Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09050, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
19:34
Presiding Officer, thank you for the update on the curling—that was welcome news.
I am pleased to open this stage 3 debate. I start by thanking everyone who has been involved in the development and scrutiny of this landmark piece of legislation. In particular, I thank the three parliamentary committees for their detailed examination of the bill—not least, the Education and Culture Committee, following four three-hour stage 2 meetings and a five-hour stage 3 meeting. Its careful and balanced consideration of the proposals has resulted in a bill that captures better the principles that Parliament endorsed at stage 1. I am genuinely appreciative of committee members’ work.
I also thank everyone who responded to our consultation and all who have been involved in the bill’s development—especially the 2,400 children and young people and the 1,500 parents who shared their views. I also record my thanks and gratitude to all the Government officials who have worked absolutely tirelessly and with dedication on the bill. I sincerely appreciate their very hard and fine work.
We have listened carefully to all that has been said. Since day 1, that collaborative approach has allowed the bill to evolve into an extraordinary piece of legislation that will convey our aspirations to improve the wellbeing of our children and to help make Scotland the best place to grow up.
The legislation will place our commitment to the early years on a statutory basis. It will do that as much through our proposals to transform early learning and childcare as it will through requiring children’s services plans to demonstrate early intervention and primary prevention.
Through the named person provision, the bill will put in place a universal approach to promoting, supporting and safeguarding every child’s wellbeing by working with families. The named person—albeit that the provision is not supported by everyone—will be the single point of contact that parents told us they wanted, and whose job will be to ensure that children, young people and their families get the support they need when they need it.
The bill will, through our care and aftercare provisions, change how our most vulnerable children and young people make the very difficult transition through and out of care when the time is right for them, by ensuring that there is appropriate support at every stage on the way.
We are placing a duty on local authorities to provide services to families where there is a risk that a child will become looked after. We are also supporting the invaluable work of kinship carers by requiring authorities to provide assistance to carers of a child who is at risk of becoming looked after. We are strengthening the impact that corporate parenting can make and we are helping the children who need to proceed to adoption by making use of the national adoption register compulsory. The bill puts children’s rights at the heart of the public sector and government for the first time. It will ensure that ministers assess all future decisions against the rights of children, and will require public bodies to embed rights in the front-line services that our children and families rely on day in, day out.
Those overall intentions have not changed during the bill’s progress; what has changed is how the bill can achieve the intentions. We welcomed and put forward many suggestions for improvement at stage 2; that was the result of a shared recognition of the importance of the legislation and our common ambitions.
As I have always said, the bill is a starting point for the expansion of early learning and childcare. This is the first time that flexibility and choice have been put on a statutory footing. The bill sets the stage for our longer-term aim to develop high quality flexible early learning and childcare that are accessible and affordable for all children, parents and families.
We have always intended, through secondary legislation, to open out entitlement where it is affordable to do so. Therefore, I was absolutely delighted that the First Minister announced on 7 January that we will from August this year increase the entitlement of free early learning and childcare to two-year-olds in families that are workless or seeking work, which is 15 per cent of that age group. That will be followed in August 2015 by extension to two-year-olds who meet the free school meals criteria, which is 27 per cent of two-year-olds, or more than 15,000 children. That is a phased sustainable expansion of early learning and childcare to more vulnerable two-year-olds. We are focusing first on families who are most in need and who will benefit most from the expansion of funded hours. That will not only improve the life chances of children, but will provide opportunities for parents and families to benefit from support into training or sustainable employment.
In the Scottish Government’s white paper, “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, we have set out phased plans to achieve 1,140 hours a year for all children aged between one and five, starting with an increase to half of all two-year-olds. The expansion that is set out in the bill will be a significant step towards realising that vision.
In addition, on 7 January the First Minister announced that all schoolchildren in primary 1 to primary 3 will from January 2015 receive free school meals. The benefits to children and families will be significant and have been commented on.
I congratulate the minister and Parliament on coming to a sensible decision on free school meals—in particular, on the decision to make provision universal. I can talk from experience about how that will benefit children. A child whose family cannot afford school meals but who receives a meal anonymously will eat the meal, rather than withdrawing and going away because they are likely to get bullied. Children who really need good square meals will get them, and they will be healthy for the rest of their lives, because of Parliament’s decision to act in this way.
I thank Gil Paterson for his intervention. The benefits to children and families are significant, not least because the approach will tackle issues to do with stigmatisation of children who access free school meals, as he said. It will improve the health and wellbeing of children and it will mean a saving of around £330 a year per child for the families who will benefit. Through today’s amendments in the name of Adam Ingram, who has been committed to the policy, we intend to give ministers the power to place a duty on local authorities to provide free school lunches.
The bill’s positive impact on young people who are or who have been in care has grown. We were mindful of the Education and Culture Committee’s request that we give further consideration to aftercare. We worked closely with key organisations—in particular Who Cares? Scotland, the Aberlour Child Care Trust and Barnardo’s Scotland—and we introduced a suite of new measures in support of continuing care.
