Chamber and committees

My questions build on the theme of delay to appeals. We have had a discussion about resourcing and about support for the process. Are there other barriers that cause delays, and what action is being taken to deal with those? Previous answers have touched on some of that, but perhaps Ms Devlin could talk about other barriers in the appeals process.

Are there challenges with the collation of the information? I know that there have been issues with the timescale for information collation in some other parts of the application process. Do you feel that that is not an issue?

Ms Black, do you want to comment on any other barriers that exist within the appeals process?

I rise to make a brief contribution on amendment 29. I appreciate Roz McCall’s comments on the concerns that have been raised with her by the people that she mentioned in her remarks. However, I want to put on the record the evidence that a number of organisations in Scotland, including in the social work profession, have raised about the challenges that such an amendment presents in seeking to take a blanket approach to separating children in secure care according to whether they have caused harm or had harm caused to them, which we have heard about during the debate.

When I speak to members of the social work profession, it is clear that an amendment that takes such a blanket approach would fly in the face of the principles identified in the Kilbrandon report, which we have discussed several times during the bill’s progress and in the course of the amendment process. It would significantly change the tone and ethos of social work for children and young people across Scotland. Roz McCall has outlined a key concern about local authority resourcing, which has been referenced repeatedly during the debate. However, I do not believe that such a blanket approach is the best way to deal with it.

Sue Webber’s amendment 1 deals with a particular issue and a particular challenge by ensuring that safe provision is considered prior to the approval of a secure setting.

I highlight a letter that the CYCJ wrote to the committee in advance of stage 2, which pointed out that

“Since its inception secure care has provided support, supervision and care to children who have both been harmed, and who have caused harm.”

The CYCJ went on to say that, in its opinion,

“any suggestion that secure care is not capable”

of supporting young people to share those spaces is unfounded in its body of evidence.

I also draw members’ attention to evidence from the Department for Education in England in its 2021 report “Secure children’s homes: placing welfare and justice children together”, which looked at the placing of children who are in secure care on a welfare basis in the same setting as those who are there on a justice basis. That report found no evidence to support concerns that placing children from justice and welfare systems together in mixed settings causes an increased risk of abuse.

Notwithstanding the important concerns about resourcing that have rightly been raised, I have a concern that such a blanket approach would not be appropriate and would not be in keeping with the Kilbrandon principles, which I think we all want to support through the bill.

It is very important for us to hear those points. I have heard from other third sector organisations that, when funding is late in being announced or committed to, there is a sense that organisations will bridge the gap somehow or that such services will always exist. However, as Neil Mathers outlined, the challenge is that it takes a lot of resource to have such services funded by public donations or other grants and trusts. Have people experienced that bridging issue when the Government has been late in delivering funding?

I am keen to understand whether details of spending on suicide prevention should be included in progress reports on the strategy. Would that give people a better sense of the progress that was or was not being made in budget allocation? Would it be helpful in showing the wider picture and allowing organisations to plan better? Should the committee consider that matter in our conversations with the Government?

Good morning to the panel. My questions will focus on the funding landscape and the funding of suicide prevention work in particular. Yesterday, I read comments from Samaritans Scotland and SAMH on the broader picture of funding for mental health services. Samaritans Scotland has said that, given the challenges,

“There is no indication that the Scottish Government will meet its own target of increasing mental health spend to 10% of the NHS budget”.

Samaritans also recognised that “Creating Hope Together” is a very ambitious strategy and said that funding is required to deliver it. I want to give Neil Mathers and Dan Farthing the opportunity to speak to those comments, and then we will have a broader conversation.

I am interested in what you said, Dan, about the adequacy of funding and the sustainability of funding. Last week, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations was in the Parliament speaking about those issues in a broader context in the voluntary and third sector. I am interested in the third sector work that is going on in this space, which many people round the table are engaged in. Does year-to-year funding present challenges to your ability to test change and test what works, because you need a sense of security to do that? I imagine that, within this ambitious plan, we want to test what works. Is year-to-year funding limiting or holding back initiatives that could move forward?

Mr Balfour has heard me say before that the entire system is not working. That is why we must take a whole-system approach and look at all the facets and measures of universal credit. We will not take advice from a Tory Government that has, as I have outlined, pushed more and more people into poverty and has not focused on ensuring that the safety net is there for people who need it.

We need to fundamentally reform all aspects of universal credit and have an overarching UK Government anti-poverty strategy, which has been seriously lacking from the Conservative Party over both the seven years and the 14 years that the Conservatives have been in government. Given what I said about in-work poverty, it is clear that we need to reform work across the UK to ensure that we lift people’s wages, put money in people’s pockets and put an end to insecure work.

What a contrast the past 14 years have been for the 1 million children, including 200,000 children in Scotland alone, and the 1 million pensioners who were lifted out of poverty by the previous Labour Government. That will be our focus if we form the next UK Government, through a new deal for working people and fundamental reforms of the social contract.

The motion reflects on what has happened in the past seven years under this Parliament, including the advent of Social Security Scotland. The cabinet secretary and I have often tried to find consensus in many such areas—I know that she is keen to do so. For example, Labour members have supported the Scottish child payment, and I think that support for it will continue as we move forward.

However, the Government and the SNP must reflect on what is not working so well in the system. We talk about a system that is rooted in fairness, dignity and respect, and we hear assertions that those concepts are inherent in the system. However, there are serious challenges with waiting times for benefits such as the Scottish child disability payment—just in the past week, we heard that, sadly and tragically, nine children died while waiting for payment of that benefit. I therefore do not think that it is fair to say that the system in Scotland is perfect or is always rooted in dignity, fairness and respect. There is much more to do to move that forward.

It is clear that there is a huge amount of work to do to rectify the legacy that the Conservatives will leave behind when—I hope—they leave office not too far in the future. There are huge challenges with the social contract, which will have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Crucially, for people who experience in-work poverty, we need to have a new deal for working people that supports them, puts money in their pockets and ensures that they are in safe and secure work and that they can bring in the money that they need to support their family.

Will the member take an intervention?