The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-7259, in the name of Johann Lamont, on support for children in family and friends care.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that there is estimated to be a minimum of 13,400 children in kinship (family and friends) care in Glasgow and throughout Scotland; understands that three out of four of these families are living in poverty and that kinship care is frequently the best form of early intervention as well as a longer-term option for children requiring non-parental care, particularly for those who have experienced multiple traumas; notes that kinship care is estimated to save the Scottish Government and local authorities £536 million per year in reduced care costs; considers with regret that the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Scottish local authorities have not yet been able to ensure provision of adequate financial, educational and other supports for children looked after by kinship carers; considers that there is currently insufficient joint working across all levels of government, and believes that kinship care provision is best developed with the involvement of kinship carers themselves as part of the decision-making process and that this would ensure that all policies are based on the needs of the child and that there is no discrimination of kinship carers based on their legal status or postcode.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate and I thank the members who have supported the motion in my name. It is important to reflect on the issues that are highlighted in the motion. It is worth noting that a similar motion was lodged in Westminster by my colleague Cathy Jamieson, in recognition of the fact that the challenges that face kinship carers have been and are compounded by decisions or lack of action at every level of government—local, Scottish and United Kingdom.

I acknowledge the powerful role of the kinship carers who have forced the debate into the public domain. Kinship carers in my constituency and far beyond have found a voice and demanded that we listen. We should pledge to ensure that the solutions to the challenges that they face should be developed with and by them, for they know more than anyone what the reality of their experience is, despite the claims by some that their problems have been addressed.

All members recognise the critical role of many kinship carers. Day and daily, grannies and granddads, aunties and uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters and sometimes simply family friends do everything in their power to protect and nurture often very vulnerable children. We should be aware of the degree of sacrifice in time and energy by families in supporting those children. Sometimes, grannies even give up their beds when they should be putting their feet up after a long working life.

Often, when grandparents look after their grandchildren, the issues are compounded by the emotional involvement that they experience when their son or daughter is the parent who is failing. Such people have spoken to me about their determination to ensure that, having lost one generation to drugs, they will not lose the next one. The final decision to bring a child into their home will often have been preceded by years of anxiety and stress, and fear for the children.

Kinship carers deserve more than pieties or congratulations from us, especially when we consider what they save the public purse and the better outcomes that they provide for needy children. Kinship carers need and deserve a proper understanding of the challenges that they face. The debate on the issue is too easily distilled into an argument about financial payments and how those are fixed. I have been struck by the voices of kinship carers who feel frustrated by that description of their plight. First, they say that the financial support that they fight for is not for them, but for the children, to meet their needs. Secondly, the issue is not just about financial support, although many of the families involved live in poverty. It is also about a proper understanding of the emotional, psychological and educational needs of children who have endured hardship and neglect. For kinship carer families, the issue is the rights of the children. It is not a debate about adult entitlement.

Let us imagine that two children make the same journey through abuse and perhaps neglect. Unnurtured, they are denied the normal hugs and sense of security that family life brings, and they are affected and marked by all that goes with living in a family where parents, for example, are drug addicted. The two children end up in the same place, where for their own safety and wellbeing they have to be taken from the family home. It is impossible to understand why the support that is then provided to the two children is defined not by their care needs but by the relationship that they have with the person who takes on the job of caring for them. One child goes into foster care and has access to one level of support. The other child goes to granny, and there starts a battle for that family to get any help at all. That is a simple and irrational injustice for that child and every other child in those circumstances.

There is on-going frustration that there is not equivalence between foster and kinship carers. There is still a postcode lottery in the level of payments in different parts of Scotland, and indeed in some places there are no payments at all. There is no tackling of the further discrimination against those who take in a child, accepted and sanctioned by social work but in an arrangement not made by social work, where no payment is made because there is no formal measure of care. There is a concern that there is an incentive for social work to encourage family arrangements, rather than making the arrangements more formal, on the ground of cost. In addition, there is still no proper addressing of the problem of the relationship between benefits and kinship care payments.

