Kinship Carers
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01828, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on supporting families. As soon as Ms Baillie is ready to speak, she will have 10 minutes.
10:30
The debate is about kinship care—it is about the people who provide care for children in an extended family setting and the children who are cared for. According to the 2001 census, some 15,000 children are in that situation.
Some kinship care arrangements are formal—the children are deemed to be looked after by their local authority—but often the arrangements are informal and have been arrived at between families. In 2001, one in 10 looked-after children were placed in kinship care. By 2010, that figure had increased to one in five. Now, more children are in kinship care than in residential care. The number of children who are in kinship care is fast catching up with the number in foster care. We are not sure whether that increase is the consequence of a change in demand or of a better response to existing demand. Whatever the reason, the needs of the children who are cared for in kinship care arrangements cannot be dealt with on the cheap.
The underlying causes of children being placed in kinship care are remarkably similar to those of children being placed in foster care. The children might have experienced drug and alcohol addiction in their families, bereavement, neglect, abuse, violence or illness. It follows from those similar experiences that the children will have similar support needs.
In 2007, the First Minister recognised that position. In an exchange with Labour’s former leader Wendy Alexander, he promised to deliver funding so that kinship care allowances would match foster care allowances. That was a straightforward commitment—with no quibbling and no caveats—to provide £10 million to deliver that by 2011. I say three cheers to that.
I acknowledge that kinship care payments are at least being made in every local authority area, but the amounts that are paid and the criteria that apply vary hugely. In all but a handful of council areas, the disparity between foster care payments and kinship care payments remains stark. We need only look at the work that Citizens Advice Scotland has undertaken to see the truth of that.
To be frank, the Government’s amendment is churlish. As with so much of the Government’s approach, it seeks to blame everybody else. The Government says that the fault must lie with the previous Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive, although—incidentally—that Executive started the consultation on the need to support kinship carers in 2006. Perhaps the Scottish Government blames the United Kingdom Government. Now, it also wants to blame local authorities.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at this point.
I would be the first to recognise that there are issues to explore in the interaction of benefits and allowances that are paid to kinship carers, but that cannot be used as an excuse for inaction by the Scottish Government. Kinship care is firmly within the Scottish Government’s responsibility. It is devolved. The Government needs no more powers to do something to make a difference.
I commend the Scottish Government for taking our consultation and developing a strategy for kinship care in 2007. Then, that strategy enjoyed support across the chamber, as it does now. When the First Minister promised to deliver £10 million so that kinship care allowances would match foster care allowances by 2011, we were all delighted. That was the Parliament and the Government at their best—recognising need, putting in place the right strategy and providing the resources to back that up. A promise from the First Minister himself—it does not get much better than that. He promised to support the army of kinship carers who on a daily basis provide vulnerable children with safety, security and a loving home. We are now in 2012, and the First Minister and his Government have failed to deliver. Is the First Minister a man of his word or is he not?
So, exactly what happened? It would appear that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities came to a new understanding. Let me be clear about this: I do not blame local government. It is for the Scottish Government to signal its priorities. It did so in the concordat, but then it downgraded that commitment. The Scottish Government said that the issue was not important to it any more.
Does Jackie Baillie acknowledge that we very strongly recognised the army of kinship carers by legislating for the first time to recognise them formally, which Labour failed to do during two terms in government?
I welcome the legislation, which enjoyed support among members on all sides of the chamber, but you promised the £10 million of support. The First Minister promised it. You then signalled to COSLA that it was not important any more. How can you take something that important and negotiate it away? Those children are among the most marginalised and vulnerable in Scotland today. What did you trade them for?
I ask the member to speak through the chair, please.
Indeed, Presiding Officer.
Was it the class size pledge, which was later to be dumped too? Was it something else? I am sure that all members in the chamber want to know what was more important than kinship carers.
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP) rose—
Mike Russell’s letter to COSLA, dated 9 December 2009, is most illuminating. It stated that COSLA had made a “major and significant contribution” to that commitment—in other words, “You can forget about it now—you can use the money for our other, more pressing priorities”.
Mark McDonald rose—
The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Derek Mackay) rose—
That is what Mr Russell said. A promise that was made at the end of 2007 was dumped by 2009.
When we raised the subject of kinship carers at the start of the year, we were told that the Scottish Government had met all its commitments. It said that it had
“supported this with significant financial resources for local authorities.”
Those are the same local authorities that were told by the Government that they did not need to bother now.
On the same day came COSLA’s response, which challenged the Scottish Government’s claim that councils have been given significant resources. Already, the Scottish Government is trying to lay the blame elsewhere, but it has the responsibility and it needs to step up to the plate.
Mark McDonald rose—
Derek Mackay rose—
The poverty truth commission looked at kinship care and came up with a number of focused and reasonable recommendations that I sincerely commend to the minister. However, it was the words from Jessie—a kinship carer—that struck me most. She said:
“We’re saving the system £500 million a year and yet we are expected to just get on with it, with no recognition or help. It has been proven that kinship care is the best situation for these kids. In 6 years I have never known of a kinship child being taken into care ... early intervention most certainly works and if we can give them stability it would be in everyone’s best interest as these kids are the future”.
The Government should listen to Jessie—or listen to its very own Twitter queen, Joan McAlpine, who I am delighted is in the chamber. At a kinship care round table, she said:
“it is of great concern that there is a perception that the Parliament has not delivered: Parliament exists to deliver for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 634.]
Indeed it does—and so does the Scottish Government. I hope that Joan McAlpine will not label me as anti-Scottish if I demand that the Scottish National Party does something for kinship carers.
