Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 05 December 2013

05 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Taking Children into Care

McLeod, Fiona SNP Strathkelvin and Bearsden Watch on SPTV

I rise to speak in the debate with little expertise in this subject, but with a great interest in it. That interest stems partly from my years as the chair of East Dunbartonshire children’s panel advisory committee. I note that Kenneth Macintosh and I are again speaking in a children’s debate, and I wonder whether there is an umbilical cord taking us both back to that very first Education, Culture and Sport Committee in 1999 that means that we just cannot leave the subject alone.

I would like to consider three areas: early intervention; prevention; and, particularly, the idea in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill of a named person. I would also like to consider how the voice of the child is heard in this process. Given my background, which I have just explained to the chamber, I would also like to speak about the role of children’s hearings in the process.

Planning for permanence and the elimination of what I understand is now being called drift runs through everything that we are discussing in relation to looked-after young people. I note that those issues were a theme in the minister’s opening remarks.

A lot of my speech today is based on recent reading and research. The information that went into the committee’s report was useful and important. Running through the report and the minister’s opening remarks is the idea that GIRFEC is the foundation of everything that we should do in this area.

There is a great deal of evidence that early intervention and the preventative agenda are best not only for young people but for their families. When I was a member of the Health and Sport Committee, the chief medical officer told us that, in his view, it is the nine months before birth and the nine months after birth that set the foundation for a person’s life. That is extremely clear in what we are talking about today.

When I was looking for evidence on which to base my speech, I found that there was a lot of specific evidence about how the early intervention agenda is important when taking children into care. As someone who likes to find evidence, I found it comforting, at an intellectual level, to learn about all the work that the Scottish Government is doing to support teams that are conducting research so that there will be a strong evidence base for all decisions that are made. The work of the permanence and care team and CELCIS, which was founded in 2011 at the University of Strathclyde and which Clare Adamson talked about, is important. We need to ensure that, when decisions are made, either legislatively or by a social worker on the ground, they are based on evidence.

For me, that is why the named person is so important. My understanding is that the named person will allow for integration across the child’s life. It will ensure that there is consistency and co-ordination of help and support for every child in Scotland. In his speech, Colin Beattie listed the multi-agency involvement in the lives of vulnerable children. That stresses the importance of the named person. As someone who is not at the heart of the debate, I say absolutely genuinely that I cannot understand why Kenneth Macintosh and others in the Labour Party say that they have reservations about the named person. To me, it looks like a crucial measure. Having a named person will be supportive for every child in Scotland, but it will be vital for vulnerable young people and their families.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 05 December 2013

In the same item of business