Members will be aware that on 6 January I announced that, starting in 2015, 16-year-olds in foster care, kinship care or residential care will have the right to stay in care up to the age of 21, before receiving aftercare. The changes will give young people in care the same opportunities that their non-looked-after peers enjoy. We have been delighted with the positive feedback that we have received since I announced the package of measures. Duncan Dunlop, the chief executive of Who Cares? Scotland said that the number of
“young care leavers who will benefit from these changes is significant and I don’t know of any other country in the world that has made a commitment like this”.
It is good to hear that we are in the vanguard when it comes to improving the life chances of young care leavers.
I pay tribute to the looked-after care leavers who, from the start, articulated their desire to make things better for future generations of care leavers. Their positive mark has been left on the bill for ever and they should feel incredibly proud of what they have achieved.
Some amendments to the bill have helped us to realise our goals more effectively, not least as we place on statute key elements of the getting it right for every child approach. Working closely with key stakeholders, we listened and gave careful consideration to concerns around the provisions on the named person and information sharing. On the basis of feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, the provisions have been amended so that professionals will be clearer about when and how to share information in a way that will always put the child’s best interests at heart, working with parents. The Law Society of Scotland and the Information Commissioner’s Office wrote to the Education and Culture Committee to give broad support to the amendments in my name.
New measures have also been introduced to reflect needs that have arisen since the bill was introduced. Existing legislation on school closures has been strengthened through a number of amendments to the school closure proposals consultation process under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. A school closure can be significant and incredibly disruptive for the children, parents and communities who are affected. It is clear that the 2010 act has not been operating satisfactorily for the people who have been affected or for education authorities. For that reason, and in response to recommendations from the commission on the delivery of rural education, amendments were agreed to that will benefit all who are involved in and affected by school closures.
Fundamentally, the bill will bring about transformational change for Scotland’s children and young people. We should be proud that we will today pass legislation that will improve the lives of our children.
Beyond the individual elements of the bill, perhaps its most important achievement lies in its title: it is a bill for the children and young people of Scotland. Over the past year, Parliament has given the whole wellbeing of children and young people its full intense consideration. We have demonstrated that we are not complacent when it comes to finding ways of improving the lives of all children and young people, and that we will continue to put their rights and wellbeing at the centre of Scottish political life.
We may not agree on all aspects of how best to promote, support and safeguard the wellbeing of children and young people, but in a year in which the people of Scotland are being asked to consider the nation’s future, it is a mark of our national maturity that we place such a high priority on the next generation. For those reasons, it gives me enormous pleasure to move the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Unsurprisingly, we are extraordinarily tight for time, so less would be more.
19:45
I was struck by the fact that Aileen Campbell said that the bill would bring about
“transformational change for Scotland’s children”.
Her back benchers have been telling us for weeks and months that we need independence if we are to deliver transformational change.
Aw!
Those are the words that the minister used. She admitted that devolution can bring about such change.
At the beginning of the process, Labour set out to improve the bill in three key areas. We believe that we have worked positively and constructively throughout the process. We said that we wanted to improve the provisions on care leavers, on childcare and on kinship care.
I will start with the good stuff. I have been profoundly moved by the experiences of care leavers whom I have met during the bill’s passage. I have been moved not only by the stories of their lives, what they have had to live through and what they have seen with eyes so young, but by their resolute determination to ensure that no child will ever again have a life like the one that they have had. The Government has moved quite considerably on aftercare and support for care leavers, and we have taken many steps towards providing a more equal Scotland for care leavers.
However, as I said during consideration of amendments, more needs to be done. The minister talked about a working group, but I would like an independent cross-party commission to be set up. I believe that it could look at the root causes of children ending up in care and at why doing nothing costs the state. It could examine how much doing nothing costs our criminal justice system and our health service. It could look specifically at the mental health, drug and alcohol problems that care leavers suffer from, and it could investigate the number of premature deaths in the care-leaver population.
Such a commission could also investigate education—more specifically, the educational attainment of care leavers and their progress into tertiary education. It could consider wider economic issues, such as the percentage of the more choices, more chances group who are care leavers and the number of care leavers who are economically inactive.
I mention all that with the support of the whole of the care-leaver sector. I am referring to all the organisations that have an active interest in the issue, which include Barnardo’s, the Aberlour Child Care Trust and Who Cares? Scotland. The children whom we are talking about are Scotland’s children—our children. There are no politics in this; we need a cultural shift and a national debate about the scandal of the life expectancy and the life chances of care leavers in Scotland today.
Regardless of who is in power and what the constitutional settlement is, the problems remain. We should unite across Parliament and commit to addressing the issue together. I would welcome it if the minister did not respond to my request now. I ask her to think about it, and I will write to her to outline exactly what could be involved in the process that I have proposed. I will provide her with details of the support that exists across the sector for such work.