Let us have an end to the postcode lottery. We need policies that are centred on the needs of the children who are cared for, access to social work, education, psychological and carers support services, and a fair kinship care payment that is on a par with that for foster care.
I will close with the words of my constituent Anne Schwartz, who is a kinship carer looking after three teenage grandchildren. She says:
“When I started caring for my grandchildren, my life was turned upside down. I lost my job. I felt like I was on my own, with nobody I could turn to for help. We face exactly the same challenges as foster parents, yet we do not get the same financial support or training. The fact is we are getting a raw deal from this government. Alex Salmond made us a promise—it is time he delivered on it. If he had made good on his promise back in 2007, I might have been able to keep my job and hang on to some of my savings. Children in kinship care face the same issues as children in foster care, yet there is a great disparity in that they cannot access appropriate services to meet their needs. At the end of the day, it is the children who suffer out of all of this.”
It is about time that the SNP put that right. The First Minister and his Government must deliver on his promise. If he does not deliver, we will know that he and the SNP Government cannot be trusted.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the crucial role that kinship carers play in supporting the most vulnerable children and believes that they should be supported financially at an equivalent level to foster carers; notes the commitment given by the First Minister on 27 September 2007 to fast-track £10 million to fund this; further notes commitments made by successive ministers for Education and Lifelong Learning and Children and Early Years that this promise would be met via the concordat with local government by 2011 at the latest; regrets that these promises to kinship carers and the people they care for have been broken, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities are provided with the funds to ensure that kinship carers are properly supported and that this promise is finally met.
10:40
I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject constructively, to set out the facts, to show my commitment as Minister for Children and Young People to all Scotland’s children, and to show my passion, which is shared by the Scottish Government, for caring for the most vulnerable people in society.
Last year, nearly 16,000 children and young people were being looked after by our local authorities. They are the responsibility of us all. I look forward to closing the kinship care conference in Perth on Monday.
The Scottish Government moved quickly in 2007 to publish our strategy, “Getting it right for every child in kinship and foster care”. In 2009 we introduced legislation that recognised kinship care and kinship carers for the first time, offering the chance of a safe, stable, nurturing home with the wider family. The introduction of permanence orders under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 enhanced the chance of a child finding a permanent home with the wider family.
We should acknowledge that kinship carers are unique. They do what they do for love, not money. We recognise their incredible efforts and remain committed to doing all that we can do for them and for their children, and we understand the financial challenges that they experience. By working with our partners in local government we have made progress, and all local authorities are financially supporting kinship carers. We have also worked with the third sector on the provision of support and guidance for kinship carers.
The Government has made progress, but despite positive changes, in discussion with councils and the United Kingdom Government, we have not yet achieved enough. Despite our Government’s formal recognition of kinship carers, our efforts have been constrained by a UK benefits system that does not recognise kinship carers’ parenting role and even claws back existing benefits when allowances are received.
The Scottish Government secured changes in 2010 to mitigate that effect. Kinship carers can now be confident of receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit without any deduction. Allowances are now tax free, and some kinship carers are up to £50 a week better off. However, those are sticking plasters compared with giving kinship carers access to all benefits that are available to parents, such as child benefit and child tax credit.
Since 2007, the number of children in kinship care has grown more than expected. That is a concern for local authorities throughout Scotland. However, we know that kinship care is an effective care placement that offers scope for councils to provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for children and young people. To get the best from kinship care, we need to continue to invest.
Family support is fundamentally about supporting children and their parents, which is why we are developing a national parenting strategy. The strategy will be for not only mums and dads but grandparents and the wider family, as well as foster, kinship and adoptive parents. In other words, it will be for anyone who is involved in bringing up children. It will cover parenting of children of all ages, from the pre-conception stage, through early childhood, school years and adolescence to adulthood.
At the heart of our strategy will be recognition that all parents might need support from time to time, which will vary according to their circumstances. Our highly successful play, talk, read campaign is an example of action that we are taking to provide advice and support for all parents. The campaign’s aim is to promote the importance of positive interaction between young children and their parents or carers, from the very start.
Some parents will require more intensive support. It is vital that they receive such support, so that we can avoid negative cycles in which poor outcomes are perpetuated across generations. For young first-time parents who are particularly vulnerable, we have piloted the family-nurse partnership, which is a preventative, intensive home-visiting programme that is delivered by highly trained nurses.
The programme, which is being delivered exclusively to teenage first-time mothers, begins at the early pregnancy stage and lasts until the child reaches two. It takes a holistic approach to the family, focusing on different aspects at different points, based on the age and stage of the mother and the baby. The programme is based on a deep, therapeutic relationship between the mother and the nurse, leading to long-term positive outcomes for the family.
The Scottish Government has also shown its commitment to moving towards an early intervention approach through the creation of the early years task force, which comprises key children’s champions across Scotland. That important group will identify how best to drive further forward our key priorities on parenting, family support, play and early learning and childcare. We have announced funding to support care provision for looked after two-year-olds.
I take very seriously the concerns that kinship carers have raised. We have made efforts to improve what they do and how they do it.
I am supportive of much of what the minister says. However, given the terms of our motion, will she tell us what she will now do to ensure that the SNP Government fulfils the First Minister’s commitment, so that kinship care allowances will match foster care allowances? That is what we want to know.
As I have said, we have been working very hard with local government on the issue, and COSLA has agreed to deliver our manifesto commitment and the resources, given time. The Association of Directors of Social Work has been supportive of efforts to bring meaningful financial support to kinship carers, particularly in relation to the way in which support is delivered through the UK benefits system. We continue to lobby the Westminster Government to ensure that the UK benefits system recognises kinship carers as this Government has done—but as Jackie Baillie’s Government never did.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am going to move on. I want to make some progress.
