Child Protection
The next item of business is a statement by Adam Ingram, the Minister for Children and Early Years, on child protection. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement; therefore, there should be no interventions.
First, I apologise to my counterparts for the late arrival of the promised advance copy of my statement—you know what they say about good intentions. A few last-minute changes required me to hold things back a little bit.
Yesterday, the Scottish Government set out its vision for how an effective early years strategy can contribute to a positive future for Scotland. Today, I want to turn attention to the most vulnerable children in society: those who are in need of our care and protection.
Child protection is one of the most difficult but important issues with which the Parliament deals. I doubt that there is anyone in the chamber who is not deeply moved by accounts of child abuse and neglect. We respond to the inherent issues as politicians; but we respond first and foremost as human beings. I hope that all will share my ambition and work with me to do everything possible to eradicate such suffering, as experienced by children and young people in Scotland. There is no room for party politics in child protection, and I acknowledge the considerable progress that the previous Administration made in driving child protection reform.
Throughout Scotland, multi-agency child protection committees now provide a strategic overview, and support change and improvements in child protection practice and multi-agency working. The strategic understanding of the Scottish Government and child protection committees throughout the country is being broadened and deepened by the learning secured through the tough child protection inspections that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education leads. We expect child protection committees to work vigorously in addressing areas of weakness that are identified in inspections and in further developing areas of strength in the delivery of services.
Our vision is for services that always proactively seek to identify and assist children at risk, so committees are expected to use the self-evaluation tool, "How well are children and young people protected and their needs met?" That tool is designed to build capacity within organisations for continuous self-inspection and improvement, regardless of the inspection cycle.
More generally, the challenge for everyone dealing with child protection is to create an environment in which we do not wait for crises to happen to children at risk before we intervene to help. We need to think and work proactively rather than reactively. Child protection services in Scotland need to be timely, flexible, responsive to the needs of the individual child, efficient, consistent with the principles of "Getting it right for every child" and delivered by skilful staff at every level of every organisation and every discipline that is involved in the care of vulnerable children. In addition, we need a coherent and joined-up means of delivering that vision in a multi-agency and multidisciplinary environment.
A consistent theme running through child protection is that of better and earlier information sharing. That is at the heart of good delivery of services to children who may be at risk; but, of course, we want to ensure that information is shared only when necessary and that everyone has the same understanding of the rules for doing so. That is why we are giving a high priority to devising and implementing appropriately a draft code of practice for sharing information when there are concerns about a child.
Since taking office, I have been considering a range of initiatives that relate to specific aspects of the child protection agenda and the ways in which we can ensure that our efforts in that area are coherent, strategic and proactive. Throughout my deliberations, I have reflected on the importance of childhood and of striking the right balance between providing a safe and caring environment for Scotland's children and giving children space in which to grow up to be confident individuals. I am sure that that dilemma will strike a chord with many members who are parents as well as politicians.
To get the balance right—collectively, from national Government right down to individual parents—we have work to do, to assess risks to children better and to act upon risk assessments with improved skill, speed and precision. I attach high priority to making progress in that difficult area and to developing flexible and robust policy principles, to support parents and professionals who work with children.
A particular issue that accentuates the dilemma on risk is that of vetting and barring. The issue was debated during the passage of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in the previous session of the Parliament. I understand the discomfort that some people have about disclosure checks, but none of us would want to drop our children off at school without the assurance that the staff with whom they come into contact do not have a history that raises concern about children's safety. Our objectives must be to undertake disclosure checking in the most streamlined, efficient and unobtrusive way and to act swiftly on information that suggests that people who are working with children and protected adults might pose a risk to them.
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 delivered the framework for a robust vetting and barring scheme. I am pleased to announce the publication of the consultation on the secondary legislation required to implement the provisions of the 2007 act. I look forward to engaging further with parliamentary colleagues and stakeholders as we develop the secondary legislation and move closer towards implementing Scotland's strengthened vetting and barring scheme, which we hope will go live in the summer of 2009.
