Rights of the Child
We move now to the members' business debate on motion S1M-280, in the name of Elaine Smith, on the United Nations convention report on the rights of the child. I ask those who wish to speak in that debate to press their buttons now. The bad news is that I do not think that I have any chance of calling all those who wish to speak, but we will do our best. I ask members who are not staying to leave quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent publication of the second report by Her Majesty's Government on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; acknowledges the excellent work being undertaken by statutory and voluntary bodies at national and local level in upholding the Convention, including ‘Parents Action for Safe Play Kirkshaws', an example of good practice in the constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston; affirms its support for the convention, and commits itself to working to ensure that it is fully implemented in Scotland.
I am delighted that this motion has been chosen for debate this evening. I want to start by thanking the many members from across the political spectrum who signed in support of it, as well as those in attendance this evening. I believe that that shows a great willingness to improve the fundamental rights of children.
Although this is a member's motion that specifically mentions a group in my constituency, I drafted it with the full support of the proposed all- party parliamentary group on children's issues. The group is working to raise awareness of children's issues in a non-party political manner, and I am grateful for the help that Children in Scotland has given in pursuing our agenda.
The general assembly of the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child in November 1989. In doing so, it spelled out in an unequivocal manner the rights to which every child is entitled. In 54 articles, the convention establishes in international law that states that are party to it must ensure that all children, without discrimination, benefit from special protection measures and assistance; have access to services such as education and health care; can develop their personalities, talents and abilities to their fullest potential; grow up in an environment of happiness, love and understanding; and are informed about and participate in achieving their rights. It is not only the most comprehensive instrument in human rights law—it is also the most
widely accepted.
The UK Government ratified the convention in 1991 and submitted its first report in 1994; the UN made various criticisms at that time. The second report was submitted in August last year and lists many initiatives for furthering the rights of children, such as the promise to eradicate child poverty, the emphasis on early-years provision and the introduction of key rights in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. One of our colleagues, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who was then a Scottish Office minister, said that at the core of the act were the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults and public organisations to care for and protect them. More recently, the Scottish Office child strategy statement undertook to identify and take proper account of the interests of children when developing policies.
The ethos running through the convention is that of provision, protection and participation. The three key principles that should be applied through Scottish law and policy are those of nondiscrimination, the child's best interests as a primary consideration in all actions concerning children and the child's view being given due weight. Mindsets need to be changed and mainstreaming of the interests of children must become second nature.
There is a common misperception that the convention takes responsibility for their children away from parents and gives more authority to Government. That is not the case. The convention refers to the role of parents and families directly and charges Government with protecting families and assisting them to meet their essential role as the nurturers of their children. Parents have rights with respect to their children, but those rights are linked directly to the need for parents to promote and protect their children's rights. Of course, translating child-rights principles into practice requires action by Government.
Many issues are involved in the debate on children, and I am sure that my colleagues will highlight some of them. I would like to focus briefly on article 31, which promotes the child's right to play. Last summer, I was invited to take part in the launch of Play Scotland's play agenda for the Scottish Parliament. The initiative challenges us to recognise that play is crucial to a child's physical and emotional health and well being, and calls for a multi-departmental approach to it.
I am keen to support that agenda, primarily because of my knowledge of and association with Parents Action for Safe Play in Kirkshaws. In Kirkshaws, parents worked against the odds to transform a local derelict site into a multi-purpose play area suitable for all, from toddlers to teenagers. The motivation was the apparent connection between the lack of facilities for play and leisure locally and young people's becoming involved at an early age with alcohol, drugs and vandalism.
The group's achievement is an example of good practice, in that it incorporates key principles of the convention. The group has continued to pursue the provision of leisure activities within the play area and the wider local area, and it is now viewed as a model for others. I invite the minister, who has heard me speak in the chamber about the group, to visit Kirkshaws.
Although there are success stories, there remain, unfortunately, many areas in which this society is failing to meet its obligations under the UN convention. Particular groups of children, such as those in travelling families and children with disabilities, remain disadvantaged.
Shelter recently published a report that shows that thousands of children who suffer from homelessness are denied the right to play. There are children in Scotland who live in extreme poverty, and we do not need to look to the third world to see the exploitation of young people in the labour market. Last week, and again this week, "Newsnight Scotland" reported on the shocking scenes of young children working on the streets of Glasgow into the early hours of the morning. That practice breaks laws, directly contravenes article 32 of the convention and shows that our society fails to protect children. There must be multi-agency action to address that and to prevent children facing the dangers that are inherent in working in such conditions.
