Young People
Resumed debate.
The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on motion S2M-103, in the name of Peter Peacock, on young people.
I apologise to the chamber for not being present at 9.30 this morning for the start of the debate. My knuckles have been duly rapped and I assure members that it will not happen again. Who said that it is only youngsters who misbehave and get themselves into trouble?
The Executive's motion is worthy and I applaud its positive aspects, particularly the praise of young people's contribution to our society. As I and others have said in previous debates, we often hear only about the negative aspects of young people, so it is good to hear about their positive achievements.
We have all heard the old saying that labels stick. With young people, because of peer pressure, the label not only sticks, but things become worse—young people start to emulate the behaviour suggested by the label that they have been given. That is sad, especially when we consider that only 2 to 3 per cent of young people become offenders. It is sad that we give all young people the same label. I do not blame any one person, but I must single out some of the newspapers that make out that all young people are vandals. As I said, only a small percentage of young people commit crimes.
Campbell Martin said in his speech this morning that the vast majority of youngsters want what everyone in the chamber and outside wants—they want to be treated fairly and equally and they want to achieve their aspirations, just as we want to achieve our aspirations. We should remember that. I thank Campbell for mentioning that in his speech and for reminding everyone in the chamber that young people should be looked on as citizens of the future.
No one will disagree with the statement that we were all young once. Every one of us was young once. I am sure that some of us—or most of us—got up to some kind of mischief in our lives. Perhaps we dressed strangely. Irene Oldfather mentioned that the Minister for Justice had pink hair and wore Doc Martens in her young days. I hope that Nicola Sturgeon will not be too mad at me if I reveal that, as I recall, at one stage in her life, although she did not have pink hair, she wore Doc Martens—perhaps it is something to do with justice. That did not make either of those people delinquents. Members may agree or disagree with that, depending on their political party. We are not all perfect. We should remind ourselves of that.
The motion mentions many things and I applaud many of them, such as education and sport and leisure facilities. I do not want to get into a debate about PFI or PPP—whatever people want to call it—because that is for another day. However, I assure the chamber that those members who visited schools during and outwith the election period and spoke to pupils and teachers can verify that the pupils said—they certainly said it to me at the schools that I visited—that they had lost facilities because of the new PFI or PPP schools. That is a fact of life. They lost meeting places, some of them lost sports grounds and some lost assembly halls. I urge the Executive—if this is not the responsibility of the Executive, I will take it on board myself—to carry out an audit of the facilities that were available in those schools prior to PPPs and PFIs. I am not surprised, although others might be, at the lack of space and the lack of available rooms to hire in the new PPP schools. I ask the minister to respond to that issue when he sums up.
One concern that I have about the motion relates to sports facilities. Yes, it is all well and good to mention sports facilities—they are marvellous things—but we have to realise that we are losing sports facilities to developers hand over fist. We are also losing green-belt areas. Some kids cannot afford to use the new sports facilities and some kids just want a green space to kick around in.
I was going to mention various other issues, but I see that my microphone light is flashing. Do I have one minute left?
No, you have two minutes left.
I am sorry; my light is flashing.
As I was saying, we have to examine the issue carefully. We are losing a tremendous amount of playing fields and green spaces. That is frightening. The issue has to be examined with the National Playing Fields Association.
The SNP amendment refers to
"powers to ensure that young people do not … leave Scotland".
We also need powers to correct the terrible benefits system, whereby 16 to 18-year-olds cannot access benefits. The Parliament has to have powers over that. Most of the young rough sleepers who are seen on the streets are 16 to 18-year-olds, who get no help. I know that Barnardo's and other groups help, for which I applaud them, and that there have been lots of initiatives. However, those kids are the most vulnerable in society. They come from care homes. We have to examine giving the Scottish Parliament power over the benefits system. That would be one small step, but we should be pushing for it.
The Scottish Youth Parliament could have more to do with matters other than just youth issues. I have spoken to many members of the Youth Parliament and attended many of its meetings and I know that its members desperately want to be more involved. I hope that we can take up the rough sleepers initiative and explore it further, not just within the committees, but with ministers and members of the Youth Parliament. I know that its members want to be more involved with the Scottish Parliament. It would be marvellous if we could arrange that.
The motion does not mention anything about nutrition or the eradication of poverty. If the Scottish Parliament does not do something to eradicate poverty and deal with the associated health issues, we will let down not only young people, but everyone in Scotland.
I am delighted to take part in this debate on young people, in view of the fact that there was largely a consensus this morning on the need to celebrate young Scots and their contribution to society and especially given that so many young people have been in the gallery listening to the debate. Too often, we focus on difficulties and problems instead of on the majority of young people who, as Sandra White pointed out, live lives that are not so very different from ours.
One of the most important things that adults can do is to lead by example. Whether we debate lifestyle choices or—as we did yesterday—discuss choices on a menu, we need to examine our own lives to see what messages we give out. If we expect young people to be active and to avoid chips and fizzy drinks, we must make healthy active choices ourselves. The proposals in the partnership document to introduce mentoring schemes support that idea. Young people have their own lives to lead and will make their own choices—we need to encourage that approach. In response to the SNP's concerns, I think that we need to support those young Scottish women who are choosing not to settle into family life. Our young people are Scotland's future and their choices might well be different from ours. We should welcome that difference.
That is why the Youth Parliament is so important and why it is so excellent that we are focusing on young people and recognising that we need to listen to them. Perhaps we should follow their good example in many areas. Unfortunately, we all know young people who live in difficult circumstances, some of whom are not far from despair. It is essential that we work together to support them towards a more hopeful future.
I am struck by the agreement among members of all parties and by our shared aspirations. This kind of positive debate does not sweep the issues out of sight but helps to move the focus and might play a small part in a culture shift in how society sees young people. The message that we need to send to young people is still the same: "We are on your side." However, we must also recognise that antisocial behaviour must be challenged and dealt with; we cannot and should not try to avoid tackling difficult issues that involve young people.
We must always be sensitive about how young people are labelled and the negative effects that that might have. However, I am sure that the labels that young people put on one another are the most insensitive ones. We are becoming aware of more and more labels, some of which can be helpful. For example, we are now used to labels such as SEBD, which stands for social, emotional and behavioural difficulties; ADD, which stands for attention deficit disorder; ADHD, which stands for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and ODD. For any member who is not quite up to date on all the labels, I should point out that the last one stands for oppositional defiant disorder.
