 Good morning, everybody. Can I welcome everybody to the 20th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2014? Can I remind all those present at electronic devices, particularly mobile phones, should be switched off because they interfere with the sound system? Apologies for having received this morning from Claire Adamson and I welcome Joan McAlpine for the second week in a row, but I'm substituting for Claire this morning. Thanks very much for coming along, Joan. We've got a note from Liam, whose transport has been slightly disrupted but we believe that he's on his way and will be here soon. We've got apologies from Mary Scanlon as well. The first item on our agenda is to take evidence on the public appointments and public bodies etc. Scotland Act 2003, treatment of the convener of the school closure review panels at specified authority order 2014. Can I welcome Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and his supporting officials from the Scottish Government? After we have taken evidence on the instruments, we will debate the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary and officials are, of course, as I'm sure they're aware, not permitted to contribute to the formal debate. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks? Thank you, convener. This instrument is required in preparation for the appointment of the convener of the school closure review panels. At present, school closure proposals have been called in and determined by Scottish ministers in terms of the schools consultation Scotland Act 2010, section 16. Amendments to the schools consultation Scotland Act 2010, made by the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, will change that process by referring school closure proposals called in by Scottish ministers to the convener of the school closure review panels. The convener is a public appointment and one of their key roles will be to appoint a pool of people to be panel members and to select three members to form a school closure review panel to determine each case that is referred to the convener. Although other amendments to schools consultation Scotland Act 2010 came into force on 1 August 2014, the provisions to establish the functions of the convener of the school closure review panels and the panels themselves are not due to be brought into force until March 2015, as those require more preparation in relation to appointments and training of panel members. It's desirable for this order to come into force before the process of appointing the convener begins in order that the appointment process is regulated by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland and in order that the process can comply with the code of practice prepared and published by the commissioner under section 2 of the public appointments and public bodies etc. Scotland Act 2003. Regulations making provision for or about the eligibility for and disqualification from appointment as convener and as panel members, their tenure, removal from office and the payment of salary fees and allowances in terms of paragraphs 1, 9 and 2, 5 of new schedule 2A to the 2010 act are to be made and laid in Parliament in early October 2014, prior to the date of the publication of the advertisement for the convener's post with a commencement order being laid in Parliament in November 2014, which would commence the relevant provisions in the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 on the appointment of the convener and panels, as well as various other provisions in January 2015. We aim therefore to complete the appointments process and the necessary training and preparation to allow the convener and the school closure review panels to be in place and to take up their functions from March 2015. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Do any members have any questions? Neil? Thanks. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I just wanted to ask you what will happen if you do not like the decision made by the review body? Well, it will be a decision that is final. That's why we've got this here. There are many things in the world that people don't like. There is a legal process, and the legal process that we are putting in place will lead to a proper and justifiable set of decisions taken in the most transparent manner possible. Thank you. Any other members wish to ask any questions at this point? Okay. We now move on, therefore, to the formal debate on the instrument, which is item 2. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion? I think that I've made as much of this as I possibly can in giving you the detail that I have. I've just moved the motion. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Any contributions from members? Nope. I don't suppose that you want to respond to that, then, cabinet secretary. I'm not even tempted. Thank you very much, then. We therefore have the question, which is that motion S4M-10645 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I know that you will be staying with us. Is there a change in your officials? There is a change in my officials. I'm sorry. I was just saying that I wanted if Janet's journey was strictly necessary, but I'm very glad that she was here. Thank you. Can we just change officials? I will just suspend briefly while you change officials. Our next item is to take evidence on the Lanarkshire Collegy's Order 2014. Cabinet secretary, for his continued presence, I can also welcome the officials for this particular item. Again, after we've taken evidence from the cabinet secretary on this item, we will have a debate in the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary. I can confirm that, again, that officials will not be permitted to contribute to the formal debate. Can I welcome Liam McArthur to the committee this morning? I know that you're a transport rather hell job, but I'm glad that you've made it. I can invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks. Conveno, this draft order is one of a series of orders that put in place the new regional structure for colleges, part of the implementation of the Post-16 Education Scotland Act 2013. This new structure will support colleges to be more responsive to the needs of learners and employers, to improve the life chances of our young people, to support Scotland's economic ambitions and to create a more sustainable and secure system. As the committee is aware, there are 13 college regions, each of which is to have a single body responsible for regional outcomes. Orders have already been made for 12. This order would put in place arrangements for the final college region Lanarkshire. Lanarkshire is one of only three regions with more than one college. In each of these regions, a regional strategic body will plan and distribute funding on a regional basis. The order would see Lanarkshire uniquely with a regional strategic body that is a college, a new college in Lanarkshire. Having listened carefully to the sector, I am persuaded that this arrangement will best deliver for learners and businesses in Lanarkshire. This is the regional structure both colleges in the region want. This is not their solution, but it is one that I am pleased to endorse. It is a Lanarkshire solution made in Lanarkshire. In addition to making new college Lanarkshire the regional strategic body, the order does a number of things that flow from this. It assigns the other college in the region, South Lanarkshire College, to the regional strategic body. Speaking of South Lanarkshire College, I look forward later this month to cutting the first sod in their new state of the art 2.1 million teaching block. That is the latest in a long line of investments that we have made in college estates and in Lanarkshire. The order makes new college Lanarkshire a regional college. Being both a regional strategic body and a regional college means that new college Lanarkshire will have regional functions in relation to the two colleges in the region. It broadens the membership of the board of new college Lanarkshire to include members from South Lanarkshire College in recognition of its new responsibilities. Finally, it removes the entry and legislation to the regional board for Lanarkshire colleges, a body that, of course, has not come into being. I mentioned earlier that I had been persuaded of the case for new college Lanarkshire taking on regional responsibilities. Let me convene if I might touch on how my thinking has evolved as the plans have changed as a result of changed circumstances and to deliver the structure that colleges in the region actually want. We had initially planned to establish a regional board that is a particular type of regional strategic body which is a standalone organisation. When this bill was introduced, there were to be four colleges in the region. When it was passed, there were to be three. However, by the time it has come round to consulting on assigning colleges, there were to be only two. Given these changes, it would have been remiss not to consult on whether a regional board remained the optimal structure for the region. After careful deliberation, the colleges in the region have ultimately recommended that making new college Lanarkshire a regional strategic body instead. I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of all concerned in the two colleges and beyond, including and especially the region's presumptive chair, the patient and tireless Linda McTavish, in developing the plans for Lanarkshire, plans that avoid creating a new standalone public body. The arrangements require close partnership working with new college Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire College. They call on Stuart McKillop, the principal of South Lanarkshire College and Mike Maguire, the principal of new college to work particularly closely together. I am sure that they will, because those plans are very much the product of their thinking and co-operation. I have every confidence in the colleges and those principles. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee has. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before I throw it out to members on any questions that they may have, can I raise one point that I noticed in the policy note that accompanies the Order at Paragraph 11? It talks about ministers making a separate order. Basically, what it seems to be a suggestion is that the South Lanarkshire College will remain eligible and principal for funding from the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council until it is satisfied that the new arrangements are working well. I am not aware that that took place elsewhere. Could you give us some background as to why that particular arrangement— There can only be one fundable body within a region. That is the regional strategic body. We presently will have two fundable bodies, and we want to move to one. But I think that it is right that we do so once we make sure that the funding arrangement is working well. At the heart of this is a new structure that requires the money to be routed through the new regional college to another college. Both principles are quite confident in that. We are all confident in that. The funding council needs to know by law that it is working well. We will bring forward a proposal to remove South Lanarkshire College from the funding fundable body, but we want to be assured that the funding council needs to be assured, in actual fact, that it is working properly. That is the arrangement that we are taking. Thank you very much, Neil. I have also got a question about the policy note in Paragraph 17. It says, overall, no consensus emerges from the consultation about the type of regional strategic body in Lanarkshire. Can I ask what the issues were in the consultation, and what was the pattern of response that led to there being no overall consensus? At the time that the colleges were looking at this proposal and needed more time to understand the implications of what it would be for New College Lanarkshire to be another regional strategic body, rather than for to be a regional body. At the time that the colleges had identified issues such as a conflict of interest that might arise because of the dual function of New College Lanarkshire and other issues along those lines. So, when South Lanarkshire College responded to the consultation, they had expressed those concerns. Those were the concerns that the colleges themselves worked through to deliver the solution of the proposal that is now in the draft order. Thank you. Any other members have any questions at this stage? No, thank you. Moving on to the formal debate on the instrument, which is item 4 on our agenda, can I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion? Can I just very briefly quote the two principles that I think you deserve to be quoted in this matter? Martin McGuire, the Prince of New College Lanarkshire, says that he supports the proposed governance model for Lanarkshire, believes that it will provide a more streamlined, cost-effective arrangement that will remove unnecessary bureaucracy whilst improving effectiveness. Stuart McKillop, the principal of South Lanarkshire College, says that South Lanarkshire College is supportive of the proposed structure to deliver college provision across the Lanarkshire region. Those arrangements will deliver the best possible educational outcomes for the students within the region. He went on to comment regarding the fact that I had made a commitment that I wouldn't force a merger and he felt that I had been true to my word on that. This is a solution developed by the colleges. As Colbert has said, they have worked through the issues very thoroughly. I commend the work that has been done and I am very pleased to move the motion in my name. Any contributions from members' stage? No? No response required, cabinet secretary. I presume. Can I put the question there for that motion S4M-10643 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We're agreed, yes. Thank you very much. Can I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance and can I suspend briefly? The next item today is to continue our follow-up from the inquiry into decision-making on whether to take children into care. We published our report almost a year ago and it gave a clear commitment to return to the issues so that we can understand the progress that we hope is being made. Can I welcome to committee this morning David Blair, who is head of the looked after children unit at the Scottish Government. Last week Mr Blair, you will have heard of course that we heard from very moving evidence in fact from young people who had been through the care system and of course their experiences. We also heard from Who Care Scotland. I think that those young people had quite a lot to cope with and some of the evidence that we received was very shocking in its nature and their experiences very emotionally scarring to them, I'm sure, and their friends and family. Obviously those were the very reasons that we wanted to embark on the inquiry in the first place and to ensure that such care experiences improve in the future. I think that all committee members were very moved by the evidence that we received last week and of course the evidence that we received during our inquiry. Today of course is an opportunity for members to raise issues with the Scottish Government and we hopefully want to focus on the issues, rather than on the questions that we put to the Government and the responses that we have received thus far and obviously all of the material that we published is part of our report into our inquiry. I'm going to invite now members to indicate what questions they wish to start off with, but I know that Colin, you have a question, so we'll start with Colin. Sorry, I apologise, sorry. David, did you want an opening statement? I didn't have one. You do have one, so I'm sorry, but it's okay then. We want to presume. Good morning, by the way. This is only three minutes' worth, by the way. Thank you, convener. The Scottish Government's priorities are threefold, intervening earlier and more effectively, building on the assets within families to prevent children becoming looked after where possible, securing earlier permanence by reducing long-term supervision and enhancing the quality of care through corporate parenting for those who need it, including a planned and supported transition to independence at a time that is right for each young person. There are four aspects to our approach, child-centred thinking and listening to what young people say, encouraging collaborative effort, gathering and using evidence and empowering those at the front line. Through our approach, all attention is focused on the changes close to each child and not the system itself. The cumulative effect of each small improvement leads to a better system. For families on the edge of care, we are introducing a comprehensive framework towards enshrining early intervention, particularly for those who want help. This is through the Children and Young People Act GERFEC provisions, part 5 children's service planning, part 12 services for families with the child at risk of becoming looked after and our joint strategic commissioning programme. On early permanence, we intend to mandate the permanence tracking of all looked after children, spreading important learning from our permanence and care excellence programme. We will put pressure on reducing long-term supervision in favour of secure legal permanence like adoption, permanence and kinship care orders and sustainable home returns. Turning to the role of data, we monitor overall progress through our national statistics, mainly the children looked after statistics and those from other public bodies. Throughout the activities that I have mentioned, PACE and the joint strategic commissioning programme, high quality data is systematically collected for use within each project. At a national level, we are actively exploring building a national permanent data set, and we intend to publish a wider data strategy shortly. Finally, in corporate parenting, recognising the importance of strong, positive relationships to young people, we are taking forward our national mentoring programme. That will work with the grain of the Children and Young People Act measures and act as a significant step towards further participation of care experienced young people. Our experience passing the continuing care measures in the Children and Young People Bill, as it was, taught us that we need to do things collaboratively and with young people at the table. In that regard, we are working with Who Cares and its Care Experience Young People on an enhanced corporate parenting training programme to make sure that corporate parents are ready for the new act next year, and we have asked ourselves to lead on the guidance writing. In summary, we have a very full and ambitious agenda. Our programmes reflect the change that is required in the care system, and those are drawn from the evidence of underlying needs. The committee has played a role in clarifying what those needs are. I hope that brief summary was helpful. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you very much, David. I apologise for forgetting that you had an opening statement. I did have it written down. I just have a read my own notes. Colin Smyth. Thank you, Peter. I have got a couple of points that I would like to bring up. The first is in relation to legal representation at children's hearings, which is a constant refrain that we have heard brought up. Most recently, in the recent submission by Social Work Scotland, page 25, paragraph 4.1, concerns have been expressed that most frequently parents are represented by their legal representatives at children's hearings, and that legal arguments to and fro can dominate these children's hearings. The people that are running these hearings are not necessarily legally trained, nor, as I understand it, the way in which the children's hearings were structured. Was it intended to be a courtroom? The result is that comment has been made that, in many cases, the interests of the child are somewhat ignored or forgotten in the exchanges with the lawyers. Given that Gerfek quite rightly wants to put the child at the centre of everything and decisions on the child at the centre of everything, how can that be managed? How can that be made more effective? I think that there are a number of ways that you could answer that question. I think that Gerfek will have an important role to play in. I think that we have to give it time to bed in. I think that touching on something that Ashley Cameron has referred to is the need to have a trusted adult in the life of every care-experienced young person. I think that that is sometimes missing when hearings are called. You will have heard the stories as well as I have of children and young people who appear at panels where it is a room largely full of strangers. That creates a difficult environment for young people to express themselves in a positive way. I think that what often can come out is the views of the young person from a point of view of fear and rejection of a system that they do not understand. I suppose that that is part of the motivation of why we wanted to introduce the national mentoring scheme. It is one possible contribution towards addressing that problem of not every young person having a trusted positive adult role model, someone they can turn to, someone who they trust to advocate for them. I do not want to overplay that, but it is an important aspect. I think that the other thing with the children's hearing system is that it is a relatively newly reformed system. There is now a multi-agency programme board working to a clear blueprint, and a formal review of the legislation that is expected in spring 2015. That is the mechanism by which we will ensure that the system is suitable for young people, but we would encourage young people to take part in that. I hear what you say. Are we just relying on Girfech in effect to remedy that, because everybody will be focused on the child? We are also hearing in past meetings that members who are present—I am talking about members of the children's hearing who are present—and social workers feel intimidated by the fact that there is this legal representation. They do not have that background themselves. They have no way really to discuss, debate or refute any of the points that are being made. The danger is apparently that it descends into an argument between two lawyers who are really representing, in many cases, two different parents. The child is someplace there in the middle. Will Girfech itself be capable of handling that? I think that Girfech has a role to play along with a number of different things. I think that it says a lot that we are open to continuing to evolve the children's hearing system. I do not think that it is ever going to reach a steady state, but I think that the fact that we have a multi-agency programme board looking at how we can better improve it is the mechanism by which we would evolve that system. There is a natural tension between the welfare-based principle and the rights-based agenda. It is not an unmanageable one, but it is one that we need to be vigilant about. I think that the occasional review such as through the programme board is an opportunity to do just that. I think that it is clear that more work needs to be done on that particular aspect to ensure that the child is kept at the very centre of what is happening at the children's hearing. I have members who want to supplement the children's hearing. I think that Colin Smyth very accurately set out some of the concerns that were put to us during the inquiry about creating a kind of courtroom atmosphere out of the hearing system. However, it was not clear to me, even after the inquiry that we undertook, the extent to which hearing panels were not following the advice to what extent we had a mismatch between social works, expertise and judgement and advice and the decisions being reached by panels. Is there anything that any kind of evidence or data that you could draw that maybe suggests the extent to which there may be a mismatch that panels may be opting to not follow in whole or in part the advice being led by social work? We do not collect data nationally on that particular issue and on a number of other issues. I think that we, as I remember the last time we gave evidence that the Children's Hearings Act was too new to report on that there are a lot of changes and the system was in flux. One of the things that has really only recently come about is the existence of the Children's Hearings Scotland organisation. I think that that is probably the best answer to your question, is that they will be better placed than the system in the past to be able to monitor that dynamic, that issue. I know drawing parallels between what I see locally and any national picture is fraught with difficulties, but it appears to me that where decisions are perhaps being either overturned or at least questioned, often arises when decisions are taken before the sheriff, rather than necessarily by the Children's Hearing panel themselves. I wonder whether what we are getting is a conflating of two different dynamics within the process. I'm not quite sure. Are you suggesting that the courtroom approach is working its way into the hearing system? No, one would have thought that if the concern that social workers have that, in a sense, panel members are inclined to be influenced unduly by representations from those representatives, solicitors representing parents, then that would be reflected in panels either going against the recommendations of social work. I'm not sure whether we've seen a pattern of that happening and whether what is more likely is that when decisions from hearings come before a sheriff, it is at that point that those decisions are either overturned or that questions are asked of decisions that have been taken. I think that there are a number of different ways that you could probably answer that question. I think that the social work profession has, I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the social work profession, I should say, but I know that there are a number of concerns about social work being marginalised in the decision making process that recommendations are not necessarily adhered to or agreed with. I think that that has to come down to how the system works. We have to have the trust in the system as a new system to run it in. I think that we have to invest in the improvement agenda with a new programme board that is looking at the system. It is only really a year old and its current forum and CHS has a very strong role to play in ensuring that panel decisions are adhered to. I think that that's really all that I want to say on the subject. The other point that I wanted to discuss was data collection. The committee's report called on the Scottish Government as a matter of priority to collect more detailed data and a quote that would provide a fuller picture of looked after children's incomes outcomes and allow for judgment to be made on whether interventions have been successful. The response was that the Scottish Government has undertaken a data review for looked after children confirming that the data that we currently collect is lacking. The obvious question is, what's happening? The review that we did