Hansard

Of course, we in the Liberal Democrats recommit ourselves to the Promise, which is why we will support the Government’s motion this afternoon. However, we will also support the two amendments. We are particularly drawn to Roz McCall’s amendment, which details some of the challenges that we face.

There is no doubt that progress has been made. Who Cares? Scotland tells us that the situation is “encouraging”, particularly with regard to

“the rights of brothers and sisters, work to re-shape the youth justice system and ... challenging stigma.”

However, there is a disconnect. When I, along with others, met care-experienced young people earlier this year, they were seething at the slow pace of change—indeed, I was quite taken aback at the degree of frustration that they felt. They left me in no doubt that they were losing faith in the Promise.

It is the responsibility of those of us in this Parliament to raise the issues that are being raised today. Doing so is not an attack on the Promise or the system; it is about providing robust scrutiny and challenge to make the change, so that those young people do not still feel frustrated the next time that we meet them.

Children First says:

“we are still a long way from Keeping the Promise.”

In fact, it believes that the wider problems have become so severe that it has declared a childhood emergency. Last year, the Promise oversight board said that it did

“not believe that delivering the original aims of Plan 21-24 is realistic”

by the end of the plan period. Kezia Dugdale, a former member of the Scottish Parliament and a member of the board, said, in a personal capacity:

“the experience of too many children and families is of a fractured, bureaucratic, unfeeling care system that operates only in a crisis.”

That is certainly my anecdotal experience from my casework in my constituency. We see evidence of constantly changing social workers and a system that does not respond to pleas for help and responds only in a crisis. That pattern is repeated on numerous occasions.

Who Cares? Scotland, which brought those care-experienced people to the Parliament, has produced an excellent and grounded piece of evidence on the lack of progress on “Plan 21-24”. As we have heard already, there should be a presumption of brothers and sisters staying together, but the report showed that one in four siblings are still separated. That is an improvement on the three out of four who were separated at the start of this process in 2017, but seven councils did not know how many were separated. How could they not know? We are talking about one of their main responsibilities, and they admitted that they did not know.

The Promise made a commitment to end school exclusions for care-experienced children. However, 23 local authorities said that they continued to formally and informally exclude care-experienced pupils. One has ended the practice, and three will do so soon, but five did not even answer the question, which was asked by the main organisation that lobbies on behalf of care-experienced young people.

Restraint is supposed to end, but there is concern from Who Cares? Scotland that there is an attempt to redefine restraint as “safe holding”. Daniel Johnson’s proposed bill on restraint could clarify that area. In fact, clarification is important, especially as, alarmingly, three councils did not know how many incidents of restraint there had been and nine did not even respond. There was also a lack of knowledge of practice in non-council facilities.

Out of the 29 local authorities that responded to Who Cares? Scotland, 13 said that they did not currently provide independent advocacy services for care-experienced people at all stages of their lives, services that they are supposed to provide. Moreover, on kinship and foster carers and their being paid at the same rate, 10 councils confirmed that they paid the same, while two responded that they did not.

From the 28 local authorities that responded, 75 to 108 children and young people have experienced a breakdown of their adoption since the publication of “The Promise”. However, two councils did not even record that those breakdowns were happening. How can we understand how the system works if we do not record the data necessary to scrutinise it?

Trauma-informed training is very important; nine councils provide it, but 11 councils do not know whether they do. There is a commitment to valuing staff, but, as we heard from Roz McCall, absence rates in one particular council were going up at a shocking rate—from 65 to 78 to 83 per cent. That was just one council, but I know from my local authority in Fife that there are significant problems, and it is a sure sign of a system under considerable strain. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, we found that that was certainly the case. I also note that, of the 32 local authorities, 10 did not provide any trauma-informed training to corporate parents, pupils or families.

A thematic review from the Care Inspectorate published yesterday found that, although

“the rights of care experienced young people are being upheld as they move on from being in care ... The experience of moving on from care, envisaged by the Scottish Care Leavers Covenant ... has yet to be achieved for all young people. Variable approaches to keeping in touch also means that not all ... have equity of access to all the necessary information during the stages of transition.”

The Care Inspectorate also found that

“Access to suitable housing was the most significant challenge”.

Indeed, we know that those who have had care experience have a particular problem with accessing housing.

Children First says:

“too many are ... struggling to find help when they need it.”

The whole family wellbeing fund was slow to get off the ground and be spent. We need it to be more transparent, and we need to get it out the door, so that we can invest in families and make sure that they stay together.

There is much more that I could say, but I hope that the minister understands that scrutiny is essential if we are to deliver the Promise by the end of the period.