United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
The next item of business is a debate on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss children's rights in Scotland. It is a fitting time for the Parliament to reflect on Scotland's position following the conclusion of the most recent reporting cycle to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Of course, everyone agrees that all children should have the best start in life if they are to fulfil their potential. We want them to be happy, to have fun and to grow up safe and strong. For children to achieve their full potential, to flourish, to thrive and to develop into successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens, they need to understand their rights and to be given every support to realise those rights. They need to be protected from harm, but also to have opportunities to participate, to express their views and to help us to see the world through their eyes.
Scotland already has a strong tradition of protecting, including and providing for children. To ensure that we meet the very highest standards, we must aim for the international gold standard, which is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Scottish Government has made clear its commitment to the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and our intention to use it as a driver for improvements to children's rights. It is a powerful tool to help deliver the improved outcomes that we want for all Scotland's children.
Children and young people are part of public life and they value taking an active part. Scotland benefits when children and young people express their views and see those views reflected in what we do and how we do it. We do not just improve policies and services for children; we also improve relationships between adults and children. Active participation recognises the unique perspective that children can offer as individuals, and it also recognises them as fellow citizens now, not just citizens of the future.
I recently visited St Monans primary school in Fife to speak to the pupils and staff about our commitment to children's rights and to present them with a United Nations Children's Fund rights respecting schools award. That is one example of children's rights in action.
The school uses the UNCRC to support a rights-based approach in all their interactions in the classroom and beyond. It has a contract, which was mutually agreed and is prominently displayed, with clear roles and responsibilities for everyone in the school to ensure that their behaviour allows everyone to enjoy their rights. Pupils, staff and other adults drew up together a plan of what children's rights are, what action pupils need to take to ensure that everyone can enjoy those rights, and how all staff, parents and carers can support the children to enjoy those rights.
The pupils recognise that if they disrupt the class, they are infringing on their fellow classmates' right to an education and that if they exclude a child from a game at break time, they are limiting their right to play. An understanding of everyone's rights instils recognition that to be part of a community requires responsible behaviour.
I totally agree with the cabinet secretary that we want to see our young people flourish and thrive. As well as that, young people must have an understanding of their rights and the opportunity to be heard. In her role within the Cabinet of speaking up for young people, will she raise with the justice department my concern that young people were not consulted on or involved at all in developing any of the proposals in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill?
In recognising the rights of children on justice issues and in other areas, it is important that we consult young people. Children's impact assessments are something of which I am very supportive, and there are issues in relation to the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill that have led to representations from different groups that represent children. However, Cathie Craigie raises an issue that the Justice Committee is looking at carefully, and I will take a keen interest in that committee's response on the issue.
The creation of the office of Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People was a major signal of the importance that Scotland places on the rights of children and young people. The present incumbent, Kathleen Marshall, has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of children's issues and to ensure that all our children—particularly the most vulnerable—are listened to and represented at every opportunity.
The consistent stance from both previous and current Administrations on children and families who seek asylum has seen real progress made on the United Kingdom Government's approach to asylum and immigration policy within Scotland's borders, especially in relation to children. Lead professionals are in place to promote and support the welfare and rights of children who seek asylum, and officials continue to work with partners on the development of a Scottish alternative-to-detention pilot. We have been pushing for the pilot for many months, and we are hopeful that the first families will enter it early in the new year. It is right that we do whatever we can to keep children out of detention at Dungavel or elsewhere. The Government has also made a commitment to end the remand of under-16s in prison—another significant step towards improving the rights of Scotland's children.
The UN committee issued its concluding observations at the end of the latest reporting round on 3 October. Those are the committee's recommendations on where the state party falls short in compliance with the convention. Although the focus is largely on the UK as a whole, the majority of the recommendations are directly relevant to Scotland. Therefore, the Scottish Government will take positive action to respond to the important issues that have been raised, always bearing in mind the fact that our ultimate aim is to improve outcomes for children and young people.
The minister has raised the issue of young people being held in custody at Dungavel, which Scottish National Party members are constantly going on about. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice said in February that no more Scottish children would be kept in Scottish prisons; yet, as Dr McLellan has pointed out, six more have been incarcerated since that announcement. Why is that continuing?
The provisions that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced are to be welcomed. They were part of our submission and were recognised by the UN committee. The unruly certificates for 14 and 15-year-olds that were issued under the previous Administration and the practice of incarcerating under-16s can and will be addressed by the SNP Government. Those proposals have been welcomed by those who are considering the issue.
We will work with different groups to identify what we can do. We must recognise the key challenges and move forward together as a Parliament to use the opportunities that we have in Scotland to face them. I hope that we gain the Parliament's support for doing so.
The UN highlights the fundamental need for all children to have an adequate standard of living and the risks to a child's development when they do not. Children in Scotland deserve the best possible start in life. Poverty is one of the issues that we must address in Scotland—we know that. It is morally unacceptable that more than 20 per cent of Scotland's children live in poverty. Our work on developing the anti-poverty framework, on the early years framework, on health inequalities and on the curriculum for excellence has at its core a desire to see the generational cycles of poverty—financial poverty, social poverty, poverty of choice and poverty of aspiration—broken. Those interlocking policies also offer opportunities to improve outcomes for all, regardless of race, disability, gender or sexuality and regardless of whether a child is looked after within the family or by a local authority. Those areas are also of concern to the UN.
The UN committee mentions the right to play, and we are confident that the prominence that we are giving play in the early years framework and other innovative work such as the play and leisure opportunities that are available through cashback for communities will address those concerns.
In addition, in some important areas, the UN committee is critical about issues that can be philosophically complex for us, such as the age of criminal responsibility. We will reflect on its comments on those areas and consider carefully our response.
Does the minister agree that, as a matter of principle, we should stress that decisions about policy matters that affect children should be taken by democratic institutions, such as this Parliament and other elected bodies, rather than by appointed officials and committees, no matter how worthy they might be?
I agree with that, and believe that one of the most important pieces of legislation in this area is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I look forward to this Parliament legislating in ways that will improve on the current legislation by, for example, improving the children's hearings system.
On the age of criminal responsibility, the fact that we have a welfare-based system of justice for young people must be reflected in any changes that we might bring about through democratic legislation.
We must reassure people that acknowledging that children have the same rights as all of us does not take power away from adults. Rather, it is about strengthening bonds between adults and children, re-establishing relationships based on respect and ultimately improving outcomes for the next generation.
In order to do that successfully, we must tackle some of the underlying negative perceptions of children and young people that persist. I am sure that all of us have been enthused and enlightened by certain projects or pieces of work that children have been involved in. Members will have seen the artwork that is in the lobby. It is disappointing that some of the representations of young people that we see in the media are not as positive as that artwork.
Nelson Mandela said:
"There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way it treats its children."
I am confident that, here in Scotland, and in this chamber today, we are aspiring to the best that those words imply. We are acknowledging the challenges, committing to address them and demanding the best for our children.
I am delighted to be able to use this time in the chamber to discuss constructively what we can do to support the rights of all Scotland's children.
I know that the cross-party group on children and young people had a particular focus on the UN convention in the past year, and that many members have contributed to ensuring that children's rights have been kept on the agenda in this chamber. I look forward to hearing more of those contributions and to taking this agenda forward.
I call Karen Whitefield. You have nine minutes, Ms Whitefield.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hesitate to come in like this when my good friend, Karen Whitefield, is about to speak, but you have just said that she has nine minutes, and I have been told that I have six minutes. However, I have received a circular from something called the parliamentary business team, saying that decision time is being brought forward to 4.35 pm, which is 25 minutes before its usual slot.
Given that we normally go on until 5 o'clock, surely speakers in this very important debate should not be inhibited by a totally artificial deadline. There seems to be no reason for the decision whatsoever. As the proposal has not yet been agreed by Parliament, there is, as yet, no authority for us to stop at 4.35 pm. It is completely unreasonable to suggest artificial times. My good friend, Karen Whitefield, should be allowed to go on for as long as she wishes.
I will not comment on the last point, but I will say that if decision time has to be changed from 5 o'clock, it will be done by a motion of the Parliament that will be voted on by the members who are present in the chamber at the time.
I hope that my speech is as good as Mr Foulkes appears to think that it will be.
I am sure that we can all agree that the protection and enhancement of the rights of the child should be at the heart of the work of this Parliament and, indeed, of every Government around the world. It is quite incredible how far we have progressed in the United Kingdom and Scotland over the past century. On issues such as the attitude to smacking, we have even moved quite far in the past 10 years.