All those problems remain, and until they are addressed and sorted we are all culpable in celebrating kinship carers' role but not willing the means for their lives to be made a little easier. There is a temptation for us all, of whatever political stripe, to talk up what our own party has done in this regard and leave our sharpest criticisms for the efforts of others, but it is impossible for me to overstate the clear message that I have been given by kinship carers when I meet them at the Poverty Truth Commission, in my constituency or elsewhere. All of us, as politicians, need to stop blaming each other, stop passing the buck, and get together to get this sorted. I say gently to Bob Doris that the amendment that he lodged, presenting his Government's actions as positively as he did, falls absolutely into that category. We have failed these children at every level of Government and we ought not to miss the challenge that that presents to us all.

There are, of course, those who tell us that this is a complex or difficult area, but that is a counsel of despair. If kinship carers can hold traumatised children to them in love, it cannot be beyond the wit of our collective endeavour to find a way to support them in that critical job. There is a lot of talk these days about preventive spend. The reality is that a little support to these children and their carers now will pay dividends in allowing the children to reclaim their childhood, and in the future to achieve their potential. It will also help to sustain those carers through the tough times that they face in dealing with the consequence of the abuse that these children have faced in the past, and help them with what they do out of love.

At every level of government, energy should be put not into saying what we cannot do or justifying the limits to what we have already done, but into working together. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about his capacity to work with other levels of government and co-operate in that regard. It is no longer acceptable at any level of government for people to say, "We have done enough." We need to show how we can work together to solve the problem. The fact of the matter is that that co-operation and focus would be a new year's resolution that is worth making, and it is one that we should all be determined to keep in the future, not only in the interests of kinship carers but, critically, in the interests of their desire for the needs of the children that they support to be properly met.

I congratulate Johann Lamont on securing this evening's debate. I have visited kinship carers and I know that they hold her work in great esteem. I take this opportunity to recognise the invaluable work that kinship carers do in some of the most trying of circumstances. I also recognise the great work of the many support groups that do their utmost to provide advice and assistance to kinship carers. Recently, I visited one such group—the Family Addiction Support Service, based in Glasgow. I put on record the fact that the service is doing a fantastic job. Some of the stories I heard—especially, but not only, from grandparents—at that meeting were absolutely harrowing, but they showed people's great desire to ensure that their families are kept together. We should all be eternally grateful for that.

The benefits system has been highlighted in my meetings with kinship carers. Other members may raise that issue. We must look at it. I do not want to be political about the matter, but in some instances people are worse off if they can access kinship care. I hope that the Minister for Children and Early Years will speak to his Westminster counterpart about the benefits system.

The overarching theme of the meeting was the clear need for information and guidance to maximise the effectiveness of current Scottish Parliament legislation. As Johann Lamont said, that theme is reflected in the motion. It is also reflected in petition PE1365, which calls for a meeting of all parties that are involved in the legislation for and provision of kinship care. Johann Lamont has already mentioned what a postcode lottery kinship care can be. All members of the Public Petitions Committee, from all parties, were supportive of the petition. I understand that the committee is continuing the petition, with the aim of facilitating a meeting between stakeholders. I hope that that approach will be successful in addressing carers' concerns and the concerns that are expressed in the motion. I invite the minister in his summing up to provide us with an update on whether meetings not just with kinship carers but with local authorities and other authorities that deal with kinship care have been arranged.

Some of the accounts that I heard were harrowing. Johann Lamont has already alluded to some of the issues that are involved. For one reason or another, grandparents have had to take in their grandkids. They may get kinship care support for one grandkid but not for another. That anomaly should not be allowed to continue. Johann Lamont mentioned the issues that arise in relation to payment. I was struck by the differences in access to services. If a child is looked after—for example if they are in foster care—they will have access to facilities such as child psychiatrists; if a child is in kinship care they are not denied access to such facilities, but they are nonetheless unable to access them. That issue, along with anomalies in payments, was highlighted to me in my meeting with kinship carers.

Neither the postcode lottery that has been identified nor the other difficulties that people face should be allowed to continue. People open their houses to look after not just grandchildren but nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters. They put their family first, but it is difficult for them to cope with young kids who have some horrifying backgrounds. Sometimes, people have to give up their beds or to move out of the house because they do not have not enough room.

Johann Lamont mentioned the political aspect of the issue. I do not want to go into that as I agree that we really need to work together, no matter what political party we belong to, and to put the interests of carers and children first. They deserve no less from us.

Like other members, I commend Johann Lamont on securing this evening's members' business debate. Along with other representatives in the Parliament, she has championed this cause for many years.