I turn to childcare. We welcome the increased support that is to be provided for two-year-olds. We also welcome the provision for three and four-year-olds, although we simply cannot forget the fact that the Scottish National Party first promised such provision back in 2007. There are thousands of children who were not born when the SNP first made its promise and who are now too old to benefit from it.
That takes me to after-school care. Labour pushed its amendment because we understand the challenges that families face in accessing good-quality affordable childcare outside of school hours. That problem has been worsened by the SNP Government’s failure to fully fund local authorities, which has led to non-statutory services such as breakfast clubs and after-school clubs being the first services to go.
All those points were made by Cara Hilton in excellent remarks at the amendment stage. Cara Hilton is still counting the weeks for which she has been a member of the Parliament; she is still learning and is still familiarising herself with the standing orders, while Bruce Crawford has years of experience at the highest level of parliamentary business. I therefore took great exception to what he said. He knows better than anyone that he was expected to address the amendment in question. To make such a direct and personal attack on Cara Hilton for merely speaking the truth was ugly and a real low point in this afternoon’s debate.
That was the real low point right there—slagging off someone who is not in the chamber.
I hear a sedentary comment that I am
“slagging off someone who is not in the chamber.”
I am afraid that it is Mr Crawford’s choice not to be here just now, and I have to say that I really took exception to the point that he made.
Today dozens of people were outside Parliament, very angry because seven years on from when the UK Government gave the Scottish Government money to address the disparity in the kinship care system, they are still waiting. There is undoubtedly a postcode lottery with regard to kinship care in Scotland. There are different definitions of what it means to be a kinship carer, different eligibility criteria and different systems of recompense and financial support for people who are looking after children whose parents are simply unable to look them themselves. Those people are doing a great act of public service every single day and all they are asking for is the money to make ends meet. I really do not think that that is too much to ask. I regret that we have not been able to address the issue today, but I am sure that we will return to it in the future.
Although the Labour Party supported the named person principle at stages 1 and 2, we were not uncritical of it and raised serious points that people in the sector had made about the degree to which it will be resourced. I believe very strongly that the Scottish National Party Government has failed to advocate its own policy effectively enough; it could have done a much better job in that respect. It has failed to justify the policy in the months up to today, and I am afraid to say that today it has failed again to do so, which is a real shame. It means that the guidance on implementation of the named person provisions will really matter, so I urge the Government in the strongest terms to take considerable care over that.
In the minute that I have left, I want to say that this has been a day of promises unkept, with a real failure to tell us the bill’s true costs. Despite its promises to do so, the Government has failed to provide details of the financial review of kinship care. The Government has so far had seven years to deliver on its promise of 600 hours of childcare; we are still waiting for it to happen.
The Government has also failed to say what all of the bill’s provisions will cost. There has been no attempt to quantify the costs of expanding nurseries to deliver on the childcare commitments, or the costs of free school meals and what that will mean for the policy’s delivery in schools. There is an arrogance and incompetence about the Government this afternoon. It has been arrogant in its justification or explanation for what it is doing with regard to the named person provisions. After all, it has the votes, so why should it tell the people about what it is trying to do? It has been incompetent in its failure to detail what all this will cost. If the Government cannot provide the figures for what it plans to do now, how can we expect any of its figures for an independent Scotland to balance or add up?
In my remaining seconds, I want to thank all the organisations, in particular Children in Scotland and Barnardo’s, for everything that they have done to support Labour members in preparing for this process. After the robust discussions that we have had today, I am very glad to support the bill.
19:52
I think that the chamber is very well versed on the Scottish Conservatives’ approach to the bill.
From the outset, we have been very supportive of the majority of intentions in the bill, most especially those that will improve care for our most vulnerable children, those that will expand childcare and kinship care, and those that address the failings within the existing school closures legislation. We have been very happy to ensure—and, I hope, very diligent in ensuring—that those aspects of the bill have been improved and, as such, will deliver better opportunities and support for our young people. We were particularly supportive of measures to expand a collaborative approach across most aspects of children’s services and measures to ensure more effective delivery.
We have been very methodical and consistent in our approach to the bill, critically examining each aspect against important criteria: the likely practical changes on the ground when it comes to the best way of improving the chances of young people across Scotland; cost; and what we see as the most important priorities in an economic environment in which resources are constrained. I will come back to those criteria in a minute.
Our judgments have been part of a process made lengthy and difficult by the complexities of a bill that covers so many related but nonetheless very diverse topics and the fact that, as with the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill, we have sometimes had to cope with less than perfect drafting, which has held us up at times.
From the very first evidence session, key sections of the bill were given a very tough time by legal experts, stakeholders concerned about some of the bill’s practicalities and those, such as the Scottish Conservatives, who objected to a certain centralising approach in some key sections. It is clear even now that, as far as the practical application of some aspects of the bill are concerned, there is still uncertainty about its provisions, most especially about its costs. Indeed, that is one reason why we could not accept a number of amendments earlier this afternoon.