I mention those labels not to be cynical or critical, but as an attempt to move the debate on. We need to see young people as individuals. The truth is that young people know, by how they are treated, what others think of them. The Executive's proposals will improve that treatment by prioritising, investing in and valuing young people in Scotland. We should certainly ask young people for their opinions; indeed, that approach is becoming more widespread.
I hope that the many young people who have visited the Parliament today will take the opportunity to make their views known and to influence the programme for government. I support the motion.
This debate is about Scotland's future. If we want our country to succeed, all members should recognise that we can influence that success. We pass the laws that will change or influence Scotland's future, but our young people will become the scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists, small businessmen, inventors and sportsmen who will mould it. We are responsible for giving those young people the conditions in which they have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential. I have always maintained that we all have a unique talent; the problem is that not many of us ever identify it. We must provide the conditions that allow more of our young people to identify their talents.
As I have said, if we want our young people to succeed, we must give them the conditions in which to do so. In May 2000, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland announced that £1.3 billion was needed to repair Scotland's crumbling schools. It is estimated that, at current levels of investment, it could take as long as 30 years to address the backlog. Everyone in education—the teachers, the parents and the pupils—has highlighted the fact that the physical school environment is vital to effective learning and teaching.
On 12 June 2002, the Executive announced its school building programme to fund work on 79 schools with a capital value of more than £500 million. PPP is just one of a number of new funding routes, including the new deal for schools, the school buildings improvement fund and capital allocations. On 25 June, the Executive unveiled the first stage of a rebuilding programme to rebuild and refurbish 300 schools—that will provide PPP investment of £1.15 billion. On 3 February 2003, the Executive published its school estate strategy and announced that, over the next three years, there would be an extra £110 million in grant funding from the Scottish budget.
As well as giving our pupils a good environment in which to work, we must give them more choices. We should provide more flexible learning and development opportunities, so that pupils' experience of education is matched by their individual needs.
The member mentioned PPP and PFI. Because of PFI funding, West Lothian College, which is the only PFI college in Scotland, has problems offering the types of courses that the huge numbers of students who want to go there want to do. The PFI project is harming and limiting the educational opportunities at the college. Is that a concern?
It would be a concern, but I am not sure how the member knows that PFI is the specific cause of the problem. I have no knowledge of that.
The partnership agreement is specific. I will give examples of measures that will have the most effect. We will introduce more flexibility in the curriculum for three to six-year-olds and improve pupils' confidence and attainment by changing the ethos of primary 1. We will free up the curriculum, introduce less formal teaching methods and enable earlier professional intervention. We will reform and simplify the curriculum to make it more stimulating and to increase pupil choice.
As well as making provision for time in school learning, we must encourage our young people to play. A national project that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England carried out recently proved that sport could improve children's performance at school. Schools that increased pupils' choice of games and exercise found that attendance improved, bad behaviour dropped and concentration and motivation increased. Exam results climbed and the teachers all felt less stressed. The schools that were involved in the project made the changes by arranging for teachers to be trained in physical education, investing in extra equipment and hiring and training play assistants. Many of the schools also used outside coaches to teach swimming, dance and gymnastics.
The Scottish Executive's school sports champions scheme involves top stars visiting schools and encouraging young people to adopt healthy, active lifestyles. The scheme is part of a major investment in school sport and, in providing young people with valuable role models, will be an important component of the active schools implementation plan.
We must do more to encourage talent. A 13-year-old constituent of mine is a keen athlete; her sport is field archery. She has participated in two world outdoor championships in Switzerland and was champion on both occasions. She is world indoor champion, European champion, Scottish indoor champion, Scottish outdoor champion and United Kingdom champion. She travels throughout Britain and Europe to compete and has the prospect of competing in the United States in 2004. Her family and friends fund all that activity. They have made funding applications under sportscotland's talented athlete programme three times, but the applications have been refused each time. Such a youngster deserves our help. I will write to the minister to ask him for suggestions.
The picture might not be as bad as we make it out to be. The debate is about the positive contributions that the young people of Scotland can make to our society. I would like to finish on such a contribution. The pupils of a school in my constituency—Bruntsfield Primary School—can be proud of their efforts. Its badminton team has swept all before it by winning all the cups and trophies in the under-12 category. The team's success comes just a month after it won the Royal Bank of Scotland Scottish quaich at Grangemouth, where it became the top under-12 school team in the country. It was the first time that an Edinburgh school had picked up the quaich in 25 years of the competition. I believe that the members of that team are the sort of young people whom we want to encourage and I hope that they will be the ambassadors for Scotland's future.
There have been differences of opinion and tone in the debate—that is healthy—but one general principle around which we can all unite is the idea that prevention is always better than cure. If we can take steps to nip problems in the bud rather than having to pick up the pieces later in life, that can only be a good thing.
When I mention prevention, I am not only talking about diverting young people from criminal or antisocial behaviour, although I commend projects such as the Magdalene youth strategy project in my constituency, which has had enormous success. I am also thinking about preventive measures to tackle the number of teenage pregnancies, the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, which Mary Scanlon mentioned, the rising number of young women with eating disorders and the number of young people in this and other western countries who exhibit mental health difficulties of one sort or another.
Those are big issues and we cannot unpick them all today, but it is important to acknowledge that the earlier in the life cycle that we address them, the more successful we are likely to be. I find myself in the unusual position of enthusiastically having common cause with David Davidson—it is a pity that he is not here to hear me say that. He was the first member today to stress the link between, on the one hand, health status, nutrition and nurture—not just in the early months and years, but from birth and even conception—and, on the other, behaviour in adolescents. The evidence for that link is now overwhelming.
I would not make the quantum leap to say that more breastfeeding will result in less youth crime, but there are more connections than might appear at first sight. A huge amount of work has been done in the area—I know that the Executive has conducted research and that many Executive programmes that were developed in the first session of the Parliament are based on a recognition of those connections. Although work on health, education and social justice is not often described in terms of youth or youth crime policies, it is carried out in recognition of the fact that early intervention can make a real difference. I commend much of the work that is under way.
We have some way to go. We have to face up to the fact that society has changed, habits and lifestyles have changed, practices have broken down and some of the learning that used to be passed down from generation to generation is no longer being passed down. Family models have changed; families are more dispersed and the job of bringing up children can be all the more difficult in an isolated situation. That makes it all the more important that we think about how we support families and individuals. I am concerned—I appreciate the point that Fiona Hyslop made—when people suggest that that is somehow akin to creating a nanny state, because I do not think that it is. It is right that the Government should continue its role of enabling, facilitating and supporting.
