Youth Justice System
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2520, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on improving Scotland's youth justice system to build safer communities. There are two amendments to the motion.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am also delighted that Murray Tosh is presiding, not least because there are some people in the gallery who recognise both of us—they are from Maybole. They were asking after you earlier on, Presiding Officer.
A little over two months ago, we debated Scotland's system of youth justice. I have a sense of déjà vu, not just because Bill Aitken is already sitting in his seat ready to pounce, but because I fear that we may cover some of the same ground.
It is important to acknowledge that the encouraging feature of the previous debate was the quite strong cross-party support for our unique approach to child-centred youth justice in Scotland. In that debate, we expressed our determination to reduce youth crime not only because we want to prevent the small minority of young people who offend from falling into a life of crime, but because we genuinely recognise that many people in many communities are worried about youth offending. They see things happening on their streets that give them cause for concern. There are also wider issues about community safety. I am clear that those people need to be reassured that we are determined to tackle youth crime. I will outline some measures for that.
I am pleased to advise that an action programme for 2002 to enhance Scotland's youth justice system and to help build safer communities will be unveiled in the not-too-distant future. Before I tackle those matters, I will pay tribute to some of the organisations and individuals who have helped to increase our understanding of the causes of youth crime and the effective ways of reducing it. The multi-agency youth crime advisory group has been influential in that, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and NCH think-tank on youth crime, the report of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice—"Rethinking Criminal Justice in Scotland"—and Audit Scotland's report "Youth Justice in Scotland: A baseline report".
A lot of work has already been done. All those reports highlight three key messages on the nature of youth offending. It is important to bear them in mind. The vast majority of young people in Scotland have never offended. About one in 12 young people offend, but the majority of them do so once or on a very few occasions and are then successfully prevented from reoffending by the police, social workers or their families and friends. A small minority—reports suggest around 8 per cent—of young offenders under 21 persistently offend. Effective community-based programmes need to be in place to stop their offending. We are keen to see a focus of attention there, because we are aware that that small percentage can have a disproportionate effect on local communities and cause a disproportionate amount of stress.
We have learned a lot about the reasons for youth crime and we know what can help prevent it. We now need to concentrate on the action required to reduce offending. Throughout Scotland, multi-agency youth justice teams have been set up and many are already delivering significant change in youth justice services. Renfrewshire's team, for example, has spearheaded a youth justice project for persistent offenders, which is run by NCH. There are also early intervention schemes that are run by the police and programmes to increase the involvement of young people in community developments. In Aberdeen, a focus on reducing the number of children and young people in the care system has led to significant reductions.
At a national level, we propose to take forward the following objectives over the next year. We want to assess the coverage throughout Scotland and—crucially—the effectiveness of community-based programmes for persistent offenders. Our £23.5 million investment, which was announced earlier this year, has already led to an expansion in the number of those programmes. Our assessment will help local authorities build on current best practice in the development and expansion of the programmes. A report on that exercise will be available next March.
Secondly, I want to stress that early intervention is one of the keys in preventing reoffending. Early intervention is already carried out by the police, social work departments, schools and others. For example, the police's cautioning system, early intervention by social work departments and support for families can all be effective. We know that because the majority of young people who offend do not reoffend, but I believe that those early intervention measures can help more young people. We need better information on what is being done and whether there is room for further development.
We will set up a multi-agency group, drawn from the relevant agencies, to develop those proposals further. We will ask it to develop proposals for improving the quality of information that is provided to the children's hearing system about offending behaviour and how reoffending could be prevented. The group will also be asked to propose a national framework of outcome standards and objectives for our youth justice system, as recommended by the youth crime advisory group. Those proposals should be ready for consultation by the end of 2002.
As I said earlier, we want to reduce youth crime to help build safer communities. Building the confidence of victims in our youth justice system is a key priority for early action. The "Scottish Strategy for Victims" was launched early in 2001. It specifically excluded victims of crime by children and young people under the age of 16, for very good reasons: the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the principles of the children's hearing system require a child or young person to be dealt with confidentially. There will often be a need to discuss personal issues relating to the family in the children's hearing system.
We are clear that the balance needs to be improved. There are examples of situations where it would have been in the victim's interests to have had more information about the disposal and what was being done to ensure that young people did not reoffend.
Good work is already being done. Half of Scotland's local authorities have some form of mediation and reparation scheme and they are proving to be effective. I want such schemes to be put in place throughout Scotland. Research shows that they can be effective in preventing reoffending. The multi-agency offence resolution project in the Borders reported that reoffending rates are down by 70 per cent. Just as important, victims who choose to take part can feel reassured by meeting the offender or receiving an apology. I appreciate that that will not always be appropriate, but in some circumstances having to face up to a victim can be an effective measure in changing a young offender's behaviour and attitudes.
More can be done. We will require a multi-agency team to develop several proposals. First, we propose to improve the information on the details of the impact of the crime on the victim, victims or wider community that are provided to the children's reporter. Secondly, we want to scope the level of information that can be disclosed lawfully to the victim on the action taken by the reporter or the panel. Finally, we must identify whether there is a need for new legislation to achieve those goals. We want those proposals to be ready for consultation by the autumn of 2002. There has already been some discussion of those proposals with the appropriate bodies, including Victim Support Scotland.
We must not forget that children and young people can themselves be victims. I remind members that the early findings of the 2000 Scottish crime survey show that half the young people surveyed have been victims of at least one unpleasant incident or crime. It confirmed that young men between the ages of 16 and 24 are most likely to be victims of violence. Our first step will be to identify measures to preserve the confidentiality of victims who are children. Over the longer term, we will identify the support mechanisms that can be introduced or enhanced for young victims of crime.
We have supported initiatives throughout Scotland that are designed to strengthen and support neighbourhoods and communities in tackling the impact of crime. Social inclusion partnerships, the better neighbourhood services fund and community safety partnerships are already building on the priorities and solutions that have been identified by local communities to make them safer. They will also introduce projects to help divert young people from crime and to provide reparation, in some form, to their communities.
There are examples of good work that has already taken place. We have established a Scottish forum on community safety, which is chaired by the Deputy Minister for Justice, and we will take forward that forum's proposals in relation to youth crime.
I want to finish on the importance of youth work, which encompasses the whole range of social, sporting, educational and voluntary activities. It has a crucial role in the personal and social development of young people as individuals and as citizens and can have a positive effect in steering young people who are at risk of offending away from likely paths into crime and in offering them alternatives so that they do not find themselves committing further offences. I want that key area to be the subject of a parliamentary debate in 2002.
As we discussed in September, early intervention and diversion programmes are at the heart of our social justice agenda. Identifying and supporting children who are vulnerable to the risk of offending in later years is a cornerstone of the proposals that are laid down in the report by the action team on better integrated children's services. The new ministerial committee for children and young people will develop and enhance that agenda and it will examine how all children can achieve the best results and life chances.
I have given only a brief outline of the proposals that will be in our action programme, but I assure members that the programme will be just the first stage in a process. We intend to report on the progress made and to make further proposals for 2003 at the end of next year. To help us maintain progress, we will invite members of the youth crime advisory group and others to form a consultation group on youth justice issues. That group will be asked to report on progress and to identify new priorities.
We will shortly make available a copy of the 2002 action programme. I hope that we will be able to have a constructive debate today and to agree on the best way forward for all our children.
