 Y dweud dros armellyanaeth cückt am Berrau Ffîr i ddweud i traitor â isi MKfaint Cynchach Derbyn nid y meddwl am��요, a lew i gael agur Saint Noir i ddim ni'n moddau mewn lle Clapys o fynd i gael'r eich pr喝fadau sy'n ei gael fan fem gambling? I would also invite those members who are leaving the chamber and indeed the members of the public who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. Mary Fee, I now call on you seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to move this motion for members' debate to discuss the report by the NSPCC and Bernardo's An Unfair Sentence, A Spotlight on Babies in the Criminal Justice System. The report highlights the issue of babies and parental imprisonment, providing an evidence review about how babies are affected by imprisonment, what services are effective and how practice can be improved. Pregnancy and the first year of a baby's life are an important time in giving a child a healthy start. Mothers need support and care during pregnancy and, once born, babies need a safe and stimulating environment and a healthy early relationship with their caregivers. Not receiving those will lead to adverse effects on the baby's physical, social and emotional development. There has been no empirical study of the effect of imprisonment on infants in the UK, and the knowledge that is currently available is based on psychological theory. The report goes on to detail mental health problems for women in prison and their children. It finds that women in prison are five times more likely to have mental health problems than women in the general population. It also finds that children of prisoners have at least twice as high a risk of developing mental health problems as they appear and three times as high a risk of exhibiting antisocial or delinquent behaviour. That can result in intergenerational offending, where it has been estimated that 65 per cent of boys with a parent in prison will likely go on to offend. The negative effects of parental imprisonment have clearly been identified in infant development and future prospects. However, it is difficult to begin to help this vulnerable group when we do not have exact figures. Estimates show that there are between 20 and 27,000 children under the age of 18 affected by parental imprisonment in Scotland. Using those estimates and assuming that the age distribution of children with parents in prison is the same as children in the general population, the NSPCC estimate that between 3,400 and 4,600 infants under three are affected. There is currently no systematic approach to quantifying how many babies have a parent in prison. However, in the Scottish Prison Service 13th prisoner survey, almost two thirds of female prisoners, 65 per cent and half of male prisoners, 52 per cent, reported having children. The report goes on to specify some examples of interventions delivered in prison that are beginning to emerge. However, the success of those schemes to date tends to be judged more on the outcomes for the parent than the infant. Those intervention programmes are being delivered by a range of third sector organisations, including family action, the prison advice and care trust, mellow parenting, the NSPCC and the Aberlour childcare trust. However, those interventions are not centrally organised, and it seems to be down to luck whether mothers of infants are able to participate. The NSPCC and Bernardo's report highlights six key recommendations on how to improve outcomes. The Scottish Government should formally identify infants affected by the criminal justice system as a vulnerable group. The Scottish Government should introduce child impact assessments for those on custodial and non-custodial sentences. Local councils should develop a system of data sharing between early-year services, parenting, family support services and local offender management. The creation of a national framework of outcomes and standards for babies affected by criminal justice should integrate maternal and infant health policy, early-year services and criminal justice. Needs of infants affected by the criminal justice system should be addressed in children's service planning and planning of offender management services to co-ordinate those. Finally, support-based on evidence should be given to parents in prison with a particular focus on promoting sensitive care giving. In the majority of countries that allow mothers to live with their babies in prison, the maximum age limit is generally three years old, which is double that of the UK. Ensuring babies live with their mother whilst in prison can have a positive developmental influence. However, a recent inspection of the mother and baby unit at HMP Corinth and Vale branded the unit unfit for purpose—a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. That is not the first report to look at the wider subject of children who are affected by parental imprisonment. There have been numerous reports conducted by the third sector organisations with each focus on their own specific angle and contributing to the growing body of research into the issue. Reports such as Not Seen, Not Heard, Not Guilty by the Scottish Children's Commissioner focused on issues such as visiting and actions of the Scottish Government, the SPS and local authorities, as well as the families outside report, the roles of schools in supporting families affected by imprisonment, which focused on education and the impact of GERFEC. As many of you may know, I have recently lodged a private member's bill for consultation titled The Support for Children's Impact of Parental Imprisonment Scotland Bill. My bill seeks to place a statutory duty on the courts to order a child and family impact assessment after a sentencing decision has been handed down. The bill would amend the Education and Additional Support for Learning Act to specifically recognise children affected by parental imprisonment as one of the two groups of children, the other being looked after children, where it is