The use of children as cheap labour in the United Kingdom is still within the lifetime experience of some. The foundation of the International Labour Organisation in 1919 and the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act in 1933 changed that in the UK, but we all know that child labour is alive and well in countries around the planet and that we have a part to play in that. The use of child labour is no longer acceptable in the vast majority of modern countries. The recent action taken by Primark, when it axed three long-standing suppliers in south India for using child labour, is proof that action in the west can help to address the problem. It is important that we recognise the international element of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have a part to play in combating child labour in other parts of the world. Importantly, we also have a part to play in promoting the right to an education, both through the provision of aid and through diplomatic pressure.
In my constituency, I have seen the efforts of Scotland's schoolchildren to raise those issues, both locally and in the Scottish Parliament. They realise how fortunate they are to be able to receive an education and they want children around the world to have the same rights. Our actions here in Scotland can play a part in making that a reality—politically through aid and individually by refusing to purchase goods that have been manufactured using child labour.
I will talk about several domestic issues that relate to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As members know, the key principles of the convention are that all rights must be available to all children without discrimination; the best interests of the child must be primary; children's views must be considered; and all children have the right to life, survival and development. The remaining articles cover three broad categories: participation, provision and protection.
I note that the children's commissioner, Kathleen Marshall, has welcomed much of the UN committee's report. In particular, she welcomed moves by the UK Government to remove two reservations on the convention: the immigration-based reservation to article 22 and the reservation on children in custody with adults—an issue that Fiona Hyslop touched on. The issue has sparked widespread debate in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster. I acknowledge the campaigning work done by MSPs throughout the chamber and I welcome the decision made by the UK Government. I believe that it has done the right thing.
The UN committee notes that with our children's panels, we lead the way internationally. However, serious concerns have been raised about the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, which is eight—compared with 10 in England and Wales. I am under no illusions that this is a sensitive issue that requires careful consideration, but given the comments in the UN committee's report, I believe that it is time to have a wide-ranging debate on the matter. I hope that the Scottish Government will show leadership by consulting on the issue.
A related concern that the UN committee raised is the imprisonment in adult prisons of those under 18. In particular, concerns were raised about the incarceration of children under 16 in adult provision. The cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that this Government has abolished unruly certificates; my understanding is that it is consulting on unruly certificates being abolished. I also suggest that the abolition of unruly certificates will in no way guarantee the ending of the imprisonment of children in adult prisons.
To follow up on that point and the point that Lord Foulkes made in his intervention, there are currently no under-16s in prison in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary indicated, that is in line with her policy that no under-16s should be held in prisons or young offenders institutions.
The report refers to 16 and 17-year-olds and the children's commissioner, Kathleen Marshall, commented on the issue. She said that prison is no place for under-18s and that it can only cause the individuals more harm than good. Indeed, Andrew McLellan, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, called for an end to the incarceration of children after an unprecedented increase in the number of inmates. The Government must address the matter. We can never have a child-centred approach if we incarcerate our children in prison. It is particularly ironic that children and young people under 18 are being incarcerated in adult prisons at a time when we have overcapacity in our secure estate. Perhaps the Minister for Children and Early Years could respond to that point when he sums up.
I appreciate the member's concerns, which the Government shares. Does she support the Government's proposal that 17 and 18-year-olds who have been in secure accommodation should remain there rather than being transferred—as they have been previously—to either young offenders institutions or adult prisons?
Indeed. It is appropriate to keep a young person in secure accommodation—sometimes even beyond the age of 18, if they have six or seven months still to continue. That is preferable to sending them to an adult institution.
I move on to the UN committee's comments on the need to provide all children with adequate and accessible playground space. That is an important issue because, at a time when budgets are being tightened, provision can easily slip. I recognise that many local and national politicians welcomed the removal of ring fencing, but we must also recognise that the policy can have negative impacts on certain services and resources. If budgets for play facilities are not protected, it is almost inevitable that they will suffer as councils struggle to meet statutory requirements. Access to play facilities is particularly vital in areas that have high levels of coronary heart disease and diabetes, such as my constituency.
The report also raises concerns about the levels of child poverty in the United Kingdom. I accept that both the UK Government and the Scottish Government must give greater priority to the issue. I agree with the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government must begin to collate public spending data in such a way that it can be used to monitor how much spending is allocated to the eradication of child poverty. Without that, we will never be able to prioritise spending on the issue. I also agree that ending child poverty must be a key aim of the Scottish Government's framework for tackling poverty.
One minute.
Those steps are necessary if we are to be reassured that measures to tackle child poverty are more than just words. We need those measures to be resourced.
I also agree with the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland's view that a children's rights impact assessment should be carried out on all new legislation and policy. If we can do assessments to tackle climate change, surely we can do assessments to tackle child poverty.
Finally, I will say a few words on the committee's concern about discrimination against Gypsy and Traveller children. I cannot believe that it is acceptable for any child to be discriminated against in today's society. The Scottish Government should embark on a public campaign to tackle discrimination against the Gypsy Traveller community.
We all agree with the aims and aspirations of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, we need to ensure that those aspirations are turned into reality here in Scotland. I welcome the UK Government's recent decision to remove the reservation in relation to asylum-seeking children.
The member must conclude.
I ask the Scottish Government to continue to act. I look forward to hearing the minister's response to the points that I have raised.
It goes without saying that it is the moral as well as the legislative obligation of any Parliament in the democratic world to ensure that we protect our children, both in relation to their inalienable human rights before the rule of law and as looked-after individuals who have not yet arrived at adult independence. No one who bases their politics on democratic ideals can fail to recognise the importance of that obligation or the principles that underpin the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We should not underestimate the scale of the task of implementing the principles or the difficulty of dealing with situations where they are wilfully ignored or misunderstood. Who can argue about the plight of the many thousands of children who find themselves the innocent victims of social and economic injustices? That is why we will do everything that we can to support the Government in its aim to address those injustices, be that by improving support for looked-after children, young carers and disabled youngsters or by reforming children's panels.
As we agree today to do our best to protect our children—as I am sure we will—not just in the usual spirit of consensus but because we know that it is right, I firmly believe that it is our duty to maintain perspective. I agree entirely with the children's commissioner when she says that we need to set out where the priorities lie, given that some of the recommendations are much more fundamental than others.
Part of the debate is necessarily about the role of the state—whether it is acceptable to expect the state to legislate on all the issues cited in the report and whether there is either a political or moral obligation to adopt every recommendation. Therein lies the philosophical challenge, which means accepting the principles of the convention, but allowing states the freedom to interpret its articles in ways that do not undermine the judgments of sovereign or devolved Parliaments.
I go further: there is also the philosophical challenge of ensuring that, where possible, parents can get on with the job of being parents without fear of the nanny state or interventionism, which are in direct conflict with personal liberty. There is a very fine line to be drawn in ensuring that the law is measured and protective but not intrusive and autocratic, especially in a country such as Scotland, where the relevant laws often cross international, European, Westminster and Holyrood boundaries.
Furthermore, let us not forget that along with the long list of rights comes just as long a list of responsibilities. We want to inculcate those responsibilities in our children as they grow up, but as adults we also have responsibilities to ensure that we protect the physical and mental status of childhood, which is a distinct phase of development in a young person's life that is not adolescence or adulthood. Too often these days, we are guilty of expecting the young, and sometimes very young children, to think and understand like adults, and in some cases to have views on some of the most complex and sensitive matters.
I do not know the answer to this, but while being a parent has never been easy, I suspect that there is some justification these days for believing that it has become increasingly difficult. For example, there is the modern obsession with rights and how they can be used to challenge almost every aspect of our social, political and economic lives. The more we legislate, the greater the danger of making bad and inappropriate legislation and of stifling human freedom.
The five-yearly audit report that we are required to submit to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child is intended to be a check and a balance when it comes to how we protect our children. It is designed to ask searching questions, as it should, and to help us take stock of how far we have travelled and how far we still have to go to make improvements. While we on the Conservative benches accept most of the recommendations, we feel that the legal and libertarian implications of some should be the subject of more extensive debate. However, I welcome any report that makes us think carefully about what we do in this hugely complex area.
I will finish by addressing education and health policy. Perhaps the greatest gifts that we give children are health and education but, sadly, those are denied to far too many children throughout the world. The many submissions that I and other members received prior to the debate made it abundantly clear that effective policy making in education, health and economic development, rather than more and more legislation, is far more likely to deliver improvements for our vulnerable children.
This is an important debate, and I apologise at the outset that I have to leave the chamber early due to a constituency and not—I assure members—a campaigning engagement.
Some of the statistics about child neglect and child poverty in Scotland are staggering and unacceptable, and are an indictment of our modern society. Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, who chaired last year's UNICEF report on child wellbeing in rich countries, rightly described the position in Britain as a "picture of neglect."