I move,
That the Parliament confirms its support for the Executive's objective of decreasing offending and disorder among young people, particularly persistent offending by a very small minority of young people; recognises the importance of early intervention measures, of youth work and of increased sports, leisure and educational opportunities in enabling all young people to fulfil their potential and to steering many young people at risk of offending away from a life of crime; welcomes the proposals to achieve these objectives including (a) mapping the coverage and effectiveness of community-based programmes to tackle persistent offending, (b) using the partnership opportunities provided by the multi-agency youth justice teams to develop more systematic early intervention measures and to improve the quality of information provided to the children's hearing about the offending behaviour and how re-offending could be prevented and (c) identifying how restorative justice approaches can prevent the offender re-offending and build the confidence of victims in our youth justice system and increase the safety of communities.
I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Education and Young People to her first debate on young people since taking up her new responsibility last week.
It might help me decide on the nature and tone of my remarks if the minister could indicate whether she intends to accept our amendment.
I should perhaps have said that while I have a great deal of sympathy with a number of points made through the SNP amendment, there are particular reasons why, after discussion, we do not feel able to accept it fully. Dr Simpson will address those reasons in his closing remarks.
I am disappointed that the minister does not feel able to accept our amendment. Every one of the recommendations in the youth crime review report has already been accepted by the Executive—I am referring as far back as June 2000. Surely it is time they were implemented. I do not know how the minister could fail to accept the reality of the crisis in the recruitment and retention of child care social workers. We are failing too many of Scotland's vulnerable children and young people at the very time when they are most in need of support. I assumed that addressing that was the minister's priority.
Being a former social worker, like Irene McGugan, I am well aware of the pressures on social work departments, particularly with regard to child care. I have asked for an early meeting to address some of those issues and intend to work closely with the newly established Scottish Social Services Council to address them. I assure Irene McGugan that although that matter did not feature prominently in my speech, there is no reason to suggest that it will not be one of my priorities.
I thank the minister for her intervention, but I must underline my point. I am sure that she is aware that applications for UK postgraduate social work courses have fallen alarmingly, from more than 9,000 in 1995 to under 5,000 last year. Vacant posts are a serious concern for the majority of local authorities. The high level of need and pressure on child care services is set in the context of a heavy and increasing work load, as evidenced by the increasing number of looked-after children, the ever increasing number of referrals to the children's hearing system and the rise in referrals for child protection inquiries. Social work departments are, quite simply, under manpower pressures.
We must also question whether the Executive is truly confident in its strategies for dealing not only with youth crime but with all the other issues that disadvantage our vulnerable young people, such as poverty, drug abuse and other social factors. A research report from the University of Edinburgh—"Evaluation of Children's Hearings"—confirms that young people who end up in the adult courts at an early age have usually been known to social work services and hearings from a much earlier age because of concerns about their welfare, including child protection concerns, abandonment, behavioural problems and neglect. Members who have worked in the field are well aware that the majority of children who are referred to the hearing system are from families on low incomes in public sector housing provision. Poverty is a key factor in the lives of those children and we must do a great deal more to improve that situation.
Why not attempt to measure success and movement by providing the Parliament with an annual audit report that outlines what has happened over the previous 12 months to improve the situation for all Scotland's children? I am a little disappointed in the Executive's position.
The Executive's response to the youth crime review was published—complete with time line—almost 18 months ago, but significant targets have been missed, the most notable being the national strategy which, according to the Executive's response, had a completion date of March 2001. We have since learned that the Executive's proposals will be produced by the end of the year. That raises the question why we are having a debate on youth justice—on a fairly nebulous motion—a matter of weeks before the publication of an important strategic document.
A national strategic framework would define the objectives, mechanisms, functions and resources that are needed to address youth crime. It would be based on core principles and deliver a consistent framework for local activity throughout the country. It would indicate what the future developments might be, identify the range of services that should be available throughout Scotland and address the training needs of all practitioners. A national strategy, by its very nature, underpins all other initiatives. Surely that should have been one of the first initiatives to be put in place, rather than the ABC proposals that are listed in the motion—which, I suspect, are probably the trailers for the big picture.
We also still await progress on two further recommendations from the review: the review of the age of criminal responsibility and the examination of the feasibility of a bridging pilot scheme, which would refer as many 16 and 17-year-olds as possible to the hearing system. Those issues are a bit more controversial and I accept that they require more detailed work, but time scales are slipping alarmingly. If we are really committed to improving the range and availability of options that are aimed at addressing the actions of persistent young offenders, we must make progress on those issues. Both studies should have been completed by March 2001. The same applies to secure accommodation, on which we await a ministerial statement. We need action now. When will progress be made on those issues?
It was uplifting to read in the Executive's motion the reference to the "importance of early intervention" strategies. It was also uplifting to read that
"youth work and ... increased sports, leisure and educational opportunities"
are acknowledged as means of
"enabling all young people to fulfil their potential"
and of helping to steer
"many young people … away from a life of crime"
I say that that was uplifting because I spent most of my time putting forward those points last time we debated this issue. They remain valid.
The minister will be aware that such facilities are already too thin on the ground. I underline that point with reference to our experiences on the cross-party group on children and young people. We held three consultation events in locations throughout Scotland and the comments of young people were remarkably consistent. They say that
"A place to go would prevent young people from hanging around the street which would make the street safer and reduce crime",
that
"If young people had something to do they are less likely to get into trouble",
and that
"The cost of public transport and of leisure facilities means that more young people have to hang about on the streets."
They also say:
"Drinking and violence are caused by boredom. There needs to be more places for young people to go, and involvement of young people in such places."
As the chief executive of Youthlink Scotland said:
"If youth work did not exist, the Scottish Executive would need to invent it."
We need not only to increase the availability of opportunities and challenges generally, but to staff and resource them well enough to be able to hold on to the more troubled youngsters in our communities and to offer them constructive alternatives to crime.
We know what works. There are excellent examples of multi-agency projects, in particular, that offer effective, targeted programmes of diversion and intervention that work to tackle the causes of offending and to help young people to avoid further crime. We want more of them, because they are not only effective, but cost- effective.
I move amendment S1M-2520.2, to insert at end:
"; calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement in full the recommendations of the Advisory Group Report on Youth Crime Review, focussing particularly on the proposed national strategy and the review of the age of criminal responsibility; notes the crisis in the recruitment of social workers for children and family services, and, given that the problem of youth crime needs to be seen in the wider context of social justice and in order to measure progress, further calls on the Scottish Executive to bring forward an annual report to the Parliament on the status of all of Scotland's vulnerable children."
As I can be reasonably confident that the minister will not feel able to accept my amendment, unlike Irene McGugan I do not feel the need to be inhibited in tone.
Since this matter was previously debated—six weeks ago—progress has been made. First we had press statements from the First Minister in which he heavily criticised yob culture and seemed to pick up on many of the points that I made when this issue was previously debated and now we have an Executive motion that has some merit. I hope that the minister will not be too traumatised to learn that I agree with some of the proposals that are made in it.
Having said that, I think that the Executive has failed to recognise some basic facts of life, particularly the limitations of the children's hearing system in dealing with young offenders. There is some sense in the Executive's proposals. Additional sporting, recreational and educational facilities will undoubtedly deter young people from crime and offending—as they say, the devil finds evil work for idle hands. If we can keep youngsters fully occupied, that will inhibit misbehaviour.
Let us examine the current children's hearing system and how action can be taken to improve matters. Frankly, the children's hearing system in Scotland is failing not only offenders but wider society. Children now view the system with contempt and are undeterred by its processes. Hardened young offenders greet suggestions that their conduct merits and could result in an appearance before a children's panel with hoots of derision. Members of children's panels do a very valuable job—I would be the first to recognise that—but we must consider a wider range of measures to enable them to deal with young offenders.