In many respects, there is no more important job than that of being a parent and bringing up the next generation. I point to a piece of work in my constituency—I know that other members can point to similar work. This week in Musselburgh, the East Lothian positive parenting forum launched a report considering in depth the needs and wishes of parents in the area. I commend the report and others like it to those who are making policy decisions. Although many of its findings are not rocket science, certain things scream out, such as the desire of the vast majority of parents to do a decent job, to be listened to and to get practical support in key areas such as child care, not just through statutory services, but through the community and support from other parents. That is something that statutory bodies and voluntary organisations can stimulate, enable and facilitate.
Parenting is arguably the most demanding and rewarding job that anyone can do, but it is a job; it is not something incidental in our lives that can just be tagged on after everything else. It is sad that we are asked to do just that all too often these days. We must address that problem.
Of course there are financial pressures on parents. I do not have time today to talk about that, but I acknowledge that there are profound problems for people bringing up children in poverty. However, there are also pressures on many people who are in professional work, on middle-class people and, I am sure, on members in the chamber today, because those people are time poor. Many children who have Sony PlayStations and Nike trainers might just like a wee bit more help with their homework or a few more bedtime stories read to them. As policy makers, we can do things to make the job of parents easier and to ensure that people can strike a better balance between work and family life. If we do that effectively, I have no doubt that it will make a difference to the outcome of the next generation.
I am glad that we are talking about not only young people, but the theme of families. Having agreed once with the Conservatives, I must rein back from that quickly, because I have a bad feeling. A hallmark of the Thatcher years was the fact that the right hijacked much of the language about and emphasis on the family. The right made the notion of family narrow and judgmental and created a model of so-called success that involved a married couple with a mortgage, a car, a foreign holiday and 2.2 kids.
Families matter, but they come in every shape and form. It is our job to support families in whatever form they take and to speak openly and comfortably about the importance of families as building blocks in our communities and societies. We must be careful not to overemphasise the language of failure and blame, which can have adverse and unintended consequences, whether for young people or parents. We must work to help the vast majority of young people and parents who need support, not judgment. The more we do that, the more we will achieve and the fewer problems we will have in future.
I am pleased to participate in the debate, but when I first read the Executive's motion, I was a little concerned that it would mean more of the usual consensual guff. Fortunately, having followed the debate closely—members might be surprised to know that—I recoil from that judgment, although I am of the judgmental type from the right that Susan Deacon described. I add from my knowledge of Margaret Thatcher that a less judgmental mother I do not know. Perhaps that is because she had to bring up Mark and Carol Thatcher.
I have a growing waistline and not a great deal of hair, but it is not very long since I was chairman of the Scottish Young Conservatives. I recall fondly that campaign organisation, which I confirm was really a marriage bureau, although the lack of women meant that it was probably more of a civil partnership bureau.
I will base my observations on my experience as a parent and on my interrelationship with many organisations as a result of being a parent. We can see good work by young people and good work for them by many voluntary organisations.
I will touch on a matter that is close to the heart of Malcolm Chisholm, who represents Leith. Leith Athletic boys club was established by locals to take kids off the street, including girls. The other weekend, it achieved an astounding result when its under-12 team won the Scottish cup for the third year in a row. That result is astounding because each year a different team is required to undergo the trials and tribulations of winning the tournament. That achievement should be recognised. The club has grown in recent years and has undertaken a great deal of work to give people the opportunity to learn how to win and lose with dignity, which is important. Such experiences help to build up the whole picture for young people.
Callander youth project works closely with the education department in Stirling and works with children who might otherwise be cast to the streets and expected to be truants. The project gives those children a second chance and the opportunity to learn with tutors and mentors, which provides a way back to school and to mainstream education. The work of bodies such as that is important to society—by getting in behind what the state can do, they give us added value. Of course, many other organisations, such as Barnardo's, also work with local authorities.
We must pay due regard to the role of parents, and in doing so we must recognise the important role of fathers. A significant body of evidence shows that the lack of a father is a contributory factor to youth crime. Although we should not have a general rule on the subject or be prescriptive about it, when marriages, partnerships or families break down and the father is no longer in the home, we should look to see that both parents are available to guide the children, give them an example and provide encouragement to them.
In debates such as this, it is easy for members to say how important it is that we support the good work of young people. However, young people judge politicians by the actions that we take. I do not want to add a discordant note to the debate, although colleagues might be surprised if I did not. I want to highlight two areas of concern to young people in which politicians play a role.
The first area is that of low pay. The evidence plainly shows that it is those who are the lowest paid in the United Kingdom who have suffered the largest tax increases under the Labour Government. As members know, young people coming into the job market tend to be low paid. Gordon Brown has given young people that experience.
The second area is the graduate endowment, which in essence is a new tax on young people. The Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to resist the graduate endowment, but sadly it voted for the tax. I mention those areas not to score party-political points, but to flag up the fact that, although politicians can agree motions such as that which we are debating today, and can say that we support and cherish the work of young people, we must also consider the consequences of the laws that we pass and the effect that they have on young people's lives and livelihoods.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my support for young people and to wish them every success in the new Scotland that they will build.
I will focus on a particular part of the motion, which is about young people requiring support. There has been some discussion in the press about the desirability of excluding pupils from mainstream education. I will highlight an example from my constituency where good support is given to young people with behavioural difficulties.
Last Friday I was fortunate to visit Dumfries High School, which has obtained funding through the alternatives to exclusion programme to establish the Schoolhouse. The school has taken over the vacant janitor's house and converted it into a learning base, which is staffed by two teachers. Pupils who are excluded from school because of behavioural problems are required to attend the Schoolhouse during the period of their exclusion.
Instead of those young people missing out on their education and being left at home or hanging about on the streets where they can get into more trouble, they are kept on the school premises. They can continue to learn in a safe, secure environment without interacting with other pupils or causing problems in the mainstream school.
I was impressed to find that the Schoolhouse was neither a sin bin nor an easy option for the young people whose behaviour had caused them to be excluded from being educated with their peers, even for a short period. The Schoolhouse pupils continue with their studies and attend other sessions, including group and one-to-one sessions during which they address some of their behavioural problems and consider how their behaviour affects teachers and fellow pupils.
The Schoolhouse pupils will shortly be given access to computer-based learning support, which is in operation throughout the rest of the school. That support will help the pupils develop their literacy and numeracy skills. It uses a series of programmes that are tailored to individual need and to levels of attainment.
The pupils not only engage in academic activity, but work in the garden and undertake vocational activities. I was very impressed when I visited. It was very quiet; a group of pupils were working together on their individual educational activities in one room and in another room two young boys who had been excluded from school for fighting each other were working together and helping each other with their homework. The general atmosphere was supportive, quiet and disciplined. I felt that the young people were continuing to learn and to understand their difficulties.