Equally, I am conscious that in debating this issue in Scotland in November 2008, everything is relative. Events this very day, in the Congo, Darfur, Iraq and Afghanistan, involving untold suffering of hundreds of thousands or millions of young children, remind us of that. Those are truly hellish and horrific places for children to be, and there are many others. In many parts of our modern world there is little respect for—or even little concept of—the rights of the child.
Across our planet, many children remain enslaved and abused, dying from gunfire and shrapnel, starvation and drought, and malaria and HIV/AIDS. On that note, how can a church—yes, a church here in Scotland—last week use such extreme language against our scientists who are fighting to cure terrible illnesses and to save lives, when that same church refuses to support simple precautions that could save the lives of thousands of children each year by reducing the awful spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa?
In Scotland, a lot has been done on children's rights and involvement. We have a Children's Parliament, a Scottish Youth Parliament, a new Commissioner for Children and Young People and a Scottish Commission for Human Rights. However, a massive amount still needs to be done to deliver real change for the next generation of young people in Scotland. If rights are to be meaningful, they must deliver a real change in culture and in our attitude to young people. In Scotland, 1 million young people under the age of 18 are just waiting to be energised, involved and inspired. Instead, too often they are demonised, degraded and denied.
This week, we have seen that there is another way. The great success of Barack Obama is not only about removing the barriers of race; it is also about inspiring a new generation of young people. He has said:
"One of the hallmarks of this campaign has been the extraordinary involvement, at every level, of young people and college age voters in every single state.
I think young people are eager and ready to serve, we just have not asked enough of this generation."
The amazing and unprecedented events of Tuesday proved his point. If that torch of hope, now lit in America, could be passed to a new generation of young people here in Scotland, our politics and our nation would be so much the better.
Instead, the other parties have ratcheted up the rhetoric of negativity. From Labour, we hear that antisocial behaviour orders are no longer enough—we need baby ASBOs against 10-year-olds. From the SNP, we hear about plans to ban the sale of alcohol to those aged 18 to 21. Our media and political leaders talk our young people down. Young people are portrayed as the problem. We incarcerate them if they are asylum seekers, send them to adult prisons and take their DNA. Those are not the foundations of faith and confidence that are needed for the spirit and success of our children.
Children need rights, but they also need opportunities. Opportunities are not more important than rights, but they are as important. In Scotland, those opportunities start to be removed at birth—many would argue, before birth. Poverty afflicts 250,000 of our children; severe poverty affects 90,000 children. Last August, the Scottish Government produced a 179-page document setting out its approach to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Shockingly, its strategy on tackling child poverty did not merit a mention. In some constituencies in Scotland, despite current relatively low levels of unemployment, the proportion of schoolchildren who come from workless families living on benefits is more than 40 per cent.
To break the downward spiral, support in the early years is vital. We need to move to a much more Scandinavian style of education and care that is focused on learning through play and encouragement. We need to give children opportunities to learn in new schools with excellent sports, music and drama facilities. Some of our new schools are outstanding, but too many have been built to fit a budget. I would rather see seven world-class, well-designed new schools with outstanding facilities than 10 mediocre new buildings with poor community access that repeat too many of the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s.
Our treatment of looked-after children remains appalling. Each year, 4 per cent of pupils leave school with no qualifications. Among looked-after children, the figure is 30 per cent. We are failing a generation.
In conclusion, we must have rights, but more than rights we must have action. We need an action plan from the Scottish and UK Governments to tackle the issues that are highlighted in the UN committee's concluding observations, including tackling child poverty, better protection for the children of asylum seekers and ending discrimination against Gypsy Traveller children. We must incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. We must increase the opportunities for young people in Scotland, involving them in decision making at all levels in meaningful ways.
Most important of all, we must be positive about children and young people. I was pleased to hear the minister speak about fun and happiness, which are really important for children. We must encourage, educate and inspire them. We must raise the sights of young people and raise their confidence and self-esteem. Through policy and action on poverty, education and health, we must raze from our memory the damning aspects of the recent report by transforming Scotland's future.
Presiding Officer, I would not presume to lecture you or the Parliament on the importance of the basic rights of the child. I am well aware of the long legacy of many members in campaigning for basic human rights and in standing up for those who are less able to speak out. Those efforts, which have been allied to the efforts of other people in Scotland, reflect well on our nation.
I admit that I was pleased but surprised when the UK Government announced its intention to sign up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—albeit 17 years after ratification. For 17 years, the UK retained an opt-out on the convention, allowing child migrants and asylum seekers to be locked up without judicial scrutiny. I could not put it better than Shami Chakrabarti, who said:
"We weep hot tears for kids suffering all over the world but if they have the audacity to seek asylum here they can look forward to degradation and detention."
I rejoiced when I heard that the UK Government was to sign up to the convention, and I am sure that many people here did, too. I thought that we were seeing justice at last, and I thought that the UK governmental machine was at last approaching decency. I thought that the rights of the child were finally being brought home.
The Government in London has indeed signed up to the convention, but there has been no indication that it has any intention of incorporating the convention into law. Much as I would love to stand here today and admit that the campaign has been successful, I cannot. With regret, I inform members that we still have a job to do. If we feel the need, we can point to schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and note that Westminster obliges us to observe and implement international obligations, even when Westminster ignores them. I think that we are better than that, that this Parliament is better than that, that Scotland is better than that and that the Scottish branches of the UK parties are better than that.
I am extremely proud to be a back-bench member of the Scottish National Party Government, which has put children at the heart of its plans for Scotland's future. However, let us not take my word for it, let us consider the words of Barnardo's Scotland, in its briefing for today's debate:
"Barnardo's Scotland recognises that there have been several positive developments in Scotland in the field of children's rights. These include:
Scottish Government has taken a positive stance in the treatment of children of Asylum seekers through access to nursery and tertiary education
Scottish Government has established a Children's Rights Unit within the Education and Lifelong Learning Directorate. This was positively commented in the Concluding Observations
The Scottish Government Children's Rights Unit has established a Partnership Group consisting of a range of groups relevant to the children's rights field
The Cross Party Group on Children and the Cross Party Group on Human Rights",
which is convened by my colleague Jamie Hepburn,
"will jointly host an evening reception in the Scottish Parliament to celebrate the International Day of Children's Rights on 20th November."
That can be added to the Scottish Government's framework for tackling poverty, inequality and deprivation, its early years strategy, the extension of eligibility to free school meals, the commitment to free school meals for all pupils in primaries 1 to 3, reduced class sizes, the curriculum for excellence and, most important, the continued pressure on the UK Government to end the detention of children in Dungavel. Those commitments, along with others that Fiona Hyslop detailed, are welcome.
I wish to add a new burden to the Scottish ministers' load, but it is a burden that I know our cabinet secretaries and ministers will be pleased to take on. I want the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be incorporated into Scots domestic law. I would be delighted if the UK Government and the London Parliament were making that happen in other areas, too, but I want our Government and our Parliament to deliver that for children in Scotland. We could introduce a children's rights bill or incorporate provisions into other legislation, perhaps by amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or using some other method—the means is not important.
The Scottish Government has not sought to make landmark legislation to prove a point; it has legislated in the interests of the country and has done so only when necessary. What is important for us is the result of our legislation. What comes out at the end is far more important than the poses that we strike while legislating. Ensuring that the law is right for the country and that it is functional is more important than making headlines along the way.
This Parliament has the opportunity once again to be at the forefront of improvements in rights and provision. I hope that we can take it.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate on the concluding observations report of the UNCRC monitoring committee.
I join Barnardo's and other children's organisations in welcoming the positive developments in Scotland in the field of children's rights. Members are right to emphasise the achievements to date.
When we consider the lives of children in war-torn parts of the world, Scotland's children might seem protected and cared for. There are reports in today's newspapers about the effects of war on children in Afghanistan, Palestine and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which UNICEF has described as
"the worst place in the world to be a child"—
a massive contrast to the situation for children growing up here in modern Scotland.
However, despite the good progress that is being made, there is still a huge amount of work to do. I endorse the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights' list of priorities on compliance issues, which the Government in Scotland and members of the Parliament can take forward. The list includes: producing an action plan; increasing awareness of the UNCRC through education; promoting a positive image of and culture towards children and young people; increasing meaningful participation; and incorporating the UNCRC into Scottish law. That seems like a lengthy and demanding shopping list, but in Scotland and the UK we are making progress, which no doubt is helped by the work of Scotland's children's rights commissioner, Kathleen Marshall. I join others in applauding the work that she and her team do on behalf of Scotland's children.
We should be celebrating our young people. It is time, at last, to join in the rallying cry that children are unbeatable. I ask the minister to answer the call to update Scots law in line with article 37 of the convention. To implement the UNCRC fully, it is necessary to reduce and, indeed, prohibit the physical punishment of children. As Karen Whitefield said, there is, thankfully, an increasing change in attitude to smacking in Scotland, with parents looking for more support and information on positive, non-violent parenting approaches. Research now shows a marked reduction in the number of parents using physical punishment on their children. There is a growing realisation that smacking is ineffective as a form of discipline. As well as legislation, we need a new public health information campaign to promote non-violent parenting. That needs to be included in the early years strategy, and I trust that the minister will address that in his summing up.