Children's panels are undoubtedly successful when dealing with children at risk. I concede fully the point that children at risk and children who are offenders are frequently the same, but that is often not the case. Unfortunately, the present system does not recognise that there is a difference between children at risk and children who are offenders.
I reiterate what I said last time we debated this issue: we must consider ways of beefing up the children's panel system so that it commands greater respect among the offending element. We should consider making available weekend and evening detention, from which TVs and videos are banned.
Mr Aitken is spending a considerable amount of time telling us that the children's hearing system is not working for persistent young offenders. Can he tell us how the adult court system works differently for persistent adult offenders?
I think that it works more effectively because it has a greater deterrent effect. The courts have the sanction of custodial sentences, which undoubtedly work. We could have a different argument about whether "banging them up", as the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People suggested, is effective for offenders. It is effective for the rest of us at least, because while they are inside those people are prevented from committing crime.
We have to consider wider issues. Parents should be forced to face up to their responsibilities. They should be required to keep, during defined hours, offending children off the streets; and children's panels should have the authority to order them to do so. When ordered by the system, parents should be required to ensure that their children—over a fixed, and perhaps short, period—are accompanied when out of the house. Children's panels should be able to order youngsters to work on community projects and to make restitution. I took some encouragement when the minister said that community-based solutions are possibly the best answer and can be effective. I accept that they can be effective—but there has to be a punitive element, I am afraid.
I have said that we want to examine of effectiveness of community-based provisions. Does the member accept that a number of intensive support provisions are available for young people at community level—to keep them out of the secure unit system and, we hope, to prevent them from reoffending? Does he accept that those provisions make a difference and, without locking up young people, provide support and close monitoring and challenge offending behaviour? Does the member accept that we can learn from those projects and that we should increase them across Scotland?
I accept what the minister is saying entirely, but I look forward to hearing what she will have to say about this issue on future occasions, because we have to monitor the success or otherwise of those projects. We also have to introduce more projects that will be acceptable. The minister said that victims have to have confidence in the measures that we take. At the moment, they have no confidence. We wait to see what measures the minister is prepared to introduce that will restore confidence. The present soft option is simply not acceptable.
I move amendment S1M-2520.1, to leave out from "the importance" to end and insert:
"that the children's hearing system with the limited disposals currently available is impotent to deal with persistent and serious offenders; recognises the importance of early intervention measures, of youth work and of increased sports, leisure and educational opportunities in enabling all young people to fulfil their potential and to steering many young people at risk of offending away from a life of crime; welcomes the proposals to achieve these objectives including (a) mapping the coverage and effectiveness of community-based programmes to tackle persistent offending, (b) using the partnership opportunities provided by the multi-agency youth justice teams to develop more systematic early intervention measures and to improve the quality of information provided to the children's hearing about the offending behaviour and how re-offending could be prevented and (c) identifying how restorative justice approaches can prevent the offender re-offending and build the confidence of victims in our youth justice system and increase the safety of communities, and further calls upon the Scottish Executive to review the powers of the children's hearing system."
I call Donald Gorrie, who will open the debate for the Liberal Democrats. You, too, have five minutes, Mr Gorrie.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—and it is a pleasure to speak under your aegis.
This debate is welcome. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to support Cathy Jamieson's motion. It is always useful when a minister shows his or her personal convictions, and Cathy Jamieson's interest in this subject is genuine. I am sure that it will be helpful in years to come.
I welcome Irene McGugan's speech. She argued her case vigorously. It is always refreshing to listen to a member of the SNP who is not a member of the strident tendency of the SNP, from whom we hear far too much and far too loudly.
Give it a rest, Donald.
At least Winnie Ewing now recognises that I am here. Her lot are so short-sighted that they did not even see that I was here last time.
Mr Aitken is old enough not to need any compliments.
I would like to stress a few points. First, everyone agrees that short prison sentences for young people are a complete waste of time and that well-run alternatives, such as Freagarrach, are very successful. People running HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont say that short sentences are a complete waste of time because they have no time to set up a proper educational system. Everyone agrees on that. All that is needed to solve many of the problems is a serious shift of resources—which need not necessarily be new resources—and a letter to all the sheriffs saying, "Please be more sensible in your sentencing."
Secondly, I want to talk about facilities in communities. The motion mentions sport and other youth services in communities. Local authorities have suffered—especially since the most recent reorganisation—in their community education and youth services, which need to be built up. We have to acknowledge that good youth work, community services, sport and cultural activities are often attractive to young people if provided in the right way. We need a system that delivers funds and support to those services. If local authorities will provide those services, they should do so. If they will not, they will have to be bypassed. Communities must be given resources.
We must work through communities. Too often, services are operated from the top down. Well-intentioned people in the centre say, "You must do A, B and C." We need to ask communities what they need to improve life, to give young people a better deal and to help older people, who often have difficulties with young people.
We must have a bottom-up service, ask communities what they want and give them resources. Some of those resources will be wasted, but I am sure that most of them will be targeted well at good local projects. I would prefer local people to waste money than people in the centre to waste money, which is what happens at the moment.
I am grateful to Mr Gorrie for giving way and I endorse his comments about Irene McGugan's opening speech. I therefore ask the member whether the Liberals will support the amendment in Irene McGugan's name. If not, why not?
The SNP's amendment contains much good material. The Executive has agreed about many of the points that it makes. However, both amendments suggest that parties are writing amendments for the sake of writing amendments. Writing amendments seems to be a virility symbol for the Opposition. Agreement on the issue is so great that I do not see why we cannot all support the motion.
As well as asking communities what they want and giving them resources, we should ask young people what they want. Irene McGugan mentioned some pilot schemes that the cross-party group has established. Good local schemes exist, but by and large the last people to be asked about what young people really need are young people. They have constructive ideas. If members go just across the road and have a chat with the people in the Edinburgh City Youth Cafe on Victoria Terrace, they will find that young people have constructive ideas. They participate in the operation of that cafe and many good things happen there.
We should listen to young people and go out and ask them questions more. We should provide the sensible things that they ask for, and even if some things may not appear that sensible to us, if they really want them, it is worth giving them a go. We can try what they suggest. In those ways, we could make real progress. I welcome the consensus on the issue, despite the inevitable sniping.
We now proceed to the open part of the debate. If all members who wish to speak confine their remarks to four minutes, it should be possible to call them all.
I wish the Deputy Presiding Officer good luck in his first time in the chair.
Youth crime in our communities is a doorstep issue. The public care about what the Parliament is doing to tackle youth crime and to build safer communities. It is our job as politicians to take the lead in suggesting the best solutions for reducing offending behaviour and giving the public confidence in the system. If that means making necessary changes, it is up to us to do so.
I will make one remark about the previous discussion of child prostitution before I talk about the children's hearings system. Perhaps the Tories want to clarify their position, because I thought that there was all-party support for the idea that all children under 16 who are involved in prostitution are victims of the system and that none of them is responsible for their own misfortune.
I confirm that we view child prostitution in the most serious manner. We fully accept that child prostitutes are victims. The Executive should take draconian measures against those who, for their own perverted gratification, exploit youngsters of that type. That is a fairly firm line that I think the member will support.
I thank Mr Aitken for his answer. Perhaps he clarified his position, but the Conservatives' press release talks about children being
"the authors of their own misfortune".
The Conservative party might want to reflect on that.