presumed that that child will have additional support needs. My proposal is in line with some of the key recommendations made by the NSPCC and Bernardo's and will hopefully make a start in providing some support for this group of unseen and vulnerable children. I urge everyone who has an interest in this area to respond to my consultation, and I hope that my fellow members can support it. The report recognises that there has been little focus on how best to meet the social, psychological and emotional needs of infants when their mothers or fathers are in prison. It highlights the impact of imprisonment on families, making meeting babies' needs especially challenging. However, by understanding those issues, we can provide support for parents, carers and babies at this critical time in a child's development. In closing, I thank the NSPCC and Bernardo's for the help and support that they have given me. I also thank members across the chamber who supported this motion, allowing it to be debated, and I look forward to listening to contributions from across the chamber. We are a little tight for time today, so I can find people to closer to four minutes than perhaps we would normally indulge you with. Dr Richard Simpson, first to be called by Kenny MacAskill thereafter. I congratulate Mary Fee on getting this motion before us in debate, and I also welcome Fiona McLeod, who I have not seen speaking in the chamber, and I look forward to hearing her closing remarks. This is a particularly important area. One of the major problems that we actually face is that there are far too many children who do not achieve effective attachment. Without effective attachment, it is not possible for them to grow up into productive citizens who are free from all sorts of problems that Mary Fee has outlined. Can I begin by recommending to the minister that she and her officials look at the recent report of the all-party group at Westminster, entitled Great Britain, looking at the first, the 1001 critical days? It refers to Tom McCabe back when he was a minister here and the Scottish efforts to develop things in terms of earlier years, which this Government, to give it its credit, have continued on a broad front, but it really needs to be focused, organised and concentrated on those where attachment risks are greatest. In order to do that, we really have to ensure that we have, first of all, adequate data. How many infants have imprisoned parents? There are guesses around, but no one is certain. How many prisoners are parents to infants? How many female prisoners are pregnant? Who cares for infants when they are separated from their mothers? Those are data that we actually must have. The numbers actually suggest that this is really significant. The other problem is that, when women go into prison, not only are they separated from their children, but their families are often highly disrupted. Romand prisoners for women have gone up by over a third since I was a minister. When I was a minister, I endeavoured to tackle the problem of women and offenders with the McLean report. Frankly, we have made almost no progress since that time, apart from the measures that I introduced, such as the time-out centre and making sure that women who were fine-defaulters did not go to prison. Those figures have gone down significantly, but Romand has gone up massively. The other thing that we need to think about is not just the women offenders who may have children, but also the fathers. One of the problems is that, where there are fathers involved, their disengagement from the process makes a huge difference. That report to which I referred earlier on, the All-Party Group report, did look at the number of specialist perinatal teams across the whole of the United Kingdom. Many areas and regions that are smaller than Scotland in terms of population have up to five of those specialist teams. Scotland has one. If we are to have this with leadership, we need more of those specialist perinatal teams. I also recommend to the Government that they look at the recent initiative in the fourth valley area of the potential development for what is called a butterfly PIP to which the UK Government will be contributing £100,000. That is a mechanism that helps parents to understand the profile and portrait of their own child and engage in attachment. I know that the minister is very interested in that area, so I hope that she will consider supporting the development of the butterfly PIP, not just for the fourth valley area but for the whole of Scotland. That is where parents are helped to recognise the signs in their children of needing consolation or feeding or the various other body language responses that they may have. Those are quite critical, and they are particularly critical in this group of women in her prison who have additional needs such as poor mental health needs. I will finish, Presiding Officer, because you asked us to be confined to the time by just saying one last thing, and that is substance misuse alcohol and drugs is a big problem. I look forward to hearing from her fairly soon as to the progress on fetal alcohol syndrome, because that is another contributory factor in poor attachment. Thank you for your brevity. I now call on Kenny Macastor to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank Mary Fee for bringing this issue in particular, but for the work that she is doing in general, not simply on babies but with regard to children. It was a matter and an issue, in particular raised by the minister currently often maternity leave in the past Parliament, but it has been picked up and run with by Mary Fee. I have no doubt it will also be supported by the minister. There is something fundamentally tragic in this sometimes because of the nature of defence it cannot be avoided, but anybody and myself have visited who has ever seen the mother and baby unit sees the tragedy that goes with it. Equally it is a significant issue. I always remember the statistic that I found perhaps most