Hansard

The debate has contained a number of interesting and thoughtful contributions from members on all sides of the chamber, and a wee bit of drama around the named person provision. With the Presiding Officer’s forbearance, I will clarify the Labour Party’s position on the named person provision. We fully support the principle and have no problem with it, but we are very worried about the resource implications. We agree with the Royal College of Nursing and the Educational Institute of Scotland that a bit more work is needed in that respect. For example, we could be looking at a requirement for an additional 450 health visitors, which would be an issue in terms of the successful implementation of the provision.

It is clear that there is, among members on all sides of the Parliament, a real willingness to improve the decision-making processes that lead to children being taken into care and—perhaps most important—to improve the outcomes for those vulnerable children and young people in our society. I was struck by Liz Smith’s comments about the frustration that is felt on all sides of the Parliament and beyond about the lack of progress on the issue.

I do not wish to set a negative tone—I think that we all agree that we would like to make progress as fast as we can, and I hope that where we are today is a good starting point for moving forward without further delay. In her response to the committee’s report, the minister said:

“Both early intervention and early permanence are needed to meet our aims of reducing the number of children on long term supervision requirements and increasing the numbers finding secure legal permanence.”

I was heartened to hear the minister say that she is committed to improving outcomes for children and young people across all levels of government. The care and permanence strategy is to be welcomed, as is the minister’s reference to a whole-system approach, which is important, as we cannot have a piecemeal approach. Because the field is so complex and so many agencies and organisations are involved, as well as families, children and professionals, we need a whole-system approach to making improvements. The minister also referred to the important role of social workers. That is perhaps stating the obvious, but they are fundamental to improving services, as the minister acknowledged.

A number of concerns have been raised. I am pleased that George Adam referred to the support that is available to social workers and other staff. We need to consider whether that support is sufficient and is available when it is needed, and where staff are left if they do not get support and help. They feel exposed and might well leave the profession or seek promotion to get away from the pressures of being on the front line. Any reduction in support or training for a workforce always leads to worries about morale, skills development and staff retention. We need to be mindful of that and keep the needs of the staff very much at the fore in our thinking as we move forward.

I was struck by Ken Macintosh’s comments. He raised the question whether access to resources influences decisions on where to place children. That made me think because, clearly, if there is good access to foster carers, children’s homes and social workers, that might widen the choices and influence the options for a child. However, if that access is not available, the choices are much more limited, which might influence decisions. It is not for me to say whether that happens, but Ken Macintosh’s comments certainly made me think. He also made thought-provoking comments on the culture in social work. He made valid points about the role of judgment and good decision making, and on how staff can be protected in exercising that judgment.

To return to the named person, as the minister is aware, we need to do more work on when the named person passes on responsibility to the lead professional, which is a different role. That will also be a judgment, and how it will work needs to be negotiated and agreed. We are not at that stage yet, but we know that we need to do more work on it.

As we have heard, one of the report’s conclusions is that

“the sheer volume of ongoing work could suggest that deep-rooted problems are being addressed on an incremental basis.”

I agree with the convener’s point that any future action must be co-ordinated and happen across the system. Everybody has to understand their role. Just doing a lot of work does not necessarily achieve a lot of benefit, so we need to ensure that we work effectively and well together to make the changes that are needed.

In future, we must ensure that any progress is co-ordinated and, where possible, that the outcomes of reforms are measurable and make real improvements to the decision-making systems, which have a huge impact on the lives of children and their families. Several colleagues have referred to the starting point. If we are to start measuring the difference that we make, sadly, on some of the indicators, we will be starting from a low point. Liam McArthur, Liz Smith and Neil Findlay gave sobering figures that point clearly to the size of the challenge in improving those outcomes. Some of the worrying statistics apply to children in all settings—whether they are looked after at home or in a children’s home—and of all ages, so not just in the early years but as they grow up in care and move out of it. Neil Findlay referred to the link between outcomes for young people in the prison system and their time in care. The situation is not good enough and we have a chance to make it better. We have to take that responsibility seriously.

Ahead of today’s debate, I was in touch with a number of childcare charities and excellent organisations such as Who Cares? Scotland that do their very best to put the voices of looked-after children at the centre of debates such as this one. It might interest colleagues to know that I used to work in childcare and I can remember Who Cares? being set up more than 30 years ago. It is great to see the way in which it has continued to work and fight. It has never given up its campaign to have the voices of children built into our decision making, and I pay particular credit to it in relation to the committee’s report and the work that we are doing on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.

George Adam and others spoke about the impact on them of hearing the evidence from young people. We really cannot go forward without continuing to listen to those young people. They want to know that we are serious about what we are doing. We need to demonstrate that we have conviction and that we want to make progress. They are watching us and they have expectations of us. I do not know whether they are here today, but I hope that they will note that we want to work to improve the life chances of children in Scotland and that this issue does not end with this debate.

The challenges that face our most vulnerable children have been described as a hidden problem, which would shock the majority of Scots if they knew the day-to-day reality of life for looked-after children. One campaigner said that the solution lies in Scots caring and feeling a sense of responsibility for all children in Scottish communities and Scottish society. In my opening speech, I referred to the need to change attitudes and culture.

The report that we have debated today goes some way to exposing the hidden problem of our children in care. I look forward to hearing the minister respond to a number of the points that were raised today on the actions that we will be taking to improve the lives of Scotland’s children.

16:41