Long road ahead to improve children's social care, MPs warn
Shortages of care placements led to 45% of looked-after children being placed outside of their local authority last year, and 22% moved more than 20 miles from home, MPs said, with 'distressing impacts' felt as a result.
The committee's report also noted almost four in 10 (39%) care leavers aged 19–21 are not in education, training or employment, compared to 13% of all young people in that age group, while a third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care.
Committee chairwoman Helen Hayes branded the situation a 'moral failure'.
She said: 'It is unacceptable that thousands of young people leaving care are being left to face homelessness, unemployment or barriers to education – it is a moral failure.
'The system that should be supporting our most vulnerable children is far too often abandoning them at a critical moment in their lives. Urgent action is needed to fix this broken system and give all of our young people the futures they deserve.
'Throughout this inquiry we heard that a false economy of cuts over the past decade has led to postcode lotteries in provision across different areas of the country, and has instead caused some parts of the system to become more expensive.'
The report called for Government funding to be directed back into early intervention services, which Ms Hayes said 'reduce both children's suffering and costs in the long run', and to provide a so-called National Care Offer covering a guaranteed level of support for those leaving care as opposed to a 'cliff edge as they approach adulthood'.
She added: 'There is a long road ahead to improve the children's social care sector, but doing so will reduce children's suffering and produce a system that helps give young people the best chance to live happily and independently.'
The report's publication on Thursday coincided with changes coming into effect which the Government said will give care leavers greater access to social housing.
The requirement for vulnerable groups including care leavers to have a connection to the local area has been lifted, meaning they will 'no longer be unfairly penalised', the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said.
Also on Thursday, the Department for Education (DfE) announced more than £53 million would be invested in creating 200 new placements in high-quality council-run homes for the most vulnerable children including those who need to be prevented from running away or from harming themselves and others.
The Government said this was the first time it had specifically targeted funding at children with complex needs who are at risk of being deprived of their liberty.
The DfE said the investment is part of its reform plan for the sector, moving away from a crisis intervention approach to earlier prevention help, with more than £2 billion investment over the course of this parliament.
The committee cited a number of reasons for the rise in the number of looked-after children, including less support for early intervention, greater poverty and cost-of-living pressures and an increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The MPs said: 'The Government must address the factors outside the care system which are contributing to the rise in need and take action in its forthcoming Child Poverty Strategy to significantly reduce the number of children growing up in financial hardship.'
The strategy is expected to be published in autumn, having been initially expected in spring.
Among the committee's other recommendations were development of a new strategy to recruit foster carers and offer more support to kinship carers, and improved availability and quality of residential placements.
The MPs also called for the DfE to issue a 'comprehensive response' to the 2022 Independent Review of Children's Social Care, which called for a 'radical reset' to improve the lives of children in care and their families by breaking the 'cycle of escalating need and crisis intervention'.
The committee said national eligibility criteria for disabled children's social care should be introduced, noting there is currently a 'confusing 'postcode lottery' of support between local authorities'.
Stephen Kingdom, campaign manager for the Disabled Children's Partnership, said the report shows disabled children, young people and their families 'are being failed by children's social care'.
He added: 'Too often, families find that a system that should be supporting them is instead treating parents with suspicion. As a result, their needs are de-prioritised; they find themselves blamed and stigmatised; and what little help they do get only comes when they hit crisis point.'
Care charity Become welcomed the committee's 'commitment to driving meaningful change' and putting young people's voices 'at the heart of these recommendations'.
Harriet Edwards, from national disability charity Sense, backed the report's recommendations 'so all disabled children are treated fairly, no matter where they live', stating that 'for too long disabled children have been failed by a confusing social care system that is not fit for purpose'.
Children and families minister Janet Daby said the children's social care system had 'faced years of drift and neglect, leading to a vicious cycle of late intervention and children falling through the cracks'.
The Government had previously announced a pledge from Government for a 'backstop' law, which would limit the profit children's social care providers can make, to be brought in if providers do not voluntarily put an end to profiteering.