I was informed that two of the excluded pupils were helping another pupil, who is school phobic. One of the boys had been in trouble on many occasions during his school life, but he was anxious to help a young lad who was finding it difficult to come into school. He was going home to try to help the other boy to come in the following day. I thought what a contrast it was to pupils being sent home to hang around on street corners; they were engaged in doing something positive and in addressing their own behaviour.
I was impressed by another aspect of the project. I often meet teachers and head teachers and they are sometimes stressed—being a teacher is a stressful occupation. One would think that teachers who deal with the most behaviourally challenged children would be the most stressed, but they were not; they were incredibly enthusiastic. They often do not take a coffee break. If other teachers are too busy to give them relief, they are quite happy to work with the young people through their coffee breaks because they are so enthused by and passionate about their work.
The only concern is how the project will continue to be funded once the alternatives to exclusion project ceases, as it is a three-year pot of money. Can ministers consider how these excellent projects can continue? They are on short-term funding. How can we ensure that those excellent projects continue once the three years is up?
I extend an invitation from the head teacher, Colin Mitchell, who said that he would be delighted to see the Minister for Education and Young People or the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, if they are ever down in that neck of the woods, to demonstrate to them the value of the work that is being done. Let us see how projects that are examples of excellence can continue, because they are important and contribute greatly to the support of young people who otherwise would have behavioural difficulties.
The debate covers a wide range of subjects. I will focus on a couple that are local to me.
The motion mentions education taking
"place in the most modern facilities".
Nobody in the Parliament would argue that children should be expected to go to school in old-fashioned and outdated accommodation. The problems arise when we consider how the facilities are provided. The financial effects of PFI/PPP are well known and I am sure that that debate will continue in the chamber over the next four years.
I will consider some problems that are being caused by the wholesale disposal of public assets for private profit. In East Kilbride and Hamilton, which are both in Lanarkshire—where I live and which I represent—a school closure programme has been instituted. It is underpinned by the need to sell off development land to finance the PPP.
Half of all secondary schools in East Kilbride will close, as will Earnock High School in Hamilton; the issue of Craighead School in Hamilton is a special case and requires a whole debate to itself. The upshot is that school pupils will face longer journeys to school, which increases the risks to their safety, and school rolls will rise to among the highest in Scotland—so much for reducing class sizes and investing in Scotland's youth.
The Executive's motion mentions
"extending access to high quality sport and leisure facilities".
My colleague Sandra White raised this issue. School closures to facilitate profiteering remove sport and leisure facilities from communities. Schools that are run under PFI/PPP restrict access to their facilities. We have heard the good and cuddly public intentions of the Executive, but the policies cut away at the very fabric of the infrastructure that the Executive says it wants to support.
As the SNP amendment stresses, we are facing problems of population demographics. Scotland needs to attract immigrants, and the SNP considers there to be a need now for a positive inmigration policy for Scotland. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Scotland should also be looking to play a full part in alleviating suffering here and elsewhere. I would like Scotland to play a full and active role in welcoming asylum seekers, first because it is right and secondly because their presence would add great value to our country. That is why I despair at the way that asylum seekers are treated here—not by their neighbours, because Scots generally welcome anyone who comes here. Sadly, it is the UK Home Office's draconian policies and intentions that are very much at odds with the sentiment in Scotland, in this chamber and elsewhere. Ministers here, including the First Minister, have made very sensible statements about immigration and asylum issues and I urge them to keep putting their views forward in the strongest terms to their Westminster counterparts.
I live near Dungavel, which is now an asylum seeker detention and removal centre. The conditions inside the centre are as good as the staff can make them, but here we are having a debate about our young people while we are locking up other folk's young people in a prison environment. We are not even allowing those youngsters outside that prison environment for education purposes. There has been much argument about whether the coalition in Scotland will or will not lock up the parents of antisocial young people, but in this country we are locking up both young people and parents, where no crime has been committed. There can be no moral basis for that from a country that signs up to many—but unfortunately not all—of the United Nations conventions on children and young people. I, for one, am deeply ashamed to live in a country that houses an institution such as Dungavel.
Although I can agree with the sentiment of the Executive motion, I believe that that sentiment can be improved upon by agreeing the amendment lodged by Fiona Hyslop and by following that with reasoned action. I urge members to support the SNP amendment.
Young people and politicians have one experience in common. Both receive a bad press because of the activities of a small percentage of their number. Politicians should not complain about such treatment; we are legitimate targets of the fourth estate and we can, and do, return fire. Young men and women have every right to complain about such skewed generalisation. As the timely briefing provided by Young Scot, YouthLink Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament reminds us, young people are overwhelmingly positive contributors to society, and we do no service to our young constituents if we forget that 98.6 per cent of the 1 million young Scots under 16 are not referred to the reporter on offence grounds.
I am not for one moment saying that we should pretend that there is no problem whatsoever. There is a very real problem with a tiny number of persistent young offenders, and to claim otherwise would be blinkered and dishonest. However, we must keep things in their proper perspective. I know from 20 years' experience of teaching in the secondary sector, and from work in my constituency, that young people are by and large enthusiastic, bright and creative citizens of Scotland. They are neither angels nor devils; they are individuals and they are our future.
I am delighted that the Executive's motion celebrates young Scots' positive contribution to society. I would like to refer to a number of examples from my Glasgow Anniesland constituency. A group of senior students in Drumchapel High School have made a video of day-to-day life in their new-build comprehensive, which demonstrates the wide range of educational and social activities on offer to pupils. The video is excellent, its production professional, its content imaginative and its purpose worthy. Its purpose is to ease the anxieties of primary 7 pupils, at whom it is targeted, as they prepare to make the difficult transition from primary 7 to secondary 1.
Incidentally, the Drumchapel SIP provided the funding to enable the video to be delivered to every household in Drumchapel in an effort to increase the number of children and families choosing to complete their secondary education in the excellent new modern facility that is Drumchapel High School. That is a small but powerful illustration of all age groups in a community co-operating positively with a commendable purpose.
In my constituency, I have had the pleasure of attending Jordanhill Primary School's pupil council, the elected members of which range from primary 4 to primary 7. They produced their own agenda, chaired their own meeting, composed their own questions for me to attempt to answer, listened to each other and to me courteously, sent out a minute of the meeting timeously and asked me to arrange for them to come and see the Parliament at work on a Thursday in September. I hope that they will not be disappointed.
