Youth Justice
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-762, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on delivering a quick, effective youth justice system.
The debate gives me an opportunity to update members on the progress that has been made since we launched our youth crime action plan in the summer of 2002 and since the publication of the Audit Scotland reports into offending by young people. It also gives the Parliament a useful opportunity to discuss our plans for the future. I will be clear: those plans are important to people who live in communities that are blighted by crime, to young people and to the majority of those young people who do not commit crimes and who care about their communities. They are also important for those young people who do get drawn into offending.
It is important to try to prevent young people from getting into trouble in the first place. The vast majority of young people know what the limits of acceptable behaviour are. They set those limits themselves or respect the limits that are set by their families and communities. However, for the minority who do not respect those limits, it is absolutely right and proper that quick and effective action be taken.
Again, I will be clear, as I have been on previous occasions: our approach is not an anti-young person approach—it is far from that. I take such a strong approach because I care passionately about young people and want to see them make the most of their lives rather than see them lose their lives to crime. Therefore, I make no apologies for challenging the actions and attitudes of young people who offend.
I turn to the progress that has been made so far. In the past two years, we have significantly increased investment in youth justice services and have strengthened the role and work of youth justice teams. We have supported the expansion of community-based youth justice services. There are more than 7,000 new places, including 3,000 restorative justice places. We have introduced pilots for fast-track hearings and youth courts and have focused on speeding up the system. We have launched national standards for youth justice, which are to be in place by 2006 and which should enable every hearing to meet fast-track standards, and we have changed the law to give victims for the first time an appropriate place in the youth justice system.
Those measures are beginning to show results. For example, in the youth court, we are seeing offenders being dealt with more efficiently. When they are faced with all their charges, they are accepting responsibility for their actions and most are pleading guilty at an early stage. As a result of the reduction in the number of trials that are required, witnesses' and victims' valuable time is not being wasted. Moreover, we are seeing the different agencies not only working well, but working well together.
Indeed, we are so encouraged by the early outcomes from Hamilton that we have decided to widen the pilot study. To ensure consistency of approach, the second pilot youth court will employ the same social work, police and procurator fiscal teams as the first one. For that reason, it will be based in Airdrie sheriff court. Airdrie sheriff court is much smaller than the court in Hamilton, which means that the evaluation team will be able to make a useful comparison between two different-sized courts with different sheriffs, different client groups and different working practices.
Most important, we will be able to increase significantly the number of young offenders who are dealt with by the pilot. Hamilton youth court has had 126 referrals in its first six months—which is broadly in line with our expectations—but a second pilot will enable us to involve more young offenders. That will assist the evaluation team and, in turn, will give us the opportunity to make a much more informed decision about the youth court at the end of the pilot period.
The interim evaluation of the fast-track hearings pilots, which the University of Glasgow published earlier this week, suggests that the new arrangements are quicker, that assessment reports have improved and are more comprehensive, in-depth, timely and focused, and that a wider range of appropriate offending-related programmes is in place. It also suggests that there have been improvements in partnership working. Members do not need to take my word for that—panel members, authorities and others on the front line are reporting such improvements in the process.
At this stage, it is too early to predict what the full evaluation will show in 2005. That will enable all of us to examine improvements in outcomes and services, but I want to ensure that every area can benefit from the emerging lessons now. I know that parliamentary committees have heard from a range of the people who are involved about their enthusiasm for and commitment to fast tracking, and council leaders and senior officials have told me that they would like the opportunity for other areas to become fast tracked.
The national standards that we developed and published last year are the gold standard to which fast-track hearings are already working. We want every hearing to be able to meet those fast-track standards by 2006, which is why I am committing an extra £4 million over the next two years directly to youth justice teams to help to achieve that. In addition, I will write soon to council leaders and chief executives with specific proposals on providing practical assistance to meet their request for help with managing the implementation of national standards.
Fast tracking and the youth court have demonstrated how a multi-agency approach can be effective in dealing with persistent young offenders within the children's hearings system and as young people enter the court system. The right programmes should be in place at the right time to tackle offending behaviour and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Where young people have already graduated to crimes that result in a custodial sentence, we will do more to work with them on their release to stop the revolving door which too often ends in their reoffending and in another prison sentence.
To reduce reoffending, we must have a throughcare system that gives priority to the successful resettlement of offenders on their release. That is a major initiative for us. Our first priority has been to improve the arrangements for those who are subject to statutory post-release supervision. Local authorities are working to designate both the supervising authority and the supervising officer from the point of sentence. Our aim is to ensure continuity of service during both the custodial and statutory supervision elements of the sentence. That will continue for as long as it takes the offender to resettle into the community on release.
Stage 2 of our throughcare strategy—for which local authorities are being provided with further additional resources—gives priority to young people within the group of prisoners who are eligible to request voluntary aftercare. Young offenders show the highest rate of reoffending, which is why we are convinced that effective interventions with that group will almost certainly have long-term benefits not just for young people, but for their communities and their victims. As part of stage 2 of the strategy, we have invited local authorities to make innovative proposals on how to engage with that group of young people, whose needs are greater than those of the general prison population. I expect to receive proposals that take account of the broad range of issues that underpin youth offending and exclusion.
Again, I want to be clear: no one in the Government is complacent about the progress that has been made so far or about the continued effort and focus that will be needed from all organisations to take the next steps to improve the range, speed and effectiveness of our services.
Just before Christmas, I met local authority leaders and chief executives to follow up on the Audit Scotland report. We had a frank, open and positive discussion and I made it clear to them that it was unacceptable to have a disparity in the quality of services that are available. If a children's hearing decides that a young person requires supervision, that supervision should be put in place. Everybody deserves the best and I do not want services to be divided between the best and the rest.
I also asked them what help and support they needed from the Executive to make that a reality throughout Scotland. They told me that resources are important and that a simplified way of providing funding would help to cut down on bureaucracy. They shared our commitment to making communities safer and to cutting reoffending, and they wanted support to develop a full range of the right interventions, including early intervention, restorative justice and intensive support where that is necessary. I listened closely to their views.
On top of existing record levels of investment, we are investing £35 million of new money to help to implement the youth justice measures in the antisocial behaviour strategy. That new money will start to become available from 2004-05 and will enable us to do a number of things. First, we will be able to double the number of restorative justice places by adding £3 million for another 3,000 places. That is important, as it will allow work to be done on making young people face up to the consequences of their behaviour. There have been positive examples of such work, not least in Glasgow.
We will also be able to provide more than £13 million for programmes so that local authorities can deliver the intensive, specialist services for the most hard-to-reach groups of troublesome young people and their families. Those funds will support the services needed in tandem with improved parenting approaches and will complement the use of tagging and assist those on antisocial behaviour orders. Funds will also support the training of panel members and other associated costs.
We have allocated additional finance totalling £3 million from 2004 to support victims of youth crime, building on the work of the pilot project that began in September 2003. That means that, if someone has been a victim of a young offender, they can be given a clearer understanding about what will happen inside the hearings system and what the implications might be for them and for the young person.
We will provide almost £5 million to support the cost of community reparation orders, the establishment of the second youth court, and the court costs of implementing all the new orders.
We want to learn from other effective local action to deliver real improvements in all local communities, recognising that it is vital to prevent young people from becoming involved in trouble in the first place.
Last summer, an additional £1 million was given to community safety partnerships to offer young people positive alternatives to hanging about the streets. That funding was well received and the response from young people has been encouraging. In East Ayrshire, many young people in my constituency took advantage of the activities on offer, including a golf competition, indoor skateboarding and fit clubs. Impressively, there was a reduction of some 40 per cent in reported incidents of group disorder and disturbance compared with the previous summer break.
As foreseen in the partnership agreement, I can announce that we will give £10 million for local diversionary activity over the next two years. That money is for smaller projects on the ground that have shown that they can offer new or improved facilities to provide positive alternative activities for young people across Scotland.
Will the minister comment on the rising cost to voluntary clubs of hiring schools and other facilities, which is causing serious problems in Glasgow and other parts of the country? Will she encourage the use of some of the money to provide free lets for voluntary clubs to allow them to continue their splendid activities?
I am aware that, during the summer months, a range of activities were put in place. In some instances, that included young people being given free access to facilities in exactly the areas that Tommy Sheridan is talking about. In other areas, such as rural communities, it included the provision of free transport to get young people to facilities. The important thing about the money that I mentioned is that it is designed to get to the front-line, small organisations that provide services for young people day in, day out, which should ensure that the money directly benefits young people. It will be important to ensure that we take account of local circumstances and that local people are involved. I am not going to prescribe what each area does with the money, but I see no reason why the sort of activities that were provided during the summer months should not be considered as part of the range.
It is also important to remember that the additional funding relating to antisocial behaviour allows us to deliver in full on the commitment that we made in the partnership agreement and to start that delivery straight away in 2004.
Funding for youth justice and our expectations on delivery have rightly come a long way since 2000. We now have better and more focused local teams directing services at local need and are starting to see the improvements that our targeted pilots to address the most pressing issues can deliver. However, we are not complacent about the need for a fuller range of quality services, delivered more quickly and meeting the needs of victims more directly.
We want the outcomes nationally to match our ambition, enthusiasm and substantial financial commitment. Support for a wider youth court pilot, assistance to allow every hearing to meet the gold standard of the fast-track hearings, and a doubling of the number of restorative justice places represent the sort of commitments that we are happy to make for our forward work programme.
I look to every agency to work in partnership with us to take on the challenges ahead and meet our shared goals. Victims and communities deserve nothing less.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of dealing quickly, firmly and effectively with the minority of young people who offend; acknowledges that progress has been made by local authorities and partners in the statutory and voluntary sectors to encourage rehabilitation, prevent re-offending and tackle and reduce youth crime, but recognises that further work must be done to ensure that the quality of life in our communities continues to improve.
Before I start, I would like to compliment the Deputy Minister for Justice on his new look. My colleague, Michael Matheson, was being uncharitable when he suggested to me that men who grow beards are compensating for a lack of something further up.