I will talk about the Scottish children's hearings system for a short time—my colleague Scott Barrie will talk about it at greater length.
The Scottish children's hearing system is based on the Kilbrandon principles, of which we should be proud. Of course, as in any system, improvements are needed, but the Scottish system is a humane way of dealing with children.
It is important that we debate the quality of children's panels. Mr Aitken talked about that earlier. Panel members are of a high standard and make a contribution of a high standard to the system. Other agencies could learn much from the training system in the children's hearing system. If we play around with the system, we will have to be careful about how we do that.
The SNP has called for a review of the age of criminal responsibility. It is important for us to have that debate in the Parliament. However, it has to be remembered that our system is one where children are not prosecuted in the courts. We cannot be compared to countries that prosecute children of a very young age in their court systems. We have to be careful before we call for a review of the age of criminal responsibility. We should be proud of what we do in Scotland. The Bulger case happened in England, but if it had been dealt with in the Scottish children's hearing system, it would have been heard in private. The children who were accused and ultimately convicted would not have had to face a court.
I do not have much time remaining, but I want to talk about the visit that Scott Barrie and I made to Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Polmont, as a number of lessons have to be learned about young offenders in institutions. In case members are in any doubt about the matter, young men under the age of 21 at Polmont are not referred to as prisoners but, other than that, Polmont is very much like any other kind of prison. The conditions in the two halls that we visited are as bad as those in the halls that we visited at Barlinnie prison.
It is worth talking about some of the statistics that we uncovered during our visit on the factors that lead to youth offending. The statistics date from 1997 and, although I do not like to read out a reel of statistics, they are important. Eighty-three per cent of those surveyed at Polmont young offenders institution had been suspended from school at one time or another; 82 per cent had played truant from school; 63 per cent had committed crimes through being drunk; and 93 per cent had taken illicit drugs at an average age of 13.
It is sad that before society begins to address education and literacy, it locks up young people. At Polmont, valuable work is being done. That work reflects society's hopes and wishes that young people will get on to the right track eventually and that offending will be reduced. That work has to be applauded.
The governor of Polmont, Dan Gunn, made a plea about the need for employment initiatives. There has been a lack of success as employers have not been co-operative. Local authorities have a job to do in that respect. Employment is one of the key areas that we can tackle to give some people hope for the future and to stabilise their lives.
I call Kenny MacAskill. That will test my ability to sit quietly.
I am sure that you will manage, Presiding Officer.
There is a considerable degree of consensus in the chamber about this issue. Perhaps that is less the case among Conservative members, but many of us will agree with many of the points that Bill Aitken made.
I regret the points that were made by Mr Gorrie. It should be taken on board that there can be such a thing as constructive criticism. An amendment can be lodged to add value to a debate, rather than simply to make a political point. The purpose of the SNP amendment is to try to create a coherent strategy, to focus matters and to bring them together. It may be that we will disagree on that and vote in a different manner, but the amendment was lodged for proper reasons.
This subject is difficult and it has no simplistic solutions. There are multiple causes and the corollary of that is that there are multiple cures. Every generation begins to fear or criticise the generation that follows. We have all experienced that—it may be that, at my age and with two teenage children, I begin to see that it is the case. We have to take on board that matters are slightly worse than they were before. We have a breakdown in family relationships and a much more mobile society, in which there is much more fear about approaching kids. It is rather a tragedy that in our society people, including me, sometimes wonder whether they can wind down their window and ask kids for directions without causing fear or alarm. That exacerbates matters and, as a result, the alienation between children and older generations is much worse now than in previous years.
The minister is correct that we have to put matters into perspective. The minister was also correct to say that young people are most likely to be the victims. It is the small element that is involved in serious youth crime that is the problem, not youth per se. The person who is most likely to be assaulted by a tearaway youth is a member of that youth's peer group. We have a duty not simply to protect the majority of our citizens from a small minority of the young but to protect the majority of the young from the small minority of their peer group that is making life difficult for them.
What do we do? I believe that we should build on the model of the children's panels. The problem is not the institution but the limited resources and powers available to it. I recollect from my dim and distant past that children's panels are not unique—we took them from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since then, many people have looked at what we have done and refined it. I accept that children's panels have to move on now that we are in the 21st century, but the whole concept is something that we should build on. At the moment, if a minor commits a serious crime, they can be prosecuted by indictment in the serious courts, exactly as happened down south with the Bulger tragedy. Had that happened in Scotland, I have no doubt that those children would not have gone before the children's panel but would have been prosecuted in the High Court.
The problem is resources. What can a children's panel do? It is easy to say that children's panels are doing nothing. If we returned to juvenile courts, what would a sheriff do with a 14-year-old child? He would have exactly the same difficulties that the children's panels have. The sheriff would not say, "I'll lock you up," because the question is where they would lock the child up. Like others, I have experienced practice in courts and I am well aware of the difficulties in finding secure accommodation—albeit for a short period—when a child is detained. The problem is not the institution of children's panels; the problem is resources.
It is correct that we should seek to reduce the number of looked-after children. However, the target of 20 per cent is rather arbitrary. In Edinburgh, the number of looked-after children has increased by 15 per cent in five years and residential capacity has increased by 17.5 per cent. The children's panels do not have the necessary resources at their disposal. It is those resources that we have to address. The purpose of the SNP amendment is to focus matters.
It is important, when we are discussing youth justice, that things are put into perspective. The previous speaker made the valid point that moral panic after moral panic has been visited on every generation of young people. That has happened ever since the second world war. I grew up in the punk period—that was supposed to be the end of civilisation as we knew it. However, it clearly was not, as we would not be here today.
The peak age for offending behaviour among young men—14 to 21—has remained remarkably consistent during the period of the children's hearing system. It is not a new phenomenon; it has always been with us. However, it should be borne in mind that, as the minister said, the majority of young people do not offend. Those who do, do so on very few occasions. Contrary to what Bill Aitken said, the Scottish children's hearing system works, not only at the stage of the hearing itself but in the various options available prior to the hearing. That might be a voluntary disposal with advice and guidance from the local authority, a reporter or a police warning or a diversion to another agency, all of which are important parts of the hearing system. We should not reflect just on the hearing that takes place in the small number of cases that are referred to the reporter.
Bill Aitken's amendment states that children's hearings are impotent in dealing with persistent and serious offenders. Presumably—and it is the point that I was trying to make in my intervention—he must think that courts are equally impotent at dealing with persistent offenders. Otherwise, people would not be persistent offenders who appear in adult courts with remarkable regularity.
I accept that we need to address the issue of young people who are involved in crime. That means addressing all their needs. In the briefing that it prepared for this debate, NCH Scotland made the valid point that there must be effective, targeted intervention programmes for young people who are involved in crime, to tackle the causes of their offending and help them to avoid further crime. That is particularly important if we are to avoid the sort of scenario that my friend Pauline McNeill referred to and which we heard about in our visit to Polmont this week.
An examination of the characteristics of those who make up our prison population shows that a huge proportion of those detained have no educational qualifications, have experienced local authority care or have been through the secure accommodation system. That is why Cathy Jamieson's motion is so important. We should not deal only with the aftermath of youth crime. She is right to highlight the need for early intervention. Projects such as the reparation and mediation schemes in Fife are crucial. Early intervention can prevent offending escalation. Locking up young people rarely does so. It may provide the community with some form of respite—I think that that is what Bill Aitken was trying to say—but it rarely helps the young people themselves.
