Plenary, 12 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Official Report 463KB pdf

---

Child Protection

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2190, in the name of Robert Brown, on behalf of the Education Committee, on the Education Committee's report on child protection issues. I will allow a brief pause while the chamber clears.

We move from a disaster affecting, among others, children and young people across the Indian ocean, to how, in a somewhat different way, the life chances of many children and young people here in Scotland can be blighted. We live in an age in which, despite technological advances, generally increasing prosperity and a panoply of laws, regulations, codes of practice, inspectorates and commissioners, there are more hazards—both real and perceived—affecting young people in our society than ever before. We are all painfully aware, from report after report and inquiry after inquiry, that far too many children in our society do not get the start in life that they deserve and suffer sometimes unbelievable levels of neglect, abuse and cruelty. The cases of Caleb Ness, Victoria Climbié, Kennedy McFarlane, Danielle Reid and many others unnamed and unpublicised are sad testament to that.

The public debate in this area is heavily influenced by the publicity surrounding a number of high-profile cases, particularly the Dunblane tragedy and the Soham murders. The images of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman are imprinted on our minds. However, such tragic events can distort the picture: three quarters of child abusers are not strangers but birth parents. The shock statistic that stuck starkly in my mind and in the minds of members of the Education Committee was the horrific fact that one in 56 children in Scotland is born to a drug-abusing parent. In fact, the figure is one in 56 and rising.

We therefore put in place support mechanisms and utilise the dedicated work of professionals across many disciplines and of voluntary sector groups to support our young people, to ensure that they are healthy and properly looked after, that they are educated and confident to face the world and that they do not come to harm. It is against that background that the Education Committee carried out its inquiry into the effectiveness of the Scottish Executive's implementation of the report "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" and its subsequent and on-going work on the issues arising from the coming into force of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003.

Life is not a risk-free activity, and the central challenge of child protection for all the agencies that are involved is risk assessment and risk reduction. The key elements of that, which the original report identified, are co-ordinated working among the agencies—schools, health visitors, social workers, youth clubs and the police; clear assessment of the risks and needs of the most vulnerable; clear recording and availability of the information; early intervention to tackle the problems and reduce the risk; sufficient staff and other resources to do the job; and research and monitoring to keep tabs on children who are at risk and to see what works.

Those things are far easier to say than to do. "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" sets out a clear programme of action with which the Education Committee was in whole-hearted agreement, although we had concerns about the timetable. The multidisciplinary inspection of children's services and child protection will be completed seven years after the report and I understand that the single shared assessment has still not come to fruition.

More particularly we had concerns about the implementation of the three-year reform programme. As the minister has made clear, for that programme to be successful, we require a "culture of continuous change" across a variety of organisations. The committee noted that repeated reports showed that there could be duplication by and poor use of resources between agencies. We were worried about the evidence that we received from Glasgow City Council and the Headteachers Association of Scotland that there was still a need for a succinct and readily accessible chronology of significant events that could easily be referred to. The Executive's response acknowledged that that was important but did not seem to take the evidence of shortcomings in this regard as seriously as we thought it might. Clear starting information is vital to proper risk assessment and prevention and informs the proper targeting of resources.

The committee was informed that Professor Norma Baldwin of the University of Dundee was chairing a working group that was preparing a framework for assessment with the aim of providing policy guidance on information sharing and the other characteristics of an integrated system. The group was due to report to the Executive by last November and there was to be a consultation paper issued about now with the final framework itself being issued by autumn 2005. Agencies in the field are keen that there should be an effective 24-hour helpline and a consistent framework for handling child fatality reviews. Work is continuing on both those areas and I hope that the minister can update the chamber on them when he responds.

Finally, on the main report itself, I want to reiterate the committee's recognition of the

"immense efforts made by social workers and staff from other agencies that are often lost in the ‘...unrelenting criticism and blame focused on social work'".

Many children are protected and helped by exceptionally motivated and dedicated staff, but we were told of the heavy sapping of morale that accompanies the long, drawn-out inquiries that are made when something has gone wrong. Poor staff morale is a risk factor to be borne in mind.

Where mistakes are made or needs not responded to, the blame often lies with a shortage of key staff, training issues or poor co-ordination. The committee was extremely concerned about the effects of short-term shortages of social work staff, but I understand that Glasgow City Council, where some of the worst shortages lay, may now be up to complement. I would be very glad if the minister confirmed that and said something about current staffing levels across the country.

The committee's main report was published in July last year and represented a snapshot of the three months before that, so we hope that things have moved on substantially since then. However, our attention has become focused on the rather narrower issue of disclosure checks and the implementation of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. That act established the list of those who are disqualified from working with children and with it the duty of all relevant organisations to consult that list. The act also makes it an offence for any organisation working with young people to employ professionally or on a volunteer basis an individual who appears on the list. That is checked by means of a standard or enhanced disclosure.

During our inquiry, the evidence that we took from organisations about the turnaround time for disclosure checks was, quite frankly, completely at odds with that coming from official sources. For example, whereas YouthLink Scotland said that there were delays of 10 weeks, Disclosure Scotland said that the delay was of 16 days. Aberlour Child Care Trust and Scottish Women's Aid reported delays of 12 weeks but the Minister for Justice claimed that the delay was of 14 calendar days. The Minister for Education and Young People has assured us that the turnaround time is now two to three weeks.

There is no doubt that Disclosure Scotland timescales have improved enormously since last spring, but the timescales were only the tip of the iceberg. In its report, the committee raised a number of other concerns about multiple applications being needed for some individuals who might do sessional work for a variety of different employers, and about clearer guidance on when parent-teacher association members might need disclosure checks. Later, we took evidence from representatives of Disclosure Scotland, who said in October that they needed three months' notice to implement the 2003 act and who did not appear at that stage to be in active contact with Executive officials about it. In the lead up to the Christmas recess, we also individually received a variety of pieces of information from groups such as the Scottish council of the Scout Association, YouthLink Scotland and others expressing increasing concerns about the commencement of part of the act, which was due to take effect on 10 January.

When we took evidence from officials on 15 December, it became clear that there had been something of a breakdown of communication between the voluntary sector bodies and youth organisations and the Executive officials. I am pleased to say that the minister responded speedily to the concerns that the committee expressed. Arrangements were made to lay a new commencement order that deferred the commencement of part of the act for three months—until April 2005—to give everyone a chance to finalise the guidance and to ensure that it was robust and had been circulated to those concerned. That will allow us to commence the act's provisions on a more solid foundation. I understand that the organisations are now much happier with the situation.

However, I am not sure that we have resolved the issue of whether volunteers are allowed to work under supervision pending completion of a disclosure check. The practice is strongly discouraged in advice from the children and families division of the Scottish Executive Education Department, but delays of two to three months are clearly not conducive to successful volunteer recruitment and may discourage hard-pressed volunteers who require additional volunteer help.

I will not dwell further on those difficulties but, in passing, let me say that they illustrate the differences in thinking that can sometimes occur between Government bureaucracy and those who have to make things work on the ground. The committee will receive an update from the minister at its meeting on 9 February.

In my remaining minutes, I want to raise five concerns that have been put to me on what seem to be live issues. First, there is a need for accessible and meaningful information to provide guidance, especially for the smaller bodies that are on the fringe of the area covered by the act. We do not seem to have got that issue right yet. If we fail to do so, there will remain a large number of confused and worried people out there.

