Plenary, 01 Jul 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, July 1, 2004

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

Social Work

A very good morning on this, our last morning in the Assembly Hall. The first item of business is a debate on the subject of 21st century social work. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.

It is always an enormous pleasure to open a debate on the last day of a parliamentary term and to see the continued enthusiasm of members as they flock to the chamber to debate an important subject. It is also worth recording, as the Presiding Officer has said, that this is the last day's business in this chamber. I have come to enjoy debating in it. For a temporary home, it has had a good atmosphere. While we look forward to moving into the new building, I wish personally to thank everyone who has given us support in the use of this building. It has been a super home for us in the early years of the Parliament.

Back in May, I made a statement to the Parliament on the case of a young woman with learning difficulties who had been the subject of serious abuse, in which there had been serious failings in social work practice. I announced then that the Executive would engage in a fundamental look at social work in this early part of the 21st century. This morning, I will set out the issues and how we plan to take forward that fundamental look at social work services.

The individual and systemic failings that were identified in the Borders case were made all the more shocking by the fact that they had occurred over a 30-year period. I said in May that that case marked a watershed and that the time had come to ask some fundamental questions about the nature of modern-day social work and the task that we are asking social workers to undertake for our society in this fast-changing world. We need to ask how we can strengthen the contribution of social work in our society—and it is my purpose to strengthen that contribution.

I was pleased that the proposals that I set out in May, which were an outline for a fundamental look at social work, were warmly welcomed by the social work profession, by employers in the sector, by partner agencies and by users of social work services. I have received a number of letters and messages of support for the initiative. There is clearly a consensus that the time is right to ask searching questions to help to strengthen social work for the future.

Yesterday, in a written answer to a parliamentary question, I revealed the broad remit and membership of the group that I have asked to lead that task. The group will be known as the 21st century social work group. I want the work of the group to be open. That is why we are having this morning's debate without a motion, which will allow members to express their views freely and openly and to help to shape the agenda for the future. I recognise the significant expertise on these matters on the benches of the chamber and I look forward to what members have to say today. The debate will help to inform the work of the 21st century social work group as it begins its task.

There are about 7,000 professionally qualified social workers in Scotland, which is more than at any time in the past. They form a key dimension of a sector that now employs 120,000 social care workers in total. Over the past two decades, the once comparatively narrow focus of social work has widened, moving from an often institutional focus to more mainstream service provision.

In its widest sense, social work impacts on an increasing number of families in Scotland. The people of Scotland expect services of a high quality that are delivered quickly and competently to meet testing standards and priority needs. Those expectations must be met in the face of major strategic challenges. Demographic changes will be an increasingly potent force in how we have to muster our resources into the future. We can anticipate much higher demand for health and social work services with fewer people available to provide them. Significant societal changes are taking place. Different work patterns exist now compared with a number of years ago. There are stresses and pressures on families and family life that did not exist a few years ago. Households are formed in different ways compared with just a few years ago. Drug misuse and alcohol abuse present huge challenges for family life. Meeting those challenges must include the optimum use of our most valuable professionals, including social workers.

The aim of the 21st century social work group will be to strengthen the contribution of social work services to deliver integrated services. The group will focus on issues relating to the qualified social worker and the social work profession but, because social workers do not work by themselves, its scope will also cover social work services provided by social care workers. The group's work will cover a wide range of care groups: children and young people, families, vulnerable adults and offenders. The group will consider the contributions that other professions and sectors can make through the key supportive interventions at their disposal. As social work is not delivered in isolation, there will be implications for the way in which partner agencies, including health, education and the police, work jointly with social work.

I want the 21st century social work group to explore six areas of challenge: to define the task for social work and social workers for the early part of the 21st century; to explore how to improve quality assurance mechanisms and embed a culture of continuous improvement in the profession; to explore how to strengthen the leadership and management of the profession to ensure consistent and effective delivery of services; to explore how to improve the capacity and confidence of the professionals who deliver services; to determine how best to deliver services in the diverse landscape of modern service provision; and to consider whether the legislative framework, including the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, remains fit for purpose.

I very much welcome the tone of the minister's remarks, which seem to address many matters that the professionals in the sector want to be considered. Will he also address the underlying problems associated with the lack of social workers, the current recruitment and retention problems and pay and conditions?

I respect the point that Brian Adam makes. If he will bear with me, I will talk about those problems specifically. I know that Euan Aitken—my apologies: I meant to say Euan Robson. It is one of those days. Euan Robson has been chairing a group that has been considering those matters and he will say more on the subject when he winds up the debate.

We need to identify the needs of each care group and be clear about the tasks that we require social workers and related professionals to do. There are a number of key questions. What is the central purpose and function of social work in the early part of the 21st century? Is it about a broad concept of social welfare or care? Is it primarily about protection of the vulnerable? Is it about promoting a broader concept of social inclusion? Is it about enabling vulnerable people to realise their full individual potential as citizens? Is it about all those things? Which of those functions, if any, ought to be taking priority over others? What, precisely, is the nature of the intervention that we are asking social workers to make on our behalf as a society? Our responsibility as politicians is to be much clearer about what we want social workers to do on our behalf and the 21st century social work group will help us identify that.

We need to explore the concept of the generic social worker. Is that concept still valid or does modern reality dictate something different? In the modern, complex landscape of services, what are the particular skills of the social worker that add value to all that we do in our society? What are the necessary organisational cultures and arrangements that must be in place to ensure that the sector delivers effective, responsive services and avoids repeated systemic failure?

The 21st century social work group will also explore how to develop a stronger improvement culture across the sector at all levels and will consider what we need to do to strengthen professional management and positive leadership. Critically, it will examine what the role of the chief social work officer should be in providing professional leadership and quality assurance.

Local authorities, along with their partners, have the complex task of delivering services that are focused on the needs of specific client groups. We need to determine how to optimise effectiveness in the relations between local authorities and their delivery partners. The 21st century social work group will be asked to identify what action the Executive might take to remove obstacles preventing social workers and their partners from delivering integrated services.

We need to examine the legislative framework. Much of the 1968 act has been replaced by more recent legislation, but the time has come to ask whether the current legal frameworks are still fit for purpose. Is statutory change required if we are to deliver better outcomes? What will be the best statutory framework for social work interventions in the future? I genuinely look forward to hearing members' views on those questions and their suggestions on other areas that I may not have covered that they think need to be explored.

We have set a challenging and far-reaching remit for the social work group. Some people will argue that all that is required is more resources—I am sure that we will hear such arguments today. Making available more resources—or resources of any kind—is always an issue in all forms of public life, but the work that I want to be done is first and foremost about making clear the task of modern social work and its fit in the modern-day landscape. The Executive will then consider resource issues in that light.

The minister may recall that I received a written answer earlier this week that said that the Executive does not know the number of social workers who are entering training and that it has not had those figures for the past five years. Is that consistent with an ability to develop the resources that social work requires?

That indicates how far we must travel on some matters. I am glad that we have now cracked issues such as far better work-force planning in education, but we want to move on to do much more about such issues in social work. Again, Euan Robson will say more about that later. We recognise that more resources are required in social work, which is why we are, for example, increasing the number of social workers, providing financial incentives for recruitment and fast tracking training to try to meet already existing resource constraints.

I will now talk about how we will deliver on the remit. Social work in the 21st century falls into two strands of activity. The first strand deals with the complex issues and big questions at the heart of the process, including the task of the social worker in modern society, the role of the chief social work officer and the optimal way of delivering services. The second strand relates to the improvement agenda. We have already identified the fact that improvement in the quality of services is required through better leadership and operational management, stronger performance management and improved work-force development. The approach that we plan is to ensure that the agenda that I have outlined is driven through an independent and challenging process. The 21st century social work group will deal with the key questions first, directly and early in its work, and will influence our current improvement agenda, but it will not stall that agenda pending the outcome of its work.

The chair and the group will determine how best to achieve the group's objectives. At this stage, I envisage that the group will take the agenda that I have set out in the remit to a much wider audience; address the core questions of the role of the social worker and chief social work officer and the delivery of social work services; invite evidence on key issues, consult stakeholders in preparing findings and take the group's findings back to stakeholders; and identify the implications of its work for future, current and planned development work.

The group has members with strong track records of making consultation real and effective. It includes people with real expertise in delivering user-friendly services and customer requirements to the highest specification across public services and in the private sector. It is equally vital that the process should involve employers, service providers, people who work in the sector, especially those who work on the first line, and others who hold a stake in social work—those people must have a real opportunity to make an impact on the future of social work. Again, it will be for the group to determine the most effective channels for representation.

The group's work will be shaped to take account of other developments, including the review of the children's hearings system, our child protection reform programme and the recent consultation on reducing reoffending. Of course, the work of the group will take account of the wider policy environment, including the impact of new legislation, such as the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and the recently passed Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. The timetable for the process is ambitious. The group will start its work next month and will be expected to cover the bulk of the key questions in the next 12 months.

Members will recall that, in my statement on 6 May, I indicated that I would be considering options for delivering inspection of social work services. I made it clear then that we wanted to separate policy and inspection in order to allow a focus on each more effectively. I have concluded that the option that provides the best way forward for social work inspection is establishing an executive agency. That follows the model that is in operation for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. The social work services inspectorate has now been established as a shadow executive agency and will become a full agency by April next year.

In concluding, I repeat what I said in my statement in May:

"Practising social work is one of the most demanding and complex tasks that we ask any group of professionals to carry out on our behalf. Today, as we speak in the chamber and deliberate on these matters, social workers the length and breadth of Scotland are confronting extraordinarily challenging circumstances. Many social workers, health staff and social work and health managers … are exercising sound judgment, assessing difficult situations, making the right interventions and improving the lives of vulnerable citizens."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; c 8215.]

I want to continue to recognise the strong and positive part that social work plays in the life of our nation. Our focus must be on how we can strengthen that contribution further.

As I have stated, today's debate provides an early opportunity for members to express their views. The process will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of our citizens when they are in need and I look forward to hearing what members have to say.

I welcome the opportunity to speak again on behalf of the Scottish National Party about social work. I also welcome the review of the profession that the minister has announced today and the fact that he has put flesh on the bones of his earlier statement.

Key questions must be answered about the future of the profession. What do we expect social workers to do? What is the nature of the interventions that we expect them to make on our behalf? Should all interventions that are currently carried out by social workers be carried out by them? What is the best use that we can make of such a skilled profession? What are our priorities—given that we are the ones who must set them—for social work, care and protection and for the general help that we offer to all our citizens?

I understand the concerns of professional bodies about the role of chief social work officers in local authorities, but we must not get carried away with what might be seen by some people as an attempt to enhance that role for the sake of the profession. We should address concerns only if they relate to delivering for the citizens. However, we should not try to tell local authorities how they should best organise their departments in order to deliver the services that their citizens require. There is always scope for performance improvement, because circumstances change. We must be in a position to respond according to the changing demands on the service and the improvements in skills that will be available.