Let me deal with the three sets of criteria against which we have judged the bill. First, when it comes to making a real, practical difference on the ground that we can be sure will improve the chances of young people, we were very conscious of the desire to look at the main principles of the bill under the term “wellbeing” rather than “welfare”, which is the usual terminology in law. The expectation was that that would bring a more holistic meaning to policy making, which I think has been accepted in theory, but I remain a little concerned as to how that will work in practice.
Several witnesses made the valid point that to really change the way that we operate we require a change of culture, not overly burdensome legislation. A few worries remain about some of the bill’s implications for professionals who work on the ground. Liam McArthur’s amendments on data sharing were designed to tackle that issue, as were some of Neil Bibby’s amendments and most certainly the Conservative ones on the named person.
Secondly, there was an important issue relating to cost. It is our firm belief that some of the costs inherent in the bill are sizeable and, as the Finance Committee observed, are not as the Government would intend. I will cite some comments from the Finance Committee.
I referred earlier to Kenny Gibson’s point that beyond year 1 the bill’s provisions have not been properly costed. The implication is that there will be some funding shortfalls. Gavin Brown said that it seems counterintuitive that the training can just be squeezed into existing training with absolutely no cost, including materials or other expense. He also made the very good point that, although the Education and Culture Committee took evidence from Highland region, we cannot necessarily compare that to areas of Glasgow or other parts that perhaps have a higher incidence of deprivation. Michael McMahon also said:
“From the evidence that we have received, the best estimates from NHS boards, children’s charities, local government bodies and foster care organisations all say that your best estimates are wrong.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 18 September 2013; c 2994.]
It therefore seems to me that some serious questions remain about the funding of the bill and that we still have some problems to resolve regarding the revised financial memorandum.
Thirdly, and not unrelated to the cost issue, there is the matter of priorities. Everyone accepts that tough choices have to be made and that it is impossible to do everything that we might like. Instead, we must weigh up the costs and benefits of different options and, indeed, the opportunity costs of not pursuing something. We have seen party lines split on that issue.
I will not go back over all our arguments about our two fundamental objections regarding the named person policy and the fact that the Government seems very unwilling to address the anomalies in the provision of nursery care.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will do many good things, but it has some seriously misplaced priorities. The Scottish Conservatives have been frustrated and disappointed that the Scottish Government has made no efforts to address those concerns. It has not engaged particularly well with some of the stakeholders and Opposition parties.
As a result of that, our considered approach is that we will not give the bill our whole-hearted support. We will make a principled abstention this afternoon. We do not want the bill to fall, but nonetheless we cannot support a bill that includes the named person and does not address the issue of nursery provision.
We now move to open debate. Time is extremely tight and speeches should be no more than four minutes.
19:58
This is a good bill and a positive contribution to Scottish society. It is positive for families and particularly positive for children and young people, so I am rather disappointed by some of the contributions so far.
I thank all those who gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee, particularly the young people who did so, and I thank my fellow committee members for their efforts and the clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their very able assistance during the passage of the bill.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill is comprehensive, and I would like to focus on several important parts of it in my short speech. Like many MSPs, I have had a number of people contact me about the named person provision. I am disappointed that the provision has been somewhat misrepresented and misunderstood, and I am grateful to the minister for taking the time to write to MSPs to clarify what the Scottish Government hopes to achieve through the bill.
The named person provision will ensure that vulnerable children are better protected and that families and carers are given greater support if required. I strongly refute any suggestion that the provision will result in a snooper’s charter that undermines the role of parents. In fact, the majority of evidence that the committee received showed support for the measure, which will provide a clear point of contact for parents and carers. The named person provision builds on the getting it right for every child approach, which was introduced by the previous Executive and which has already been implemented in some parts of the country.
Evidence from the Highland Council pathfinder model shows that the named person approach can work well. More than a dozen children’s charities and organisations back the proposals. The fact that so many charities that are committed to improving the lives of children strongly support the introduction of the named person approach suggests to me that it is the right thing to do. The proposal does not mean having a social worker for every child, and it is in no way intended to usurp the role of parents and carers. If it was usurping the role of parents and carers, I believe that nobody in the chamber would support it, and I certainly would not. That is not what is happening; instead, the named person will provide support when needed by a family and will assist with early recognition of where children are at risk in order to prevent them from coming to harm.
The fact is that most children will never need the named person, and the majority of families will be unaffected by the change. However, the measure will ensure that a point of contact is available to provide support to families that need it. I welcome the minister’s assurances that parents who do not want to engage with the named person will be under no obligation to do so. I believe that the Scottish Government has worked well with stakeholders and has struck the right balance in the bill between protecting privacy and ensuring a child’s safety and wellbeing. It is clear to me that the implementation of GIRFEC across Scotland is a positive step forward that will help to ensure that child welfare continues to be prioritised and that no child who needs support is left without it.