Irene McGugan mentioned young people's need for somewhere to go. I draw members' attention to an initiative in my constituency in Fife, where two youth shelters were established, pioneered in large part by local community police. Those shelters provide the twin benefit of giving young people ownership of somewhere to go—not a building in the traditional sense, but a shelter nonetheless—and of reducing the incidence of needless crime in those areas. We could all learn from that model, which could be replicated throughout Scotland.
In Cathy Jamieson, we have a minister whose commitment to all young people is unquestionable. Today, we see the Executive's education and justice services blending together to address youth crime. Successfully preventing youth crime or reducing its escalation is surely the way forward. Locking up young people will not do that. It is important to get it right, otherwise we will continue down the same sorry road that we have trod for the past 20 years.
The problem is that young people nowadays do not respect their elders, are ill-mannered and do not respect property. That is what Plato said some 2,500 years ago, and some members appear to be reiterating that view today. Like most other people, I do not accept that analysis. The SNP amendment is an important extension to the motion lodged by the Minister for Education and Young People. It does nothing to detract from the vital issues raised in her motion, but it provides greater depth to the issue at hand. It calls on the Executive to examine more fully the roots of youth offending, particularly in areas that need
"to be seen in the wider context of social justice".
According to NCH Scotland, the majority of children referred to the youth justice system are from families on low incomes and in public housing provision, and have suffered some form of adversity in life. Children who commit crime tend to be victims of crime themselves. A 1995 report by the Prince's Trust found that 75 per cent of young people who had been convicted of serious offences and assaults and were held in secure care or custody had been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse. In 2000, the Scottish Prison Service published "Young People in Custody in Scotland", which found that 49 per cent of young female prisoners were victims of some form of abuse. That link is further seen in the referral process between police and the reporter. A recent study by Lothian and Borders police showed that three quarters of referrals associated youth offending with child abuse or domestic violence.
Suffering from abuse can often entice a young person to run away. The latest research published by the Aberlour Childcare Trust showed that 43 per cent of young people who run away overnight place themselves at risk of rough sleeping or staying with a stranger, using dangerous survival strategies and suffering physical and/or sexual assault. The situation for those who run for longer intensifies. Those youths often resort to begging, stealing and drug use. They may suffer abuse through prostitution and sexual exploitation, and may find themselves becoming actively involved with crime. Sometimes, they may even commit an offence with the sole purpose of being arrested so that they can have a warm, dry place to sleep for the night. Any concept of self-esteem will thus be shattered for such individuals. We need to pay attention to the red flags that signal that a youth is at risk of becoming involved in offending or persistent offending. They include poor school performance, truancy, substance abuse, mental health problems, lack of family stability, gang affiliation and running away.
We all recognise that early prevention is the key, but our ability to provide correct services for youths at risk—whether that is crisis accommodation, individual or family counselling, tutoring or substance abuse treatment—is equally important. It is vital that resources are available and accessible in all areas and that there are qualified workers.
That point brings me to the crisis in the social work sector. There is a serious problem in recruiting and retaining social workers who are essential to run youth projects, as Irene McGugan pointed out and the minister acknowledged. On 13 November, The Herald reported social work staff shortages. The number of children and family staff in Glasgow City Council is 17 per cent down. Sixty per cent of staff in Edinburgh are aged 50 or over. In North Lanarkshire, where there are 170 staff, there are 25 vacancies. In Inverclyde, there are15 vacancies out of a social worker complement of 93. Those vacancies exist at the same time as child and family social workers are experiencing an ever-increasing work load. Child protection inquiries are increasing, more children and young persons are being looked after by local authorities and referrals to the children's hearing system have increased by close to 50 per cent in six years. Even when vacancies are not an issue, increased work loads are difficult to meet and case loads are difficult to manage. However, if the crisis is given the attention that it deserves, those difficulties will be lessened.
Romy Langland, the former head of children and family services for Glasgow City Council social work department, who is currently with the Aberlour Child Care Trust, said:
"The Executive has not addressed how the manpower can be supplied at a time when recruitment, and retention, is a national problem."
If we are to secure a better future for our youth—in particular, for the most vulnerable, who may be drawn into offending—staffing and retention of social work staff must be prioritised.
Today, we must address some of the underlying issues that lead young children to engage in criminal activities. More boys than girls are referred to the children's hearing system. However, 65 per cent of girls who are referred are referred on care and protection grounds—that statistic illustrates the vulnerability of young females. Last Sunday, The Sunday Herald presented findings that brought to light the fact that at least 300 children are actively involved in prostitution. Pauline McNeill and the First Minister raised that issue earlier.
It was also reported that, in recent months, staff from Barnardo's had met 45 girls who had sold themselves for sex. I am a mother and that statistic makes my blood run cold. I think of my 15-year-old daughter and the kind of things that she gets up to. She is up to her eyes studying for highers, but the little spare time she has that is not spent in front of television is spent on activities with her girl guide company as she tries to gain her final badges. However, not everybody wants to do that kind of thing—I realise that it is not trendy. On the other hand, my 17-year-old son is a blatant mercenary. He would spend as much time as he could frying chips and making burgers in McDonald's to fund his computers and technology hobby—he is an anorak for such things. Like most parents, I do not tell either of them often enough that I admire and respect the choices that they have made so far. I am fortunate, but not everyone is.
Around three children in 100 under the age of 16 are referred to the reporter. One in 12 youngsters between the ages of eight and 21 have either offended or are being dealt with for allegations of offending. Last year, 2,050 young people were on child protection registers in Scotland. Youth crime in respect of property offences in Scotland alone costs more than £80 million each year. Of the people under the age of 21 who had a charge proved in court in 1999, 8 per cent had more than 10 previous convictions—that is a vital statistic. We must do something quickly to address such problems.
I was pleased to be invited to the launch of the Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending in Scotland youth justice service project in August to hear about the benefits to be gained from early interventions. I was surprised that I was the only MSP to turn up.
Irene McGugan was right to point out that youngsters say that some diversions are expensive and distant from where they live.
The minister highlighted the benefit of young people being confronted by their victims and being made to realise the effect their crime has had. Reparation and mediation can be useful tools in tackling youth offending. If being challenged with the reality of their activities turns one potential mini crime wave on to the straight and narrow, I am all for it. Increased spending on sporting and leisure activities might also steer away from a life of crime those who are in danger of falling into it.
However, those types of measures are woefully inadequate without an authoritative children's hearing system to deal with offenders and persistent reoffenders. I never thought that I would live to see the day when I received support for that position from Kenny MacAskill, but I am grateful for it. We look forward to the minister's action programme and further debate on it. I welcome her and her new deputy, Dr Richard Simpson, to their positions.
Richard Simpson is not her deputy.
He is going to answer the debate and I look forward to hearing him.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate. Other members have mentioned many different aspects of youth justice, such as the immense value of the children's panels. When I observed a children's panel session in Aberdeen, I was struck by the dedication of those involved. I was also struck by how the panel respected the rights of the young people and gave them the opportunity to be involved in the decision making about their offending.
There are many initiatives to tackle the different aspects of youth crime, such as those under the community safety partnerships, which try to ensure that youngsters have alternatives to behaviour that might lead them into crime and, perhaps, drug abuse. I will mention a particular project in Aberdeen, the Mastrick youth cafe, which is the initiative of a teenage girl who, after the drug-related death of a friend, decided that a local police box that was surplus to requirements was a good place to set up a cafe. The cafe is organised and run by the young people themselves. That initiative is now successfully providing safe alternative activities for young people, as well as access to advice and counselling. Other young people in other parts of Aberdeen are trying to set up similar initiatives.
