Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 02 November 2011
02 Nov 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Looked-after Children
There is no greater responsibility than bringing up children—and no greater responsibility for the state than ensuring that children who, for one reason or another, have been taken into care are properly looked after. Although we must acknowledge that hundreds of council workers across Scotland work tirelessly to do their very best for children in such circumstances, nothing can replace the love and security of a permanent and stable family environment, and it goes without saying that that must be the overall policy objective.
The Scottish Government and the Opposition parties have acknowledged that, notwithstanding the numerous and genuine efforts that have been made to address the problem, more has to be done. We cannot get away from statistics that show that since 2001 the number of looked-after children in Scotland has risen by 69 per cent and increasing evidence that, in some parts of this country, the problem is reaching crisis point. For example, between 2005 and 2008, the number of looked-after children in one council increased by 85 per cent. Moreover, just last week, there were worrying reports that children’s services in Dundee had reached “saturation point”, largely as the result of certain very difficult social problems in the city. As a result, the city has been overspending on its children’s services by £1.6 million annually.
Although it is important to stress that such worrying situations are not the norm across Scotland, it is nevertheless evident that the country’s councils have had varying degrees of success in addressing the situation. Indeed, as the Education and Culture Committee heard only yesterday, quite a bit of progress has been made. The standard of reporting is better; better systems are in place for ensuring that there are coherent plans to look after the best interests of each child; school attendance has improved in some areas; and there are some signs that educational attainment levels are increasing. We should be encouraged by all that. However, it is only a small start when it comes to dealing with the stark reality.
Last year, 56 per cent of school leavers gained five or more qualifications at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 5 or better. The figure for looked-after children was only 0.5 per cent, and only 2.5 per cent of the 15,000 or 16,000 looked-after children in Scotland go on to further or higher education. We also know that, as with exclusion and attendance rates at school, drop-out rates can be high. Furthermore, evidence shows that around half of the looked-after children in Scotland encounter mental health problems and, even worse, problems in accessing the relevant mental health services. Indeed, my colleague Mary Scanlon exposed that very issue just last week.
In the whole debate about looked-after children, I have been struck by two comments. First, at yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting, Claire Burns, the strategic policy manager for CELCIS, the centre of excellence for looked-after children in Scotland, said that she thought that we were very good identifying the problems but much less good at measuring outcomes and providing solutions. Secondly, the Educational Institute of Scotland has stated that there has been little improvement in attainment for looked-after children
“despite the considerable volume of policy, guidance and legislation in this area”.
In other words, there have been lots of attempts to do things, but not enough of them are having much impact. What lessons do we need to learn from the experts on the ground? What can we as politicians do to ensure that significant qualitative improvements are made in the life chances of our looked-after children?
First, there are some issues with the decision-making process. From the wealth of written and oral evidence that was presented to the committee, some key themes emerged. Local authorities are not yet skilled enough at bringing greater coherency to decision making, particularly when it might involve council officers across several departments. The spirit of getting it right for every child is definitely there, but the practicalities still present too many problems. It has been pointed out that there is not enough of a multidisciplinary approach to training among professionals. That issue was also raised by Graham Donaldson when he examined how teachers could best be assisted to provide crucial educational support for looked-after children. In addition, there appears to be widespread concern that the range of professionals who are involved in looking after any one child are not always best informed about the care plan, and we need to take that very seriously indeed.
It was also pointed out that there can be issues with decision making that relate to procurement, and that too much time can be spent on tendering and contractual processes, which are often expensive, without due regard being paid to the qualitative outcomes. We were told that the procurement process can often get bogged down in ideological prejudices to do with whether preference should be given to public contracts or to private contracts when, in fact, a combination of both should often be used, and when much more recognition should be given to the role that the voluntary sector can play.
The single most damaging barrier to helping our vulnerable children is bureaucracy and red tape getting in the way of finding them permanent and stable homes within an appropriate period of time. The Westminster Government is determined to tackle frustration with that, as the Prime Minister made clear in his announcement earlier this week. We should not tolerate any situation in local authorities in which there are fundamental weaknesses in the decision-making process.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that local communities and local voluntary sector organisations can often provide some of the greatest support, particularly when it comes to assisting parents, providing financial and educational advice, and helping families to address issues of addiction and dysfunctional home life.
We should not ignore the views of the Aberlour Child Care Trust—Scotland’s largest children’s charity—whose research shows that many care homes that are run by the voluntary sector deliver not only a better standard of care but better educational attainment than some of their local authority counterparts.
