Chamber and committees

Thanks.

Having listened to colleagues, it is quite clear from the breadth of cross-party amendments that we can strengthen this area at stage 3. Our debate shows that we can build a great future model of support and early intervention, which I hope we can achieve at stage 3.

I am happy to accept the minister’s assurances. Given the amendments on family group decision making that the Government is supporting at stage 2, there is an opportunity for us collectively to get this right at stage 3.

I press amendment 207.

Amendment 207 agreed to.

Amendment 208 not moved.

I will not move amendment 122, but the prevention of separation of families is an area that I am interested in pursuing, alongside Sue Webber, with the minister. I am especially interested in reunification. It is important that voices have expressed the fact that there are no specific provisions in the bill to strengthen that.

Amendment 122 not moved.

Amendments 216 and 217 not moved.

With the establishment of the national social work agency, what work will be undertaken here, specifically? I agree with the minister: I do not want inadvertently to create more of the bureaucracy that my amendment 185 aims to reduce. It is not clear what scoping work is taking place to explore how the profession can limit the amount of reporting that it is asked to do, which—given the amount of casework that social workers have—is consistently reported to us as one of the biggest pressures, and it is the reason why many people leave the profession much earlier or do not stay in it in their careers. What work will take place in that context?

Amendment 119 would amend sections 38 and 39 of the 2011 act so that, when a sheriff considers a child protection order, they must be satisfied by evidence on oath. Amendment 120 would add a specific requirement that any evidence that is provided by a social worker to the sheriff for the purposes of considering whether to make an order must also be given under oath. Both amendments are in my colleague Sue Webber’s name.

Applications for CPOs are generally made by local authority social workers and determined by a sheriff. At present, evidence that is presented in support of a CPO application is not subject to external independent scrutiny or corroboration. Applications for removal are not required to be made on oath and strict rules for evidence do not apply, despite the severity and immediacy of the outcome.

Existing research highlights the reliance that is placed on urgency and professional judgment in such cases, with protective action often taken prior to full court scrutiny, which may not take place for many months or, indeed, sometimes a year or more in complex cases. That makes the standard of evidence at the point of decision making especially important.

Independent reviews, including by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, have repeatedly identified that there is insufficient time, training and support for often inexperienced local authority social workers.

Those conditions mitigate against what should be robust and replicable assessments of suspected risk.

There is also concern that, despite grounds of significant harm being advanced at the point of a CPO application, the grounds subsequently relied on by the children’s reporter are often not those that are used to justify the original removal and are often very different after the proof hearing in front of a sheriff, which is sometimes months after a removal has taken place.

The separation of a child from their family, particularly at or near birth, is associated with a significant psychological impact. As the committee has heard, both published research and the lived experiences of families who are affected by child removal underline the importance of what should be fair, transparent and evidence-based decision making, given the potential for long-term harm to arise from unnecessary or poorly evidenced removals.

Although the police retain powers to remove a child without prior court approval in urgent circumstances, the routine use of CPOs without sworn evidence or mandatory parental representation raises serious concerns about proportionality, fairness and accountability.

The intention behind Sue Webber’s amendments is to address and recognise that the stakes in emergency removal are high. The requirement for an oath to be taken aims to raise evidential standards, improve accountability and enhance confidence in decisions in which separation is urgent. That is consistent with the calls for rights-respecting processes and for transparent reasoning and safeguards wherever decisions can have lasting impacts, which we heard during our evidence sessions at stage 1.

I move amendment 119.

I hope that the amendments have given an opportunity to put on record some of the concerns, especially the point on independent scrutiny. I hope that the minister will still consider whether there needs to be some improvement in the area, given the concerns about the time that it often takes for hearings to happen.

I will not press amendment 119 or move amendment 120, but I am pleased to have put on record those concerns.

Amendment 119, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Hearing the minister’s response before I have had a chance to outline my colleague Sue Webber’s rationale for amendment 116 is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. We know that a compulsory protection order removes a child from their mother, often at birth or shortly thereafter, and that there is no requirement on a local authority to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been explored or that meaningful work has been undertaken with the family to keep the child with their family of origin.

I will not cover Sue Webber’s previous remarks on prevention or the evidence that the committee took at stage 1, in which there were repeated calls for prevention and clear access routes to practical supports that avoid separation, and for recorded reasoning when separation is proposed. The amendment would operationalise that expectation through a statutory precondition in which a children’s hearing or sheriff may make or vary an order that would result in a child not residing with a parent or primary carer only

“if satisfied that no reasonable alternative measures are available or would be appropriate”

to keep the child at home.

Under amendment 116, consideration of alternative measures would have to be recorded in the child’s plan. It contains an illustrative list of appropriate measures, such as

“domiciliary and residential support services (including parent and baby units), … out of hours support, … family residential services, … personalised budgets, … services in an order made under section 68 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014”,

and

“parent and child foster or kinship care”.

I listened to what the minister outlined. My colleague Sue Webber is seeking to improve the recording of decisions such that the reasoning behind and rational for them is included. If the minister believes that that aspect should be improved, I would ask that the recording of that information in the child’s plan be considered at stage 3. I intend to move amendment 116.

Amendment 185 is a probing amendment that I lodged following discussions with a number of social workers as we developed our approach to the bill. Those conversations have been about reducing the bureaucracy that many of them face when carrying out their work. Through this amendment, I want to probe where ministers intend to review the bureaucracy surrounding the delivery of services. If we consider the example of North Ayrshire and the progress that has been made there, we can see that positive work has been undertaken to reduce the level and burden of reporting placed on many social workers in that part of the United Kingdom.

I really want to really hear what the minister has to say. The issue was raised consistently by social workers at a number of the events that I attended. This is a real opportunity to declutter some of the extra workload that we place on them, if we are to give them the time to deliver the additional work that will arise from the Promise and the bill.

As I said, this is a probing amendment and I am interested to hear what the Government’s approach is to the issue.

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?