I remind Jackie Baillie that despite having two terms in office the Labour Party did nothing to recognise formally this important group of carers. It took the election of the SNP Government and our legislation for that to happen. However, we are not complacent and we understand that more needs to be done.
It is unfortunate that this Parliament has no competence over welfare and social security, as that system is under threat from the coalition Government. We will continue to press for changes to the UK benefits system and to have kinship carers recognised as parents. Of course, with independence we will no longer have to lobby Westminster for progressive change to realise our country’s vision for a fair, equal and better society.
This Government is committed to ensuring that all families in Scotland receive appropriate and timely support based on their needs. That is what we continue to do through the getting it right for every child approach and our early intervention strategies.
Bringing up children is a hugely rewarding job, but it can also be the hardest job that there is. I have outlined the range of work that we are driving forward to support parents and families in order to break the cycle of deprivation and poor attainment for our children, with a focus on early intervention. We will continue to build on that as we move forward. I will remain committed to ensuring that the child is at the heart of all that we do.
I move amendment S4M-01828.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes that substantial resources have been provided to local authorities to allow them to provide financial support to kinship carers; recognises that, unlike its predecessors, the 2007-11 Scottish administration acted to introduce regulations to allow financial support to be provided to kinship carers; supports wider efforts to empower families, including the development of a national parenting strategy, the Play, Talk, Read campaign and the roll-out of the Family Nurse Partnership; condemns the UK benefits system as not being fit for purpose as it penalises kinship carers and other vulnerable groups, and calls on the UK Government to fairly support kinship carers.”
10:48
I am happy to support Jackie Baillie’s motion, though I am sorry that this is the third time since 2007 that Labour has felt obliged to raise in Parliament the on-going lack of adequate support for kinship carers in carrying out their invaluable task.
Progress has undoubtedly been made—I do not think that anyone is denying that—and we hear from Children 1st, which delivers the national kinship care service, that there is evidence of good practice. However, Children 1st also states that support for kinship carers is still inconsistent and that carers are still having to fight for the support that they need and deserve.
The commitment by the SNP Government to put kinship carers on a par with foster carers with regard to financial support is still not being achieved across Scotland—I think that the minister acknowledge that—despite the promise that it would be delivered via the concordat with local government by 2011, which now of course has gone.
The Official Report of last week’s Education and Culture Committee round-table discussion on kinship care makes interesting reading. Not being on the committee, I read the report in full. Citizens Advice Scotland’s kinship care service said that
“kinship carers of looked-after children often feel like the poor relations of foster carers,”
and
“kinship carers of non-looked-after children feel even lower down the ladder of access to services and support.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 610.]
The words of Tommy McFall, who has looked after his granddaughter for 11 years and who took part in that discussion, are worth repeating. He said:
“kinship carers do not want ... parity with foster carers ... We are arguing that the children we look after in kinship care should have parity, as the Scottish Parliament decided in 2007.”
He went on to say:
“I make a brief point about other support services, which we sometimes miss. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable and damaged children in Scotland ... I have heard people say that counselling and psychological services are available but, believe me ... support for these kids ... is not there”.
He also said:
“There are not enough support services, psychological services or counselling services out there ... When we talk about priorities, the most vulnerable children in Scotland should be at the top of our list of priorities and we should stop making excuses.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 621-2.]
As we know, kinship carers play a hugely valuable role and give enormous, unquantifiable support to their families. They need support, they need respite and they need freedom from serious financial worries. The willing self-sacrifice of people such as Mr McFall gives many children a much better early life than they could otherwise expect and at a fraction of the cost, were the state to be providing their care. That must appeal to a Government that has preventative spend as its mantra.
We know that there are issues with the benefits system—there have been for a long time—but, rather than merely condemn it as not fit for purpose, in that it penalises kinship carers and others, I wish that the SNP, in its amendment, had taken cognisance of the fact that, in the discussions that have taken place on the Welfare Reform Bill, the Scottish Government has made representations to the Department for Work and Pensions on kinship care. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon has spoken directly to Iain Duncan Smith about the issue, as was confirmed in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee by Neil Couling of the DWP, who said that ministers had been impressed by the case that had been made from Scotland. It is clear that what has been a long-standing matter of concern, not just under the current coalition, is being taken seriously and it is to be hoped that progress will be made.
We owe it to kinship carers to find a resolution to their problems. That needs to be done in a spirit of co-operation and without the political point scoring and grandstanding that we tend to see from the majority SNP Government—it disappoints me that we have begun to see a bit of that in this morning’s debate. The army of kinship carers in Scotland are not only saving their relatives and giving them the best chance in life, but saving the country huge amounts of money, and without them the system would collapse.
Will the member give way?
I am just finishing.
I just hope that the support that has been promised to them will be in place across Scotland before Labour feels the need to hold yet another debate on this important matter.
We come to the open debate. Speeches should be a maximum of four minutes.
10:52
I am delighted that Jackie Baillie was able to hotfoot it along here—I congratulate her on her endeavours last night with my friend and colleague in a walking on hot coals charitable event. It feels slightly as if we are doing that in the debate.
It is acknowledged that more can be done for kinship carers, but I want to congratulate Aberdeenshire Council, because in my discussions with the council, there has been a recognition that kinship care is extremely important. The council has taken the view of the national guidance in relation to payments for kinship carers, which, it states, should be in accordance with the payments for foster carers. When I discussed the matter with the director of social work, he agreed and acknowledged that there was more to be done. He would welcome further debate on how we can move forward on the issue, and I am sure that the minister will take that on board by holding further discussions with the ADSW and COSLA with a view to securing what I believe was an agreement, through the concordat, to make progress on payments for kinship care and to achieve a degree of unanimity.