I want to talk a little about data sharing. Highland Council’s written evidence highlighted that the named person role has put in place a clear process by which information about a child is passed to the right person. Improved information sharing between health, education, justice and social work services for vulnerable youngsters is to be welcomed. Better co-ordination of public services will help to ensure that relevant information is shared in a more targeted way and only under the right circumstances, when an appropriate need is identified. Because of that, it is expected that less information will be passed around, rather than more, as has been demonstrated by the pathfinder in Highland. The minister has also clarified that, contrary to what has been reported, there is no plan to introduce a national database of children’s personal information—that is yet another scare story that has been spread about the bill.
I am delighted that the bill will deliver a positive change for care leavers by allowing young people in care to receive support for longer. Martin Crewe, the director of Barnardo’s, has said that the changes represent “the biggest shake-up” in the sector for two decades and will help to “transform the lives” of some of Scotland’s most vulnerable young people.
I am delighted that we will pass the bill today, as it will have a positive impact on Scotland’s children and young people. All members really should support the bill at decision time.
I call Alex Rowley, to be followed by Liam McArthur. Members will wish to note that this is Mr Rowley’s first speech in the chamber.
20:02
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
This is my first speech since being elected to the Scottish Parliament. I begin it by saying that it is with great sadness that I am here today, for it was the untimely death of Helen Eadie MSP that caused the by-election in the Cowdenbeath constituency. During that by-election, it was clear in all the towns and villages that make up the constituency that Helen was held in the highest regard and that everyone knew someone whom Helen had helped. Helen spent her life fighting injustice and inequality, and I make it my aim to continue that work.
I speak in this debate on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill because I am convinced that, in the Cowdenbeath area and across the country, we must focus more support and resources on the early years of a child’s life if we want that child to have the best chance of good health, prosperity and success throughout their life.
The bill includes provision on free school meals. In my constituency, free school meals entitlement is used as a robust indicator of poverty and deprivation. Under the current entitlement, which is based on low income, it is stark that at one end of the Cowdenbeath constituency we have Aberdour, where 1 per cent of primary 1 to 3 pupils qualify for free school meals, while at the other end we have Ballingry, where more than 50 per cent of such children qualify. Since 2007, across the constituency, there has been an increase of 7 per cent in the number of children of that age group who are entitled to free school meals.
Although I support free school meals, what I really believe is more important for the health and wellbeing of children in Cowdenbeath and elsewhere is to tackle the underlying causes of poverty, social inequality and deprivation. One key way out of poverty is employment, and a key barrier to employment for many families is a lack of affordable childcare.
Although the bill makes progress with an additional 125 hours of nursery education, which in the Cowdenbeath constituency amounts to half an hour a day extra for each child, it is far short of a comprehensive childcare strategy that will meet the needs of children and families. However, that is what we need to put in place.
In Fife, we have seen an increase in the number of looked-after children in the care of the council, which went from 626 in 2006 to 855 in 2012—a 38 per cent increase. Today, the figure is over 900. It is a fact that there is a clear correlation between deprivation and children being taken into the care of the council. Last year, Fife Council set aside £7.8 million to focus on early years and family support for those families in the greatest need of that support. I am told that educationists, health visitors and social workers can identify children at an early age who are most likely to end up in the care system and in the most difficulty.
I support the bill because there are good things in it, but I am not sure that it will go far enough to address the major issues that I have outlined. Therefore, the message today must be that we need to be more ambitious for every child and to tackle at root the problems that hold back too many children and families across Scotland.
20:06
I have put on record my admiration for Helen Eadie and said how the Parliament is the poorer for her absence, but that should not be taken as a reflection on Alex Rowley’s obvious talents. I am sure that he will be an effective and assiduous advocate for his Fife constituents. I congratulate him on a very forceful maiden speech.
Like the convener, I put on record my thanks to the witnesses who gave evidence, provided briefings and supported the preparation of amendments to the bill. I thank the clerks and SPICe for their support and thank my colleagues on the Education and Culture Committee who, as the minister alluded to, put in a pretty herculean effort over the past few months.
The bill is wide ranging, and I have supported its principles from the outset, albeit that, like probably most members, I had concerns at the outset. Many of those have been addressed, but some perhaps less so. There have been considerable advances since stage 1, particularly in the provisions relating to aftercare for care leavers; the expansion of childcare for two-year-olds, which proves that we do not have to await the outcome of the vote on 18 September; and a more transparent and balanced system for dealing with possible rural school closures. Those are positive developments since stage 1.
An element of the process has felt somewhat unsatisfactory though. The minister talked of a collaborative approach, but at times it has been difficult to see the evidence for that, given that Opposition amendment after Opposition amendment was rejected. That was disappointing for those of us moving the amendments, but I think that it also struck many third sector organisations as somewhat surprising. I think that that has given rise to concerns about certain aspects of the bill, and I will touch on a couple of those.