Those are only two examples of young people making a positive contribution to the life of Scotland. I am delighted to record such activities in the Official Report. I mention also the new youth forum that is being set up by the community support unit in Drumchapel in conjunction with the SIP to support young people's participation in influencing the development and delivery of local services for young people, the thriving pupil council at Kelvindale Primary School or the development of a Yoker community campus that will provide a setting for young and not-so-young people of that community to acquire the appropriate skills training to access employment and make the fullest use of their abilities; I realise that there is not enough time to go into detail.
This debate in our young Parliament is an opportunity to affirm our belief in the young people of Scotland. I am pleased to support an Executive motion that reflects such a positive analysis and approach. I will not vote for Eleanor Scott's amendment, although it mentions lowering
"the minimum age for voting and standing in elections … to 16 years."
We should not be afraid to consider such a reform in due course. After all, if we want young people to contribute to our community as responsible citizens of a modern democracy, we should treat them as such citizens.
Mark Ballard should keep strictly to three minutes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
For a long time, we have been told that young people are apathetic, more interested in PlayStations than politics and are neds who cause trouble and terrorise honest folk. However, to assume that all young people are neds is no fairer than assuming that all politicians are numpties. We must go beyond such stereotypes—of politicians and of young people.
One of the few uplifting sights that I saw during the dark days of our illegal and immoral military intervention in Iraq was the number of young people who passionately demonstrated their opposition to war. To see more banners representing schools in Edinburgh than those representing trade unions was amazing—there were certainly more banners representing schools in Edinburgh than those representing the Labour party at the demonstrations in Edinburgh.
When an issue is important to young people, they are passionate about politics, about being involved in the political process and about having their voices heard. During the gulf war and the struggle that continues against Blair and Bush's imperialism throughout the world, it was and is important for young people's voices to be heard. That is why we need to involve young people in the political process. Young people of 16 and 17 are old enough to join the Army and should be old enough to vote on where the Army goes. They should have their say about military interventions.
I am pleased to support Eleanor Scott's amendment and am pleased that, although Bill Butler said that he would not vote for the amendment, such issues are receiving wider recognition across the political spectrum.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to give a curtailed speech.
Mrs Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
The debate has been a good one. As other members did, I begin by welcoming the new ministers to their portfolios. The Minister for Education and Young People made a positive opening speech, which contributed to the tenor of the debate.
The debate has been MSPs' second standing ovation of the week for the children of Scotland. We can take great pride in much that our young people do, such as volunteering and their hard work on exams, which has just finished for this year. Mike Pringle was correct to say that children are our country's future. For the most part, the children whom I meet—whether they are my children, my children's friends, or the children whom I meet through my job—are a credit to our country, which is in safe hands.
Colleagues' comments have shown that we share an aspiration for our young people: we want to build a confident country in which young people have a candid attitude about their future. That applies not only to children from middle-class backgrounds, but to children from all backgrounds. No matter where or into what situation children are born, we must through our actions give them the platform of opportunity that will ensure that they build a better Scotland, not only for themselves, but for all of us.
There have been some good speeches. I highlight the virtuoso performance by Duncan McNeil—perhaps not everyone agreed with him, but he was certainly entertaining. Susan Deacon and Linda Fabiani also made good speeches. The standard of debate has been quite good and I hope that the young people who are present have enjoyed some of the insights about MSPs and realise that we are not just numpties. We have had the interesting thought that Cathy Jamieson might turn up to the chamber sporting pink hair and Dr Martens, but I assure members that I will not be wearing Dr Martens or dungarees. I see that Cathy has just entered the chamber. I am a bit disappointed that the only pink thing she is wearing is a tee-shirt—we will have to work on that. The idea that Mary Scanlon spends her spare time trailing male toilets and picking fights with male MSPs is also entertaining.
The SNP spokesperson on young people suggested that members should all go forth and procreate for the Parliament. I note that David Davidson, who has five children, has already done his bit. Fiona Hyslop was obviously successful as a whip, because she managed to persuade Shona Robison to do just that. I wish Shona all the best.
It is up to members, whether or not we are lucky enough to be parents, to provide a platform of opportunity for young people. We must put in place the infrastructure and services that will deliver the appropriate educational, social and political background to encourage our children and give them the opportunities that they deserve. I will pick up on some of the themes that have been raised in the debate, but I would also like to mention a couple of points from my personal and professional experience as the former convener of the then Health and Community Care Committee.
One group of young people that I would like to highlight are the young carers of Scotland. About 17,000 young people in Scotland care for and support parents and other family members who suffer from physical disability, mental health problems, chronic illness or drug and alcohol dependency. As a result of that caring role—some young people care for more than 50 hours a week—they are often isolated from their classmates and from the society of other young people, which is why they often end up experiencing problems. I am glad that the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002, which we passed in the previous session of Parliament, gave those young people the right to an assessment of their needs and, I hope, to be cared for.
One of the best moments in the previous session of Parliament was towards the end, when we were considering Margaret Jamieson's and Bill Butler's stage 3 amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. On the final day of consideration of the bill, Parliament forced the Executive to think again and to put in place proper proposals to ensure that the mental health needs and requirements of young people in Scotland are considered and that the need for the provision of age-appropriate mental health services for young people, and of mother and baby units is taken into account. Those measures were a result of evidence given to the Health and Community Care Committee that vulnerable young people were being treated in psychiatric units alongside disturbed adults, and that other young people had to travel hundreds of miles to receive the care and support that they needed. On that occasion, the Parliament gave the Executive the clear message that the situation was unacceptable and decided to change it by statute, which was right.
I will pick up on one of Brian Monteith's points and send some consensual guff in his direction. I record my thanks to Family Mediation Scotland, which does a great job of talking people through separations and marriage splits, focusing on what is best for their children. The service is not interested in the parents, who are adults and must live with the consequences of their decisions. What is important is the fact that thousands of young people and children have to live with the consequences of those splits. Organisations such as Family Mediation Scotland should be given our full support.
Members have rightly highlighted some of the improvements that were introduced in the previous Parliament, including the school building programme, the student funding package and the children's commissioner. Some of the schools in my constituency—Craigmount High School, the Royal High School and Craigroyston Primary School—have benefited from those improvements. Other members have mentioned improvements that will be delivered in the next year, focusing on the antisocial behaviour issue, reduced class sizes, concessionary travel, and so on. I agree with many of the points that have been made in the debate.
I agree with Sandra White about the importance of protecting our playing fields and green spaces, although I expect that the Deputy Presiding Officer will request 250 lines that say, "I will not be late in future," from Sandra White. I also agree with Susan Deacon's point about prevention and the health agenda that must be progressed by the Parliament. We must not look at the issues just in four-year bites, but for the generation to come and the generation beyond that.