was prompted by the work of the committee. When we last gave evidence, our ambition was somewhat similar to the committee's in the sense that we wanted to see what we could link up in terms of the national data sets across Government. To put it in summary, what we discovered was that the linking is considerably more complicated than we thought. Part of the reason for that is the way that historically data sets have been crafted by different public bodies over many, many years. Some are more narrative, some are more quantitative. It's a very difficult task and that's why we put it into our wider data strategy. We think that that's going to require necessarily a long time and we're going to have to commit to the graft to make that happen. What we've done is prioritise the bit that's most important to us in terms of our agenda, and that's the permanence agenda. That's why we're meeting later in the month with a number of relevant public bodies to talk about creating a national permanence data set so that we can track the whole permanence process at a national level. The aim of that is to be able to have a barometer of the health of the permanent bit of the care system, because it's such a good proxy for a number of other things in terms of reform. It's worth pointing out that national data is one thing, but it's really, really important if you're driving a reform agenda that you collect really good quality local data. Through the PACE programme, which you've heard a little bit about, data is collected, high-quality data on each of the changes as the programme evolves. That data is fundamental to the local changes and to determining what improvement is being achieved. Through the joint strategic commissioning programme, part of that programme is about collecting very high-quality data across the whole of a local area. The idea is to reverse-engineer the medium-term services that you need in your children's services. That data is very high-quality as well. There are a number of strands to our data approach that have evolved from the initial discussions that we had with the committee, which go beyond just the Scottish Government leading the effort. What are the timescales on that? On the permanence data set, a lot of it will come down to what our partner says is achievable. I think that this is a step that we perhaps didn't invest much enough time in before. We'll have to write back to you on what comes out of that meeting if that's helpful. On the joint strategic commissioning and PACE, those programmes are respectively just about to start and have started. There is data already being collected in two local authority areas in PACE. We're about to expand that as we go around the country. We have a timescale for allowing every local authority to take part should they wish of about three years, which we think is a reasonable timescale. If we can do it faster, we will. On joint strategic commissioning, it's a very intensive data collection exercise, but it's very high-quality and only needs to be done every now and then. That programme is just signed off and that will be starting with three local authority areas this autumn when the schools go back. It sounds like you're in the very early stages of putting in place the capability to gather together all the data that's needed. It's a very important area, as the committee has highlighted. I wonder, convener, if we could ask maybe for the Scottish Government to come back to us as this proceeds so that we're aware of what's happening? I think that's not unreasonable, David, given the priority that the committee gave in our evidence take. Just to follow up from what Colin said, I'm going to bring Neil in in a moment, but just a question for myself. I don't mean to go outward, but unfortunately for you, it's in my nature. We did say in our inquiry that we felt that this was a matter of priority. What I've read in your response and what you've said today are a lot of nice phrases about things like you're going to meet to discuss data collection, you're working hard to think about it, you're strategising about it, lots of stuff is going to happen at some point in the future. We felt that this was a matter of priority. It's a year to give or take a week or two since we published our report. Is that a priority for the Government, given the time that has already passed and what you've just said? It is. It's worth just clarifying where we've invested our time and effort, because since the committee last time, we hadn't started joint strategic commissioning and we had not conducted the review that we had. I need to emphasise a bit the complexity of the task of joining up data nationally and reflect on the fact that the Scottish Government's role as we see it is very much one of supporting the ground to be able to improve their own systems in situ. That's why we've invested our time in those two change programmes. They're comprehensive change programmes that will make a massive difference in a relatively short space of time. It does take time to set up those programmes and the data that will come from those programmes is something that can be shared with other bodies locally to improve their permanent systems. We think it's been time well spent to invest in those programmes because fundamentally what matters is that decision makers locally have the right data to improve their systems. That is something that is fundamentally missing from social work planning when it comes to things like the care system. The minister's submission to the committee said that we have seen some signs of improvements for our looked-after children. Leading on from the issues around data, I want to ask you about the education outcomes for looked-after children statistics, which show a drop in attainment tariff scores and the percentage of looked-after children in positive destinations from 2011-12 to 2013. I accept and acknowledge that they've increased from the figures that were there in 2009-10, but in attainment tariff scores they've increased every year from 2009-10 to 2012-13 for children who aren't looked-after and the same increase in positive destinations for non-looked-after children have increased every year. However, in 2011-12 the attainment score for looked-after children was 106. It fell to 86 in 2012-13 and the percentage of looked-after children going to positive destinations was 75% in 2012 and is 71% in 2013. I acknowledge that that is an increase from 2009-10, but the most recent statistics for the two years that we have show a decrease so that cannot be viewed as an improvement over the last year that we have statistics for. Have you got an explanation from the Government as to why that is? Why is that decrease on 2011-12, 2012-13 and at the same time there's an increase in non-looked-after children as well? You're right to point out that there's been a steady increase in a number of those criteria in terms of tariff scores, attendance and exclusion over a number of years and then there is what looks like a dip in the last year. We've asked our analytical colleagues for some advice on that. It doesn't entirely chime with our sense of how things are moving and we think that there might have been a statistical aspect to the blip. What we published was the second year of the two-year collection cycle and what we said when we published the previous years, if you look into the children looked-after statistics, sorry, the educational statistics, we cautioned that because that was the first year of the two-year collection cycle it might have exaggerated the figures and it looks like that could have happened based on the figures that we got this year. The sample size in the two-year samples is twice that of the previous collection and we think that that's possibly ironed out the vagaries that you might get from a lower sample size. We're not convinced yet that the statistics are detecting an underlying change. We would want to run it for another couple of years. Certainly we'd want the next one to see whether, in fact, there was a blip. In effect, the previous one was perhaps too high. We don't actually know where we're checking into that. Is there any reason why the blip over one year is not in keeping with the increase for non-looked-after children in the same year? The sample size for a non-looked-after children is vast. It's statistically valid in every way. For a looked-after children, the numbers are in the small hundreds. One of the problems that we have is that we've moved from a one-year and annual two-year sampling. We need to run this one for a bit longer. Obviously, it draws the importance of collecting data, analysing data and having that as quickly as possible. I hear what you're saying that we'll need to wait until next year to see if that was a blip. However, as the convener said, the convener was right to point out that the issue of analysing data is important for the committee. We want to see how effective those strategies are. It is concerning that the statistics of the last year granted that there's been an increase since 2009. It would have been helpful had the Government pointed out some of those things in its written