Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 05 December 2013
05 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Taking Children into Care
I entirely agree with Mr McArthur. Although I was highlighting acute need, I will return to that point and the need for quick support, early intervention and speedier decision making in making that support available to families.
I return to the issue of resources and the way in which they shape our actions. It troubles me to see how often the decisions about children who might be in need of care reflect the facilities or options that are open to the public authorities rather than the needs of the children themselves. I would welcome the minister’s comments on the extent to which that is still happening. For example, public authorities that have access to residential care homes seem to be more likely to place children in residential care than those who do not have that option on their doorstep.
Many of us will have seen the adverts, which seem to have been more frequent in recent weeks and months, asking for foster and adoptive families to come forward. Although on the one hand that might highlight a shortage of such families, I take the emphasis on recruitment as a positive sign. Again, however, it is rather worrying to hear about the experiences of families, particularly those who are looking to adopt.
Those of us who have dealt with fostering or adoption cases will know that, in the majority of cases, the children who are up for adoption have a range of needs and challenges. Even when children as young as two or three are taken into care, the damage that has been caused by poor attachment in infancy can often play out in behaviours in the child’s teens or later years. There is now so much evidence that reveals the importance of the first few months, let alone the first few years, of a child’s life, but our systems for helping families who are in need seem to be incredibly slow and cumbersome.
I have previously cited examples in my own constituency, in which the authorities have indicated their intention to move a child from his or her parent and have lined up an adoptive family, and the whole process has taken not months but years. In that time, what damage has been done? Removing a child from his or her family is not something to be done in haste, but neither does it help anyone to drag out these decisions.
What can we do? I think that we all recognise how difficult it is to know exactly when and how far to intervene. We do not want to design policy around the worst examples, but surely we can agree that quicker decision making is more likely to produce more effective results. Families need to be more actively supported. People need to be offered help to become good parents, and not just inspected every now and then to see whether things are all right. It is all too easy for the fly and the sly to deceive the health visitor or the social worker. Those families are rarely evil; they are just incapable. When it is possible, we need to help them to look after their own children properly.
Putting the child at the centre of our thinking is what GIRFEC is all about and it is a good approach. I emphasise that there are aspects of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that are to be warmly welcomed, and I echo the point highlighted by Jayne Baxter earlier about the extension to young adults leaving care of the right to ask for support. However, I have already expressed my doubts about the named person approach taken in the bill, which could divert resources away from where they are most needed. I am not convinced that legislation by itself will do much good if we strip local authorities of the resources needed to provide the support.
Is there not an irony about, or at least a contrast between, our shared agreement across the Parliament on the committee’s report and the simultaneous knowledge that social workers are so hard pressed and so stressed with their case load that they scarcely have time to make the visits or have the room to make the balanced judgments that we all seek?
We should acknowledge that those working in child protection get mixed messages. The reaction to shocking cases of child abuse is often to point the finger of blame at social workers, and then to respond with many well-intentioned recommendations, but the net effect is sometimes to encourage those working in the sector to become ever more risk averse. They become more aware of the need to protect themselves from prosecution, rather than concentrating solely on protecting children from harm.
There was a good and thought-provoking article in The Scotsman recently by Stuart Waiton, who argued that the bureaucratisation of adult-child relationships has undermined our ability to exercise personal judgment. I believe that the answer lies not in ever more formal procedures or processes, whether clumsy or streamlined, but in creating an atmosphere where good judgment is at the centre of decision making, where social workers and other carers are encouraged to step in to support, not to condemn, and where good examples are heralded and lauded rather than bad examples simply being pilloried.
We know that we can never get it absolutely right and that there will always be examples that shame us all for their human cruelty, but if the report can tip the balance towards helping children with earlier and quicker intervention to help parents and, where necessary, to remove children, it will have been worth while.
I return to the issue of resources and the way in which they shape our actions. It troubles me to see how often the decisions about children who might be in need of care reflect the facilities or options that are open to the public authorities rather than the needs of the children themselves. I would welcome the minister’s comments on the extent to which that is still happening. For example, public authorities that have access to residential care homes seem to be more likely to place children in residential care than those who do not have that option on their doorstep.
Many of us will have seen the adverts, which seem to have been more frequent in recent weeks and months, asking for foster and adoptive families to come forward. Although on the one hand that might highlight a shortage of such families, I take the emphasis on recruitment as a positive sign. Again, however, it is rather worrying to hear about the experiences of families, particularly those who are looking to adopt.
Those of us who have dealt with fostering or adoption cases will know that, in the majority of cases, the children who are up for adoption have a range of needs and challenges. Even when children as young as two or three are taken into care, the damage that has been caused by poor attachment in infancy can often play out in behaviours in the child’s teens or later years. There is now so much evidence that reveals the importance of the first few months, let alone the first few years, of a child’s life, but our systems for helping families who are in need seem to be incredibly slow and cumbersome.
I have previously cited examples in my own constituency, in which the authorities have indicated their intention to move a child from his or her parent and have lined up an adoptive family, and the whole process has taken not months but years. In that time, what damage has been done? Removing a child from his or her family is not something to be done in haste, but neither does it help anyone to drag out these decisions.
What can we do? I think that we all recognise how difficult it is to know exactly when and how far to intervene. We do not want to design policy around the worst examples, but surely we can agree that quicker decision making is more likely to produce more effective results. Families need to be more actively supported. People need to be offered help to become good parents, and not just inspected every now and then to see whether things are all right. It is all too easy for the fly and the sly to deceive the health visitor or the social worker. Those families are rarely evil; they are just incapable. When it is possible, we need to help them to look after their own children properly.