There is another important set of recommendations on the family environment. In Scotland, the new emphasis on the effect of domestic violence on the children of victims is welcome. We are beginning to recognise and address the effect on children of their living in a violent or abusive household, but to address it fully we need to continue to challenge the whole spectrum of men's violence against women. That work has to be kept at the very top of the agenda, because many questions are still to be answered.
To counter the violence in our society, do we need new legislation specifically on domestic abuse, which could be included in the forthcoming criminal justice bill? It always surprises and frustrates me that only the ministers who are directly responsible—in this case, it is the ministers who are responsible for children—attend debates such as this. This debate is partly about justice, so I hope that all the justice spokespeople, as well as the justice ministers, take note of it.
The recommendations underline the need for education about the UNCRC, to increase awareness of children's rights. Training is particularly important to disabled children and their families, because they have more problems in accessing and securing education and are more likely to live in poverty. When we consider the lives of some of our children with visual, hearing or learning difficulties, we know how much work has still to be done to improve the situation of all children in Scotland. Parents and professionals need to understand children's rights to make such improvements.
Much work that has been done in the Parliament could help to improve our progress. For example, the report by the Equal Opportunities Committee in the previous session entitled "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities" highlighted problems of access to education and leisure services for people with disabilities. Many of the committee's findings hold for children with disabilities as well as for adults. In the Parliament's first session, the Equal Opportunities Committee's report on Gypsy Travellers made recommendations on what should be done to help Gypsy Traveller communities. Those reports are excellent, but they are useful only if their recommendations are acted on. I invite the minister to reconsider the recommendations and perhaps to feed them into an action plan to help to address the concluding observations by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
An 18th birthday is often described as a coming of age, so it is appropriate that we hold this debate in the 18th anniversary year of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was designed to protect the rights of all those who are under 18 and which deserves truly to come of age itself. As members might know, I have a strong interest in the role that the Parliament can play in promoting respect for human rights in Scotland and around the world. That is why I am proud to convene the Parliament's cross-party group on human rights and civil liberties.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not the only human rights declaration to celebrate an important anniversary this year. The overarching global framework—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—celebrates its 60th anniversary, which makes it somewhat older than the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but no less important. I hope that the Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss the significance of the declaration in the not-too-distant future, just as we are discussing the convention today.
From the universal declaration spring all other UN conventions on different aspects of human rights. It is the foundation stone on which the human rights that belong to groups in our society rest and are built. One such example is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Members will know that several motions were lodged recently to raise serious concerns about the UK Government's decision to make reservations on key aspects of that convention.
I mention that because the UK Government chose for many years to make reservations on aspects of the Convention on the Rights of the Child—particularly on aspects that related to child migrants and asylum seekers. A practical effect of one reservation, which was in effect an opt-out from article 22, was the detention of children in institutions such as Dungavel. I understand that the UK Government is likely to withdraw its reservation of that article, which is very much to be welcomed.
The detention of children of asylum seekers in Dungavel and similar institutions is nothing short of an outrage. The sooner it ends, the better. If we truly believe that children have the rights that are enshrined in the convention and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the rights to protection against discrimination, to live with their parents in the same place, to health care, to education and to a decent standard of living, none of them can be realised by a child living under lock and key in Dungavel. I commend the work of my colleagues and campaigners to ensure that progress has been made on that.
Members will not be surprised to learn that I believe that the best way to prevent Scotland from being affected by UK Government reservations to such conventions is for it to become an independent party to conventions. If Scotland could sign up in its own right to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we would be in a much better position to implement it fully and effectively in Scotland.
However, that is not to say that we can do nothing in a devolved context. I accept that we can act on matters that have been mentioned, such as the imprisonment of young people in adult prisons and the corporal punishment of children in the home. One issue that has not been mentioned is the age of criminal responsibility, which is very low here by international standards.
Those are areas that we can, and perhaps should, act on. It remains a fact that Scotland is not an independent party to the convention. The UK Government may have ratified the convention, but it has some way to go before it lives up to the standards that it should reach as a Government.
Early last month, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published what was in effect a report card on the UK's implementation of the convention. The publication makes for concerning reading in a number of areas including the treatment of children of asylum-seeking families and child poverty. By definition, any child living in poverty is denied the rights that are outlined in the convention. A child who lives in poverty cannot be said to be exercising their right to an adequate standard of living. As we are all too well aware, with poverty comes a poorer standard of health and education, two other rights that are integral to the convention.
Does the member welcome, as I do, the interim target and the setting in law of a target on the elimination of child poverty that the UK Government is adopting?
Indeed, I welcome that. However, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child indicates in its report, there is still a long way to go before those targets are reached. As Nicol Stephen said, a quarter of a million of Scotland's children live in poverty, 90,000 of whom live in severe poverty. It is therefore no wonder that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted that child poverty is a very serious problem. What it said is a serious understatement: in the context of the debate, child poverty is an abuse of the human rights of those who suffer it.
If Scotland were to be an independent party to the convention, we could discuss the issue of incorporating the convention into Scots law with considerably more confidence than we can at present. The idea has merit; indeed, my party approved a motion on the subject at its recent conference. I commend Christina McKelvie for bringing the debate to conference.
I will watch the debate unfold with interest. The easiest way in which to get around the complications of devolved and reserved matters is to get rid of the distinction and return to the Scottish Parliament the normal powers of an independent country.
This week has been about political change not only in America but Glenrothes where, I am sure, we will see that demonstrated this evening. Surely we can all agree that we must change the way in which children at home and across the globe are treated. The Scottish Parliament can help to bring about such change. The Convention on the Rights of the Child helps us to see exactly how that should be done.
I call George Foulkes to be followed by Rob Gibson.
I am pleasantly surprised to see so many young, able and fit people here today. I thought that members had to be the age of Ian McKee or me to get a chitty exempting them from physical exercise on the other side of the Forth today.
I accept that Christina McKelvie, whom I enjoy listening to, is entitled to her view on any subject, but I also think that the Scottish Parliament should accept responsibility for the areas that have been devolved to it and for which it has responsibility. There are still Scottish representatives at Westminster, including SNP representatives. No doubt Christina McKelvie is hoping that there may be one more SNP representative by tomorrow; I am hoping that there will not be.
The UK Government has accepted responsibility for this area. It is has also accepted that it is unacceptable to lock up children of asylum seekers and is looking for ways to deal with that. Equally, in February, Kenny MacAskill, our Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said that we would stop locking up children in Scottish prisons, yet on 28 July, six children were locked up in Scottish prisons. That is unacceptable. It would be better for members to spend our time in the chamber challenging Kenny MacAskill on the areas for which we have responsibility and asking the Scottish Government what it is doing. Adam Ingram said that no children are currently in a Scottish prison. However, if something were to happen over the next few days, there is no guarantee that a sheriff, for example, could not put a child into prison.
The member raises an important issue, which the Government moved swiftly to address. We can do two things to tackle it, the first of which is to abolish unruly certificates for 14 and 15-year-olds, which we are currently consulting on. Secondly, we can ensure that those who are under 16 and on remand are not placed in prisons. That also involves the relationship with local government and ensuring that it meets its responsibilities. On Marlyn Glen's point, as part of this debate, I have had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in which he outlined his proposals in this area. He has undertaken far more activity on the issue than the previous Government did when it was in power.
That was a rather long intervention. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice made his statement in February, but there were still kids in prison in July, and there is no guarantee that there will not be kids in prison tomorrow. That is not swift action. We would support any legislation that was necessary. Further action is required.
When I asked Kenny MacAskill about the children of women prisoners, he replied:
"The Scottish Prison Service does not collect data on female prisoners' children and does not intend to do so."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 June 2008; S3W-13663.]
Why not? It is vital for the welfare of those children that we know about them and do something about the issue.
There are other rights. I will read out a quote; Christina McKelvie will no doubt know where it comes from.
"We will increase the provision of free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds by 50 per cent, with families benefiting from longer hours of free provision."
Where does it come from? The SNP manifesto. That was a promise, but has any of it become reality? The situation is quite the reverse. In my area of Edinburgh, nursery classes have been cut by 50 per cent. The SNP is reneging on promises and letting down and abandoning children whose right to nursery education is not being respected in this great capital city of Edinburgh.