response to put some caveats around those numbers, because many of us were puzzled by that blip if that's what we're calling it, if it is a blip or if it's an actual trend in the wrong direction. It would have been helpful if that had been included. Many of us wouldn't have spent the last two weeks puzzling as to why that had happened. However, I suspect that you may well be right in terms of sample size and the anomaly that it may have created. However, it would have been helpful had that been included. Gordon MacDonald. Morning, David. I want to talk on the subject of independent advocacy. In your opening statement, you mentioned the importance of child-centred thinking and listening to what children say. In the Scottish Government's written evidence, it made a commitment to increase the quality, consistency and availability of advocacy, support for all children and young people, including looked after children. What steps are the Government taking to meet that commitment? I suppose that it's worth referring to what we said in the minister's letter. We published the independent advocacy guide for commissioners, including principles and standards for independent advocacy in December. In June this year, we supplemented that with an online resource on our website, offering guidance for anyone who advocates for children and young people. You'll be aware that we've yet to commend section 122 of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011, which relates to access to advocacy services for children attending the children's hearing system. Officials have undertaken detailed discussions with relevant partners to scope out a range of models and consider possible future options for advocacy services for children in the modernised children's hearing system. We'll commend section 122 when we're satisfied that new services can be suitably designed and sustainably resourced for the young people within the hearing system that want and need this provision. There are a number of other circumstances where advocacy is available in terms of mental health legislation and also educational support for learning legislation. One of the things that we're doing to try to advance the agenda is through the national mentoring programme. We see advocacy as a spectrum of participation. If you go from the parenting approach on one side to a young person being able to fully advocate for themselves on the other side, you've got independent advocacy in there at the sharp end, but you also have a much broader, shallower need for young people to have a trusted adult in their life. We think that it's worth investing in that in the first instance because there's a sort of analogy about if you do that bit, you're investing early and effectively, and then you set up a system to introduce a more comprehensive independent advocacy element to that. Our plan is sort of multi-layered and staged, but that's where we're focusing our effort at the moment. Last week, the young people who spoke highlighted a number of comments about getting their voices heard. They said that decisions were being made about their life. I was not included in decisions, rather they were made about me. They were not at the heart of the decision-making process. How confident are you that the range of models that you spoke about will ensure that children's voices are heard? Is it the intention of the Government to at least provide, as a minimum standard, a trusted adult or advocate for all looked after children? The short answer to your question is yes, in principle. Through the national mentoring scheme, we think that that can play a big role in fulfilling some of that unmet need. It's important to say some. It's an important programme. We're starting with children looked after at home who have the least contact with professionals in their life. We're starting with a particular age group who have reported sensitivities to us about attending hearings, so that's your eight to fourteen-year-olds. That's the group that we're starting with, with the national mentoring programme. In the background to that, you have getting a right for every child. I think that if we went forward a few years, you would expect to see professionals being much more able to help a young person to express their views. In the context of that, we would be looking to bolster our independent advocacy offering to young people. Those things have a timeline. Who cares Scotland in their evidence last week said that they have access to only 15 per cent of the looked after care experienced young people in this country. What proportion of looked after children across the 32 local authorities have access to independent advocacy at the present moment? I don't know. There's a legal duty to hear the voice of the young person. It's well understood that local authorities should have some access made available to young people in their area when required, but it is a matter for local authorities to plan that. Is that information available? Not through national statistics, but it's something that can be found out. Given that we're intending to expand the national mentoring scheme and provide trusted adult in a form of advocacy, is there any estimates on the number of training places that are required to provide the number of trusted adults that would be required, and what resources would be needed in order to fulfil that obligation? We're investing in the design of the scheme carefully. We've just appointed a professional adviser to help us to scope all those aspects. One of the things that we're very alert to is the idea that there are lots of small-scale, good schemes around the country over many years. They run for a couple of years, the funding runs out, or they run for a couple of years and the funder changes their criteria and you have to change your model and you lose the baby that gets thrown out of the bathwater. What we're trying to do is overcome all those things with consistent national funding and standards through the national mentoring programme, but through local organisations, community-based organisations, and that's drawn from the comments that we've received throughout this process and from the likes of Who Cares. All of that needs to be scoped. It's a very ambitious programme, but we're committed to doing that and we're happy to keep the committee informed as we go. Thanks very much. Thanks, Gordon. You said, David, that there's a legal right for it that a children's voice must be heard in this process. How do you know if a local authority is meeting that right? We don't collect statistics on that in the same way that we don't collect statistics on every duty that applies to local authorities. Some information was collected through the work that I mentioned in the minister's letter through the advocacy strategy. We haven't collected anything recently, but it's something that we would want to do through setting up a mentoring programme to make sure that we were matching the scheme dynamic to what the need was out in the field. The indication or the view of some that we've heard from is that the legal right that children now have to be heard is not being met by some local authorities. If that's the case, surely it's the duty of the Government to find out which local authorities are not meeting that legal duty and deal with that particular situation? I think that it's the role of the Government to set the framework and create expectations. If it's a legal duty that the children's voice must be heard, how is that monitored? It's monitored in the normal course of things through the inspection framework. It should be, and it is a component part of the inspection system that advocacy systems are tested in some way. We have the normal system to check on that. I've heard representation from the care sector that advocacy is not consistent across the whole country. In some cases, it's been proved to me that at least one local authority has no advocacy. It is something that concerns us if there was a legal duty that wasn't being met. We would expect the inspection system to pick that up, but our answer to that is to try to improve the system. The range of activities that have been outlined in getting right for every child and the national mentoring programme are a big step in the right direction. There is a tension locally with local authorities who provide their own advocacy service and are also responsible for funding the services to a young person. That's part of what we're trying to resolve with the national mentoring programme, which is to move the dynamic towards a national funding model so that that tension is removed and that we can have a more comprehensive, trusted and positive adult role model in the life of as many children as possible and, in principle, all children in care and possibly beyond. That's a longer term aspect. There are a number of problems with the system. There is going by testimony from a number of bodies that are deficit in the sector, but we also have a positive and meaningful programme of work to try and improve it. The reason that I asked the question is that it has put to us as well as a committee that one authority—other