The second report recognises that there are distinct cultural and traditional differences across the UK and includes chapters on issues that arise in different parts of the UK. The report recognises that there are significant differences in the Scottish legal system, and that devolution will further develop diversity of practice.
Therefore, although we are already bound by the ratification of the UN convention, it is appropriate that the new Parliament should affirm its support and commitment to working continually to ensure full implementation in Scotland. The convention should be the main benchmark and inspiration for action at all levels of government.
Although I applaud the work that the Government has done in the UK, there is no doubt that there are gaps in the implementation of the convention. One way to address those gaps would be to have a statutory children's commissioner for Scotland. Such an office could provide a proactive monitoring mechanism for the development of policy, promote children's rights, and provide an annual report to Parliament.
The protection of human rights is by its nature an endless process, so there is always room for
improvement in the monitoring of performance.
Is the member aware that the Minister for Children and Education asked the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to examine the possibility of the appointment of a commissioner for children's rights? The committee said that it would investigate the ways in which such a post might be established.
I am aware of that. Although I am glad that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is considering the matter, I ask the minister to undertake wide public consultation on the role of a commissioner, as the National Assembly for Wales is doing.
Our children are citizens in their own right. We must make every possible effort to meet their rights and needs. It is appropriate to conclude with the words of Kofi Annan, the UN secretary- general:
"To look into some aspects of the future, we do not need projections by supercomputers. Much of the next millennium can be seen in how we care for our children today. Tomorrow's world may be influenced by science and technology, but more than anything, it is already taking shape in the bodies and minds of our children."
I hope that members will support the motion.
I will call the minister to wind up for seven minutes at 17.40. Seven members would like to speak; how many will be able to depends on the brevity of others.
As a prospective convener of the proposed cross- party group on children, I welcome this debate on what is now the most ratified piece of human rights legislation in the world. The motion allows us to reflect on progress that has been made towards implementation of the convention. As Elaine Smith said, there is much still to be done.
In August 1999, it was noted that the UK Government's second report still fails to provide a comprehensive picture of how well children's rights are being met in Scotland. For example, do children have more rights in family law than they had before?
I ask the minister whether there are plans to compile up-to-date information on the situation of under-18s in Scotland. That base-line information would allow more effective monitoring of the implementation of the convention. To assist implementation further, I support calls for the Scottish Executive to establish a comprehensive implementation plan, with clear and specific targets, which the UN convention called for when the UK Government submitted its first report in
1994.
An annual progress report with statistical evidence, as Elaine mentioned, could demonstrate and evaluate how well objectives for children and young people are being met. The public in general, and children in particular, are largely unaware of children's rights and the UN convention, so there must be action to involve children and the public in learning about their rights. Direct services must be made available to children to support them in exercising their rights. I commend Angus Council for producing material such as "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adapted by children for children", which makes the information accessible and widely available.
We are discussing our aspirations of how life should be for our children. The Scottish Parliament has a unique opportunity to put children's rights at the heart of decision making in Scotland. Let us make sure that happens.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on bringing such an important matter to the chamber. It is terrifying to see the images on television of children fighting adult battles, carrying AK47s and machetes, participating in wars that they are in no way responsible for let alone understand. That is the worst form of exploitation—a child's mind poisoned by hatred and violence is likely to produce an adult with a twisted and perverted inclination. Other images, of child prostitution, child slavery and close-up pictures of tiny frames of skin and bone dying in front of our eyes are set in front of us every day in our living rooms. Those children have no rights. That is why the UN convention of 1989 is so wonderful.
I would like to pay tribute to all the voluntary organisations—there are too many to name—that do so much worldwide to alleviate children's suffering. On this issue we should be helping others who do not have our stable democratic society with a relatively high standard of living to clean up their sometimes nightmarish backyards before we do a spring clean in our own, by comparison, slightly dusty premises.
Having said that, the situation here is not perfect and there is much to be done. I believe in the principle, which runs through the UN convention, that actions should be taken in the best interests of the child. For example, most parents are beneficial to their children's development and know best what is right for them, but in cases of abuse it is often in the child's best interests to be separated from damaging influences. Children must have the right to go to court, along with
others who can make representations on their behalf, to make their views known without fear of reprisal.