Ms Daby: 'Through our Plan for Change and our Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government is enabling every child to achieve and thrive by investing in the places children need, cracking down on profiteering with new laws, and rebuilding family support services so parents and carers get the help they need to keep their children happy and safe in loving homes.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
'Farce': Scottish ministers 'dragging their heels' on banning electric shock dog collars
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scottish ministers are being accused of 'dragging their heels' when it comes to banning electric shock dog collars. Back in 2018, the Scottish Government confirmed there would be an effective ban on these collars in Scotland - but seven years later, this has not happened. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Roseanna Cunningham, who was environment secretary at the time, said: 'Causing pain to dogs by inappropriate training methods is clearly completely unacceptable and I want there to be no doubt that painful or unpleasant training for dogs will not be tolerated.' Dog with Electric shock collar on outdoor. | Parilov - These collars are used to train dogs using electric shocks, but campaigners such as the SSPCA and the Kennel Club argue they are cruel and ineffective as a training device. Conservative MSP Maurice Golden says it is a 'farce' ministers are still consulting on this issue despite years of promising to implement a ban. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, he said: 'I have a growing sense of frustration. 'The government agreed to this in the last session and said it would be reviewed by April 2021, so what on earth is going on here? 'I very much suspect all the stakeholders support a ban, so why is the government dragging their heels on this? 'It has literally been years and years in the making. There are a lot of unanswered questions on why they have not done it yet. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "My concern is that like many Scottish Government policies, ministers are running down the clock and then this will be extended over three parliamentary sessions, which is a farce.' Dog lover Maurice Golden MSP A parliamentary session is the time Holyrood sits between elections - if this issue is pushed beyond the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, it will have been considered across three parliamentary sessions. Mr Golden, who represents the North East region, added: 'Dogs are sentient beings. Giving them electric shocks is deeply harmful, not just physically but emotionally. 'If a member of the public tried one on themselves, they would not be using it on a dog. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The worst part of this is dogs do not understand why they are being shocked, they can't associate behaviour with wrongdoing. 'So this is just a harmful device that terrifies dogs into acting in an abnormal way.' Earlier this year the Scottish Greens had lodged proposals to criminalise the use of electric shock dog collars. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ross Greer MSP lodged an amendment to the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, but it was voted down by 84 votes to 28. This bill became an act in March. The Scottish Government says it is carrying out a consultation because currently only 'e-collars' are recommended for a potential ban. They said: 'As part of our review of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) Act 2020, we considered whether or not further legal provisions are required on the use of collars that use a static pulse on animals. 'To date, the only type of device recommended for a ban by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is remote-controlled static pulse training collars, which they describe as e-collars.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Rural Scots 'face major energy bills hike after RTS meter switch off'
RTS meters, which use long-wave radio signals to switch between cheaper and more expensive electricity rates remotely, are disproportionately common in off-gas-grid and rural areas. A full deactivation of the system was scheduled for June 30. But just 11 days before that deadline, the UK Government paused the planned blanket switch-off in favour of a phased approach, citing the fact that 314,000 households across the UK – including 105,000 in Scotland – were still using the meters. READ MORE: Dr Ron Mould: RTS switch-off will put vulnerable Scots at risk The Scottish Government had raised concerns that the shutdown could disrupt heating and hot water systems for those still relying on RTS meters, while potentially triggering steep hikes in energy costs. However, Shetland resident John Inkster said he is already feeling the impact after being moved off the RTS system by provider EDF Energy. He described the resulting rise in bills as 'unjust' and said it flies in the face of assurances given by Ofgem, the energy regulator. Ofgem has stated that consumers should be left 'no worse off' as a result of switching away from RTS meters. But Inkster said that for islanders like him – living in areas without access to mains gas – the reality is starkly different. 'I think we spend about £4000 a year heating our house at the moment, before the RTS meter changeover,' he said. 'I imagine that might go to £6000. 'You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that people are going to be completely fleeced here.' READ MORE: John Swinney: Labour are ruling out all options to reduce energy bills Before the switch, Inkster had two meters: one charging 27p per unit of electricity for standard use (lights, appliances, sockets), and another offering a reduced 15p tariff for heating and hot water. Since EDF replaced his system, most of his heating, except for storage heaters and a portion of water heating, is charged at the higher rate. Based on his calculations, the change equates to a 74% increase in costs on around half of his heating and hot water use. That could see his annual bill rise from £4000 to around £5500. 'There are a lot of people who don't understand this who have it in their house, to be honest with you,' he said. 'It is a bit complicated. 'But it doesn't take any kind of a genius at all to work out that customers will be much, much worse off.' He went on: 'It's said people are dying in Scotland in the cold because they can't afford to heat their homes. You hear that, don't you? 'Well, how is this going to affect those statistics? Improve them or make them worse?' Inkster said he was aware of other Shetlanders who had already 'torn panel heaters out of their houses' in response to the soaring cost of using them under the new tariffs. He warned that many affected households might only realise the full extent of the change when their winter energy bills arrive. The Shetlander has enlisted the help of his local MP, LibDem Alistair Carmichael, who has written to EDF chief executive Simone Rossi with his concerns. The LibDem MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael (Image: UK Parliament/PA Wire) 'Ofgem has stated that energy companies should give equivalent tariffs to RTS customers so that no one is left worse off as a result of switching,' the MP said. 'At best, what EDF is doing goes against the spirit of that commitment – at worst, it looks like an active attempt to evade the new rules. Ofgem and the Government must come down hard on this sly behaviour.' EDF did not respond to the Sunday National's request for comment. A spokesperson for Ofgem said: 'We have made clear to suppliers that we expect them to treat customers fairly – not only in terms of shielding households from unnecessary costs but also offering the same or similar tariffs after their RTS meter has been upgraded. 'It is crucial that customers are protected at every stage of the phased shutdown, and we are spelling out to suppliers key requirements that must be met before an area loses its RTS signal. 'While this carefully managed phaseout process should reassure customers, it remains crucial that these meters are replaced urgently so it's vital to engage with your supplier when offered an appointment.'