Is there appropriate leadership? Recent leadership failures in Scotland have certainly been identified, but perhaps we do not need to revisit those failures today. I understand the need for a significant update in the legislative framework within which social work operates in Scotland, but that is only one side of the equation. We must deliver services now, in the medium term and in the long term. It is important to consider the wider professional issues—the review will rightly address them—but we must still provide services and I am not satisfied that that can be done. In spite of a plethora of Executive initiatives, we have still not turned things around.

I acknowledge that there is more to dealing with the problem than simply providing resources, but, given that we are considering imposing fresh burdens—the minister detailed several significant burdens and undoubtedly there will be more to come—we will not be able to deliver the services unless we provide those resources. The issue is not just about throwing more money at social work; it is also about the need for more social workers.

How will we get more social workers? The Executive has implemented a number of initiatives but has failed to take advantage of the opportunity to attract social workers from elsewhere in the world. I am not talking about robbing the less-developed parts of the world; I am talking about getting social workers from the United States. In the light of the Executive's fresh talent initiative, I approached the First Minister before my visit to the US in April to ask whether we might achieve something through attracting social workers to Scotland—I had been contacted by universities in the US that wanted us to do that. In the US, I talked to two social work departments—in one of them, there were adverts on the wall from London authorities asking for social workers to go to work in London. The universities with which I had discussions were keen to take advantage of the opportunities that might exist for partly training their trainee social workers in Scotland through placements and internships, possibly linking up with universities.

When I returned, I was advised by the First Minister to write to Mr Peacock. I did so in the terms that I have just outlined, although I understand that that aspect of the fresh talent initiative is the responsibility of Mr Wallace. I was extremely disappointed to receive earlier this month a letter that, in essence, said that trainee social workers from the US would not qualify for the initiative. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that the Executive might think about attracting them in a slightly different way or in this or that way—it was a straightforward no. Why can we not be a bit more positive about taking the opportunities that can and do exist to recruit social workers from elsewhere, without robbing the developing world, to fill vacancies that we have here in the short term and perhaps even in the medium term? I hope that our ministerial colleagues will ask Mr Wallace nicely to consider that suggestion rather more positively than he did in his letter to me of 9 June.

We have had a series of debates on social work. I secured a members' business debate on social work on 14 January in which I called for a McCrone-type review of social workers' pay and conditions and other matters. We also heard a statement on 6 May, to which the minister has referred, in response to which Mr Barrie said:

"We need a fundamental review of what exactly we expect from social workers and what exactly we believe is the role of social work in the 21st century."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; c 8222.]

To be fair, that review has been announced, which is very welcome. However, we are not hearing exactly how we are going to tackle the difficulties that are associated with the key shortages of social work staff in the various departments across the board.

Social workers are employed not just by local authorities, but by the health service, and they are likely to be employed in a new agency that might be hived off from local authorities. Professionals are concerned about the breaking up of the present arrangements and about how the Executive will deal with that. Indeed, I was surprised to find that I was to speak today on behalf of the SNP on social work, as my remit is primarily education, children and lifelong learning. I am here because Mr Peacock is here. It is perhaps surprising that the matter did not fall under the communities remit of Margaret Curran. Given that I received a letter from Mr Wallace on the subject, it appears that he, too, has some involvement with it. Professionals are expressing the concern that there does not appear to be a coherent view in the Executive about how social work should be delivered. I would like to hear from the ministers how they believe that it should be delivered. It seems peculiar that social work should be handled within the education brief—that does not quite seem to fit. We need to be clear about what we expect of social workers and about how we are going to deliver the services day by day. We have not yet received a clear indication of that.

The work force in social work is not as big as it should be. Although the number of whole-time equivalent social workers has risen since 1999, the total number of social work staff is only approaching the number of staff who were employed in social work in 1997. We do not appear to have specific data on the number of whole-time equivalent social workers before 1997. Interestingly, since 1999, although expenditure on social work by local authorities has increased by a little over a third, the number of social workers has not increased at the same rate. For every extra £1 million that has been spent on social work since devolution, we have employed six extra members of staff in the social work sector and one extra social worker. I would be interested to hear the explanation for that. Is it because we are putting the work out to the voluntary sector or the private sector, or is it because social work staff are being given enormous pay rises? I do not believe that it is the latter. We need to have some explanation of why we are spending so much more when we do not have the staffing level that is commensurate with that expenditure.

Does the member accept that one of the reasons for the huge increase in social work budgets was the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which placed a large number of extra duties on local authorities to work in collaboration with health colleagues? That is where a lot of that money went, some of it being transferred from the health service.

Yes, I accept that point. However, there is almost certainly more to it than that and the figures may reflect other movements of duties away from local authorities to the voluntary sector. For example, many of the care homes that were formerly under the authority of local councils have been moved to the voluntary sector in a steady process. Perhaps that is where some of the money has gone. It would be interesting to find out whether the increase can be explained in those terms.

We have significant recruitment problems in social work, but we have not heard anything today—although perhaps we will when Mr Robson speaks—about how we are going to address the significant changes that are taking place in the sector. I will finish by talking a little about the chief inspector of social work's annual report, which has the catchy title "Progress with Complexity". The report finds that the problems in some areas of social work have been due to increased pressures on the service and difficulties with the recruitment of staff to cope with those pressures. For example, in criminal justice social work, there has been a 15 per cent increase in the demand for social inquiry reports across the local authorities and, in recent years, there have also been big increases in the demand for probation orders and community service orders. That has placed increased burdens on the resources in criminal justice social work. In youth justice, only three local authorities achieved the standard of submitting 80 per cent of reports within 20 days of the request for them. Those are significant failures that exist now and we need answers now, as well as in the medium and long terms.

In community care social work, the provision of free personal and nursing care has set challenges for local authorities at a time of significant pressure on them from competing demands. Some areas are also experiencing problems in developing the framework for mental health services because of the financial constraints of their health service partners in joint working. The Scottish training on drugs and alcohol initiative was singled out for having stalled in its progress, meaning that the problems for children and adults are increasing rather than being resolved. More than 360 children in Scotland are awaiting a foster placement; more than 200 are waiting to be adopted; and more than 11,300 are looked after by local authorities. There were 2,289 children on the child protection register at March 2003—a 13 per cent increase on the figure for the previous year—and there were more than 8,000 child protection referrals at March 2003, which was a 12 per cent increase on the figure for the previous year.

As services continue to expand—I do not doubt that the Executive will continue to expand them—the number of vacancies is increasing, especially for qualified social workers. The issue is the management of rapid growth and expectations. We need to develop even more new solutions to ensure that we have high-quality social work provision and appropriate access to the profession—we must encourage not just young people but people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of experience to come into the profession. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, Mr Robson will tell us how we will recruit and retain social workers and set within the overall review of the professional framework appropriate pay and conditions to achieve that aim.

I thought that Brian Adam was enjoying making his speech so much that he was not going to stop. I was expecting to be sitting in my chair for a fair while. He was probably asked to open for the SNP because he is not in the running for the leadership and is spare for the day.

I certainly welcome the review of 21st century social work. I also respect and commend the minister for his tone; after all, the tone of previous debates on this subject has been indicative of many of the problems that we have faced. It is easy to say that those problems should have been addressed earlier. However, the thoroughness of the investigations into the Caleb Ness case and the Borders case has undoubtedly given us more information to consider. We also need to listen to social workers on the problems that they are facing. Although I agree with all the elements of the expert group's remit, I would like to suggest a few more that the minister might not wish to include within that remit but which I hope will be addressed elsewhere.

The Conservative party does not call for more resources. However, we are calling for lines of accountability and transparency in social work spending. Members will know that, in many cases that have been raised with us, social work departments have claimed that they do not have enough money while the Executive claims otherwise. Who do we believe? We need openness and honesty in this matter.

The expert group's remit should also include an examination of the question whether services are always best delivered through social work departments. We need some clear-headed thinking on this issue, which I will return to later.

Social work is often talked about as if it stands alone and operates in a vacuum. We hear all too often of headline cases in which the finger of criticism points mainly at social work departments. The two investigations that I mentioned earlier highlighted poor interagency working, poor communications, assumptions about what other agencies were aware of and marked failures to respond appropriately at the appropriate time. Unless all organisations get better at working together, people who need help and support will continue to fall through the net. A strong and effective link with social work will strengthen support for the criminal justice system, social care, children and young people in need and other vulnerable groups.

I welcome the fast-track qualification for social workers, particularly for people in the Highlands who have families. After all, it would be difficult for them to attend university in Aberdeen or the central belt. There is no doubt that such an approach will give many experienced staff the necessary qualification to practise and so boost social work staffing levels. I should also point out that we focus too much on recruiting new social workers. We must focus equally on retaining qualified and experienced staff, who need to feel valued and supported in their jobs.

We must examine the relationship between the Parliament and local councils. Too often, we in this Parliament pass bills whose provisions require more social work staff to implement them. As a result, we pile more responsibility on to already overstretched departments. I hope that the expert group will have a better dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and trainers to ensure that work-force planning is improved and that social workers in post are given necessary support and are made to feel valued for their work.

On Monday, I spoke to an elderly gentleman who has been fighting for a long time—I cannot remember how long—to secure free nursing care for his wife, who is in a care home. As he pays the full fees, his wife was placed immediately. He said to me, "Your Parliament promised free personal and nursing care. Why am I having to fight so hard with Highland Council to get it?" I am not pointing the finger at the Executive or the councils, but someone is missing something. We need more transparency and accountability. In this case, the problem lies with Highland Council social work department but, for the population as a whole, the blame lies with the Parliament. After all, we pass the legislation.

Brian Adam mentioned the chief inspector of social work's recent report, which highlighted an increase in demand for social inquiry reports, probation orders and community service orders. Those demands are being placed on social work staff and will have to be met either by increasing the number of staff or by introducing more efficient working practices. The blame culture has to end. I have no doubt that, given the extent of its remit, the expert group will help to achieve that aim.

Because Highland Council has run out of money, many people in the Highlands have had to wait until the new financial year to receive funding for residential care. Either the Scottish Executive is not funding community care adequately or councils are using the resources for other budgets. Whatever the problem, elderly people should not have to languish in hospital beds when they should be in care homes or given home care. Moreover, that care should be provided in accordance with the agreed care plan that was introduced by legislation that we passed.

Of all the glossy brochures that the Executive has produced, my favourite is perhaps "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities". I am pleased to say that almost all the 29 recommendations have mostly been met. However, given the varying and complex needs of those in care and the difficulty of finding health care staff, the closure of long-stay hospitals, which is scheduled for the end of next year, represents a huge challenge for social work departments. The Executive and COSLA must have an open and honest discussion about this matter. There needs to be better dialogue, because I know that there are huge difficulties in the Highlands and I am sure that there will be difficulties elsewhere in Scotland.

In its recent work-force report, Community Care Providers Scotland found that 92 per cent of providers experienced serious difficulties in recruiting staff and that almost half the providers have no care home or day care managers who are qualified to the standard required by the Scottish Social Services Council—which again was set up by legislation that we passed. Moreover, CCPS found that there was no identified means of securing the necessary resources to achieve that standard.