The member referred to the common cliché that we hear from professionals who are involved with the issue—that it is complex and presents them with many challenges. I remind them that it is all very well for them to make that point in their comfort zone, from the headquarters of whatever authority they serve; the issue is also complex for carers, who find themselves—sometimes unexpectedly—having to provide care for the young people they champion. I champion them for making that provision.

We should reflect on the casework that many of us have dealt with and which represent some challenges that kinship carers face. Over the years, I have learned that the commitment of kinship carers to ensuring that children are in a loving environment that gives them a future is a clear feature.

I will mention one person whom it is important to recognise—she will not mind me mentioning her name. She is my constituent Jessie Harvey, who has been involved in the Poverty Truth Commission. She has been involved in several exchanges with elected representatives and she has been keen to speak her mind several times. We need that in today's debate—not just clear thinking but clear talking about how we can take the issue forward.

We should recognise the point that Jessie Harvey has made several times—that if it were not for the intervention of kinship carers such as her, where would we be and where would local authorities be? We can talk about the costs of child care and of full-time care and about a number of other challenges that would face the children involved if it were not for the interventions. We do not spend time on debating some of those challenges.

One challenge that faces us is the lack of a co-ordinated approach from local authorities when kinship carers take on their role. On many occasions, the approach is informal and the formality that should be attached is not present to ensure that kinship carers receive the support that they should have. Over the years, a number of kinship carers have made the point that they want a charter to be in place to ensure that they receive proper support when they decide to undertake kinship caring.

In my experience, the fact that kinship carers will care for the children is never in question. I have not yet met a kinship carer who said that they did not want to care for the young people and give them a future. However, kinship carers want authorities to give them effective support in the process. They also want to be treated with respect. Kinship carers are not respected when they are given promises of support in the process of taking on the role but that support does not transpire.

We do not debate kinship care enough, which must be a major disappointment to kinship carers. We all need to take responsibility for the fact that we have not debated the issue as often as we should. Let us learn that lesson from today. I hope that we can move forward with a more effective dialogue to make progress.

I, too, thank Johann Lamont for initiating the debate. I pay tribute to her for the outstanding work she has done, which is part and parcel of showing the Parliament at its best. I pledge again our full support for kinship carers. I agree entirely with Paul Martin that perhaps we do not debate the issue often enough, which would allow us to bring everybody together.

It is no secret that my party holds up the family unit as the best possible welfare state while fully acknowledging that the family unit takes many forms. As Sandra White and Paul Martin have said, a loving family will always be better placed to provide social, economic, emotional, educational and moral support than will be any other institution, which—through no one's fault—cannot be expected to provide the same level of individual care. That fact is widely accepted by all parties in the Parliament. The speeches that have preceded mine prove the point: kinship care is the best option when children cannot live with their parents. It provides the child with the best chance of overcoming the often disruptive and stressful circumstances that they face.

Scotland has no shortage of kinship care and it has outstanding examples of it. More than 13,000 children are cared for by grandparents, uncles, aunts or other relatives—that is one in 70 children in some form of kinship care arrangement. We should recognise that such arrangements are saving the taxpayer vast sums of money every year, and that feat is even more remarkable when we consider the age group of many of the people who are doing the caring. About three quarters of kinship carers are the grandparents of the child, and more than a quarter of the children are cared for by a relative who is at least 50 years older than them. That presents a considerable challenge. Figures such as those put the sacrifice and generosity of carers into sharp focus. We cannot thank them enough.

Sacrifice and generosity have already been mentioned in relation to the Scottish Government's commitment to try to achieve by 2011 parity between payments to kinship carers and those to foster carers. My views on the issue are already on record; so, too, are my concerns about having in place a concordat that sets even more of a challenge because while it contains specific national Government targets it also allows councils to set their own priorities. We need to address that issue more fully.

I wish to focus on the sometimes forgotten point about kinship care. It is a dilemma that faces us all in the chamber as we acknowledge that there will be many different reasons for kinship care. We know that the majority of children who fall into that situation are there because of a breakdown in relationships with their parents, which is often fuelled by a number of social ills, including substance abuse, criminality, child neglect or abuse. It is only in a small number of cases that children end up in kinship care because of a family bereavement or very difficult circumstances arising from illness.