Putting the child at the centre of our thinking is what GIRFEC is all about and it is a good approach. I emphasise that there are aspects of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that are to be warmly welcomed, and I echo the point highlighted by Jayne Baxter earlier about the extension to young adults leaving care of the right to ask for support. However, I have already expressed my doubts about the named person approach taken in the bill, which could divert resources away from where they are most needed. I am not convinced that legislation by itself will do much good if we strip local authorities of the resources needed to provide the support.
Is there not an irony about, or at least a contrast between, our shared agreement across the Parliament on the committee’s report and the simultaneous knowledge that social workers are so hard pressed and so stressed with their case load that they scarcely have time to make the visits or have the room to make the balanced judgments that we all seek?
We should acknowledge that those working in child protection get mixed messages. The reaction to shocking cases of child abuse is often to point the finger of blame at social workers, and then to respond with many well-intentioned recommendations, but the net effect is sometimes to encourage those working in the sector to become ever more risk averse. They become more aware of the need to protect themselves from prosecution, rather than concentrating solely on protecting children from harm.
There was a good and thought-provoking article in The Scotsman recently by Stuart Waiton, who argued that the bureaucratisation of adult-child relationships has undermined our ability to exercise personal judgment. I believe that the answer lies not in ever more formal procedures or processes, whether clumsy or streamlined, but in creating an atmosphere where good judgment is at the centre of decision making, where social workers and other carers are encouraged to step in to support, not to condemn, and where good examples are heralded and lauded rather than bad examples simply being pilloried.
We know that we can never get it absolutely right and that there will always be examples that shame us all for their human cruelty, but if the report can tip the balance towards helping children with earlier and quicker intervention to help parents and, where necessary, to remove children, it will have been worth while.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08480, in the name of Stewart Maxwell, on decision making on whether to take children into care.I call St...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Today’s debate comes soon after the stage 1 debate on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. That discussion demonstrated strong cross-party support ...
The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell)
SNP
I welcome this afternoon’s debate, which the Education and Culture Committee has brought to the chamber following its recent inquiry. I congratulate the comm...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
One of the ways to help young children in particular is childcare. Today, we have learned that the Scottish Government will receive £300 million in consequen...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
We have made clear within our bill our commitment to supporting children in their earliest years and we have set out our aspiration with the 600 hours of chi...
Neil Findlay
Lab
Will the minister take an intervention?
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Neil Findlay needs to consider his tone during this debate, which is about trying to work constructively together on this important issue.Improvement of corp...
Jayne Baxter (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
As I am the newest member of the Education and Culture Committee, some might say that I had the luxury of considering the final report without having to unde...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
I put on record apologies from my colleague Mary Scanlon, who was due to participate in the debate. As a result of the travel situation she has had to head b...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
The member will recall the debate that we had in the committee about the fact that early intervention does not relate simply to the early years. Does she sha...
Liz Smith
Con
I absolutely share that concern—I do not think that we could doubt the evidence that was given to the committee on that point. However, we have had other car...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
We now turn to the open debate. At this stage, I can offer speeches of around six minutes, with time for interventions.15:22
George Adam (Paisley) (SNP)
SNP
The debate comes on the back of the Education and Culture Committee’s extensive inquiry into decision making on whether to take young children into care. As ...
Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Lab
I thank the committee for taking on this challenging and contentious subject and for producing such a thoughtful and, I hope, helpful report.Given the broad ...
Liam McArthur
LD
One of the other things that we heard about early intervention is that it is not just about intervening with a view to taking a child away; it is about arriv...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
I entirely agree with Mr McArthur. Although I was highlighting acute need, I will return to that point and the need for quick support, early intervention and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
As members will be aware, there is quite a bit of time in hand, which will allow for interventions and even the development of themes and ideas. I now call C...
Clare Adamson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Presiding Officer, thank you for that challenge at the start of my speech. I begin by associating myself with Stewart Maxwell’s comments about the witnesses ...
Liz Smith
Con
Clare Adamson has pointed to the frustration that I feel, and I do not deny that we have come some way towards addressing the problem. However, one of the mo...
Clare Adamson
SNP
I absolutely agree, and I have had the same experience when listening to such comments. However, we must recognise that the committee’s initial inquiry ident...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
The issue of looked-after children and young people and how we improve the life experiences and outcomes for that group has dominated the work of the Educati...
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
I have listened to Liam McArthur’s speech very carefully and I agree with what he says. Does he share my concern about the decision-making process that leads...
Liam McArthur
LD
The committee convener is absolutely right on that point. It was one of the most striking aspects of the evidence that we received. Such situations almost se...
Colin Beattie (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
SNP
The inquiry has in some respects been difficult for the Education and Culture Committee. I for one hoped that, somewhere among the wealth of information and ...
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
SNP
I rise to speak in the debate with little expertise in this subject, but with a great interest in it. That interest stems partly from my years as the chair o...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
Will the member give way?
Fiona McLeod
SNP
I will, but I probably will not understand Mr Macintosh’s point.
Ken Macintosh
Lab
My question is simply this: why would it be helpful for my six children to have a named person?
Fiona McLeod
SNP
I am a parent, like Ken Macintosh, and we never know when we might find ourselves vulnerable as a family. I do my absolute best as a parent, but that is not ...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
Will Fiona McLeod give way on that point?