Consultation (Children and Young People)
I invite Fiona McLeod to introduce her report on consultation with children and young people.
I take it that everyone has received a copy of my report. On the final page, I state that I will produce an extended bibliography, but I must apologise as I am afraid that I keep finding more stuff, so I do not yet have the definitive bibliography. However, I intend to produce it, as I think that members will find it useful. Links to websites will be especially helpful in allowing people to surf through the information that is available.
The report itself is fairly self-explanatory and I hope that it meets with people's approval. It was an interesting report to produce, and that is perhaps why I did not meet my deadline in January. As one gets into the subject, one realises that Scotland is just beginning the process of taking children's views seriously and building them into decisions about their lives. Other countries went down that route five or 10 years ago, so much research has been done.
The research shows that it is perfectly feasible to implement article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, allowing young people the right to have their voice heard and giving it equal weight when decisions are made about their lives. The literature also shows that we must be aware that the standard forms of consultation are, in most cases, completely inappropriate for finding out young people's views.
I cannot make hard and fast recommendations. The committee must decide whether it wants consultation with children to be part and parcel of the process of government. We might consider appointing an adviser or setting up an inquiry into producing a template that other organisations could implement.
Convener, when we were talking about the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, you said that it would not have been appropriate for us to have met Save the Children as we would have been unable to get the information that we wanted. In that situation, I think that it might be right to ask the experts to get information for us and to present it to us in a way that they think fit.
Scotland, like the rest of the world, should implement article 12 of the convention. This committee, which deals with children specifically, should take the lead on the matter and, in the way in which we conduct our business, provide a model for the Parliament.
We are knocking at an open door. In the past few months, we have seen that the appropriate departments in the Scottish Executive have already started to consult young people. I do not think that anyone should reinvent the wheel. Our job should be to ensure that all the work that is being done in that area is brought together and presented as the way in which consultation should be carried out. The Government has opened up consultation to young people on a number of occasions but, as my report notes, it has done so only after it has been reminded that that must be done. I hope that the committee will appoint an adviser to help with the mainstreaming of consultation with young people.
The references that appear in the report are the sources from which I have quoted and are worth reading. I will produce a bibliography soon. I am not the only person to find the subject fascinating: the Scottish Parliament information centre has been incredibly helpful and members of its staff have shown enthusiasm in finding material.
Consultation with young people is possible and is already happening, but we have to ensure that we set up the correct procedures. Perhaps more important, there has to be a weighting mechanism for the views of young people. Eliciting their views will be pointless if those views carry no weight.
I thank Fiona McLeod for producing the report. She has been relentless in pushing the matter forward.
I will not stop.
I know, and I commend you for that. You have done us a great service. With the help of SPICe, you have shown that research has been done on consultation with young people and that there is good practice on which we can build.
I echo Ian Jenkins's comments. There is a steep learning curve. As Fiona McLeod said, it is important that we examine the process of engaging children, but I must remind the committee of the answers that we had from HM inspectorate of schools about engaging parents. There is much work to be done on the wider processes of participation and ways in which people can be consulted. I do not think that the current consultation processes for adults, never mind children, are very good. Some agencies, such as the popular education forum, are doing good work and are examining new ways of carrying out consultation and developing that into participation.
I support the ideas of getting an adviser to consider ways of consulting young people and of weighting the views of young people. We should also think about ways of consulting children who are involved in special needs education. It is all too easy to speak to the articulate youngsters who have a good support network and good teachers. Brian Monteith and I got a lot of information when we talked to the children in the lovely new school that we visited. It was clear that the teachers were working closely with the kids and were supporting them. We need to think of ways of ensuring that all our kids have that kind of experience at school.
We should come up with a better way of consulting parents than by a questionnaire. The questionnaire that is issued by HMI is appalling and would not elicit the views that I would want to hear from parents.
I commend Fiona McLeod on her work. We should have assistance to elicit the views of children not only on education but on culture and sport, the other areas of our remit. I have a particular problem with the Scottish Football Association at the moment in regard to its policy for the under-12s, on which I am pretty certain that children have never been consulted. I suspect that consultation with young people would uncover adult-centred policies in many areas. Fiona has done us a service in pointing that out. If we appoint an adviser, he or she should be able to work in a variety of areas, not just education.