While we salute the relatives who take over the caring responsibilities for the children, we also need to recognise that the other half of the story is often one of family breakdown and of parents proving themselves to be unreliable and irresponsible in some way—a trend that, I would argue, is becoming more common rather than less common. In other words, kinship care is a double-edged sword of family beneficence on one hand and of family breakdown on the other.

About 137,000 children have no parent in work; 200,000 children are living in poverty; 60,000 children are affected by the drug problem of one or both parents; 100,000 children live with parents who are addicted to alcohol. It might be an inconvenient truth for us, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that the gap between rich and poor has widened over the past 10 years, and there is more evidence of the social and financial pressures that are contributing to the rise in the breakdown of Scottish families. Until we get to grips with that as a united Parliament, as has been said such statistics will continue to highlight a very frightening circumstance.

I finish on the need to make a full commitment on this issue, and I again congratulate Johann Lamont on all the work that she does.

I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate and I, too, congratulate Johann Lamont on securing it.

As Johann Lamont said in her speech, I have tabled an early-day motion on the issue in another place, to highlight the real problems that many kinship carers are facing. That was not about party politics, and I hope that the tone of tonight's debate will continue in the vein of trying to improve the lot of kinship carers, rather than scoring party-political points.

It is important to recognise—as members have done already—that the issue goes across Scotland. All of us will have met individuals who, in very difficult circumstances, have decided that they must take on the responsibility of caring for children. It might be grannies and granddads, but I have also known it to be brothers and sisters who have taken care of their younger siblings. I have known it to be aunties and uncles, and a range of other people.

I did a quick sum: I was trying to calculate how long ago I qualified as a social worker—one of the professionals.

Don't go there.

People are saying I should not go there, so I will not reveal the year when I qualified, but one of the things that I learned in my time training as a social worker was that, when there were difficulties in the family, people looked to the extended family as the first port of call for support. I cannot understand why we would move away from that. We know that when we move children and young people into other forms of care, we do not necessarily do it all that well.

There is a real irony here. On the one hand, we talk about early intervention being absolutely important—we need to do the right thing for children and young people. If there are problems, we intervene and try to solve them. On the other hand, when grandparents, aunties and uncles or older siblings step in to do that, they find that they are disadvantaged because they are not necessarily entitled to the support to which they would have been entitled had the whole process of compulsory care been brought into play. That does not seem to be correct.

We also hear from kinship carers the words that are often associated with people who are carers generally: they have to "battle for everything", "fight to make their voices heard" and they have to "make a nuisance of themselves". Indeed, some professionals would describe some of them as nuisances—the people that they perhaps do not want to have chapping at the door at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon—but they are often the people who come asking for help because they are trying to do the best for the children and young people for whom they care. It is not good enough that we have a postcode lottery. There is an imbalance in the support that we provide if only statutory measures are in place and support provided at the early-intervention stage.

In my last few seconds, I will mention grandparents who want to care for their grandchildren. Many grandparents would care for their grandchildren or provide support if they were given the opportunity to do so, but far too many are denied that opportunity because there are difficult circumstances to do with family break-up; perhaps one of the parents does not allow them access, for example.

Members will be familiar with the organisation Grandparents Apart UK, which does that battling and champions the cause of grandparents—sometimes in a way that is uncomfortable for us politicians. I ask the minister whether, in his closing remarks, he will commit to re-examining the charter for grandchildren to determine whether it is proving to be effective and whether anything more can be done to encourage those positive relationships. It is important that every child has a sense of their history, identity and family. That comes from knowing their family, even if they cannot live with them full time.

The issue must be raised at every level of Government. I would be interested to hear what further discussions the minister has been able to have with the United Kingdom Government, because he was committed to that. I will certainly continue to pursue the issue when I have the opportunity to do so.

I welcome the fact that Johann Lamont has secured this members' business debate. As she mentioned, I amended her motion. Peculiarly, I amended it not by deleting a single word but by adding to it. That addition talked about progress since 2007. Whenever I have spoken about such progress, I have said that it has happened because kinship carers lobbied effectively and empowered me and other politicians to promote their message. Therefore, the credit for everything that has been delivered since 2007, whether by the Scottish Government or any other body, goes to the kinship carers who have lobbied relentlessly.