Let us put the child at the heart of the debate. Kinship carers provide care that is fundamental for the young children concerned. It is much better that children are with kinship carers rather than in foster or residential care, but it is disturbing to realise that more children will require such care. We should, however, look at what has been done, and I believe that the Government has made progress, as others have agreed.
We have the national advice and support centre, which supports our kinship carers and enables peer-group support as well. We have the centre of excellence for looked-after children, which is still in its infancy but which I believe will make good progress and will become a place to which kinship carers can turn for assistance with providing the devotion and care that the children who rely on them require.
Nanette Milne made an important point: the emotional and psychological needs of some of our most vulnerable children need to be considered properly, and we need to ensure that they are given the support that they need. That is a matter for our local authorities, through social work, for our health boards and for our third sector organisations. I hope that, when we think about providing those services, we make sure that everything that can be done is done to ensure that a high priority is given to children in kinship care.
I assure the member that, contrary to what Jackie Baillie has been saying, in no sense has local government been told to ditch or drop any commitment with regard to kinship carers.
You are in your last minute, Mr Robertson.
Welfare reform will have a damaging effect on our kinship carers. Nanette Milne said that Westminster has taken the evidence from the Scottish Government and thinks that we have made a good case. What we require from the UK Government is a commitment to our kinship carers.
10:56
Kinship care should be of vital concern to this Parliament and to this Government, not least because the outcomes from kinship care placements are better than those from foster care.
It is quite clear that the First Minister’s promise in 2007 to match the foster care allowance has not been fulfilled. That is undisputed. Although, by 2010, most councils had started to make some payment, a new postcode lottery has been established, and COSLA is now saying that the full payments cannot be made. As Joan McAlpine—we seem to be quoting her a lot today—said:
“Financial provision ... is often inadequate.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 634.]
The Government’s response is, once again, to shrug off its responsibilities and blame local authorities and the UK Government. In other words, as usual, it is everybody else’s fault. Meanwhile, there are 20,000 kinship carers providing care for some 15,000 children.
My biggest disappointment with Aileen Campbell’s speech is that she seemed to refer only to children who are looked after formally, when there is a larger group of children who are looked after informally, whose needs we must address as well. Many have a background of neglect due to drugs and alcohol. As with other carers, we rely on the good will of kinship carers and their sense of family responsibility. Indeed, I would say that we are taking gross advantage of their good will.
I will describe to the chamber the history of one such carer. June Cotier is 78 years old. Her 19-year-old grandson still lives with her, as he has done, along with his sister, from an early age. Like many kinship carers, she received those two children into her care without any warning. For many years, she received no support, training or advice. In particular, she received no advice about the likely damage to the children as a result of the loss of their parents.
Like other carers who have been discussed this morning, June had to give up work. She was not assessed—indeed, she was hidden—until she went to her general practitioner when she was having problems. She was, therefore, in the group of informal carers that I am talking about. The health visitor and the school must have known about her situation but, despite the report “Getting Our Priorities Right—Good Practice Guidance for Working With Children and Families Affected by Substance Misuse”, which was published in 2002, and the GIRFEC approach, which appeared in 2006, there is still no statutory duty on communication.
I entirely take on board the issues that Richard Simpson raises. However, in my speech, I talked about the national parenting strategy and interventions that we can make early on in order to support kinship carers, who, as a group, say they that need more than just money and that they need support as well. That is why we have commissioned Children 1st to run an advice service and give support to kinship carers.
We realise that professionals need to communicate issues to one another, and we are making efforts to ensure that early intervention is effective.
I listened to the minister’s speech, which she has just repeated. It is not an either/or matter: the £10 million should have been delivered to match the money for foster carers.
Like many carers, June has no emergency plan and has never been offered respite. Kinship care is yet another area in which the Government bathes us all in warm words in order to create the mood music of a caring Scottish Government; for most kinship carers, the reality is a cold shower. In the spending review 2007, the Government promised a strategy and better support, including allowances and access to psychological and education services. The 2011 spending review does not mention kinship carers at all, and the carers strategy does not mention kinship carers.
What needs to be done? The GIRFEC requirement needs to be enshrined in law. COSLA and the Government should agree to fund allowances properly and fully. There should be new definitions to tackle the inappropriate divisions between formal and informal kinship carers, which should embrace both permanent and temporary placements. Every child placed in kinship care should be assessed, and every kinship carer should be offered assessment and an emergency plan.
Dr Simpson, you must conclude.
The issues around school meals, school uniforms and respite must also be resolved. Above all, the First Minister’s promise should be kept—and kept now.
11:01
I welcome the debate. None of us would demur from the view that carers—not least those who care for dependent children—play a critical role, irrespective of the carer’s age or background. Despite the carping tone, I recognise and accept the integrity behind the motion.
I was not an MSP at the time, but I understand that, in 2007, there was an expression of sympathy with the view that the lot of kinship carers and others should be improved, and that, not long after, a positive announcement was made regarding the issue. No one can challenge the intent of the Government and SNP back benchers to support carers in general and kinship carers in particular, nor can we dispute the fact that the emotional experience of kinship carers is different from that of foster carers.
We believe that we are doing more to support kinship carers than was done previously. Do we want to do more? Of course. Investment has been and is being made to provide secure, long-term support for those carers. That security and support can best be exploited within the family and under the auspices of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
However, the debate, once again, highlights the fact that our desire to achieve our overall objectives—which, I believe, are shared by Labour members at least, if not by many from the other parties—is thwarted by a funding and welfare system over which we have little or no control. Others argue that we are not meeting our “commitment”, but Citizens Advice Scotland has confirmed that 30 of Scotland’s councils are offering kinship care payments. Labour will argue—it has already done so—that access to financial support seems to be a lottery. However, we argue—and will continue to do so—that sufficient resources have been included in the total financial settlement for local authorities, based on the estimates of the number of kinship carers that we believe there are. Nevertheless, as Jackie Baillie stated, lack of knowledge of demand might be a problem.
