Chamber and committees

I do not have anything further to add, other than to thank the committee for its questions this morning.

Motion agreed to.

Convener, I missed part of the start of that question, but I hope that I can answer Mr Rennie fully. If not, I am more than happy to write to the committee with an update on the work that we are doing with COSLA.

As Mr Rennie will be aware, there has been a huge expansion of the ELC estate right across the country. In just about all local authorities, additional building work has been done. We are certainly keen to encourage and promote the ELC offer to eligible two-year-olds, and we will continue to do that through all the avenues that we can. We work closely with COSLA on that and on other issues relating to ELC.

If I have not answered Mr Rennie’s question fully, I am more than happy to come back to the committee.

Thank you, convener. This is my first opportunity to speak to the committee. I welcome you, Ms Stewart and the new committee members to your roles.

This amending order will increase the income thresholds for families with a two-year-old who is eligible for funded early learning and childcare because they get a joint working tax credit and child tax credit or a universal credit award. Without the amendment, the relevant order specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of child tax credit and working tax credit, with an annual income that does not exceed £7,320, or if their parent is in receipt of universal credit, with an income that does not exceed £610 per month. The amending order will increase the income threshold to £7,500 per year for households in receipt of both child tax credit and working tax credit. The universal credit income threshold will increase to £625 per month.

We are making the change to reflect changes at a United Kingdom level. The UK Government has increased the national living wage from £8.72 to £8.91 per hour and has reduced the age at which a person receives that living wage from 25 years of age to 23. Those changes mean that it is no longer possible for a parent of a two-year-old who is 23 or older to meet the criteria for those who are on combined working tax credit and child tax credit or on universal credit.

The purpose of the order is to protect eligibility for two-year-olds whom we would expect to be eligible for funded ELC as a result of their parents or carers being in receipt of those affected qualifying benefits. We estimate that, if we chose not to make any changes to the income thresholds, about 1,000 two-year-olds would no longer be eligible, despite there being no significant difference in the household circumstances of their families.

It is important to be clear that no two-year-old who currently receives funded ELC will be affected by the changes. Once a child has met the eligibility criteria, they will remain eligible, despite any subsequent change in circumstances.

In relation to any child who became eligible after the change to the national living wage in April 2021 and who has applied for a place to start in August, which is the next start date for children with a birthday between 1 March and 31 August, we wrote to all local authorities in June to request that they use their discretionary powers to allow for the increase in the national living wage.

As the purpose of the amendment is to maintain eligibility, we do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of two-year-olds becoming newly eligible for the provision, and we do not expect there to be a significant impact on local authorities’ ability to fund the provision within the current financial settlement. As such, there is no evidence that additional funding is required to support implementation of the amendment.

However, the impact on uptake will be closely monitored by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the appropriate mechanism—the ELC finance working group—and appropriate arrangements will be made if uptake is significantly above the level that is expected and local authority costs increase as a result.

We will monitor future increases to the national living wage, and we expect that it will be necessary to uprate thresholds annually to keep pace with the standard of living. We have agreed with COSLA that the current amendment is, and future amendments will be, necessary to maintain a similar profile of eligible children.

I am happy to respond to any questions that the committee has.

That is an important question. We are very aware of that issue. We are working across Scotland to ensure that all families know the benefits of the offer and are able to access it. That includes working with the UK Government to address data-sharing issues so that councils in Scotland can target information at eligible families. We are working across agencies to improve access of information to families, to help them to make informed decisions about ELC provision. We are also working with councils and Who Cares? Scotland to make the most of the extension to funded ELC to two-year-olds with a care-experienced parent. In addition, we are exploring further ways of engaging with the professionals who work closely with those families—for example, family nurse practitioners, health visitors and social care workers—to ensure that they inform families of their eligibility and encourage them, when appropriate and when those families wish to, to take up the offer of ELC.

I certainly give a commitment that I will speak to everyone who wants to raise their voice. We are looking at ways in which we can ensure that we have the widest range of voices to inform us of what the women and their children need and want.

The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 requires local authorities to provide those who have been affected by adoption with the support that they require. Adoption support services are available across the country. In certain areas,? that includes specialist agencies such as the Scottish adoption advice service, which is run by Barnardo’s, and Scottish Adoption. Those specialist agencies run extensive and well-established information, intermediary and counselling services, with provision available to local authorities.

The Scottish Government funds and works closely with the organisation Birthlink, which provides services to individuals and families who have been separated by adoption. That includes maintaining the adoption contact register for Scotland. If any women, adoptees or others who have been affected by the issues need support, their first step should be to contact their local authority adoption agency, which will be ready and willing to support anyone in that position.

Although those supports are in place, I recognise that they might not provide everything that those who are campaigning on the issue feel that they need. That is why it is critical for me to understand what really matters to the women and how they feel that they can best be supported, to ensure that they are treated with the sensitivity and respect that they richly deserve.