The Government recently announced that free meals would be provided for pupils in primary 1 to 3. How can free meals be provided in Edinburgh when the SNP and Liberal Democrat-controlled council—let us give the Liberal Democrats some blame as well—is closing kitchens? Presiding Officer, you know better than anyone that you cannot provide free meals in schools if you are closing kitchens. I went to a school in Pilton where the kitchen is being closed.
Another children's right is the right to decent schools, but Portobello high school, Boroughmuir high school and James Gillespie's high school have been waiting for nearly two years to find out when their buildings will be replaced. Under a Labour Government, the work to replace them would already have been under way.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning promised that primary class sizes would be reduced to 18 in primary 1, 2 and 3, but in Edinburgh only 13 per cent of classes in those years have fewer than 20—never mind 18—children, and there is no prospect of any improvement. SNP ministers give us their promises in Parliament. They do not even blush when they say that they will provide smaller class sizes, but the reality on the ground in the primary schools in Edinburgh is that primary classes are getting bigger rather than smaller.
I was greatly impressed by the speech of Nicol Stephen—I am sorry that he had to leave—and what he said about children in the third world. I took an interest in that subject when I was a minister at the Department for International Development. However, in their opposition to genetically modified foods and all the work that is being done on that, the Liberal Democrats have an extremely strange view. If we accepted and adopted GM foods, it would be much easier for us to feed the children of the world. Sometimes, the people who oppose developments such as GM food are totally self-indulgent.
Although there are issues to do with the sort of food supply that we have, does George Foulkes not accept that the biggest problems when it comes to feeding the world's children are the unsettled conditions and the horrible Governments in power in many countries of the world? Zimbabwe, for example, was capable of feeding a large part of Africa but can no longer do so. That is nothing to do with GM crops; it is to do with the nature of that country's Government.
In all honesty, I accept that that is the case. Where there is conflict, it is extremely difficult to ensure that people have food, as is evident in a number of African countries, especially, sadly, the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Presiding Officer is looking at me, but I have dozens of issues that I could raise—I could go on until 5 o'clock on my own. I am outraged that when many members have lots of things to say, the business managers, who seem to run the Parliament without any concern for back benchers, propose to artificially curtail this important debate. The Presiding Officer is giving me the look that I know well from our many years of friendship.
I finish with something of which I am very proud. Thanks to a European convention on human rights directive, the smacking of children in schools—the legalised torture of children in schools with a piece of leather—was outlawed in this country. It is outrageous that this country was sullied for so long by teachers legally thrashing children on the hand as a punishment. I am happy to say that, when I was chair of education in Lothian, we got rid of the practice before anyone else, and before the European convention told us to do so. We in Scotland should not wait for UN or European conventions; we should do things on our own initiative because we believe that they are the right things to do.
Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, Kathleen Marshall, has served us well by giving us the opportunity to conclude that the way in which we apply the suggestions and necessities under the UNCRC requires to be prioritised. Those necessities are fundamental, but some are more fundamental than others and, as Elizabeth Smith said, it is important to think about which are the most important. We as a Parliament believe that many of them can be applied by Government and do not need to be left to individuals to carry out.
Will the member sign up to the idea of an action plan to be carried forward by the Scottish Government, which various organisations and several members this afternoon have called for?
The best way to deal with the issue would be for an appropriate committee of the Parliament to consider the matter and to put a report before Parliament. If that report took the form of an action plan, it might meet all our interests.
Thanks to the incorporation of a children's rights unit in the lifelong learning directorate, progress in Scotland has been positive. However, the children's commissioner has said that we should not be complacent, because—even now, in 2008—many children in Scotland still live in poverty, experience difficulties in accessing essential health services and face a range of other barriers to securing their rights.
The impulse to try to improve children's conditions is centuries old. Karen Whitefield gave the example of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The impulse not to return to the poverty and misery of those years was a driver behind a family of UN declarations. With decolonisation came an important impetus to improve the situation throughout the world. However, we forget at our peril that there are still 250,000 children living in poverty in this country, 90,000 of whom are in dire poverty.
We must recognise that Scots have been at the forefront of the debate. Indeed, I shall quote a short poem by Sorley MacLean from the period around 1940, which has been translated into Scots by Douglas Young so that more people can understand it. Sorley MacLean said:
"My een are nae on Calvary
or the Bethlehem they praise,
but on shitten back-lands in Glesca toun
whaur growan life decays,
and a stairheid room in an Embro land,
a chalmer o puirtith and skaith,
whaur monie a shilpit bairnikie
gaes smoorit doun til daith."
The issue of growing life decaying is at the heart of the debate, and it is why the processes of children's rights throughout the globe have to be seriously addressed. If we are to have an action plan, and if we are to decide on priorities, what could come from the debate is the opportunity for the Parliament, in this four-year session, not only to try to deal with the actions that the Government has already taken but to guide some of its actions, for example by raising awareness of the declaration or by ensuring respect for the views of children.
I am a former teacher, and I do not think that our school system is fully geared up yet. There is a kind of dictatorship in which headteachers decide what happens, and the experience of how children's views are taken into account is mixed. Through the cabinet secretary's department, we could take measures to allow those views to be heard.
I was delighted to hear the examples from St Monans that the minister gave. Every school in the country should be adopting such principles. The boundaries of what people can do and what they cannot do have to be discussed.
George Foulkes said that the abolition of physical punishment in schools was important. I was part of the action group that helped to bring about abolition. However, the physical punishment was replaced by sarcasm—by talking children down. In Scotland, that is one of the means whereby far too many children are disadvantaged.
We have to end bullying and violence, as ChildLine suggests—through, for example, the teaching of human rights and peace and tolerance. However, we have to allow children to express their views in their own languages and dialects. If children speak Scots, we should encourage that, because it will build their self-esteem. Such rights for children should be given greater importance. Amnesty International has suggested that the curriculum for excellence is a good place in which to enshrine both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They should be part of the teaching in every school.
When I was a modern studies teacher, I was happy to try to deal with some of these issues in relation to Africa. South African democracy was developing at the time when I was teaching.
Lord Foulkes made a point that we should stamp on immediately. I wonder whether he has mentioned Monsanto in the register of members' interests. The latest argument among the multinational seed and pesticide makers is that genetically modified seeds can feed the world. If free seeds were given out, if we ensured that there was transport, and if we ensured that the monopolies of these companies did not send Indian farmers to their deaths through suicide because their crops had failed, we could do much more for families and children in many parts of the world. I suggest that Lord Foulkes withdraw his ridiculous remarks.
The most important things that children can learn about their rights can be learned at school. Children can learn to respect the rights of others, and that will happen as their understanding grows.
Of course,
"Aa thae roses an geans will turn tae blume",
as Hamish Henderson wrote in "The Freedom Come Aa Ye". However, he also wrote:
"And a black boy frae yont Nyanga
Dings the fell gallows o' the burghers doon"
That means that it is about people in every country having opportunities. While we pursue wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the like, we are denying many children the opportunity to ding doon the fell gallows. The debate reminds us that there is so much further to go both in our own country and abroad.
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate, and I suspect that there will be much agreement.
Actually, I wrote that sentence before listening to the debate. I now suspect that there will be only some agreement. However, the debate is worth having. It is important for policy makers and legislators to reassure people in Scotland that we are committed to promoting and supporting the rights of the child.
The convention sets out the rights of the child in 54 articles and two optional protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere should have. The four core principles are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. I want to focus on a number of issues, but I will start with that last core principle—respect for the views of the child—which other members have referred to.
In the briefing from Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, we are urged to build on some of the good practice that is already evident in Scotland with regard to listening to children and young people and taking their views into account when making decisions about their lives. The commissioner has been at the forefront of much of that good practice, but the Parliament has also made strong efforts to involve children and young people in its decision making. We know that a consultation needs to be sensitive to the children and young people who are involved, and to ask for their views in a way that is relevant to their lives and experience. We must take care to ensure that it is not viewed as tokenism, but that we listen carefully and act on the views that are expressed.
Children 1st suggested that one way of ensuring that the consultation is correct is through independent advocacy services—that is worthy of further examination. The Parliament has already recognised the benefits of independent advocacy by including it in the Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004. Perhaps the minister can, in his closing statement, outline how the Scottish Government intends to build on the good practice that has already been taking place.
Another overarching issue concerns child poverty. The detrimental effects on a child's physical, mental and social development of living in poverty have been shown on numerous occasions, and although a commitment to end child poverty by 2020 is welcome, it is clear that that will be realised only if Government policies focus on that target.
Save the Children's briefing for this debate states:
"The Scottish Government does not currently collate public spending data in a way that can be used to monitor how much spending is allocated towards eradicating child poverty."
At a time when committees in the Parliament are busy considering budgets, perhaps the minister will tell us how the Scottish Government will make spending more transparent and—crucially—how it intends to target spending to help families, and the children in them, out of poverty.