shocking was that more children in Scotland will suffer the imprisonment of a parent than will suffer the divorce of a parent. That, I have to say, I found considerably shocking. I did not believe it at first hearing it, but I am told that it is, in fact, the case. There is a significant issue there. We do know, not simply with regard to babies but with regard to children, as was mentioned by Mary Fee, and indeed Richard Simpson in doubt was commented on by the minister, the issues that they affect that it has upon a child, the work of Harry Burns and others, quite clear in terms of alienation. However, the statistic that almost half of the children of women in Cortland Vale will go on to be prisoners themselves is also a statistic that is shameful and indeed damning for all of us as a society. There is the issue of alienation, there is the issue of stigmatisation, there is a pressure on those children indeed on other partners and family members, all of the issues that affect them. What we always have to remember is that they have committed no offence, they have been convicted of no crime, they are guilty of absolutely nothing other than being the child or having a relationship with somebody who has offended and who themselves does have to take account of that. I do think that we should look and view the glass as half full, not half empty. I think that good work has been done. That mention was made of all the external third agencies at work. I think that good work is done by the faith groups in particular, not simply in particular work with children but in terms of how we have family centres, changing the whole nature and attitude of going to the prison estate. Some things cannot be dealt with and we can only mitigate because then the day going to a prison is fundamentally visiting a secure institution. That cannot be changed. We also have to be realistic in what we can expect from such an institution. It cannot be a hospital, a college, a nursery, a creche, an academic institution and expect to match all of those sectors in the outside world. What it does do, I think, is a remarkable job in trying to make sure that it provides as best it can for all the multiple issues that need to be dealt with. The SPS, I think, has taken that on board and, as I say, along with faith groups, family centres have changed. Good work is done not simply in terms of relationships with babies but in other aspects that I have seen. The work that has been done in terms of literacy and reading, certainly at Sochden, in terms of male prisoners interacting with their children and that is replicated elsewhere, is something to be supported. Even the use of, I cannot remember whether it is a boy's brigade of the scouts at Lomos, to try and normalise what can never be a normal situation in going to visit a parent in prison. It is all testimony to good work that is on board. There is, as others have said before me and Mary Fierce herself have said, work that has to be done. The minister, I have no doubt, will acknowledge that as do the SPS. Progress has been made. Some more information has to be found because we are in uncharted waters. Equally, my final comment, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that fundamentally we have to remember that we can mitigate, we can do as much as we can to normalise it, but at the end of the day, visiting anybody or having a child in prison is an abnormal situation. The best solution is that they do not go to prison in the first place. Many thanks. I now call on Jeane Baxter to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is an invaluable and important report. We should be grateful to the NSPCC and Bernardo's for undertaking the work to produce it and take heed of the considered recommendations that it contains. A child's future is heavily influenced by their time in the womb and the environment that surrounds them as an infant. Young children are heavily influenced by their surroundings. It is tragic to think of babies growing up in prisons and care due to parental imprisonment. They are innocent victims in the criminal justice system should do everything possible to mitigate the harm that they experience. One of the report's most worrying findings is that there is insufficient data on the scale of needs in this area. It is unacceptable that there has been little improvement in the quality of data since a UK Government review in 2007 described children of prisoners as invisible. We do know that in Scotland tens of thousands of children and young people under the age of 18 are affected by parental imprisonment each year. The report's approximation of between three and a half thousand and four thousand six hundred infants being affected by parental imprisonment a year is horrifying. It is unacceptable that estimations are necessary. This information should be collected and reported. Almost two thirds of female prisoners and over half of male prisoners are parents. For those who are currently pregnant or anti-natal, there is a body of evidence that they require a significantly higher level of medical intervention. That there are currently two further mother and baby units planned for the Scottish prison estate is a welcome development. Sadly, there's currently no mother and baby unit in five. This is an issue I'd like to see addressed in the future. Pregnant women need flexibility in relation to their healthcare and other practicalities. Simply because a woman is in prison does not mean that she does not need this flexibility. Some pregnant women have committed very serious offences and need to be in prison but we must take into account the impact that the conditions in which they are held have on their children. The problem of parental contact when a parent is in prison is raised by the report. A failure to maintain regular contact with the children is a serious barrier to successful post-release reunification. Failure to successfully reunite with the child is detrimental to the wellbeing of not only the child but also