It is important that we all accept the principle that our families are not just the two, three or four children that we have, but the family that we care for as a state. We should give them our full attention. Donald Gorrie was absolutely right: we are saying warm words to children and young people about volunteering, but it is time for us to move on from warm words to cold cash. We must give them a proper funding package to allow them to do the job that we have all rightly highlighted today. We want a good, tolerant, well educated and healthy Scotland, and the children and young people of Scotland want exactly the same.
I am grateful to the electorate in Central Scotland for giving me the opportunity to deliver my first speech in the Scottish Parliament in winding up the debate. The subject of my speech has aroused some interest among constituents and friends alike, who know that there is often a bit of latitude concerning the content of such a speech. They have not been short of suggestions for what I should say—some serious, some absurd. My favourite suggestion—made, perhaps, with the Holyrood project in mind—was that I should tell everyone that I know a cracking wee painter called Malki. I am happy to confirm that I do.
It is not only a privilege, but an onerous responsibility for any individual to be elected to serve the people as their representative, be it in local government or at parliamentary level. I entered politics because politics is all about people, and the ultimate honour that a person can have is to be given the opportunity—which, as elected members, we all have—to make a difference and attempt to improve the quality of life for people in Scotland. That said, I am conscious that for a growing number of people, the title MSP is not a badge of honour. When they comment with feeling that the Parliament has exceeded their expectations, it is safe to assume that they are not being complimentary. The mixed emotions that devolution has aroused were summed up for me in a letter from a well-wisher who wrote:
"I am delighted to note you will be representing us in that great symbol of Scottish incompetence and wish you every success there!"
The debate has, rightly, paid tribute to the vast majority of Scottish youth. However, is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with the Parliament when the Minister for Education and Young People lodges a motion in which the Executive promises to
"work in partnership with young people to help meet their aspirations",
but then doggedly insists that head teachers should comply with a policy that makes it virtually impossible for them to exclude disruptive pupils, thereby preventing the majority of well-behaved, hard-working pupils who are keen and eager to learn from getting on with their education?
Peter Peacock and Fiona Hyslop both highlighted proposals to introduce smaller class sizes but there is, to be frank, no sense in reducing class sizes if disruptive pupils are to remain in the classroom. Head teachers should be given the flexibility to set their own discipline policies, because they are best placed to decide on the policy that will drive up standards and attainment levels in their individual schools.
Linda Fabiani mentioned Earnock High School, in Hamilton, which is a centre of excellence that is under threat of closure. She will be pleased to know that a decision about its closure has been deferred and that a further period of consultation on its future is to follow.
It is important to recognise that the coalition's paternalistic one-size-fits-all approach merely stifles the excellence and achievement that Labour and the Liberal Democrats state they are committed to promoting. Worse still, the Scottish Executive's failure to tackle discipline in schools is having a knock-on effect in that it is the same small minority of youths who cause disruption in the classroom who go on to cause havoc and chaos in their local communities.
Our amendment to the motion recognises the central role played by parents and families in enabling young people to become responsible adults. That is certainly the case in addressing youth crime—parents and children must all face up to their respective responsibilities, about which Susan Deacon spoke effectively during the debate.
There must, in order to tackle the vexing problem of youths who become repeat offenders, be early intervention. We must identify early the parents who might be struggling to cope with children who are most at risk of becoming involved in crime. The children's hearing system has a crucial role to play in that regard, but it is prevented from fulfilling its full potential because it is overburdened with 12 to 15-year-old persistent offenders.
Repeat offenders under 16 years of age should be referred to youth courts, thus freeing up the children's panels to concentrate on the at-risk children.
What does Margaret Mitchell suggest should happen to a young person who is referred to a children's panel on the basis of the offences that they have committed, but who is also deemed to be in need of care and protection because of neglect in the home? Would such a person go to court or a children's panel?
It is clear that any child who has emotional problems that could be helped by the children's panel should remain within the children's panel system. The proposal to deal with some young people in special youth courts relates to persistent young offenders who do not come into the category that Scott Barrie mentioned.
Instead of freeing up the children's panels in the way that I have suggested, the Scottish Executive is squandering precious resources on the creation of youth courts for 16 and 17-year-olds who should, at present, be referred to adult courts.
There is also an important role to be played by the voluntary sector in the development and management of projects that channel young people's energies into worthwhile pursuits. Organisations throughout the country are doing good work but, too often, that work is undermined by unnecessary wrangling between local authorities and central Government about how resources should be targeted and coupled, in some instances, with local authorities' lack of responsiveness.
My point relates to an earlier comment by Margaret Mitchell, but I think that it fits in well at this point, given that she has mentioned wrangling between the Scottish Executive and local authorities. I am sorry that I was not in the chamber when Margaret Mitchell commented on South Lanarkshire Council's new consultation period in relation to East Kilbride and Hamilton. I would like to make clear that the new consultation period that she mentioned relates to which schools should be closed, rather than the basis for closing schools.
That might be the case in East Kilbride, but it is not the case in Hamilton. Linda Fabiani can confirm that fact if she cares to check.
On the voluntary sector, I agree with the worthwhile points that Donald Gorrie made today.
Scotland should be proud of its diverse and talented young people but, equally, the Scottish Executive should be made to address the policy areas that have been highlighted today and in which it is failing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I urge Parliament to support our amendment.
I congratulate Margaret Mitchell on her debut on the Conservative's front bench and I welcome Peter Peacock to his new job. I notice that Margaret Mitchell's initials are MM, Peter Peacock's are PP and mine are SS. There is a message there somewhere.
One of the interesting things about our having a debate on young children is that we are all experts because, I hope, we were all children and young people at some point. The difference between some members and others is that some remember what it was like to be a young person, whereas others are no longer capable of that. I ask Jamie McGrigor to stop looking at me like that. I know that he is in the latter category, although he has a mischievous look—perhaps he oscillates between the two.
I will pick up on one thing that Margaret Mitchell said. The issue to which I refer is sending youngsters to youth courts, family courts—as we would advocate—or children's panels versus sending them to the main courts. It would be broadly accepted that many young offenders who are sent to the adult court view that as a badge of pride and promotion, which is not something that we should encourage among our young folk.
Parents look forward to the birth of their children with great enthusiasm. My colleague, Shona Robison, has told me that she certainly looks forward to the birth of her child in about a month's time. We need to help parents convert that enthusiasm for birth into positive support for their children and for giving them positive help to make their own choices in the future. The clever parents will learn from their children, who will pick and choose what they want to learn.