However, today I want to talk mostly about research into the position of young runaways in Aberdeen. The research was commissioned by Aberdeen City Council and completed this year by Grampian police and Barnardo's. It showed that Aberdeen has a high rate of young runaways—higher than London or greater Manchester. Some 1,500 people in the northern half of the city are reported missing every year. The majority of those are young runaways. At 10 am today, the northern half of Aberdeen had seven missing people, six of whom were runaways and three of whom are in the difficult category of children who do not want to be found. A recent and alarming trend is for families and friends to hide children who have run away from children's homes and secure units. That requires the police to get search warrants and sometimes results in families being charged.
The research by Grampian police shows that up to 75 per cent of the runaways admit to committing crime while running away. Those crimes are either excitement offences such as car theft, or offences to survive such as shoplifting for food. When children are running away, they run a greater risk of involvement with drugs and child prostitution. The cost of police time is also high: five hours per child. That is equivalent to 3.3 officer years for the northern half of Aberdeen alone.
I ask the minister to consider the need for improved national guidelines on when and under what circumstances children are reported missing by children's homes. A follow-up service to investigate the reasons for children running away also seems to be needed. That service must be independent because such children do not regard social workers or the police as people to whom they can talk in confidence. We have to work at preventing runaways in the first place and we need to develop a number of solutions for that problem. I ask the minister to consider the issue of runaways and the possible need for a policy on young runaways. It could be considered as part of the action plan that is to be published next year.
I, too, would like to mention the work of Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending in Scotland, which is providing valuable services throughout Scotland. In Aberdeen, SACRO recently launched its new youth justice service, which helps young people to consider the consequences of their offending behaviour and the effects of crime on their victims. The young offenders are also helped to consider the reasons behind their offending behaviour. The service has had a significant impact on victims and on young people who offend. One of the ways forward must be to expand that kind of service as well as mediation and reparation, which can also be effective.
I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer and again offer my congratulations on his promotion.
I support almost everything that has been said. Attention must be paid to all the services, such as those that are provided by Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending, that help our young children and young people who are most at risk.
I want to introduce a cross-cutting view. We must not lose sight of the wood because of the trees. All the children and young people about whom we are talking suffer from lack of self-esteem and lack of self-confidence. When they are returned from detention, we must provide them with an alternative. They need a society and surroundings that provide and encourage self-esteem and self-confidence.
A lot of work is being done to help young people. Early intervention can come from observations that are made pre-school, at nursery school or at primary school. I suggest that if all primary school classes contained fewer than 20 pupils, there would be much more support for children, who would therefore progress much more quickly. Much research has shown that one of the best investments that any Government could make would be to reduce primary school classes to fewer than 20 pupils. I have visited primary school classes that had fewer than 20 pupils and the children in them were bright. They were fantastic.
The school subjects and provisions that would encourage self-esteem and self-confidence most effectively are—for example—music, drama, outdoor education, freely available amenities for children and free-play areas. In Scotland, the provision of free-play areas is not increasing—rather it is decreasing. By free-play areas, I mean places to which children can go to play football without filling in a form, applying to the local council to use the pitch or having to pay at the door as they go into a covered facility. We need such facilities for children. Our housing estates need to be designed so that children have play areas instead of the non-play areas that one finds in so many housing estates. My standard vision of many Scottish housing estates is of an area of grass, in the middle of which is a forbidding looking building and a sign that says, "No Ball Games". We need to change the society and atmosphere in which our young people grow up; we must concentrate on the wider picture.
In many instances, outdoor education and the outward-bound ethos can provide one of the disposals that is available to children's panels—as long as that disposal would be effective. It is not always effective because taking children out of the city and putting them in the countryside is sometimes the last thing that should be done, as they are being put in a strange and threatening situation.
Some young children can benefit from the huge extra confidence that they can get from facing challenges in the countryside in properly constructed outdoor courses. However, availability of such outdoor courses, facilities and teachers has declined steadily. I will write to the Minister for Education and Young People on that subject in the very near future—if I do not just pop my head round her door.
Under the pressure of debate, Bill Aitken referred to a type of person. Young children who are forced into prostitution are not a type, but a group of grossly exploited and abused young people.
Many members were present at the Barnardo's presentation yesterday and I would like to mention one thing—
Mr Harper, please come to a close.
Sorry. I hope that another member will take up that point.
I am sorry about that, but I want to give Brian Fitzpatrick a fair amount of time.
I am obliged to you, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your new position, and I also welcome both new ministers to the debate. We know that they have both been fechters in other debates.
I want to touch on the restorative measures that are mentioned in part (c) of the Executive motion. I hope that, as both amendments appear to retain the phrase "restorative justice", there is a shared purpose in making progress on that issue. Such a purpose is threefold. First, we must keep first-time offenders from becoming repeat offenders—that is the prize. Secondly, we must make offenders understand the impact of their actions on the community, the victim, the families involved and on him or herself. That is our responsibility and our challenge. Thirdly, we must hold young offenders accountable for their behaviour while reconnecting them with their communities. That is the outcome.
We will all have our own examples to share. For example, in a Fife restorative justice project, I came across a young man who thought he was a big smart guy and found it funny to go around chucking bricks, stones and the like through people's windows. He did not find it quite so funny when he was confronted by the mother and—more important—the very irate grandmother of a baby that had been in a pram on the porch of one of the houses that he had lobbed a stone at. Neither did he find it particularly funny when his mother took him to the restorative conference, sat him down and explained to him what might have happened if he had not missed the pram. He was a very contrite and shamed young man from a contrite and shamed family and that is why I hope that people will not think that restorative justice projects are some sort of soft option.
I was pleased that, in her opening speech, the minister acknowledged that we need to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime. Youth disorder affects the poorest communities most and old-age pensioners in our most challenged communities face the problem more than any other part of the population does. As a result, we need to build our communities' confidence in the youth justice system, so I welcome the Executive's conjoining of those issues in its motion.
We must find approaches that offer people and communities who have felt the greatest impact from offences the opportunity and assistance that they need to repair the damage that has been done to make things as right as possible. Furthermore, there must be people in positions of authority who can provide oversight and backup—coercive backup, if necessary—and we must adopt approaches that value all people, particularly victims.
I hope that the minister will help us to be successful in those aims and dispel cynical claims that such projects are soft options by indicating that there will be progress on research and on collecting data. We need to establish that such programmes have the capacity to reduce crime and to ensure that victims feel that they are the focus and that they enjoy equality before the law in proceedings with any perpetrator. It is not good enough to suggest that diffuse benefits might flow as an indirect outcome of such approaches. Are the agreements that are produced in such proceedings more likely to be implemented than formal court penalties?
The Tories are all for fining, despite the fact that fines do not get paid. They are all for locking people up, although somehow those people just keep getting out and going back in again. We need to understand crime and its effects on communities and victims. I am not as confident as Bill Aitken about the efficacy of the criminal justice system in dealing with serious or repeat offenders, and communities—particularly the most vulnerable ones—need to be assured and reassured that community safety is the priority and that it will not be compromised.
We move to wind-up speeches. It would be helpful if each speaker could trim 30 seconds off their speech.
I join in welcoming Cathy Jamieson and Richard Simpson to their new positions. Donald Gorrie got it right when he said that Cathy brought personal conviction to her post, which must be a source of encouragement to all of us who care passionately about Scotland's children and young people. The debate has highlighted our communities' concerns about youth crime. It has highlighted the Executive's determination to tackle youth crime and it has highlighted the active programme that ministers and the Executive are implementing to build—in Pauline McNeill's words—public confidence in the Executive's determination to address such matters.