My second concern, which is linked to the first, is about the need for sympathetic and helpful personal support through the helpline that the central registered body in Scotland has run since November. It is no use referring the two little guys who run the local football team to the website. They need clear and authoritative instructions on what, if anything, they are required to do. I am told that there is an issue about the quality of the advice that is available from the helpline. That advice is crucial.

Thirdly, there remain issues with over-zealous councils and insurance companies. I gather that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has called a meeting to try to restrain the more officious legal officers, but it might be useful if the minister took up the issue with COSLA and the Association of British Insurers. Neither body is his direct responsibility, but they are central to making the system work. Children are not protected if organisations close down.

Fourthly, I am unclear why we need both Disclosure Scotland and the central registered body for Scotland. There appears to be an element of duplication. I know that at least one organisation—Fairbridge—forgoes the free checks that the central registered body offers rather than submit to the extra delay that that causes.

Finally, there is an issue of perceived legitimacy. In large part, child protection is an issue of proper co-ordination among agencies. Too often, professionals seem reluctant to recognise the legitimacy of voluntary sector colleagues by sharing information and working with them.

I conclude by saying that proper support and protection of our children and young people are vital, but we must be careful not to swamp the central child-centred priority by excessive bureaucracy. Enabling social workers and youth workers to support families and work with children is key, but that should not be equated with having a paper-processing bureaucracy.

There is a difficult task to be done. It would be helpful if the Scottish Executive reviewed at an early date how the act is working, especially the strict risk assessment and evaluation criteria. I am sure that lessons will be learned when Disclosure Scotland deals with the much more substantial task of retrospective checking, for which 500,000 people will need to be checked. In the interests of the growing numbers of children in Scotland who are at risk of abuse, neglect or violence, we must remain properly focused on that task.

On behalf of the Education Committee, I move,

That the Parliament notes the 8th Report, 2004 (Session 2) of the Education Committee: Report on the Scottish Executive's Implementation of Recommendations of the "It's Everyone's Job To Make Sure I'm Alright" Report (SP Paper 201); notes the Executive's response to the report, and draws the attention of the Executive to the impact of disclosure requirements, particularly in light of the implementation of the provisions of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003.

I call Peter Peacock, who has six minutes.

I thought that I would have longer than that, but I thank the Presiding Officer for that interesting surprise.

I welcome the Education Committee's work that, as Robert Brown has set out, evaluates the Executive's work on child protection. If I may echo the point that he made, child protection is, for us, a key priority that is driven not only by the harrowing cases to which he referred but by the many other factors that give rise to young people being under threat in their homes or in various community settings. Child protection is a high priority.

I will deal with some of the points that have been made and, in his summing up, Euan Robson—whom I keep making the error of calling Ewan Aitken—will pick up the points that were made about assessment, social work staff and disclosures. He will also deal with any other points that I am unable to cover in the time that I have been given.

As Robert Brown said, the committee's report focuses on the recommendations in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", but members will also be aware that a report was published yesterday on the progress that has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Bichard report. Those follow the inquiry into the Soham tragedy. Copies of the progress report have been sent to the committee and placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. We need to take account of those developments in our future work in Scotland, to ensure that there are compatible systems north and south of the border.

Our response to the committee's report welcomes its endorsement of the importance of child protection reform, our programme for that and the progress that we are making. During the first phase of the programme, we have taken a range of actions. We produced the first children's charter and the child protection framework for standards for all agencies. Those were key foundation documents in allowing us to make progress across the board. Since the launch of the two documents in March last year, we have worked hard with delivery agencies across Scotland to embed in good, everyday practice the principles that they set out.

We have also reviewed the role of child protection committees. Working with child protection committees and other agencies, we have developed a model for their future constitution, roles and responsibilities. We have undertaken a full consultation exercise on a proposed new model and guidance.

We have also developed a system for integrated inspection of children's services, which we launched at a major conference in November last year. According to that new approach, child protection services will be the first to be inspected. Pilot inspections in East Dunbartonshire and Highland are starting today, in preparation for roll-out across all areas in the course of this year. I say to Robert Brown, with respect, that a system for inspection of children's services will be in place three years after the publication of the report "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright".

As members know, we have also commenced the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, to which Robert Brown referred. This is a vital piece of legislation. In advancing it, we have sought to take account of concerns expressed by the voluntary sector while continuing to introduce the list of those disqualified from working with children, which came into effect this Monday. I note what Robert Brown has said. Later, Euan Robson will try to address the five points that he made. However, I assure him that we remain sensitive to the implementation of the 2003 act, because we want to ensure that it is effective and that organisations are able to make the important changes that are necessary as a consequence of its commencement.

Last year, we took on a major initiative to ensure better joined-up work locally when we sought joint assurances from chief officers of local authorities, health boards and police services that they had reviewed their child protection services, that either they were satisfied with their operation or they had identified areas that required action, and that they had robust quality assurance mechanisms in place. That exercise has been extremely helpful both in focusing at a senior level the attention of all the services that are involved at local level across Scotland and in ensuring that chief officers understand their personal responsibilities in these matters. We will repeat the exercise in due course.

In phase 2 of the reform programme, we will ensure that we move forward on a range of issues, in addition to those on which I have already touched. For example, this month we will issue final guidance on the new model for child protection committees. Through a range of measures, we will raise public awareness of child protection issues and the role of everyone in ensuring that children are safe. There will be a pilot media campaign in the north-east of Scotland, based on radio and poster advertising. We will produce a national leaflet with local information, which will signpost child protection services so that individuals know where to look to for help. We will also scope the details of the proposed 24-hour service line to which I have referred in the past and will continue the internet safety campaign that ran over the Christmas period into the new year.

We will undertake a review of multidisciplinary training, with a view to producing a national suite of training materials that can be used by different professions, either individually or as part of joint training. We will conduct a fundamental examination of child death and serious incident reviews, to which Robert Brown referred. We will develop proposals on reviews that seek to clarify what type of review is needed in different circumstances in order to meet the different requirements of accountability and learning, that are evidence based and that increase public confidence in public services. My officials have commissioned an independently chaired group to consider this matter, which will report in due course.

All the measures that I have described are in addition to further development of our work on embedding the framework for standards and the children's charter, rolling out integrated inspections across all services during this year and implementing and managing the list of those disqualified from working with children. We will consider how the list develops alongside the proposals for a registration scheme, which was recommended in the Bichard report.

We are embarked on a major reform of child protection. Our approach has been and will remain comprehensive and our reform programme is bringing about changes in organisational behaviour in the interests of all our children. I thank the Education Committee for its report and for bringing this important subject to the Parliament's attention again and I am grateful for this opportunity to reinforce our clear commitment to do all we that can to drive forward improvements in the child protection system in Scotland.

I am sure that the chamber will want to express its concern about the well-being of the orphans of Indonesia and Sri Lanka and their vulnerability to malevolent people who seek to transport them for the purposes of exploitation and abuse. The young are the most vulnerable during any time of crisis and we must use whatever influence we have to ensure that the well-being of children is placed high on the agenda of the support mechanisms that are being established in that disaster area.

The crises that make children the most vulnerable group might emerge from man-made or, as we have seen, natural disasters. However, many children in this country are placed in such vulnerable positions because of a social crisis in which endemic poverty in communities leaves them open to continual risk. As Robert Brown has pointed out, the impact of drug abuse in deprived communities and the sheer scale of the number of children in homes that have drug-misusing parents are staggering, and we must reflect on and take action to deal with the matter.