During the passage of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill, Robert Brown placed particular emphasis on the importance of wide-ranging and meaningful engagement with the sectors affected by the legislation. I too believe that we cannot deliver an effective vetting and barring scheme without such engagement. The operational details must be right, and the accompanying guidance and training need to be trenchant. The publication of the consultation marks the start of that engagement.
Although I want to frame consideration of child protection issues proactively and proportionately, it will always be necessary for the Scottish Government to respond to emerging issues of national significance. Many members will be aware of the revelations of abuse at Kerelaw school. Glasgow City Council's investigation of the school identified an unacceptable and long-standing history of abuse of children. The council acted quickly to close the school in 2005, to take disciplinary action and to provide support to the children who were in Kerelaw. Those actions are to be commended, but we would do a great disservice to all those involved if we did not consider what we can learn from the Kerelaw situation. I want to be assured that abuse and allegations of abuse on such a scale and over such a long duration cannot ever happen again in a residential setting in Scotland—we owe it to the children who were abused, to the staff who were not involved in the abuse but who were caught up in the events by association and to all children in residential settings, whom we have a responsibility to safeguard.
Since the publication of Glasgow City Council's report in June, I have been in discussion with the council about how we can ensure that we take forward the lessons that can be learned from Kerelaw constructively and in a way that is sensitive to the subject matter and does not put disclosures about events at Kerelaw under a glaring public spotlight. I am pleased to announce that the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council will jointly commission an independent inquiry into Kerelaw. I want the inquiry to secure comprehensive insight into the circumstances that led to the abuse at Kerelaw, to examine Glasgow City Council's stewardship of the school, to consider the steps taken by Glasgow City Council subsequent to the closure of Kerelaw, to identify recommendations relevant to ensuring that the contributory factors that led to abuse at Kerelaw never arise again, and to identify any other issues that the Kerelaw inquiry considers relevant to the safe care of young people in residential settings. I have asked Mr Eddie Frizzell to chair the inquiry. He is visiting professor of public service management at Queen Margaret University and a former senior civil servant. He brings a breadth and depth of experience and, most significantly, a fresh and objective perspective.
I want to ensure that the inquiry does not impede any criminal proceedings relating to Kerelaw and that it proceeds in a way that actively involves former pupils, staff and other stakeholders who want to participate. With input from the Lord Advocate and Glasgow City Council, I will in the coming weeks discuss a detailed remit with Eddie Frizzell, with a view to a further announcement in the new year. On this occasion, it is better to maximise the insight that we can gain from Kerelaw than to rush headlong into matters. It is better for Scotland's most vulnerable children that we get the matter right rather than carry out the inquiry swiftly.
Glasgow's willingness to open up the issues to independent scrutiny and to facilitate the learning from the Kerelaw situation sets an important example of leadership and accountability. Councillor Steven Purcell will shortly advise a full meeting of the council of the steps that the council has taken in relation to Kerelaw and of what we both want to achieve from the inquiry. I am pleased that Margaret Doran, Glasgow's executive director of education and social work, is in the public gallery today, which reflects the joint approach that we are pursuing.
I have received reports on Kerelaw from Glasgow City Council, HMIE, the Social Work Inspection Agency and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. In the interests of openness, I will place those reports on the Scottish Government website in the coming days. It is important that we all work together to learn all the lessons that we can from Kerelaw. I have also carefully considered how the independent inquiry sits alongside the forthcoming publication of the independent systemic review of historical abuse in residential care between 1950 and 1995, by the expert Mr Tom Shaw. That review is of great importance—its purpose is to identify the various legal and regulatory systems and processes that were in place to protect children during the period. The review will help to answer the fundamental question: how could abuse on such a scale have continued for so long without being prevented?
Mr Shaw will submit his review to the Government in mid-November and it will be published shortly thereafter. The findings will be analysed and considered fully as we make progress on proposals for strengthening the contribution of residential care. I also intend to introduce proposals on support for survivors of historical abuse, once I have considered Mr Shaw's findings. The Shaw report on historical abuse and the independent inquiry on Kerelaw are complementary and I am confident that, together, their findings will provide a rich insight that will contribute positively to the significant improvements that I want the Government and the Parliament to achieve for our most vulnerable children.