There is no doubt that the Scottish Executive has made cutting youth crime and speeding up youth justice a priority. It should in no way be criticised for doing so. Of course, some would say that it has deliberately singled out young people as an easy target, but that is a debate for another day.
Some concern has been expressed about the Executive's approach, not least by the police in response to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I say to the Scottish Executive that it is important to listen a bit more to those at the sharp end and to lecture a bit less.
Nicola Sturgeon exhorts us to listen to people at the sharp end. Does she accept that the number of visits made by ministers during the summer to constituencies throughout Scotland—including the constituencies of some of her colleagues—was a good example of our listening to people at the sharp end? What people at the sharp end are telling us is that something needs to be done, that the status quo is unacceptable and that we must take decisive action.
I accept that. However, the decisive action that is taken must be the right action, and the police are telling the Scottish Executive that they need not more powers but the resources to implement properly the powers that they already have. The Scottish Executive should listen to that message.
Cutting youth crime and speeding up youth justice are important and the high priority that the Scottish Executive has accorded to the area makes it vital that the Executive delivers on its side of the bargain.
Youth offending is a complex problem and none of us would suggest that there are any easy solutions to it. It is clear that it is not enough to talk tough or to act tough by imposing ever more draconian measures on young offenders, although it is worth pointing out that the Scottish Executive is struggling to provide an adequate level of service in relation to enforcement. For example, the shortage of secure unit places is well known and the Executive's assessment of the situation last year exposed the huge shortfall in provision. The commitment to 29 additional places by 2006 is welcome, but it is hardly an adequate response given the fact that 25 extra places are needed to meet existing demand. The secure accommodation advisory group said that children's hearings' decisions are being constrained by the lack of available places. Clearly, that is in the interests neither of the offending child, who might be a danger to themselves or to other people, nor of the public.
On the amendment in the name of Annabel Goldie, I have to say that sending 14 and 15-year-olds to adult courts might make for a good soundbite, but it will make no difference to the problem of youth offending. In fact, if it does anything, it might entrench young people's self-perception as offenders. Ultimately, however, the forum in which cases are heard is not what matters; what is important is what happens to the young person who is offending and the balance of punishment and support that the young person gets to reduce the chances that they will reoffend.
I would like to correct a piece of misinformation. The Tories do not want to send 14 and 15-year-olds to adult courts; we want to send them to youth courts.
The children's hearings system is the place in which to deal with young offenders, as it provides the right balance. In the appropriate circumstances, it provides punishment but, more important, it provides the support that will reduce the chances of reoffending.
It is not enough simply to talk tough about youth crime, but it is also not enough simply to speed up the process of administering youth justice and to make it more efficient, although that is an important objective. The interim report on the fast-track hearings system to which the minister referred makes generally positive reading but, as the minister conceded, it highlights some issues that need to be addressed further.
For me, the most important issues are concern about the long-term sustainability of the funding for fast tracking—about which the minister made some comments—and the fact that, notwithstanding the pilot funding, gaps remain in services such as psychiatric and educational support services. Those services are critical to the success of the hearings system. The report also makes important comments about the continued pressure on social workers who work with children and families. However, overall, the report makes reasonably positive reading.
Making a system more efficient does not necessarily make it more effective. The effectiveness of the system—in terms of rehabilitation and of reducing the chances of young offenders reoffending—is the most important thing. Such effectiveness is in the interests of the individuals and communities that are most affected by youth crime. That is an area in which much still has to be done.
I am glad that the minister said that the Scottish Executive is not complacent, because the Audit Scotland report that was published at the tail-end of last year makes worrying reading. If anything should warn against complacency, that report is it. It makes it clear that many children are being seriously let down by the system. Hundreds are not getting the level of service that is required if we are to maximise the chances that they will not reoffend.
Relative to adults, children get a poor service from the system. Hundreds of children on supervision do not receive the services that are prescribed by the children's hearings system, whereas almost all adults on probation get the level of service that a court has recommended. Although there is a national standard governing the frequency of social work contact for adults on probation, there is no such standard for children on supervision. The result is that around half of all children on supervision see their social worker less than once a month.
It is all very well for the minister to say this morning that that is not good enough and that we cannot have a division between the best and the rest—we all know that and agree with it. However, it is important to acknowledge that words—even if, in this instance, the words are backed by additional resources—may not be enough. The Audit Scotland report makes it clear that at the root of the problem is the continuing shortage of social workers in children's services.
I hope that Nicola Sturgeon at least welcomes the fact that, this morning, not only have I made a clear statement on the level of service that children on supervision ought to receive, but we have put money into the system to ensure that local authorities are able to carry out the functions that they ought to be fulfilling. We did that as a direct result of listening to the people in local authorities and the voluntary sector who have to deliver the provision.
If the minister had listened carefully, she would know that I have welcomed several parts of what she said. However, it is not only money that is needed in the system; it is the people who can provide the services to children—services that children are not getting right now.
The minister made a commitment to double the number of restorative justice places. Again, that is something that I very much welcome. I believe that restorative justice has huge potential for adults and youth offenders. It makes them give something back to the community and, in the process, I hope, encourages them to reassess their place in that community and their relationship with it. That is a good thing, but my fear is that, without the social workers and an adequate level of service, the delivery of the commitment may, in practice, continue to be difficult.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am running out of time and I have been generous in allowing interventions.
The minister asks me to welcome good announcements. I do, but I ask her to acknowledge and accept the constraints in the system that will not be solved simply by throwing money at the problem. Sometimes the solutions are rather more complex—as Labour members are fond of pointing out on occasion.
This topic is an important one for debate. I believe that the challenge remains big. Yes, it involves making the system more efficient and, yes, it involves being tougher on that minority of persistent offenders who make life a misery for other people, but a much bigger challenge is to divert young people away from crime altogether and to prevent those who offend from graduating to a life of crime. There are no easy answers, but I offer a final thought. In addition to dealing with and focusing on the minority who offend, a worthwhile contribution would be to emphasise a bit more often the positive and constructive role that the vast majority of law-abiding young people play in society.
I move amendment S2M-762.2, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:
"however notes with concern the contents of the Audit Scotland report, Dealing with offending by young people, published in November 2003, that too many children placed on supervision for reasons of offending are not receiving the required level of service and considers that efforts to encourage rehabilitation and prevent re-offending are being undermined as a result; further notes that the shortage of places in secure units constrains the ability of children's hearings to make the most appropriate decisions, and considers that the Scottish Executive must guard against complacency and redouble its efforts to provide both the leadership and resources that will enable its partners in local authorities and the voluntary and statutory sectors to make the progress required to deliver an appreciable reduction in youth crime."
I, too, welcome the spirit of the Executive motion. It is clear from the tone of the motion that the Executive no longer wishes to categorise young people as the villains of the piece, and I pay particular tribute to the minister for her remarks about that. However, in relation to youth justice, two adages come to mind: the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and hard cases make bad law. The Executive would do well to bear those two traditional maxims in mind. Although I draw comfort from the recognition in the Executive's motion that many good procedures, partnerships and initiatives exist—and the minister has spoken expansively about them—I am distinctly uneasy about the Executive's enduring obsession with new law. In the field of justice, the Executive has been producing new measures with a fervour that makes the proverbial sausage machine look like a rusting relic.
It is not for me to pre-empt what the Local Government and Transport Committee, the Justice 2 Committee and the Communities Committee will say in their stage 1 reports on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill—a bill that will certainly affect youth justice—but the Executive will be aware that the support for it that witnesses have expressed to the committees has been less than resounding. Given the recent publicity surrounding the evidence from the police on the proposed power of dispersal, I hope that, somewhere in the recesses of Executive intellect, common sense will be found and will prevail.
Nicola Sturgeon was a little uncharitable to the new, hairy Hugh Henry. I have never impugned his intelligence; I just thought the beard was a disguise. To dwell on one aspect of the bill on antisocial behaviour is to distract attention from an important debate. Delivering a quick and effective youth justice system is the aspiration of everyone, but clarity is required in determining who is doing what and the effectiveness of doing it. There must be adequate resource to underpin the whole structure of delivery. [Interruption.]
Apologies.
I have not often been serenaded during my speeches in this chamber, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] The support is very welcome.
In youth justice, our focus has to be on the children's hearings system. If, as has been demonstrated by evidence from the United States, early intervention is the key to dealing with young offenders—and particularly with persistent young offenders—our children's panels have an immensely important role to play. I should like to pay tribute to the many dedicated men and women who voluntarily contribute to that important task throughout Scotland. In this debate, I want us to consider what we might do to assist them in delivering a quick and effective youth justice system. Not only is that our fundamental obligation to society, but we must ensure that our panel members remain motivated and interested and have the satisfaction of knowing that their contribution is not only vital but valued.
There has to be clarity in the role that we expect our children's hearings to perform. To assist in creating that clarity, I would remove from children's hearings persistent 14 and 15-year-old offenders and would bring them before the youth courts—although I know that that proposition does not meet with the agreement of other members in the chamber. I welcome the extension of the pilot scheme for youth courts to Airdrie, as announced by the minister.
There is a strong argument for retaining adult courts as the forum for 16 and 17-year-olds. If people are, regrettably, law breakers by that age, they are adults and fully aware of their circumstances. Therefore, I would consider the adult court system to be appropriate.
In connection with that, I refer to the issue of secure places. Persistent offenders will require to be placed in secure accommodation. We need those places now; we have needed them since late in September 2002 when the Scottish Executive promised them. The matter is overdue for consideration. Nicola Sturgeon is correct: many children's hearings are desperately frustrated by their inability to locate a secure place when that is the appropriate destination for a young person before the panel.
Does the member accept that plans to provide additional secure accommodation places are well under way and that work is already taking place with the providers? Does she also accept that 75 additional intensive support places—some of which are residential and some of which provide a mixture of residential and community-based supervision—have also been put on track to provide services for the most vulnerable young people?
