Looked-After Children

Speech by Robert Brown on Thu 20th Nov 2008

I begin by agreeing with Ian McKee's comments, which echoed earlier contributions by Margaret Smith and others, on the importance of the social work facility and the different roles that it can play. Social workers get the blame in lots of situations, but Margaret Smith was right when she said that we should remember that, ultimately, it is not

social workers but some parents who, sadly, harm children.

Over the years, we have had a lot of debates on looked-after children, which is to the Parliament's credit. The minister made an excellent opening speech, but I had the slight sense that it was a speech more for the opening of a conference than for a debate in Parliament. I make that point seriously, against the background of the Government's accountability. No major initiative or progress was announced, and the debate was not set in any context. It would help if, when the minister summates, he indicates how the points that have been made today will be taken forward and will fit into Government policy and, given the great interest in the subject, how he will report to Parliament on progress in the weeks and months to come.

For me, the Social Work Inspection Agency's 2006 report "Extraordinary Lives" was both a wake-up call and an indication of what was possible. I cannot remember if it was that report or another that was published about the same time that said there is nothing inevitable about poor educational outcomes for looked-after children. Before then, I had met a lot of young people who had been or were looked after, I had talked to groups such as the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum, and I had spoken to foster carers, adopters and children who had been adopted. I knew that some young people had developed extraordinary resilience and made tremendous achievements, despite horrendous starts in life, but somehow I did not really believe that it was possible to change things in a substantial way. The message that came from the reports was that change was possible.

As we have heard, about 14,000 young people are looked after by local authorities-more than half at home, nearly 30 per cent with foster parents and the remaining number in a residential setting. All those situations are important components of our facilities for young people. The numbers are not impossible either to visualise or target effectively. It is true that we have to consider the context of the 40,000 to 60,000 young people who live with drug-abusing parents, and the 80,000 to 100,000 young people who are affected by parental alcohol abuse. Many more children than the central core are at risk, but, even then, the numbers are manageable and change is possible.

We know what makes a difference: the SWIA report spelled it out in detail, and Sandra White was right to mention the disappointment that arises when those things do not happen. It is long-term stability, suitable home backgrounds and links with birth families. It is regular attendance at school, strong and satisfying friendships and networks, and the provision of nurturing experiences into adulthood. It is listening to young people and acting on that listening, and it is strong relationships with key individuals in their lives. It is effective transition planning and building resilience.

I will touch on three aspects of the challenge. The first is the need for effective and speedy assessment at the right stage-many members have touched on the implications of that. I was told by the Scottish institute for residential child care that some countries have more children in care than does Scotland. I do not know whether that is true, but it is an interesting sideline if it is. There may be lessons to draw from them.

We know that too many children and young people go through failed placements and can be in too many foster homes, with all the disadvantages that go with that. We heard from Elizabeth Smith that parents are the best people to bring up children-but, sadly, not all parents. We must keep that fact in mind. We know, too, that fostering organisations have identified a shortfall of 10,000 foster carers throughout the UK. The pressure on foster carers brings its own problems of inadequate or unsuitable placements. Those problems should not be understated. The number of potential foster parents can cause issues in getting the right placement for children.

Dr Simpson: Does the member agree that there is concern that foster parents in Scotland foster more children than do foster parents in England? In England, there is a limit. I am not suggesting that we should have a limit, but we could phase one in when there are complex needs. Overplacing children with foster parents places an undue burden and expectation on those foster parents.

Robert Brown: I accept that point, the background to which is the inadequate number of foster parents in the first place. We need more foster carers, and given that foster care across the board results in the best outcomes for looked-after children, it is a major priority. It is worth stating that again: outcomes with foster parents are the best. Outcomes in residential homes are the second best and, sadly, outcomes for children who stay at home are often the worst. That may seem contraindicative, but it is an important aspect.

The second aspect of the challenge is the transition to adulthood. Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People was spot-on in identifying that as a major weakness. The Scottish tradition is for forisfamiliation at 16-the right and ability for young people to leave home and fend for themselves at the age of 16. For looked-after children, that is a bad tradition. It means that there is pressure to get immature and vulnerable youngsters out at 16. It means feeding the sad cycle of loneliness, homelessness, criminality and ill health that is so often the fate of many young people in those circumstances, and it can mean that they cut links with the significant adults in their lives. For those who are in residential schools, there can be disconnects in funding when it is needed most. We need to heed the call of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which regards 18 and not 16 as the age of adulthood, although even 18 should be a liberating age and not a cut-off-and-throw-away age.

Karen Whitefield talked about the exclusion rate of young people who are in care. In the UK, almost a third of ex-looked-after children are not in education, employment or training at the age of 19, and an extraordinary 45 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds in young offenders institutions have been looked after.

The third aspect is staff. I would like to see a massive recruitment campaign for foster parents, perhaps along the lines of the one for children's panel members. We also need better trained and qualified staff in children's residential establishments, which still have a long way to go. The fact that many local authorities do not have a proper recruitment strategy is not a minor problem, given that there are 4,500 workers in the sector.

It is a worthy objective that the state should act as corporate parent to looked-after children, but that objective needs to be given substance and spirit, with champions at all levels who listen and relate to children. That is not a bureaucratic requirement but a flexible and living one. We have had an excellent debate. Let us take forward the messages and ensure that they are actually implemented on the ground for all the children whom we are concerned about.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

Looked-After Children.