The committee's report arises from its specific scrutiny of "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" in the light of certain recent and very sad cases. The Executive's document was substantive, provided an important snapshot of the state of children's care, welfare and protection needs at the time and made many major policy commitments; however, I am concerned about whether the Executive's clear cross-departmental commitment to children has the same priority as it had in the early post-1999 Administration. That said, I acknowledge the minister's personal commitment to the matter. If the committee's report has a message, it is that ministers in other departments must not lose sight of that commitment.

Child protection must always be at the forefront of our political agenda and, although progress has been made, we still need to push things forward. The impetus to do so might come from the experience—and unintended consequences—of the current disclosure arrangements, which must make us think more broadly about how we support those who work with children while protecting children from people who seek to exploit them. The recent emergence of historic institutional child abuse might have policy implications. Moreover, the potential for retrospective checks under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, in which one in eight of all Scots might require disclosure checks, should provoke a debate about the relationship between bureaucracy and the information system as a means of closing legal loopholes. Our response to the risks faced by organisations that help individuals must be proportionate.

However, even with the best will in the world, the fact that there are disclosure checks on people who work with children does not mean that children are not at risk. We must not lose sight of the fact that parental abuse is a major concern, particularly when we compare the incidence of such abuse with the incidence of abuse by strangers. The neglect and abuse that too many children face are the result of adult behaviour and action, not of bureaucracy or the lack of it. Because we must tackle not just the results of abuse and neglect but their root cause, I draw the minister's attention to recommendation 9 of the committee's report, which mentions developing children's services plans in line with the national priorities set out in "Building a Better Scotland".

We must also question the current use of the term "protection of children", which seems to refer more often to crisis intervention after an event than to protecting children from the risk of something happening in the first place. For example, the number of children at risk without a designated social worker is a continuing disgrace. A strong theme of any approach to this matter must be our collective attitude in our personal and working lives towards assessing and dealing with the risk to the children around us.

Another strong message in the committee report is that momentum must not be lost. In that respect, I welcome the minister's statements on child protection committees. I also believe that agencies on the ground have made considerable steps towards improving working practices and carrying out the Executive's recommendations. However, there are some shortcomings. In particular, recommendation 15 highlights the lack of linked computer-based information systems to include a single assessment, planning and review report framework. We must return to that issue.

In November, Sarah Boyack hosted a meeting with health, social work and education officials from Edinburgh, who talked to us about their experience of implementing changes since the O'Brien report. The challenges that they drew to our attention included the problem of information technology, round 3 of the modernising government proposals and the release of funds being on hold. They came back again to the sharing of information and to issues of confidentiality and a shared understanding of what should and should not be confidential. The lack of a validated risk-assessment tool, the need for adequate resources and the issue of substance abuse also came up again.

The national issue that they referred to us for consideration is resourcing and the need for long-term, rather than short-term, resourcing. Where provision is made for initiatives that require a lot of recruits, the emphasis is on youth justice issues and recruitment of and career progression for social workers in that field, while care and protection, which could prevent youth offending in later life, is perhaps put on the back burner. That is something that we have to address, and the City of Edinburgh Council has made major strides in recruiting social workers for care and protection, which is to be commended.

I conclude by mentioning a number of themes. We need a public debate about risk. Risk is not about bureaucracy and management systems. Risk is about people's behaviours and about adults' behaviours towards children, and we should not lose sight of those issues. The Executive's policy must be driven forward and it should not be hampered or impeded by lack of cross-departmental support within the Executive. We also need to address some of the issues on the youth offending agenda.

We must return again and again to the issue of child protection. The policy momentum must not be lost. We owe it to the children of Scotland and to the many people who, in their professional and personal lives, give so much in difficult circumstances to support children. I pay tribute to those people.

I have already given you notice, Presiding Officer, and I give apologies in advance to the chamber, for not being able to be present for the whole debate, although I should be at most of it. Nevertheless, I welcome the chance to open the debate for the Scottish Conservatives on the Education Committee's "Report on the Scottish Executive's Implementation of Recommendations of the ‘It's Everyone's Job To Make Sure I'm Alright' Report".

The Scottish Conservatives, the Parliament and the Executive are united in their conviction that measures to safeguard the welfare of children and young people must be one of the prime concerns of Government. We applaud the Scottish Executive's commitment to improving the coherence and efficiency of child protection in Scotland with measures such as the charter for children and young people, the establishment of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the publication of "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", all of which are a tribute to the Executive's admirable aspirations.

However, in its report, the Education Committee expresses some concern that the Executive's implementation of the child protection reform programme should be subject to on-going scrutiny. As we can expect from any Government—and the Executive is no exception—sometimes the best of intentions can lose momentum as policy filters down from on high.

In relation to cross-agency information sharing, the committee noted:

"The Committee welcomes this aspirational statement and looks forward to receiving evidence from the Scottish Executive that this policy intention is being translated into ‘on-the-ground' reality".

I believe that that highlights, in a nutshell, the Scottish Executive's tendency to rely on top-down reforms, without giving enough consideration to the grass-roots organisations that will have to implement them. The Education Committee and Parliament must continue to hold the Executive to account to ensure that resources are being used effectively in order to liberate funding for front-line child protection activities.

Having been a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee during the passage of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, I am particularly glad to affirm the Scottish Conservatives' support for that important piece of legislation. There is no doubt that the creation of a list of those unsuitable to work with children will provide greater security for children in a variety of everyday situations. From my own experience in schools football and youth football, I can attest that those are important considerations and that they should not present barriers to parents and youth workers from becoming involved in valuable work with children.

There has, however, been a degree of concern over the effects of the act's implementation. As we have heard, under pressure from the Education Committee and a variety of voluntary organisations, the commencement of section 11(3) (a) has been deferred until 11 April, and the commencement of section 11(3)(b) has been deferred indefinitely.

Much confusion and frustration could have been avoided if the Executive had consulted more effectively with voluntary sector and other organisations at the outset to produce practical, targeted advice, and not simply guidance that, I fear, civil servants thought the organisations wanted to hear. The requirement for retrospective checks has now been deferred along with the creation of an offence to offer work to someone who is on the list of those who have been disqualified from working with children. The Executive says that that will allow more time for appropriate guidance to be compiled and distributed. That is a welcome concession, but we must have reassurances from the Executive that the period of grace will be used to review how the act is performing.

Such a review should cover three main areas. The Executive assures us that a database will be set up to ensure the efficient transfer of information between the police, local authorities and health professionals, but we should press for a rigorous evaluation of its success in action so that problems can be identified and rectified. Secondly, in order to ensure that the rights of children and the rights of those who work with them are kept in balance, we urge the Executive to monitor the incidence of frivolous or vexatious referrals to ensure that the appeals procedure functions properly. Finally, and most significantly, the Education Committee has agreed to review the implementation of the act and the implications of retrospective checks before the February recess. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to hold the Executive to account to ensure that the problem of a huge surge in applications for disclosure checks is not simply postponed. The Executive has bought itself more time; we must ensure that it is used wisely.

One of the most powerful and disturbing pieces of evidence that the committee heard during our inquiry into child protection was from one of the minister's most senior civil servants. It is interesting that both my colleagues from the Education Committee have referred to that evidence, which states:

"Some 1,000 babies were born to drug-misusing mothers in 2001, which is one in every 56 to 57 births in Scotland. Between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland have a drug-misusing parent and between 10,000 and 20,000 children in Scotland currently live with a drug-misusing parent. … The number of children who are born to drug-misusing parents doubled in the four years to 2000-01."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 17 March 2004; c 1120.]