the parent, reducing the likelihood of rehabilitation and increasing the likelihood of recidivism. The recent development by the Scottish prison service of a national framework for setting standards for parenting in prisons is a welcome development. The reality is however that, with downward pressure on budgets and criminal justice, the strategy outlined in the framework may exist only on paper. The support required for parents in prison and their children is costly but clearly in line with the Scottish Government's stated strategy of preventative spending. Once an imprisoned mother gives birth to their baby, their babies are taken often taken into care. This is not done lightly. The report notes that, in the 12 months up to September 2013, six of the eight babies born in prison were taken into care. We must also, as in so many cases, respect kinship carers. Relatives, often grandparents, step into the breach to care for the children of imprisoned parents. Family support workers who work hard to provide as much support as possible to these carers can offer invaluable help to kinship carers. The report finds that provision to be sparse and inconsistent. Sadly, this is just one of the many ways that kinship carers are all too often let down by the system. There are some aspects of what we do in Scotland that are positive. That the NHS in Scotland is required to provide the same healthcare, including antenatal care, to mothers that are provided in the community is a good thing. We should welcome the fact that the two new mother and baby units are to be built here, and that we do not routinely reject applications from mothers to attend them, unlike in other parts of the United Kingdom. The issue obviously affects men, but the primary focus on the issue has to be women. We should bear in mind a key finding of the caution report that women and men are different. Equal treatment of men and women does not result in equal outcomes. According to a related report from the Quakers, women are more likely to be held on demand than men. The impact that that can have, even on those who have been acquitted, is enormous. As the Quakers report outlines, she may have lost her job, her home, her place on mental health, her drug rehabilitation programmes in the meantime. For children, having a mother placed in pre-child attention has many of the same effects as having a mother imprisoned following conviction. To conclude, I am pleased that the issue has been brought to the Parliament. The report shows us that there is clearly insufficient reporting and statistical requirements. The other core recommendations that are contained in the report are sensible and measured. The essence of the problem is that we do not have enough information and statistics on the issue, and we do not have co-ordination of planning on it. Deputy Presiding Officer, I begin by thanking Mary Fee for bringing a very important debate to the Parliament today. There is absolutely no doubt that the impact of the imprisonment of a parent and children is an issue that, at best, has not been given the prominence that it should have for far too long and, at worst, is virtually ignored. In terms of statistics, it is alarming and concerning that today in Scotland a staggering 27,000 children each year experience appearance imprisonment. To put that in perspective, and it is something that Kenny MacAskill referred to in his contribution, it equates to approximately twice as many children as experience appearance divorce in the same time frame. As the motion recognises, the impact of imprisonment affects the whole family in a number of ways. For example, children are likely to move house quite frequently. That can mean changing schools, being separated from friends. Very often, multiple care arrangements have to be put in place, and that can see the family being separated and broken up and siblings having to live apart. Inprisonment often attracts high-profile newspaper coverage about the individual and their crime. As teachers will testify the trauma and deep shame and sometimes bullying that these children then experience is clear to see and this can go on to result in a deterioration in behaviour and performance in school. In the worst-case scenario, it may develop into mental health and physical problems. Clearly, as the motion highlights, there are social, psychological and emotional impacts on the children as a result of a parent being imprisoned. Those are issues that are simply not being sufficiently addressed, which is why there is a desperate need for children to have impact assessments at the point of sentencing. It is disappointing therefore that Dame Angelini's commission report on women's offenders did not make a distinct recommendation on child impact assessments. That was because those child assessments are included in criminal justice social work reports, but they are not always available for every single case, which means that a child impact assessment is not always carried out. Nor do the criminal justice social work reports always include the detailed information about family circumstances or the impact on dependence. The NSP, CC and Barnardo are to be congratulated for the new report on unfair sentence, which analyses and highlights the detrimental impact of a custodial sentence on children under 2. Equally worrying is the Barnardo's report statistic of 65 per cent of boys with a parent in prison will then go on to offend themselves. I very much welcome the fact that Mary McPhee is seeking to address the adverse consequences of the impact on children of a parent being in prison with her proposed member's bill. It is also vitally important that judges at the point of sentence have regard to and available child impact assessments. I was very encouraged that the new cabinet secretary also recognised his point. I thank Mary McPhee for bringing this national society prevention cruelty to children and Barnardo's report on the unfair sentencing all children's count to the attention of the