Will the member give way?
No. I have only four minutes.
The harsh fact is that a key sector in and key contributors to our society are being impacted on because we, in Scotland, have to fight for funding against a UK welfare reform agenda that flies in the face of the kind of society that we—and, I believe, Jackie Baillie and her colleagues—want.
We are working hard to improve financial support for kinship carers. We are working with, and will continue to work with, local authorities to change the welfare reform agenda. We seek to change the benefits system so that we can support kinship carers meaningfully. We have launched initiatives such as the national advice and support service and the others that the minister referred to. As Mr Robertson said, we also launched the centre for excellence for looked-after children in Scotland to improve outcomes.
Finally, I say to Jackie Baillie and the Labour Party: remove the shrug and share what we on these benches wish to see—I believe that by and large members on the Labour benches wish to see it, too. We should recognise that those shared objectives and outcomes will be achieved only if we can exercise full control over all the objectives. I support the amendment in the minister’s name.
11:05
This is a hugely important subject and—this is not a criticism of anybody—I am sorry that we have only four minutes each to discuss it. It means that it is difficult to have anything resembling a serious discussion but, characteristically, I will try.
Uncharacteristically, I point out to Labour members that they are perhaps not on the best ground, having spent a long time doing precisely nothing. This Government has made some progress. More important, we have recognised that the issue is currently in the hands of local authorities. The list of local authorities and the payments that they make is in front of me, and my understanding is that most of the councils that make the poorest payments are run by members of the Labour Party.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will, but let me say first that I think that Labour members have the option of convincing their councils to have a go, given that others seem able to succeed.
There are both SNP and Labour councils that are performing well on the issue and SNP and Labour councils that are performing not so well. It would be silly for Nigel Don to trade on that.
In the spirit of consensus and given that we believe that kinship care is so important, will Nigel Don comment on why Mike Russell sold out kinship carers for smaller class sizes?
The Minister for Local Government and Planning, who was leading a local council at the relevant time, has already refuted that point, and I do not think that I need to do anything more than stand by his comments. I merely make the point to Jackie Baillie that most of the worst councils seem to be somewhere near her party. I am sorry that—
West Dunbartonshire Council—
Jackie Baillie should just take the point. Labour members have some influence, and it would be helpful if they used it. I now want to make some progress.
I have time left only to reflect on what was said at the round-table discussion at the Education and Culture Committee a couple of weeks ago. As Alison Todd from Children 1st pointed out, the problems arise
“because the regulations and the legal system were not set up for kinship carers.”
Robert Swift subsequently commented:
“There is a complex interface between the benefits system and moneys that are provided by the local authority—one can impact on the other. The system is complicated.”
Mike Callaghan from COSLA said:
“Kinship carers have found that, once they receive allowances, other benefits have been taken off them.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 611, 613 and 618.]
Those three comments sum up the context for kinship carers’ financial income. It is clearly very difficult for people to access the right sums of money. Obviously, it is also difficult for the local council to find its way through the system and provide a similar payment, other than by simply deciding that, regardless of a kinship carer’s benefits situation, it will use its discretion to make payments up to the level of the foster care figure. That is what I think those councils are doing—I do not see any other mechanism. I commend that approach to councils because that is what they have to do, although it seems crazy to me that they are in that position.
We are back to where most of us started in this debate: it is down to councils to do their job, but they are working in a horrible position given to them by Government. Some control over that Government intervention would not half help. The UK Government is going to mess around—and will continue to mess around—with welfare benefits, so it will be better when we do the lot, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the local council to sort out the mess.
11:09
I begin by stating my appreciation for the role that kinship carers play in providing a safe and loving home for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children.
It is important to recognise that kinship carers take on responsibility for children who are the victims of circumstance and not of their own actions. We must also make it clear that kinship carers are often unaware that they will have to take on that responsibility. From my time as a care manager within social work, I am well aware of the situations in which kinship carers find themselves. There is often a knock at the door in the evening and a plea from social work explaining that if the prospective carers do not take responsibility for the child or children, they will end up in care. Although I have great admiration for the hard work of the care sector, there is no doubt that being doorstepped and being given an ultimatum such as “Take the kids or they go into care” fosters fear in the would-be carer. The usual result is of course that gran, granddad, aunt, uncle, friend or relative takes the children in.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I have only four minutes.
If the carer has no supply of practical resources such as clothes or bedding, an already difficult situation becomes all the more challenging. We must increase support for the kinship carers who are quite literally left holding the babies, and we must finance and resource that accordingly. Adoptive parents and foster carers have a process by which they make themselves available to bring children into their lives and their homes. Foster carers build up the experience of having to take in children at short notice, as well as building up the much-needed clothes and other essentials. The difference is that they can afford to build such stocks over time because foster carers generally receive more financial support than do kinship carers.
We must also acknowledge the impact on the health of kinship carers from the stress of having extra mouths to feed and bodies to clothe. One of the most important points to be made is that problems can arise because many carers might be unaware of the process that they need to go through to claim what they are currently entitled to. So, in providing the much-needed increased funds to local authorities, we must also encourage the development of a system that is relatively easily to access. Too many kinship carers already suffer additional stresses; lengthy bureaucracy is the last thing they need, want or deserve.
