Seòmar agus comataidhean

As a teenage boy—a long time ago, in the previous century—I remember my father being approached by another parent of a younger disabled child, who asked, “What one piece of advice would you give to another parent of a disabled child?” Without thinking, my father said, “Never take no as the first answer from a medical professional.”

My father was an educated professional who could stand up to most individuals, and I was very fortunate that I had two loving parents and supportive siblings, and that I went to a good school that supported me through my teenage years. However, from speaking to many disabled people and disabled people’s charities over the past nine years during my time as an MSP, I think that I am the exception, not the rule. That is particularly true for disabled children who are in some form of care in relation to their needs and relationships.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that all disabled children receive appropriate support from their local authority to assist their transition into adulthood. They should not be pushed to transition earlier than is necessary, which happens a lot. I have spoken to a number of charities, children and those who look after children, and there is real concern that disabled children are being moved into adult services too early—earlier than non-disabled children are moved into adult services. That is happening because it seems that, from a professional perspective—not from a child’s perspective—it is easier to manage a child’s case in those services. Due to pressure on social workers, disabled children are taken off orders more quickly than they should be, and they do not get the same level of advocacy, either.

Disabled children are perhaps the most vulnerable people in the system. At the moment, many of them are not getting the transition that they require, either in the way that they want it to happen or in the way that would be best for them. I think that we all agree, in principle, that a disabled child should not be treated any differently from how any other child of their age is treated. Amendment 7 would simply put that into law.

I hear what the minister has said, but there needs to be a statutory backbone to this; it is not enough to simply put it in guidance or policy documents. In the light of what she has said, I am willing to not move amendment 7 and seek further discussions with her before stage 3, but I will seek to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3 if those conversations prove to be unsuccessful.

That definition is not necessarily inclusive enough. In fact, it may be the opposite—it may exclude others from carrying out the role. There is a genuine debate to be had. Are teachers, social workers and citizens advice bureaux equally independent?

I absolutely agree, but the definition should be broader.

Why not?

I do not want to speak too much against my own amendment, but why has that not happened already? The bill has been coming for the past two years, and you now say that we need to consult appropriate parties. Why did that consultation not take place earlier, to allow you to include a provision in the bill or lodge an amendment with a clear definition, to which Parliament could have said yes or no? I am not sure why we are having to do that after the bill is passed.

At the moment, the cost is being met by each local authority, because the Scottish Government is funding it, so there is no cost. In addition, it cannot be budgeted for, because we do not know how many people will go into kinship care annually. It is a bit like the social security payments that we make. It is an open budget. We can give estimates. There should be no greater cost than at the moment, because kinship carers should be getting the moneys that they are due. It is about whether they are aware of that and whether they are accessing those services.

09:30

To be honest, putting a financial cost on this is coming at it from the wrong end. These families are taking in very vulnerable children at a very difficult time in their lives. Whatever the cost of that is, it will be far less than if those children had to go into care or fostering. The overwhelming majority of people who provide kinship care do not do it for financial gain; they do it to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I hope that we can look at something, perhaps at stage 3, around social work, health and education to make sure that those who take in vulnerable children are given the support that they need.

I start where Ross Greer finishes. There is a mass frustration in the community that we have not been able to come up with the definition of an independent advocate so far. Amendment 8 is a pragmatic solution to that.

Barnardo’s has said that independent advocacy should be defined in the bill. I absolutely agree, but we do not have a definition in the bill. Even in discussions between members this morning, there does not seem to have been clarity about what “independent” means. The Promise says that clarity about the definition is vital and needs to happen, but I do not see us, either this morning, or even in the two or three weeks before stage 3, being able to agree on a definition.

12:30

Why not?

Absolutely. The committee could, in theory, agree to amendment 147 and my amendment, and then we could tidy up the definition at stage 3.

My final point, without trying to labour it, is that, although we need independence, the definition needs to be broader and we need to consult further with the third sector, COSLA and those who have lived experience. The quickest and best way to do that would be by regulation at a future date. I might also come back at stage 3 to put some kind of time limit on that, so that the issue does not hang around for ever.

Good morning. Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that kinship carers are on an equal footing with others who provide care, such as foster carers. Both take in children at the point of need, and a relative should not be differentiated from a state-supplied foster carer. In particular, that should apply to financial support and social work support. The Social Justice and Social Committee—no, sorry. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee—on which I have sat for only nine years—took evidence on that some years ago. A number of kinship carers gave evidence in this very room. It was clear that they feel that they are a Cinderella service. I welcome the minister’s amendments, but I think that we can go still further in recognising the vital role that kinship carers play in our system.

Children First has stated that kinship care

“accounts for 35% of all children who are looked after in the community.”

However, the financial contribution and other support from agencies is not the same.

Many kinship carers will stop or reduce working to take on those additional caring responsibilities. Eighty per cent of kinship carers report financial hardship. Even in this parliamentary session, kinship carers were being paid different amounts, depending on the local authority area in which they lived. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is dealing with that issue at the moment, and that some of the amendments that we will discuss later seek to address it. However, I am still concerned that, during the tenure of future Governments, kinship carers could end up not getting the amount of money that they require to meet the financial needs that come with the responsibility they have been given.

My other concern, which, again, comes from kinship carers directly, is that they find it very difficult to access the services that they require, be those in social work, education or health. A distinction is made in most local authorities between foster carers and kinship care. I fully accept the minister’s point that definition is an issue, and I accept that amendment 4 is very broadly written. That was deliberate, so that we could start a conversation. When the minister winds up, I will be interested to hear about how we can look at not just the financial need but how we get the right support in social work, education and health.