I turn now to a number of issues that highlight where improvements are needed to provide a better life for our children and young people, which the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning spoke about. Barnardo's suggests that we should guarantee the right of a child to engage in play. It is clear that people today are very concerned about safety, which has led to parents and carers being more protective, resulting in the unfortunate and unintended consequence of a lack of freedom for children. There is a problem with children developing an ability to assess risk and to make judgments, which is necessary for their personal development.
We have previously discussed that in the Parliament—I know that Elizabeth Smith initiated a debate on outdoor education and the risks that we allow children to take in those circumstances. I think, however, that we need to return to the issue and consider how we instil in parents and carers the confidence that allows them to let go.
I also want to highlight the particular needs of children and young people with disabilities in relation to play and recreation. I congratulate Playback and the children's commissioner in particular for the work that they have done to highlight the issue. I know that the minister is aware of the "What about us?" report, as he was present at its launch, and I ask him to update us on the actions that the Government is taking to address that.
In Scotland, we are proud of the children's hearings system that focuses on the individual child or young person, but we need to ask how that sits with our very low age of criminal responsibility. I agree with my colleague Karen Whitefield that it is now time for us to think about consulting further on that.
The Parliament has frequently debated looked-after children. One particularly concerning part of their lives was highlighted in the report from Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, "Sweet 16? The Age of Leaving Care in Scotland". The report highlighted cases in which children were being looked after and, for a number of reasons, had to move out of their care homes and become independent. The issue was discussed in Karen Whitefield's members' business debate last year and the main concern was that young people should leave home when they are appropriately mature, rather than when they reach a particular birthday. Adam Ingram replied to that debate and he understood all the points that members made, but I ask him what the Government is doing to address the issue.
In conclusion, everyone in the Parliament could say that we are in favour of supporting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it is our actions that will show whether we are serious. All of us as MSPs have an obligation to do what we can, but the Scottish Government needs to provide a lead and not sidestep its responsibilities. I hope that the minister will answer my points, but let me end on a note of agreement with the many members who have said that we need action. I hope that the minister will tell us that a plan of action will soon be forthcoming.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to be helpful. I intend to speak against the business motion if it is moved at 4.35, because I think that that would be outrageous. It would be better if you could get a message to the Minister for Parliamentary Business that it would be sensible not to move the motion and instead allow the four members replying for the parties a decent time to answer properly what has been a very good debate.
I look forward to your objecting to the motion, Mr Foulkes. I will give the members who are closing the debate the same degree of leniency that I gave you.
I have some sympathy with George Foulkes, because this has been an excellent debate. As with the best debates, it has moved from the minister's scene setting to our identifying and focusing on particular themes as we have moved on.
There have been several very good speeches, but the top one, as has been commented on, was undoubtedly that by my colleague Nicol Stephen. He put the issues in context, referring to the situation both at home and abroad, and—in case there was any complacency—he showed us just how much there is yet to be done.
It has been a worthwhile debate. At one level, it can seem esoteric and bureaucratic, but in reality it is concerned with ensuring the establishment of the highest standards, not just for sustaining the rights of our young people—as Elizabeth Smith mentioned—but ensuring that they all get the best possible start in life. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is far from academic to every family in Scotland and to Scotland as a whole.
I begin with children's rights. When Cathie Craigie intervened at the beginning of the debate she pointed out that the Justice Committee has identified that, whatever else happened before the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill was introduced, there was no consultation of children and young people to identify their views on issues related to, for example, sexual relations between children at various ages. Such a consultation would have informed the deliberations of the Justice Committee and Parliament as a whole on the complicated questions—including sexual health, age of majority and age of consent—that lie at the heart of the bill and that are giving the Justice Committee some significant issues. We must start by committing the Parliament and the Government to observing the rights of the child in practice when dealing with legislation and other policy issues. That must be our starting point.
In the past few years, to the credit of this and previous Governments, we have seen major improvements in the development and enforcement of the rights of and opportunities for children in Scotland. The report from the Scottish Executive on the UN convention highlights the achievements of the previous Government in its adoption of policies and programmes that support and promote, among other things, child development, care, justice and additional support for learning. That work has been built on by the current Government.
In fairness, the issue goes back further, to the previous Conservative Government and its landmark Children (Scotland) Act 1995, with its emphasis on the best interests of the child and the child's voice being heard. That act is still a powerful influence on how the issues are dealt with by the Government, courts and practitioners.
Several themes have emerged, and I will deal first with the question of age. What is a child? UNICEF, referring to article 1 of the convention, defines a child
"as a person below the age of 18, unless the laws of a particular country set the legal age for adulthood younger."
In those circumstances, states are encouraged
"to review the age of majority … and to increase the level of protection for all children under 18."
We could have a theoretical argument about what the age of a child is in Scotland, considering our emphasis on being forisfamiliated at 16, with rights that begin at that age, and the rights involving buying particular products, school education and other matters that arrive at the different ages of 16, 17, 18 and sometimes even older. The reality is that that difficult age group between 16 and 18 faces a number of challenges. I have already talked about the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill and the challenges in that. There are also challenges with rights to education and how they play out for those in that age group. I do not want to get too technical, but it will be generally accepted that the proper vindication of a young person's right to an education takes us up to the age of 18. I am not talking about the compulsory school age, but about the right to have proper access to effective and relevant education.
Mary Mulligan talked about care leavers, and she was right to say that the fact that the age of leaving care is sort of 16—although things can continue to happen until the person is 18 and beyond—can be a deterrent to getting the system to work properly and effectively, as the children's commissioner identified. We all want systems to have regard to what is right and proper and to work in the best interests of young people who are in care—the most vulnerable young people in Scotland.
The debate touched on the detention of children. It should be our objective to end the detention of children under the age of 18 for any reason other than their own welfare and the safety of the public. That is an important aspect of the debate about Dungavel, children on remand, and how children are dealt with in such situations.
Reference has also been made to play and communication. The convention deals with those points specifically and I have always regarded them as very important. The cabinet secretary commented on that earlier when she talked about the long-awaited early years strategy and its proposed emphasis on play and, I hope, on the enhancement of play opportunities. I hope that the early years strategy will give substance to the promotion of opportunities for play and its links with communication. The quality of the strategy in this key area will be the issue.
We have talked about child poverty and the differences between the Scottish Government and the Government in Westminster. It is very clear that both Governments need to stretch every sinew, whether through partnerships or in other ways, to ensure that the objective of eradicating severe child poverty by 2020 is successful.
All this boils down to the action plan that a number of speakers and a number of bodies have called for. It is all very well to say nice words, as the cabinet secretary did, and have nice aspirations, but I was not entirely clear about what she was saying about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She talked about it being a driver for children's rights, and the gold standard, but I do not know what she meant by that. Did she mean that she supports, as the SNP conference did, the idea of incorporating the convention into Scots law? [Interruption.]
Excuse me Mr Brown. Could the members conducting a conversation behind Mr Brown please take it outside the chamber?
Was the cabinet secretary talking about an action plan? Did she mean that she is committed to what the convention says about things like smacking, which is an important debate, or the age of majority? Did she mean that she is committing herself to the implementation of the specific recommendations in the report? It is important that members know where the cabinet secretary stands on such matters. An action plan is quite important, and I hope that we get some confirmation of the key points around those matters, what the Government will be doing, and how it will bring about a greater degree of support for the convention.
My final point is about a children's rights impact assessment, something that the Liberal Democrats have long supported. In July, in reply to a parliamentary question, Adam Ingram said that the Government was
"currently looking into the possibility of using a children's rights impact assessment tool to help inform the development of policy and legislation."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 31 July 2008; S3W-14968.]
Where does that matter stand?
This is an important debate and a huge number of great points have been made. There is a lot of material for the Government to consider. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate.
Cynical members of the Parliament—I know that there are one or two such creatures—might have thought that the debate was scheduled simply as a time filler to occupy those members who, as Lord Foulkes would have it, are too elderly or infirm to have made the trip to Glenrothes this afternoon. However, it has been a useful debate that has allowed a full discussion of the issues, and there have been worthwhile speeches from all sides of the chamber.
I will start by picking up on the philosophical approach that Liz Smith set out at the start of the debate. We would all accept the principles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that does not mean that that we would all accept the conclusions in the report of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, as it will interpret those rights in a particular way. I raised an important matter of principle in my earlier intervention on the cabinet secretary; namely, that in relation to matters of policy the final decision should be taken in democratically elected fora such as the Parliament, not by unelected and unaccountable officials in committees, no matter how eminent they might be.
