
We think that there are clear merits in moving down this route. The question is more about how changes are introduced, about timing and about ensuring that the detail is tidied up before we act. I repeat that when this measure will be implemented is at our discretion. There is no desire to rush unless all the support mechanisms to which Donald Gorrie referred are in place.
Donald Gorrie made some other points. As well as seeking the reassurance that I hope I have just given, he talked about the ring-fencing of money for councils. Obviously we will discuss that with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As he will know from his long experience in COSLA, in principle it does not like money to be ring-fenced; it likes to have discretion to act as it sees fit. The implementation group will also discuss matters such as a safety net, an appeals procedure, and the question whether people will be better off, and certainly no worse off.
In relation to the DSS transfer, a number of speakers raised the question of whether the local authority will be the correct place in all circumstances to administer this measure, given the relationship that young people in care may have with local authorities. That is an interesting point, on which I will reflect further, as we have no desire to create any impediment to young people accessing better services—that is the whole purpose of our approach.
Bill Aitken raised a number of points about the relationship between the statutory and voluntary sectors, and about the contribution that the voluntary sector can make in this field of endeavour. As I have done on other occasions, I recognise the work that is done by the voluntary sector, which has a big part to play, but, equally, I recognise the work that is done by local authorities and others. Everybody in this sphere of activity is learning, from new techniques and from the mistakes of the past. We need to move forward in that spirit.
I welcome Bill Aitken's support for what the Executive has announced today. I fully acknowledge the importance of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to which he referred, and the role that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton had in piloting that legislation through the Westminster Parliament.
Cathy Jamieson emphasised the need to listen to young people and said what an inspiration it is to meet young people who have been through the looked-after care system and have come out the other end relatively unscathed and able to make a big contribution. Sadly, too many young people have come through the system without such positive outlooks and attributes. However, as Cathy pointed out, the young people I met today and on previous occasions are an inspiration and show what can be achieved with good care systems in local authorities and the voluntary sector. They can allow young people to regain the confidence that they need to progress.
Scott Barrie explicitly recommended the need to raise our expectations of all young people in Scotland to ensure that they have a better future. Too often in the past, the higher expectations applied to most children have perhaps not been applied to children who have been looked after by local authorities.
Because of the constraints imposed by the earlier statements, I do not have the time to answer the many other points that were raised today. However, I will conclude on this point. We must have very high ambitions for all young Scots to ensure that the children who have been most excluded from our society become fully included in future, and that all young Scots can prosper, develop and avail themselves of all their life chances.
Allowing our looked-after children more of an opportunity to make a distinct contribution in future is a key objective of the Executive. As this century unfolds, our attitudes to and services for children who are looked after by local authorities should continue to develop, and they should receive the advocacy that they require to support them in their communities. The Executive's policies are addressed, and we hope that they will take us, to that end. Our policies deserve support; I hope that the Parliament will give that support.
That concludes the debate. As we have no Parliamentary Bureau motions today, we will move straight to decision time.