The figures are stark. The Audit Scotland report that was published in June shows that, of the young offenders who had a charge against them proved in court in 1999, 8 per cent had more than 10 previous convictions. I therefore share Brian Fitzpatrick's view about the need to tackle repeat offending—he got that absolutely right. I also agree with much of Kenny MacAskill's analysis of the way in which society and our communities have changed. He said that there is a duty to protect the young from a small majority of their peer group, which is an important factor to bear in mind in analysing the pressures on our young people from those with whom they play and live.
Although some of Bill Aitken's comments might have been made in the wider context, I cannot accept his inference that, following the use of custodial sentences for all those who are aged over 18, the use of secure accommodation or institutions is the appropriate choice for more of our young people. I do not think that that is the right approach for Scotland on the whole.
Many members rightly concentrated on the importance of early intervention strategies. Those approaches must begin in schools. It is arguable that getting children to school in the first place is one of the key tasks that must be addressed. I spent a useful night on Monday with the children's panel in Shetland, at which we discussed such issues. One of that panel's members has been undertaking pioneering work not only in my community, but in other communities throughout Scotland, and his expertise is being used elsewhere because he has found and developed strategies and practical ways of tackling the issues. It is important that we find such doers who can deal practically with the issues.
Members have cited examples from their regions and constituencies of co-ordinated, concerted action that is being taken locally to tackle and overcome youth offending. The significance of the children's panel system has also been mentioned. I do not accept Bill Aitken's comment that the children's panel is a soft option. I believe that, as Pauline McNeill and Scott Barrie said, it is a humane way of dealing with children. I know from the many cases that have been brought to my attention as a constituency member that the children's panel system can be utterly daunting. However, as Scott Barrie also said, so much work that goes on around the panel is important in terms of inter-agency working and deals with many problems before they reach the stage of formal referral. Those areas of work, although perhaps unnoticed, are nonetheless hugely important.
The panel that I attended on Monday night raised issues relating to the Court of Session's judgment on the European convention on human rights and the cost implications for constituencies such as Shetland of the introduction of safeguarders and the way in which the legal representation argument will now come out. I hope that the ministers will be able to tackle those issues.
I support the principle of early intervention for young offenders. I support the ministers' and the Executive's approach in encouraging community-based alternatives to incarceration and I regard the debate as a step forward in an area in which—as others have said—there must be common purpose to achievement of our aims.
A judge once said to the famous advocate F E Smith in court, "Bacon—the great Bacon—said that youth and discretion are ill-wed companions." Quick as a flash, F E Smith replied, "Bacon—the great Bacon—also said that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal," which led to some uproar from the bench. However, F E Smith more than held his own. The moral is that youth requires guidance and encouragement—not a particularly heavy-handed adviser.
I warmly welcome Cathy Jamieson on the occasion of the first major speech that she has given from the front bench. I also give Richard Simpson a warm welcome in his new capacity and wish him every good fortune. Cathy Jamieson made a positive contribution in stressing the need for a community-based programme. The increased emphasis on having sufficient secure accommodation for the extremely small percentage of persistent young offenders who cause mayhem is welcome.
Bill Aitken today highlighted the Conservatives' belief that, just as detention is a widely used punishment in schools, a children's hearing should be able to order a youngster to attend a school or a similar establishment in the evenings and at weekends. Although resources would be required for that, we believe that former police officers would be able to offer supervision. We would like to see increased use of supervised attendance orders.
Brian Fitzpatrick made a strong contribution on the need for restorative justice and retribution, with which we are in sympathy.
Pauline McNeill and Robin Harper raised the issue of child prostitution. I would be glad if the minister set up a national working party on the subject and produced draft guidelines on how to deal with the problem.
Today's Conservative party press release says of child prostitution that
"many of the youngsters involved in child prostitution are the authors of their own misfortune."
For the sake of clarity, will Lord James Douglas-Hamilton tell us what the Conservatives mean by that?
We must weigh each case on its merits. Bill Aitken is experienced, having sat on the bench for many years in Glasgow, and knows well the circumstances in that city.
A comprehensive package of measures is required. We believe that any evidence that child prostitution is being organised by paedophiles who transport children after exchanging information should be followed up with vigour and that such people should be severely dealt with. If the minister, as one of her first actions, were to organise the publication of annual reports on what the Executive is doing to protect or rescue children from exploitation, deprivation, neglect and abuse, that would be welcome.
I stress that, although I have no difficulty with publishing reports, I want to follow through with action at the beginning of the year on the issues that have been talked about today and on the other issues that are raised in the ministerial committee on children and young people.
That is welcome and, in that effort, Cathy Jamieson will have our full support.
I wrote to the Minister for Education and Young People about the inappropriate and irresponsible material that is contained in a teaching package called "Taking Drugs Seriously". Some of the material in the pack should have no place in Scotland's schools and I urged the minister to reconsider the matter.
On Wednesday, when the First Minister visited the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency in Paisley, he stated:
"we must also combine our tough drug enforcement policies with measures to break that need for drugs through education."
Surely that is sending out mixed messages to Scotland's young people. If the Executive is intent on stamping out drug problems through education, urgent reconsideration is required of that teaching package. The Conservatives stand for justice and fairness and believe that those who peddle hard drugs for profit are a danger to our young people and that a strong stance should be taken against them.
A number of members have highlighted the extent to which our society suffers from the problems of youth crime. The persistent offending of a small group of young people can have a debilitating effect on communities; it creates victims, destroys property and ruins lives.
Cathy Jamieson rightly pointed out that only a minority of young people offends and that, within that group, an even smaller minority persistently offends. However, we should not ignore the financial costs of youth crime. In June, Audit Scotland's report estimated that the costs of youth crime are about £80 million per year. Those resources could be put to better use but, unfortunately, cannot be put to better use. That highlights the need to tackle the problem seriously.
As several members highlighted, there is no single solution or quick answer to the problem. The figures speak for themselves. In 2000, about 27,500 young people were charged with and were proved to have committed offences. In 1999-2000, almost 15,000 young people were referred to children's panels. If we are to tackle the problem, clearly we must work with the agencies and communities that are affected by it.
Having acknowledged the extent of youth crime in our society, the Parliament's responsibility—and, in particular, the Executive's role—is to ensure that we identify a series of routes by which to address the problem. Many members have referred to a variety of projects that they have contacted or with which they have been involved and agencies with which they have been in touch. That highlights the fact that we require a multi-agency approach to tackling the problem.
However, many young offenders are also victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Many have also, as Irene McGugan pointed out, suffered poverty. If today's Tory press release states that those who are involved in child prostitution are
"the authors of their own misfortune",
that is to be regretted. Child prostitution is, in reality, sexual abuse, as my colleague Gil Paterson highlighted this afternoon.
Does Michael Matheson agree that the Tory press release stated firmly that such children also had to receive the protection of the courts and wider society?
That is all very well, but to describe as
"the authors of their own misfortune"
people who have been trapped in child prostitution is deeply regrettable.
We must also be realistic about what we can achieve in tackling the problem. There exists increasing concern about the funding that is available to the agencies that work in the field. The Executive accepted the recommendations of the report of the advisory group on youth crime. That report received wide-ranging support and the group, which considered the matter in detail, highlighted that to implement the report would require about £36 million. It is therefore to be regretted that on 22 November this year Nicol Stephen indicated that the Executive would provide only £20 million to address the report's recommendations. If we are to be honest in our commitment to tackle youth crime, we must be prepared to ensure that sufficient resources are available for those who are responsible for dealing with the problem. We should spend in order to save.