A good example of that appears in one of the committee's recommendations that has nothing whatever to do with Scotland—so I cannot be accused of making a partisan point—but relates to Northern Ireland. The committee recommends that the 11-plus exam in Northern Ireland should be scrapped. I have no view on the 11-plus exam in Northern Ireland, nor would it be appropriate for me to take a view on it. It is appropriate for the matter to be determined only by the people of Northern Ireland, through their democratically elected politicians. When we read what the UN committee has to say, we must conclude that the correct determination of such issues should be made by democratically elected politicians, not by the members of the committee.
Notwithstanding that, the report is well meaning and it is right for us to be informed in our decision making by the opinions that it expresses. In some cases those opinions are unrealistic and in other cases they are, frankly, misguided. Nevertheless, they are valid.
Nicol Stephen, Christina McKelvie and other members have raised the issue of the incorporation of the convention into Scots law. However, I add a word of caution. We all remember the consequences of the incorporation into Scots law of the European convention on human rights—again, something that was done with the best intentions. I do not think that anybody who supported that campaign would have envisaged the situation in which the ECHR was used by those who were incarcerated in prison to claim compensation from the taxpayer for their having to slop out due to a lack of investment in the prison estate. Before we go down the road of incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law, we must be careful to think about the possible consequences of that for wider public policy and the cost to the taxpayer.
The issue of smacking features in the committee's report and features extensively in much of the briefing material that members received in advance of the debate. It is interesting and instructive that almost the only member who has raised the issue during the debate is Marlyn Glen, whose views I know and respect, notwithstanding the fact that I might disagree fundamentally with them. The fact that few other members—if any—have raised the issue of smacking suggests that there is little appetite for our revisiting that debate. It is a nonsense to equate discipline by loving parents with violence against children, which is what the report seeks to do. The two things are a world apart and it is very unhelpful of the report to make that comparison.
Members will recall that, in the previous Parliament, we discussed ad nauseum the question of reforming the law on smacking, which led to legislative changes being made. Nevertheless, there was no appetite at that stage for a complete abolition of the right of parents to smack their children. At that time, it was felt that the current law should continue to apply, which would allow reasonable chastisement.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a second.
That law has applied and there have been prosecutions under it—rightly so. The law is settled and I believe that, despite the best endeavours of campaign organisations, the public does not wish to see the debate revisited, although I am sure that Marlyn Glen will disagree.
I certainly do disagree with Murdo Fraser. I direct him to the briefings to which he has referred, which mention the research that has been undertaken. There has been a change in attitudes right across Scotland—well, perhaps not right across Scotland, but most of the way across Scotland—just as there has been a change in attitudes almost right across the chamber. I direct Murdo Fraser to the research that shows that, which the briefings mention.
I assure Marlyn Glen that I have carefully read all the briefings that were received. Although she is right to say that the research appears to show that there has been a change of public attitudes, in that fewer parents are admitting to smacking their children, that evidence does not show a desire on the part of the public for the law to be changed. That is an important distinction.
A number of members referred to the age of criminal responsibility. I accept that it is proper that we have a debate on that issue, and that we should not prejudge the outcome of that debate. Public policy seems to be confused about this issue at the moment. In some areas, there is a view that the age at which people become adults is too high, which is why some people, not least those on the Government benches, suggest that the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. That might reflect a broad view in society that young people are maturing at an earlier age, which has an impact on the argument that we should raise the age of criminal responsibility. On the other hand, there is a move on the part of the Government to increase from 18 to 21 the age at which young people can purchase alcohol from off-sales premises. In addressing such issues, we need to decide the direction that we are heading in, rather than adopt a piecemeal approach that causes confusion.
I will close by dealing with an important point that we can all agree on but which no member has yet mentioned: the call in the committee's report for the implementation of an anti-trafficking action plan. The trafficking of children for sexual purposes is an appalling crime. What is more, it is a crime that appears to be on the increase internationally. The existence of such trafficking stands as a reproach to us all. I hope that one thing that we can agree on is that we should do all that we can, working with our colleagues at Westminster and internationally, to stamp out those awful practices.
I will try to deal with a number of the issues that members have raised, but first I want to examine the issue of bullying, as it has not been addressed. It is an important issue because, as ChildLine has confirmed, it is the issue that most vexes children. Despite our efforts over the past decade, most of the calls to the helpline flag up bullying as children's central worry, which highlights the weaknesses in our schools' anti-bullying strategies. I am sure that none of the members who have taken part in this debate is unaware of the damage that bullying can inflict on a child's education, self-confidence and ability to make friends in school, which are all things that parents worry about.
It is disappointing that, despite the excellent work of, for example, the national discipline task force and the various anti-bullying initiatives, bullying remains such an intractable problem. I know that most schools try hard to crack down on bullying, but ChildLine and others suggest that schools could do more to see the problem from a child's perspective. The cases that I have seen over the years make me wonder whether children feel that, sometimes, too much attention is given to the bully and not enough is given to the victim. As we all know, children have an acute sense of fairness, and when we bring the sophistication of adulthood to bear on a problem and acknowledge that complex issues and factors might be at work in the life of the bully, that muddles what might seem to the victim to be a straightforward matter of right and wrong.
We need to do more to address bullying, and must involve children in our efforts to identify the right policies.
The member might be aware of the concept of restorative justice. He will be encouraged to learn that it is being put into practice in a lot of our schools across the country to very great effect. It is right that the victim's rights, having been undermined, are recognised and that the bully should make reparation. That approach appears to be working well.
I believe that Clackmannanshire is one of the areas that is taking forward that approach. I look forward to hearing further evidence of the impact of restorative practices in schools. I believe that there are many measures that we can take; what is hard to believe is that it is taking us all so long to make them work effectively for all children.
The involvement of children is a recurring theme in all the UN's observations, and—whether children face difficulties in school or outside school—we need to do more to encourage greater participation by our young people.
We have made great progress in recent years in establishing organisations such as pupil councils and other mechanisms, but those must be more than tokens. ChildLine specifically suggests that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education could inspect and report on schools from a child's point of view. Another practical step that we could take is that of integrating human rights education into the curriculum. We clearly have that opportunity with the curriculum for excellence. I welcome the good example that the cabinet secretary gave of a rights-based approach, which just happened to be in Fife.
As Amnesty International points out, understanding human rights and cultivating the skills to exercise and uphold those rights are key to children becoming both confident individuals and responsible citizens. Teaching children about their rights and about respect for themselves and for others has been shown to reduce bullying. However, it is equally important to ensure that adults are aware of human rights and children's rights.
Marlyn Glen talked about the impact that domestic violence can have on the whole family and on children in particular. Murdo Fraser mentioned that not many members have referred to smacking, but it would be wrong to read into that any approval of the practice—I was disappointed that Murdo Fraser rushed to its defence. The concept of human rights and the values of peace, respect and tolerance are central to challenging our everyday acceptance of violence in children's lives. We need to change attitudes among both adults and children.
I do not doubt the support among MSPs and others for those values, but I worry about the impact of some of the Scottish Government's decisions. Although I do not want to strike an overly contentious note, it would be wrong not to raise concern over what has happened to the budget for Women's Aid groups and other voluntary organisations around the country that deal with domestic violence. Fine words are all very well, but they should be matched by actions. George Foulkes compared the words of the SNP manifesto with the reality of nursery cuts and kitchen closures in Edinburgh. In education departments across the country, budget cuts at the local authority level are hitting classroom assistants and other pupil support services. Surely ministers can see that that has a direct impact on discipline levels in our schools.
I agree with Mr Foulkes that Karen Whitefield's speech was an all-too-brief but excellent contribution. She made the point that within a tight financial settlement local authorities will always prioritise their statutory duties and that anti-violence initiatives, support for tackling domestic abuse and the voluntary sector in general suffer as a result.
I will now address the issue of play, which I believe should be covered by statute. We have discussed play a number of times in the Parliament. I believe that there is broad support for a national play strategy and, I hope, for a duty on local authorities to consider play as a factor in local issues, such as community planning.
We have all been following events in the United States over recent months. The Americans realised as long ago as 1776 that we should have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness"—perhaps not the right to be happy, but the right to pursue that, at least.
Given our concerns over levels of obesity, mental health and anti-social behaviour, is it not clear that ensuring that our young people have both the opportunity to play and a safe and accessible environment in which to play would help to address those issues and more? The physical benefits of play are well recognised, but play is also essential to our emotional and social development. Many primaries use play to help children make the transition from nursery to school, but I believe that there should be greater freedom throughout the curriculum for play. Testing our children to their limit has placed an overbearing burden on schools and pupils. The curriculum for excellence provides us with the opportunity to loosen the shackles and allow pupils more room to express themselves.
The point was made earlier that the needs of our children outside school must be in the minds of local authority planners when it comes to safe areas for play or even just the establishment of some open spaces. Those areas do not have to be cluttered with play equipment—children are more than capable of using their imagination—but they must be accessible without the need to navigate major roads and traffic.
