Hansard

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 Education and Culture Committee in this parliamentary session. None of the committee members, either past or present, would make any apology for that focus or for the time that we have committed to getting into the detail of the issues involved. The issues are complex, and that is reflected in the latest report. The area does not lend itself to neat, far less to easy, solutions.

I add my thanks to all those who gave evidence and helped in the development of the committee report, and the report that preceded it on improving the outcomes for looked-after children. One inquiry flowed naturally from the other, although even now I have the sense that we have scarcely done justice to many of the issues. As the convener of the committee indicated, it is inevitable that we—and certainly successor committees—will return to the subject in the future.

As the convener explained, the approach that was taken to the report was rather different from before, with interim findings and a parliamentary debate as well as a special hearing that involved the wide range of stakeholders whose work in the field on a daily basis deserves our respect and gratitude.

Above all, we were committed to hearing the voices of children and young people with direct experience of the care system. Their testimony was particularly powerful and at times highly creative. We owe a special debt to Who Cares? Scotland for its help throughout the inquiry, not least in the session with those with direct experience.

As well as being moved by the piece of theatre that the young people performed, I was struck by what they had to say. They wanted to feel involved in decisions that profoundly affect their lives; they wanted a sense of belonging and not to be shunted from pillar to post; and, most of all, they wanted a strong, stable, supportive and loving environment in which to be brought up.

As Jayne Baxter rightly said, those are all things that we would expect for our own children and things that we should aspire to deliver for those for whom we have responsibility as corporate parents. The committee’s report is helpful in that regard, and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which the committee is currently considering, has the potential to deliver real improvements for those who are in care and those who are leaving care.

I will turn to those people shortly, but I first want to reflect briefly on the Government’s response to the committee’s report. I confess that, in places, the response left me a little frustrated. It is, of course, generally very positive, and I absolutely agree with the minister’s view that the focus must be on early intervention, particularly in the early years, and also on early permanence. Nevertheless, I felt too often that the message was either “We’re doing this already” or “This is nothing to do with us.” That may be unfair and it may reflect the iterative nature of two committee inquiries in which we have been in almost constant dialogue with the Scottish Government, but in some places the response still felt a bit unsatisfactory.

For example, the minister’s letter to the convener starts by declaring that there are

“encouraging signs that outcomes are improving gradually across almost all indicators”.

I agree that the picture is not universally bleak, but that statement seems unduly upbeat. For example, the committee found little evidence that outcomes for those who are looked after at home are anything other than shockingly poor, as the convener suggested, in respect of education, health, homelessness or involvement in the criminal justice system.

Later in the response, the minister talks of her

“programme of work to encourage strategic commissioning”.

That is very welcome, but again on the evidence that we received from those who are involved in the third sector, that is a way off happening in almost all parts of the country.

Likewise, the committee’s concerns about workforce training and retention in social work appear to have been rather brushed aside. I am not suggesting that no action has been taken by the minister in conjunction with local authorities—far from it—or that there are any easy answers, but we heard firm evidence that retaining staff in what can often be highly stressful roles in children and families social work is a problem in many areas.

I think that George Adam indicated that we heard that retaining experienced social workers on the front line was a particular challenge. Obviously, that is a concern, as providing high-quality assessment of difficult cases perhaps depends more on experience than training.

That said, I recognise the steps that the Government has taken and is taking. Indeed, I welcome the establishment of the permanence leaders group. I also acknowledge the opportunity that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill presents to make further progress, for which there is solid cross-party commitment.

Where can that progress be made? According to Barnardo’s, improving outcomes requires improvement in the consistency, speed and timeliness of decision making, and an absolute focus on securing permanency once a decision is made to take a child into care. That was entirely borne out by our inquiry.

On consistency, Barnardo’s has highlighted the different risk assessment processes that are used by authorities in Scotland and that uncertainty about what evidence needs to be gathered leads to needless delays. As such, a common framework across the country is necessary.

Speed of decision making is also crucial, notwithstanding that such decisions are probably the most difficult that an authority has to make. As the minister acknowledges, the issue is about not just speed but achieving permanency quickly. Barnardo’s proposes a six-month timeframe for conducting a parental assessment and highlights—as Ken Macintosh did—the need for much stronger support for parents when a decision is taken to leave a child in or return it to the family home. Often the reverse happens, which is a complaint that we hear particularly from parents of children with disabilities or additional support needs, although I hope that proposals in the bill for a named person and a single child’s plan will help in that respect.

Early decision making is also vital. As Stewart Maxwell said, the complaint from many of the young people that we spoke to was that they were left in a poor home environment for too long. The earlier that decisions are made—at whatever age—the better the outcomes for the child or young person.