Susan Deacon asked us to support parents, but it would be rather surprising if any member were to suggest that we should oppose parents. That goes to the nub of some of the difficulties around a debate of this kind. The debate is consensual, which is great, but does it lead us anywhere? Let us see where it takes us.
My father was a country general practitioner, and used to have a particular way of dealing with senior primary school children when they were about to get an injection. Just as he came up to them with the syringe, he would ask them, "Are you married?" While they were giggling at that, they got their jag—it was a bit of distraction therapy. I wonder whether, in doing that, he created a psychological link between getting a jag and being married, which perhaps accounts for part of the reduction in the number of married people in society today. That illustrates that communication between adults and the young can in fact have serious long-term effects.
Peter Peacock said that we should engage and listen. All of us would pride ourselves on our listening skills, which are a necessary attribute for politicians. In considering our responses to what we hear, however, I am drawn to the conclusion that many of us are not so much hard of hearing, which comes with age, but hard of heeding, which comes from indifference and a lack of preparedness to respond genuinely to what people have to say.
I turn now to the role of children in society and to the activities in which they engage. Like other members, I receive many invitations to get involved in events that are driven by and involve children, and which are for children. I very much enjoy and welcome the opportunity to attend such events. I recently attended the Scottish heat of the Global Rock Challenge event in Aberdeen. It involved several thousand children putting together music-based pieces of entertainment in competition with other schools. It is a great disappointment that that particular event nearly folded because it depended largely on commercial sponsorship that was withdrawn at the last moment. It is fortunate that the public sector, including the police and the local authorities, filled the gap, but it is still an illustration of the vulnerability of provision for children when the private sector is brought in; we cannot always get private sector bodies locked in.
Pauline McNeill referred to low-frequency radio in Glasgow, I think meaning low-powered radio. That is an excellent way of joining children in one place to others elsewhere via a modern medium, and allows them to gain new skills. I welcome and encourage that.
I regret the fact that, despite my intervention suggesting that he say some positive things about children because he was some way through his speech, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton did not find himself able to do that. However, other Conservative colleagues did so in their speeches.
Robert Brown brought a most intriguing idea to us—that there should be midnight football games for youngsters. I would be happy to play football with youngsters at midnight, if that is a way of diverting them from less salubrious and desirable activities late at night. Robert is on to a winner.
My colleague Fiona Hyslop asked when the children's commissioner would be appointed. I hope that the minister is listening so that he can give his response to that question. Fiona Hyslop illustrated perfectly the dangers to which Patricia Ferguson is currently exposed by the extension of her period as business manager, because she actually asked when the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill would be passed. If someone is shut in a smoky back room, they forget that certain things have happened. I know that Fiona Hyslop meant to ask when the commissioner would be appointed.
Rosie Kane brought emotion and knowledge to the debate. She described with passion some of the problems that young people experience. I cannot in any way criticise her analysis, although I must—given their absence during the winding-up speeches—criticise her stamina and that of her colleagues in a debate in which I thought they would wish to be fully involved. I cannot support her nostrums and solutions, for the simple reason that she gave none. She seems to be obsessed by labels at the expense of behaviour. Let us guide our young people away from unacceptable behaviour and create the facilities to reward good behaviour. The SSP has a long way to go before it makes progress on that issue.
Scott Barrie asked about the low birth rate. Scotland's birth rate is declining faster than that of any other country in the European Union. Alone among countries in the European Union, we have a shrinking population. I do not have a magic answer to that problem—I am infertile, so I cannot contribute to the solution. I hope that others who are not so constrained will play their part.
Rob Gibson spoke about the benefits of exposing our children to live music. As a nine-year-old, inspired by Lonnie Donegan, I used to play a tea box with a hole cut out the back into which I put my foot, a single string and a broomstick. That did more to put children off music than anything else, but standards of musical performance have improved considerably.
I hope that during the recent election politicians have all been exposed to some of the views of young children. Far and away the best contribution to political debate in Banff and Buchan was made by a primary school age pupil who spoke up at an evening hustings organised by New Deer community association. She expressed forcefully and in a focused and proper way what she and her colleagues wanted for her community. The best hustings overall was that which was held at Peterhead Academy.
Young children deserve to be listened to; they have much to say to us. However, there are hard issues. We must recognise that much of the relationship between adults and the young is based on trust and understanding: we do not understand them and they do not trust us. If we have done anything today, I hope that we have started on a road towards building trust and understanding between young people and us.
David Davidson referred to mental health, for which we need better provision.
I will close by asking a few questions and making some comments. How many older people trust young people today? We must break out of the cycle of mistrust. Too many of us fail to judge our young by what they do, too many of us fail to judge our young by what they think and too many of us judge our young by what we think they do. Our young learn their failings from us, so it is time that we changed our ways and learned the valued virtues of enthusiasm, energy and commitment from the great mass of our young who possess them.
I support the amendment in the name of Fiona Hyslop.
The debate has been excellent. It has provided a good opportunity for many to contribute and for a wide range of views to be expressed. The striking thing has been the generally positive tone of the speeches—although there were one or two unfortunate exceptions. It would have been wrong to drag the debate into a party-political squabble, because the interests of young people and of Scotland's future are far more important than scoring party-political points.
The attendance of a number of young people who have come to listen to our debate has been welcome. Along with Peter Peacock and his deputy, Euan Robson, I had lunch with some representatives from the Scottish Youth Parliament, Who Cares? Scotland, the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum, Young Scot and the dialogue youth project. Those young people are anxious to make a contribution. They want their voice to be heard and they have a strong opinion that deserves to be heard in the Parliament.
I cannot remember whether it was Sandra White, but someone suggested that there should be more dialogue and engagement with young people. At lunch time, the minister gave a commitment to the young people that we would explore ways in which the Scottish Youth Parliament and youth organisations could engage jointly with the Parliament in a debate about the future of young people. I know that Peter Peacock will explore ways in which that might be done constructively.
Today has been an opportunity to celebrate the contribution that is made by young people. As several members have indicated in the course of the debate, although young people need to be supported, nourished and cherished, they nevertheless have much to contribute to society in general and perhaps to politicians in particular. Young people have an honesty of approach that is sometimes lacking in many other quarters. Their tolerance not only of other young people, but of many others in society could sometimes serve us well. They are open and non-judgmental. They are also caring and, as Eleanor Scott mentioned, they have an awareness of the environment and of their surroundings.