That is undoubtedly a positive contribution to what is needed, but "plans" and putting things "on track" are not the delivery of what is required now.
There must also be clarity in the relationship between children's panels and the partnership agencies with which ministers have to work. The minister referred to that issue. One of the most important agencies is local government.
Reference has been made to the Audit Scotland report of 6 November 2003, which was a follow-up to its original report on offending by young people. The findings in the report are troubling. I will not rehearse them in detail, as the minister is familiar with them. The particular issues that were identified show that there are huge deficiencies in the system. It is small wonder that our children's panels become so frustrated in trying to do the very important job with which we have charged them. In short, none of what the Audit Scotland report disclosed will lead to quick, firm and effective youth justice.
I must also pose the question whether it is acceptable that the report, "Children's Hearings Representative Group Report on Children's Hearings Time Intervals 2002-03", which was published on 16 December 2003, found that only one third of local authorities deliver a service on time. The minister alluded to that, but the report is recent and it is a matter of great concern that the disclosures are coming forth. It is troubling that no agency in Scotland met all of its targets in all areas. The delivery of police force targets invites comment and only one local authority met the target for its assessment of young people. The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration met none of its standards in any area. We cannot just skate over those figures and pretend that the deficiencies do not exist.
I am sorry, but I am a little short of time. I think that the Presiding Officer expects me to make progress.
You have another two or three minutes, Miss Goldie.
How charitable.
I was about to point out to the Deputy Minister for Justice, so that he could pick up the point later, that I did not rise to defend the position. I made it very clear in my meeting with the local authority chief executives and council leaders that the figures are not acceptable. I also made it clear that all of us must work harder and that all of us must ensure that young people get the service that they need.
I welcome the minister's comment, which is reassuring.
I urge the Executive to expand the disposals that are available to children's panels and youth courts, including weekend and evening detention, community service, supervised attendance orders and, if necessary, drug treatment and testing orders. Sadly, drug abuse and addiction know no barrier between the ages of 16 and upwards. Unfortunately, as we know, there are also tragic cases of young people below the age of 16 who are addicted to illegal substances. I am heartened that the Executive has come round to the Scottish Conservatives' view that electronic tagging is an appropriate disposal in some cases.
There is also no doubt about the effectiveness of community mediation, which is the reason why I made reference to it in my amendment. Interestingly, community mediation as a phrase is not mentioned in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. However, it offers intervention before an individual is criminalised. It is an important element in youth justice and it should be further explored as a worthwhile resource. Community mediation must be part of what should be an holistic approach. My amendment is deliberately focused on the children's hearings system for that reason. The children's hearings system is the pivot of anything else that we try to achieve in youth justice.
I welcome the debate. Although the minister has gone some way towards explaining where improvements are being sought and endeavour is being discharged in trying to make progress, which is positive, it is clear that a great deal is still to be done.
I move amendment S2M-762.1, to insert at end:
"; in particular considers that at the heart of effective youth justice is the Children's Hearings system; calls, therefore, for the Children's Hearings system to be better resourced with a wider range of disposals in order that hearings can perform a more effective role in relation to youth justice and assist in the wider function of community mediation, and further calls on the Scottish Executive to alleviate the burden on the Children's Hearings system by sending persistent 14 and 15-year-old offenders to youth courts, while keeping 16 and 17-year-olds in adult courts."
It is good to be back. I wish everybody a happy new year—I hope that members did not indulge in too much antisocial behaviour over the past few weeks. This is a welcome debate to which to return. It reminds us all—not only in the Executive parties but across the chamber—of one of our key priorities in tackling many of the problems that relate to youth justice and antisocial behaviour.
I welcome the minister's positive contribution—both its content and its tone—but I want to echo something that other members have said, which is that we should be very careful not to stigmatise young people in Scotland. The vast majority of young people make a positive contribution to our society: they work hard in their exams, do the very best that they can and are a credit to us all. Only a small minority of young people—less than 1 per cent—are involved in offending. Within that minority, an even smaller group of people is responsible for the vast majority of offences. It is important that that is put into context.
It is also important for us to see that that makes the challenge of tackling youth justice issues even greater. We have to protect the young people who want to make a positive contribution to society. In 2000, the Scottish crime survey found that 50 per cent of 12 to 15-year-olds said that they had been the victim of crime. Whether as a result of having their mobile phone pinched or as a result of being bullied at school, our young people have to deal with the consequences of unacceptable and antisocial behaviour too. The issue is as much about protecting young people as it is about protecting the elderly or other members of the community.
A great deal of what the minister said today has to be welcomed against the background of not being complacent about the important task that is ahead of us. I welcome the fact that we are widening the youth courts pilot study, which seems to have had a positive response in general. It is also good that the fast-track hearings are to be rolled out across the country. If we look at what people want for their communities, we see that they want effective and practical measures to be taken. They also want to know what is happening and they want to see that things are happening fairly, quickly and effectively.
It is important that individuals and communities that are victims of youth crime, including communities in my constituency and in every constituency represented in the chamber, are aware of what is being done to deal with young offenders. Communities and victims want the police and others to feedback information to let them know what is being done. Very often, communities are completely in the dark. They see the consequences of the young offenders' actions but they do not see the young offenders being dealt with. Fast-track hearings are important in letting young offenders know that within 10 days of being charged they can be in front of a children's panel.
I also welcome what the minister had to say on throughcare. I particularly welcome the doubling of the number of places. Elsewhere—particularly in England, I believe—restorative justice has proved to be a positive approach. It should be encouraged. I want to pick up on my earlier point about holistic support for young people. I welcome the £10 million that is to go into diversionary activity, which is not only positive for the young people involved but will reduce the number of people who are likely to get involved in antisocial behaviour.
The minister mentioned additional secure accommodation places. Although I will not labour that point, I would like to hear from Hugh Henry what is planned for young girls and young women, as that area has caused problems in the past. We need a range of disposals across the board.
My intervention is on the member's previous point, about diversionary activity. Given that Wester Hailes has an even better record, with a 60 per cent reduction in youth crime as a result of a project that was run in the area last year, perhaps the Executive might consider rearranging its priorities to divert money to diversionary activity to an even greater extent. Such activity is proven to be extremely effective.
Increased investment is being made across the board. It is important that that investment not only goes into prevention, including the types of diversionary project that Robin Harper mentioned, but is made across the system. When offenders are caught, they need to be dealt with quickly and effectively at the point of sentencing, a range of disposals needs to be made available to deal with them, and they need to be supported back into the community.
A holistic approach is needed not only for the individual but for families and parents, many of whom are struggling to contain their youngsters. Indeed, many of those families and parents are struggling, as are their youngsters, with issues such as abuse. I do not disagree with Robin Harper, but investment has to be made across the board. The announcements that we have heard today, in addition to some of the work that the Executive has done in that respect, are to be welcomed. That is the drift of where we are going.
I want to put on the record the Liberal Democrats' appreciation for the work that is done by the 2,000 children's panel members who give of their time to try to support young people in Scotland. I have heard of the frustration of children's panel members from friends who were involved as panel members. It is frustrating for panel members to make a judgment about what is best for a young person only to find, a year down the line, that the disposal has not worked in the way they hoped because the young person has not met a social worker. Panel members are frustrated because they do not have the clout and the support they need. Some of the Executive's announcements on the issue in the past year show that it is starting to accept that.
The minister acknowledged that Audit Scotland's report is worrying. It says that 25 per cent of people do not receive the support they require. However, we should remember that 75 per cent of people are receiving support and that people are working well in multi-agency teams throughout Scotland to do their best by the young people who are involved. Nevertheless, Audit Scotland's report highlights deficiencies in the system that must be addressed.
Against that background, I welcome the national standards. It is important to offer a range of disposals, community orders and support. We must monitor them to ensure that we have value for money and that the measures are effective. National standards will assist with that. Those initiatives are all about investment, not only in monetary terms, but in key personnel. One of the most important steps that the Executive has taken is to recognise the need for more social workers and to start to work towards recruiting them.
About two years ago, I asked children's panel members, council officials, the local police and others in my constituency what the one thing was that I could ask for in the Parliament that would help them in their youth justice work. Without exception, every person to whom I spoke said that they wanted more social workers—not more police or more money. I was taken aback by that, but that shows the importance of the social worker's role.
Much of what the minister said is to be welcomed. We cannot be complacent about the great challenge ahead of ensuring that we allow every young person in Scotland the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Our communities should be allowed to live in peace and we should harness the potential of young people, rather than stigmatise them and always see them as the problem. We should see most of our young people as part of the solution for a more peaceful and prosperous Scotland.
Justice issues have been and will continue to be prominent in this parliamentary session. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill is an attempt to address many of the concerns that were brought to MSPs' attention during the previous session and the recent Scottish Parliament elections. The bill and other justice initiatives, such as the youth courts, are a direct response to the concerns of men, women and young people in communities throughout Scotland.
Of course antisocial behaviour is not reserved to young people, but we must face up to the reality, which some members fail to understand or accept, that although the vast majority of young people are positive members of their communities, a relatively small number of young people cause havoc on their local streets. That is not a fantasy that constituency MSPs have made up; it is the reality for too many communities throughout Scotland. I for one will not ignore my constituents' pleas for the problem to be tackled.
Does the member agree that we should invest in more young people's support workers and go back to the days when community workers were attached to vibrant community centres that were part of the community? Would such investment not make a difference to the small number of disillusioned young people? We need such work to start in early-years education and to continue throughout the education system until people come out at the other end when they finish secondary school.
Do come to the point.
Does the member agree that through such work and work with young people's families, and with the correct resources, we would not have the problems that we have in our communities today?
I will compensate Karen Whitefield for that intervention.
The minister made clear the Executive's commitment to financing support for young people. In my community, young people want to access the facilities that Rosemary Byrne described, but other young people prevent them from doing so. The police can claim that more police officers are needed, but in my community, young people are being prevented from accessing facilities, and I am told that the powers to do something about that are insufficient. That situation is the reality for my constituents, and that is exactly what the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will address.