Residential care is the best possible environment for some children and young people, providing a range of opportunities for children to thrive and flourish in an environment that is safe and tailored to their individual needs. More than 220 establishments in Scotland provide some form of residential care to children. Those establishments should provide a safe and nurturing home for our most vulnerable children, and their staff should be dedicated and committed to providing the very best of care to those children. I want positively to support the sector so that all establishments and all those who are tasked with looking after children can make a positive contribution to the lives of and outcomes for vulnerable children.
We have a collective responsibility to all Scotland's children and young people to ensure that they get the best start in life and, if they are vulnerable, to ensure that they get all the care and help that they need. I urge members to join me in ensuring that the Parliament takes all reasonable steps to do the very best for the children in Scotland who need our help most.
This is a hugely difficult and sensitive area, and we owe it to children and families in Scotland to get it right. It goes without saying that my party will work constructively with ministers on the issue. As the minister has recognised, in Government we took the issue very seriously and legislated to protect vulnerable groups. I welcome today's announcement of an independent inquiry into Kerelaw. I echo the minister's views, and commend Glasgow City Council for its leadership and accountability on the issue, which shows an open approach and a willingness to learn from mistakes. I congratulate Councillor Purcell on his bravery.
As the minister is aware, many agencies are involved with the issue. Can he assure me that those agencies are all prepared to learn the lessons from Kerelaw and to reflect on the issues thrown up by the independent inquiry? Secondly, he will be aware that the First Minister was asked in June about the fact that provisional placing on the disqualified from working with children list does not per se prevent someone from working in a child care position. Do any Kerelaw workers still remain on the temporary register? If so, how many, and when will that be resolved? Does the minister agree that, in the interests of both children and staff, it is essential that staff placed on the list without a criminal conviction should have their cases dealt with as speedily as possible?
I agree that we must all learn the lessons from Kerelaw. We must be prepared to be open to the difficult issues that the independent inquiry may throw up. We owe it to children and families in Scotland. The broader issues touched on in the statement will be dealt with by other members of my team. I thank the minister for his statement. It would have been easier for us to deal with it if we had had it expeditiously, but I accept his apology.
I apologise again for the lateness.
The member wanted an assurance that all agencies will participate. I have had some useful contacts with a number of key people. For example, I spoke to Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People this morning, hoping that she might assist with the inquiry and have an early meeting with Mr Frizzell. I have also spoken to Matt Smith of Unison, who is keen for his union and its members to engage with the inquiry. Similarly, as the member probably knows, I wrote to the inspectorates to ask them why they had not revealed the scale of the problem of abuse during the course of their work. I expect to hear from all those agencies, particularly Glasgow City Council, given that it had responsibility for the management of the school.
As at October 2007, 226 individuals are fully listed on the disqualified from working with children list. A further 32 are provisionally listed. We do not comment on the names of individuals referred to on the DWCL—that is a confidential process between the referring organisation, the individual and the Scottish Government. A number of cases arising from the Kerelaw situation are still being considered for the DWCL.
I thank the minister for prior sight of the statement. It was at rather short notice, but at least it was better hearing it from him than from the media. On such an important issue, that is fitting.
I give members an unequivocal assurance that the Scottish Conservatives support the efforts to improve child protection that were under way under the previous Executive and are now under way under the current Government. We are pleased that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill was adjusted into a form that we could accept, given our concerns on two issues.
The first of those was the fact that the consultations were incomplete and some of the bill was imperfectly drafted. That put at risk quite a lot of the good will of the organisations that are required to implement any changes, so I urge the new Executive to avoid repeating that mistake with any new legislation, especially given the sensitivities that surround the issue and the Kerelaw inquiry in particular. The second fault with the bill was that it left too much detail to secondary legislation.
It is good to hear that the minister is addressing both those problems, but I seek two further assurances from him. First, does he agree that the voluntary sector has neither the infrastructure nor the budgets of the public sector to cope with the administration of child protection? If so, will he comment on how the Government can assist voluntary agencies, especially if any retrospective checking of staff is required? The public needs to have full confidence and trust in the process, which is not always the case at present.