authorities may be doing better than others, and I'm sure that there's a range of services available, but one authority has no advocacy service. You said the same statement had been put to you in your role. Probably by the same person. Possibly by the same person. What did you do to investigate that? We haven't investigated that just now, but that's part of the work that I want our professional adviser to take on when they start in a few weeks' time when they're designing the national mentoring programme, because what we want them to do is link up with our colleagues in children's hearings who are looking at implementation of section 122 and a few other policy areas where advocacy is a concern, and to bring together the thinking on advocacy and mentoring and that whole spectrum of participation. One of the first things they'll have to do is take stock of advocacy provision in the country, and I think it's best to put it in their hands, so we're talking about a few weeks before that. Will that information then be available to this committee? Once we do a troll, we can certainly pass that on, yes. It's just following up on the convener's line of questioning there. Presumably the work that we've done will also look at the resources that have been allocated centrally through for advocacy services. My understanding is that those in the context of Orkney, for example, look fairly modest, albeit that I don't think there's any complaint in an Orkney context. There isn't independent advocacy available, and indeed the local authority isn't ensuring that that is taken up or awareness is raised of it. I would hope that that forms part of the review that your expert has been taking on to carry out. Could I also ask that specific attention is given as part of that process to looking at the dynamics in smaller, particularly rural, local authorities, where I think the opportunities for independent advocacy are going to be different. I think there may be greater challenges, but nevertheless I think there's a particular dynamic that can't simply be swept up in a catch-all analysis of advocacy across the board, because I think the availability of some of those who provide services largely nationwide, you'll find that there are occasional blind spots and many of those will be in island and rural authorities. It's more a plea than a question that that has taken up as a specific work stream within the work that your expert is carrying out. That's a perfectly fair point. It's a point that's been made before, and that's part of the reason why we didn't want to construct our completely centralised scheme. What we wanted to do was centralise the bits that made sense, so the funding, the national standards, the quality assurance, the vetting of volunteer mentors, but then work through community-based organisations. Ideally, there will be a large number of community-based organisations in every part of the country as the scheme rolls forward, so I'd hope that that would be picked up. The point around funding and national standards is, again, would that be something where, for example, if funding is allocated on a per capita basis in relation to need, it doesn't necessarily reflect the fact that you have a baseline cost in order to establish a service that you just can't get away from, so unless you factor that in and then have a per capita funding allocation over and above that, you're likely to leave some areas with a pot of funding with which they can do very little. I think, again, that's a very valid point. The scheme will have to reach critical massive funding to make that all stack up, but yes, we're receptive to arguments of that nature, but the funding would go to community advocacy and mentoring organisations, so we'll work with those existing organisations, but yes, that's a reasonable point that we'll take on board. Okay, thank you, Liam. Jane Baxter. Last week, when we heard evidence from Care Experience, young people from Who Care Scotland, many of them spoke about the importance of sibling contact. They need to have sibling contact and the difference that can make in young people's experiences, how that's managed, how that's provided or how that's denied. In the course of the Children and Young People's Bill, there were proposals put forward to enable sibling contact, and they weren't successful, but at the time of that being dealt with through guidance. Can you give any clues to what's happening about that guidance? What's the time to go for it? Is there any progress to be made about the development of that guidance? I remember the proposals and I remember the debate. The proposals didn't succeed partly because it wasn't clear how we would square the views and the rights of the siblings should contact not be in their interests. That's not something that can't be resolved, but it seemed better to leave that in the hands of professionals to make that professional judgment than to make it a statutory function. The guidance is under way. We're working with a number of stakeholders on that. I'm happy to write to the committee on exactly where that is, if that's helpful. Can I raise a particular point that I'm interested in? During your inquiry, we took evidence from parents with a learning disability and some of their representatives. In our report, we pointed that out to the Government and we asked that further research is necessary to determine the true skill of the problem. We call on all parties to work together on that and believe that the Scottish Government should evaluate the merits of the support parenting approach, etc. The Scottish Government's response was that it was on-going work to get it right for looked-after disabled children and work to make hearings easier for those with special needs. We weren't talking about disabled children. We were talking about parents with a learning disability. The huge variation in the difference between a learning disability and parents and their children being taken into care—the figures were very high—and the rest of the community, where the figures were very, very different, were much, much, much lower. Can I ask again the question that we asked in part of the inquiry report as to what the Government is doing about that particular aspect of the removal of children from parents with a learning disability and the merits of a supported parenting approach to try and prevent a situation where children are removed not because they are bad parents, but because they are parents that need support? What is worth saying on this one is that part of this comes down to the general messages in the parenting strategy and part of that comes down to good judgment by social workers to make reasonable decisions and that parents with learning disabilities have appropriate access to appropriate representation in the relevant forums with hearings or the court system. We are receptive to suggestions for improvement on that. Again, the Ministry of Work and Group on Child Protection and Disabilities, led by Norman Dunning, has now reported—I don't know if you are aware—we can send the committee some details about that. It has developed a new set of training and resource materials, including good practice examples, to help professionals to better understand the issues associated with child protection and ensure that services offer the best possible support for children affected by disability more generally. The TOCA also contains national guidance for child protection in Scotland and additional notes for practitioners protecting disabled children from abuse and neglect. It is more tangible to your point, I appreciate it, but it is all relevant in the broader context. I appreciate the broader context, but it was a specific question about parents who had a learning disability. It seems to me that it is not clear whether there has been any specific research undertaken on this issue, particularly on the issue of initial work or widely, but also the specific question about the removal rates of children from vulnerable parents. You said in your response that the Scottish Government has evaluated the merits of the sport of parenting approach. What was the outcome of that evaluation? I couldn't tell you, but I'm happy to write to you on that one. If you could do that and about the specific research that we've requested. I'm not aware that that research has been done, so I'm happy to write to you on that one. It was in the report that we published a year ago that request. I appreciate that we get a written response to those specific questions, if you don't mind. One of the things that came up was the fact that there was a problem with the retention of social workers within the local authorities. One of the problems that they had was that good social workers were being promoted and taken away from the front line. One of the things that the young people also said to us was the fact that they found the difficulty from the point of view that they didn't have a continuation of the social work support during the winter with the individual. I know that it was mentioned during the report from last year and I understand, because in your answer, the Scottish