There is consensus, which I welcome. A year or two ago, we had a kinship care debate that was purely party political. It turned off every kinship carer who watched it, and every party that participated in it shares the blame for its being party political. However, things have moved on. We have had a Scottish National Party Government since 2007. We have a Labour Opposition, and the Conservatives are present. I welcome the fact that Elizabeth Smith mentioned the concordat, as imperfect as it certainly is; I will talk about that. We are united across all parties and, I hope, at all levels of government on getting a better deal for kinship carers.

I will give one small example of how that can happen. When I talk about what happened in Glasgow, the praise and credit do not go to the Labour Glasgow City Council or to me as an SNP MSP, but to the kinship carers for telling us to get our act together and deliver. I met Mr Purcell when he was Labour group leader. He was, then, unconvinced about kinship care payments, which it is fair to put on the record. Following that meeting and a working group, £40 per week was paid not only to looked-after children but to all kinship-care children—I say that slightly nervously, because some children have fallen through the cracks; we have to identify them and make sure that they get the money. That was an example of parties working together.

I recently met David Crawford, the executive director of social care services at Glasgow City Council, and Councillor Matthew Kerr, who has taken over the social care remit from Councillor Archie Graham. We spoke about what will happen to kinship care payments, given the cuts. The first thing they said to me was, "Bob, we know that more than £40 should be paid. We can't reach the target that should be paid, but the least we expect is some form of increase from the £40." Even in the face of cutbacks, in Glasgow, Opposition politicians and the Labour Council are working constructively together with me as the local SNP MSP. The issue was not thought of in 2007. We now have a focus of attention because kinship carers have forced all of us to get our act together. I pay tribute to those carers. The issue is not only about money. Of course, the money is important, but we are talking about equality, dignity and tackling poverty, too.

The issue is also about the wider support mechanisms of local authorities and other agencies. I pay tribute to the Notre Dame Centre in the west end of Glasgow for the fantastic job that it does in taking in the vulnerable children who are looked after by kinship carers. The centre does that at a very reduced rate or no rate at all; it deals with the issues that the children present.

It seems that foster carers get a first-class service for their children when compared to kinship carers. That is not equality. There is a disparity between those two sets of carers in respite care and additional support. We are all fighting for equality by raising standards.

I have drawn attention to the money, but the issue goes far wider. In looking to avoid a postcode lottery, of course we have to look at the concordat, which Elizabeth Smith mentioned. The concordat has brought a focus to these issues like never before. There has been progress, but it has not happened quickly enough and it is patchy. That is why we have to come together on a cross-party basis. We need to move forward from May 2011—no matter which Government is in power. We need to stand united for kinship carers not only before the election but after it, too.

I congratulate my colleague Johann Lamont on obtaining the debate. I regard this debate as being of considerable importance, not least because I was adopted. I was extremely lucky: I was adopted into an excellent family and had enormous opportunities as a result. Subsequently, I became a medical adviser on adoption and fostering and saw some of the problems that foster and adoptive parents face. The changes that have occurred by way of improved pre-adoptive and post-adoptive support is extremely welcome, as is the improved support for foster carers. The group of carers who look after their kin, essentially on a voluntary basis, is the group that we now really need to address, which is what the motion seeks to do.

As Cathy Jamieson said, we now have a charter for grandparents and grandchildren, albeit that access is extremely patchy. I agree with Cathy Jamieson that we need to look at the matter, including by way of future legislation. We need to ensure that the child is genuinely at the centre of things. Too many children are still being separated from their grandparents.

I welcome the fact that when Wendy Alexander asked the question of the First Minister in 2007, the response was a financial commitment. If I remember correctly, the commitment was for £10 million. According to my rough maths, an allowance of around £150 a week would equal a commitment of about £75 million. The amount of money that the local authorities have for this area is therefore not significant and that, in turn, is reflected in authorities' responses. Citizens Advice Scotland has helpfully produced its "Relative Value: The experiences of kinship carers using the Scottish CAB Service" report, which includes the example of Ken and Nancy. A projection was done of local authority areas, which showed that a couple in their situation would be better off by £66 in one area but worse off by £22 a week in another. How could they be worse off? It sounds strange, but that is the example that was given and I have no reason to doubt the figures.