The Social Care Employers Consortium now recommends that the Commission for Social Care Inspection should be given the power to inspect the funding relationships between local authorities and the voluntary sector providers to ensure that those providers are adequately resourced to meet the new care standards. Furthermore, Audit Scotland has promised to revisit this issue once the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 has bedded in. As a result, I am not sure that the expert group should examine financial spending, accountability and so on, although I hope that someone will look into those matters.

Home care charges in the Highlands have risen from £5.45 an hour to £10.50 an hour and there is no doubt that the financial burden is falling on those who self-fund their care. Although 1,785 people remain in blocked beds waiting for social work funding, those who can pay the full costs of care are placed instantly. The Executive has created a two-tier system in which the people who have substantial savings receive the care that they need when they need it and the others simply have to wait to be allocated social work funding. The Parliament should not find it acceptable that councils pay considerably higher sums to fund care in their own homes while the Church of Scotland, the voluntary sector and the independent sector have to meet the same quality standards set by the care commission with substantially less funding.

Last week, when MSPs met children's panel members, they were told about the desperate need in Scotland for detoxification and rehabilitation facilities for children under 16. If children's panel referrals for services cannot be met, surely social work departments and COSLA need to work with the Scottish Executive to establish the need for such a service and then to consider whether that need should be addressed.

When the Parliament was established, prisoners were being discharged into the community with no throughcare or support for their drug or alcohol problems. The help and support that they got in prison was often wasted when they were released and they were lost to the services. Now, Cranstoun Drug Services provides care and support within prison that continues seamlessly in the community on the prisoner's release. Prisoners build up tried and trusted relationships in the community while they are incarcerated. One of the great indications that a privatised public service is working is that it is not headline news every day—unlike a certain other privatised prison service. Is it not time to consider other aspects of social care that could be privatised to give better value for the public purse, provide better-quality health care and support, and bring social justice and equality of access to all those in need when they need it? I hope that the minister will bring a bit of blue-sky thinking into the expert group.

It is interesting and pleasant to take part in a debate where members are putting forward constructive ideas rather than abusing one another. I will try not to recapitulate a lot of the constructive comments that other members have made, but I will indicate briefly where I support them.

First, we must decide what we are trying to do, which is often the most difficult thing in life. What is social work trying to do? It is one of the vaguer forms of public activity and the new expert group must decide what the whole enterprise aims to do.

The two main aspects are the structure and the people. With due deference to the two ministers, Peter Peacock and Euan Robson, both of whom I have a high regard for, I ask whether they are the right people—I do not mean whether they are the right individuals, but I wonder whether it should be their job to address social work. We must consider how we address social work nationally and locally. At the local level, many councils are disbanding their separate social work department, with a separate director of social work, and are merging social work departments with other departments. That may or may not be the correct thing to do; on the one hand, there are issues about liaison and co-operation across the board but, on the other, it is important in any human activity to have somebody whose purpose it is to drive things through. It is no use having a tired man or woman in a local council or a Government department who, after many hours of work on his day job, thinks, "Oh, I am meant to be running social work as well. What should I do about that?" There must be designated people who have the energy, time and resources to pursue the issues.

The next consideration for the expert group is how to get the balance right. We want to involve the professionals; they should not be sidelined and they should get their due say because, in many instances, they know what they are talking about. However, a review should not become a defensive professional and trade union exercise. For example, if a group of MSPs were to examine MSP-related issues, they might not always come up with the right answers. We must strike the right balance between the professionals and what the expert group is trying to achieve in the outside world.

We must consider the issue of liaison across the board—with health, education, youth work and the police. In my view, our Government system most often fails when it tries to bring different parts of the system together; the individual parts often work quite well, but it is very difficult to get people to co-operate. A rising English civil servant told me that the real enemy is the civil servants in the other departments. We must get over that attitude.

We must address the issue of specialist versus generalist within social work. I am not sufficiently well versed to give advice on the matter—there are strong arguments both ways. I spent a lot of time with somebody who suffered from a previous reorganisation of social work, who felt that the whole thing was done wrongly. Reorganisations are, on the whole, a mistake, but perhaps we should re-examine the system and identify how we should organise the service.

We somehow have to combine rigorous assessment of social workers to ensure that they are doing their job well with support for them against witch hunts. Social workers are currently demonised about as much as politicians are, so we should sympathise with them and try to give them some support.

We need good professional social workers who are properly trained to do the jobs that we have identified for them. They must be properly assessed and there must be continuing training once they have taken up their professional work. In order to achieve that, we must decide what social workers should do and what other people could equally well do. We must not invade the professionalism of social workers, but we must use their professionalism where it is most needed. For example, where it is necessary, there should be more administrative support to try to reduce the amount of paperwork that social workers have to do and free them to do social work. Politically, it is not attractive for a council or a Government to appoint more people to desk jobs, but if those people can free up the front-line troops to fight the battle that they are trained to do, that is a good step to take.

The biggest growth in social work activity is, and will continue to be, in dealing with the elderly, because there are far too many people like me around and not enough people like some other members. How should we support elderly people? Care staff could often do more and could be given more responsibilities. Home helps and volunteers could all make a considerable contribution to helping elderly people and providing care in the community, without calling on the time of professional social workers—other than to make sure that the whole team is operating well together.

According to my information, which is a few months out of date, there have been complaints that although it is difficult to recruit social workers, there are queues of people wanting to qualify as care workers but the system does not provide enough funds for that. There should be more care workers. There could be a greater contribution from teachers in dealing with young people, because they have a great knowledge of young people and could contribute more than they do to the team effort that is required to sort out difficult young people. The energies of paid youth workers and voluntary youth club workers could also be harnessed much more.

Another issue is the recruitment of more social workers. I am a great student of correct phrases, because I never remember them. I understand that the correct phrase is "work-force development", so we need lots of that. I am sure that the minister—unlike me, he understands these things—will explain to me what work-force development is and what he is doing about it. How will he produce more social workers and ensure that they are properly trained? It seems to me from what I have been told that often people could become social workers and train on the job if they have a background that, although not strictly professional, is relevant to social work. They could combine their academic training and training on the job without waiting as long as some of them currently do.

We must consider how we deal with problems. That again involves work across different departments. For example, someone has to lead on the issue of alcohol—it may be health rather than social work, but social work has a big part to play. Everyone at a local level must understand who is in charge and what they are trying to do. We do not need tsars—newspapers love tsars because "tsar" is a short word that fits in a headline, but we do not need the tsar mentality. We need good local activity, with co-ordination and monitoring of the issue at a national level to ensure that things are happening. That also applies to matters such as alternatives to custody and antisocial behaviour, which we have recently been immersed in. There is an idea in some quarters that there should be, as I understand it, a tsar in charge of a single correctional agency. That would be to go in entirely the wrong direction.

Co-ordination is needed. It may be that just as we have Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, we should have an inspector of non-prisons to co-ordinate but not to be in charge. Local people must run the thing and harness the energies of the whole local team, rather than there being some central agency. I hope that the minister can explain to us how he will produce more social workers, how they will be trained better and how they will fit in with all the other departments. If the two ministers can make local and national departments co-operate better than they do at the moment, they will deserve knighthoods, lordships or whatever Mr McConnell has at his disposal.

I welcome the review of social work services and the fact that the minister has called the review group the 21st century social work group, because that is an appropriate title. It is 36 years since the passing of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which was a radical and far-sighted piece of legislation, not least section 12, which placed a duty on local authorities to promote social welfare. We should not forget that the 1968 act created a sea change in social provision in Scotland in the last decades of the 20th century.

In his introduction, the minister referred to the six key tasks that he wishes the review to focus on, the last of which was legislative changes. I hope that, in considering legislative change, we do not forget about the fundamental principles that are contained in the 1968 act. It may be time to replace that act with more comprehensive and modern legislation, but the fundamental principles in that act are as appropriate now as they were in the 1960s.

A number of members have talked about difficulties in social work. When we talk about social work, we tend to focus on the negatives, because we can all think of times when things have not worked well or could have worked better, but we should pause to reflect on and recognise the fact that the vast majority of social workers in Scotland work incredibly hard and yet receive little public recognition for their efforts. They deliver services competently and to a high standard. We want that standard to be more consistent and to increase, but let us not forget that the vast majority of social work services that are delivered by our local authorities and our voluntary organisations are delivered to the standards that we expect.

When we talk about social work, it is tempting to concentrate on some of the negatives to do with the difficulties that some local authorities face in recruiting and retaining staff. Brian Adam touched on that point this morning and in his members' business debate on social work earlier this year. However, it is worth noting that neither of the two most recent inquiries into failings in social work—the Caleb Ness case in Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders case—highlighted a shortage of social workers or social work staff; they highlighted the lack of experienced management and the fact that people were not working together effectively. It is sometimes too tempting to say that a lack of social workers is somehow contributing to some of the difficulties that we find. We have to ensure that the resources that we have are being used to their ultimate and fullest potential.

Is it not true that, subsequent to the negative publicity about both of the cases that Scott Barrie referred to, if there was not quite a flight from local authority social work, a significant number of people left the field, which exacerbated vacancy rates? Although I recognise that failures in management contribute to problems, the additional pressures on management because of the lack of staff mean that it is difficult to handle cases appropriately.

I am not aware that we can draw that conclusion. It is not just about management failures and difficulties being faced by main grade social workers. In the Caleb Ness case—I did not want to concentrate on that case, but I will address it since it has been raised—the difficulty was the procedures and practices that the City of Edinburgh Council put in place to review its child protection cases. It is utterly incredible that, at case conferences, decisions on placing children on the child protection register and drawing up child protection plans were taken by some of the same members of the same divisional team in the same city council.

Anybody who knows anything about child protection knows that there has to be rigorous external analysis of whether what is being presented is correct. In my social work practice, it would have been inconceivable that anyone who had any management responsibility for a case would also be responsible for deciding about the child protection plan at a case conference. That is what I mean when I refer to failures in management and structures that have been put in place by some of our local authorities. We should bear those points in mind.

Brian Adam referred to the role of chief social work officers, and made two points that are worthy of repetition.

You have one minute.

We do not want the role of chief social work officers to be increased for the sake of it; we have to ensure that that is done for a specific purpose. Brian Adam's other connected point was that we as a Parliament should not be telling local authorities how to organise themselves. However, we have to acknowledge that the fact that responsibility for delivering social work services lies with 32 different local authorities means that some of our local authorities are just too small to carry out the task and provide the range of services that are required. Perhaps we need to encourage some of our local authorities to enter into consortium arrangements with neighbouring authorities, so that they can provide the breadth and depth of services that are required.

Finally, on recruitment and retention, I note that the briefing from my own trade union, Unison, stated:

"Retention of existing staff is not merely a question of pay. Neither is it an issue for QSW's alone."