I am truly humbled by the people I have met who have become kinship carers—the friends, neighbours and family members of vulnerable children. They make an invaluable difference to the lives of children across Scotland. It is only fair that the support that they deserve be made available to them. I hope that members will agree and support the motion in the name of Jackie Bailie.
11:13
No one in the chamber would argue that the current situation is perfect in any way. We accept that a lot remains to be done. I speak as a member of Aberdeen City Council, which is one of the local authorities that does not yet deliver 100 per cent equivalence with foster carers. We have expressed an aspiration to achieve that, but I readily accept that we are not yet at that stage, and I accept what Jackie Baillie has contended: performance is mixed in Scotland’s local authorities.
However, it is the case that the four poorest-performing local authorities in terms of the amount that they pay are controlled by Jackie Baillie’s party. If she is going to come here and make some sort of virtue of her and the Labour Party’s concern for kinship carers, she should also speak to the leaders of South Lanarkshire Council, Glasgow City Council, Falkirk Council and East Dunbartonshire Council, which are all paying £40 or less to their kinship carers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not going to take Ms Marra’s intervention. I have only four minutes to get through what I want to say.
It is not an excuse or a deflection to make the point that there are degrees of accountability and responsibility on the issue. Degrees of responsibility and accountability are held at UK level, at Scottish Government level and at local government level.
It is stretching the limits of credibility—Jackie Baillie is well used to doing that—to suggest that Mike Russell’s memo somehow says, “Job done. Now forget about it.” It says no such thing. Jackie Baillie might want to put that spin on it, but that is not what the letter says in any way, shape or form.
SNP members are often told that we attach too many strings to the funding that we give local authorities and that we put too many handcuffs on local government, but we are also told in relation to issues such as kinship care and the funding that is given to COSLA that we give local authorities too much freedom to decide their priorities. A little bit of consistency on that would go a long way.
The minster has rightly argued that, although the payments issue is important—I do not seek to detract from that in any way, shape or form—it is not the only aspect of the kinship care agenda. One key thing that the Government did when it took power in 2007 was give kinship carers the recognition that they previously lacked, which opened up other support mechanisms for them. For example, the kinds of advice and support that were readily given to foster carers or unpaid carers but were not available to the same extent for kinship carers are now available through organisations such as Children 1st and the citizens advice bureaux.
I reiterate that I do not think that any member would stand up and argue that it is mission accomplished in the kinship care agenda. That matter has been raised previously in this session. I think that Michael Matheson pointed out during the carers strategy debate that we agree that kinship care still requires a deal of work to be done.
In concluding, I simply pose two questions. First, has a lot been done? Yes, it has. Secondly, is there more to be done? Yes, there is. We all have a role to play in that, and I hope that we will play our roles constructively and consensually.
I thank members for being very disciplined with their speaking times in the debate. That allows a couple of minutes for the front benchers to take short interventions, if they desire to do so.
11:17
As the debate has progressed, it has become clear that there is a degree of consensus in the chamber on this important issue. I think that we all recognise that kinship carers provide an invaluable service to this country and that, without them, our whole system would likely collapse. The objectives are shared.
As I said in my opening speech, and as Mark McDonald illustrated, progress has been made, but there is still a lot to be done. It has come out now and again in the debate that there is a risk of the blame game being played: that people will blame local authorities and that Westminster will be blamed. We know that there are issues; indeed, there have been issues with the benefits system, particularly with regard to kinship carers, for a long time and not just under the coalition Government. There have been issues with it for many Governments over many years. Labour started to look at the benefits system and at what could be done when it was in government, but the coalition Government has really taken the bull by the horns. I know that a lot of what it has proposed has been controversial, but Dennis Robertson should perhaps have a little more faith in Iain Duncan Smith and the coalition Government, which is genuinely listening. The point has been made to me quite forcefully that the coalition Government has really taken on board what Scotland has said about kinship care problems as a very good case. I accept that we must wait and see, and that we have not been given the pudding to eat yet, but we should watch this space instead of outrightly condemning what is going on in London, as the SNP has tended to do.
Does Nanette Milne accept that the concerns are being expressed not only by the Government, but by a number of organisations and charities that work with care groups and individuals who receive care?
I have heard a lot of the arguments. Of course there has been a huge number of arguments, and the issue has been controversial. I am not a member of the Health and Sport Committee, which has taken evidence on the matter, but I have seen some of the papers, and it is clear that the issue has been controversial. However, we are not yet there with the legislation, and I foresee changes.
We have heard some thoughtful speeches. I say to Dennis Robertson that we should give the UK Government time to deal with the evidence that it has taken from Scotland and come up with its decisions. Richard Simpson stressed that the biggest group of looked-after children is informally cared-for children. He movingly described the experiences of his constituent June, who typifies a lot of what kinship carers tell us—that they do not get support, advice or training, that they have to give up work because they do not earn enough money to keep them going, that they have no respite, that there is no plan for them when things go wrong or when they become ill, and that they do not know where to turn for help.
Nigel Don always makes a thoughtful contribution—
Hear, hear. [Laughter.]
I have to say that, as he works in my region. He made some interesting points.
I see that I have already had four minutes and I have not said very much. I will have to wind up because I know that we are short of time.
It has been an interesting debate. It was not as controversial as I feared it was going to be at the outset. I hope that kinship carers will get what they deserve without a lot of political point scoring in the process.
11:21
I hope to continue the consensus, but I must set the record straight on a number of issues.
I begin by saying that I am dealing with a kinship care case as a constituency member, and I completely appreciate and value the contribution that kinship carers make. They save many children from the far worse circumstances that they would otherwise face. The Parliament is united in supporting kinship carers in every way we can.