We must deal with the situation. In a previous debate, I spoke about the success of the youth court pilot in Hamilton. The youth court is designed to deal with the most persistent young offenders and aims to challenge their offending behaviour as early as possible. It has three central elements. First, the intention is to bring young people before the courts as quickly as possible. Secondly, the aim is to take them through the courts as quickly as possible. Thirdly, the court provides additional programmes that are designed to stop offending.
In a recent article in the Hamilton Advertiser, Margaret Mitchell, who is the Tories' deputy justice spokesperson, attacked the youth courts and said that they had to be scrapped. That was not the first time that she has published a press release before checking her facts. She told everybody that Christmas would be banned, which most certainly was not the case. Now she says that we should ban youth courts before we have evaluated whether they are successful. I never thought that I would say it, but we should bring back Lyndsay McIntosh.
Will the member give way?
No. Once I have finished asking my questions, the member can intervene.
I ask Ms Mitchell which of the three elements of the youth court she disagrees with. Does she think that it is bad for young people to be brought before the court in half the time that is taken in normal cases?
Will the member take an intervention? She has asked a question and she will not let me answer.
If Margaret Mitchell sits down and listens to my questions, she will have an opportunity to answer. Perhaps if she listened before she spoke, her contributions would be more positive.
Ditto.
The youth court has reduced by half the time that cases take to reach court. Does Margaret Mitchell think that it is bad that cases are dealt with more speedily? The Hamilton court has delivered more speed. Does she think that it is bad that the courts, local authorities and voluntary agencies work in partnership to provide innovative programmes? Those programmes are designed to challenge young people's offending behaviour, prevent them from reoffending and take them out of crime. To which elements does she object?
I object to adult 16 and 17-year-olds, who could be dealt with in adult courts, taking up precious resources that could be used on early intervention for persistent 14 and 15-year-old offenders. The policy that the member advocates leaves 16 and 17-year-olds languishing in the hearings system and fails to address their offending behaviour, which escalates. Those are the same young people whom the Executive deprives of resources for the help that would stop them appearing in sheriff courts and, eventually, the High Court.
Will the member conclude her intervention?
Those young people's offending behaviour is not being dealt with.
Karen Whitefield has one more minute.
Funnily enough, I disagree with Ms Mitchell. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are not languishing in Hamilton sheriff court; their needs are being addressed. We challenge their offending behaviour and prevent them from committing further crime. It is interesting that Margaret Mitchell objects to the initiative, when the Conservatives' justice spokesperson, Annabel Goldie, welcomed the extension of the youth court pilot to Airdrie. The Conservatives need to ensure that they all sing from the same hymn sheet.
The principles that underlie the youth court pilots are not flawed. I firmly believe that challenging young people's offending behaviour early benefits not only the communities in which they live, but the young people themselves. I am convinced of the benefits of taking young people through the court process more efficiently. That reduces the likelihood of their reoffending before steps are taken to address their offending. In its briefing to MSPs today, the Law Society of Scotland agrees with the principles of the youth court initiative.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to improving the youth justice system. I am pleased that initiatives such as the youth court aim to improve the lives of those who suffer from the effects of youth crime. The youth court also aims to improve the lives of young people who offend, to ensure that the life of crime is stopped at the earliest stage and to prevent those young people from becoming persistent offenders. I look forward to the extension of that approach to Airdrie sheriff court and I welcome the Executive's commitment to tackling youth justice matters.
The motion commends the work carried out by local authorities, the voluntary sector and others in the area of youth justice and I join in applauding their efforts. I also welcome the additional resources and places in the restorative justice programme that the minister announced today.
It is only right that we should debate the problem of youth justice, but we cannot resolve it without dealing with youth protection at the same time. Children are more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of crime. That is what I will focus on.
In 2001-02, there were 36,820 referrals to the children's hearings system. However, 63 per cent of those children were referred because they needed care and protection; only 37 per cent were referred for allegedly committing an offence. In the past decade, referrals of children who have allegedly committed an offence have risen by 14 per cent. Undoubtedly, there is a rise in youth crime.
During the same period, referrals of children who have been victims of an offence have risen by 27 per cent. The number of children who were referred because of neglect or lack of parental care has risen by a shocking 247 per cent. There is no doubt that the lives of ordinary and decent people are being blighted by a small number of children who are committing offences. That is an outward manifestation of a truly appalling rise in the number of children who are in crisis.
A two-pronged approach is needed to deal with the situation. We must curb the activities of offenders. Curing the symptoms would improve the lot of many decent people, but if we are to cure the disease, we must also tackle the issue of youth protection. It is not enough to wait until a child offends and then issue the parents with a parental order, for example. We must invest money and resources in supporting families from the day that a child is conceived. All children deserve our support; they do not deserve to be regarded as a problem in our society. In a country with a declining population, such as ours, children are our most precious resource. We should nourish them, not demonise them.
Recently, I spoke to a group of young people from Dumbarton who expressed deep concern that they were being targeted and pilloried by the Executive; they felt picked upon. It is not a criminal offence to be over five and under 16, and it is not a criminal offence to stand and chat to a group of friends.
That is not to say that there are not problems with groups of youths. There are, but in this country it is still the case that one is innocent until proven guilty. The Executive's plans to introduce antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s will lead to the tagging of children, some as young as 10 years of age. Are we really striving to create the kind of society where a small child who is certainly in need of discipline, but who also needs protection, is criminalised and tagged? We have to appreciate that a large number of the children who commit offences have been mistreated first.
More than half the children who are regarded as persistent offenders have previously been referred to the children's hearings system on non-offending grounds. They have already appeared as victims; later, they appear as offenders. That figure is an underestimate because many of the children who come to the children's hearings system as offenders have been maltreated and abused; however, that mistreatment has not been picked up and they have not been referred to the system before.
The member has outlined those children who are deemed to be persistent offenders and have appeared at the children's panel on other grounds. Does he accept that those grounds are more likely to be non-attendance at school rather than care and protection?
Yes. Many of those children went through the children's hearings system as a result of truancy, but that is partly a symptom of the fact that those children are not being cared for and are being neglected at home.
A study written for the youth justice forum in Glasgow in 2001 examined young persistent offenders in Glasgow. It found that the majority of children who persistently offended had first appeared for non-offending reasons at an average age of eight. It also found that virtually all those children came from unstable and violent homes, and that they had been originally referred because of physical abuse, lack of parental care or alleged sexual abuse.
An example of the type of abuse suffered by those children is the case of a child who was being physically assaulted by their carer at the age of six months. Another example is that of a child of 18 months who was left in the care of a three-year-old sibling. That child was fed through the letterbox by worried neighbours. Is it any wonder that children who suffer such abuse often go on to offend? We in Scotland reap what we sow. We cannot address the problem of youth offending without addressing the issue of youth protection.
Scotland needs more secure accommodation places for young people. The Executive's earlier announcement of an additional 29 places was welcome, but that is not sufficient on its own in the short or long term to deal with the shortage of places that has been identified by the children's hearings system. Protecting all our children is an absolute priority. I want there to be a quick and effective youth justice system, but I also want there to be a quicker and more effective youth protection system.
I conclude with one simple thought. If we in Scotland protected our children properly, we would not have to introduce measure to protect ourselves from our children.
I call Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Rhona Brankin.
I, too, welcome today's debate. Many members have mentioned that there is a great deal to read in the report and a lot to be welcomed in the minister's speech. A great deal is happening in the pipeline and the Executive has not had the arrogance to suggest that it is doing everything. More can be done and will be done in future.
I would like to mention some of the previous speakers' comments, in which the seriousness of the problem of youth crime and young offenders for communities was recognised. It has also been acknowledged that there are no easy answers. However, a couple of times in today's debate we have already heard the old chestnut about the need to be tough. It is always easier to say that word than to define what it means. Giving young offenders the opportunity and motivation to re-evaluate their lives can be a tough process. Challenging behaviour and facing people with the consequences of their behaviour can be tough. Too often, the word is used to indulge the unsavoury attitudes and co-opt the support of people whose instincts are more akin to those of the hang-'em-and-flog-'em brigade.
We should consider the motion and ask ourselves what it says to us. The title mentions a "Quick, Effective Youth Justice System", and no one could disagree that a youth justice system should be quick and effective. The text includes the word "firmly", which reminds me of the word "tough". I am not quite sure what "firmly" means and I wonder whether it has been chosen for the same reasons that "tough" is sometimes chosen.
A more fitting aspiration for our youth justice system is compassion. We in Scotland should be proud to have developed a system that has compassion at its heart and which places the needs of young people at the centre of the process. That is, of course, the strength of the children's hearings system. It has the capacity to be flexible, innovative and responsive to communities, and it involves people who are passionate about protecting the welfare and rights of children while challenging unacceptable behaviour. Other members have acknowledged that. I echo Margaret Smith's comments and praise for the people who are involved in running the children's hearings system.
Yesterday, the Communities Committee took evidence on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and heard representatives of the children's hearings system speak highly of the fast-track pilot. However, they also asked us to consider why there should be talk of a fast track. Why should there be a slow track? Why should young people who are in need of the compassionate justice that the children's hearings system can provide have to wait months or longer? The minister's earlier comments about increasing the number of cases that go through a fast-track process are therefore welcome. It will be interesting to hear more about how that will be implemented.
A review of the children's hearings system is in the pipeline. The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration has welcomed that review. If it is handled well, the review process could lead to a newly invigorated confidence in the system, a wider awareness of what it does and what its successes are, and a new commitment to the principles of compassionate justice. When I look at the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, one of the questions that I have to ask myself is why some of the measures in it are being considered at all. In particular, I ask myself why they are being introduced before the review of the children's hearings system has taken place. Some of those measures include moving children out of the children's hearings system into the court system—I refer to the granting of antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s through the court system rather than through the children's hearings system.