Scottish Parliament today. It is a pleasure to give my full support to this motion. Childhood and infancy in particular are crucial stages of development in a person's life. As we now know, every year in Scotland between 3400 to 4600 children under the age of two have a parent in prison. Time in prison is sometimes unavoidable. However, when we need to avoid what we need to avoid is children suffering for their parents wrongdoing. This report by the NSPCC and Barnardo shows the need to improve improved recognition identification and action for vulnerable children amongst us. Additionally, further research is needed regarding the development of under threes with parents in the criminal justice system. One would hope that all children in Scotland can have healthy and happy lives. Unfortunately, some infants like to once mentioned in the report have the dice loaded against them practically from the start of their lives. The issue surrounding women in the criminal justice system has been a concern of some time and Glasgow City Council has created the community justice authority to monitor and assist local parents with providing justice services to the community and to reduce re-offending. Such organisations can provide the basis of both support and future research into the need of babies' parents in the criminal justice system. I support Mary Fee in her pursuit of the response to this issue as the report informs us of the tragic reality for many children are facing today. Presiding Officer, I will be very interested to hear from the minister what she intends to do in view of the report in today's debate as clearly there needs to be more done to protect our young in society. May I also go on to say, Presiding Officer, that one of the issues in this whole situation is we're talking about young children and infants who are normally camouflaged with the needs of society today who are not on the radar, who are not identified readily and what then happens is they go on to grow up under a great deal of challenges that face them and their families. As a result, I believe that sometimes they can be seriously disadvantaged in society and therefore it is absolutely critical that we take all steps and measures to ensure that we do not allow them to fall into those traps. We as a community and a parliament have a moral responsibility to ensure their safeguard. I hope that the Government will assist Mary Fee in her bill to reach those conclusions. I congratulate Mary Fee for securing this debate, which follows on from the joint meeting yesterday of the cross-party groups on children of young people and children affected by parental imprisonment. I would also like to thank NSPCC and Bernardo for their valuable contribution to the matter. Their report builds on earlier work, including the Causton and Angelini reports. However, as other members have already highlighted, the statistics and analysis still do make stark reading, with up to 4,600 children under two affected by parental imprisonment each year in Scotland and two thirds of female prisoners and half of male prisoners who report having children. Those children have at least doubled the risk of mental health problems. They are three times more likely to be involved in antisocial or delinquent behaviour. The report highlights areas of good practice, but it sets challenges for the Government, prison service, NHS and other partners. First and foremost, to recognise infants affected by criminal justice processes is a vulnerable group. Identify them, become more aware of their needs and introduce a national action plan to ensure a co-ordinated multi-agency response to those. I know Mary Fee is seeking to secure progress on a number of those action points through a member's bill and a commender for that. I am happy to support her in that work. She might consider whether the impact should be understood even earlier on in the justice system, such as the remand stage. Parental contact during the early years is invaluable. It is when bonds are forged, stable loving relationships are established and parents need these opportunities to develop the skills, gain confidence and self-esteem. As Sir Harry Burns has said in a quote, unless we look after children properly, nurture them consistently, support them and their parents, who often do not know how to be parents, we will continue to fail and we will continue to reap the consequences in terms of criminality and poor health. That is why, for those whom prison is the only appropriate disposal, I also want to see a greater emphasis on developing parents' life skills. One in three young men' empowerment are fathers or expectant fathers. We need to equip them for that role. More peer support for the handful of women who give birth behind bars each year, they are deprived of the shared learning opportunities other parents normally experience at that time and perinatal healthcare needs to be brought up to the same standard as it is in the community. I was also pleased to see that the report highlighted the potential to extend compulsory statutory through-care services, currently only afforded to those serving four years or more. This would support thousands of more parents during their release and it would make families more resilient and improve reintegration. Of course, the best way to limit the impact of perinatal imprisonment is to reduce the number in prison in the first place. The collateral damage of sentencing policy is at the moment not measured or considered nearly enough. Just a third of women remanded in custody go on to receive any custodial sentence and, in 2011-12, four-fifths of women serve sentences of six months or less. Thousands of children are needlessly left behind each year because their mothers and fathers are given ineffective, disruptive short-term stints in custody. Alternatives such as community-based justice programmes and diversion from prosecution projects are often more successful in reducing reoffending. They are not soft options, but they