In my report, I did not think only in terms of the bill or education. The point is that young people should be asked for their views on issues in their lives.
This morning, I attended a student council that was discussing the consultation on physical punishment of children in Scotland. At the end of the consultation document are two and a half pages of people and organisations to whom the document has been sent. Only one—YouthLink Scotland—has direct links with young people. We assume that we will discover what young people think about physical punishment in Scotland by talking to councils or the Educational Institute of Scotland, but we will not.
This committee should produce a template—I cannot think of a better word—for how people can elicit the views of young people on any issue that affects them. We politicians think that we are listeners and that we are good at talking to people. When the minister and his deputy were here, I mentioned consultation with young people. They were quick to say that they go to schools and talk to the children, but such methods are often not appropriate.
We might think that we have spoken nicely and that the kids have said something back, but they might not have had a chance to explore fully what they think about an issue and what it means to them. The games that one can play with young people to address serious matters are amazing.
The recent example of the young people who visited Edinburgh City Council to speak about Gaelic education shows how consultation with young people can be misused. A template would be useful, not just for the Parliament, but for local authorities.
My concern is that it is not possible to create a template. If we produce something that appears to be a template, people will tell us that they have done it a different way. There is no one model of how best to consult young people. We might have to consider different mechanisms. Before we go the advisers, we should go back to SPICe and ask the researchers to follow up on how that might be developed. We are rather busy and it might be difficult to fit this into the short-term business of the committee.
I would like to congratulate Fiona on an impressive report in which she has raised several issues. The point that is being made is that it is not just about what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee does, but about how we ensure that other parliamentary committees and other public bodies take on board our comments on consultation with children and young people. That is a good starting point, but we must expand on it if we are to be successful in making children feel that their views are important and will be listened to. That will initiate a productive dialogue.
Karen Gillon's point is also relevant. There will never be one particular method of consultation. That is clear from what Fiona has said. The way in which we engage children in consultation will need to be adapted according to the matter that is being discussed and the circumstances of the children—Cathy Peattie mentioned children with special educational needs, for example.
As I am sure Fiona McLeod will know, SPICe is anxious to take the matter further and continue the research project. If SPICe comes back to us with suggestions, that would be a good way of ensuring that we act on Fiona's work, rather than admiring it and then leaving it.
I support that suggestion. I have a slight concern about the word template because I think that we need to take a dynamic approach. Meaningful consultation with children is now on a different level from that of a few years ago and it will continue to change. The self-confidence of young people is growing and the technology through which people can express their views is developing dramatically.
I understand the problem with a template, but is very difficult to find the right word. I have written down "checklist", but that might present the same difficulties.
I have been doing a lot of reading and research, as has SPICe, and we have been enjoying it—we could go on for ever. If we ask SPICe to do some more research, we must have a specific purpose. The work that we have done for this report was designed to ensure that the subject could be tackled—that it was not just my airy-fairy idea. We must give SPICe a firm research title to work towards. We must also have a committee timetable for acting on that research.
The recommendation at the end of the report is:
"That the committee proceeds to a full inquiry on ‘mainstreaming' consultation with young people in all aspects of legislation."
I felt that I had to include legislation, because we are a parliamentary committee and our primary purpose is to develop and scrutinise legislation.
If we can produce a statement backed by evidence that shows that it is possible to ascertain young peoples' views and to give those views weight when considering legislation, it will send out a positive message. If we can do it, it can be done for anything that involves young people. That might be our research aim and it might help to change the seen-and-not-heard attitude that persists in Scotland.
We talk almost as if we could have a really good consultation and end up with one view from children, but we must remember that their views are as complex as ours. The difficulty is getting a balanced view—when we take a decision we are likely to upset some young people, just as we upset some adults when we take decisions.
It has always been recognised as an important part of consultation that children and young people get feedback on decisions. They might hold a variety of views. We must consider that in developing a consultation policy. We will consider the remit for the research and a timetable for action.