Giving registered social landlords the power to apply for ASBOs against children is another concern. Ministers have repeatedly asserted that ASBOs for under-16s will be used only for a small number of persistent offenders. Those young people are already known, and will be known, to the children's hearings system. Where is the need for another way of identifying them or targeting them through giving RSLs the opportunity to apply for ASBOs against them? I do not intend to criticise registered social landlords or undermine their important role. It is a question of whether the children's hearings system is already the appropriate context.
Does the member accept that the measure is being introduced because, at present, registered social landlords do not have that power, while local authorities do? The measure aims to address that anomaly and deal with the situation as it exists.
Our approach to the youth justice system should be about the needs of those troubled young people who are persistent offenders. It should not be about saying that a landlord should have a right that it does not have and which a local authority previously had.
There is also cause for concern over the introduction of other measures, such as restriction of liberty orders with electronic monitoring for children, where no substantial evidence exists of the effectiveness of such measures. The Executive's policies on detention and tagging need to be clarified. It appears contradictory to suggest that tagging will be used only as an alternative to detention and at the same time to plan for an increase in secure accommodation places. I note Karen Whitefield's comments at the Justice 2 Committee this week, which I attended as an observer, in which she made it clear that she does not regard tagging as an alternative to detention, and expects it to be used not in that way, but as an additional disposal.
While I am mentioning Karen Whitefield I will respond to her earlier comments about members who do not support the proposals on antisocial behaviour. I have said this before very clearly, I will say it again, and I will say it every time that I criticise the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill: we recognise that there is a problem. Those of us who challenge the bill do not challenge the idea that action is needed. We challenge the course of action.
In a change to the advertised programme, I call Christine May, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell.
I apologise to the chamber. I think that I got my facts wrong in my intervention on Patrick Harvie.
The efforts to tackle offending behaviour by a small minority of young people more quickly and effectively are welcome, as are the efforts to prevent such behaviour. I particularly welcome the announcement this morning of the £10 million for diversionary activities. That will help, for example, the SNAPPY—social norms alcohol problem prevention for youth—project in Glenrothes and the summer activities schemes in Buckhaven and Methil and other parts of my constituency, as well as small local groups that have been set up to deal with particular issues in local communities.
In Central Fife and everywhere else, speeding up the processing of cases will mean that the outcomes are as close to the time of the offences as possible. That will make it easier to tackle offending behaviour, to examine with offenders the impact of their behaviour on victims and to prevent the offender's empathy with the victim from decreasing, which happens with the passage of time. In particular, the victim will know that justice is swift, which will make the outcome more credible. Fast-tracking is likely to give relevant agencies greater opportunities to work more closely together, thus focusing minds on achieving positive outcomes. A deadline is great for concentrating the mind.
The development of approaches to restorative justice is also welcome. Such approaches provide clear benefits to the community and the offender, in that they make the offender face up to the consequences of their behaviour and allow the community to see a positive retribution and a link between the offence and the punishment. That should help reintegration and promote social inclusion. Indeed, such a swift approach might have helped in the case that featured in one of my local papers this week of a young person who started his offending behaviour as a teenager stealing from local shops and seven years on is still offending, with no obvious effective deterrent having been put in place. On behalf of my local community, I welcome an approach that speeds up restorative justice, makes the link between the punishment and the crime and stops the behaviour more quickly than it is being stopped at the moment.
On information sharing, the Audit Scotland report "Dealing with offending by young people" shows that the data that are available are patchy, ranging from very good in some areas to quite poor in others. There is a further problem with sharing information. Quite rightly, victims want to know what is happening, but we have to strike a balance between the need of the victim to know and the right of the individual—particularly when they are a child—to confidentiality. Other concerns have been raised with me about the operation of the Data Protection Act 1988 and the Human Rights Act 1998. I have written to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Communities about that.
I am aware that the member has written to me and I will reply fully in due course. However, I wish to place on record my concern, which I have discussed with the Minister for Education and Young People, that children and young people should not be put at risk because agencies fail to share information appropriately. The social work services inspectorate is reviewing its guidance, but I make it clear that, where there are concerns about children and young people, agencies should not use the Data Protection Act 1988 as a reason for not taking action.
I am grateful for that assurance, because a constituent of mine has written to me pointing out that concerns have been raised
"on two occasions within the last month where guidelines … seem to give more importance to confidentiality than to the safety of patients/clients or to criminal law … The problem seems to be that people are treating all aspects of the human rights legislation as if it carries equal weight whereas it is meant that some aspects are supposed to be given more weight than others … safety comes before confidentiality."
My second concern was raised with me by Families Outside, which supports the families of people who are in prison. There is some evidence that parents who have phoned up about their children in Polmont young offenders institution or in the adult prison system are being denied information because of issues to do with the Data Protection Act 1988. There is also concern that families are being prevented from playing an active part in the rehabilitation of their children.
That runs contrary to the spirit and the intention of what the Executive is trying to do. It is not acceptable for agencies to hide behind the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1988 simply because that makes life easier for them. The Parliament has talked about the need to change attitudes and working practices. There is evidence that, in this instance at least, Parliament's wishes are being thwarted. Youth justice and dealing with antisocial and criminal behaviour by young people in communities have to be priorities. Everybody has got to get together to make the system work.
I welcome what is being done. I hope that the concerns that I have raised will be addressed more fully by the Deputy Minister for Justice in his closing remarks.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's choice of subject for this morning's debate—delivering a quick and effective youth justice system—all the more so because the motion is not of the happy-clappy variety of which the Executive is so fond. The debate is on a subject about which the Scottish Parliament can do something.
As the motion recognises, youth crime is committed by a minority of young people. Nonetheless, their actions impact disproportionately on the wider community. For evidence of that, we need merely skim through local newspapers from all over Scotland, in which stories appear weekly about youths—who generally are under 16—creating chaos in their local communities.
In Hamilton and other parts of Lanarkshire, local people are demanding action against youths who are running riot and terrorising residents. In Kilmarnock, an under-16 set fire to Grange Academy in October causing £1.6 million-worth of damage. Elsewhere, groups of youths, both boys and girls, are smashing windows and vandalising property. If that kind of behaviour is to be addressed quickly and effectively, as the motion suggests, a zero-tolerance approach to crime must be adopted so that we can prevent low-level crime from escalating into something more serious.
Early intervention is key. We must adopt a multi-agency approach to identify problems as soon as possible and to devise a course of action to deal with them, starting with primary schools, where disruptive pupils who cause a problem in the classroom are the same children who cause chaos in communities.
I recognise that the debate has moved on since I last advocated that approach. I welcome the announcement today by the Minister for Education and Young People of measures to tackle indiscipline, in so far as that is an attempt to do something about the problem. However, I caution against measures that are too prescriptive and that do not sufficiently take account of head teachers' ability to put in place measures to tackle particular problems in their schools.
Margaret Mitchell spoke about a zero-tolerance approach. Does she believe that the existing powers that are available to all agencies are sufficient for us to pursue such an approach, or does she believe that there are weaknesses in the system and that, in some cases, additional powers will be required to ensure a more effective approach to justice?
I am thinking specifically about the Executive's wardens scheme. Questions must be asked about how effective that scheme is, as compared with putting police on the streets, in providing a zero-tolerance approach to crime. That is one area in which powers are not sufficient. Wardens should be replaced by policemen.
Identifying antisocial behaviour is not a task just for the police; it must involve parents, teachers, local authorities and representatives from education services and social work, all working together to get to the root of the problem and to solve it. Early intervention is not just about identifying and addressing offending behaviour at an early age. It also involves intervening early at whatever stage of offending a youth has reached and ensuring that effective action is in place to put young people back on the straight and narrow.
The children's hearings system has a crucial role to play, but the system's potential has not been fully realised, because it has lacked the resources to enable it properly to implement and monitor its decisions and because it is currently overburdened by dealing with 12 to 15-year-old persistent offenders. The extra resources that the minister has announced today are welcome, but the problem of 12 to 15-year-old persistent offenders who are stuck in the children's hearings system will persist as long as the Scottish Executive continues to spend and target resources on youth courts for 16 and 17-year-olds, who are young adults and should be dealt with in adult courts.
Does Margaret Mitchell accept that this is not an either-or situation? We must target the appropriate resources at the children's hearings system, youth courts and adult offenders. I ask her to clarify whether she is suggesting that 12-year-olds should be dealt with in the adult court system. That seemed to be what she was saying.
The issue is about priorities. I am saying clearly that the priority should be to establish youth courts for 14 and 15-year-olds, as a means of providing early intervention.
What about 12-year-olds?
Twelve-year-olds would be dealt with in the children's hearings system, with the additional measures that we are suggesting. This is an opportunity missed and I urge the minister to re-examine the policy, with a view to extending the excellent work that youth courts are doing to 14 and 15-year-olds.
I cannot take an intervention, as I am in the last minute of my speech.
Failure to extend the work of youth courts to 14 and 15-year-olds will result in those persistent offenders continuing to offend, as the children's hearings system is not capable of dealing with them. Those are the children who become the adults who appear in the district courts, sheriff courts and the High Court. I hope that the minister will re-examine the policy and I urge the Parliament to support the Conservative amendment.
I welcome the minister's opening speech, which was a model of what such speeches should be. Instead of offering pious platitudes, she spoke about many of the specific things that the Executive is doing or will do. That is extremely welcome.
That is high praise.
Criticism can be favourable as well as unfavourable.
The minister also made good pro-youth remarks. We have a serious problem, as the media and some politicians have given young people collectively the view that, in some way, we are all against them. We must correct that perception and the minister was trying to do so. We must get young people on our side, as they are not the problem, but the solution. We must use them in that way.
One issue that concerns me is that the projects and money to which the minister referred may be short-term initiatives and funding. Scotland is awash with schemes that received initial money to start up but then ran out of money. We must give a guarantee that good projects that are continuing to deliver will receive money in future. I know that the minister cannot commit budgets more than a year or two ahead, but it is desperately important that organisations be given an assurance that, as long as they do their stuff and deliver good things in respect of our policy, they will continue to be funded. I suggest that any politician or official who uses the phrase "pump-priming" should receive a fine of £100, to be taken from their salary. It is a ludicrous concept that if we give a project a bit of money at the start somehow God or someone else will keep it going in the future. That does not happen.