The second reassurance that I seek concerns an issue that is close to my heart as a former teacher who is involved in sports coaching and outdoor education. Will the minister do something to allay the fears that some aspects of the child protection process are so bureaucratic that they are in danger of preventing some people from volunteering to help with the huge range of extracurricular activities that are of great educational and social benefit to children all over Scotland?
Elizabeth Smith's last point was something that exercised the Education Committee in the previous parliamentary session. A substantial number of people came to the committee to give us evidence on that front. That is why the Government is keen to move forward with its consultation on the secondary legislation—putting in the nuts and bolts, if you like. In effect, we want to streamline the disclosure process so that the bureaucracy that has fouled up the system—multiple applications being made, for example—is done away with.
We are also conscious of the fact that we need a proper balance between protecting children and encouraging people to give of their services to help children. We will engage with the voluntary sector on that. In my statement, I mentioned guidance and assistance. As Elizabeth Smith knows, disclosure checks are free to volunteers, and we will maintain that situation.
I am conscious of the issues that Elizabeth Smith highlights. I cannot remember her other point, but perhaps I will come back to it when I do.
I am sure that the minister will join me in paying credit to the dedication of the 800,000 people throughout Scotland who work with children or vulnerable adults. I thank him for advance sight of not only the statement, but the consultation paper and for the open way in which he has approached the matter this week.
Does the minister acknowledge that 80 per cent of child abuse is not perpetrated by strangers but happens in the home? Will he ensure that resources are directed not exclusively towards bureaucracy and institutions but towards additional support for family and child protection social workers, who are overworked and continuously under pressure?
Will the minister underline how any lessons that are learned from the Kerelaw inquiry will be implemented through the residential care estate? What role will the Scottish institute for residential child care, local authorities and charities have in that implementation?
The disqualified from working with children list in Scotland stands at 226 individuals. In December last year, Nicola Sturgeon called for anyone on the sex offenders register to be placed on the list, which would make it an offence for anyone on it to apply for a job working with children or for such a person to be given such work. There is no mention of that in the consultation paper that the minister launched today; is it still the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring that about?
No, I do not believe so. I think that we have all the primary legislation in place and the secondary legislation is out to consultation at the moment.
I have some further information in answer to Rhona Brankin's question on the number of people on the DWCL. Eight people who worked at Kerelaw are listed on the DWCL and a further 10 are provisionally listed.
In response to Jeremy Purvis's question on the residential care sector, I am looking for wider lessons, other than the particulars of Kerelaw, to come from the inquiry. For example, how does the corporate parenting role need to be developed in the context of residential care? I am concerned about the lack of visibility of children in residential care to the elected members and senior officials of councils. How do we combat the out-of-sight, out-of-mind tendency? In some areas there is dependence on out-of-area placements, which perhaps accentuates that tendency.
The investigations by Glasgow City Council that led to the decision to close Kerelaw school revealed that it had a dysfunctional and staff-centred culture. What management systems and controls need to be put in place to prevent the growth of such cultures? Why did the inspectorates and the care commission fail to pick up concerns about children's safety? We need to ensure that children report abuse when it happens and that they are listened to and supported when they do so. How do we make that happen?
A considerable number of members wish to ask questions, so it would be helpful if questions were short and concise.
Like others, I welcome the minister's statement and the publication of the consultation document. He mentioned in his statement the need for a streamlined system of disclosure checks. I support that objective. I am sure that he is aware of the problems of those who have to go through repeated disclosure checks; I know of a case in which someone went through 10 different checks in a year as a sessional worker.
Can the minister assure me not only that any change to the disclosure check system will retain the proper and necessary safety checks, but that he will look for ways to reduce the need for repeat checks? Under the present system, some individuals have to go through many checks.
Yes, I can give the member an assurance on that. The system will change; initially, people will apply for scheme membership, and their membership will be kept constantly updated thereafter. The need for multiple applications, which Michael Matheson mentioned, will no longer be there.
With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I want to ask two questions. Before I do so, I declare that my wife is involved in the field and is in child protection training.