I do not know whether children are at any more risk now than they were in the past, but whether it is because of drug-abusing households or the greater mobility of family and neighbours around us there is no doubt that the new and comprehensive range of child protection measures that is being put in place by the Executive is essential. The range of measures is essential not because it assumes that everyone is a potential predator or abuser, but because it provides safeguards, such as the sharing of information between appropriate authorities, for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. It also provides safeguards for us as parents or as good citizens. Those safeguards allow us to be confident that our children are supported and protected and that we can trust those who look after them.

What the child protection system cannot do is to prevent all future cases of abuse or neglect and we should caution against any false reassurances that it will do so. I emphasise that point because child protection is often about managing or minimising risk; it is therefore about judgment and about having a sense of perspective or proportion. I will expand upon that point as it affects professionals and touches on the many anxieties that have been raised recently by parents or by those in the voluntary sector. I will give two examples of risk from my experience to illustrate my views on the matter, although the first one is more to do with child safety than with child protection.

Most families with more than two young children will recognise how difficult it is now to go for a swim. Rules have been introduced at swimming pools throughout the country that insist upon an adult accompanying each young child—in some cases on a one-to-one basis—up to the age of eight. That means in effect that, for example, my wife and I cannot go for a family swim with all four children, despite the fact that my five-year old, the oldest child, can swim unaided. I am sure that the rules were introduced with the best of intentions to prevent accidents and even drownings, but the effect is to prevent parents from exercising good judgment and managing potentially risky situations rather than to help them. The rules could have the perverse effect of increasing risk, because they make it more difficult to teach the youngest members of the family to swim or to give them confidence in the water.

I will give what is perhaps a more pertinent example in relation to child protection. I hope that my colleagues on the Education Committee will forgive me for repeating the story. Last summer, I was suspended from helping out with the walking bus to our own local primary when the school discovered that I had not had a disclosure check. I am not saying that there should be a separate rule for me, but the walking bus was just getting established and could easily have collapsed without enough parent volunteers. To be fair to Disclosure Scotland and the local authority, the check took only two weeks and I was able to pick up from where I left off, but that is not a good example of what I would call child protection. As Judith Gillespie from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council pointed out, children are at far greater risk of getting knocked down by a car on their way to school than they are of being harmed by one of their fellow pupils' parents who is accompanied by at least two other adults at all times.

Both examples reveal what can happen when one adheres rigidly to a set of rules but loses sight of the purpose behind them. However, there are steps that we can take to counter such interpretations and I am pleased that the Executive is taking those steps. First, the comprehensive guidance that provides clarity of purpose and consistency of application for child protection measures throughout Scotland and across all sectors is welcome. That guidance must, in turn, be shaped by experience. I am therefore delighted that the Executive has published its guidelines in a ring-binder format with the specific intention of updating it over time.

Further research is needed to provide empirical evidence rather than our simply relying on anecdote to assess the impact of the new child protection measures. Again, I am delighted that the minister has confirmed that he is exploring that avenue with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and that he will report back to the Education Committee later in the new year.

The areas into which I would welcome research include the portability of disclosure checks, the potential danger of excessive bureaucracy and the precise room for local or limited flexibility. There are clear difficulties in transferring one organisation's disclosure check to another organisation, but I know of one individual who had to have four separate checks for the four different activities in which he is engaged. I am sure that that case is an exception, but I would like to be more confident that that individual hears the message that we support and encourage him in his example of good citizenship, rather than that we are discouraging him.

I want to see consistency throughout Scotland, but I also want an element of flexibility. For example, I know from experience that some schools may not have enough disclosure-checked volunteers to be able to run certain events. How often does that happen? Are there any steps that we can take to address that obstacle?

Understanding the concept of risk and the difficulties of working in the area have a direct effect on professionals who work in child protection. I do not have time to explore that matter fully, but I refer ministers to the excellent evidence that we heard from Unison and emphasise the importance of the Executive's articulating a public understanding of risk. Unison also made a good point about reviewing the ad hoc nature of child fatality inquiries and getting away from the current blame-based approach. My colleague Robert Brown mentioned that. Will the minister let us know how that recommendation is progressing?

The Executive is to be commended for the comprehensive range of child protection measures that it has introduced and for the flexibility that it has shown in implementing those measures, given the anxieties that have been expressed in some areas. I call on ministers to continue to emphasise the message at the heart of their policy, which is encapsulated in the aptly titled report "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright".

I support the Education Committee's motion.

I recognise the sterling work that is done by many social workers throughout Scotland in difficult and testing circumstances. Those circumstances are becoming even more difficult and testing, as the stark statistic that one in 56 of Scotland's children may have drug-dependent parents illustrates.

One of the huge issues to arise from the various cases that have sensationally and tragically hit the press has been the workload of social workers. I understand that there is still quite a severe shortage of social workers in Scotland. Paragraph 20 of the Education Committee's report states:

"The Committee recognises that the Scottish Executive has taken significant steps to address the national shortage of social workers but the fruits of this action will only emerge in the longer term".

I do not wish to embarrass the Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, but she managed to elicit, in an answer to a parliamentary question on 27 October 2004, the fact that current vacancies were around 600. Perhaps the minister will advise on another day, if not today, what the current vacancy situation is for social workers.

Of course, it is not simply a matter of numbers. In paragraph 18 of its report, the committee noted:

"Furthermore, it was noted that although: ‘Scottish Executive statistics suggest that the number of social workers in post has grown. These posts are mainly in new initiatives'."

Therefore, there is a lack of staff at ground level to deal with the many urgent cases. Prioritisation must be a nightmare for front-line social workers.

That said, other issues could be addressed to prevent the kind of tragedies that have occurred in the past. It seems strange to me that there is not a national database. I may be wrong about that, but I do not know why such a database has not been established. The Education Committee's report quotes the view of COSLA and the Association of Directors of Social Work. A representative of ADSW said:

"We all hold child protection registers locally, but perhaps a national database would help."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 24 March 2004; c 1165.]

The word "perhaps" is redundant. It must be the case that a national database would help, given the mobility of families. Abusers are often en famille; an abuser might be a boyfriend of a family member. Families could easily drop off the radar screen, and a national database would help to address that. Surely in this age of technology, it is not beyond our wit to deliver such a resource.

The report contains other good suggestions. Shared training is mentioned. Many professionals are precious about their remit and what they do; they do not feel that other professionals or members of the voluntary sector are entitled to step over the boundaries. I have been guilty of that in the two professions in which I have worked. Joint training would resolve such difficulties and would increase the sharing of information. In many cases that I have found out about, the information was there, but it was scattered and was not shared. If the jigsaw had been put together, in many instances the red danger light would have been seen.

I will not deal with Disclosure Scotland, because many other members will do that. Instead, I will talk about the children's panel system, for which—in common with many other members—I have a great deal of time. Although the report does not deal with that subject in great detail, it mentions that too many referrals are made to the children's panel system.

If I may, I will refer to a parliamentary motion that I have lodged, which raises concerns about the stresses that are put on panel members. That situation was brought to my attention by the chair of the Scottish Borders children's panel advisory committee, who has said that

"what is being asked is beyond the voluntary nature of the appointment"

and that there are

"grave concerns that the current review may not happen soon enough".