I strongly endorse the comments made by Margaret Smith, Annabel Goldie and other members on the importance of funding to provide back-up to children's panels, so that quick and effective action can be taken. At the moment, the public do not see action and think that children's panels are a waste of time. It is important that we use much of the funding to address that problem.
We must also concentrate on earlier intervention. The people who will become real problems can be identified fairly early. At yesterday's meeting of the Communities Committee, we heard from an excellent lady witness who praised strongly a project that had helped to turn around her teenage son. Her only complaint was that the scheme became involved with him only after he had had repeated problems. If the project had become involved earlier, considerable hassle would have been avoided. As other members have said, we can identify people who will present serious problems and sort them out. If investment is made in real one-to-one efforts to do that, many of those people will be sorted out.
We need more youth workers as well as more social workers. We need to build up a youth service that has been dismantled over the past 20 years and we need to give people positive things to do. I take the point that sometimes gangs may discourage young people from visiting youth centres; clearly, that problem must be dealt with. However, in many areas there are no facilities or no good organisations that help people to use the facilities. In the past, some community centres have excluded young people. We must make good use of our facilities, but that will involve making good use of people, too.
We must learn to co-ordinate schemes better. We need an encyclopaedia of all the projects. As far as I am aware, there is no such list. There is a huge number of good local projects about which we do not hear. We must learn from the successful projects and copy them elsewhere. I do not want us to do what the English seem to be doing, which is to put the Prison Service in charge of alternatives to custody. The thought of the Scottish Prison Service running those schemes fills me with dismay. If it started to run the prisons better, that would be a good step forward.
In much of this debate, there is a non-meeting of minds. We must strike a balance between dealing with the real problems that exist—communities must have genuine peace and freedom from intimidation—and proceeding in a sensible way. We must use children's panels, which are a good system, and resource them adequately. There is more common ground than there appears to be. I have been encouraged by many of the good speeches that have been made.
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I am genuinely pleased that the Executive's motion acknowledges that Scotland's integrated approach to juvenile care and justice is the correct way forward. I am also happy that there is clear recognition in the motion and among members that the percentage of young people who persistently offend is tiny. Over the long term, offence referrals have decreased by 1,234 since 1974.
As Donald Gorrie said, the problem of the behaviour of a small number of persistent young offenders must be tackled in a balanced way. We must challenge those young people's attitudes and actions and recognise that their personal, social and educational circumstances must be addressed in order to achieve the correct results—both for the young people and for society. Such a balanced approach is rational and humane. It recognises the sometimes severe problems that are caused by a small minority of young people in their communities while acknowledging that the solution lies not in throwing away the key, but in targeting resources towards a small group in order to change behaviour and attitudes.
In her speech, the minister set in its proper context the continuing work that is being undertaken to create a youth justice service that will be able to deal with the complex social environment of modern Scotland. I was encouraged by what she said when she updated the chamber on the fast-track hearings pilot and the youth court project. I note that 170 young people have now been referred for fast-track hearings and that, since the first youth court sat in June of last year, more than 100 young people have been referred to it. I look forward to the formal evaluations of both initiatives and I hope that, as the minister clearly indicated, the evidence points to success.
I welcome the significant investment in local authority youth justice services, which will increase from £5 million in the current financial year to £15 million by 2005-06, and other moneys that have been invested to improve the range and quality of community-based services via the youth crime prevention fund. Resources targeted in that way can be particularly effective.
I will highlight one community-based service in my local authority, Glasgow City Council. In August 2003, the Glasgow restorative justice service was officially launched. As Nicola Sturgeon said, restorative justice has huge potential. To date, the service has received more than 450 referrals from the children's reporter. The young people, who are aged between eight and 16, have been responsible for a wide range of crimes and offences, such as vandalism, gang fighting and the possession of drugs or offensive weapons. The service is a multi-agency attempt to deal with those problems. Its aim is to reduce rates of offending, reoffending and low-level youth crime in Glasgow by targeting young people and re-engaging them with services that are available across the city. I am pleased to report that, according to Mr Alan Spiers, the manager of the service, early evidence
"clearly indicates that the restorative justice process is impacting upon young people and their families, in instances where previously no formal action would have been taken."
The attempt to re-engage with those young people is an imaginative and worthwhile programme to involve all those affected by crimes, including the local community, and to encourage young people to apologise and to take responsibility for their actions. That is a sensible way of proceeding.
The deputy leader of Glasgow City Council, Councillor Jim Coleman, who is a former colleague of mine, is on record as saying that the restorative justice service and other restorative initiatives have
"the potential to reduce crime and re-offending levels across the city."
I agree with him.
I will give members an example of a young person who was involved in a breach of the peace and who was referred by the children's reporter to the restorative justice service. The young person had been involved in a gang fight in which stones were thrown at a rival group. On receiving a letter from the restorative justice service before a caution was given, the parents and the young person involved wrote a letter to Mr Alan Spiers, the manager of the service. The young person's letter stated:
"My name is … and I have been involved in an incident and was charged with a breach of the peace on the 29th of August … As I did wrong and have to take responsibility for my own actions I would like to say that I am sorry I disobeyed my parents and was going around with someone I was not allowed to … I did not swear but I was involved in the crowd who were and that makes me just as guilty as them and I have to take responsibility for my involvement and I will agree with whatever you decide is my punishment".
That is a good and positive letter.
In the vast majority of cases, we help to develop safer communities by engaging constructively with young people who have offended in order to help them to develop a sense of social responsibility and self-discipline. I say to Patrick Harvie that we do that by being firm, but not draconian. Properly planned and structured community-based programmes such as the one in Glasgow can in many cases be more effective than custody. Initiatives such as the Glasgow restorative justice service are designed to promote community safety and order. There can be no doubt that youth disorder and offending is a genuine problem, which can blight our communities, but a large part of the solution lies in working together and in the co-operation of agencies, young people and their families. The Glasgow example is rational, bold and imaginative and it accords with the main thrust of the Executive's strategy as set out in the motion, which I commend to the chamber.
Today, I am struggling with a disadvantage, as I have forgotten to bring my bifocals, so I can see either my notes or the clock. In some ways, that is like the issue that we are discussing: we have to look out to the community at large and we have to look in closely at the detail. I do not envy the ministers their job in tackling what is a complex issue, in which we can only glimpse some of the issues some of the time—trying to see the whole view all of the time is difficult.
I say to ministers that the Audit Scotland report was valuable. Bill Butler referred to a decline in the number of referrals to children's panels since 1974. That is correct. However, the minister's update makes it clear that, between 1995 and 2000-01, the number of persistent offenders with 10 or more offences rose by 5 per cent. That increase drives the debate and the public's perception of the impact of youth crime. Bill Butler's speech was interesting and well worth hearing.
In his follow-up report, the Auditor General makes some interesting points on the subject of complexity. He also praises the Executive for accepting 35 of his 38 recommendations, which I, too, welcome. A table in the report shows that, of 19 agencies that are involved with youth justice teams, 11 are funded by the Scottish Executive and eight are funded by other sources. That gives us an immediate handle on the kind of complexities that exist.
Social workers are vital to an effective youth justice system. The Auditor General highlights the worrying rise in social work vacancies. In 2000, the figure was about 6 per cent, but by 2002 it had risen to 15 per cent. I recognise that that is partly because we are trying to have more social workers and I do not say that the Executive has failed, because it has created more social worker jobs. However, the figures highlight the issues that we must address if we are to make good progress.
There are other worrying statistics about social workers. For example, the Auditor General's follow-up report says that
"half (50%) of children on supervision are seen by social workers less than once a month."
That begins to open up an understanding of the issues in the debate. The question is not whether the kids go to the children's panel, to the youth courts, to the juvenile courts, which have disappeared for some reason, or to the adult courts. There are important discussions around that, but the really important thing is that the disposals are available and resourced, whichever way through the system the young people who have become offenders have arrived at those disposals. The fact that 50 per cent do not see a social worker more than once a month is particularly worrying in that regard.
The problem is also geographic. In January 2003, the Auditor General highlighted the fact that there were 220 unallocated cases in Glasgow. There were others across Scotland, but there is clearly a specific geographic problem that needs to be addressed. Of course, he also said that social workers see some children frequently, so the system is working well in some places. However, I am not as complacent as Margaret Smith is about the fact that 75 per cent of young people on statutory supervision are receiving support; I do not think that that is good enough.
I hope that Stewart Stevenson will acknowledge that the first thing that I mentioned was the 25 per cent of young people who are not getting the services that they require, which is unacceptable. I made the comment about the other 75 per cent simply because I do not believe that we should lose sight of the fact that a lot of people are working hard. As he has just said, some people are getting a good service from social work departments, but I agree that the 25 per cent figure is absolutely unacceptable.
We have got that message and we must focus on the young people who are not getting the support that they need. People are working very hard; nobody is denying that. However, we must work cleverer rather than harder, because it is probably not possible to work harder to any great extent.
We need a quick and effective youth justice system. Such a system would be to the benefit of victims, communities, witnesses and, of course, offenders. I welcome the fact that my colleague Stewart Maxwell reminded us that the children's panels system is not about offenders, but about the welfare of children. One thing that divides most of us in the chamber from the Tory members is that we believe that good welfare support for children is in the interests of the community as a whole and will deliver social justice for all.
It is worth remembering that our friends who praise us merely reinforce us in our habits. Our critics are, in reality, our dearest friends, because they show us how to improve. The Auditor General is the ministers' dearest friend and I hope that, in the summing-up speech, we shall hear some responses to his comments.
Initially, I was fearful when I heard that this debate had been timetabled. The words of Bill Murray, "Well, it's groundhog day again," echoed in my mind. I thought that we would be debating and dealing with the issue of young offenders much as we have done in the past, when we often seem to have discussed little else. However, today's debate has been much more measured, considered and sensible.