I said earlier this afternoon that I still do not feel that we have made the advances in children’s rights that we should have made. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have pointed to that and even to the suggestion that there has been a dilution of children’s rights. The rejection of the incorporation of specific rights under articles 3 and 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the rejection of any reporting duties and the rejection of children’s rights impact assessments have not helped in that respect and probably help explain the view of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People that the bill represents a missed opportunity for children’s rights.
As I said earlier, I was initially sceptical about the named person policy, but the evidence that we received in committee, not least that on the Highland pathfinder experience, persuaded me of the benefits of the approach. However, concerns remain about resources. Education unions, the Royal College of Nursing and, indeed, the Finance Committee have expressed concerns about that. The named person policy has practical implications as well, and I pointed to those when moving amendments earlier in stage 3, particularly in relation to the exchange of information and the lack of explicit consent. The Government rejected amendments on the limiting of universality of the named person provision to those aged 16 and under and on the presumption in favour of explicit consent for information sharing, so we do not have the bill that we could have had, and I think that it has suffered as a result.
Notwithstanding those concerns, and despite an unduly dismissive attitude to any amendment that was not of Government origin, I firmly believe that the legislation will help to deliver real and significant benefits.
I will dwell on a couple of those benefits now. In relation to aftercare, during the stage 1 debate I welcomed the bill’s provisions on the support that will be available to those leaving the care system, but I emphasised where I felt that the Government could go further in extending aspects of aftercare and improving ways in which—
I need to ask you to close Mr McArthur.
—the eligibility for access to that would be determined. This is the area in which I feel most justifiably proud of what the bill has achieved. The committee can take justifiable pride in that, as can Parliament.
I cannot speak about the early years, but I think that that is another significant achievement of the bill, which we will support at decision time.
We move to the last two speakers in the open debate. I say to Joan McAlpine and George Adam that I cannot give them any more than three minutes.
20:10
I congratulate Alex Rowley on his maiden speech. I did not agree with everything that he said, but I welcome the tone in which he said it, and I share his commitment to comprehensive childcare. I suggest that the bill is only the start and that we need independence to cross the finishing line.
The bill has been widely praised for its ambition and commitment to improving the lives of children and families in Scotland. The briefing from Children 1st alone singles out seven key measures in the bill that it wanted to highlight and commend: the definition of wellbeing; the furthering of the UNCRC; the named person service as a universal service; the legislative entitlement to free childcare for three-year-olds, four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds; continuing care for care leavers after 16; the duty on early intervention in the lives of vulnerable children to prevent them from becoming looked-after children; and the measures to help kinship carers and the children for whom they care.
If our foremost children’s welfare charity can single out seven key measures in the bill for praise and commendation, the bill is far from being a missed opportunity. In fact, Children 1st describe it as a significant milestone, and it is in that context that I wish to single out one of those significant measures that Children 1st praised, which is the creation of the named person as a universal service for all our children. We have all had emails from a vociferous lobby who oppose that. I said earlier that the point about usurping parents’ rights was put directly in committee to Clare Simpson of parenting across Scotland when she gave evidence to the committee, and she flatly denied it and said that the measure was necessary, not to usurp the rights of parents and families but to support them and to protect children.
Those who have written to us about their fears of some kind of Orwellian dystopia should read the bill, not the hysterical hyperbole of the Daily Mail. Better still, they should read the evidence that was given by dozens of child welfare charities that support the universal service. I will quote one of those. Alex Cole-Hamilton of the Aberlour Child Care Trust said:
“In the vast majority of cases, there will be very little interface between the child and the named person, or between the family and the named person.”
He went on to say that anxiety
“is fuelled by some unhelpful tabloid headlines about there being a social worker for every child. That is not what we are talking about here.”
When Liz Smith asked Jackie Brock from Children in Scotland why a formalisation of the existing policy was needed, she replied:
“Having the duties in statute will ensure that it is the responsibility of universal services to respond and take action where necessary, where it is in the child’s best interest that they do so.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 10 September 2013; c 2722, 2724, 2720.]
You must wind up.
Far from the named person being a state guardian who undermines the family, the universal provision of a named person will strengthen and underpin the family and most crucially of all—
I call George Adam. No more than three minutes.
20:14
Like Stewart Maxwell, I believe that this is a good bill, not just because it is bold and ambitious and is paving the way to making the type of Scotland that we all want for our children but because it will make a difference to the lives of children and young people, and that is what we are all here for. That is the reason why we all get involved in politics in the first place.
I would also like to talk about the named person provision. The idea can make such a difference to a lot of children and young people, including the tragic cases that we have heard about in the past. It will provide support to the young men and women who are involved, and their families.