As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have had the chance to talk to many disabled children and their parents. They are quite clear that, whenever possible, disabled children should be grouped among their peers in mainstream education and activities, rather than singled out for specialist institutions. Our aim should be to provide a level playing field of rights for all children, whatever their circumstances. Highlighting particular groups for special consideration or treatment is divisive and can lead to discrimination. Education, information, inclusion and compassion should be the bywords of our new Scotland, especially where children are concerned.
I was very struck by Irene McGugan's phrase:
"aspirations of how life should be for our children".
It summarises the objectives of today's debate. The general issue is the waste of talent and opportunity as a result of poverty or deprivation. We can all come up with sob stories, every one about a real child who has had his or her human rights abused in our modern, wealthy and civilised society. I want to concentrate on solutions.
A good start, which is backed by various children's organisations, would be to draw together a national plan for children, with clear and specific targets. It must deal with the lack of safe refuges for children who run away from home, the position of children whose families become homeless, the age of criminal responsibility and the need for positive play experiences. The needs of children must be to the forefront across the board: in the Health and Community Care Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
In Glasgow 40.7 per cent of children are eligible for free school meals; 41 per cent of Scottish children under five live in poverty, defined as half the UK average income. Those are cold figures, but they have significance for the children concerned and the whole nature of Scottish society.
At lunch time today, I met a director of a disablement organisation who told me about his hopes for the coming into force in April this year of the commission on disablement. He wants it to bring about a refocusing of the disablement debate in a way that no other mechanism can. That is an argument for the independent children's commissioner called for in today's debate, who could focus the debate on the rights of children and move it forward.
If there are financial reasons why that cannot be done, why not appoint a broad-based Scottish human rights commission that could cover children's rights? There is growing support for that in the Parliament. If the new Scotland is to be effective, democratic and have depth and strength, perhaps the Executive should publish a consultation paper on these matters. It is a major agenda that will require targeted partnership between central and local government and the voluntary groups. I hope that the motion will get broad support from members and from the minister.
As I have been deeply involved in setting up the proposed cross-party group on children's issues, I welcome this debate and congratulate Elaine Smith on mentioning many important issues in her speech. In particular, I congratulate her and Mary Mulligan on the comments they have made in the past few days about the scandal of children who are working on the streets at night selling newspapers, while nobody seems prepared to accept responsibility for the fact that they are being put at risk.
I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about something that is close to my heart—the involvement of children in decision-making processes that affect their own lives. I have spent many years campaigning on that issue, particularly in relation to article 12 of the convention. I trust that that article will be taken fully into account in the discussions on the proposals for the future of education.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have spent some time talking to children in my constituency as part of the initiative set up to encourage MSPs to hold surgeries for young people. I have attended a number of schools and I must say that the quality of the debate and the level of interest in what is going on in this Parliament shown by those children would put many of the adults out there, who take their views only from some of the nonsense in the newspapers, to shame.
Those children and young people have positive suggestions to make on drugs, on the provision of decent leisure facilities, on the environment and on how to involve young people more in the education process. They are interested in peace and justice issues and in some of the matters that Jamie McGrigor mentioned. They cannot understand why, in a world with great resources, so many of them are concentrated in the wrong
places and people are still starving. They were right to put politicians on the spot.
The children I spoke to were also interested in how to become an MSP. That in itself shows that the Scottish Parliament is perhaps sending out the right message about being more open and accessible.
I do not want to say too much more, because I would like as many people as possible to be involved in the debate, but I would like to mention again the appointment of a children's commissioner. I have campaigned for that over many years, written articles about it and spoken about it in various quarters, so I do not want to go over all that again.
We must propose something that gets that joined-up thinking right and cuts across all departments. If there is one thing that disappoints me still about this Parliament, it is the fact that children's issues are seen as the responsibility of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am on the Transport and the Environment Committee; there are children's issues to do with transport. There are children's issues to do with other areas of the Parliament's work. If we can take a lead and set an example in bringing together those issues, that would be a step forward for children's rights.
I join other members in congratulating Elaine Smith on securing this debate. I want to raise an issue that is of particular relevance to article 32 and I have questions for the minister.
As Cathy Jamieson said, it is horrendous that young children are out working when they should not be, with no protection at all. Cathy said that this is a difficult issue to tackle; there is an EC directive on protection of children in employment, which could go a long way towards tackling it. The EC directive ensures that there will be risk assessments for children in employment between the ages of 13 and 18 and that a special permit will be issued to show that that risk assessment has taken place.
