Hansard

I put on record apologies from my colleague Mary Scanlon, who was due to participate in the debate. As a result of the travel situation she has had to head back to the Highlands for a constituency event rather earlier than she was anticipating, so I pass on her apologies to the Presiding Officer and to members in the chamber.

The extent of the challenge that faces the Parliament—and most especially the Education and Culture Committee—has never really been in doubt. In the past few years, during the most recent inquiry and the previous one, it has been patently clear that the Scottish care system is letting down far too many young people. In preparing the report we heard time and again from charities and third sector organisations and, most important, from young people in the care system, that most—though by no means all—of the concern centres on the decision-making process.

Before I turn to the report and to the Government’s response, I acknowledge the very real frustration, which stretches well beyond Holyrood, at the length of time that it is taking to meaningfully address the issue of looked-after children. All parties in the chamber have shared a common commitment to making the Scottish care system as effective as possible, and yet for all the goodwill and endeavour we seem to find ourselves back at first principles time and again. We have been very good at the diagnostic process, but much less good at finding a cure.

For instance, when the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration published its 2011 report there was real hope that progress would follow very soon after. However, two-and-a-half years on, we are still very much stuck with the same problems. Indeed, the minister indicated in her response to the committee’s report that the Scottish Government is aware of that situation and intends to review the care and permanence plan, with a revised strategy due early in the new year, which is good to hear. We all recognise the huge sensitivities that are involved in the issue, but we need to ensure that changes are well-balanced and properly implemented. Likewise, I think that we all feel a little guilty that the pace of reform has been too slow.

During our deliberations we have all been considering why we have made so little progress, given the extent of the good will that I mentioned. There has been considerable cross-party support, and the issue has been placed further up the political agenda, for which I give the Scottish Government credit.

Have we been missing some key points, or failing to listen to the right people? Perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is whether we are relatively powerless when it comes to dealing with some situations. There might be a little bit of that—certainly that is what we were bluntly told by two of the witness panels—but the lack of progress is also due to the weaknesses inherent in some of the data that has been essential in uncovering the problems in the decision-making process. It has also resulted from poor transparency, although that was not intentional.

That said, there is no weakness or lack of transparency when it comes to the blunt statistics that define the problem. Some of them are truly shocking. Although 56 per cent of school leavers overall gain five or more qualifications, only 4.7 per cent of children who are looked after away from home and 0.5 per cent of children who are looked after at home can expect the same degree of attainment. That is not a small disparity but a gaping chasm that reflects very poorly on us all.

Moreover, while 87.5 per cent of school leavers are engaged in work, education or training, only half of those who are looked after at home are doing the same. We are really not doing them any justice whatsoever by not enabling them to acquire the relevant skills to participate in a modern workforce, and that has lifelong implications.

During our most recent inquiry we heard troubling evidence from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that, in Glasgow, two thirds of children who have left care to return home end up back in the system within a year. Oscillating between pillar and post, those youngsters are at serious risk of being left behind completely.

We have been good at the diagnosis, but what is the cure? There is no doubt that much of it will have to focus on the decision-making process, because it is clear that, as many of the witnesses told us, too many barriers remain in the way of good decision making. Those barriers mean that too many children are being left in unsuitable home environments. Decision making is inconsistent and variable across the country; the system does not use resources sufficiently well; and some groups find it far too difficult to have the courage of their convictions and remove a child—I can well understand why.

In response, perhaps the key recommendation is on early permanence: the idea that, by intervening earlier, children are removed from an unstable home environment and given the foundation that they need to grow and prosper. A consensus is emerging that, together, early intervention and early permanence can deliver much better outcomes for children, families and communities. The whole package, if I can call it that, is important.