Chamber and committees

Good morning. I am pleased that we start by, I hope, putting kinship care at the heart of the bill, as Jeremy Balfour said. I recognise what the minister said about wanting to improve the situation. I was a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee alongside Jeremy Balfour—and, I think, the minister—when we took evidence from families. That was some of the most compelling evidence that I have heard. As a committee, we promised that we would take that with us through Parliament, so I am pleased that we have this opportunity to start that process as part of the bill.

The intention behind my amendment 126 is to require the Scottish Government to take steps to make sure that kinship carers can more easily and accessibly find and access support. “The Promise” says:

“The Care Review has heard from many kinship families about the lack of support they have in caring for children and the fear they sometimes have of asking for help.”

It also says:

“Support must recognise the particular challenges that can exist for kinship carers. There must be a recognition that kinship carers may be caring for deeply traumatised children and that they may experience their own pain at the consequences of family breakdown.”

As has been said, Scotland’s care system depends heavily on kinship carers. It is already the most common care arrangement in the country, covering 35 per cent of looked-after children in our community, so it is important that we consider how the bill will strengthen arrangements and information sharing.

The minister highlighted the use of the word “local”. I included that in amendment 126 because it is important to look at support for kinship care nationally. In my region of Lothian, such support is more easily accessible than it is in the Highlands and Islands, for example. We need to consider how support is provided at a local level and nationally co-ordinated. I wanted to capture both of those aspects in the amendment.

From evidence that parliamentary committees have taken over many years, it is clear that the offering to kinship carers is not what it should be. The informal arrangements around kinship care often present issues in that regard, but that should not prevent the bill, or all of us, from trying to improve the offering to ensure that support is provided not only in a crisis situation but in a preventative way.

I am happy to work with the minister on tidying up the amendment and to have further discussions before stage 3. I hope that, at the end of the process, the offering for kinship carers will be a really improved part of the Promise and the bill. We need to turn some of this on its head, and we need our public services to intervene earlier. For the Promise to be a success, we need to radically change the way in which kinship carers are supported and seen by public services. Amendment 126 seeks to do that, and I am happy to work with the minister to try to improve it.

I think that there is a lot of sympathy for what the member is trying to achieve. In North Yorkshire, for example, there is a core offer for care leavers that brings together information that people would be likely to want to access on accommodation, health, relationships and job opportunities. Is that what the member envisages that his amendments would provide, so that there would be “no wrong door” for someone to go to and access information?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way?

My reason for lodging amendment 158 relates to the evidence that we had from the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and one particular story that has stayed with me. One grandparent told us about the police coming to their home in the middle of the night to hand over their half-naked granddaughter. Obviously, the family stepped up in that instance; in private, though, there was a lot of conversation about the concerns that kinship carers, who are most often grandparents, have about social work and the potential for children to be taken off them. As a result, they often do not reach out for help, and a crisis situation can build.

The intention behind amendment 158 is to promote a normalised offer of whole family support to kinship carers across Scotland. The independent care review said that it

“heard from many kinship care families about the lack of support they have in caring for children and the fear they sometimes have of asking for help. …

The principles for intensive family support that wrap around a family must be as accessible to kinship families as to families of origin. Support must be offered freely without kinship carers having to fight for it. Kinship carers should not feel the need to professionalise their role in order to access support.”

Kinship carers continue to tell us that they struggle to find and access offers of whole family support. The Scottish Government has said that kinship carers in informal, or formal, arrangements will be included in the scope of the guidance, and that provides an important opportunity to be clear about the support that should be available to kinship carers and children and what that should look like.

If the Promise is to succeed, more children will have to be supported to live with their families. However, if kinship is relied on more and more without any investment in the supports that those children and families need to thrive, those people will feel as though they are being set up to fail. Promoting good practice with regard to whole family support offers to children in kinship care arrangements, as part of the work that the Scottish Government plans to carry out on the guidance, will, I think, help move things forward.

I will be pleased to move amendment 158.

No, I do not think that you are. I was privy to the same conversation as you were, and I completely appreciate the fact that a young person will see someone whom they trust, whether that is their teacher or their social worker, as a suitable advocate. However, Ross Greer’s point was about where the conflict of interest lies in relation to who employs them. How could it be decided that the advice that they gave that young person was 100 per cent independent and was based on what the young person needed, rather than on workforce or budget pressures? That is why I have a concern about allowing someone to be the young person’s advocate regardless of the organisation that they have their contract with.

I just want to put on record a conversation that we have been having as this committee meeting has gone on. A lot of young people are looking to that trusted person to be almost a facilitator in accessing services. I would not want to take away from what Jackie Dunbar has been highlighting with regard to the person in question being the trusted person whom the young person would want to be their advocate, but there is a conflict of interest issue to take into account, too.

I think it wise that we agree to amendment 147 today, but its definition of “independent”, and who the individual in question could be, could still be looked at in terms of that facilitator role. That will be for stage 3, though, and we could also reach out to the sector to see what it thinks. We have all heard the voice of care-experienced young people, and the fact is that they want that individual, even if there is a conflict of interest.

The committee has just considered the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. I am very sympathetic to the member’s amendment, but what does he envisage being provided by the guarantee that he has referred to, if there is no guarantee of an apprenticeship opportunity or further education? I am just a wee bit concerned about the word “guaranteed” in the amendment and what it would look like in reality if something is not going to be delivered.

Will the minister give way?

That is very helpful. We have been concerned about that transparency issue.