Chamber and committees

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the role of social media in encouraging violence towards pupils and teachers in schools. (S6F-02169)

The widespread use of apps such as TikTok and Instagram means that violence is broadcast beyond playground walls, with staff left vulnerable in ways that they have not been previously. As the First Minister said, however, the Scottish Government is limited in its powers with regard to online activity. Will the Scottish Government implore the UK Government to call on social media companies to improve their standards and sanctions when it comes to removing material that promotes violence?

I welcome the debate, which highlights the truly terrible experiences of women who were sent to Fornethy House residential school. I congratulate Colin Smyth on having secured the debate and on the work that he has undertaken to highlight the plight of those women and his extremely moving speech.

The women who are involved have demonstrated incredible courage in coming forward to put in the public domain the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that they suffered, and to make such a powerful case for justice. It is vital that those women be listened to by everyone who can act to address the serious and legitimate issues that they raise.

That is why the debate is important and why the petition that is currently being considered by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is significant, too. The suffering that the women endured happened over a period of at least 30 years between the 1960s and the 1990s. Despite the fact that that suffering happened some years ago, it is vital that justice be delivered; indeed, that the suffering happened many years ago makes it all the more critical that justice be delivered. That should include any perpetrator being brought to justice. I note, as Colin Smyth did, that an arrest has been made in connection with the issues.

I also think that our country should recognise the suffering that the women endured. The Scottish child abuse inquiry has undertaken powerful and painful work to confront the truly awful suffering of so many children who were in the care of the state in the past.

It strikes me that the suffering of the Fornethy survivors would benefit from being confronted with the rigour that has been demonstrated by the Scottish child abuse inquiry. I understand that some of the women have met the Scottish Government to set out their concerns, and I welcome the constructive dialogue that has already taken place with the Government in a meeting between some of the women and the former Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, who was and is passionate in his determination to see justice for survivors of those terrible crimes.

In a letter to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in February this year, the former Deputy First Minister set out actions that were being taken by the Scottish Government to address many of the issues that are raised in Colin Smyth’s motion. The letter stated that the Scottish Government believed that the eligibility criteria of the redress scheme could include Fornethy survivors, and the Government gave the assurance that it would consider further whether that was the case. I believe that that indicates a willingness to be as helpful as possible to the affected women, and I hope that, in closing, the minister will be able to give us an update on the Government’s view on that question.

I know that survivors have had great difficulty in accessing records relating to the time that they spent in Fornethy. Having access to original documentary information would, without doubt, strengthen applications for redress, so I take this opportunity to ask Glasgow City Council to intensify its work to identify whether any information is still held by the council, as the successor to the Glasgow Corporation and Strathclyde Regional Council, that might help any individual in their quest for justice.

The physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children is a difficult subject for any society to confront, but that difficulty is nothing compared to the suffering of the children, and we have an obligation to air and confront the issues and to do all that we can to remedy their suffering. Important work is being undertaken in Scotland today to do that, and I hope that the debate helps to ensure that that work addresses the experiences of women who suffered at Fornethy House, because the Fornethy women deserve justice. Indeed, that is the least that they deserve.

I will be quick. I agree with a lot, if not all, of what Katy Clark said. First, regarding women going to the custody units, I have heard that there might be an issue relating to eligibility criteria. It would be useful to ask whether eligibility has been set too high and whether the criteria are realistic. We should definitely chase that up, as well as Katy Clark’s points about remand, data and so on.

Secondly, we have talked about young people being put in YOIs instead of secure care when there is capacity in the latter. I understand that point, and it would be useful to find out why that is happening. The situation might change when the new legislation is passed, but that really should not be happening now anyway.

Lastly, a thread runs through many of the responses, in that there are references to reviews and reports being published in spring. It might be helpful for us to have a wee table of stuff—I do not want to put more work on the clerks; the Scottish Parliament information centre might be able to produce it—so that we know what is coming, what is late and what is expected, because there are so many reviews and reports out there.

Nothing is more important than giving a child the best start in life and a loving, stable home, and nothing is more important than ensuring that the thousands of children who, through no fault of their own, are fostered get that best start.

The Scottish Government is passionate about fulfilling the Promise and ensuring that care-experienced children are protected and loved, and I am very proud of our continuing commitment to them.

The theme of today’s debate, which takes place during foster care fortnight, which runs from now until 28 May, is fostering communities. Delivered by the leading fostering charity, the Fostering Network, it focuses on how employers can support employees who are going through the fostering process. The fostering friendly employers scheme would ensure that foster carers have the opportunity for paid leave for training, respite meetings and other requirements to fulfil their vital role.

I hope that the theme will help to boost awareness of the need for more foster carers and make employers think about how they could help employees to fulfil their wish to help children.

Thousands of new foster families are needed every year to care for children, with the greatest need being for foster carers for older children, sibling groups, disabled children and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There are currently 4,623 children in foster care in Scotland and 3,716 fostering families. We need to thank them for their hard work and for the love that they give to the children in their care. However, 500 more fostering families are needed, and I will outline how employers can support them at no cost to their business other than giving them time.