I remind the minister of the criticisms that I have made in previous discussions on the issue. I felt that there was a danger that the Executive was exaggerating the scale of the problem without addressing the underlying causes, and that it was in danger of stigmatising Scotland's youngsters, especially some of those who are most vulnerable and damaged. At least the Executive seems to have accepted that a minority of young people offend and that the vast majority of our young people in Scotland are a credit to the country, to their families and, most of all, to themselves.
Will Colin Fox give way?
I would like to give way, but I have only six minutes to speak and six pages to read, so they are timed at a minute each.
On Monday, The Guardian highlighted the fact that juvenile offending rates have, according to a Government report—the Carter report, which is yet to be published—fallen since 1992. There has also been an overall drop in crime during that period. I shall return to the Carter report in a moment, but there we have it in context—ammunition for those who wish to counter the fear of crime that has engulfed us and is all too easily fanned by debates in this chamber that are sometimes not as sensible as the one that we are having today.
As Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending has said repeatedly, young people are no worse now than they were 20 years ago, there is no more youth crime now than there was 20 years ago, 3 per cent of young people get into trouble and 0.17 per cent reoffend. The same figures are backed up by Lothian and Borders police, and it is good to see the ministers' sense of proportion now gaining the upper hand on previous debates.
Although we all welcome the progress that has been made in helping that small minority of young people to see a way forward that does not involve offending or ignoring the rights of their community, I do not agree with Nicola Sturgeon's view that the Executive needs to listen more to the experts. I think that there is clear evidence that the Scottish Executive has been stung by the criticisms that have been made in previous debates and has listened, at last, to front-line service providers. I welcome that.
However, I see that the Scottish children's hearings system lacks professional social workers.
Will Colin Fox give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time to take an intervention.
I have sat in on children's hearings in the past few months. More often than not, the children who are in front of those hearings do not have an accredited social worker dedicated to their case. By not providing a dedicated social worker to meet their needs, the Scottish Executive is letting down the youngsters who get into trouble and are desperate to get back on the straight and narrow. A fully resourced children's hearings system is the place to deal with young offenders—not more youth courts.
Rehabilitation, preventing reoffending and reducing crime means investing in young people. That means investing in some of the most vulnerable and abused young people and in some of the people who, quite frankly, are more likely than any of us here to be the victims of crimes themselves. That point was reinforced in evidence that was given recently to the Justice 2 Committee by Professor David Smith and Dr Lesley McAra of the University of Edinburgh. They have shown that what is needed is an holistic approach in which young people feel that they have a part to play in society and a stake in the society in which they live.
I was glad to hear Annabel Goldie, Donald Gorrie and other members make the same point that SACRO has highlighted. Once we start writing off young people, as the Executive might have given the impression of doing in the past, we find that we have a much bigger problem on our hands. The need to stop reoffending must be linked to the knowledge that, once young people enter the criminal justice system, it becomes much more difficult to get them to change their behaviour.
The motion refers to investing in our communities, and that means addressing why access to education is often denied to offenders on release from prison. Eighty-four per cent of people reoffend within two years of release, and criminologists say that one of the key reasons for that is that they have difficulty getting access to the education that was afforded to them in prison. That has to be examined, as does the right to leisure facilities.
I am encouraged by the minister's reference to initiatives in East Ayrshire. She cited the welcome example of the difference that the additional money had made to local diversionary activities that are provided by East Ayrshire Council, and I am sure that that initiative will be welcomed by members in all parts of the chamber. Increased access to sport and leisure activities makes a difference, and I would like there to be free access to such facilities for all youngsters in Scotland. The minister mentioned free travel for youngsters in rural areas and extending such provision across Scotland, and I would welcome that. Young people need a right to youth workers, youth associations and drug treatment programmes, and all that costs money.
The Carter report, which was presented jointly by the Home Office, Downing Street and the Treasury, recommends major investment in community programmes as an alternative to youth custody, but the Government has delayed responding to its findings for 18 months. That is the reality of the current situation. The reports are being published but the required money is not forthcoming.
The tone of today's debate has been in sharp contrast to the hang-'em-and-flog-'em views that we heard at the outset of our discussions on the matter, and the debate is all the more welcome for that. The quality of life in our communities, to which the motion refers, certainly needs improvement, especially in those poor communities that suffer higher levels of crime than their richer counterparts.
I welcome the opportunity to debate youth justice, which is such an important issue that we need to return to it regularly.
As a member of the Audit Committee, I want to raise some of the issues that the committee discussed as a result of the joint report between Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission for Scotland. First, it is important that we have such joint reports, because that recognises the cross-cutting nature of the services that are involved. "Dealing with offending by young people" is the first such jointly produced report to come before the Audit Committee; that it is important, because it enables performance audit to be conducted in a holistic manner. I shall return to that issue later.
Previous speakers have demonstrated the need for a quick and effective youth justice system. I would be surprised if any members of the Parliament had not had the experience of distressed constituents who are victims of youth crime coming to their surgeries. Such crime happens and it can make people's lives miserable. We all know, and we have all recognised, that a minority of young people offend; we must also recognise that the main victims of youth crime are often young people themselves. I was glad to hear Colin Fox recognise that, because it is one of the principal reasons for tackling the problem. Youth crime can make young people's lives a misery.
I very much welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to tackle youth offending; that commitment is bringing forward substantial new investment. In particular, I welcome the Executive's commitment to develop community-based programmes. The courts must deal with more serious offences but, as is recognised by the Audit Scotland report, properly planned and structured community-based programmes can be more effective than custody.
The evidence base for community programmes demonstrates that those services can be effective in both reducing offending and providing value for money. However, the services must be well managed and they must be run by skilled staff. It is important that the services are subject to sustained monitoring and evaluation—I know that the Executive recognises that. When projects are established, it is essential that a robust and systematic system for evaluation is put in place at the outset, and funding for such systems must be made available.
Systematic inspection of community services is essential and such inspection must be conducted on a multi-agency and multidisciplinary basis. The Audit Committee had some concerns on that issue and I would welcome reassurance from the minister that the Executive is developing consistent approaches to inspection across the Education Department and the Justice Department.
The Audit Committee welcomes the establishment of youth justice teams, but there is concern that support from the statutory services at a senior level is not always forthcoming. Again, I seek reassurance from the minister that support at a senior level from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration will be required and will be delivered in every youth justice team throughout Scotland.
The Audit Committee welcomes the steps that have been taken to boost social work recruitment—we have heard a lot about that in the debate—and I am cognisant of the steps that the Executive has taken to do that. However, we must be careful about making an assumption that the more social workers there are, the better the service will become. As the Auditor General pointed out, some local authorities in Scotland have significant shortages of social workers but still produce a reasonable level of service, so we have to beware of making simplistic deductions about a lack of social workers. However, we must examine fundamentally the issue of social work provision in Scotland. I would like a response—although, obviously, the matter is not the responsibility of the Minister for Justice—as I believe that social work services need to be overhauled if we are to deliver genuine interagency, multidisciplinary work and deliver youth justice. We must consider the social work services inspectorate and its role. I would welcome a response from the minister on the importance of that issue.
The Parliament has a responsibility to secure communities in which our young people, our families and our older people feel safe and are confident about their communities. The Executive's plans for youth justice, which have been outlined today, will make a major contribution towards doing that. I welcome those plans and I know that my constituents in Midlothian welcome them. At meetings that I have held throughout my constituency to discuss the issues, I have outlined the importance that the Executive attaches to youth justice and safe communities. Those meetings have shown that the Executive's steps are welcomed by my constituents, and I know that they are welcomed by constituents throughout Scotland.
I welcome the tone of the Minister for Justice's speech and I welcome her announcements, particularly in relation to children's panels.
I will focus on children's panels and children's hearings and, in particular, on the interim report on the pilot programmes that are being conducted on the fast tracking of children's panels. The report was published yesterday on the Executive's website.
I hope that the Minister for Justice will reflect on the debate that the Parliament had at the end of October on Scott Barrie's motion on the membership of children's panels. It was a very good debate, in which some very interesting points were made.
In recent debates, there has been a danger that the Executive might confuse concern about serious antisocial behaviour with enthusiasm for its proposals to tackle the problem: those are not one and the same thing. I wonder whether the Executive is conducting a good-cop, bad-cop operation; Margaret Curran is the latter, while the Minister for Justice's comments about supporting existing initiatives—particularly in the children's hearings system—put her in the former category. Being tough with one's use of language does not always mean being effective in action. I much prefer the content of the proposals and reflections in the Minister for Justice's speech today to the creation of new laws—when existing laws are not being used effectively—in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.
The pilot programmes that have fast tracked persistent young offenders through the children's hearings system have been very interesting. The pilots have taken place in Dundee City Council; Scottish Borders Council and East Lothian Council; and in East Ayrshire Council, North Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council. The interim report shows who is going through the system, the effectiveness of the operation of the system and the input of the different agencies that are involved. However, the report states that
"the main data about outcomes will be gathered in the second half of the research."
The report shows that 71 per cent of those who go through the system as persistent offenders come back into the system. That is a high percentage of re-referral, but the report states that it will take some time for fast tracking to produce end results.
The report states:
"Panel members in particular were pleased that fast track should improve the quality of the information on which decisions are based and strengthen their capacity to ensure that young people access the resources that hearings decide are needed."
Breach of the peace accounts for 21 per cent of the offences that are covered by the interim report, assault for 20 per cent, vandalism and malicious mischief for 15 per cent and road traffic offences for 8 per cent. Those are all existing criminal offences and I wonder whether redefining them as antisocial behaviour would make a difference. As a number of members have said, surely it is the disposal that matters.
Another significant aspect of the interim report is its statement that
"A significant minority of pilot area persistent offenders were also referred on non-offence grounds".
That is where my concern about the concentration on youth courts as opposed to the children's hearings system comes from.
The report also states:
"Compared with other young people referred on offence grounds, the persistent offenders included a much higher proportion living in a residential establishment at the point of referral (28% against 3%) and far fewer were living at home with both parents".