This is also a gender issue, given that 87 per cent of kinship carers are women. In our society, women already have lower wages and are disadvantaged in many other ways. Many women kinship carers will wish to adapt their working practices to ensure that their grandchildren, nephews or nieces get a proper experience of child rearing. What do we do to encourage employers to ensure that these individuals can go part time? Very few of such carers can work full time.

The background of such children shows two areas that are of particular interest to me, the first of which is addictions. As Elizabeth Smith said, the number of children affected by addictions is estimated at somewhere around 50,000 for drug addiction and perhaps as many as 100,000 for alcohol addiction, although there will be some overlap between the two. Those are substantial numbers. Pressure will be put on the Parliament to try to move on taking more of those children away from their parents. We now know that if child rearing is not effective in the first three years of childhood, the damage is almost irreversible. Therefore, we need to encourage grandparents to be deeply involved in the provision of partial care, at least, if not of total care, in that time. I would say that we need a far more sophisticated approach to those early years.

The other confusion, as Johann Lamont indicated, is that children who are formally looked after may receive both support and allowances, but there are many other children who are the subject of informal arrangements. Frankly, I have heard too often of social workers encouraging such arrangements for, I suspect, budgetary reasons, but it is not a good move.

I do not have time to make all the points that I would like to make, so I will make one final one. Clackmannanshire Council was one of the first councils to introduce allowances. It did so at a rate of between £121 and £209 a week, depending on the age of the child. It has had to cut that back and has been subjected to the most outrageous attacks by the Scottish National Party, when the neighbouring Stirling Council, whose residents are also my constituents, has failed to provide a single kinship allowance.

I echo Bob Doris's sentiments. Let us be above party politics on this issue—although, when a local party attacks a council on a basis such as the SNP has attacked Clackmannanshire Council it is, to be frank, disgraceful. We must rise to the challenge and do better.

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate on kinship care, and I thank my colleague Johann Lamont for securing the debate.

I think that we all agree that the removal of a child from their parents is a last resort. Sadly, in some cases it is unavoidable. The recent report by Citizens Advice Scotland, which others have mentioned, found that the three most common factors that lead to kinship care are addiction, bereavement and chronic neglect. Children from such environments will have undergone traumatic formative experiences and will be psychologically and emotionally vulnerable. It is essential that they are made to feel safe and secure and that, where possible, they are placed with relatives with whom they have an established relationship and whom they know and trust.

However, being a relative has a direct and often adverse impact on the help that kinship carers receive. Many of those who become kinship carers do so out of a sense of obligation. They feel that there is an assumption that they will take responsibility, but that that assumption leads to them being taken for granted.

We must remember that to look after a child who is not your own is a momentous task, regardless of the circumstances. Those who do so deserve all the support that society can offer. Some kinship carers have to give up their jobs to meet their care responsibilities; others have to return to work to make ends meet. Time and money are sacrificed, relationships are placed under strain, and mental and physical health are put to the test.

As Johann Lamont's motion highlights, by preventing children from entering the care system, kinship carers make a financial contribution to society. To deny kinship carers the help that they need is a false economy. Despite the financial hardships that are associated with kinship care, few carers would ignore their responsibilities. Those hardships and the associated stresses and strains of looking after the children should never be underestimated.

The Scottish Government's introduction in 2007 of the kinship carers allowance reflected the need to address those concerns but, as my colleague Richard Simpson has pointed out, not every council pays that allowance. There is no requirement to make those payments, which has given rise to inconsistencies across local authorities, with some councils making full or partial awards to kinship carers and others making none at all. That is simply unacceptable. In addition, the interaction between the payment of kinship carers allowance and the UK benefits system has resulted in some carers who receive the allowance being left worse off. That, too, is just not acceptable.

With almost 13,500 children across Scotland in formal or informal kinship care arrangements, it is clear that the situation cannot be allowed to continue. One of the key principles of getting it right for every child is that all children are entitled to the same high standard of care. However, kinship carers in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts tell me that the current system is unequal. They feel frustrated and marginalised, and those sentiments are shared by kinship carers across Scotland.

Foster care budgets are protected, but kinship carers have already seen their allowances drastically reduced, and the prospect of further cuts is looming. Furthermore, and as kinship carers have consistently highlighted, it is not just about money. Getting it right for every child recommends taking an holistic approach to child care that takes emotional, educational and psychological welfare into account. However, many kinship carers struggle to access the appropriate services for the children they care for.

