Hansard

It has been an interesting debate, in which there have been many significant speeches by members of all parties.

It seems to me that the Labour amendment acts as a valuable counterpoint to the Government's motion, which highlights the achievement of consensus around GIRFEC and some of the good things that have emerged from the Highland pathfinder report. It is important to consider those positive points in the context of the concerns that were expressed in the HMIE report, which said that the ability of planning to meet the needs of vulnerable children was weak or unsatisfactory in 10 council areas, and which gave 13 local authorities similar ratings on their assessment of the risks and needs of vulnerable children.

Hugh Henry was right to point out that only 12 local authorities received excellent ratings, which, given how HMIE prepares its reports and uses its rating system, gives significant cause for concern. Almost a quarter of inspections found serious weaknesses in aspects of child protection that increased the risk of harm to children.

Duncan McNeil was right to point out that that follows a report by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration that found that one in 20 of all children under two across Scotland was referred to it last year and that a growing number need to be placed on supervision requirements for their protection. He also gave us the very striking figure that 144 children who were known to the children's reporter had died. Those statistics are striking. We have in GIRFEC a framework to progress child protection, but those statistics serve as a valuable reminder that we have a huge amount to do. A lot needs to take effect if we are to improve child protection in Scotland.

The situation is not getting better, although that is not necessarily the fault of the authorities. The circumstances that give rise to children needing protection—they may have alcohol-abusing or drug-abusing parents or parents who have serious behavioural problems, or different factors could have accumulated that place them at risk—seem to be increasing in society. In particular, such problems seem to be increasing in areas with the highest levels of multiple deprivation.

That is why it is a bit of a shame that the pathfinder report that has been published is on what is happening in the Highlands. The approach would have been more balanced if we had reports on some of the other pathfinder areas—on West Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Edinburgh city and Dumfries and Galloway. That would have given us different perspectives from areas around Scotland. West Dunbartonshire, which is probably the area in that group with the greatest deprivation problems, has excellent services, particularly for care leavers and people who are going through the care system. That happens by dint of significant emphasis, the development of services and resources being made available. Such an approach needs to be emulated and replicated throughout Scotland if we are to achieve the same outcomes that West Dunbartonshire and other areas have achieved.

The HMIE report is crucial, because it gives us a systematic way of analysing the picture across Scotland. I was a wee bit concerned when I looked at the remit of the new chief inspector of HMIE and found that their responsibilities relating to the area of inspection that we are discussing did not appear to be explicit. I am not sure whether that was an oversight or a misunderstanding, but I serve notice to the minister that if the Government's intention is to withdraw HMIE from that area of inspection or work, the Labour Party will not support that. I hope that the minister will respond clearly to that point. It is vital that HMIE maintains its role in and responsibility for inspection in the area and that we can count on its good offices to ensure that child protection vigilance is maintained at a high level.

There are many interesting issues around child protection. Members have talked about health visitors, low birth weights and services that need to be brought together, which is a key aspect of GIRFEC. We know that many children who are at risk are not identified early enough. Early identification and early registration of children who are at risk are needed. The process must be followed through and maintained by all the agencies. Somebody must take responsibility. Whenever something goes wrong, we start to consider who should have accepted responsibility, and it is often the poor social worker who is at risk in such circumstances: they are accused of negligence or unprofessional practice. Members and the responsible authorities know that such problems exist. We must support the people who are asked to accept responsibility by giving them the appropriate resources and a clear indication of what is expected of them, and by ensuring that an identification system is properly in place. We cannot blame people after the fact for things that go wrong if we do not will the means to ensure that things do not go wrong. There may well be particular cases that involve individual malpractice by social workers, but we cannot blame individual social workers if poor results are a product of systematic neglect or of the system not working properly.

We need assurances from the Government that the good intentions that are expressed in GIRFEC and the framework that is being established will be replicated in the systems that exist to ensure child protection; that the system of inspection by HMIE will be maintained; and that the Government's aspiration in that system—which it will make achievable—is not for satisfactory grades, but for excellent grades throughout the country.