Towards the end of last year, I visited Barnardo’s outside in project, which works in Polmont and Cornton Vale. The young men and women I met there told me about some of the situations that they had got themselves into. Would a named person have helped the young man whose pregnant girlfriend was abused, who believed that violence was the only way to deal with the situation, or the young woman whose mother had died, who ended up feeling that she had to be violent to someone else when they gave her a difficult time at school? I believe that a named person would help in such situations, and the support may ensure that such young people do not end up in places such as Cornton Vale or Polmont. I saw how the young people I met have developed through being given support and opportunities through the outside in project. I believe that the named person can make that difference.
I am also pleased that care leavers will be supported until the age of 21. The Education and Culture Committee has held two inquiries into looked-after children and young people, and we heard from young people about how they have been affected and what has happened to them. That had a dramatic effect on every single member of the committee. We heard how being looked after made a difference in their lives and how they felt when they left care and were left out in the cruel adult world. That measure alone shows—after a year and a half of evidence taking as part of the committee’s work programme—that the committee system works. We managed to influence the bill and ensure that we make a difference for young people. That will be those young people’s legacy.
I close by saying that I believe in the bill and that this is about making a difference to young people’s lives.
I call Mary Scanlon. Ms Scanlon, you have three minutes.
20:16
In the three minutes that I have, I first congratulate Alex Rowley on his maiden speech. I sat beside Helen Eadie on the Health and Sport Committee for four years—2007 to 2011—and from what I knew of her, I think that she would be very proud of the speech that Alex Rowley made today.
I turn to an issue that Kezia Dugdale mentioned when she spoke passionately about care leavers. I am not a member of the Education and Culture Committee so I did not hear all the information, but I add that many families cry out for support at early stages of their problems with children; in some cases, adequate and appropriate support that is given at the right time could prevent children from going into care. Perhaps that has been looked at, but it is something for the future. I met Bill Alexander last week with a parent of a child in care to discuss that.
Many good speeches have been made today. I congratulate my colleague Liz Smith and indeed all the other members of the Education and Culture Committee on their extensive work on the bill. I welcome many of its provisions, particularly the extension of the support that is provided to kinship carers. Jayne Baxter spoke very well and in a measured and considered way about that. It is a significant step forward, as is the extension to the upper age limit for aftercare support from 21 to 26.
It is a shame that so much of the media coverage of the bill has been about the named person. I was not totally aware of the excellent amendments and provisions in the bill in relation to rural schools. The fact that a school closure proposal may not be revisited for five years will enable many parents, pupils and staff to commit to a school with much greater enthusiasm, safe in the knowledge that they are not facing another closure.
I move quickly on to Highland, which has been mentioned quite a few times in the debate. I remind members that in Highland, uniquely, we have a lead agency of the council looking after children and NHS Highland looking after adults, so to use that example and assume that it applies to the rest of Scotland is not appropriate.
I see that I have about 20 seconds left. I very much welcome the extension of childcare as well. However, as I said at stage 1, I would like to know what consultation has been carried out with colleges—
You need to close, please.
—in relation to lecturers being named persons.
20:19
It is customary when stage 3 of a bill reaches its conclusion to thank the legislation team, the committee clerks and anyone else who has been involved in drafting the bill, and I certainly thank them all today. However, I also thank all the organisations and charities for the evidence and briefings that they have submitted throughout the bill process.
I pay tribute to my newly elected colleague for Cowdenbeath, Alex Rowley, for his powerful and insightful maiden speech and his eloquent tribute to the late Helen Eadie. I am sure that his vast experience and expertise in the area will lead him to be a great asset in the chamber.
Cara Hilton, as Labour’s new MSP for Dunfermline, also made a passionate and committed speech on the bill during the stage 1 debate in the chamber. The fact that both new Labour MSPs chose to speak on this particular bill in two chamber debates ably demonstrates the importance and commitment that the Labour Party and its representatives place on improving life chances for our children and young people.
Labour will vote for the bill at decision time because there are some positive elements to it. However, as Labour members have said, the bill is good only as far as it goes. We on the Labour side of the chamber are certainly not blind to its many failings, and we believe that it will be viewed as a missed opportunity in a number of respects.
We, and a number of organisations, have serious concerns about the resource and practical issues that the Government has not addressed—none more so than the incompetent financial memorandum—and we still believe that the bill lacks ambition.
As my new Labour colleagues and I have said throughout the bill process, we share the SNP Government’s ambition to make Scotland the best place for our children to grow up, and we want to make that ambition a reality. The Scottish Government has often said—too many times to count—that it wants to fulfil that ambition, and at stage 1 the minister said that it was the first principle that guided the bill.
My Labour colleagues and I enthusiastically share that ambition, but the minister and the Scottish Government need to match all their rhetoric with a bit more reality. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will not do that—if I am being honest, it will not even come close. I am not saying that it could not do that, but—as Alex Rowley said—big challenges still lie ahead for the Government and the Parliament, and I do not believe that the bill will provide the transformational change that Aileen Campbell suggests that it will.
