Hansard

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 evidence provided, a magic bullet would be found that would point to a clear and simple solution, but alas that was not the case. What is clear is that successive Governments have rightly placed a high priority on children in care. Considerable resources have been channelled into this area and a multitude of groups and organisations have come into being over the years, with the laudable aim of providing much needed support, yet the fact is that improvement has been glacial.

I believe that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will make real progress and create a more consistent approach. It should help to create the environment in which solutions can flourish. It helps point the way in a more cohesive and focused manner. It is not a magic bullet, but it moves us in the right direction. At the end of the day, solutions still lie with people and how they respond to the opportunities that the bill will create.

The committee’s report highlights many of the key issues that surround the decision-making process. From an organisational perspective, the evidence points to the fact that, at present, no joined-up approach is in place across Scotland and there are therefore major inconsistencies across the board. Decisions are made through a mixture of processes that involve a wide range of stakeholders, from social workers to courts to children’s hearings. Beyond that, each local authority has its own assessment process to handle risk assessment when deciding whether to take a child into care.

When all those factors come into play, it may well be the case that what should be the true focus of the decision—the welfare of the child in question—is, in effect, put to one side. It must be clear that, in any such decisions that are made, the rights of the children and parents are carefully balanced.

At no point should we underestimate the fact that this decision-making process is potentially the most difficult that local authorities must undertake. I believe that the committee has been sensitive to that. Many competing viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, as a potentially wrong decision might result in further neglect or abuse, or worse.

In order to improve the process, one could make the case that earlier intervention provides the potential for stability or permanence to be put into effect as early as possible to minimise the potential for harm. Indeed, many of the young people with experience of the care system who spoke to the committee indicated that they felt they should have been taken into care earlier.

However, it has not always been proved that early intervention will produce the desired outcome for each family, especially given that circumstances will almost certainly differ from case to case. One size does not fit all. Fundamentally, early intervention should be seen in the context of whether it will lead to fewer children being placed in care over the longer term and whether those children will enjoy better outcomes as a result. In pre-birth cases, it must be considered whether providing parenting support would provide a positive outcome. If, as the Scottish Government proposes, early intervention is introduced in tandem with early permanence, we should see fewer young people remaining in long-term care.

The role of social workers and the support that they receive need to be carefully examined. The evidence that was supplied to the committee indicates that, at present, social workers lack confidence in their own knowledge and assessment skills. It has also been suggested that they take an overly optimistic approach, which can result in an unwillingness to remove children from potentially harmful or neglectful situations. Beyond that, we have been told that their evidence in court is not treated with the same legitimacy as evidence from other professionals such as doctors and psychologists. If social workers’ opinions are not given credibility, it is no surprise that the profession suffers from a lack of confidence. That could be remedied in the training that is given to social workers by, for example, expanding the social work degree to allow for more specialisation and making post-qualification training and career development more focused and targeted. I understand that the Scottish Social Services Council is reviewing the degree and I look forward to seeing its conclusions.

That leads me on to the provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill of a named person for those in care, the response to which has been overwhelmingly positive. However, one or two questions still remain. For example, if the named person is to be a teacher, it is assumed that the add-on costs will be minimal. What will happen during school holidays? Such decisions are in the hands of councils, but the bill indicates that the Scottish Government is taking the lead on implementing solutions.

It is also important that we do not forget parents with learning disabilities. International research suggests that two out of every five children who are born to parents with learning disabilities are permanently removed from their care. Although the statistic might not specifically refer to Scotland, the figure is unlikely to be significantly different here and, as a result, those cases need to be considered very carefully. There is evidence that prejudicial attitudes—for example, that people with learning disabilities are incompetent—have been the reason for removing children, but I would like to think that a modern, independent Scotland is capable of much more compassion and understanding than that. To that end, the Scottish Government has set up the child protection and disabilities ministerial working group, which will consider the needs of children and young people in families where disability affects a parent and will, I presume, also study the level of support that such parents or carers require.

One key issue is that the voices of children and parents must be heard throughout the decision-making process. The committee met young people who had recently come out of the care system and found their feedback to be exceptionally enlightening and thought provoking. Indeed, it provided us with a uniquely different perspective on the situation. The reactions to the children’s hearings system, for example, indicated several shortcomings with the current set-up. The committee heard that the hearings can be intimidating with too many people present, including professionals such as psychologists who could provide an opinion but had not necessarily seen the children regularly. There was also concern that some children who were reluctant to speak out in front of their family were unaware that they could speak to the panel on their own. It is not surprising that young people had better experiences at these hearings when there were fewer people present and when they genuinely felt that those responsible were listening to them.

That truly is the crux of the of the issue for children being taken into care. Throughout the process, they need to be listened to and their feedback needs to be properly considered in order to ensure that, when decisions are made on taking children into care, the voices of those who are affected most are those that are given the highest priority. The newly established children’s hearings improvement partnership will, I hope, take this feedback on board, to improve the process.

The Scottish Government is working to strike a balance on permanence decisions and, while results might not be immediate, and we rely on the responses of other individuals and organisations, I believe that we will have a bill that results in a much more considerate and empathetic care system for children who are taken into care.

16:00