Because of resignations, the Scottish Borders children's panel is operating with 30 per cent fewer members and is trawling in East Lothian to get people to sit on it. My understanding is that the whole point of having lay members on children's panels is that that allows local people with local knowledge to participate.

Many years ago, I asked that people who were over the age of 60 could serve on children's panels. I understood the arguments that were made against the proposal—it might have been considered desirable to have people on the panels who belonged to a more similar age group—but I am glad that the minister has granted my request. Although it is excellent that that has happened, huge issues still face the good people who serve on children's panels, who are often the first port of call for children who are at risk; the children whom they deal with are not necessarily offenders.

My final point concerns the children about whom we do not hear—the hidden children who need child protection. By supporting a family in which there is substantial drug or alcohol abuse by parents or carers in the family, such children become the parents themselves. We have had debates on the issue. Those young carers are in need of child protection. In dealing with a disastrous, destructive situation within the family, they grow old beyond their years.

I welcome the report and acknowledge that, as other members have said, the underlying issues are often deprivation and poverty. That is why, given my portfolio, I asked to speak in the debate. Many of the children who are affected will recycle what has happened in previous generations in their area.

The protection and welfare of children are everyone's business: they are the concern of all sectors that deal with children and of the wider community. It is the Parliament's responsibility to ensure that we get all aspects of child protection legislation right and that all in our communities are aware of their responsibilities.

Robert Brown and others have mentioned the stark figure that one in 56 children lives with drug-misusing parents, which I will focus on. There is no doubt that that discovery was a shock for the Education Committee. We cannot deal with such issues without joining up our consideration with that of other issues, such as kinship care. We need to deal with the way in which we treat the grandparents and other family members who look after the children of drug-misusing parents. One of the best ways of protecting those children is to ensure that they are with the people who can care appropriately for them. There is a link between the way in which we treat those grandparents and other family members and the way in which we look after our children and secure the best interests of our children.

It is important that we look at the kind of treatment that we offer to drug-misusing parents. If it is possible to get those parents into the system so that they can receive proper treatment, the children of those families can also be dealt with in the system. It is crucial that those children are not alienated from the system.

A range of treatments needs to be made available for drug-misusing parents. One of those treatments must be offered at the point of need in community-based rehabilitation facilities. People do not want to be put on a waiting list and to be told, "We will put you on a maintenance programme when a space becomes available. When that happens, we will bring you in and put you in touch with the rest of the services." That is not good enough.

I welcome the extra money that Cathy Jamieson has put into the drug misuse field and I hope that it will be well used. I also hope that some of that money can be used for the community-based rehab that can also make a great impact on the protection of our children and young people.

Would it be a good idea if the children's panels were to be given powers—

Mr Harper, will you please speak into your microphone?

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. Should we compel drug-abusing parents to accept the help that is now readily available to them?

I would accept that, but the crucial thing is that the facilities need to be available in the community. At the moment, the problem is that the system is not made available across the board; we have pockets with good facilities and others in which they are lacking. We need to invest in those facilities.

The children's hearings system has a huge role to play, but its resources have to be got right too. Panels need to be able to make referrals and to deal with issues as they crop up.

We should not tie the hands of social services. I welcome the recruitment of social workers and all the efforts that are being made to bring social workers into the front line. That said, we have a long way to go. I ask the minister to update the chamber on where we are on that issue—many members would like to be given such an update.

I am keen to make clear the issue of low morale in social services, particularly in the family support field. As members, we have a job to do in the way in which we value social workers. We must ensure that we do not subscribe to the blame culture: too often, we blame someone when something goes wrong. We need to look at the whole system, see where resources are being directed and ensure that social workers are supported properly in their jobs. At the moment, we have some shortages and we need to look at that issue.

It is important that people are geared up to be able to undertake the cross-sector and cross-agency working that has been put in place and will be implemented. However, without resources, we will not succeed. A shortage of social workers means that existing staff will not be able to get into dialogue with people in other agencies. All members are aware that that good dialogue is one of the main things that we want to see happen. Social workers need to be able to talk to colleagues in education, health and other sectors.

I welcome the training that has been introduced—I am thinking in particular of the Disclosure Scotland checks—but, that said, I have some comments to make on the subject. The commencement of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 has not instilled confidence in many areas of the voluntary sector. Although the sector is strongly supportive of the principles that lie behind the act, people believe that there is a lack of clarity in a number of areas including the scope of the act; who the responsible person in a group would be; risk assessment in respect of supervised access by volunteers or staff who are going through the checking process; and the regularity of checks. Voluntary organisations are alarmed that the commencement of the act is being rushed through the Parliament without a regulatory impact assessment being undertaken. I would like to hear the minister's views on that. It is important that we allay the fears of the voluntary sector about the implementation of the act. I have had many inquiries from the sector, and I would like to give it answers. I hope that we will get some of those answers today.

I welcome what is happening with "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" and I hope that we can move forward and maintain momentum.

I welcome this debate and the report by the Education Committee. I also welcome the rapid response by the ministers to the concerns that were raised by the voluntary sector when the implementation of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 was at risk of getting into a muddle.

We seem to have a disease whereby we inevitably go over the top with any good cause. Obviously, protecting children is a good cause, but we have gone seriously over the top in dealing with it. I support Ken Macintosh's speech and the examples that he gave. If he would like to start a stop going over the top cross-party group, I will sign on for it. It is a serious point that we get such things wrong.

Who is covered by the legislation? Issues arise around the fringes of people who are dealing with young people. I waded through 145 pages of the glossy guide and training pack for the voluntary sector on the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. I may have missed something, but it states:

"One definition of a ‘child care' position is:

‘A position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children.'"

Being one of three adults in a walking bus should not be relevant. I know that everyone goes over the top in interpreting things, and that anyone who comes within 100 miles of a child in an official or voluntary position has to be covered by people's interpretation of the 2003 act, but that is ridiculous. We should be looking more at cousins, grandparents, uncles and other such people, who cause much more trouble than do others.

What are we to do about occasional helpers, such as people who are seconded from their employment for a week to help a voluntary organisation, parents who once a month drive some children to a football match, people on PTAs, and people who help a bit in voluntary organisations? Are they to be covered or not? Common sense must be brought to bear.

Another factor that leads to a lack of common sense is the insurance industry, which Robert Brown mentioned. Ministers should be able to liaise with the insurance industry so that a little bit of intelligence comes into the whole business and the voluntary sector is not held to ransom.

Penalties for managers, which mean that anyone who allows someone to slip through the net can go to jail, are excessive. If they wickedly connive at helping a paedophile into a job, it is fair enough that they should go to jail, but if they are merely slightly incompetent—as all of us are—the threat of jail because of minor administrative mismanagement is ridiculous. That measure is a disease—exactly the same provision occurs in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill, which we are examining at the moment. What about some of the civil servants who write such stuff going to jail for mismanagement and administrative incompetence? That would be more sensible. We have to examine that.

There is also the issue of repeated vetting. We need something like a credit card, so that once a person has been vetted he or she can have a card that is valid for one or two years and then has to be renewed. Repeated vetting is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. There is also a management problem in telling staff that they have not qualified. Whether the case involves a voluntary manager telling volunteers or a paid person telling paid staff, the human rights aspect must be examined, because people could be found guilty without a trial.