That is an important and telling point. Of course we want to ensure that social workers are adequately recompensed for the job that they do, which might mean an increase in their salary levels. However, we might be able to learn something from the teaching profession, where the new charter teacher scheme is allowing teachers who are very good at the job to remain in the classroom. If we allowed social workers to do the same, so that those social workers with extra skills in child protection, mental health—

Mr Barrie, you will have to finish now.

On that point I will finish.

In general, I welcome the review, which must have two aspects: it must address specific matters relating to the nature and terms and conditions of the job—which I will return to briefly—and it must address the nature and philosophy of what social work will do in the early part of the 21st century. It is important that those points are addressed.

On the specifics, there are two important matters. First, there has to be a McCrone-type review of social work. It is clear that there are problems, which we must address, with salaries and with staff being pinched by other local authorities. I ask the minister to take those problems on board and to confirm that they will be a specific aspect of the review.

Secondly, there is the question whether criminal justice social work should become a separate department. That would be a fundamental mistake, although it is important that we address that issue. Criminal justice social work does not exist in isolation. Those who commit crimes tend to come from situations and backgrounds on which a variety of issues have an impact. It is not just about people having a propensity to commit crime; it is also about underlying social problems, such as mental health problems and poverty. Those issues require to be viewed in the round, and we must address not just the individual who is incarcerated, but the circumstances from which they have evolved or in which their families find themselves. We must address the fact that the issues cannot be dealt with properly in isolation.

It is important at this juncture that we address the underlying philosophy of what we expect from our social work departments. They act not in isolation, but in accordance with the rules and regulations put out by us as a legislature and by the Executive and under guidance and guidelines from social work departments. It is important that we recognise that social work practice relates to the society in which we live, which has evolved substantially since the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was passed. Scott Barrie was right to comment on that piece of legislation, to which I will return in a few minutes.

Three key factors come to mind, the first of which is the issue of drugs. As members have said in numerous debates, drugs are a major factor in our society, not just in terms of their interface with the criminal justice system but because they impact substantially on social work services. More kids than ever before are being taken into care or are coming before children's panels, not as a result of neglect but primarily because of drug abuse or because their parents are under the influence of drugs. Although drugs have changed our society, our society has not evolved to deal with the problem. Social work requires to act differently in order to take cognisance of the change that has taken place.

Secondly, there is the question of the longevity of the human race. We are reaching a point in our society at which the question is not simply one of what we are going to do with granny but what we are going to do with great-granny. That point was touched on by Mary Scanlon and others in their references to the care commission. I repeat that the nature of the society in which we live is not the same as the nature of society back in 1968.

Thirdly, there is the question of the dislocation of communities. We have a society that is much more mobile, and with that mobility comes fracturing and fragmenting not only of the family unit or the family circle but of the communities in which people live. That factor impacts on the ability of social work departments to deliver. We require an underlying philosophical review of what we expect our social work departments to do.

Social work is nothing new: it is something that has been with us since time immemorial, not just since the 1968 act. What changed in the 1960s, however, was the recognition of social work as a state responsibility. In years gone by, social work was done by the clan or the community or by the parish minister or priest. If parents died or were sick, communities took children in.

In 1968, it was recognised that, because of the changes that were happening in our society, social work required to be formalised so that the state could take responsibility nationally or locally. It was further recognised that the previous structures—whether in communities or through the church—would not be able to deal with the scale of the problems and that it was appropriate that the state should act.

As I said earlier, the three key factors in the debate are drugs, longevity and dislocation of communities. Our society has moved on and it is important for us to work out what we expect our social work departments to do.

I take issue with Mary Scanlon's point about privatisation. It would not add anything to the review to have that hare running about. We do not want to see the privatisation of departments in any shape or form. I am prepared to accept that it is not necessarily better to have services delivered by the state—whether by a local department or by a national department. We should be prepared to accept that if a voluntary sector body can deliver services that are as good as or better than those that the state can deliver, whether at the local level or at the national level, that body should be funded to deliver those services. My only provisos are that the body does not seek to impose values that are not accepted by the overarching state ethos and that it is subject to monitoring and scrutiny. I say no to privatisation. What matters is not who delivers, but the end-product for the end user and the betterment of society.

It is important that we address the specifics through a McCrone-style review. The hiving off of the criminal justice aspect needs to be addressed in any review of social workers' salaries and terms and conditions of employment. Fundamentally and for the sake of our social workers, we need to define what we believe society needs in the 21st century. Our society is much more complicated nowadays. We owe it to our social workers to provide the overarching definition of what their job entails in the 21st century.

Few members in the chamber will not have had contact with social services, either professionally or at a personal level. Members will have had experience of older relatives who needed extra help to stay at home; carers who needed support and respite; and people with disabilities who needed practical aids to help them to cope with the problems of day-to-day living. Also, in today's world in which substance abuse is rife, increasing numbers of children are in need of support and protection, either because their parents have a chaotic lifestyle or because they themselves are young carers. However, I will confine my remarks this morning to social care services for the elderly.

As a result of all of the social change, local authority social work departments have struggled over the past decade or so to cope with the ever-increasing demands that are placed on their services. Nowadays, no one would question the right of people to live at home—if they so wish—for as long as they are able to do so. That right comes at a price, however. Such support is often complex and resource-intensive, which means that is does not come cheap. For that support to work, close collaboration between councils and health services is needed. The joint future agenda is trying to move forward that collaboration by developing an integrated health and social care service that is built on the foundations of joint teams of health and social work staff who work together at the local level, sharing premises, equipment and budgets.

Progress is patchy across the country. There are major problems in moving forward with the joint future agenda, particularly in systems design and staff training. There are cultural barriers to information sharing between nurses and social workers. Information technology systems are not fully compatible yet, and that leads to a lack of accurate information on which to base the planning of services. Some areas have aligned their social work and health budgets and there seems little disagreement among professionals that it would be better to have a single unified budget that brings health and social care services under the same umbrella. That would ease the process of shared assessment of people's needs and speed up the system. It would give faster access to community care services such as home helps and meals on wheels. It would also help to deal with the difficulties that are caused by inadequate local authority funding for nursing home places in the independent sector. The present two-tier system, under which those who are able to self-fund can access a nursing home place but those who are dependent on council funding cannot, is inequitable. The problem will be solved only when there are unified health and social care budgets.

My home area of Grampian has an agreed and fairly well-developed strategy for older people and services. Each council has a local action plan that is being taken forward by joint future operational teams. In Aberdeen, a multidisciplinary, rapid-response team is having some success in averting hospital admissions. The council has met the demand for free personal care but to do so it has had to vire resources from other budget areas such as training. The council has organised shopping and household maintenance via independent contractors and the voluntary sector and, working with housing associations, it is having some success in tackling the problem of delayed discharge from hospital by means of rehabilitation projects in very sheltered flats.

Aberdeenshire Council has developed 24 health and community care teams that are linked to general practitioner practices. The teams provide care services for older people, people with disabilities and people who need palliative care. The teams are well supported by local paired managers—one from health and the other from social work.

Both authorities involve service users and carers in the planning and evaluation of their services. In Aberdeen city, that has led to a number of service developments. A particularly useful—and simple—example is the training of home care staff in basic nail clipping. By undertaking simple foot care, home care staff are able to relieve the chiropody service. Aberdeenshire Council has developed six local carer drop-in centres and has 10 carer support workers, four of whom work with young carers.

It is good to see those positive developments on the ground. I am sure that there are similar examples across the country. That said, there is no room for complacency. Adequate funding and human resources are, of course, essential. Collaboration between health services, council social work departments, carers and voluntary and independent sector care providers is vital if clients' needs are to be adequately catered for. The challenges for the 21st century planners and providers of social care services are enormous. I am glad that the work has at least begun.

My maiden speech in this chamber was on the exciting issue of MSP allowances. In this, my last speech in this chamber, I find myself speaking about another misunderstood group of workers. One of the things that MSPs and social workers have in common is that, from time to time, we are attacked in the media. We should not underestimate the importance of that issue as far as the social work profession is concerned.

We should try to find a way to encourage as many people as possible who would be an asset to the social work profession to come forward. I make a plea to professionals in the media to bear that suggestion in mind. At times, it seems as if there are almost constant attacks on a profession that, for the most part, does a tremendous job.

Social work is the kind of job that many of us would not want to undertake ourselves. In recent weeks, the Justice 1 Committee has been considering the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. We have heard examples of social workers going on their own, without police protection, into difficult child protection situations. Such situations often turn out to be violent, which is unfortunate not only for the family but for the social worker.

I welcome the review and the setting up of the 21st century social work group. We must do whatever we can to strengthen the social work profession and we must ask ourselves what we expect social workers to do and what our priorities are. I think that our priorities should include the protection of the vulnerable—that would be my starting point. We must also ask how we can make the best use of the skills and expertise of our trained social workers.

We have to ask how we can best provide services to protect and support the vulnerable. I agree with Kenny MacAskill, who gave a very good speech, that we should not say that the services must be provided by a council department, or by the voluntary sector, or by somebody else. What we should do is ensure that we provide the required services as best we can. The people who provide services should be accountable and should work in partnership with others to provide those services.

Social work is a very wide-ranging job indeed, and social workers have a very important role to play. Some time ago, I spoke to people from the British Association of Social Workers who told me that they had to deal with six or seven different departments in the Executive and six or seven different committees in the Parliament. That just shows how wide-ranging their work is.

The issue of children's panels often comes up at my surgeries, as I am sure it does for all members. Children's panel members give their time voluntarily, only to face the frustration of a lack of social workers. Departments are not able to offer the support and supervision that children's panels have actioned.

Greater expectations than ever are being placed on social workers. Donald Gorrie and Mary Scanlon were right to highlight the importance of liaison and joint working for social work departments. At present, such working does not often happen. It is easy for us to talk about joint working; it is not easy to achieve it. The review must consider how we train social workers and how we get the message across that joint working with other partnership organisations is essential. We have to give people the tools to do the job and to allow joint training and access to IT or other ways of sharing information. That point came out during the Caleb Ness inquiry and during debate on the situation in the Borders.

Social work in Edinburgh is in a mini-crisis. I think that that is the first time I have ever stood up in this chamber and used the word "crisis"; I am not somebody who bandies such a word about. I wish Duncan MacAulay well in his new post in Edinburgh. There is a crisis in Edinburgh and no doubt about it. The council is having to try to fill vacancies with people from Canada and elsewhere. There is a crisis in the morale of the department in the wake of the Caleb Ness inquiry. There is also the threat of strike action. Because of the vulnerability of the people they deal with, I urge social workers not to carry out that threat, although I suspect that that is where we will end up.

It is very questionable whether the reorganisation of the department is the best way of achieving better services. The Executive review may be able to offer some broad brush strokes on how we can best achieve service delivery. Scott Barrie talked about critical mass in small councils. The Executive could give some broad guidance on that, after which it would be for councils to make their own decisions in their own areas.