In that regard, I turn to Nanette Milne, who said that the issue is about more than money. It is about support services and the range of support that is given to kinship carers, and not just about how much is received through the kinship care payment. Anyone who suggests that that is the only issue that kinship carers are interested in is well wide of the mark. We have to consider the issue in the round and look at the expansion of services and support that the Government has supported, including the national advice line and support services and a number of other measures that have been taken locally to support kinship carers.
On our approach to the UK Government, Nanette Milne said that we should give it more time. The regulations and legislation were put in place by the SNP Government, but it has taken five years for successive UK Governments to recognise that the SNP is putting an impressive case on carers.
Carers have waited long enough for welfare change that ensures that the payments that local councils make to them are not simply taken away on the other side through benefits clawback. Some progress has been made on some benefits, but there will still be difficulties because some kinship care payments that are made in some family circumstances will continue to be clawed back by the UK state. We should ask ourselves why we would let that be so. Why should we contribute to carers to help them to do what they do, only for the Tory Government to benefit from that compassionate contribution, which this Parliament supports? That is why five years is too long. We want the powers in this Parliament to deliver in full our compassionate policies. This is not about constitutional wrangling; it is about delivering for carers in an integrated and holistic way in this country.
Everyone has recognised that budgets for support to carers have not been slashed but have been increased, but demand for services for looked-after children—and for all children in need—has reached concerning levels, so we must continue to take an approach that ensures that we address the source of the problem. We can argue about the £10 million that was put into the local government settlement. It has not, at the request of local government, been for future years.
Let us talk about the £270 million on preventative spend that this Administration is delivering in partnership with local government to address the agenda of early intervention.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Jackie Baillie denied me twice. I will reciprocate on this occasion. On appreciation of kinship carers, she misquoted—
Will the minister give way?
I will not, thank you. Jackie Baillie misrepresented the views that were expressed to COSLA by the minister. She also misrepresented Joan McAlpine, who said about kinship carers that the Government had achieved progress, and that further devolution of welfare powers to Scotland would also make a difference—yet more misrepresentations and misquotation from the Opposition.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The Opposition either believes in local democracy—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It would be useful to reflect that the quotation was taken from the Official Report.
Thank you. That was a point of information.
I am happier to accept Joan McAlpine’s version of what she said than Jackie Baillie’s.
Jackie Baillie said that the Labour Party is a party of its word and that it will do what it says. I checked the Labour Party manifesto for last year’s Scottish Parliament election for what it said about kinship carers. It said nothing of substance on the issue of kinship care and what the Labour Party would do. Jackie Baillie is probably right, therefore: Labour would be true to its word.
Shadow minister Neil Bibby will sum up the debate. Will he remind Parliament that when he was in Renfrewshire Council he voted against the introduction of kinship care payments when it was proposed by the SNP, and continued to do so?
Yesterday, in the budget debate, what did we hear from the Labour Party on such a serious issue? Not a word—not a penny towards kinship carers from the Labour Party and no amendments forthcoming to ensure that if payments were to be increased Labour would deliver. Labour either believes in local democracy or it does not. Mark McDonald is right. If Labour believed in local democracy and the importance of kinship care payments it would have to explain why the four worst authorities for kinship care payments are led by Labour.
Will the minister accept that those Labour councils are in the most deprived areas of the country, which is why payments are squeezed? Those councils are funding the SNP’s council tax freeze.
Oh. I see. That would be the council tax freeze that the Labour Party said it would continue for two years if it won the Scottish Parliament election.
Of course, local government has a greater share of Scottish Government funding than the share that was inherited from the Labour Party when we came into office. The Labour Party wants to face both ways on the issue. Where it is in control, it will not deliver. That has been the pattern. Elected members in the Labour group who are also councillors will say, quite happily, when they are back at their councils, “The Government shouldn’t tie the hands of local authorities in the financial settlement.” When Neil Bibby is in Renfrewshire Council, he says, “Don’t tie our hands. Don’t ring fence funds”, and when he is in Parliament he says, “Do tie councils’ hands. Do ring fence funds.” Such is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party’s contribution.
This is a serious issue. We will continue to listen on carers’ interests—on their financial and social position and their position with regard to their welfare benefits—and we will continue to invest in front-line social work services to ensure that the children of Scotland are cared for. Labour indulges in petty party politicking; we are delivering, and we have made far more progress on kinship care payments than the Labour Party could have dreamed of delivering, which is why I have been happy to set the record straight today.
11:29
Like other members, I start by paying tribute to the family members—mostly grandparents—who care for thousands of children in Scotland. When parents have difficulty caring for children, for whatever reason, family members often step in to provide a stable and loving home for children. As a nation, we owe those carers a debt of gratitude.
This has been a wide-ranging and robust debate, and members have rightly raised concerns about the lack of support for children in kinship care. Although some progress has been made, Scottish Labour secured the debate because of those concerns and because the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government owe children who are looked after by family members the same financial support as children in foster care.
In the debate on looked-after children, there was consensus in the chamber and we had a constructive and positive debate on how we must help some of society’s vulnerable children. However, in the space of two weeks, we have gone from unity on looking after those children to debating why we are not doing enough for children in kinship care. Ministers and SNP back-benchers have continually tried to bring this debate back to the question of what the UK Government has or has not done, but Labour’s motion is about a specific commitment and promise that the SNP made but has not delivered. It is simply not good enough for the SNP to pass the buck and blame Westminster and local authorities—especially when the power to help kinship carers lies with the Scottish Parliament, and particularly given that carers were sold out in 2009
“In return”—
as a letter from SNP councillor Isabel Hutton reiterates—
“for Councils agreement to a specific and enhanced commitment to reduce class sizes”.