Thirdly—and lastly—there is obviously the issue of educational attainment itself and the need to do far more in our schools and colleges in particular to be better prepared to identify and support the best interests of looked-after children. The curriculum for excellence will go some way towards doing that, but we still need to do more to adopt a multidisciplinary approach.
There is a wealth of evidence that suggests that a lack of permanence and stability in childhood can have a significant impact on young people that can last long into their later years. Everyone knows that we cannot sit back and wait and hope that things will change without a different approach being taken to early intervention.
We are happy to support the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment.
The Scottish Government and the Opposition parties have acknowledged that, notwithstanding the numerous and genuine efforts that have been made to address the problem, more has to be done. We cannot get away from statistics that show that since 2001 the number of looked-after children in Scotland has risen by 69 per cent and increasing evidence that, in some parts of this country, the problem is reaching crisis point. For example, between 2005 and 2008, the number of looked-after children in one council increased by 85 per cent. Moreover, just last week, there were worrying reports that children’s services in Dundee had reached “saturation point”, largely as the result of certain very difficult social problems in the city. As a result, the city has been overspending on its children’s services by £1.6 million annually.
Although it is important to stress that such worrying situations are not the norm across Scotland, it is nevertheless evident that the country’s councils have had varying degrees of success in addressing the situation. Indeed, as the Education and Culture Committee heard only yesterday, quite a bit of progress has been made. The standard of reporting is better; better systems are in place for ensuring that there are coherent plans to look after the best interests of each child; school attendance has improved in some areas; and there are some signs that educational attainment levels are increasing. We should be encouraged by all that. However, it is only a small start when it comes to dealing with the stark reality.
Last year, 56 per cent of school leavers gained five or more qualifications at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 5 or better. The figure for looked-after children was only 0.5 per cent, and only 2.5 per cent of the 15,000 or 16,000 looked-after children in Scotland go on to further or higher education. We also know that, as with exclusion and attendance rates at school, drop-out rates can be high. Furthermore, evidence shows that around half of the looked-after children in Scotland encounter mental health problems and, even worse, problems in accessing the relevant mental health services. Indeed, my colleague Mary Scanlon exposed that very issue just last week.
In the whole debate about looked-after children, I have been struck by two comments. First, at yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting, Claire Burns, the strategic policy manager for CELCIS, the centre of excellence for looked-after children in Scotland, said that she thought that we were very good identifying the problems but much less good at measuring outcomes and providing solutions. Secondly, the Educational Institute of Scotland has stated that there has been little improvement in attainment for looked-after children
“despite the considerable volume of policy, guidance and legislation in this area”.
In other words, there have been lots of attempts to do things, but not enough of them are having much impact. What lessons do we need to learn from the experts on the ground? What can we as politicians do to ensure that significant qualitative improvements are made in the life chances of our looked-after children?
First, there are some issues with the decision-making process. From the wealth of written and oral evidence that was presented to the committee, some key themes emerged. Local authorities are not yet skilled enough at bringing greater coherency to decision making, particularly when it might involve council officers across several departments. The spirit of getting it right for every child is definitely there, but the practicalities still present too many problems. It has been pointed out that there is not enough of a multidisciplinary approach to training among professionals. That issue was also raised by Graham Donaldson when he examined how teachers could best be assisted to provide crucial educational support for looked-after children. In addition, there appears to be widespread concern that the range of professionals who are involved in looking after any one child are not always best informed about the care plan, and we need to take that very seriously indeed.
It was also pointed out that there can be issues with decision making that relate to procurement, and that too much time can be spent on tendering and contractual processes, which are often expensive, without due regard being paid to the qualitative outcomes. We were told that the procurement process can often get bogged down in ideological prejudices to do with whether preference should be given to public contracts or to private contracts when, in fact, a combination of both should often be used, and when much more recognition should be given to the role that the voluntary sector can play.
The single most damaging barrier to helping our vulnerable children is bureaucracy and red tape getting in the way of finding them permanent and stable homes within an appropriate period of time. The Westminster Government is determined to tackle frustration with that, as the Prime Minister made clear in his announcement earlier this week. We should not tolerate any situation in local authorities in which there are fundamental weaknesses in the decision-making process.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that local communities and local voluntary sector organisations can often provide some of the greatest support, particularly when it comes to assisting parents, providing financial and educational advice, and helping families to address issues of addiction and dysfunctional home life.
We should not ignore the views of the Aberlour Child Care Trust—Scotland’s largest children’s charity—whose research shows that many care homes that are run by the voluntary sector deliver not only a better standard of care but better educational attainment than some of their local authority counterparts.