When we consider recruitment, we must also consider retention. It is important to attract new and enthusiastic recruits into social work, but it is also important to support people who have experience. We also have to offer social workers better administrative support. That is not as sexy as creating a certain number of social work posts, but such support is crucial. That is another issue that came up in recent cases.

We have to offer social workers better support, perhaps by offering more in the way of training and joint working. More capital support is required for IT provision. We have to focus on joint working between social work departments and other partners.

I consider social workers to be one of the most important professional groups in the country. We send an awful lot of stuff to their door in the form of Scottish Executive legislation passed by this Parliament. Perhaps we do not always take as much time as we should to consider exactly what the impact will be on the profession. That is a lesson that we should all learn.

I will allow myself a moment of wistfulness after five years in this chamber. I want to pay tribute to Ben Dawson, the worker in wood who designed and built the desks in this chamber. The design has allowed for cosiness sometimes and for cantankerousness sometimes. However, usually we have behaved in a co-operative and creative way—as we have done this morning—and the design of the chamber has played a great part in creating the atmosphere in which we work.

I begin my contribution to today's debate by reinforcing what Margaret Smith has said. I will read to members part of an opinion piece from the Evening News of 27 April this year by John Stevenson, the branch secretary of Unison.

"You never hear about social work until something goes wrong.

As many politicians admit, it is not a vote-catcher. Who wants to hear about families in crisis, children at risk, the elderly needing care or people with disabilities relying on support to keep their independence?

Who wants to know about the skilled work preparing a child for adoption or about the Social Worker going home late at night knowing they cannot protect a child because there is no resource? Who wants to know about children in trouble who never had the childhood we would all wish for our children?

Who cares about the residential worker being assaulted or the staff branded as ‘useless' because there is no money for care packages?

Precious few it seems, until a tragedy hits the headlines. Then Social Workers carry the brunt of blame while the years of underfunding and lack of respect for the job get off Scott-free.

The Victoria Climbie Inquiry changed some of that. Lord Laming made it clear that top managers and politicians who underfunded the service could not escape the blame.

That may be why there has been such political fall-out from the O'Brien Inquiry into the tragic death of Caleb Ness, followed by a drive to be seen to be doing ‘something'.

But ‘something' is not good enough. The people social work serves deserve action that learns real lessons. Edinburgh's reorganisation fails to do this and has again dented the morale of the people delivering the service—a service that has plummeted from a 16% shortfall in staff to 32% since O'Brien."

I think that that supports absolutely everything Margaret Smith said.

My heart sank slightly when I heard the minister talk about quality assurance and a culture of continuous improvement among the five things that he wanted to consider in the social work service. That, in a sense, puts even more pressure on social work services—before the other things that we have to get right have been put in place. We have to consider work load and the number of people employed first. We need quality assurance and a culture of continuous improvement, but I implore the minister to work on the details of that with the people in the service and with the unions. We must not impose things from above; we must work them out with the people involved. They must have ownership of the whole package.

Mary Scanlon made points about fast tracking and incentive schemes. I say to the minister that, although incentive schemes might, in the short term, address serious problems throughout Scotland, knock-on effects must be monitored carefully. We do not want social workers to be drawn into the areas of greatest need with the result that other areas of Scotland are left in even greater need than at present.

Scott Barrie mentioned that the small authorities are sometimes unable to cope with numbers because of their size, and that they should be allowed to work together, across borders. That is fine, but Orkney, for instance, already has 16 social workers per thousand population. That is well over twice the national average of seven social workers per thousand population, which is roughly the same as the number of lawyers per head of population in the United States—so we have got one thing right.

Under the previous structure of local government, Orkney Islands Council was still a unitary authority. One of the problems that Lord Clyde identified in his report into the Orkney child abuse cases was the fact that the authority was too small to have the critical mass of experience to cope with such a large-scale inquiry.

I accept that point absolutely—I was just pointing out that there is some compensation for the smallness of the authority.

I accept the arguments about reorganisation in Edinburgh, although the chief social work inspector's 2004 annual report says:

"Whilst there are significant resource challenges ahead, the main priorities now are not additional financial resources but the best deployment, development and stewardship of human resources".

I ask the minister to consider—at least in the review—the benefits that could accrue from focusing resources on children, young people and families at the earliest stage, because that will save so much of the social work that has to be applied to children at a later age.

I am not sure what to make of the proposal that has been announced today. It seems to be saying, "Social work is in crisis"—and not just in Edinburgh; there is a crisis in social work in a number of areas in Scotland—"so let's announce a review and reorganise the whole system." Any review that considers the situation in social work should be welcomed; however, I found the minister's comments worrying because the slant was towards issues of systemic failure and quality assurance. He talked of the need for strengthened management, he said that systems need improving and he mentioned the structural issue of social work systems, but there was very little about resources. When members walk out that door, every social worker they meet will tell them that the key questions are in the service itself.

Social workers want quality assurance, inspections and clear and defined standards. However, they feel that they are being scapegoated and that their professionalism is being undermined, because they are not being given the necessary resources and because of many of the high-profile inquiries that have taken place recently, which have shown failures. John Stevenson, who is the branch secretary of Unison in Edinburgh and a practising social worker, makes the point that social workers work with risk. If there is a 90 per cent assessment that a child is safe, there is a 10 per cent assessment that that is not the case. John Stevenson says that social workers cannot delete the risk; they have to manage it, which is usually a question of resources.

If 40 to 50 per cent of vacancies in social work services—including some children's services—in Edinburgh are unfilled, there are children at risk in Edinburgh now; there are children in Edinburgh who are not being covered and managed. That is a disaster for families. The same systemic failure and the same problems that we have witnessed in inquiries are still there and they are not being resolved. It does not appear that any of those issues will be addressed by the 21st century social work group that is being set up. I ask members to consider social workers' wages and the fact that we are asking them to make decisions that would require the wisdom of Solomon. They are under impossible pressure, which is added to by understaffing. If members were to ask social workers what the key issue facing the profession was, they would find that it is a long-term, chronic lack of resources. That is what social workers will tell us, it is what the managers will tell us and it is what we will hear time and time again.

John Stevenson also makes the point that, with the appropriate resourcing and staffing, many current systems can deliver all that is required of them from recent inquiries and Scottish Executive reports. However, the number 1 priority is resources, particularly in staffing. It did not sound from the minister's comments as if there was any recognition of that priority in the proposal—perhaps the deputy minister will take up that point when he replies to the debate. It was almost a tagged-on issue: "Well, we'll discuss resources." However, it is the central issue in the social work system. The Parliament should make up its mind. Does it want a social work service that can deal with all the scenarios in the Edinburgh Evening News article that Robin Harper read out, or will we have a half-hearted service, broken up and merged into other departments, with care going into housing and criminal justice social work going to the courts and the criminal justice system? Alternatively, do we want a social work service that can provide for families in distress, that can provide for the crisis that we face and that can provide for children who need that service?

We are starting at the wrong end of the road. No service can operate with a 40 to 50 per cent shortfall in staffing—I note that such a situation is not unusual in Scotland. To talk about systems and procedures in that context is to fiddle while Rome burns. Systems and procedures cannot be dealt with unless the shortfall in staffing is addressed. I urge the 21st century social work group to consider resources, training and remuneration, which are the key issues that the social work service is facing in the 21st century in delivering the service.

The commitment to fast tracking that the minister mentioned is a triumph of spin over substance. I have a friend from Dundee who wants to fast track into socialism—[Laughter.] I wish she did want to fast-track into socialism, but unfortunately she does not—it is the last day of term. My friend went to an open day and found that there were four places in Dundee, four in Angus, four in Fife and none in Perth. That was it. Let us deal with reality. We hear what the expectations are and what the Executive would like, but there is often quite a gap between that and what is happening on the ground. Where is the infrastructure? Where are the courses? Where are the places? Where is the financial support? Those are the issues that the 21st century social work group should address.

So far, there is no one on the group to represent the interests of front-line social workers. Unison, which represents the workers on the front line, should be represented on the group. There is no point in not having the interests of front-line workers represented when the issue is the front-line service that is falling apart. How long will the group take? When will it present its findings? When will we hear what its findings are? There is a crisis now, and it must be dealt with.

My colleague Scott Barrie indicated how well the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has served social services in Scotland over the past 36 years, but it is a period during which society has changed a lot and during which the task of social services has changed a lot. For example, we see in the documents that have accompanied the review of the children's hearings system that the numbers of children referred to the children's hearings system on non-offence grounds—that is, children referred because they are seen as vulnerable or in need of protection—has increased by 600 per cent. The number of children living in residential care has decreased by 75 per cent, but the number of looked-after children has decreased by only 25 per cent, so a lot more children are being supported in their families and in their communities. That is what we would want, but it obviously adds stresses on the services.

Last year, 19 per cent of the Scottish population was of pensionable age, and 7 per cent was over the age of 75. The fact that someone is of pensionable age does not mean that they require social work services; however, as Kenny MacAskill said, we are now in a society that is more mobile, and where families are more likely to have moved. Therefore, elderly people in need even of transient support are less likely to be able to call on the services of sons, daughters or grandchildren in the way that they might have been able to in the past.

Social work services increasingly have to deal with the problems of drug and alcohol abuse. In 2001, 56,000 adults in Scotland were reckoned to have a drug problem. The Education Committee was quite shocked to learn during its child protection inquiry that one baby in 53 is born to a parent who has a drug abuse problem, which obviously creates issues for social workers and social work departments.

We have an increased prison population, and this morning we heard about problems of drug use and violent behaviour in Dumfries prison. If those problems are not dealt with adequately in the prison service, those who have them will come back into society with them and will require a degree of support through social services or voluntary organisations.

How social work services are provided, and the job that social workers do, has changed considerably over the past 36 years. My mother was what was known in her day as a medical social worker and she retired in the early 1980s. I was interested to hear from the minister that the Executive is considering whether it is still appropriate to have generic social workers. My mother has terribly strong opinions about that and I am sure that, even at the age of 80, she would be happy to lobby him on that topic.

When my mother was trained, she was actually called a lady almoner, not even a social worker, so the job has changed a lot in her lifetime. The department in which she worked was situated in a geriatric hospital, in which people lived in wards. Those who were not well enough to go home lived in the hospital for the rest of their lives, which could be many years. There were a limited number of outcomes: patients either went home and looked after themselves, went home and were looked after by their families or received residential care in a care home or the long-stay geriatric hospital. Now, with care in the community, people are rightly being supported to live in their own homes. We all believe that that should happen, but it requires the bringing together of packages of care of a type that did not exist in 1968, or even in the 1980s, but are a more recent development.

There have also been changes in how social work services have been organised in councils. Many councils took the opportunity of local government reorganisation to group services differently. For example, South Ayrshire Council put social work services in with housing and Stirling Council was one of the first councils to have a children's services committee. Other councils have reorganised over the past 10 years and there is now a super example in Dumfries and Galloway, where social work services are in with education. There is a number of different sorts of groupings and I am not sure whether we have a handle on how successfully those groupings work.