I will work really hard with the women and their families to find out exactly what they want, because there is no one voice in this. We have one shot at getting this right, so I want to get it right. I give Mr Sarwar a commitment that I will do my level best to assist in making the Parliament’s voice heard. I am mindful that, as Miles Briggs mentioned, the issue has had a huge impact on the children who were separated from their mothers all those years ago, so it is equally important that their voices and experiences are heard, too.?

Given the importance of the issue, I have written to the UK Government to discuss historical adoption practices, as I know that the matter is being discussed south of the border, as members have said.

Major shifts have occurred in adoption practice as well as across society as a whole. However, we are not complacent, and we know that more can be done. That is why, this year, the First Minister committed to implementing the findings of the independent care review’s promise. The promise recommends keeping families together where it is safe to do so, and says that families must be given support so that, together, they can overcome the challenges that are experienced in their lives. Where it is not possible for a child to remain with their birth family, it is crucial that all parties are given the appropriate support, including therapeutic support, as well as support through advocacy and engagement.

I would not want to single out any one of the powerful speeches that we have heard. Members have spoken eloquently about the experience that their constituents have brought to them. I say to every member who has participated that I have certainly heard their words and will take on board their considerations.

I once again reiterate my deepest sympathies to all those who have been affected by historical adoption practices in Scotland. Earlier, I referred to the bravery of the women who have made their voices heard. I am committed to listening to those women, to their children and to others who have been affected, and I am committed to working in partnership with them to explore our next steps.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your new position.

I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to make some closing remarks. In common with other members we have heard from during the debate, I am deeply saddened that, in the past, women felt forced to give up their children for adoption due to the prevailing moral and social norms of the time. The lives of the women, children and wider families who have been affected by the issue have been profoundly changed by the experience, and I offer my sincere sympathies for what they have endured. I thank the women for their commitment, courage and determination to come forward and have their voices heard. I do not for one minute underestimate how harrowing it is for them to revisit their experiences. Sadly, I am sure that doing so will have added to their pain.

The issue is complex and was influenced by many facets of society at the time. Those of us who have heard first-hand accounts or read research will have been moved, if not shocked, by the often heartbreaking experiences, such as mothers being prevented from seeing their baby during birth and birth mothers feeling pressurised into giving up their child.

The accounts that have been shared today have reiterated the terrible harm and long-lasting impact. The practices might well be historical, but the effect that they have had on the women is very real today. Sadly, we know from the numerous accounts of birth mothers’ experiences that they suffered widespread social censure, condemnation, prejudice and stigma. Thankfully, those practices and morals have no place in our society today.

Two weeks ago, the First Minister agreed to look at the matter properly, fully and quickly, and I am equally committed to doing so. Having reached out to the Movement for an Adoption Apology, I am delighted that it has accepted my invitation to meet next week. I am actively working to establish future meetings with others who have been affected by the historical practices. No voice speaks louder on any issue than the voice of lived experience, and the opportunity to have discussions directly with women who have suffered the trauma of separation and its lifelong effects is of paramount importance to me.

As members will know, I am fairly new to my role as the Minister for Children and Young People. However, I understand that the Movement for an Adoption Apology has campaigned for many years on the issue and has called on the UK Government to issue an apology.

I am acutely aware that the group recently reported that the adoption apology that the Republic of Ireland Government made earlier this year has “not been well received” and has?been “described as ‘political waffle’”. That is why it is so important for me to have direct discussion with those who have lived experience of adoption under these circumstances. It is right that we look at the issue properly, and for me that means listening to the voices of women, children and wider families whose lives have been profoundly changed by the experience. By doing that, we can work in partnership on the next steps.

Secure care is one of the most intensive and restrictive forms of alternative care in Scotland. Depriving a child of their liberty in secure units, even when that is essential for their safety and welfare, has a profound effect on them and such decisions should always be legally justifiable, rights proofed and transparent. Following the examination of 119 cases of children who were placed in secure accommodation across 27 local authorities during 2018 and 2019, the commissioner’s report highlights significant procedural and notification issues for local authorities and chief social work officers.

The report also highlights good practice in some areas and points to encouraging remedial activities since the fieldwork took place. I am concerned, however, that every child’s statutory rights may not have been protected during that time, so I wrote to chief social work officers yesterday both to offer support and to seek reassurance that they have, if necessary, amended procedures to comply fully with all regulations. I am also looking to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at the earliest opportunity to discuss the matter further.

I understand from the report that, during the investigation, 17 local authorities had already taken steps to review their policy and practice, which is welcome. However, all local authorities must ensure that they have undertaken a similar process.

The report asks that the Scottish Government work with partners to consider whether the existing law is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and make any necessary amendments to strengthen legal protections of children’s rights. It is important that we get it right for every child, regardless of his or her circumstances. We will work closely with COSLA and other partners to ensure that robust scrutiny and accountability mechanisms are in place through individual organisations, multiagency partnerships and national inspection arrangements.