First, I return to an answer that the minister gave earlier. As I understand it, the 30 people on the temporary list are still entitled to work with children. That needs to be addressed. It is not good for them to be on the temporary list. If they are guilty, it is not good that they can work with children. If they are not guilty, they should be taken off the list. I make that comment in passing. The minister might want to comment on it later.
Secondly, I want to address the first part of the minister's statement, which was in three parts. He announced that there will be a draft code of practice on information sharing. Will that be a substitute for the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill, which requires a single shared assessment with a key worker? It seems to me that a draft code of practice is not an adequate response, and it might be a fracture line that prevents all-party support.
I hope that the minister agrees that we have already undertaken an audit and review and that we have a children's charter that says that information should be shared only as necessary. We have standard 4, with seven examples of how care should be shared under the framework for standards; all those measures are backed up, as the minister said, by quality indications and rigorous inspection. What will the minister's code of practice add? It will not place on agencies the duty to share information that the Children's Services (Scotland) Bill would have laid on them.
Richard Simpson will recognise that there is a civil and human rights issue related to his first point. Although such people may not be barred from employment at this stage, it is obviously up to employers to act on the knowledge that they have in front of them. I assume that they will do so appropriately.
Secondly, the member mentioned the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill. To be frank, policy delivery is more important than legislation and much can be done under the current legislation to make improvements. It emerged from the consultation on that draft bill that several agencies are concerned by early legislation without further detailed consideration of the implications for services. Further work in pathfinder areas—the cabinet secretary and I both visited the Highlands last month in that regard—and other development work throughout Scotland will help to determine how best to improve any legislative changes that we decide will be needed in the future.
As I said, responses to the consultation on the draft bill indicated that more work needs to be done to resolve the complex issues affecting change across children's services. We need to work through those issues. However, I am pleased to say that the getting it right for every child process, which is working through the pilots, is making significant process.
I thank the minister for the statement; on first look, it certainly seems that we will be happy to support it.
I have two specific questions on the Kerelaw inquiry. First, given that for the most part we are talking about children who are particularly vulnerable, can we ensure within the remit and resources that will be available to the inquiry that those children are supported by the provision of advocates and other necessary support to give evidence and make clear their points of view? Secondly, is it intended that the inquiry's remit will include evidence from historical cases of residential care abuse throughout Scotland in the period covered by the Shaw report?
I want to pursue the use of independent advocates or lay professionals to assist children. Having read the inspectorate's reports on Kerelaw and why it did not pick up the abuse, I was not entirely impressed with it, but it has assured me that independent advocates and lay professionals are now used to gather children's views in the making of such inspections. That is relevant for the independent inquiry that we are talking about, and we will bring to the inquiry chairman's attention the use of independent advocates to gather evidence from the vulnerable children.
What was the other point?
My second point was about prior victims of abuse.
The historical abuse inquiry that Tom Shaw is conducting will obviously be complementary to the Kerelaw inquiry. Having spoken to Eddie Frizzell, I know that he is keen to have an early meeting with Tom Shaw as soon as is appropriate so that the two streams of knowledge and information can come together.
As convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I give my thanks to the previous Administration for its support, particularly in the implementation of the survivors Scotland strategy. I hope that the new Government will continue to support that initiative.
There is no doubt that we must put the protection of today's children at the centre of any policy, but we must not forget yesterday's children. What support will the Government provide to those who have suffered systematic abuse so as to help them through the often long-term symptoms—they can range from drug and alcohol abuse to self-harm and suicide—and trauma that they and their families experience? Secondly, I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has given priority to the code of practice for sharing information, but how will the Government ensure that our most vulnerable children have safe space to disclose?
I can give the member the assurance that we are more than happy to work with the cross-party group as before.
On support for survivors of abuse, our reference group for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse is progressing well. We have set up a historical in-care abuse sub-group to identify the specific needs of in-care abuse survivors. In-care abuse representatives sit on that group. We are developing proposals for a support framework for survivors of in-care abuse.
If I may assist the minister, I want to go back to the first question that my colleague Elizabeth Smith asked earlier. The question concerns the impact on the voluntary sector's infrastructure and budgets of dealing with the additional bureaucracy that arises from the—very necessary—administration of child protection. How will the Government try to assist the voluntary sector in dealing with those burdens, in particular any retrospective checking of staff if that is required?