Young people have a passion about living in a better society both locally and, just as significant, internationally. They are at the heart of many of the Scottish charities that make a significant contribution beyond our shores. Young people are often the driving force behind organisations such as Concern, which is currently raising money for good causes in parts of the world that face disaster. Young people have also been a huge influence in the fundraising activities of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. In organisations such as Christian Aid and Oxfam, young people are the backbone of much of the valuable work that is done. It is right that in today's debate we have paid tribute to that work.
Another significant point is that, as well as talking in general terms about what young people contribute, members have been able to mention many specific and glowing personal examples of the difference that young people are making in schools, communities and projects throughout Scotland. It is right that we individually and collectively recognise that contribution. It is also right that, as the minister did this morning, we recognise the need for the Executive and the Parliament to support young people by putting in place the systems that they need to allow them to continue to make that contribution. We have heard much about some of those actions today.
Let me emphasise the point that I made at the beginning about the commitment and willingness of the minister—this should extend to all of us—to listen to, and engage with, young people in the decision-making process. The theme that is emerging is that, yes, we want to listen to and take account of young people, but we also want to feed back to them what is being done and how we have reflected on what we have listened to. I hope that we can all commit to that.
I will comment on some specific remarks that were made during the debate. Fiona Hyslop asked about the children's commissioner. I am advised that that should happen by the end of this year and the Parliament will make the appointment rather than the Executive.
I will not try to follow Fiona Hyslop's argument about procreation, creating babies and whether independence would create more babies.
The sun would shine every day.
Yes, the sun would shine and it would never set. Fiona Hyslop's comment was interesting.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Not following my comments about procreation.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made the pertinent comment that education opens minds and opens up opportunities. That is why we want to do so much for young people: to ensure that every young person in this country has the ability and the opportunity to live their life to its full potential. We need to acknowledge some of the diversity that has been talked about.
As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, there are particular problems and difficulties with discipline and threats in schools. Those problems are not insurmountable: some of them are resource based and that should be tackled; some of them are policy based, but we should not allow that to get in the way of developing a better environment in which young people can learn.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—echoed by Margaret Mitchell—made a comment about head teachers and their responsibilities. I do not understand the descriptions of head teachers that have been given. Margaret Mitchell said that schools should have their own discipline policies. They have. As far as we are concerned, head teachers are free to make their own decisions. The minister has said that we will not try to second-guess head teachers. I do not know where Margaret Mitchell's line is coming from. Head teachers are critical to the delivery of good discipline in schools.
Eleanor Scott talked about young people's environmental responsibility and their sense of justice. However, she misunderstands the debate that we are trying to have about making parents responsible. We are not talking about jailing parents for the actions of their children. We are talking about parents taking responsibility for giving care and attention, and for nurturing their children. We are talking about taking action against those parents who neglect and fail their children. Any action against a parent will be taken because of their failure to recognise what a court has asked them to do to be a good and caring parent. We are not talking about holding parents responsible for their children's actions.
Robert Brown and other members talked about the very small number of young people—0.1 per cent—who are engaged in persistent offending. However, as Duncan McNeil, Johann Lamont and others indicated, it is that small number of people that is causing disproportionate mayhem in communities throughout Scotland. We would be negligent if we turned our backs on those communities and said that we are doing nothing to support them. We have good, decent communities made up of hard-working and responsible families who are being terrorised by a handful of people.
Although we understand the causes of some of the social problems in our country, and we understand how poverty can leave people dispirited and undermined by not allowing them to participate fully in society, it is in no way right to use that to justify and excuse people behaving badly, carrying out acts of violence and causing mayhem. The biggest insult in that analysis and language is to the decent people and decent families on low wages who are struggling to bring up their children and give them some leadership and guidance, and who would not tolerate their children behaving like that. Simply to excuse the bad behaviour of others because of poverty demeans the good parents who are trying their damnedest to bring up their children.
Many examples have been given of what young people have contributed. Pauline McNeill talked about the talents of school pupils at secondary and primary levels; others echoed her comments. She also raised the important issue of the need to protect open spaces and playing fields to allow young people to enjoy life, participate and develop.
Pauline McNeill, at the end of her speech, touched on two issues that are important to the Executive and, I hope, to the Parliament. It is absolutely right that looked-after children will continue to be a priority. Scott Barrie has made many speeches on that issue, as have other members. As a society, we are failing many of those children, and we need to continue to do more. Pauline McNeill also mentioned something that may not be a headline issue or a day-to-day issue, and that is the horrendous trafficking of young people for sexual exploitation and profit. Commendably, in this Parliament we have already passed legislation to protect young children in those circumstances, but she is right that we need to do more.
I do not have time to follow the line that Jim Mather developed. He suggested that those who are claiming benefits are playing the game. That was an insulting and gratuitous remark. We should not engage in such remarks in a debate on young people.
David Davidson raised issues that are worthy of further exploration, possibly by committees of this Parliament as well as the Executive. He mentioned examining the relationship between parents and children. He also mentioned significant health issues, to which the partnership will give priority.
When Donald Gorrie talked about local government being starved of money, he was being inaccurate. More money has gone into local government in recent years than ever before. How that money is used is a question for local government, but we are investing in an unprecedented way to allow local councils to provide services.
Fergus Ewing asked a specific question about a local project. The evaluation is being done. We will reflect on it, then make a decision depending on what comes out of it. Fergus Ewing made a number of interesting points.
Patrick Harvie said that the media described young people as dangerous, reckless and feckless—I say to him that the media may have been talking about the Green party rather than young people. Perhaps he read the wrong report.
Duncan McNeil put in the proper context the need to challenge and castigate unacceptable behaviour wherever it takes place.
So many other issues and questions were raised in the debate that I do not have sufficient time to cover them. However, on Irene Oldfather's question on test purchasing, the pilot projects started in February. They will run for the rest of this year, and a further report will be produced.
The debate has afforded a welcome opportunity for the Parliament to engage positively across party boundaries in expressing our support for a section of society that is often unfairly castigated and condemned. We have been able to say clearly and specifically that a lot of good is going on involving young people.
In my area, the flexicare project involves young people in volunteering work on Saturdays with kids who are disabled and handicapped. Moreover, PACE Youth Theatre, which is Scotland's largest youth theatre, involves between 1,500 and 2,000 young people in drama and arts and helps to engage other young people by producing plays about bullying and drugs. I also want to recognise the achievements of schools in Renfrewshire, such as Johnstone High School in my constituency. Those individual examples can be repeated the length and breadth of Scotland.
We have much to celebrate and to be proud of. It is right for the Parliament to record that it appreciates and values our young people's contribution.