There are welcome measures in the bill. I very much welcome the extension of support for care leavers, and I thank Who Cares? Scotland and the care leavers themselves for advocating those changes forcefully and powerfully. It is clear that we have more to do to help looked-after children in the months and years ahead, and there are big challenges with regard to implementing the named person role. We all acknowledge that the named person role was the most controversial part of the bill, and I hope that the Government is right about the improvements that such a statutory role will bring, but it cannot say that it has not been warned about the practical and resource issues, which we discussed earlier.
If the named person role has been misrepresented or misunderstood, as Stewart Maxwell said, the Scottish Government should look at itself and reflect on the reason: it failed to make a proper and coherent case for the policy.
On kinship care, there are big challenges ahead. Kinship carers have been sceptical about the proposals, and they await the outcome of the financial review.
We are pleased that the Scottish Government has finally got around to implementing its 2007 commitment to provide 600 hours of childcare, but—as I said at the outset—it will not solve the childcare problems of 2014 with a seven-year-old policy.
You need to bring your remarks to a close, Mr Bibby.
On early learning and childcare, and on out-of-school care, the bill is a missed opportunity. It will be regarded not as a landmark piece of legislation, but as a landmark opportunity missed. Labour looks forward, in the years ahead, to progressing the issues that the SNP Government has not addressed in the bill.
20:24
I start with some traditional, and some slightly untraditional, thanks. I certainly thank the bill team, the committee and the members who have been in the chamber today, but I also thank all those organisations and individuals—some of whom are in the public gallery today—who have been most influential in shaping this landmark piece of legislation.
The Government has engaged with 2,400 young people, 1,500 parents and 150 organisations. I say to them that this is a good bill—it is a very good bill—and we should commend everybody who has taken part in the process of shaping it.
What we should not do is run down the work that those organisations and individuals have done. We should work together and celebrate, because that is traditionally what we do at the end of a bill process—we celebrate the progress that has been made. Liz Smith said, quite correctly, that not everything is perfect, but when I hear that a bill has taken so much time and so much effort—including from my colleague Aileen Campbell, whom I really want to commend—I want to celebrate that.
Aileen Campbell has been formidable in shaping the bill. She has argued and fought for the bill with everybody, including me, and she has produced a wonderful piece of work. [Interruption.] It is very sad that Labour members want to laugh at that work, because I want to commend Alex Rowley’s maiden speech. I thought that he got the tone right. I do not want to embarrass Alex Rowley but he and I have form. We worked together—sometimes against each other—when he was Labour general secretary and I was SNP chief executive. We proved, despite our differences, that we could on occasion work together for Scotland.
That is what this bill has been: a process of working together for Scotland. Neither Alex Rowley nor I want to demonise our opponents but, alas, that is what we have heard this afternoon. That is a very sad thing because when it happens, we do not make progress. However, we have made progress today.
What have we achieved? From 2015, teenagers in residential, foster or kinship care who turn 16 gain new rights. They have worked hard to get those and the Parliament has listened. New duties have been placed on ministers and on the wider public sector to promote children’s rights—something that I have argued for since I came into this Parliament in 1999.
Kinship carers are getting enhanced legal entitlements and involvement in the process. I met kinship carers this morning to talk to them about it. Scotland’s national adoption register is being placed in statute and counselling and other support is being provided for vulnerable children and their families. There is improved provision of advice and help when needed, strengthened legislation on school closures and the school meals provision. Those are all significant achievements and we should say well done to everybody who is involved in them. What we should not do is demonise our opponents.
When I first came into this chamber in 2009, I learned a lot of lessons. One lesson I learned is from the man who is now First Minister. During a debate, he said to me that there was an old maxim at Westminster—the vote follows the voice. That means that if someone believes in something and they think that it is right, they speak for it and then they vote for it.
I believe that the named person provision is right. I did not originally believe that; I needed some persuading by others, including Aileen Campbell. Then I went to that hotbed of revolution, Forfar, and saw the provision in operation there. It was profoundly moving to speak to a young man who had been enormously helped by having a named person. I therefore want to say, “Well done,” to those who have supported and argued for the named person legislation. When I listened to Neil Bibby this afternoon, I could not decide whether he was for it or against it. The vote follows the voice: have some courage to speak up for what you believe in.
I know that Liz Smith profoundly disagrees with the provision, and I am sorry about that. If I had time, I would repeat the commitments that Aileen Campbell has made, because I believe that the provision will be helpful and useful. I do not for a second believe that it will interfere with family life or subordinate the rights of parents, otherwise I would not have supported it. With respect, I think that the Tories are wrong about it. If they could nudge their way from a principled abstention to support, they would be helping the young people of Scotland.
This has been an important step forward for Scotland and for this chamber. It has been particularly important for all those organisations and individuals who have engaged with the Parliament, helping to build a piece of legislation and make it even better than it was when it started. We should say thank you to them. What we should not do is take the dismal, negative approach that we have heard, alas, from Mr Bibby and Kezia Dugdale. That approach does not demean the chamber; it demeans them.