We must have proportionality. Serious attention should be paid to people who run residential homes—they are important and must be vetted—but people in the peripheral voluntary sector should not have to go through the system to give the odd bit of help to a voluntary organisation.

During the debate in the Parliament on child protection on 13 November 2003, I referred to the tragic and preventable event that prompted the Executive's review of child protection. That was the murder of one of my constituents, the three-year-old Kennedy McFarlane, on 17 May 2000 by her mother's partner, Thomas Duncan. The murder happened despite the fact that staff at her playgroup had raised concerns and despite the fact that she had been admitted to hospital many times suffering from a range of injuries. The collaboration between agencies was not sufficient to allow action to be taken on the concerns. Although a case conference was called, the girl was dead before it took place. The subsequent inquiry by Dr Hammond identified a lack of effective communication between the agencies that ought to have protected that little girl as the key contributory factor in the failure to prevent her murder.

I make no apology for referring to that tragedy again, because we must keep remembering that if we and the various agencies that operate with us fail to get the protection of children right, terrible and tragic events can occur. That is why Labour's manifesto for the Scottish parliamentary elections stated:

"The measure of the society we are building will be the quality of the protection it offers our children."

In March 2001, when Jack McConnell was the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, he commissioned a review of child protection services throughout Scotland, following the inquiry into Kennedy McFarlane's death. The review resulted in the report "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", which was published in 2002 and made 18 recommendations. The Education Committee's purpose in conducting an inquiry was to try to find out how well the recommendations were being implemented. Unfortunately, in the period between the commissioning of the review and the publication of the report, a number of other children were murdered, which reinforced the need to ensure that we get the system right. As has been said, the committee's report was published in July last year. The Executive, in responding to the committee at the end of September, accepted and welcomed the majority of the committee's recommendations. I pay tribute to the way in which the Executive responded to some of the concerns that the committee raised.

Various other significant activities have been taking place. Members have referred to the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, the core provisions of which came into force at the beginning of this week. Of course, the act deals with people who work with children and does not address the sort of situation that caused Kennedy McFarlane's death. Other aspects of "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" address such situations. The minister referred to the report of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry, which was commissioned in the wake of the tragic murders of the Soham girls. Those murders would have been prevented by the sort of provisions that are contained in the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. The report of that inquiry was published on 22 June 2004 and, as the minister said, a progress report has just been placed in the House of Commons library.

Members have raised a number of issues, including the time that is taken for disclosures to be issued and the serious problems that occurred in September and October. Part of the problem was that basic disclosures were being carried out for the Department for Transport in relation to employees at airports because of security issues. At that time, the Education Committee was concerned that people who had not gone through the disclosure process might be working with children. We received assurances from a number of agencies that such people would not work unsupervised, but we were concerned about the issue. Since then, Disclosure Scotland has taken action to reduce the waiting list: it has doubled the number of telephone lines from 10 to 20 and it has created an e-mail address, which I have used on behalf of constituents. Those measures have helped to improve the situation.

Donald Gorrie and others mentioned the problem of multiple disclosures. We have heard stories about people who volunteer with more than one organisation or who move from one registered body to another. People must register separately for each post, or, if they change jobs, they have to go back to the beginning and register again. Bichard's recommendation 19 was that a central register be set up of all persons who wish to work with children. In a sense, that proposal is the other side of the coin from the measures in the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, because the recommendation relates to people who have been disclosure checked and who want to work with children. The proposal is to produce a licence or card for people to take to prospective employers to show that they have been disclosure checked, which might get over some of the present problems.

Ken Macintosh referred to the problems of erring on the side of caution. That is understandable. Agencies need to be sensible, and there is a role for the Executive and its officials in working with local authorities. There has been a bit of an overreaction. We can understand why people and local authorities might overreact, given some of the stories and concerns that are around, but officials need to work with authorities and the voluntary sector to ensure that a proportionate response is given.

The Executive responded to the report, and it referred to the sort of circumstances that Ken Macintosh described. If an individual has occasional or short-term involvement with children, that is okay if the person who is leading the group has been disclosure checked. The problem with a walking bus is that, if nobody is disclosure checked, there can be no group leader. There is an issue there: it is possible that three bad characters could get together to take kids to school. That is very unlikely, but it is possible. Our response has to be proportionate—that is where the issues lie.

I am pleased to add my support to the Education Committee's report. We have made a commitment to do a bit of post-legislative scrutiny of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, which is important. We must ensure that legislation that the Parliament has passed, which involved the Executive responding to concerns from the committee—some of the measures came from the body of the Parliament—works in the way in which we all intended it to do when we passed it.

Listening to Kenneth Macintosh's remarks, I am reminded that one of the unintended consequences of the current legislation concerns situations involving a single parent trying to take, for example, a boy and a girl swimming.

In contributing to any committee debate, it is always an advantage to be a member of that committee, given the framework of reference and research. I take this opportunity to commend the Education Committee for its thorough and excellent report. In particular, I commend Robert Brown for reminding us of people such as Danielle Reid, who lived in Inverness.

I would not want there to be any negative impact on voluntary activities involving children and young people. I would highlight the need to maintain a balance between protecting children and avoiding an overcautious or bureaucratic approach. I noted Kenneth Macintosh's comment that there is a role for the Executive in sending out the message that, although the subject and the offence are serious, our measures are not aimed at penalising or criminalising members of the voluntary sector and in particular those volunteers who give up their time to work with young people.

The inherently complex issues of disclosure requirements, insurance and eligibility may well deter some people from supplying much-needed and valued volunteering. That would be ironic, given that 2005 has been proclaimed the year of the volunteer by the Executive.

I note the comment that the director of Community Service Volunteers Scotland made in The Herald last month. Referring to the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill, she said of ministers:

"They want to make it easier for people to volunteer but … it seems they are going to slow it down and make it far more complicated."

At the heart of all our deliberations should be a desire to strike the right balance between the protection of children and the encouragement of much-needed volunteering.

I received a copy of a letter that was sent from a water-sports facility in the Highlands, which is quite a small employer. It seems that many issues are still unclear. Those at the facility, like others, regarded the previous system as inadequate. The letter states:

"I have found the whole system so far to be quite poor in identifying persons we should not employ."

The person writing on behalf of the facility asks whether it is necessary for existing staff continually to reapply. One of the issues that has been raised in the Highlands, which I dare say applies elsewhere in Scotland, is whether we can be sure that the checks on the recruitment of staff from other European countries under the fresh talent or other recruitment initiatives can be as thorough as the checks that we will be carrying out in this country. That is an important point. Could such organisations and residential centres be informed fully of their responsibilities in the near future? That is particularly important because, given that the great majority of people who are employed in such areas have good intentions, the reputation of the many should not be tarnished by moves introduced to identify the few.

In the remaining couple of minutes of my speech, I will refer to the Education Committee's report to raise points that I do not think have been covered today. I have been crossing off quickly the points that other members have raised. Paragraph 15 states:

"The Committee is concerned that the momentum behind the child protection reform programme may be lost if there is not cross departmental commitment to supporting the Minister's commitment to child protection."

I certainly hope to get a reassurance about that.

Paragraph 16 notes that Unison raised the thorny problem of the lack of resources. It is obvious that little can be done unless there are adequate resources.

I turn, as Christine Grahame did, to the shortage of social workers. We have been considering and discussing the battle around that for five years. We should remember that we in this Parliament have passed significant legislation, which I fully support, including the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, requiring an enormous number of additional social workers and experienced social workers who might go on to become mental health officers. The shortage of social workers could be compounded by the legislation that we are passing.