Thirdly—and lastly—there is obviously the issue of educational attainment itself and the need to do far more in our schools and colleges in particular to be better prepared to identify and support the best interests of looked-after children. The curriculum for excellence will go some way towards doing that, but we still need to do more to adopt a multidisciplinary approach.
There is a wealth of evidence that suggests that a lack of permanence and stability in childhood can have a significant impact on young people that can last long into their later years. Everyone knows that we cannot sit back and wait and hope that things will change without a different approach being taken to early intervention.
We are happy to support the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01197, in the name of Angela Constance, on reducing the time needed to find a permanent home for looked-a...
The Minister for Children and Young People (Angela Constance)
SNP
Thank you for your generosity, Presiding Officer.As I am sure we are all aware, this week is national adoption week, which aims to raise awareness of the ben...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
The Parliament welcomed the steps taken by the Government to ensure that kinship carers receive the same benefits as foster carers, but that has not been imp...
Angela Constance
SNP
As Ms Grant is well aware, local authorities are best placed to make decisions about financial support for kinship carers and children at local level. That i...
Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
SNP
I know that the minister is aware that I adopted a daughter, so I have some knowledge of this issue. Does she agree that time still requires to be taken in p...
Angela Constance
SNP
I am sure that Mr Paterson agrees that we can achieve thorough and timely assessments. I can imagine how adoptions, which birth parents often contest in the ...
Hanzala Malik (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
One of the issues facing minority communities, particularly visible minority communities, is that adoptions are not taking place within those communities—chi...
Angela Constance
SNP
That is an example of the type of work that we hope is evident in the adoption and permanence plans that local authorities will have to provide to me by Apri...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the debate and the chance to discuss improving Scotland’s adoption service and the opportunities and life chances of some of Scotland’s most vulner...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
There is no greater responsibility than bringing up children—and no greater responsibility for the state than ensuring that children who, for one reason or a...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I mention to members who will take part in the open debate that we have a little bit of time in hand, so if they wish to take interventions, I will ensure th...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I begin by putting on record my admiration for the work that is done by all those people who are involved in caring for looked-after children in Scotland. Al...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
The member should wind up.
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
Thank you, Presiding Officer.Are we searching for the perfect outcome for children when the reality is that no child is brought up, even by their birth paren...
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on an issue that is close to my heart, and I am encouraged by the cross-party agreement in the area.I want to ...
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I hear what the member says, but I understand that the Scottish Government funds the national advice and support service for kinship carers and that consider...
Claudia Beamish
Lab
I thank the member for that helpful intervention. I completely accept that point, but when we consider the range of services that the Midlothian group and pe...
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I, too, am pleased to speak in this important debate on reducing the time needed to find a permanent home for looked-after children. As has been said, the st...
Richard Lyle (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I could talk about this subject for hours but, in case the Presiding Officer is concerned, I assure her that I will stick to my six minutes.National adoption...
Anne McTaggart (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
I add my support for Monday’s launch of national adoption week, which I am sure every member will support. I also acknowledge the foster carers, kinship care...
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
SNP
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests. The fact that I am a member of Aberdeen City Council will come up in my speech.When I joined Aberde...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
Last week, members discussed how we can best raise the ambition and attainment of our children and young people. It is not surprising that much of that debat...
George Adam (Paisley) (SNP)
SNP
As Kevin Stewart did, I declare an interest as a councillor, but with Renfrewshire Council. As with other issues that we have discussed, I never really thoug...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
As other member have done, I welcome the debate and the minister’s clear commitment to changing for the better the lives of some of our children. I also ackn...
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
I have taken part in similar debates in previous sessions of the Parliament, and the issue does not seem to move on. Jean Urquhart mentioned that we have to ...
Jean Urquhart
SNP
I agree with that. That is the point that I had hoped to convey, so I am sorry if it did not come across.Yesterday, the Education and Culture Committee heard...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, declare an interest. I am a councillor and for four years—until May this year—I was on Renfrewshire Council’s adoption panel.During my time on the pa...
Clare Adamson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I declare my interest as a corporate parent, as an elected member of North Lanarkshire Council.The SNP Government has demonstrated its commitment to all of S...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
It is with trepidation and some humility that I speak in this debate. Trepidation because the subject matter is very important to us all—it is heartening to ...
Derek Mackay (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
SNP
The member makes some interesting points. In a spirit of consensus, Mary Fee, George Adam and others have complimented Renfrewshire Council on its leadership...