As we hear, councils are also facing severe shortages of key staff in a number of areas. In the campaign for the Scottish parliamentary elections last year, I went round to a gentleman's door with my leaflet that promised more nurses, more teachers and more police—I think that everybody was making that promise—and he accepted the leaflet with a resigned sigh and said, "What about more social workers?" That shows that social workers, who support society, have felt that they are the forgotten profession.

I am, of course, aware of the steps that the Executive is taking in trying to tackle the shortage of social workers, such as the fast-track postgraduate qualification and the new honours degree qualification. Unison made a strong case in its evidence for the training of unqualified staff who are already in social services to give them some sort of on-the-job qualification that could enable them to go on to social work. That is what the work-force development issue to which Donald Gorrie referred is about. Mary Scanlon made the good point that we must also consider how to retain experienced staff. We do not want a lot of churn in the system.

Shortages of other care workers thwart the best intentions of social services. In my constituency, there is a shortage of care workers, so, although social workers identify the care needs of people in hospital and are identifying the funding for them, there is delayed discharge from hospital because the care workers to provide the support are not available.

I welcome the review and note those who are involved in it. The review should include input from the whole social care sector and it is important that it should include input from the users of the services as well as the professionals.

What is clear from all the speeches is how social work has changed over the years. That is reflected in what the minister said on 6 May:

"We need to be clear about what we expect in the early part of the 21st century, which is so different from the 1960s when social work as we know it today found its statutory basis."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; c 8216.]

It is true that, nowadays, local authority social work departments are required to deliver the most extensive and far-reaching agenda since the inception of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. With the establishment of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive, we have had a wide range of new legislation and policy initiatives that are, by their nature, accompanied by a substantial volume of guidance and directives. A lot of that work has been in community care, but there is also a major development agenda in children and families services and criminal justice.

I had the pleasure of meeting people from a social work department in central Scotland the other day. I was interested to see the main headings of the kind of work that social workers now do and the responsibilities that they have. Under community care alone, they work with older people and people with dementia, with people who have learning disabilities, mental health problems, physical disabilities, impairments or acquired brain injuries, with children and young people who have disabilities, with people with addictions and, of course, with carers. A very wide range of services are now being provided under the heading of social work, and a review is required—it is probably long overdue—so I am very pleased that one will be carried out and I look forward to hearing much more about what it will involve.

I would like to make one point in particular. Scott Barrie touched on it when he said that we should never forget the fundamental principles of the 1968 act, when social work as we know it was set up to act on behalf of us all. When we hear about so many bad things happening in social work, we should remember that an awful lot of good work is also going on. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water, but take note of the good practice that exists and the great things that are already happening and we must try to build on them rather than start all over again.

The social work department that I visited was at North Lanarkshire Council and I was greatly impressed by its work, particularly that on supported living. That is the term that the department uses for its approach to enabling people with significant levels of disability to live in their own homes and communities—communities that they know—which allows them to maintain close connections with their families and friends. All those with whom the department works on supported living have individualised care packages and many of them receive 24-hour care in their own homes. What is important about that work is that it shifts away from the concept of fitting people into a service and towards designing services around the unique needs of the individuals. I was amazed to learn that, in North Lanarkshire, 250 people—the majority of whom receive 24-hour care—are in their own fully supported tenancies. Another side to that work is that the arrangements have generated more than 700 social care jobs.

The future growth of such work depends on resources. Some say that resources are not the only issue; of course they are not, but they are important because we need the resources to provide individualised care services such as that I mentioned. That is not only about redeploying existing resources to better effect, as many councils—including North Lanarkshire Council—are doing, because it is evident that need outstrips the available resources. We must take that on board.

Much good practice exists and we should build on it, but we must also monitor effectively. I am concerned about how the Scottish Executive monitors social work services because, if we measure outputs only in the short term, we are not really seeing the quality of service below that and it sometimes takes a long time—many years, in some cases—to produce the results for which we are supposed to be aiming. Therefore, I would like the ministers to consider how they monitor.

The minister mentioned joined-up approaches. I am confident that North Lanarkshire Council has a joined-up approach, and I hope that the Scottish Executive will review its own approach to social work to ensure that it is joined up. Brian Adam mentioned that already. Who exactly is in control of social work? I am concerned, for example, about the supporting people fund. It is a great initiative, but there are concerns among practitioners that that funding will be cut, which could have a negative effect on the good practice that the initiative helps to bring about in the long term, which cannot be measured just by looking at the performance sheets and ticking the boxes on outputs. I know that that falls under the communities budget, even though the Minister for Education and Young People is talking about social work. I ask him to assure us that the Executive's approach is joined up and that all such matters are being considered in the round.

In a debate about social work in the 21st century, recruitment, retention and resource issues are fundamental. Despite the Scottish Executive's efforts to attract and retain social workers through the fast-track social work qualification and the provision of additional money to improve training, the shortage of social workers remains a problem that affects service delivery in community care and the criminal justice system, and service delivery for children and young people.

The increase in social work involvement in the criminal justice system was highlighted by the report of the chief social work inspector that was published in 2004, which recorded an increase of 15 per cent in the demand for social inquiry reports in nearly all Scotland's local authorities, together with increases in demand for probation orders and community service orders. Those increases are likely to continue, given the Executive's aim of promoting alternatives to custody. Such disposals will involve more input from social workers and the social work service.

The partnership agreement contains a pledge on a single correction agency to deliver custodial and non-custodial sentences in Scotland, the aim of which is to reduce reoffending rates. That would result in criminal justice and social work being taken away from local authorities. To date, the Executive has remained silent on that pledge and I believe that the uncertainty is damaging morale. Perhaps the minister could confirm whether the Executive intends to introduce a single correction agency.

I will now deal with the pressure on social work services for children and young people. It is a sad fact that one of the growth areas in that field is child protection. Adequate numbers of experienced, qualified social workers are needed to manage the challenging work load and to deal with the huge rise in the number of children of drug-using parents who are suffering from neglect. Although the Executive's statistics suggest that the number of social workers in post has grown, the Association of Directors of Social Work says that those posts are mainly in new initiatives, such as community schools and youth justice and intervention projects, and that they come at the expense of child protection services.

The number of children on the child protection register has risen and there are more referrals from reporters to children's panels. The lack of social work resources has resulted in situations in which a social worker attends a hearing merely to state that they have no knowledge of the case under discussion as they are just filling in. That results in the hearing having to be rescheduled. Such delays are deeply damaging to the children who are the subject of those hearings and they are a waste of panel members' valuable time.

Against that background, we desperately require action, which the ADSW acknowledged in its submission to the Education Committee's inquiry into child protection. Although the ADSW welcomed the recommendations in the November 2002 report, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", it expressed frustration at the lack of progress in implementing key recommendations, such as that on the establishment of clear guidelines for standards rather than just a framework. It also sought the progression of the proposals on a framework for multidisciplinary inspection processes.

On the final day of debate in the Parliament's temporary home, it would have been good to end on a positive note, but I regret that that is not possible. I am saddened that the minister's main announcement has been about the creation of an independent group to consider the future of social work and social workers, rather than about a range of concrete proposals to implement the recommendations of the November 2002 report. In effect, the minister has announced a review. It is sad that this Executive's tenure has been characterised by dithering and delay. Scotland's children and its social work services deserve more. I hope that things will be very different when we move to the new Holyrood building but, given the Executive's record, it would perhaps not be wise for me to hold my breath.

Peter Peacock has clearly enunciated his vision for a modern social work service in the 21st century. He is to be applauded for that because, for far too long, social workers have been regarded by all and sundry as the whipping boys. The poor social worker has been the only person who has been blamed. That ethos must be stamped out. Social work departments should no longer be asked to carry the can for something that they did not do—someone else instituted the problem. The minister must address the situation by getting rid of the blame culture.

One of the biggest problems that Peter Peacock and other people who are trying to improve social work services face is the fact that social work departments in 32 regions all over Scotland receive guidelines. They require directives rather than guidelines. The money that is allocated to those departments for social work services must be ring fenced so that it is used for the correct purpose. The disparity between services in different regions is tremendous. One region's practice on kinship care is exemplary—it implements the philosophy that, if a social worker asks the grandparent to look after a child, the grandparent should get paid for that. Glasgow City Council, on the other hand, has not paid a single penny to a grandparent for looking after their grandchildren, even though a social worker has placed the children there. Such disparity is not acceptable. The minister must give directives to ensure that his policies are carried out by every council.

I have another worry. Social work is a caring profession. The most off-putting thing to social work recruitment must be the fact that social workers are asked to go to the bedside of senior citizens who have landed in residential homes to help them to implement the sale of their homes to pay for their residential care. It is not acceptable to ask someone who cares for people in society to go to the bedside of a vulnerable elderly person to say to them, when they are at their lowest ebb, "We will help you to sell your home to pay for your residential care." I do not know how we can take that out of the equation. There must be some other way of doing that that does not involve allocating the task to a social worker.

As I have said, social workers have been society's whipping boys for far too long. Peter Peacock must give clearer guidelines and directives to make social workers' jobs a little bit easier. The establishment of an inspectorate will mean that councils will no longer be able to use social work money for some other purpose. The money is there but, in many instances, it is not being allocated properly. I will leave it at that.

Thanks. That is helpful.

Use of the term "social worker" tends to downplay the work of a profession that forms the support structure for the most serious and complex problems in our society. Social workers are decision makers in their own right; their tasks include child protection, work with offenders, and the preparation of reports to allow sheriffs to determine the nature of sentences. It is fitting for us to spend the last day in our temporary home—I am a bit sentimental, like others—discussing the 21st century social work group and the importance of the social work profession. I note that Douglas Bulloch is described as a rocket-science chairman, which just goes to show that some things are rocket science when it comes to social work.

We recognise the hard work of the profession. Social work is a vocation; it needs to attract people who are committed to the work that it involves. Everyone appears to welcome the review, which will shape the future of social work. It seems that we need to turn our attention to the needs of the profession that delivers our most-needed services, but at the same time the review must involve a fundamental look at modernising the service because we require it to deliver appropriate services that reflect the changing nature of our society.

We have spent a lot of time in this session reviewing, discussing and debating the changes that are required to reform radically our approach to criminal justice. Those issues include alternatives to custody, which Margaret Mitchell mentioned; community sentencing; the recent announcement on non-payment of fines, which will result in supervised attendance orders; the creation of drugs courts; and a new team approach to addressing offending, which is a good example of joint working. New approaches include the provisions for electronic tagging that we have agreed to this year, which will involve an increase in the number of social inquiry reports and a greater role for social workers, and the sentence order for lifelong restriction, which is a response to serious sexual and violent offences. All those developments in sentencing involve social work services and we are dependent on them and other professions to deliver the new laws and approaches, so they are certainly at the heart of change.