Implementation of those risk assessments requires local authorities to pass byelaws, which have to be approved by the Minister for Children and Education. Recent press coverage has told us of councils, especially Highland Council, that have been waiting six months for approval of the byelaws they have produced. I have a couple of questions for the minister on this issue. Why are councils waiting so long? How many more have produced byelaws and are waiting for the minister's approval?
That problem could be overcome by the appointment of a children's commissioner, which is long-standing SNP policy. Members will know that Nicola Sturgeon—who, unfortunately, cannot be here this evening—has a motion before Parliament on that subject. I commend it to members and hope that all of us will support it.
Our having a children's commissioner might ensure that ministers comply with European directives and articles of the UN convention when it suits children, not just when it suits ministers.
I thank Elaine for introducing this subject for debate. As happened with the member's debate on domestic violence, I hope that this motion will be the subject of a full parliamentary debate and that we will be able to vote on some of the issues that have been raised.
I have only a short time, so I will concentrate on one or two matters. The report states:
"The Convention is not legally enforceable"
but it
"obliges countries that ratify it to undertake all appropriate measures for the implementation of the rights" that children should have. I would like the minister to remember that when he considers the following aspects of the report.
The first is the part that deals with family environment and alternative care. It states:
"The Convention recognises and encourages the supportive role parents, other family members and the community play in raising their children".
I would like the minister to address the rights of grandparents who, sometimes, through no fault of their own, lose contact with their grandchildren because of divorce or separation, for example.
Jamie McGrigor raised the horrific issue of children in war. The Executive and the Westminster Government—regardless of political party—should not supply arms to countries that use children as soldiers. I watched a television programme about Sierra Leone. Perhaps other members saw it. I was disgusted by the fact that children there, some as young as six or eight, were drugged, dragged away from their parents and used as soldiers to kill. We must not be party to that. I beg the minister, on behalf of everyone in this Parliament, to tell Westminster that we say with one voice that we will not sell arms to countries that use children as soldiers.
Thanks to three members withdrawing their requests to speak and commendable brevity on the part of those who have spoken, everyone who wanted to take part has done so. This is a model of how members'
debates should operate.
I hope that I will be a model of how one should reply to a debate, but I am not sure that that will be the case.
I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and that Elaine Smith has secured it. I know that she pays a great deal of attention to how we can best provide for children and young people. This is a matter to which Parliament is rightly giving more attention. She raised many questions and made the point that this is an all-party matter. I want to enter the debate in that spirit. It is important that, when we discuss children's issues, we do so as far as possible in a non-partisan atmosphere, because we all aim to secure the best interests of the children we are here to serve.
I want to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as I can. First, I am pleased to reaffirm the Executive's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As members will be aware, the UK has been a signatory since 1992. Sam Galbraith made clear the Executive's commitment to the convention when the second UK report was published in August. The report had a separate Scottish chapter to reflect the situation in Scotland. Over time, I hope that we can develop that part of the report and pay more attention to some of the points that have been raised today.
Of course, the report was informed by the views of children. As often happens, Cathy Jamieson rightly pointed out how important it is to listen to those views. From my experience in recent months of listening to young people talking about the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill and about children's services and looked after children in the care of local authorities, it is striking how quick, articulate and pointed they are about the questions that we need to address as adult politicians. We have a lot to learn from those young people.
When we are thinking about future reports on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we will listen to children's view about the convention and establish how we can make progress on aspects of it in response to their views.
I will pick up on four points: employment and article 32 of the convention, which Fiona McLeod and others mentioned; a commissioner for children; and, if I have time, play and further thoughts on listening to children.
I hear what has been said about children in employment and the television images we saw last night and last week. Article 32 deals with the economic exploitation of children and the control of child labour. It is a provision which, regrettably, the Tory Government entered a reservation to. I am delighted to say that the Labour Government has removed that reservation. Legal provision is now made for young people aged between 16 and
18. We have also raised—from 13 to 14—the minimum age at which a child can be employed, unless it is expressly sanctioned by the education authority in byelaws. I will pick up Fiona McLeod's point about byelaws, which is an important issue on which local authorities are in the driving seat. Fifteen sets of local authority byelaws have been confirmed, the Scottish Executive is processing a further eight and we are waiting for a further eight to be submitted. We have written to local authorities reminding them of that, because their role in this is crucial. As a result of this debate, I will check on what is happening to the eight that are currently under consideration by the Executive. I will ensure that we do anything we can to speed the process up.