The Fostering Network set up the fostering friendly employers scheme in 2014 in response to the finding that foster carers need more flexibility and understanding from their employers in order to work alongside fostering. There are more than 120 fostering friendly employers in the United Kingdom, and the number is growing. Collectively, they employ more than half a million staff. The recent news that John Lewis has joined the scheme is great, and I expect other large companies to follow.

The Fostering Network found that 41 per cent of foster carers in Scotland combined their role with other employment, while 60 per cent of foster carers said that a fostering friendly human resources policy would help them to work while fostering. Flexibility is the key to helping employees through the fostering process.

I can speak from personal experience as an employer—my head of office, Paul, has adopted siblings and went through a thorough and detailed process that began with fostering. Obviously, it involves getting time for meetings, phone calls and social work appointments. Now, when I see his happy thriving children, I know that every absence from the office was worth it. Nothing could be more important than the selfless act of offering one’s home to children and, in the case of Paul and his husband Mark, nurturing them for life.

I am proud to say that I am the first MSP to sign up to the Fostering Network’s fostering friendly employers scheme. I have no doubt that many more colleagues from across the chamber will follow suit.

A foster carer who works for a fostering friendly employer said:

“Being employed, being a mum and foster carer is hard to get to grips with at first. You have your own commitments, but I’ve had fantastic managers. I was honest with them at the beginning and said, ‘Look, this is what we’re going through’. When emergency placements came up, I sent my manager a text in the middle of the night to say, ‘We’ve just taken a placement so I’m going to be late in the morning’. He would reply, ‘It’s not a problem. Don’t worry about it’.”

One business said:

“the impact for us as a company is relatively small, but the impact for any potential child being fostered could be significant.”

In February, I was privileged to host a reception in the Parliament for the Fostering Network. It was a wonderful evening, hearing inspirational stories from foster parents and meeting some of their happy children, who were an absolute delight.

What does being a fostering friendly employer entail, and how does an employer become one? The Fostering Network has a template for a fostering-friendly HR policy, which is available by inquiry, and its scheme is free to join. Signing up to the scheme means supporting staff by providing five days’ paid leave a year for fostering related activity. The policy applies to staff who have three months or more employment service with a company, and they are eligible if they are applying to become a foster carer, if they are an approved foster carer and have a child in placement or if they are an approved kinship carer.

Such employers are committed to supporting any staff member who is a foster carer or an approved kinship carer by creating a fostering friendly office that offers flexible working arrangements that respond to the needs of all staff who are foster carers or approved kinship carers. Those needs could include time for assessment and training prior to approval as a foster carer, attendance at a panel for approval, child review meetings, annual foster care review meetings or training. In short, the scheme allows people to prepare to become foster carers and to take time off work without losing holidays or money, but it has very little impact on a business.

Together, we could transform, support and recognise foster carers in the workplace, which would, in turn, encourage more people to foster. Employers can play a critical part in creating fostering communities by supporting foster carers to give children a loving home. That is surely the greatest gift of all.

I echo what my colleague Fulton MacGregor said. I do not think that Mr Greene responded to his question about the fact that we did not hear any arguments in support of such a change during our evidence taking. I will not support amendment 70 for that and other reasons.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am struggling a wee bit with your explanation about why you object to that approach. The very nature of an emergency means that there is not time for scrutiny, and regulations need to be made incredibly quickly. I cannot see the reason for objecting to that—an emergency is an emergency. As I said, having that facility available is just a safety net. I cannot see that there is any hidden meaning behind it—what it is for is clear cut.

Thank you for that clarification. I have nothing else to add, convener.

Amendment 90 agreed to.

Amendments 12 and 13 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 91 and 92 moved—[Rona Mackay]—and agreed to.

Amendment 93 moved—[Jamie Greene].

The amendments that I am proposing seek to bring the emergency release provision in the bill into line with changes that were made to the comparable provision in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 provides the power to release from prison early groups of prisoners who fall within a particular category specified in regulations. That must, of course, be done in response to the effect that the coronavirus is having, or is likely to have, on a prison or on prisons in general.

The power contained in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill is a wider and permanent power that will be used in response to the effect that an emergency situation is having on a prison or on prisons in general. It is clear that, by its nature, that power would rarely, if ever, be used, but I believe that it is an important safety net to have.

Given that the amendments that were made to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 were agreed to after the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill was introduced, it is appropriate that those amendments be replicated here.

Amendment 90 seeks to limit the application of the early release powers to ensure that prisoners cannot be released any earlier than six months prior to their scheduled release date. Amendment 92 seeks to exclude people convicted under the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 from the early release provision. I think that that is absolutely crucial. Finally, amendments 91 and 94 are technical amendments resulting from amendments 92 and 90.

All of those amendments reflect amendments to the comparable power in the 2022 act, and I believe that they are necessary to ensure the safety of victims and give them some piece of mind in the unlikely event that they would be needed.

I move amendment 90.