help to preserve familial links and limit the damage on dependent children. We need to identify those in need and break the cycle of intergenerational trauma. There is only one chance to get this right for each and every child. A whole-family approach to the delivery of justice would not only protect the rights of children, but it would send a clear message that their needs must not be an afterthought. I congratulate Mary Fee and bring forward this important motion and welcome this report with its focus on babies and the criminal justice system, which can disrupt so disastrously the relationship with a parent at a particularly crucial time in the life of a young child. I say parents, but it is mothers that we need to focus on since we are told in the report that three quarters of children stay with their mother when their father is in prison, but only 5 per cent of children stay with the family home when the mother is in prison. I strongly support the first recommendation about formally identifying infants affected by the criminal justice system, and I strongly support the second recommendation about formally identifying women in prison as a specially vulnerable group. The problem was, however, because under the current arrangements, women tend to be incarcerated quite a long distance away from their home, so it is difficult to maintain the relationship with the mother and to rebuild it after release from prison. I hope that what does not happen now is what Margaret Mitchell and I learned when we went to the current and real with the Equal Opportunities Committee five years ago or so when we were shocked to be told that loss of a visit by a child could be used as a punishment for mothers in prison. Hopefully that does not happen again. I was very influenced on this particular subject by the inquiry that we did at that time for the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I have to say that I have also been very strongly influenced by the work of the organisation called CERCO, which is based in West Pilton in my constituency, but does superb work far further afield as well, of course, as with families in my constituency. I was pleased to see that CERCO was mentioned on page 35 of the report. In fact, there was quite a lot of information about their families affected by imprisonment service that works with women coming out of prison, but also works with carers of children who have a mother in prison and helps babies and children visit their mothers when they are in prison. I should say more generally that I think that the use of the voluntary sector in this kind of work is particularly appropriate. I think that this is more empowering for women in prison and coming out of prison, but of course sustained funding is very important for that work. However, from my conversations with CERCO that, ideally, they, like I am sure many others in the chamber and beyond, would rather than working with mothers from prison, we prefer to work with mothers in a range of alternatives to prison, whether that is diversion from prosecution or effective community sentences or other options, but certainly they do not work to be working, for example, with all the women that we have heard from Richard Simpson and others in remand, 70 per cent of whom never actually receive a sentence, but of course in the meantime the relationships with the family have broken down and children have been separated from the mother. When there must be prison, let us have local units near the family, let us have family visits at times that suit the family and in fact let us have funding for poorer families if they cannot afford regular visits. Of course, I welcome Mary Fee's bill and I wish her all the best in its progress. I hear what she says about family impact assessments after sentences and I certainly couldn't disagree with that, but I suppose that my last word is ideally I would like to see family impact assessments before sentencing because this issue is so important. I now call on the minister Fiona McLeod to close the debate on behalf of the government seven minutes or thereby please minister. I begin by thanking Mary Fee for bringing forward this motion for discussion this afternoon and also to thank all the members who signed it to allow it to be debated this afternoon to all those who have contributed to it. I think it's fair to say that we can start by saying that we all want Scotland to be the best place in the world for children to grow up and therefore the welfare of our children is of paramount importance. UN convention of the rights of the child sets out the fundamental rights that each and every child should enjoy irrespective of a child's family circumstances. For me, the debate is very timely because just last week the cabinet secretary for justice and I met the representatives from families outside Bernardo's and NSPCC to discuss the report in more detail. I would like to say that that was a very positive meeting but the top line that I took out of it was what one of the researchers said. We need to work out how we identify these babies and young people without stigmatising them and I think that that's a key thing that we have to take from this. It's something that Kenny MacAskill and Margaret Mitchell have alluded to in their comments. For me, listening to the report and reading the report, I think that identifying the child's needs without stigmatising the child is absolutely embedded in our getting it right for every child approach, which we legislated to make statutory in the Children and Young People Act last year because it's about all children and young people's needs, their wellbeing as paramount. My question to myself when I was thinking about this was, in everything that we are doing already for young children through GERFEC, through Children and Young People's Act, are we sure that everything that we are doing as a Government is also recognising and giving support to this particularly vulnerable group supporting these babies? The holistic