When I was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee we worked on the Scottish Social Services Council. When I read in paragraph 20 of the Education Committee's report that it was concerned about the

"review of the recruitment criteria, training, remuneration and career progression available to social workers",

I wondered what part the council was playing in all this.

On a point that Christine Grahame raised, last week when I was working on a case to do with child safety, a social worker asked me, "What is your opinion?" In that moment I realised the critical judgment that social workers have to make day in, day out, which I do not envy, and I was extremely hesitant. We have to be sensitive to that and emphasise the point. I support the committee's excellent report and I was pleased to hear from Elaine Murray that the committee will audit and monitor the recommendations.

Today's debate has been both important and timely in that, with the commencement of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, it marks a key milestone on the road to creating a reformed child protection system that will ensure the welfare and safety of all children, particularly the most vulnerable in our society. Sadly, that system has failed too many children in the past, with tragic consequences, and Elaine Murray quite properly highlighted the faults in the system that led to Kennedy McFarlane's death.

Members throughout the chamber have expressed the concern, which we all share, that many of our children are exposed to abuse and neglect or have their lives and welfare blighted by adverse social conditions and poverty. We should never forget that improving children's services is fundamental to tackling the child protection issue.

This week's leak from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration that the inexorable rise in the number of children being referred for care and protection appears to be continuing unabated serves to underline the seriousness of and the dangers inherent in the current situation. It also serves to highlight the fact that we have a long way to go to fulfil the aspirations of "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright".

As the convener of the Education Committee said, the main concern that the committee had at the end of the inquiry was about maintaining the momentum for reform and translating policy objectives into on-the-ground reality. We identified key constraints as being the difficulties in establishing a child-centred approach through a genuine multi-agency approach and information sharing, and the chronic shortages of social workers—as mentioned by Mary Scanlon and Christine Grahame—and particularly of front-line staff to work with children and families. It is not just a question of the shortage of social workers in general; there is a problem relating to the fact that many of the most experienced staff are under the greatest pressure and are more susceptible to the possibility of going for a promoted post elsewhere. That problem needs to be addressed. Of course, the need for early intervention is important. We have to ensure that the support that is needed in order to deliver early intervention is not being siphoned off to further other agendas such as the youth justice agenda that Fiona Hyslop mentioned.

As others have mentioned, previously the main concern with Disclosure Scotland was the turnaround time for checks rather than the unintended consequences that the voluntary sector has brought to our attention in recent weeks. Not surprisingly, the debate has focused on that latter issue. Robert Brown, Rosemary Byrne, Ken Macintosh, Donald Gorrie and others have gone through the relevant issues including multiple disclosures, the provision of training and clearer guidance.

Although it is important that those concerns are addressed, the excellent briefing for the debate by Children 1st points out that there is a danger in focusing too much on disclosure checks as being the main way in which to protect children from dangerous adults. There is a concern that such a focus could give people false reassurance that it is someone else's job to ensure that children are all right. I would like to endorse the call by Children 1st for a public information programme to engage with adults and make individuals and communities much more aware of what they can and should do to protect our children and ensure their safety. I welcome the minister's announcement today of the pilot scheme and hope that it is rolled out across the country as soon as possible.

I welcome the support that Children 1st has given to the committee's recommendation that a single national child protection helpline should be established to ensure that concerns raised will be properly directed. There appears to be some confusion about whether we have such a helpline in place and I would be grateful if the minister could spend a little time telling us about the arrangements in that regard.

The work that Children 1st has done with sporting organisations shows the way in which the delivery of child protection training and the development of good practice can encourage volunteering by addressing the worries that people have about whether they are doing the right thing with children. I would be grateful to hear from the minister how the Executive intends to respond to the demand that all those working with children or providing direct services to children should receive mandatory child protection training. Indeed, I look forward to the minister's response to the many pertinent questions put by members today. I hope that he will assure us that the Executive will not be deflected from pursuing the child protection policies with vigour.

The report from the committee is welcome. It highlights a number of important issues in relation to the specific remit of the committee's inquiry into the progress of the recommendations of "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". I thank members for their efforts and acknowledge the work that was done by the many witnesses who gave evidence and by the organisations that made written submissions. The report also provides a welcome opportunity to focus on our child protection reform agenda. The Executive is determined that we should have the best possible system and that it should command the widest support and respect that can be achieved.

We heard some valuable and useful contributions during the debate. In responding, I want first to reaffirm what Peter Peacock said in his opening speech. It is important to see all individual pieces of work and initiatives in child protection in the context of our on-going reform programme. We are taking the lead on the key elements of work in which we have a clear role to play and we are involving external agencies and expertise, where we can, across the piece. Protecting children and improving outcomes for them requires commitment from all of us, but particularly from those who are responsible for the delivery agencies, who need to ensure that they continuously monitor, evaluate and improve the systems and services for which they are responsible.

As I said, there have been many valuable contributions to the debate, and I will pick up on some of the points that have been made. First, in Brian Monteith's absence, I welcome his support for many of our objectives and for the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. I agree that the emphasis must now switch to implementation. To pick up one of the points that Fiona Hyslop made about children's services plans, we issued the integrated children's services planning guidance on 11 November 2004 and we think that it has been well received.

Donald Gorrie mentioned insurance and, depending on availability, I hope to be able to meet people in the insurance industry before I get back to the committee to discuss the points that he and other members made. He and Ken Macintosh rightly emphasised the importance of guidance and proportionality in disclosure checks and they said that the fringe groups, as they put it, in the voluntary sector need to know where advice is available and readily accessible. I am pleased to say that work on the guidance is being taken forward. I believe that there will be a meeting next Monday of relevant bodies and organisations to ensure that what is necessary is delivered as quickly as possible.

Mary Scanlon made an important point, which I would like to take away, about people who come from overseas to work here. I need to check, but I think that they are subject to criminal record checks. I would like to give further consideration to whether there are issues there and whether we need to enhance those checks. I will write to the committee and to Mary Scanlon on that in due course.

I turn briefly to the remarks that a number of members made about social workers. It is helpful that the report includes the committee's thanks, which were echoed today by Robert Brown in particular, for the efforts of social workers. Many social workers deliver a wonderful service and they do so unsung, so it is important that that is recognised.

I will talk briefly about the importance of what has been described as chronology. We fully recognise the importance of key events being recorded and accessible, and we made that clear in the framework for standards. Information must be relevant and available across agencies. That is a key component in the development of the integrated assessment framework, which a group that is chaired by Professor Norma Baldwin is helping to take forward. The group has provided some proposals, which have been discussed by the expert reference group, and a paper will be issued for consultation shortly, following some further work.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I have a great deal to go through. I can perhaps pick up individual issues later.

The pilot on e-care, which is an information technology proposal, also includes chronology as an important component.

I turn to the child death and significant case reviews. As Peter Peacock indicated in his remarks, the child protection reform programme steering group has agreed an approach to take the matter forward and we will write to the committee with details of the membership, remit and timescales of the review group that is being set up as soon as we have those details.