Government's answer, it says that it is for the employers and practitioners to assess on a local basis the necessary role, structures, levels of responsibility and accountability. I know that it is a local authority to do it, but where are we at this stage trying to find a way to look at ways that the Scottish Government can promote how we retain social workers within the profession? A lot of them are leaving the profession and going elsewhere. I think that you have identified the right context, but in that context, the Scottish Government's role is to try and help and support and improve. We do that through a number of bodies, including the SSC. There is a review as part of the SSC's work to develop a learning strategy for the social services workforce. It will include reviewing learning at all levels throughout our workers' career, both at qualifying and post-qualifying levels, and the support needed to achieve those skills and knowledge. A report will be produced by March 2015. Work is progressing on the review of the social work degree, which is an important element, as well as several different standards of work on going, including research, on the readiness of practice of nearly qualified social workers, visits to all 32 local authorities to gather evidence of the impact of degree and changes that are required. An online ideas platform is being launched for all social workers to provide views on the degree review of the current standards and social work education. Those are all things that we are working with the SSC to help to advance the issues that you mentioned. However, as you say, it does not matter for local authorities. Surely, apart from what you have already mentioned, there is a way that the Scottish Government can lead and try to work with local authorities. As the convener has already mentioned, the report is about a year old, and we seem to be moving quite slowly. I know that it can be difficult with 32 authorities trying to get them all to sink from the one hym sheet, and various areas of excellence and others do not. Is there anything else that you can tell us at this stage where we have taken on board and we are moving forward a wee bit? Aside from—I do not know if you were aware that Alan Baer, our chief social work adviser, is leading the social work strategic forum, which is looking into a number of different relevant aspects to the size and shape of the social services workforce. It is in its early days that it has met a number of times, but it has a people workforce strand of work. There is a web link—I can send the committee to information coming out of that—but that would be the place to focus attention on what is next. I am sorry about that, but I want to follow that up for just one second. You said that you want to quote, to make sure that the issues that were noted by the committee in regard to staffing levels, retention and training, are considered and taken forward within the appropriate context. I have to be honest, I did not know what that meant. In terms of concrete progress, what does that statement mean? Can you clarify what you mean by progress? You have said that you will make sure that the issues that were noted by the committee in regard to staffing levels, retention and training are considered and taken forward within the appropriate context. I am quoting the Government's letter. What I want to know is what that actually means on the ground, what difference will that make, but what are you doing in practical terms to respond to the committee's concerns about this area? It goes back to the point that I made before, which is to recognise the Scottish Government's role. It is a local authority matter to plan social work services in terms of the numbers and experience that is required within their own structures. What is suitable for one local authority is not necessarily suitable for another, or maybe a much larger local authority. Our role is to work in partnership with local government. The forum that I mentioned, led by our chief social work adviser, is the key mechanism by which we will be doing that. I am struggling to understand how you measure and how you improve things. Clearly, I can understand that you may need different policies for different areas, depending on the how rural or urban a particular local authority is, or various other circumstances that differ between local authorities. What I am trying to understand is what the Government's role in this, apart from saying that it is a matter for local authorities and that we have a committee that looks at it. What in practical terms do you do as a Government to try and drive forward the kind of change that I think that we both want? I think that it is probably moving beyond my expertise in an area that I am responsible for, but I am happy to find out the answer to those questions and write back to the committee. Thank you very much, Neil. I just want to ask you about resources. Has the on-going reforms, changes in legislation, guidance, work practices, etc, initiated by the Scottish Government, have they demonstrated a need for additional resources to be spent on children, looked after children? I use that as an example. We heard a lot of evidence from trade unions during the children and young people about the name person saying that it would only properly work if there was additional resources. I use that as an example. I do not want to get bogged down on just that policy, but have the on-going reforms that the Scottish Government are pursuing demonstrated a need for additional resources? The answer to your question is yes and no. When we started our reform agenda on the care system, we were acutely aware that there was very constrained financial resources. When setting up the permanent care excellence programme, we did it on the basis that there was no pot of money handed to local authorities when we did it because what we needed to do was engender a sense of change that could be achieved without more money being added to the pot. So far, the evidence suggests that it is very liberating not to have money handing over but to provide support in a non-financial sense, so through consultancy, through data trolls, through a number of other different mechanisms, the sustainable legacy being that you leave a critical mass of skills and knowledge about how to do things better. That is working, and that does not require more resources. What it is leading to is a more efficient permanent planning system, which means that young people are leaving care sooner to legal permanence. There are fewer children on long-term supervision as a result, so there are resource savings associated with a programme that we are operating that does not require handing over more and more money. George Street commissioning is in order of magnitude more ambitious than that. Again, that is not about handing money to local authorities to invest in an innovative scheme or anything. It is about facilitating local change within the existing resource envelope and securing better outcomes through a re-engineered children's services. We are very hopeful that both those things, which have very strong evidence behind them, can lead to fundamental change and release resources from freeing social workers in particular, but the whole system from wasteful practice. There are other things where more resource will be required. I think that the mentoring and advocacy side of things is something that is likely to need more resource, and we are putting more money in from central government to facilitate that. In terms of resources, we have been looking at the issue of how much is spent on looked after children, and you mentioned increasing resources. The figures from the Scottish Tisha Local Government finance statistics showed that £750 million was spent on children's social work services in 2009-10. In cash terms, that has gone up to £824 million, or due to go up to £824 million and estimated in 2014-15. It has gone up in cash terms, but in real terms, that is a cut. I understand of around £50 million when you take into account inflation. How does, obviously there are, I do not think that anyone is in any doubt, their funding pressures at the moment for local authorities. In terms of all the things that we have talked about, in terms of workload management, social workers being able to support young people and children, outcomes for looked after children and even issues around data collection and local authorities having the resources and time to provide that. What is the impact of the funding pressures and the real-time cuts that are having on the range of indicators that we are looking at? I think that the impact is demonstrated through the outcome statistics that you see. Where things have improved, that is in spite of a very difficult funding environment. We do not collect statistics on all the detail bits of the process, so I cannot give you a line-by-line account of how changes in national funding affect the ground. That is a matter for local authorities, but it is something that we are absolutely committed to supporting and improving. The joint strategic commissioning programme is a very good