The inquiry into reducing reoffending is an aspect of the Justice Department's work that is integral to the work of social services. It is difficult to balance the views of the public at large, who demand long, harsh prison sentences, with the need to reduce reoffending rates. Reoffending is often linked to custodial sentences. The job of rehabilitation becomes 20 times harder as people cross the barrier into prison because they are removed from society and from their jobs and placed in overcrowded and outdated prison accommodation. Social work services have a fundamental role in getting the right balance in criminal justice to ensure that custodial sentencing of those for whom it is the only option is balanced with community sentencing. If we are to move forward with alternatives to custody, we will rely on social services to build confidence in community sentencing.

From our work in this session, we know about the work that is needed to support children, particularly children in care and children who are exploited in prostitution. Young runaway children are likely to find themselves exploited by adults in prostitution. Although we adhere to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and deal with children in the hearings system in line with the welfare principle, we need to review the appropriate type of accommodation for children, particularly those who need a place of safety. I have been pressing for that for the past few years. Not all the Kilbrandon principles were adopted. There was some discussion in 1968 about the need to link social work services with the education department. The review allows us to go back to some of the issues that Kilbrandon discussed in 1968 and perhaps to use some of them in the modernisation work that we are trying to do, which seeks to integrate social work services with other services and departments.

The review of the children's hearings system needs to be joined up with the work of the 21st century social work group—we must recognise that the other reviews that are going on need to feed into the group's work. I mentioned the inquiry into reducing reoffending and the review of the children's hearings system and we need to ensure that such work is joined up. Indeed, part of the purpose of the review is to make sure that services are integrated and joined up.

We know that child protection takes up huge resources, perhaps to the detriment of dealing with children who are involved in reoffending, and that needs to be addressed. Some of the new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will strengthen the role and responsibilities of children's panels in relation to social work services.

I put to the minister a question that I have raised before about the role of the children's panel: why is it necessary for social work services to screen the decisions of the children's panel? If the children's panel decides that a child requires secure accommodation or some other action, why do social work services screen that decision and sometimes implement a different decision? That is not in line with the 1968 act and it is not fair to the children's panels—we ask them to be the decision makers and they should have the last say. If there is an issue of resources, we should address it.

Mary Scanlon talked about the rehabilitation of prisoners in relation to drugs and she is right to point that out. Some £12 million has been allocated to the prisoner release programme and we need to find out where that money has gone. It was meant to address the needs of prisoners on their release to ensure that the cycle of drug addiction was broken and to deal with offenders in the community. There is still a lot of joining up to be done; the review will be welcome if it makes those connections.

I call Sandra White.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will not call you convener today, to save your embarrassment.

Like everyone else, I welcome the minister's announcement about the setting up of the 21st century social work group, although perhaps he could shorten the name, as it is a bit of a mouthful. Perhaps it will be shortened as time goes on.

There is no doubt that the role of social workers has changed dramatically during the years and that their remit has changed beyond recognition. We should also be aware that the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will land at the door of social work services. I hear what the minister says about the remit of the new working group, but I ask him to take seriously the comments that were made by Brian Adam and Kenny MacAskill on the need for a McCrone-style review alongside it. We desperately need to examine the pay, retention, conditions and training of social workers in order to ensure that we have proper social work departments. I ask the minister to include a McCrone-type settlement in the working group.

I will concentrate on retention and pay and conditions in the short time that I have. I welcome the fast-track scheme; I have sent many questions on that scheme to the minister and I am pleased with his replies. Given the scheme's remit and timescale, it seems to be going well. However, given the current shortage of social workers, the fast-track scheme will not be sufficient to make up the loss of social workers. I would like a scheme to be put in place for workers in social work departments who do not have proper qualifications. Such a scheme could fast track those workers through the system to enable them to get qualifications without having to leave their jobs.

We need to find work-based routes into learning for people who are already in the sphere, rather than sending them back to university. They have experience on the ground, so to fast track them into getting qualifications is an excellent idea. We should consider that part of the work force, because despite the fast-track scheme, which enables graduates to train as social workers in two years, we are still short of social workers.

Is the member aware that that is already happening in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands? We are fast tracking people who are already working in social work as care assistants into getting qualifications.

I was aware of that. Unison raised the point about experienced staff with me. I welcome Maureen Macmillan's comment that that work is starting in the Highlands, but throughout Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area and in Edinburgh, we are desperately short of social workers and people think that they are not able to enter the profession unless they have the proper qualifications. A bit of encouragement would help immensely.

Another point that Unison raised is on registration. Most people are not aware that registration in social work is entirely different from the registration of nurses, teachers and occupational therapists. People have to pay for registration and disclosure and sometimes that involves a lot of money coming out of people's pockets. We talk about social work being a big department, but we are also talking about voluntary workers. I ask the minister to consider whether we can help people to register and pay the disclosure fees so that they are not out of pocket.

Unfortunately, social work is sometimes seen as the Cinderella service, which it should not be. It helps people through what are sometimes difficult situations. Social work intervention can sometimes be the difference between life and death—the situations can be as serious as that. We owe it to social work professionals and the people they serve to produce something for the 21st century to ensure that we have social work departments of which we, social work professionals and the public can be proud.

We have had a wide-ranging debate in which many members have made useful points that I hope will inform not only ministers, but the review by the 21st century social work group that we have talked about. It is worth remembering that the review has been welcomed by all the organisations that work in social work, including the Association of Directors of Social Work, the British Association of Social Workers Scotland and Unison, which is the main social work trade union. The fact that such a cross-section has welcomed the review shows that a root-and-branch examination of what we expect from social work in the 21st century may be overdue.

If members will forgive me, I will start by reiterating the final point that I made in my earlier speech, which was about recruitment and retention. We need to find a way to retain workers who are good at their jobs in the jobs that they were employed to do. In my social work experience, the way to obtain a salary increase—but not, perhaps, to have status—was to be promoted out of the job that one was employed to do. We could consider a structure that encourages those who are good at what they do and who enjoy direct work with people to continue to do that. Social workers could consider adoption of the chartered teacher method that is used by our education colleagues; social workers who achieve further qualifications—such as from training to become a mental health officer or from post-qualifying child protection training from the University of Dundee—could be retained to do those jobs and to put what they have learned into practice.

We must acknowledge that the number of other opportunities for social workers has grown hugely in the past decade or so. People with social work qualifications are sought after for a variety of jobs that do not necessarily relate directly to social work. Even in social work, people no longer have to be employed mainly by local authorities. Many job opportunities are available in the independent and voluntary sectors, some of which have more attractive salaries and terms and conditions. That is because many specialist projects that independent and voluntary organisations have established can say no to referrals, whereas local authorities never have that opportunity and must take everything that is presented to them. A large children's charity will operate a screening process for referrals, which means that a youngster might not be accepted on to a scheme, whereas a local authority worker has little choice in that. We must acknowledge that that is an extra stress on local authority staff and that it is one reason why it is difficult to retain appropriately qualified staff in some key areas.

We should not underestimate the effect of the negative portrayal of social work. Several members have discussed that. As politicians, we must take some responsibility for that. As I and other members said, we usually talk about social work when it appears to have failed, and we do not talk up social work successes often enough. If politicians do not talk up social work successes, the popular media will not do so and we will read in the papers and hear on television and the radio only about the perceived failures of social work. That negative portrayal of social work must be taken into account; we all have a part to play in ensuring that we give a more balanced view of social work and what it achieves.

I was interested in Donald Gorrie's comments that social work is often demonised and that social workers are held in low esteem—almost as low as that in which politicians are held. I must be one of the few people who have chosen to move from a demonised profession to one that has even lower status. Perhaps that says something about my failings.

Mary Scanlon called for greater privatisation of social work services and compared unfavourably the rates that local authority residential homes charge with those of private and independent sector homes. One of the main reasons for that difference is that local authority wage rates tend to be higher, although perhaps they are not high enough for the skilled work that care assistants and other staff undertake. It must be acknowledged that wage rates in the public sector are higher and that the work of staff in our nursing and care homes should be properly remunerated. We should not consider the rate that is charged to be the only indicator of a home's quality of care.

Does Scott Barrie agree that the independent sector could pay higher wages if it received the same amount of funding as local authority care homes receive?

My point was that the charges for local authority homes are higher because local authority staff have higher wage rates. Before we give the private and independent sector more money I—and most other people, I am sure—would want to ensure that that extra money is spent on improving wage scales. I am not entirely sure that it would be. We must acknowledge that 70 per cent of all social work expenditure is on services to older people. Perhaps we do not acknowledge that enough.

The importance of social work and appropriately qualified social workers cannot be overemphasised. I hope that even if today's debate does nothing else, it anchors the review of social work in the 21st century in a context from which it can be progressed, to ensure that we have a social work profession in the 21st century of which we can all feel proud.

Like several others—including the minister, Robin Harper and Pauline McNeill—I am struck by the fact that it is our final day in this chamber. In the past five years, much good debate has taken place and much rubbish has been spoken. However, Parliament has been guilty of not always connecting with reality—Frances Curran mentioned that. Whatever points are made today, the reality in places such as Stranraer in the west of Dumfries and Galloway is that the number of social workers is insufficient. Much money has been spent on advertising and other recruitment vehicles, but it has not delivered those social workers. We cannot have a high-falutin' debate about social work and not focus on that reality.

Parliament has also been willing to ignore evidence. When, for example, the Local Government and Transport Committee considered the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, we heard clear evidence from social workers from the Highlands and Glasgow that the people are not available to deliver on that bill, which Parliament has gone ahead and passed. The Executive and others have issued the usual press statements about how the bill will change everything, but the reality is that the people to implement it do not exist.

Mary Scanlon referred to free personal care and the changes that it was supposed to make. One reason why I was keen to support free personal care was that I thought that it would remove a chunk of bureaucracy from the system. However, we have found that it has introduced more bureaucracy and form filling. People whom we think should be involved in front-line social work are often actually involved in form filling and bureaucracy. One key challenge for the review is to free people from such activities.

When I come into contact with social work, I am concerned not with the difficult cases that everybody encounters, such as the Miss X and Kennedy McFarlane cases—although those are dreadful—but with the day-to-day cases, which may involve a social worker deciding whether somebody has a shower. That is not what we want 21st century social workers to do—they should be in the front line of a professional service that helps people to get through difficult points in their lives. However, we cannot suggest that social work can remedy the difficulties in our society.

I do not agree with John Swinburne about directives from the centre in any context. I certainly do not believe in giving people directives on how to live their lives. People nowadays live very complicated lives; many of us see very complicated constituency cases and it is too glib for politicians and others to say that the difficulties and complexities of society and people's lives can be sorted out by involving a social worker. Life does not work like that.

As Mary Scanlon and other members have said, many other groups and people need to be brought much more into the tent to assist people. In Dumfries and Galloway, for example, there is an excellent befriending service that seeks to help young and older people who live chaotic lives. Such groups need to be given much more support.

It is a positive step forward when the minister announces, as he did, that the review will be fundamental. We must ask ourselves what we want social work to do, why we want it to do it and how it will be done. We must also tackle the issue of where social work sits. I am cynical about the decision to move social work into education in Dumfries and Galloway. The council wanted to have three directors and social work had to be fitted in somewhere, so it ended up with education. However, in an area such as Dumfries and Galloway the focus must be on the elderly population, which is extremely large and growing. That issue has not been spoken about as much as it should have been in the debate. Work with the elderly will be a key element of social work activity in the future.