Several members commented on the number of social workers. The number of social workers in children's services increased by 12 per cent in the year to November 2004. All 93 fast-track trainees who are about to graduate will move into children and families posts. Overall, the number of social workers has increased by 35 per cent since 2000—the up-to-date figures that I have show an increase from 3,213 to 4,703 whole-time equivalents. Total local authority social work expenditure has risen from £1.069 billion in 1996-97 to £1.61 billion in 2002-03. We recognise that the demand for social work services has also increased significantly and that a continuing commitment to the sector will be required. An action programme has been in place since 2002 to address workforce issues, and there will be a chance to come back to that later.

At the peak of the backlog in the summer, which was unacceptable, the number of staff at Disclosure Scotland doubled to 153. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the improvements that have been made, the latest figure for staffing is 93 and the average processing time is 4.53 days at Disclosure Scotland. However, there seems to be some delay further up the system, which needs to be looked into. For example, it takes 32 days from the signing of the form to its receipt at Disclosure Scotland. We must work together to find out why that cannot be reduced.

In the 30 seconds that remain to me, I can confirm that we are moving ahead on a number of other important measures to improve the protection of children. Those include information sharing and a common assessment framework; the review of the children's hearings system; work in relation to children of drug and alcohol-misusing parents; follow-through on the national group to address violence against women; the management of sex offenders; the introduction of the violent offender and sex offender register—VISOR—system; and the implementation of the Cosgrove recommendations. As Peter Peacock said, we have introduced an internet grooming bill and we are improving support for child witnesses. The 21st century review of social work is also important. There are many integrated strands on which we will make progress in this area, which is important to the future of Scotland and in which we largely share a common agenda.

I welcome the speeches that have been made this afternoon, including the speeches of both ministers, and I am glad to have the opportunity to sum up what has been a constructive and important debate on the Education Committee's report. I declare my interest as chairman of the Edinburgh support group of the charity Hope and Homes for Children.

Having piloted the Children (Scotland) Bill through the House of Commons, I am whole-heartedly against the exploitation or abuse of children, who should at all times be well protected. Every Scottish schoolchild is told, at one stage or another, the gloomy tale of my Douglas ancestors who were invited to dinner in Edinburgh Castle. When a boar's head was presented on a platter, that was the signal to take out the two young lads and stab them to death. That story alone made me whole-heartedly in favour of the prevention of cruelty to children.

Today, there has been a general consensus against waiting for accidents to happen and a general agreement that harmful acts to children must be prevented at all times. By that, I mean that those whose intentions towards children are not good should be thwarted at every twist and turn. We believe that we are right to take a firm and principled stance on the issue after the appalling outrages at Dunblane and Soham. We must learn from those tragedies and put in place a co-ordinated action plan that will not only work but stand the test of time.

In approaching this subject, we need to take firm and decisive action. At the same time, we must keep a sense of perspective and balance, which is what has been called for by Donald Gorrie and Dr Elaine Murray, who mentioned multiple disclosures. My understanding is that the Executive has asked officials to look into that issue and see what more efficient means might be considered to conduct checks that would contribute positively to the protection of vulnerable groups. Keeping a sense of balance is important to ensure that well-intentioned charities and voluntary organisations do not find themselves subject to difficult or oppressive demands or controls. Appropriate guidance for charities and voluntary organisations will be of tremendous importance, and I would be grateful if ministers could bear in mind the Education Committee's interest in the subject. I hope that they will respond positively if, at a suitable time, we make constructive representations.

In questions to the First Minister, I have already welcomed the creation of a telephone hotline, which I hope will be a single helpline, which will help to avoid unnecessary confusion or time being spent on minor issues. For example, if a child becomes unwell during playground activities and no teacher is available to take the child home, who should have authorisation to take the child? To a large extent, that is a matter of common sense, but a telephone helpline is invaluable in cases of doubt because persons who are in a position of responsibility simply will not be prepared to take risks, even in minor cases.

It might well be that enhanced disclosure checks are appropriate. Indeed, the Executive has advised that any adult who is in substantial, regular and unsupervised contact with children should be subject to an enhanced disclosure check before working with children. That includes volunteers and parent helpers in schools.

There are some circumstances in which it might be judged that the limited level of contact or degree of supervision in place means that the disclosure check is not necessary. That could be limited to such situations as the occasional involvement of someone as a helper or driver on an activity or day excursion in which other staff are disclosure checked and have received child protection training, and in which the adult will not take sole supervision of children; or the short-term involvement by an individual with a group of children during their excursion where the group continues to be supervised at all times by the group leader and staff who have been disclosure checked and trained in child protection.

I believe that care should be taken to consider suitable supervision for activities such as sports and swimming, personal assistance for disabled children and night-time care and safety during residential activities in which volunteers might be involved. In circumstances such as those, an enhanced disclosure check and child protection training should be considered to be essential.

However, many casual activities are undertaken by parents for children within schools that are an important part of parental involvement and a positive school ethos. It is therefore important to avoid taking a blanket approach to enhanced disclosure checking for parent helpers. It is on such issues as those that definite and clear guidance will be invaluable.

Disclosure Scotland gave evidence to the committee and concern was expressed at the time taken to provide the necessary disclosure certificates in a small number of cases, which could mean that the best person available was not being employed. We received reassurances that Disclosure Scotland has improved the rate at which it is dealing with applications and we seek reassurance from the Executive that the measures that were put in place over the summer to clear the backlog of cases will be accompanied by the necessary resources to cope with what might be a significant upsurge in the number of applications for disclosure checks in the wake of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. Some estimates have put that number at 0.5 million and the ministers have given us helpful reassurances today.

The Executive has acknowledged the problem by deferring the implementation of sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b) of the act. In particular, section 11(3)(b) has been deferred for two reasons. The first is connected with the concerns expressed by the voluntary sector and others about the system's ability to deal with retrospective checks. The other reason is to do with the recommendation in the Bichard report that there should be a single registration scheme for all those who are regarded as suitable to work with children. That will require compatibility between systems and processes to avoid creating loopholes between the laws of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I understand that the deferment will be for at least three months, which will allow time for the leaflet that the voluntary sector has prepared to be distributed, and will enable the Executive to send out the additional leaflet helping people to make the initial assessment as to whether people are covered by the act.

In conclusion, I will make five recommendations. The first has been made by many members in the debate, including Christine Grahame and Mary Scanlon. We must encourage a greater employment of social workers. Many social workers of distinction have served as members of the Parliament. Trish Godman, Cathy Jamieson and Scott Barrie have all been closely associated with social work, as was Kay Ullrich in the first parliamentary session. The profession deserves appropriate recognition, which should come not just from the minister. We need a determined recruitment drive. Social work is a tremendously testing and difficult job, but it is fulfilling when done well.

Secondly, I echo the calls that were made by Brian Monteith and others about the database. It is in the public interest to ensure that the necessary information is transferred between police, local authority and health professionals.

Thirdly, we need a sense of balance between the rights of children and the rights of those who work with children. It will be helpful if the Executive monitors the effectiveness both of the investigation of frivolous or vexatious referrals and of the appeals procedure.

My fourth request is that the Executive ensures that the guidance and support that are offered to the voluntary sector are extremely helpful. The guidance must not deter young persons and adults from being activists, contributors and volunteers. After all, 2005 is the year of the volunteer.

Finally, I suggest that the Education Committee should review the implementation of the act and the implications of retrospective checks so that everything possible is done to deal with what could be a huge upsurge in the number of applications for disclosure checks.

Our clear purpose must be to protect children and young people—they are our country's future—in a way that is acceptable to those in the voluntary sector whose intentions are good, worthy and honourable. I am glad to recommend that the Parliament takes note of the committee's report.