example of how exactly we can mobilise our role to work with local partners, not just local authorities but community planning partners more generally, to use the existing resource envelope to better effect. We will be happy to keep the committee informed of that programme. In the sense that there is not a risk around expectation management here, a child-centred approach would appear to be labour-time intensive. You have talked about that in relation to trusted adult and mentoring. I think that the data collection that Wibi was referring to, the convener's reference to some of the support required around perhaps parents with learning difficulties, and even areas of greater collaboration between different partners and agencies in the system. Some efficiencies may come from that. Overall, there is just an inevitability about this being a process that will require greater levels of funding and able to make it work. Therefore, is there not a risk in terms of setting expectations there as to what this is going to achieve, but funding levels are falling in some way short of that in different areas? The dangers were back here in five years' time wondering why it did not work, because the ideas themselves seemed to be the right ones for us to be pursuing. I can see your point. I am not sure that I agree with it. I think that the evidence from the Parents and Care Excellence programme would suggest that there is quite significant waste within the system. By waste, processes, activities that take up time and effort of social workers' time in particular add no value, which is the product of a custom that has been prevalent in a particular authority, or a particular team of an authority for a decade or decades. It has been very enlightening to see some of the changes that have been going on within our pilot areas, where simple things have released time and have meant that more times have been able to be spent on case file management rather than just servicing up bureaucracy. I do not think that it necessarily follows that being child-centred raises the implied cost of a system. I think that, based on the evidence that we have seen, there is quite significant waste within the system that can be reallocated towards more productive ends. The strategic commissioning programme itself is a good example of how, given the evidence that predates the programme and which justifies the programme, there is huge waste within the system in terms of things like the spot purchasing of residential care and foster care and how quite a lot of resource could be reallocated through strategic commissioning towards other things that support young people in decision making. It is probably worth saying that systems that do not take account of the child's view often make decisions that are not in the best interests of the child, which leads to a system in which you have to compensate for that with other systems, and that is all waste. It is better to make a decision right at the first gasp of when it needs to be made. In that sense, the system has waste in it that could be removed through the GERFAC approach, which is what you are articulating. I have to say that the notion that strategic commissioning and a centralised approach to some of those things does not lead to different types of waste and solutions being not necessarily tailored to localised need, I think ought to be taking into account. Is there not a question that perhaps the emphasis has been on what social workers and others within the system are required to do that is new, without necessarily emphasising what it is that they will no longer be required to do as a result of the changes? Certainly, the message that we have had from those at the coalface is that they are already under considered strain. Workload pressures are a real issue for them, but no sign really is yet to reflect what you have been talking about, that they are doing less of what they have done historically and are working more effectively and efficiently as a consequence. That is a fair point in the sense that things that the strategic commissioning programme is about to start, but it is clarifying that it is not a centralised programme, it is a locally driven programme supported by the Scottish Government through the joint agreement team. It starts with a very comprehensive survey of school children and there is very high quality data that comes from that. It is all about working to understand the needs of each child in an area and reverse engineering services in a local area to match that. It is a comprehensive way of getting to the point of how we make services wrap around the needs of children. We can do it at the individual child level and at an aggregate as well, and both those things are valid in that context. David, if you do not mind, one final question. Obviously, the committee is very keen that we see improvement for looked after children and young people. The Scottish Government and other bodies have been working hard to achieve demonstrably better outcomes for those children and young people. Can I ask you to provide the committee with some concrete examples of that improvement and some sort of detailed description of what that improvement looks like, whether it is an improvement that has already occurred or an improvement that you expect to see in the near future? When you answer that question, you do not talk about working groups, discussions and on-going initiatives, but concrete examples that we can understand and can see on the ground will lead to better outcomes. I will be happy to start this answer now, but I think that I probably will not do justice, so I will be happy to follow up with the committee with something more detailed if that is helpful. There are a number of different programmes that we have run that have evidence that leads to improvement. The care system is something that is an improvement that takes a very long time. Outcomes historically are not great—we all recognise that. They have been gradually improving for a few years, not as fast as I think anyone would like. The most obvious example I can think of is the work that we are doing in Aberdeen and in Renfrew in the PACE programme. It has only been running for a few months. It is necessary that it needs to run for about five or six months before you have enough data points in the chart. If any of you have been involved in the early years' collaborative, it is very much inspired by that approach with a little bit more in terms of localised support to implement the methods. We also support those two areas with Celsus practice experts in legal issues, hearings and other areas. The work that is going on in those two areas has led to a number of small-scale changes and tests of change. I do not have a list of them here, but I am happy to provide that. Those small-scale tests are things that local practitioners have identified as things that really annoy them and get in the way of making effective decisions for young people and that lead to drift and delay in the system. The drift and delay arguments have been well researched by SCRA—you have all seen the report. Tackling that is a concrete thing that improves the system. Those projects are focused squarely on reducing drift and delay. The small-scale tests of change do that. What we have seen so far with both those areas is a dramatic change in the understanding of local practitioners. We have heard comments from practitioners saying that it has become a very liberating environment to be able to poke holes in an established concrete system and rework it to something that is fundamentally more fit for purpose. The evidence is about to be made public on those two areas. The best thing to do is to forward that on to the committee. We have a website that is about to be populated by the early evidence from those tests, but the evidence is very compelling. As I said from the earlier collaborative methodology, there is evidence collected at each test of change, so it pretty much answers your question, but I will send on the evidence as soon as it is published. Thank you very much for that, David. I thank you very much for attending this morning. I would like, if the committee is agreeable to—I know that you are going to follow up a number of points in writing to us and I am sure that we will look forward to hearing from that, but it may well be if the committee agrees that it might be something that we want to have regular updates on, given the amount of work that this committee has undertaken over the last two and a bit years. I am sure that we would appreciate regular updates from the Government either instigated by ourselves or by yourselves. I am quite happy for you to write to us, even if we do not ask, but we may well ask in the near future. That concludes our business for today. However, our next meeting will be on 19 August, and that meeting will be dealing with stage 2 of the merger between Royal Commission on Ancient Historic Monument Scotland and Historic Scotland. That will be our last meeting before the Parliament moves into recess before the referendum. Thank you very much for attending today, and I close the meeting.