As for ministers passing the buck and playing the blame game, the Minister for Children and Young People said that she will attend a kinship care conference on Monday. She should try to pass the buck and play the blame game there and see what response she gets from the kinship carers whom this Government has simply let down.
We are raising these concerns because many of the children will be cared for by grandparents and will have experienced many difficulties in their short lives. According to the charity Who Cares? 24 per cent will have lived with abuse, neglect and violence; some will have been deserted by their parents, often because of drug or alcohol abuse; and 10 per cent go to grandparents after the death of a parent, which is often—again—because of substance abuse. The ADSW suggests that the number of children who require care has increased in every year since 2001 because of parental substance abuse. Who is providing the solution? It is the forgotten army of grandparents and other family members who step in to look after and help the most vulnerable members of their families.
As members have pointed out, kinship care has a number of advantages. For example, children are able to live in a stable environment with people whom they know, love and trust, and might even, where appropriate, be able to stay in touch with their parents. They can also stay at the same school and feel less stigmatised.
Does Neil Bibby agree that, regardless of any allowances that they receive, kinship carers ought to be entitled to child benefit and child tax credit?
We on this side of the chamber are concerned by the Conservative-led Westminster Government’s welfare reforms, but the motion that we are debating is about the specific promise that the SNP made in 2007 and which has not been kept.
We know the benefits of kinship care and the important factors for a child’s emotional and physical wellbeing, which include building their resilience, aiding their educational achievement and helping them to contribute to society. The thousands of children in Scotland who are being cared for by family members do not have to be found suitable homes by local authorities and, as a number of members have pointed out, their life chances are likely to be better than if they were cared for by the state. For those thousands of children, family members have changed their own lives and plans to ensure that their grandchild, nephew, niece or other relation has a better life.
The love and attention that families give cannot be costed, but Demos has reported that children in stable care situations cost society an average of £32,000 less per year than children who are in less stable placements or who shuttle between parental and foster care. There can be few better examples of preventative spend than spending on support for such families.
Will Mr Bibby elaborate on my colleague Derek Mackay’s comment that, as a Renfrewshire councillor, he voted against kinship care payments? Why are the kinship carers in Renfrewshire not worthy of that additional support?
I cannot say that I supported every one of Derek Mackay’s budgets, which cut around £400 million from services in Renfrewshire. There were budget lines in other areas that I could not support; I will not go into them today, but I will be happy to do so on another occasion.
Many members have rightly raised concerns about the variations among local authorities. That is undeniable—many members have said it, the ADSW has said it, children’s charities have said it and it was backed up by evidence that the Education and Culture Committee heard last week. The poverty truth commission, which is supported by the Church of Scotland, has considered kinship care. It has called for an end to
“discrimination based on the legal status or postcode of the kinship carer”
and asked for all policies to be
“centred on the needs of the child and not the carer”.
The commission makes a number of important recommendations that we must consider in more detail, including a call for payments for kinship carers to equal those for foster care.
Labour members have asked the Scottish Government what it is doing for children who are in kinship care. On 27 September 2007, the First Minister committed to providing £10 million to fund financial support that is equivalent to that which is paid to foster parents. Successive SNP ministers have made further commitments that the promise would be met, via the concordat with local government, by 2011 at the latest. However, that is still not happening.
The Minister for Children and Young People said a lot of words about supporting children, but from what she said I am not sure whether she has dropped that commitment and is now not promising to deliver what her predecessors promised would be delivered. I would welcome an intervention on that. None is coming, so it is clear that the policy has been dropped.
We are working with local government to ensure that kinship carers are given the support that they need. Kinship carers want additional support. They want guidance and they need help and signposting to the benefits that are available to them. We will make a robust case to the UK Government to ensure that the welfare system properly helps kinship carers in Scotland.
We have still not got a commitment from the SNP Government. We have heard that we need more time, but the SNP Government has had five years to deliver on the commitment. Derek Mackay said that, in a couple of years, we will have an independence referendum, so we just have to wait another three years. In fact, the issue could be sorted out in three months if the Government put the money in its budget.
In correspondence with us this week, the Church of Scotland suggested that budget decisions are moral decisions. In 2007, the Government promised aid to kinship carers, who are often elderly people who make sacrifices to help children. They are not looking for massive sums, but simply for equality of treatment. What does it say about the SNP Scottish Government that it has not delivered on that promise? In London this week, the First Minister stated that Scotland is “a progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but that is clearly not the case on kinship care. Kinship carers, who are often grandparents and who look after our most vulnerable children with love and devotion, had their hopes raised by the SNP Government, but it has not delivered on its promises.
I recently heard a statement that I want to share with members, because we should listen to it:
“discrimination should have no place in Scotland in 2012. There is a responsibility on politicians to tackle the issue, to recognise the injustices and, I hope, to start to sort them out. I am by no means suggesting that you have a magic wand. Nevertheless, the starting point is December 2007, when the Parliament agreed an approach and the local authorities signed up to it. Does that mean anything? It certainly never materialised. In fact, the discrimination and the postcode lottery are more entrenched. I hope that you can recognise that and give justice to these kids.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 633.]
Those are not my words, but the words of Tommy McFall—a grandfather who gave evidence on kinship care to the Education and Culture Committee just last week.
Children need kinship carers, as does society. Carers must be properly supported and treated with respect, equality and justice. That is why Labour calls on the Scottish Government to do the right thing and to heed what kinship carers, the poverty truth commission and the churches are calling for by providing equal support for care of equal value. Ministers can and should act to end an injustice. If members want to support kinship carers and the thousands of children whom they look after, they should support the motion in Jackie Baillie’s name.