Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 02 November 2011

02 Nov 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Looked-after Children

Pearson, Graeme Lab South Scotland Watch on SPTV

It is with trepidation and some humility that I speak in this debate. Trepidation because the subject matter is very important to us all—it is heartening to hear that we all agree on many of the main ingredients that we have discussed thus far—and humility because I bow to the greater knowledge and experience of many who are here in the chamber, particularly Richard Lyle and Gil Paterson.

My first insight into these matters came in a previous life, when I was a board member of a residential home, which gave me a privileged opportunity to see some of the difficulties that were faced by the young people concerned and the carers who looked after them so diligently. On entering that environment as a member of the public, my first shock was to discover that many of the young people in that residential setting were there not because of any failing or criminality on their part, but because of failings in their family environment and social circumstances that they were unfortunate enough to bear.

It is against that backdrop that I lean on a quotation from someone who was once a looked-after child and who went on to become an extremely successful dress designer and a vice-president of Barnardo’s—Bruce Oldfield. He said:

“If we want ... children to find happiness and security, we must be as flexible and free-thinking as possible. We must remove any obstacle from placing a child safely and within the shortest space of time.”

The reference to safety takes on board Gil Paterson’s apt comment. Bruce Oldfield went on to say:

“It is surely a matter of common sense and pragmatism; where there is a long-term haven for a child, let’s grab it with both hands.”

For those reasons, I welcome Angela Constance’s motion, which seeks to improve the life chances of looked-after children, and I hope that the Government will pay due respect to Claire Baker’s amendment, which seeks to attach timescales to the achievement of actions. If the minister ruffles a few feathers, she can be sure that she will have my support in that regard.

As we have heard, approximately 1,600 children and young people are in residential care. Audit Scotland reported recently that although £250 million is spent annually on services and support for them, not all of them are receiving the best quality of care, and that local authorities cannot demonstrate that they are achieving value for money. In itself, that is not a criticism of the hard work of the people who are involved in a difficult environment, but it tells us that we need to find a degree of flexibility and imagination in solving the problems that we face.

Of the 9,000 children in Scotland who are looked after away from home, 50 per cent are placed with foster parents and 28 per cent are looked after by friends or relatives. Around 200 of them are adopted each year. My experience in residential homes indicated that many of the children—the majority of them—had been badly damaged by their experiences and were extremely vulnerable. What they sought, quite openly, was safety, security, and love and attention.

As has been mentioned, the average length of time that children spend in our care system is increasing. That has a serious effect on educational attainment, which Stewart Maxwell eloquently described. In comparison with the general population, prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been in care as children; 27 per cent of the prison population and half of all prisoners under 25 were in care at one time.

Bureaucracy can be a considerable barrier to finding a child a home or getting them into a permanent home more quickly, so the Government’s commitment to promoting the use of foster carers as adopters or permanent long-term carers is to be welcomed.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 02 November 2011

In the same item of business