Certainly, we are keen to assist to ensure that the voluntary sector is not disadvantaged in meeting its obligations under the legislation. As I said in my statement, we will consult the voluntary sector not just on the secondary legislation but as part of an on-going process. I cannot mention any hard-and-fast proposals at the moment, but the issue is very much on our radar.
I have a concern that some people who formerly worked at Kerelaw but left in advance of its closure may need to be questioned. Will the minister assure me that they will be brought into the inquiry in some form?
Yes, absolutely. We intend to leave no stone unturned in seeking to engage with the relevant parties who were involved in the Kerelaw situation. That includes members of staff who were not associated with any abusive situation but have been in some way tainted by association because they worked in Kerelaw. I know that that is a serious issue. Staff who are in that position will be engaged with during the inquiry, because obviously we want their assistance on the lessons to be learned.
As the minister is aware, along with Kathleen Marshall and Sheriff Alan Finlayson, I sat as a member of a previous inquiry into abuse in residential care in Edinburgh. From his discussions with Kathleen Marshall in her new role as Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, he is also aware that that inquiry made a crucial point about the need to listen to the voices of the children. Further to the minister's comment that the need for independent advocates is an issue that he will bring to the attention of the inquiry's chair, may I respectfully suggest that something slightly stronger is needed? Will he assure us that children's voices will be heard and that the appropriate arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the inquiry team includes someone who has direct personal experience of being in the residential care system?
The minister said, if I heard him correctly, that 10 people from Kerelaw are still on the provisional list. When will those cases be completed and dealt with?
I will answer the final point first: the cases are being dealt with currently. However, a problem in dealing with the aftermath of Kerelaw was the nature of the investigations and of the evidence that was compiled. That is causing some difficulty to the people who are dealing with the listing process.
Cathy Jamieson asked for a guarantee that children's voices would be heard. That is an absolute guarantee. She mentioned her experience on the Edinburgh inquiry, and I can tell her that that inquiry was the subject of my discussion this morning with Kathleen Marshall. Kathleen Marshall undertook to discuss with Eddie Frizzell exactly the point that Cathy Jamieson has raised. It is essential.
I welcome the minister's commitment to an independent inquiry into Kerelaw and I congratulate Glasgow City Council on having the foresight to commission that inquiry with the Scottish Government. Will the minister ensure that the inquiry looks closely at the role that was played by the council in the running of Kerelaw, and will he ensure that the inquiry takes evidence from the trade unions that represent the workers at Kerelaw? Some of those workers have been accused of malpractice.
This issue is an open wound for Glasgow and for Scotland, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government is ensuring that it is investigated. I ask the minister to ensure that the wound is treated properly and that the examination of what went on at Kerelaw is absolutely thorough.
I can give the member that assurance. As she is well aware, the trade union Unison, in representing its members, made a number of significant criticisms of the methods of the investigation—in particular, of the trawling process of looking for evidence. The nature of the investigation will be investigated by the independent inquiry. Trade union representatives and union members will have access to the inquiry and will be actively engaged by it.
The minister is well aware of the horrific case of five-year-old Danielle Reid from Inverness, who was murdered and whose body was dumped in the Caledonian canal in a suitcase—an image that shocked the nation. Does he share my view that few local authorities are of a scale that allows them to provide the highly specialised skills that are required to investigate complex child protection cases? Is there a case for a social work equivalent of the Scottish crime squad to provide—centrally—advice, guidance and assistance to all local authorities? That would better protect our vulnerable children and would ensure that cases such as that of Danielle Reid never happen again.
I thank the member for his question and for his early intimation of it. I very much agree with his sentiments. He will be interested to know that recommendation 27 of the Social Work Inspection Agency's Western Isles report of 2005 calls for a national, multi-agency resource, providing a research base, consultancy and co-working to support child protection professionals.
Officials have recently presented a draft proposal to the chairs of the child protection committees on how best to create a sustainable, efficient and effective national resource. We expect to consider their views before Christmas, and ministers will decide on the way forward in the new year.