definition of wellbeing means that all aspects of a child's life are considered, including parental and wider family circumstances, so I hope that that will mean that we capture out those babies. GERFEC is for all children, including this vulnerable group, such as the babies that are affected by parental imprisonment and wider justice system. We know that GERFEC works and that's why we legislated for it. One of the key points of that legislation, Children and Young People Act, I think, for all children, but for this vulnerable group of babies, is going to be the named person, because the named person will be the single point of contact from birth for children, parents and all the practitioners around those children. The named person will help to prevent any children who need extra help from slipping through the net. Those children who need required co-ordinated planning, those vulnerable babies will, means that they will have to have a child's plan managed by a lead professional to help them with that. My question was, are we doing everything that we can? I think that we are doing a lot, and I think that it's about making sure that when we are doing all those named person lead professionals child's plans that we always think about those vulnerable babies when we are doing it. The meeting last week agreed that I should go away and look at what's already happening and have a timeline of what we are doing. It was incredibly interesting for me to go and read about all the things that we are doing to support mothers, fathers and their children when the mothers or fathers are imprisoned. Just last night, I'm sure that other members were in the garden lobby to meet the people from the public social partnerships. That's funded by the £18 million reducing re-offending change fund. The six organisations that were there last night are absolutely fascinating, and I came away with a wealth of information, as I always do. Those organisations are providing mentoring for prisoners and for those who are liable to offend and re-offend. What I was most impressed about was going round every single stall and asking the question about what family support they had. Every single one talked about that being intrinsic to the work that they were doing with those young men and women. Meeting the folk from Shine, the women's mentoring service, inspirational work that they are doing—I can't name them all, but it really is interesting. Can I just make one particular reference? Speaking to the people from Chance to Change and not just speaking to the people who are working with the young folk, but speaking to a young woman called Caleigh, who wanted me to say today about how working with those people had made such a difference to her life as a young woman. That's the sort of thing that we should be looking at. Of course, Malcolm Chisholm knows a lot about the circle and the work that they're doing in Pilton. £75,000 from the early years policy units as a strategic funding partner. I know that Aileen Campbell, the minister, visited there on 21 March 2013 and was very impressed. In my reading, I found out that delivering triple P male parenting and, for me, the book bug scheme is very important to get parents working with their young babies. Lots of other areas that I could talk about where we are already doing work. The early years change fund has committed £420,000 to Barnardo's to continue the five to thrive project that is currently running in HM Prison Perth. Lots of others that I could mention but what I would like to do is quickly pick up on a few of the points that have been made and kind of run through what we were talking about today. We talked about data collection, Mary Fee, Richard Simpson, Jane Baxter and Malcolm Chisholm. I know that the Scottish Prison Service is looking at methods of being able to collect the information about prisoners that are parents. Currently, that is done at the care screening stage, but that relies on self-reporting. The Scottish Prison Service is looking at other ways that we can do this. A lot of folk talked about women offenders and being in prison. As members will know, since we made the decision not to go ahead with HMP Inverclyde, the Government has embarked on an extensive consultation. Particularly with reference to women offenders, it is looking at how we can have more local provision for women who have to go to prison or community provision for them. I wanted to talk about the child impact assessments if I may, Presiding Officer, because I think that it is important to quote from Dame Eilish Angiolini when she was at the Justice Committee on 26 June 2012, when she said, "...we must move away from creating more bureaucracy, more reports, and look at what would make a difference to the sentencing process. Consideration of children should be critical to that process, but I believe that such issues should arise out of the professional's training. It should be their bread and butter. That is how social workers, deventsilisters and judges should approach the matter. I would hope that GERFIC makes it a bread and butter issue. The point that I have tried to make all along in relation to child impact assessments is that I acknowledge that, in some cases, they are done, but the focus is on the offender, not the child. We need to move that focus to the child if we are ever to make a real difference. I would take my opening remarks about all the provisions under the Children and Young People's Act with the named person and the child's plans. When Damage Eilish Angiolini talks about it being a bread and butter, it is a bread and butter. GERFIC means that it is a bread and butter. In conclusion, I thank you for the extra time. It is clear that we all have an active role to play in delivering the support that those in our care require. We are committed to working with both the men, the women, their families, their communities and all our partners in order to encourage and maintain meaningful family contact throughout anybody's time in custody.