Chamber and committees

That was quite concise, convener.

Perhaps I could ask you about that. I apologise for interrupting, but it is difficult not to do so in an online session.

I commend the really good work that is happening locally. My point is that the local work in Glasgow will be different from the work in Galashiels, which will be different from the work in Aberdeen and Aviemore. It is about ensuring that we have more national consistency. We have heard for many years about benchmarking and sharing best practice, but, decades later, that has not necessarily happened. Will the proposals help to address the variability?

So, there is more than one way to achieve that. A national care service might be one way, but it is not the only way.

My final question is for Ross McGuffie, and it widens out Fiona Duncan’s point. The issue is not only the allowances that are paid to support children in kinship care and their families, but also access to wider services, in which there is significant variability across the country.

Ross McGuffie talked about trauma-informed care and support, which he was right to do. I have a centre of excellence for trauma-informed care for kinship carers in my constituency. It is funded on a commissioning basis, sometimes from integration joint boards, sometimes from local authorities and sometimes directly from the NHS across a number of local authorities. It is a mishmash of funding, which makes that centre really struggle with sustainability.

Could a national care service have an advantage in enabling better commissioning of specialist, trauma-informed services for vulnerable children and young people?

Given that Nicky Connor spoke about variation across the country, perhaps she would be the ideal person to talk about how, through a national care service, we could better deliver for kinship carers, looked-after children and their families.

The evidence session has been interesting so far. Both my questions are about what opportunities a national care service could bring. I note that concerns have been raised, but this change might happen, so we should explore the potential opportunities.

My first question is about the national care service charter that is contained in the bill. Some concerns have been raised about whether the care service focuses too much on adult care and not enough on children, young people, families, child protection and so on. Would anyone like to comment on what the opportunities could be to shape the charter in order to set out our ambitions and aspirations for wider childcare services in Scotland? Those services will be designed nationally but delivered with flexibility locally. Has anyone given any thought to what the benefits of the national care service charter could be?

That is helpful. I asked a similar question at last week’s meeting, and the witnesses took a similar approach to the one that this week’s witnesses have taken, which is understandable. Everybody is focusing on what structural change might look like instead of on the potential opportunities from the change. The national care service charter provides the opportunity to draw into one place a summary of the rights and responsibilities that we all have in relation to the national care service, children and families. The witnesses might not be able to answer this today, but, if any of them think that there are opportunities in that regard, perhaps they could pass that information to the committee through an email to the clerks. What is proposed might happen, so we want to ensure that the opportunities are realised.

My second line of questioning relates to kinship care. In May, a national kinship care protocol was introduced for all local authorities, but it was cluttered, complex and difficult. Similar accusations about a potential new national care service have been made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, Social Work Scotland, the chief social work officer committee’s working group and the national kinship care collaborative. The protocol was an attempt to have national co-ordination for kinship care, which I absolutely welcome, because Nicky Connor spoke about the variability across Scotland in relation to various services. Kinship care allowances, access to trauma-informed care for young people and placements relating to bereavement still vary across the 32 local authorities. Whether a kinship carer volunteers to take a child or whether a child is given a placement by social work can determine whether someone gets the allowance. There is significant national variation.

Are there opportunities to address national variation through a national care service that is delivered locally? I would welcome any comments in relation to children, including looked-after children.

I want to ask the other witnesses this question as well but, Mr Burns, do you believe that that will still happen anyway, irrespective of whether we move to a national care service? It is not necessarily about whether that move is the right or the wrong thing to do, but can you give us a reassurance that you think that that kind of working will continue to take place? There has been a suggestion that it might not.

This evidence session is about how to realise the rights of children and young people within the development of a national care service, if we decide to go down that road. I acknowledge that the bill is a pretty general framework bill. I was looking at it during the last line of questioning. The bill contains the idea of a national care service charter, although it does not say very much about that. That is where various rights, including those of children and young people and their families and carers, could be entrenched.

Irrespective of whether that is desirable to the national care service, are there advantages and opportunities in having a human rights based-charter for the benefit of children and young people? I understand that those rights have to be delivered at a local level, but are there opportunities in the national care service charter?

I will make the briefest of comments.

Absolutely, convener.

The bill is a bit vague in some respects: it is a framework bill with lots to be fleshed out. The situation for looked-after children in kinship care in Glasgow is an issue that I know well, and I know that Mr Burns has been actively involved in that over the years. We have come a long way from the days when Adam Ingram was the children’s minister and Steven Purcell was the leader of Glasgow City Council, when huge strides were taken across Government and across parties. As I understand it, looked-after children who are in kinship care relationships in the community now get the same rate of support as is given to foster families, but that rate differs across the country, with each local authority paying differently.

There is an opportunity—though it comes with a price tag—to ensure that there is consistency of financial and other support. With commissioned services such as the Notre Dame Centre, which provides a wonderful service in my constituency for people in Glasgow and across the west of Scotland, it is not clear where the funding comes from. Sometimes it is from the NHS, and sometimes it is from an integration joint board or various local authorities. It comes in tiny little pots of cash.

There is no consistency of financial support or of commissioned services for children in kinship care. Are there opportunities to change that within the national care service? That is important to me, so I would like to know people’s thoughts on it.