As I said at the start of my speech, there is no point in having discussions and reviews if the fundamental matters of the number of social workers on the ground and devising alternatives that involve other care workers, volunteers and so on are not addressed. If that does not happen, the review will be a waste of time and—unfortunately, like many things that Parliament has done—it will not live up to the public's expectations.

I was a sceptic when Parliament first introduced subject debates, but I have become a convert because they provide a good platform for us to set aside some of the more partisan comments that we might otherwise make. However, Mr Robson should not relax yet—I have one or two comments to make on the Executive's performance.

I start by focusing on committees, of which there seems to be a proliferation. I am reminded of the words of a gentleman called Barnett Cocks, who said:

"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured, then quietly strangled."

That quote immediately springs to my mind when I see the proliferation of committees that is taking place. To paraphrase it, committees conserve and individuals innovate.

I want to say one or two things about the role of individuals, but I will focus first on the national work force group that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People has chaired since its first meeting in September 2003. That group appears to have met four times so far and I commend it to some extent on its ambition. At its first meeting in September—it was not chaired by the minister, who joined the group at its second meeting—some very interesting things were said about Scotland in 10 years' time. I refer members to appendix A of the minutes of the meeting. David Mundell referred to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Apparently, in Scotland in 10 years' time,

"Young people are demonised, subject to curfews and in bed by 7.00".

Perhaps; perhaps not. Under information technology, the minutes of that meeting suggest that we will have "virtual companions" and that we will "talk to fridges". This is fascinating stuff. However, the minister's ambition travelled much further. Page 4 of the minutes includes a statement that will warm the hearts of everyone who listens to today's debate. The very last line of the page reads: "Scotland wins world cup". I shall harry the minister for the next 10 years to ensure that he delivers on that commitment.

On what is both a happy and a sad day, I see in the minutes some of the enduring legacy of my great friend and colleague John Swinney, who will shortly take this seat to harry the First Minister for the last time in his current capacity, at the last First Minister's question time that will take place in this chamber before we move down the road. Under the heading "Politics/governance" for Scotland in 10 years' time, we see the words "Possibility of Independence". There is only one word wrong in that statement; it should refer to the certainty of independence, which the SNP will continue to pursue at every opportunity that presents itself, as John Swinney has throughout his political career.

I assume that you will return to the subject of social work later in your speech.

Indeed I will, convener. I should have said "Presiding Officer"—this problem is infectious. The Presiding Officer feels compelled to intervene in the debate, which I welcome. Perhaps there will be a revision of standing orders to encourage that in every debate when we move doon the road, to our new wee shed there.

More seriously, there are a number of issues relating to the Executive's activities in social work over recent years. In April 2002, the Executive announced plans for the social care work force. However, as Brian Adam suggested, we are not making much progress on that. A written answer that I received from the minister indicated that we still do not seem to know what is happening on training for social workers. It is very difficult to plan when one does not know what is happening.

However, let us be fair. The three sets of minutes that I have for the working group contain just one timetabled commitment, which tells us something about the way in which the civil service works, but the group has delivered an action plan for the social services work force. There is something slightly bizarre about that. The plan contains a number of targets, but it is obvious that there is a crisis in social work, because every target is either for the next nine weeks or for the next nine months—it is 999 all the way for social work. The trouble with this worthy document is that there is no real substance to the targets that appear in it.

As I approach the last minute of my speech, I turn to other subjects that have been raised in the debate. We have heard about some of the basic difficulties that exist and with which none of us in politics has properly engaged. I refer to the difference between national policy and local implementation. John Swinburne would have us send directives from Edinburgh to all parts of Scotland. Uniquely, I agree with David Mundell from the Conservatives and disagree entirely with John Swinburne on that point. Local variability is practical and valuable, because it responds to local needs.

Peter Peacock gave us six questions. Let us hope that we do not have to wait too long for at least six answers. My colleague Brian Adam called previously for a McCrone-style review of social work and was derided in some quarters for doing so. I am glad that others have now come on board and that we agree on that. I am getting older and so is the work force—30 per cent of social workers are now over 50, which is a big problem.

If we are going to attract the right kind of people into the profession, we must empower them and let them break the rules if it serves the purposes of their clients. Let us not get too tightly hogtied, as we might have been in the past.

I call Euan Robson to wind up the debate. You have 10 minutes. There is a bit of restlessness in the chamber.

I thank members for their speeches. For the most part, this has been an informed, interesting and constructive debate. The record of our discussions will undoubtedly help to shape the agenda for the crucial work of the 21st century social work group in securing the future of social work services.

I echo the comments of Robin Harper and others that it is a privilege to speak for the final time in this building. I for one shall miss it in the months ahead.

I thank many individuals and organisations for their messages of support for the debate and for setting up the review and the 21st century social work group.

I emphasise that social work services are essential. The Executive is determined to ensure that modern Scotland has social work services that are of the highest quality. Why? It is because those who work in social work services can change people's lives for the better. We ought to celebrate their achievements as we did at the care accolades 2004 a short time ago. I record my thanks, as other members have done during the debate, to all who labour long, hard and often unrecognised to help their fellow citizens.

We will ask the social work group to take a fundamental look at what we ask of social work services. We will rule in nothing and we will rule out nothing. If that means legislative change, so be it. As Scott Barrie remarked, it is after all 36 years since the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and society has changed markedly in that time, although he was right to say that we must retain the fundamental principles of that act.

I remind members of three key elements of 21st century social work. First, we must ask what is the core purpose of social work in modern Scotland. Is it care and welfare of individuals? Is it protection of vulnerable people, whatever their vulnerability? Is it promotion of social inclusion? Is it about enabling people to fulfil their potential and to make the most of their talents? I think that social work might be about some or all of those things, but we need to set out our priorities.

Secondly, how can we best deliver services? Local government faces a complex and demanding task in delivering social work services. We must strengthen partnerships across the sector. We need to examine joint working and commissioning arrangements and we need to look at the scope for new models of working. That means that we must identify what actions the Executive might take to remove the obstacles that prevent social workers and their partners, whether in the public or voluntary sectors, from delivering integrated services.

In reference to the final rather rushed words of my speech, does the minister agree that, given that only 16 per cent of social workers work with young children and families, it should be a priority to investigate what long-term benefits would accrue if more attention were paid to children and young families?

Yes, I agree. In fact, we have invested in a specific incentive scheme to try to encourage social workers to go into that area of work.

The third key element of 21st century social work is that essential services must have clear lines of accountability. As Peter Peacock said, the group will evaluate the role of the chief social work officer in providing professional leadership and quality assurance. It will examine organisational structures and consider better commissioning arrangements. It will look at professional development and continuous improvement of standards. There will be no let-up in our drive to improve performance management, to promote better leadership and operational management and to develop the work force. I will speak about those matters in a minute.

I will now address some of the points that were made by members during this morning's debate. Margaret Mitchell mentioned the single correctional agency. The consultation on reducing reoffending has just closed and officials are analysing the results.

Pauline McNeill made a fair point about screening in hearings. She may be assured that we have picked up that point in the course of the review. If she cares to write to me about it, I will make absolutely certain that it is included.

Brian Adam made an important point about overseas recruitment. I see that he is not present—

He is.

I am sorry; he is here, but he has moved. I undertake to consider overseas recruitment. If Brain Adam would like to meet me for more discussion, I will be happy to do that.

I acknowledge the important point about supporting, motivating and training staff in order to retain them. Many members mentioned retention; it is not just a question of recruitment. The human resources group of the national work force group is addressing that using, for example, a series of seminars with various sectors to promote good practice. We have acknowledged excellence through the care accolades and we are developing an effective social care human resources network to address and ease retention problems.

From September 2005, there will be protection of title for social workers. We are also supporting the ADSW's initiative on supporting front-line staff.

I am most reluctant to interrupt the minister, but the rising volume of conversation is making it difficult for the debate to be concluded properly. I appeal to members to hear out the rest of the debate courteously.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

It is true that 21st century social work looks ahead, but it is also building on significant recent progress. I remind members of what we have achieved in driving up standards. We have a new regulatory framework through the Scottish Social Services Council that combines high-quality service standards with registration of the work force. Registration is tied to qualifications, competence and continuing learning. We have established the Scottish institute for excellence in social work education and we have introduced new honours-level degree qualifications as the minimum qualification for professional social work. As I mentioned, we will institute protection of title for social workers from September next year. We are making record investment, including an incentive scheme and £11 million to boost training. Some of that money will go into leadership training through the leading-to-deliver developments. Total resources have risen from £12.4 million for training to £25.7 million in the current financial year.

We are, with employers and other partners, building an effective partnership in the national work force group. We have more social workers in Scotland today than ever before. Demand remains high; there are still significant numbers of vacancies and I do not for a minute underestimate the problems that that creates. However, the tide is turning. Last December, local authorities reported to me that they had 4,257 social workers. Last month, that figure was 4,356, which is an increase of just short of 100 in six months. Last December, they reported 669 vacancies; that figure is now 611, which is a fall of 58 over the same period. Although we have a long way to go, we have made real progress and I believe that the future is bright.

Talented Scots want to train as professional social workers. In 1999, 397 students graduated as qualified social workers. By 2004, that annual number had risen to 509, which is an increase of 112 additional graduates just five years later. That additional number does not include the injection into the system that has been provided by the fast-track graduate recruitment scheme to which a number of members referred. We predict that the fast-track scheme will add another 150 graduates a year for the next three years. We expect there to be about 700 students graduating in 2008 as qualified social work professionals. Interest in the fast-track scheme is high: this spring, we attracted 1,700 graduate applications for only 150 places. Let there be no mistake about the amount of positive interest out there in social work careers.

Our additional tactic for attracting bright young talent is paying dividends. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service reports a 26 per cent increase in applications for undergraduate programmes. We must all work together to harness that rich potential. I put on record how encouraged I am by the positive response of social work professionals and employers to our initiative.

We must keep the purpose of the exercise to the fore. It is about creating better outcomes for people who rely on social work services. The test of its success will be how it changes people's lives. We need the results of the 21st century social work group to ensure, for example, better protection for our most vulnerable children and adults, better outcomes for young people who are looked after and better quality of life for those who use social work services.

I welcome this opportunity to hear members' views today—the debate marks the start of a process. We are determined that 21st century social work will look outwards and that it will be inclusive. I look forward to hearing the views of people throughout Scotland who want to contribute to ensuring that essential social work services are excellent social work services.

We have begun the task of ensuring that a profession that has perhaps been neglected in the past has a positive and bright future. We must do that for the people of Scotland and for the most vulnerable citizens in our land so that we can improve their prospects and make the best of their potential and their talents in a Scotland that has a declining population and where we cannot afford to waste the talents and potential of any individual.