Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2014
19 Feb 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
There is no doubt that the kinship care landscape in Scotland has changed significantly since 2007. We have seen legislation introduced to provide support for kinship care families, but it is clear that we need to do more.
It is probably helpful to highlight that the amendments in the group follow three main strands. The intention behind amendments 180 and 206 is to end the postcode lottery of funding that kinship carers face across the country. There can be no justification for the extent and degree of variance in kinship care allowances that local authorities pay across Scotland. As anyone who went out at lunch time to speak with kinship carers will know, the system of funding that is available to people to support them in their vital role of supporting, caring for and nurturing many of our children and young people is hugely complicated, confusing and variable. I put on record my thanks to the Scottish kinship care alliance and Children 1st for the huge amount of work that they have put in throughout the passage of the bill to try to improve the situation for kinship carers in Scotland.
Amendment 180B and amendments 202 to 205 seek to extend the availability of financial support for kinship carers to those who still care for a young person who is over the age of 16 but has not yet reached 18. The other amendments in the group seek to change the eligibility criteria as defined in section 64(4), as we are concerned that they present too restricted a definition of the eligibility of the children who end up being looked after by kinship carers.
Finally, amendment 206 seeks to address the concerns of those who continue to care for looked-after children. The minister has powers to set the levels of kinship care allowances for those carers but currently does not choose to do so. The amendment seeks to end the postcode lottery of funding and ensure that there is a minimum rate of financial support for formal kinship carers, no matter where they live.
The costs of supporting children in foster care, residential care, and formal and informal kinship care vary enormously. Kinship carers often see themselves as the poor relations as a result of the funding and support that are available to them in their crucial role of caring for children in our society.
It is worth noting that it is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government’s financial review of kinship care has not been published in time for the bill. The Scottish Government promised to bring before the Parliament the outcome of its financial review of kinship care during the passage of the bill, but it has failed to do so. I sincerely hope that, when it is published and the minister is drawing up the regulations, there will be significant and careful consultation with kinship carers and organisations with an interest in the area.
I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the amendments and would welcome any commitments that she can give to supporting kinship carers in the future.
I move amendments 180 and 180A.
It is probably helpful to highlight that the amendments in the group follow three main strands. The intention behind amendments 180 and 206 is to end the postcode lottery of funding that kinship carers face across the country. There can be no justification for the extent and degree of variance in kinship care allowances that local authorities pay across Scotland. As anyone who went out at lunch time to speak with kinship carers will know, the system of funding that is available to people to support them in their vital role of supporting, caring for and nurturing many of our children and young people is hugely complicated, confusing and variable. I put on record my thanks to the Scottish kinship care alliance and Children 1st for the huge amount of work that they have put in throughout the passage of the bill to try to improve the situation for kinship carers in Scotland.
Amendment 180B and amendments 202 to 205 seek to extend the availability of financial support for kinship carers to those who still care for a young person who is over the age of 16 but has not yet reached 18. The other amendments in the group seek to change the eligibility criteria as defined in section 64(4), as we are concerned that they present too restricted a definition of the eligibility of the children who end up being looked after by kinship carers.
Finally, amendment 206 seeks to address the concerns of those who continue to care for looked-after children. The minister has powers to set the levels of kinship care allowances for those carers but currently does not choose to do so. The amendment seeks to end the postcode lottery of funding and ensure that there is a minimum rate of financial support for formal kinship carers, no matter where they live.
The costs of supporting children in foster care, residential care, and formal and informal kinship care vary enormously. Kinship carers often see themselves as the poor relations as a result of the funding and support that are available to them in their crucial role of caring for children in our society.
It is worth noting that it is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government’s financial review of kinship care has not been published in time for the bill. The Scottish Government promised to bring before the Parliament the outcome of its financial review of kinship care during the passage of the bill, but it has failed to do so. I sincerely hope that, when it is published and the minister is drawing up the regulations, there will be significant and careful consultation with kinship carers and organisations with an interest in the area.
I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the amendments and would welcome any commitments that she can give to supporting kinship carers in the future.
I move amendments 180 and 180A.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Group 1 is on duties of Scottish ministers in relation to the rights of children. Amendment 116, in the name of Jean Urquhart, is grouped with amendments 117...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
The stated policy intention behind the bill is to contribute to Scotland being the best place for children to grow up, and I applaud that intention. It is vi...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
The bill represents the coming together of two pieces of proposed legislation, one of which is a bill on children’s rights. As Jean Urquhart identified, the ...
The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the range of amendments that focus on part 1 of the bill. The bill will ensure that children’s rights properly influe...
Liam McArthur
LD
I listened carefully to what the minister said. She seemed to be concerned that amendment 125 overlaps with amendment 126. That would make sense if she inten...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
As I have said, we are developing that. That is something that we will achieve in order to ensure that we make rights real for children and that the UNCRC is...
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)
Green
It has, at times, been difficult to articulate through this bill the potential impact of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on children...
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendments 121, 123 and 124 in my name as well as the other amendments in the group.Although I join members of all part...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
Over a lengthy period, I have listened very carefully to what has been the most challenging but nevertheless one of the most interesting aspects of the debat...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Like Liz Smith, I listened as part of the Education and Culture Committee to the evidence on this section of the bill. Like the rest of the committee, I came...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
Minister, would you like to respond to any of the points that were made in the debate? You do not have to by any measure.
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Joan McAlpine raised the fact that the committee did not support the full incorporation of the UNCRC, and I reflect again on Professor Ken Norrie’s comments ...
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I return to the wording of amendment 116 and reiterate what it would do and what it would not. It would require Scottish ministers to set up a body to consid...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I am afraid that I did not hear what you said. Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment?
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I am upholding it—I am pressing it.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Right. The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division. We will have it shortly, as there will now be a five-minute gap—the word I am looking for is “suspension”.14:40 Meeting suspended. ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the division on amendment 116.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 84, Abstentions 0.Amendment 116 disagreed to.Section 1—Duties of Scottish Ministers in relation to the rights ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 117 disagreed to.Amendment 118 moved—Liam McArthur.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 118 disagreed to.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Group 2 is on duties in relation to article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Amendment 92, in the name of Siobhan McMahon, ...
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
As I said at stage 2, the reason why we require the addition of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to give additional assurance ...
Liz Smith
Con
As I mentioned at stage 2, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of Siobhan McMahon’s amendments, and by bringing them to stage 3, she has allowed u...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Amendments 92 and 94 to 100 seek to place requirements on Scottish ministers and public bodies to take steps with the aim of furthering the rights set out un...