I will discuss briefly social work services. As the minister rightly pointed out, social work services have an extremely important role to play in early intervention work with youth offenders and their families. However, there is a growing crisis in social work services, in particular in recruiting staff for work with children and families. I take on board the fact that the minister has agreed to examine the issue, but it is not a new problem. It has existed for a number of years and should have been addressed some time ago. Ronnie O'Connor, the director of Glasgow City Council's social work department, stated that the Executive had not addressed how manpower might be supplied at a time when recruitment and retention is a national problem. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Justice will, in his closing speech, set a time scale for addressing that problem.
The social work department, charities and other voluntary organisations all have important roles to play in tackling youth crime and in ensuring that that is done using a multi-agency approach. However, the strength of that approach will be realised only with sufficient funding to ensure that the agencies can do their job properly.
This has been a consensual debate and many of the contributions have been extremely thoughtful. If people read the Official Report of the debate, they will be able to say that, on the whole, the Parliament recognises and understands the problems and is aware of many examples in many of our constituencies of good work being done on the ground.
We are taking the matter forward. Our current proposals are a good starting point. It is good that we have had a debate today to set the scene for the strategy and the plan of action next year. Good partnerships are up and running in most parts of the country, but we need to be clear that reducing youth crime is one of the key challenges facing our society and that achieving success will require sustained effort.
We will return to the points that Irene McGugan and Michael Matheson raised on social work recruitment and retention and the whole work force issue, because we are aware that there are problems out there and that they may be growing. That is despite the fact that £135 million pounds extra—62 per cent more expenditure—has been put into those areas since 1996.
On social workers, does the minister accept that if we are to develop a more integrated approach to children's services, we must seek to develop a more integrated approach to the initial education of teachers and social workers?
The question of multidisciplinary training is important, but it has been difficult to do that. Scott Barrie will remember when I lectured in social work and tried to get young doctors and social work students to train jointly—it is not easy. However, there are good and important examples in the continuing professional development field—for example, in central Scotland—of joint training in child protection for teachers and social workers and for other groups who are involved in child-abuse matters, so I accept the member's point.
Pauline McNeill, Kenny MacAskill and others talked about the age of criminal responsibility. The Scottish Law Commission is considering a recommendation that has been made on that subject. We will return to the issue, which is an important one that we need to consider. Pauline McNeill referred to the context of children's hearings in Scotland, which makes us somewhat different from other countries. We need to recognise that when we consider the age of responsibility.
Every member has defended the children's hearing system and its unique, or almost unique—Kenny MacAskill referred to the system in Massachusetts—ability to address problems by putting the children's needs at the centre. The system has served us well over the past 30 years. We should recognise that the substantial majority of offenders come before the hearings only once.
It was disappointing to hear the Conservatives, in particular Bill Aitken, say that children greet the hearings with "hoots of derision". That is not my experience. When I was in practice, the children with whom I dealt were shaking in their shoes in front of the hearing. The majority of children do not go back again. There is a point about reoffending. The latest figures show that 890 children came before the hearings with more than 10 offences. We must consider persistent offenders when we consider making further programmes available to the children's hearing system to dispose and deal with such children appropriately. [Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise in the chamber.
Part of that work is to develop more community-based programmes for young offenders, several examples of which we heard today. Donald Gorrie referred to the Freagarrach programme in central Scotland, which was evaluated by the University of Leicester. That is an important principle—we must evaluate the programmes and roll out best practice. The establishment of the matrix project in Clackmannanshire, which deals with younger offenders in a similar way to the Fregarrach programme, is also useful. There are numerous other examples, including the Barnardo's new directions project for persistent offenders in Aberdeen, which has achieved a 76 per cent reduction in offending. In North Lanarkshire, the children's hearings over-16 initiative—CHOSI—has achieved an 80 per cent reduction in offending over two years.
A number of members raised the issue of secure accommodation. The secure accommodation advisory group reported in June, but was not able to determine the necessary level of demand. We recognise that there are problems with the physical estate, and that there are questions about whether it is modern enough, whether the accommodation is in the right place and whether the number of places is sufficient. We will return to the matter in due course and I assure those members who spoke about it that we are aware of the problems.
Kenny MacAskill referred to targets for looked-after children. We do not have specific targets for looked-after children, but we are trying to reduce the number of children in residential units. Their number has risen over the past few years.
Robin Harper and other members referred to the need to integrate the whole programme from the start. That is what initiatives such as sure start, family centres and the new community schools programme are about. They all intend to address the early risk factors in order to identify people who are having problems with parenting and to assist them in the early stages. Such initiatives address the questions of parental support, bullying and improving educational opportunities.
Tavish Scott referred to the work that is being done in Shetland to reduce exclusion. That is fundamental if we are to keep young people on-stream and stop them getting diverted and feeling excluded, which leads to their offending.
Several members referred to the importance of sport, leisure and other positive activities. Elaine Thomson spoke about a police-box cafe, which I thought was an interesting example. In Stirling constituency, there is the Hillpark multicourt scheme, and Scott Barrie referred to youth shelters in his constituency. There are endless examples of such initiatives, which we need to encourage.
We have put £21.75 million of the £87 million of funding that is available for sport and recreation into diversion. That takes up one of the better points that the Conservatives made.
Other organisations have made contributions, including the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, with its new start pilot projects.
Hand in hand with a focus on early intervention is the need to improve the system for those children and young people who have to go before children's hearings. Good work is carried out by a range of agencies, but we need to extend that.
Several members referred to child prostitution. I think that the First Minister's response on that subject during First Minister's question time today indicated how seriously we will take that problem. The Cabinet's social exclusion unit is seeking to develop a national framework on young runaways and we are considering whether we should link guidance about young runaways to the guidance that we are starting to prepare on child prostitution.
I cannot conclude this part of my speech without absolutely condemning today's Conservative press release. It says:
"Draconian steps must be taken to deal with those who are prepared to exploit youngsters for their own perverted gratification".
That part is fine, but the press release goes on to say:
"many of the youngsters involved are the authors of their own misfortune".
I call upon the Conservative party to explain in a later press release exactly what they meant by that phrase, because I find it quite unacceptable.
Give way.
I am afraid that the minister is over his time; he ought to be winding up.
I turn, in conclusion—[Interruption.]
Order.
I turn, in conclusion—
As long as it is in conclusion.
I turn to the question of victims. Reparation and mediation schemes, to which Scott Barrie and Brian Fitzpatrick referred, are important in confronting youngsters with what they have done. In particular, I mention Brian Fitzpatrick's graphic example of the youth who was confronted with the potential consequences of his throwing a brick through a window, had the brick hit a nearby baby in a pram instead. Those reparation and mediation schemes have now been adopted by 16 local authorities and I hope that they will be extended.
I will conclude, Presiding Officer.
Please.
I do not want to cause problems in this, my very first front-bench speech.
I believe that we have outlined an ambitious programme and that the appointment of Cathy Jamieson as the Minister for Education and Young People, with her experience with children, is testament to the fact that the Executive takes children and youth crime very seriously. I will not return to the SNP's comments on that issue during question time.
The fact that relevant ministers in the education department and in the justice department respectively led and summed up the debate indicates our determination, across departments, to address youth crime and to reduce re-referrals to children's hearings by 10 per cent by 2004. Integrated community programmes will help us to deliver that.
I support the motion in Cathy Jamieson's name.