Seòmar agus comataidhean

The timing of the delivery of the national social work agency has been put back years, because the agency sat in the national care service bill. I know that different ministers are responsible for those things, but the delays have had an impact. We are now at the midpoint at which the Promise should have been delivered, but all the hard work on social work is just starting. Given the problems that we face in my region, especially in the capital, social workers tell me that they have been waiting for that. I do not think that it is satisfactory that progress is being made only at the end of this session of the Parliament. The Government needs to be honest with the sector and with the people we meet that the Promise might not be delivered by 2030 because the Government has not done the work.

I would like to see the detail of that, once we get the bill.

A number of witnesses have told the committee that children and families social work has a negative public perception; indeed, a number of kinship carers have expressed similar concerns to me. A lot of that is about stigma, suspicion of reports and a concern about children in a kinship care setting being taken into care. Has the Government captured that suspicion of social work in the bill? Moreover, it was suggested to us that that might be putting off people from going into social work. Might measures such as a recruitment campaign be used to address some of those concerns?

How might the principles of good transition be included in the bill? The committee has heard from a number of individuals who highlighted the fact that many councils have decided that care orders will be lifted at the age of 16, which means that the support that will previously have been available to people will no longer be available. As we have heard, that can be very much a cliff edge for someone at the age of 16. I wonder what opportunities the bill presents to look at those principles, and specifically the opportunity to reconsider 16 as the age for lifting compulsory supervision orders. I have concerns that, in many cases, councils have been using that approach to reduce their case load and, ultimately, to save money.

The approach to the national care service has been a disaster, and that is the reason why we do not have a national social work service up and running and carrying out the reforms that we all want. If we are being honest, surely that is why the Government has failed to progress what should have been progressed much earlier in this session of the Parliament. I am not saying that the minister is responsible for that, but the reforms that we are talking about sat with the national care service, which the Government has failed to deliver. Is that not a clear account of why the reforms have not been made?

I will follow up on the line of questioning on the differences between kinship care and fostering, and opportunities in that regard. We are seeing a loss of foster carers, with an 8 per cent drop last year. There is a lack of foster carers coming forward in Edinburgh specifically. A University of Stirling report that was published in September last year points to the stark implications of that. Concerningly, we are told that

“one in ten of children had five or more placements, and ten years after becoming looked after more than one in ten children were still, or again, in impermanent placements.”

What work has been undertaken to assess the impact of the different payments and support that are available for foster care and kinship care? Say, for argument’s sake, that I fostered someone today in Edinburgh: I would be entitled to £25,000 in support. However, if I were to take in a family member under kinship care arrangements, support would drop to £8,752. Clearly, there is a very different system in place. What work is being undertaken to look at putting at the heart of the Promise the provision of support to the extended family to look after someone? Why has the support for that not, to date, been matched with other support that is available?

I know that that is a long question, but I wanted to set that out.

Will the bill put things on the same legal footing, so that people are entitled to the same support? I find it ridiculous that we are desperate for foster families here in the capital, and we have grandparents who do not necessarily have the financial means to sustain a child. I do not understand why we have not corrected that situation. If the resource is there for fostering, why is it not there at the same level for kinship care? Surely, the priority is for the young person to get the best outcome. Is it because kinship care is on a different legal footing that that has not happened already?

Thank you.

In the case of someone who goes down that pathway and has their CSO lifted, are you considering including a provision for them to appeal and to then go back to receiving support?

I look forward to seeing the detail of those options.

Do you think that the court has been incompetent in its work? The work of the court is really important for the governance of any institution.