Barnardo's and other organisations have been promoting the play agenda for some time. It was disappointing that the word "play" did not appear in the first draft of the early years strategy. Play should not be limited to early years, and I was, I think, reassured by the cabinet secretary's comments in her opening speech about the priority that she would give to play.
Scottish ministers have signed up to the targets that have been set by our colleagues at Westminster to abolish child poverty by 2020. That is where I believe we can make greatest progress in addressing the observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
We know from the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on education in Scotland that, despite our excellent education system, socioeconomic background is the most important factor that influences a child's attainment and achievement. It is to our discredit that we still have 250,000 children living in poverty and to our shame that 90,000 are estimated to live in severe poverty.
There is no single answer to poverty, but I believe that we need greater transparency about the measures that we claim are being taken to tackle it. That point was made earlier by Mary Mulligan, who quoted, as I will, Save the Children, which says in a briefing:
"The Scottish Government does not currently collate public spending data in a way that can be used to monitor how much spending is allocated towards eradicating child poverty."
We will all have sympathy with that point as we wrestle with our budget briefs in committee. Save the Children continues:
"The Scottish Government must ensure more transparency in the amount spent on ending child poverty and in monitoring this spending."
That comment has been endorsed by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, who added that a children's rights impact assessment would help to provide transparency and focus our attention on the problem.
A number of speakers commented on the number of children and young people in prison in Scotland. Again, there is a contrast between the remarks that ministers and back benchers have addressed to our colleagues at Westminster about reserved issues and the lack of action by Scottish ministers in their areas of responsibility. I ask the minister a question for further clarification. Since Scottish ministers made their announcement on tackling the problem, have they given local authorities any extra funding to help them establish alternatives to prison?
The debate contained a number of constructive speeches and suggestions. I look forward to hearing the minister's response, for example, to the suggestion that we need an action plan to take the agenda forward and a public health campaign to address the needs of parents and other adults.
I do not doubt the good will or good intentions of members throughout the chamber in promoting the welfare of Scotland's children. However, I hope that our fine words will be translated into firm actions. I want greater responsibility to be accepted for decisions that are taken here in Scotland, a clearer focus on the children who are in the greatest need, and transparency and clarity of purpose in all Government actions that impact on children. I hope that the UN committee's observations help us to move in that direction.
I enjoyed hearing the wide-ranging and informative speeches that members made in the debate. I thank all those who took the time to attend this afternoon to discuss such an important issue. How we treat our children is, in many respects, a touchstone of how we should be measured as a society and as a nation. From that perspective, the content and tone of the debate were positive.
The breadth of the debate—we discussed health and justice issues as well as education—clearly demonstrates the coverage and impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Promoting and supporting the rights of children in Scotland will lead to better outcomes for all our children.
I hear people complain that children today have too many rights, but it is clear from the debate that we are talking not about giving children anything new or unreasonable but about ensuring that all children enjoy the basic entitlements that we would want for our own children. All children in Scotland should be protected and kept safe in all circumstances and given a high-quality education that meets their needs, develops their potential and prepares them for life beyond school. They should be able to access the health care that they need when they need it and to have their say on all matters that affect them.
It is clear to me that, although we have done much, we still have more to do. In particular, we need to do much more to support looked-after children and those who leave care.
Does the minister agree that, given his efforts and those of the First Minister and others to introduce kinship care allowances, it is unacceptable for a local authority such as Stirling Council to announce that it will not provide such allowances this year? There are continued problems with the voluntary placement of children with grandparents or other kin. If the child is not under a supervision order or accommodated under section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, their carer does not receive such an allowance. Does the minister agree that that is an unacceptable catch-22 situation that needs to be addressed?
We certainly have issues to do with kinship care for looked-after and other children, and I am not ashamed to say that my main focus is kinship care for looked-after children, for whom we have direct responsibility. The state must intervene to care for those children—that is our first duty. I agree with the member that there are other vulnerable people whom we ought to be able to help, so I am engaged with local authorities on how best to do so. I am slightly frustrated at the pace of that work and I hope that we can get people moving so that a report on progress can be made at the end of this financial year.
We must also continue our work to tackle discrimination and prejudice. Karen Whitefield mentioned Travellers and the Roma. I met representatives from north-east Scotland, who told me about problems that they were having. Restrictions had been placed on them by the settled community, and their children were having difficulty accessing education. Processes that had been put in place, such as the use of the red book, which enables teachers to understand where a child is at in their education, were not being properly adhered to. I am concerned about that and I intend to consider carefully how we can take the agenda forward.
Play, which Karen Whitefield and Ken Macintosh mentioned, will be a key element of the early years framework. The framework, which we will publish later this year, will encompass play facilities and wider issues to do with risk and parental attitudes. We highlighted play in the report, "Equally Well: report of the ministerial task force on health inequalities", in which we talked about the importance of the physical environments that promote healthy lifestyles for children, which should be a priority for local authorities and other public services. We are working with Inspiring Scotland, a venture philanthropy organisation, to conduct baseline research on play, with a view to setting up a fund to support play in Scotland.
Poverty destroys rights. As Rob Gibson and other members said, the scale of child poverty in Scotland is scandalous. Children in Scotland deserve the best possible start in life and no child should be born into or condemned to a life of poverty—it is morally unacceptable that more than 20 per cent of our children live in poverty. The most direct levers for tackling poverty are benefits and tax credits, which are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. However, under the current devolution settlement there are three broad ways in which the Scottish Government can take action: preventing poverty by tackling root causes; helping to lift people out of poverty; and alleviating the impact of poverty on people's lives. This month, we will publish our anti-poverty framework, in which we will bring together key areas for action and say how we will address the issue using the powers that are available to us.
I agreed with much of what Nicol Stephen said, in particular on the abuse of children around the world. Scotland is not immune to child abuse, as is evidenced by the growing number of youngsters who have to be taken into care. We will tackle the issue through our early years framework. We want to move towards a system of prevention and early intervention and away from the crisis interventions that mark the current system.
We can and must do better on outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers; I acknowledge what Mary Mulligan said in that regard: she was right to highlight the important role of children's advocacy. I was pleased to be able to secure additional resources for Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland) and others.
The Scottish Government is heavily engaged in the agenda for care leavers and looked-after children, with particular emphasis on improving corporate parenting. Members will be aware that recently we launched "These Are Our Bairns: A guide for community planning partnerships on being a good corporate parent", which spells out the responsibilities of every member of the corporate family team and what we expect from them.
Murdo Fraser and Marlyn Glen disagreed on the issue of physical punishment of children. I support Marlyn Glen's contention that a change in attitude seems to be developing in Scotland. In a survey of parenting that was published this month, around 91 per cent of parents said that they would discuss an issue calmly with their child and explain why something was wrong. Only around 5 per cent said that they had smacked their child in the past year, and 60 per cent said that they had never done so. I do not know whether Murdo Fraser believes the survey.
Does the minister agree that, if the results of the survey are correct, there is no need to change the existing law?
I question whether there is a need to change the existing law at this stage; we are not proposing to do so. However, it is a welcome development in our society if parents are not resorting to violence against their children.
Does the minister agree that we should take many other measures to promote the anti-violence initiative? In particular, we should give parents more help, because they struggle with children's behaviour.
I agree entirely. Parenting will be a major feature of the early years framework that we will produce early next month.
Robert Brown sought an indication of whether we will incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Major elements of the convention have already been incorporated into Scots law, and we are considering what further changes to legislation, policy and practice can be made to implement the convention better in Scotland. Ministers have asked officials to explore what can be done, and we hope to publish proposals in due course.
Murdo Fraser raised the issue of the age of criminal responsibility. Although, at eight, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is extremely low compared with the European average, our welfare-based system of children's hearings is well in advance of most of the rest of Europe. We cannot take the age of criminal responsibility as a measure of how modern or appropriate our system is. However, we will consider the issue in the context of the incorporation of the convention into our law.
Can the minister supply us with comparisons between the criminality of children elsewhere in Europe and that of our eight-year-olds?
No, I cannot. We have looked at the statistics for the past six years, and we cannot find any eight-year-olds appearing in the Scottish courts at all. As I said, we will examine all the evidence in the course of our review of incorporating the convention.
I thank all members who have contributed today. We are committed to taking action—action that is informed and proportionate, that will improve the rights of children in Scotland and that will secure better outcomes for all of them. We have begun the information-gathering process today, and it will continue over the next few months as we seek the views of those who know and care about children—and, perhaps most important, the views of children and young people themselves.
Our children are the future; they are also the present. There is much that we can do and much that we should do, now and in the coming months, to improve what we do for children and to help them achieve their potential. Ultimately, that will be the test. It is not about what we say we will do for our children; it is about what we actually deliver for them.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—