What can we do to address those problems? We must formulate a system in which relatives are encouraged—not discouraged—to act as kinship carers, and which recognises them as the primary carers and ensures that they receive the requisite help. The introduction of the kinship carers allowance was welcome, but we must now work to establish consistency of payment across all local authorities and take steps to ensure that kinship carers who are in receipt of that allowance are not left worse off.

It is essential that we listen to the opinions and experiences of kinship carers, many of whom are present at this debate. They deserve to be included in the decision-making process. Kinship care is as fundamental to child welfare and protection as foster care. Kinship carers only want what is best for the children in their care, and the Scottish Government and all politicians must match that desire and commitment.

Johann Lamont gave a powerful statement of some of the problems that face kinship carers right across Scotland, and she made a moving and persuasive argument about our failure to support those people who are doing so much for many young people in our country.

Richard Simpson was right to point out some of the party-political issues. Others have said that they do not want party politics in the debate, but party politics are involved. Part of the problem with the party politics is about the parties that are in power. It is not just about the SNP in power, it is about Labour in power. I was a minister, and I hope that I moved the kinship care agenda forward. I was involved in the discussions on the charter for grandparents, and I am proud of the contribution that I made.

However, Presiding Officer, I remember being very politely lambasted by you on a number of occasions about our failure to do more for kinship carers, and you were right. When we are in government, we often have to make difficult decisions, but more can always be done. The same applies to the current Administration. It can take some satisfaction from what it has done, but it should also recognise that more needs to be done. I hope that out of this debate will come some willingness on the part of all the parties in the Parliament to say in their manifestos what they are going to do to support kinship carers. More than that, I hope that they will meet that manifesto commitment, and that it will not be just another broken promise. Whether the current Administration remains in power or, as I hope, Labour returns to power, I want to see some positive action.

We have a disgraceful situation in this country. For years, when we have discussed health, time and again members of the Parliament have said that they are not prepared to accept a postcode lottery for health. What have we heard tonight? We have a postcode lottery when it comes to kinship care. It is unacceptable that kinship carers are supported better in some areas and not at all in others. The care is provided no matter where people live.

As Johann Lamont and others have said, we live in a society that in some ways has changed beyond all recognition. Drugs have completely laid waste to many communities and families.

Every member in the Parliament will have had kinship carers come to them in their constituency work. I remember as a minister many people saying, "We thought that at our stage in life it would be time for us to put our feet up, relax and enjoy the fruits of our hard work." What happens? Because of some disaster, tragedy or problematic situation, those people are suddenly lumbered with all the responsibilities of child care at the time of their retirement. They include emotional responsibilities, physical and mental responsibilities and, yes, financial responsibilities.

Those people are doing taxpayers, local authorities and the state a huge favour by taking on the troubles and problems of those children, but they do not see it as trouble or a problem; they see it as their duty and responsibility, because they love those young children. Are we seriously suggesting that they should turn to the children and say, "We can't look after you. You're going into care or foster care, because there is more money to support you there than there is in taking you on ourselves"? No, of course they would not say that, so why should we take advantage of them because they do the right thing for the children they love? It is about time that the Parliament faced up to its responsibilities.

First, I join others in congratulating Johann Lamont on securing today's debate on children in family and friends' care. We have heard some excellent speeches from all round the chamber and a good many pertinent points—one or two I might take issue with, although I will not do so this evening. I shall endeavour to respond to as many of the points as possible in the limited time available.

Not the least valuable part of the contributions, and indeed the correspondence that I receive from several members, has been the personal testimony of the constituency cases with which they have had direct involvement. I have found many of those accounts troubling, moving and impressive, and they have been reinforced in the many meetings that I have had as an elected member, and now as a minister, with kinship carers. That is why, as our spokesman on the issues in opposition and now as a minister in government, I have been very keen to push the cause of kinship care.

We all know that kinship carers make tremendous efforts in the face of often very difficult circumstances. We owe it to them to work with them to do all that we can for them and the children for whom they care. The Scottish Government's ambition for all children in kinship care—and, indeed, for all looked-after children—is that their opportunities should be the same as those of any child. I am sure that there is no difference between the parties on that point.