As a result of this debate, I will also ask more questions in the department about the enforcement of existing byelaws. There is little point in having byelaws, conventions and provision in law if enforcement does not follow. We can take employment much more seriously, because a framework of law exists to deal with it.
This is the first time I have had the opportunity in Parliament to make the Executive's position on the children's commissioner clear. I will spell this out in some detail. I am conscious that many calls for the examination of this concept have come from many quarters: from across the political parties in the chamber and from a range of voluntary organisations and other interests outwith the Parliament. The proposition is superficially attractive, but the Executive wants to be sure that the attractions are more than superficial. We want to ensure that support for the commissioner is for the same thing.
I have frequently been told about the need for a commissioner and the arguments for one have been put cogently, but people often give different descriptions of the commissioner's job. We must ensure that if we have a commissioner, everybody is on board about what that commissioner ought to do.
Many international comparisons are made in discussions about a children's commissioner. Other countries have commissioners and it is often argued that we should therefore have one too. We should certainly learn from other countries. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will listen more and hear what is happening in other parts of Europe and the world, but making simple comparisons can be misleading. The commissioners that are
referred to in other countries do different things. Other countries do not have the same support systems as we have for children's services. We must be clear that the commissioner—if we are to have a commissioner—will add something to the present situation and design of services.
The Executive wants to be clear that a commissioner would not replicate, usurp, or conflict with, existing arrangements. For example, how would a children's commissioner relate to the childrens hearing system, which, after all, is unique to Scotland and highly regarded? We want to be clear about what the relationship would be.
How would the commissioner relate to the duties under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995? How would the commissioner relate to the local authority ombudsman, the health service commissioner, the parliamentary commissioner or other independent offices that have been established to protect the rights of citizens? We must be clear about how the work of the commissioner, if there were to be a commissioner, would relate to the voluntary sector, which does superb work in a variety of settings. We must ensure that any commissioner would not impinge upon the traditional and valuable role of the voluntary sector. We must be clear about how the commissioner would relate to parliamentary committees and the rights of MPs and MSPs. The proposition raises many issues on which the Executive would have to be satisfied before we could proceed.
However, I want to make clear that we do not have a closed mind. If a commissioner can genuinely add something positive to the existing range of provision, we are prepared to consider it. That is why, as Mary Mulligan said, we have asked the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider the issue—I am delighted that the committee is prepared to consider it in some detail. We stand ready to help it—perhaps, as Robert Brown said, by providing a memorandum on a range of issues that we think the committee needs to take into account.
The issues that I would raise need close and detailed examination in public. It is important that that is done in public, which is one of the reasons we have asked the committee to consider the proposition. We remain to be convinced, but we are willing to hear the arguments and to try to be satisfied about the points that I have raised.
Presiding Officer, how am I doing for time?
Your time is just ending.
In that case, I will ask for indulgence and deal quickly with play before I conclude.
On many occasions, in questions and in parliamentary debates, Elaine Smith has rightly mentioned play. I willingly accept the invitation to visit the group in Kirkshaws to see what it is doing. The scheme is clearly very worth while. Across Scotland, many other, similar, schemes are developing. We want to encourage them because play is central to much of what the Executive would like to achieve.
The benefits of play are clear to most people. It allows the youngest children to explore the world in all its manifestations. It allows them to develop physical skills. It allows them to develop their understanding of the world and to develop new social skills that enable them to co-operate and to work with others. When I was a professional youth worker, I saw how adventure play can help people to mature and to contend with a range of situations. I assure Elaine Smith and the Parliament that we are deeply committed to ensuring that play develops as a major part of our policy on children and their future development.
I undertake to write to other members who have raised points that I have not been able to deal with. We are glad to have had this debate and we are glad about the spirit in which it has been conducted. I hope that we will have further debates on children, their rights and their needs, and that we can continue to transform the lives of children in Scotland in the long term.
I would like to respond to the minister's question about time. In adjournment debates in the House of Commons, ministers get cut off in mid-sentence when the half hour is up. This Parliament is more open and accessible and the occupants of the chair occasionally turn a blind eye to the ticking of the clock when we think that doing so is in the interests of the chamber as a whole. That was a good debate.
Meeting closed at 17:47.