Hansard

I welcome this important debate. There is nothing in the Government's motion with which I or my Labour colleagues disagree. However, we feel that a number of important issues need to be taken into account when we examine the success of the getting it right for every child approach, which is why we have lodged an amendment that is an addendum to the Government's motion. I am delighted that the minister has indicated the Government's support for the amendment.

GIRFEC was introduced by the previous Administration. I am sure that most members agree that, although the previous Executive may not win any prizes for coming up with the catchiest acronym, the thrust of GIRFEC was spot on. There was a need to ensure that children's services became more child centred and more focused on outcomes for the child and that they greatly improved the sharing and recording of information.

As members are aware, the GIRFEC proposals emerged from the review of the children's hearings system. The aims of the approach were broadly welcomed and I am pleased that the current Government has continued to pursue those principles.

Large parts of GIRFEC focus on improving the life chances of vulnerable children, although it must be recognised that the words "every child" are important and that the policy must apply to all Scotland's children and young people.

It is interesting to note that many of the issues raised in the GIRFEC evaluation report of early implementation in Highland mirror issues and concerns raised in the recent HMIE report on the findings of the joint inspections of services to protect children—in particular, the need for multi-agency meetings on the child's plan; the shared use of tools, processes and procedures; and a commitment to proper recording and documenting of casework that is consistent between agencies.

The report on Highland states:

"There is growing evidence that children's needs are being identified at an earlier stage".

However, the recent HMIE report concluded that, in almost half the 30 councils that were inspected,

"The assessment of risks and needs of vulnerable children and families was evaluated as weak or unsatisfactory".

We have referred to that in our amendment because although it is clear that using the GIRFEC approach can bring about the type of changes to children's services that we all want, the Government must accept that, at present, it is not happening in many parts of Scotland. I am sure that the Government will continue to work hard to address that problem and will redouble its efforts to improve matters.

Similarly, the Highland evaluation document concludes that the process of sharing information about children's needs improved during the pathfinder project. However, the HMIE report highlights that that is not the case in a large number of councils. Again, I hope that the Government will take into account that firm action is needed to resolve the problem sooner rather than later.

I congratulate South Lanarkshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council, NHS Lanarkshire and other key partner agencies on their efforts as learning partners. Significant steps have been taken in changing the culture in each of the partner agencies to ensure a common approach that is consistent with GIRFEC.

The evaluation report on Highland recognised that significant resources were provided to facilitate the many positive outcomes that are mentioned in the document. It also mentions the importance of seconded staff, and states:

"The time required for development work, establishing multi-agency links, consultation with practitioners and operational managers, trialling new tools, procedures and protocols, organizing training and reporting on progress was extensive. It is difficult to see how this could have been done across all children's services without staff from different services being freed up to do this on a full-time basis."

Both North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council make similar points on the need for additional staff and, importantly, for training. Clearly, in advancing the GIRFEC approach, the Government must take cognisance of the resource implications for councils. Too often, partnership working is seen as a panacea for cost savings. GIRFEC must not be used as an excuse for cutting services or jobs.

Given that the initial proposals for GIRFEC arose from a review of the children's hearings system, the minister will not be surprised if I say a few words about the review and the proposals for change. I acknowledge the need to change the children's hearings system. Indeed, I think that most people involved in the hearings system acknowledge that, too. However, it is important that any proposals for change are firmly focused on the wellbeing of the child—an ethos that is central to GIRFEC. I am not convinced that the introduction of any change that would make the hearings system more adversarial would fulfil that aspiration, irrespective of whether it might help to make the system more compliant with the European convention on human rights. I am sure that we will return to that issue when the Government introduces its proposals on children's hearings.

It is worth remembering—the evaluation report points this out—that GIRFEC is not focused solely on children and young people in need of protection or with particular problems, but applies to all children and young people in Scotland. In fact, the executive summary of the report states:

"While some operational managers and key workers in children's services initially thought that Getting it right was targeted mainly on the most vulnerable children and young people that perception has now receded and Getting it right is now widely perceived to be having a significant impact on universal provision as well."

The aims of improving opportunities and focusing on outcomes must apply equally to children who never come into contact with child protection services. That is why issues such as the provision of youth services, the continued need to modernise and renew school buildings, the promotion of healthy eating and exercise, and provision in the early years should all be seen within the context of GIRFEC.

Within ever-tightening budgets, non-statutory youth services may be seen as a relatively easy target. However, I believe that targeting those services would be folly and would undermine the central aims of GIRFEC. Youth services, including those provided directly by local authorities and those in the voluntary sector that are supported by local government, play a vital role in nurturing and developing our children and young people. They provide positive and constructive alternatives to antisocial and criminal activities and stimulate community spirit.

Whether we are talking about the scouts, the Girls Brigade or groups that are run by council youth workers, such clubs often provide much-needed respite for children who live in families affected by alcohol or substance misuse, or domestic violence. Equally, workers in such organisations are often the first people to become aware that a problem is affecting a child. GIRFEC rightly aspires to ensure that such early recognition is taken seriously and followed up. Reducing funding to such services would reduce opportunities for early intervention and remove much-needed alternative activities from some young people who are beginning to offend.

I will say a few words about nurture services, which is an approach that is being piloted in North Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council, and which has the principles of GIRFEC at its heart. Nurture services target children in the first few years of primary education who come from families with a range of problems that, from the outset, impact on the way in which the child copes with school. The services provide intensive support for both children and parents in an environment that is quite different from a normal class. The child may spend some or all their time in such a setting, where support is provided by a range of professionals, including teachers, educational psychologists and social workers. The approach is proving very successful, but it is resource intensive.

I welcome the progress in taking forward the GIRFEC approach that is evident in the pathfinder projects. I commend the Government for the part that it has played in continuing the work of the previous Executive, but I feel strongly that, in light of the serious concerns that are raised in the HMIE report, there is no room for complacency. Far too many children remain at risk as a result of poor systems in our local authorities. I hope that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to ensure that we protect those children.

I move amendment S3M-5335.1, to insert at end:

"; recognises the scale of the challenge described in the HMIe report, How well do we protect Scotland's children?, which states that almost half of the 30 councils inspected were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs; further acknowledges that the report highlights the need for improved information sharing in relation to child protection, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the effective delivery of the Early Years Framework, Achieving our Potential and Equally Well."