The Government moved quickly when we came into power and, in 2007, we published our strategy on "Getting it right for every child in kinship and foster care". That gave us a clear plan of action. Since then, we have implemented the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which set out the arrangements for kinship care of looked-after children, and we have published guidance and delivered training to front-line staff in every local authority to support those regulations.

We have funded Citizens Advice Scotland to provide better advice and information to kinship carers, particularly on maximising benefit entitlement, and we have commissioned the Child Poverty Action Group to deliver training to front-line workers and social work managers to improve their skills and knowledge of kinship care. On that issue, I take the point made by Paul Martin, who made some very pertinent points on how kinship carers may have been treated by local authorities and others.

We have also funded Who Cares? Scotland to deliver the corporate parent national training programme to elected members and community partners. We want to empower our local representatives on councils to ask the right questions of their senior officials. We have formed the looked-after children strategic implementation group to bring together organisations from across the children's sector to drive forward an ambitious programme of change at the local level. Also, for the first time, we have introduced, through the concordat, systematic financial support for kinship carers of looked-after children.

The Scottish Government has taken explicit action to counter what we know are poor educational outcomes for looked-after children. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 introduces a specific provision that increases the existing duties of local authorities to identify, assess and meet the educational needs of a child with additional learning needs. The provision was introduced on 14 November and the presumption is that all looked-after children require support unless they are assessed otherwise.

I hear what the minister is saying and do not dispute that what he has described has been done, but the crux of the matter that we are discussing tonight is the fact that many of the children we are talking about are not looked-after children because their families have stepped in to avoid them being put in that situation. Will the minister say something about them?

Yes, indeed. I shall go on to discuss the situation of all kinship carers, including informal kinship carers.

Whether or not they are kinship carers of looked-after children, we know that kinship carers do it for love, not money but, equally, we all know that financial resources—or the lack of them—have an impact on how easy it is to care for a child. We also know that the number of kinship carers has grown more than expected since 2007. There has been an increase of something like 40 per cent in the number of children coming into kinship care, which has been a real concern for local authorities throughout Scotland. However, kinship care is a cost-effective care placement that offers scope for councils to provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for children and young people.

To get the best from kinship care, we need to continue to invest. In the face of the worst public expenditure environment in 60 years, we have been working with local government and the UK Government to make a difference for kinship carers. I do not say that we have achieved enough yet, but, working with local authorities and UK Governments spanning the political spectrum, we have achieved significant progress. For example, through our working with the UK Government, since April, kinship carers have received their kinship care allowance free of tax with some benefiting by up to around £25 a week. From October, kinship care payments that are made under section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and, from April, payments that are made under clause 50 of the Children Act 1975 will be fully disregarded for housing and council tax benefit purposes, with some kinship carers benefiting by up to £50 a week.

Those improvements will make a big difference for many carers and are a step in the right direction. However, to my mind, the best sustainable solution is for financial support to be provided by the benefits system. When a child enters a household, the benefits system should help to support that child and that placement. We will, therefore, continue to push the UK Government to change the benefit rules, especially those regarding entitlement to child benefit and child tax credit. That continues to be the basis of our policy on financial support for kinship carers. It is why, at Scotland's first ever children's summit, in June, I announced the agreement of the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to work together on kinship care to secure further concessions from the UK Government to ensure that the benefits system is the primary source of financial support.

We also agreed to work with COSLA to explore the non-financial support that kinship carers need and to consider whether we can do more for informal kinship carers. I take the points that Karen Whitefield, Cathy Jamieson and others made in that regard. I am pleased to confirm that, as a result of that work and discussions with kinship carers and stakeholders, the Scottish Government will pilot a national training, support and advice service for all kinship carers, from early in the new year.

We will also invite representatives from kinship carer groups across the country to a national forum to ensure that we have a strong dialogue with carers from all across Scotland. An important conversation will be to find out from carers what works for them and the children in their care. That will continue to directly influence the training service that we offer.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but the minister should be finishing.

I reassure the chamber that the Scottish Government stands ready to work with our partners, in consultation with carers, to improve further the lives and opportunities of all our children and particularly those in kinship care.

For my part, I would also be keen to build on the parliamentary consensus that we have witnessed in tonight's debate. I will undertake to explore with all the parties' spokespeople ways in which we might work together to further this agenda through policy development and practical action. Perhaps we can meet early in the new year to take that forward.

Meeting closed at 18:02.