Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 21 November 2013

21 Nov 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Doris, Bob SNP Glasgow Watch on SPTV

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I will deal almost exclusively with kinship care and the development of the new kinship care order. I reiterate my belief that kinship carers should be given the same support as is given to foster carers. I made a promise to campaigners at a national kinship care hustings in Possilpark in 2007, and I have continued to champion the cause ever since.

The views that I express are heavily influenced by constituents of mine, such as Jessie Harvey and Ruby Grant who are members of the kinship care group in the north of the city that I represent, and by several other groups that I work with within the city. Put simply, kinship carers step in and take on a caring role for loved ones, for children, when mum and dad are unwilling or unable to do so. If kinship carers were not there to pick up the pieces, the life chances and life outcomes for such children would be far worse. That would also cost Scotland’s councils a small fortune, as they would instead need to use foster carers or residential care for those vulnerable children.

I pay tribute to our former children’s minister Adam Ingram for advancing the cause of kinship care under the SNP Government that was elected in 2007. Putting a kinship care outcome into the Scottish Government’s concordat with councils was vital. That sought to move to parity the financial support given to kinship carers and that given to foster carers. Clearly, although that aspiration was not fully met, that has made a real difference. I agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which told the Education and Culture Committee:

“The initial agreement, which was to pay kinship carers of looked-after children at a rate equivalent to that for foster carers, has not become a reality, but all local authorities have shifted to a position where they are making payments of some sort to kinship carers of looked-after children. Quite a few local authorities are also making payments at some level to kinship carers of non-looked-after children.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 September 2013; c 2821.]

That is not enough, but we have driven a real change and it is important to put that on record.

Some kinship carers have asked me why the financial memorandum includes projected cost savings from kinship care. They ask how improvements can be made in the support for kinship carers while cost savings are also expected. However, the financial memorandum states that one reason for developing the kinship care order is

“to reduce unchecked growth in formal kinship care”.

In other words, as children in kinship care come to the attention of social work or are placed in kinship care by social work—a vital distinction that, if I have time, I will return to later—they are less likely to become formally looked after. Kinship care orders will still provide support, but a crucial point is that the level of direct social work involvement will necessarily be less than if the child was deemed to be formally looked after.

I understand that the bill will lead to a projected saving in social work time, and that is the saving referred to in the financial memorandum. Fundamentally, those savings do not signal a reduction in direct cash support to kinship carers, but I would welcome some clarity and reassurance from the minister on that when she sums up the debate.

I also ask for some certainty that the bill does not put up any barriers to providing financial support to kinship carers. Can the minister confirm that the bill contains nothing that would instruct councils to pay less or, indeed, hinder them from paying more?

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 21 November 2013

In the same item of business