Hansard

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. Although the debate will bring out many of the shocking statistics on the plight of many looked-after children, without the work and dedication of many professionals, the future for many children would be a whole lot bleaker than it is. I also pay tribute to those who foster children because, in many cases, they provide the first stable and loving home that children have experienced.

Unfortunately, for many children, the dream of a stable and loving home is just that, as they have to cope with very difficult circumstances. Even the provision of a placement may not provide stability, as many children face multiple placements. Some children have had to experience as many as four, five or even six different placements before they find a permanent home. The knock-on effects of that are self-evident. The ability to form and maintain attachments is critical for a child’s development and repeated moves interfere with the possibility of a successful outcome for the child. I therefore very much welcome the Government’s commitment to updating the training for professionals on that important point.

As the minister will be aware, the Education and Culture Committee has launched an inquiry into the educational attainment of looked-after children in Scotland. Only yesterday, we took our first oral evidence. Even at this early stage, it is clear from that evidence and from the written evidence that we have received that we should not lump together all categories of looked-after children. There are substantial differences in the outcomes achieved by children looked after in residential care, those looked after in foster homes and those looked after at home.

Although educational attainment is not the only measure or necessarily even the best measure of outcomes, it is a very important measure, and it is therefore alarming that the difference in educational attainment between all school leavers and looked-after children is not just a few percentage points. I point out to members a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing prepared for the Education and Culture Committee for its inquiry. The briefing contains many interesting statistics, but one particular table, which was referred to by Liz Smith and can be found on page 5, shows the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more qualifications at SCQF level 5 for 2009-10. For all leavers, the percentage is 55.9 per cent; for the most deprived children, it is 28.9 per cent; for children with additional support needs, it is 15.5 per cent; for children who are looked after away from home, it is 4.7 per cent; and for children who are looked after at home, it is 0.5 per cent. That is not just a small difference between children who are looked after by their parents and children who are looked after at home in different and difficult circumstances—it is a vast difference. I know that all parties are signed up to dealing with the problem, but the statistics give a stark reminder of the difficulty and challenge that we face.

The statistics on their own show how critical stability and permanence are for the life chances of looked-after children. The children who have that stability do much better than those who do not. The statistics also show that we cannot ignore the fact that children who are looked after at home have the worst outcomes of all looked-after children. They have the lowest qualification rates, the lowest rates of attendance at schools and so on—and so on.

Although it is understandable to want to keep families together—and desirable to keep families together—we must recognise that far too often there is a price to pay for that goal, a price that is paid by children through damaged life chances. It is therefore imperative that decisions are made as quickly as possible and that unnecessary delays are driven out of the system. I take the point made by Gil Paterson about the need to ensure that the work that needs to be done is done and that it is given the time that it needs.

The SCRA’s report findings show that we have still have a way to go in driving out unnecessary delays, however. Parenting assessments often take too long. It is particularly disappointing that when a child has been identified as at risk before birth, parenting assessments can still be the cause of extended delays in the process. I was particularly struck by the fact that in 45 per cent of the cases in the report’s sample, parents had already had a child removed, yet parental assessments were still causing delays. That is particularly difficult to understand when parents have previously had more than one child removed. What possible reason can there be for extended delays in such cases?

I agree with the view taken by the report that previous history is strongly indicative of a parent’s capacity to care safely for subsequent children. Of course we must review the evidence in such cases and ensure that we do not judge parents on past failings, but we must keep at the front of our minds the idea that the process should put the safety, stability and future life chances of the child at the centre of all we do. Being sensitive to the rights and needs of the parents is a priority, but the needs and rights of the parents do not trump the needs and rights of the child.

This week, we have seen a lot of comment in the press about the length of time it takes for a child to be adopted or to find some other form of permanence. The SCRA’s report sets out much of the argument about time delays and makes it clear that the majority of children face waiting times from first involvement to permanence of more than two years. Although the shortest time was only 10 and a half months, the longest was nearly 11 years. For most children, it took more than a year just for a decision to be taken about moving them towards permanence.

If we really believe in early intervention, we must accept the overwhelming evidence about the impact of the first two years of a child’s life on their future life chances—they make all the difference in the world. We must face up to the fact that to have such lengthy delays in the process can only damage the chances of a successful outcome for these children.

I do not underestimate the difficulties that are faced by those who work in the field and my remarks are not meant as a criticism of the work that they do as they grapple with incredibly difficult and complex problems, but we must realise that the evidence in many cases shows that almost any outcome is better than leaving a child to be looked after at home in difficult and demanding circumstances. Are we confident that the rules that we have in place regarding the rights of parents strike the right balance? Are we sure that the rules surrounding adoption are not too restrictive and off-putting?