The Minister for Justice's points about the emphasis on what happens in relation to looked-after children are vital when we see the information that is emerging about persistent offenders.
The report raises another important issue, which touches on a comment that was made by Christine May. It states:
"central guidance may be helpful on the sharing of police information, within the context of communication among all other relevant agencies and data protection considerations".
There are concerns about the experiences relating to Soham. We know that the experience in Scotland is different, but that important point about the exchange of information must be reflected on.
One of the strongest messages that has come forward concerns social work recruitment and retention—retirement is also an important issue. When we consider the age profile of social workers and the work force planning that is taking place, our concern must be to ensure that there are social workers in the here and now and in five or 10 years' time, when the majority of social workers will start to retire.
We should reflect on the report "For Scotland's children". As a result of the severe pressure on local authorities, a number of social workers are leaving to join the voluntary sector; they are then lost to the system that we want to support. It is essential that we examine the work pressures on existing social workers and recognise that the Executive and the Parliament, in generating legislation, are creating bigger demand and more work for social workers. Yes, the Executive is recruiting more social workers but, at the same time, it is creating demand that outstrips that supply. That must be addressed.
I welcome the fact that the Executive is exhorting local authorities to comply with the children's hearings system to ensure that the reports are there in time. However, unless we address the vital issues of recruitment, retention and work force planning, we will create a rod for our own backs that will cause difficulties in the future.
The Executive must ensure that social work training, provision and recruitment happen outwith the central belt. It is quite clear that social workers want to work in the areas in which they live, and that issue must be addressed in the Highlands and the north-east of Scotland.
This debate is quite different from any of the other youth justice debates that we have had; I welcome that. If there is one message that we can take away from the debate, it is that the care and protection of children is a vital aspect of crime prevention.
I will pick up a couple of points that Nicola Sturgeon touched on. She was right to highlight the improvement that has been made in adult criminal justice work following the introduction of national standards in 1990. In that regard, I repeat what I have told the chamber before. When I did my first placement as a social work student, in the Broxburn area office in 1984, all probation orders were kept in a filing cabinet and were pulled out periodically for a letter to be sent out. That was a very perfunctory contact with someone who was on what was supposed to be a high-intensity disposal from the court.
Although I am sure that Broxburn was among the worst examples, such practice was probably prevalent throughout large parts of Scotland. Such things led to the introduction of national standards to ensure that both the courts and our communities could have greater faith in probation as an appropriate disposal. National standards have made a considerable difference, and Nicola Sturgeon was right to suggest that perhaps we need to consider something similar for disposals from children's hearings if we are to have the same sort of faith in those disposals.
Nicola Sturgeon talked about the shortage of child and family social workers, as did Fiona Hyslop. We have discussed that extensively in the past and members will know that I spent the whole of my social work practice in the child and family division. Nevertheless, I remind members that supervision requirements are not laid on the social work department in isolation; they are laid on the local authority. Local authorities sometimes need to be more imaginative—Rhona Brankin touched on that issue. Some of the evidence that was led by the Auditor General shows some interesting examples of supervision requirements being enacted by the local authority in total, not by the social work service in isolation. Although social work plays a key part in statutory supervision, it is not the only part. Donald Gorrie talked about youth work and community services playing their part, and we should view the issue in that context, not just in the context of the difficulties in social work.
I am glad to hear that Fiona Hyslop and other members think that the debate that we had on the children's hearings system a few months ago was useful. Several valuable contributions were made in that debate. I ask those members who have been critical of some parts of the children's hearings system—either explicitly or implicitly—to read the speeches that were made in that debate. The mantra is often heard that there is a problem with our children's hearings system and that if, somehow, we could get persistent young offenders into court—which is what Margaret Mitchell seems to want—the whole system would be much better. However, we need look only south of the border to see what that means. The juvenile court system in England and Wales is hardly a resounding success. In fact, practitioners in England and Wales look enviously at the children's hearings system that we have in Scotland, which deals with young offenders in a much more holistic way than the juvenile court system allows south of the border. When we talk about the children's hearings system, we should talk more about its successes, over the past 30 years, than about the present difficulties.
One of the problems that are highlighted in the updated report from the Auditor General concerns supervision case files containing evidence of the delivery of required services. The seven authorities in which all the files that were examined showed an adequate level of services should be commended. At the other end of the scale, there were seven authorities in which less than 50 per cent of the files showed that, which gives us great cause for concern.
The minister will be well aware of the fact that, in the statutory guidance that accompanied the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, care plans were to be introduced for all looked-after children—not just those who were accommodated away from home, but those who were on home supervision. As the lead officer for Fife Council at the time, I had to introduce that measure—members can imagine how popular it was. There was a great deal of anxiety that it was simply a paper exercise; however, it is not just a paper exercise. If a local authority does not have a care plan for a young person who is on supervision, there is absolutely no way of measuring whether the service that needs to be delivered is being delivered. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that all local authorities are complying with that statutory requirement. Only by doing that will we guarantee the services that many of our young people require.
Several members have talked about the importance of early intervention. Of course, early intervention is vital in this process; however, we should not kid ourselves that it is an easy task. If it were as easy as sitting down, looking at a few predisposing factors and concluding who requires a service and who does not, we would be able to solve the problem, but it does not work like that. In my day, "Offending Behaviour: Skills and Stratagems for Going Straight" by Philip Priestley and James McGuire was the Bible for criminal justice social work—I do not know whether it still is—but even Priestley and McGuire could not come up with a table that said who required a service and who did not. Early intervention is important, but let us not kid ourselves that it is the answer to all our prayers.
The motion talks about the progress that
"has been made by local authorities and partners in the statutory and voluntary sectors to encourage rehabilitation"
and prevent reoffending. The SACRO young offender mediation project in Fife is a great example of that, and I am sure that that project will be replicated throughout Scotland. We should look at what works and ensure that it can be extended, so that we can have effective services throughout Scotland.
This is a very important debate and I am pleased that, as other members have remarked, the quality of the speeches has been excellent—especially those by the minister and Nicola Sturgeon, who introduced the debate. Particularly important has been the support and increasing recognition by members of all parties of the role of the children's panels. I am not entirely persuaded that the Conservatives have the same notion of what the children's panels are supposed to do, or of their awareness of the Kilbrandon principles that underlie the panels, but their recognition of the panels is welcome. Stewart Stevenson's comment that good welfare is in the interest of the community generally was an important touchstone that we should bear in mind on this matter.
It is easy to state what a successful policy requires. That includes effective police action to deter crime, protect the public and catch offenders; speedy and fair justice systems to establish the facts; disposals that will reduce the likelihood of repeat offending; and, more important, early intervention to reduce the risk factors that lead to offending, to which Scott Barrie referred, and to encourage young people into more positive lifestyles and behaviour. Communities want action. They want offenders to be caught, but they would prefer them not to offend in the first place.
The Parliament inherited a youth justice system that was grossly under-resourced; children's hearings that, in too many cases, could not get social work reports or make effective supervision orders; a reporter's department whose statistics were not available on computer and in which far too little research had been done on what worked and did not work; a serious lack of effective disposal options to direct young people away from crime; a lack of priority for serial offenders; and, above all, a failure to provide early intervention. Many of those things have been addressed, and the minister's statement showed the continuing progress that the Executive and the Parliament are making on those matters.
However—to echo what Stewart Maxwell said—I have been struck forcibly by the high number of young people who appear before the courts or the children's hearings at 16 and 17 for offending and who previously appeared before the hearings at the age of six because they were in need of care and protection. They are the same children, but they are less cuddly and more obnoxious. In addition, high numbers of offending young people have mental health problems, suffer from substance abuse, have learning difficulties, or have a background of being brought up in care. Fiona Hyslop referred to that.
The Scottish Executive has invested many millions of pounds in initiatives such as the action programme to reduce youth crime. Such investment will not produce quick dividends or fixes, nor should it be expected to. However, the investment will bear dividends in the longer term. I emphasise to the minister that the proper growth areas should be early intervention, rehabilitative justice—which has been shown to be effective—and positive diversions.
Young people who get into trouble should not necessarily be regarded as a tribe apart. Their problems may require intensive and specialist work for a time, but it is much more satisfactory to ensure that they are fully involved in school, youth organisations and sport. Therefore, investment in increasing the capacity of uniformed and non-uniformed youth organisations to handle more young people, help instil value systems and do positive things to widen opportunity is a major aspect of the situation. For example, the cadets, as the Education Committee heard recently, have a special scheme that involves young people who are at risk of offending, which has had great success.
Donald Gorrie made a point about social workers, but the issue of youth workers getting involved in the youth justice area is at least as important. The Parliament has done good things in that area, but there is much more to be done. Let us put the emphasis as much as possible on effective early intervention to break the vicious cycle of offending, which damages so much opportunity and so many communities. I support the motion.
There has been much talk about young people's antisocial behaviour and the problems that they cause—a considerable number of members have referred to young people in such terms. However, as Margaret Smith pointed out, 50 per cent of young people are victims themselves. One of our problems is that many young people, as some members said, believe that all that the Executive wants to do is to come down on children. I suggest that we need occasionally to tell children and children's groups how good they are. Several members, including Colin Fox and Rhona Brankin, pointed out that most young people are good law-abiding citizens who are trying to pass exams or to get jobs or careers.
Therefore, it is important to put the problem in perspective. In 2000-01, only 0.4 per cent of young people were referred to the children's hearings system because they had offended. However, the problem is that the number of persistent offenders has increased considerably over the past eight years, perhaps by as much as 5 or 6 per cent. We must take action against those offenders and we must tell the rest of the young people that they are good kids who are doing well.
We must also stress that the majority of the young people who come before children's panels do not reoffend, which shows how successful the system is. I am sorry that Stewart Maxwell has left, because I wanted to tell him that his speech was excellent. He highlighted the main function of the children's hearings system, which is to help young people in all sorts of ways. He outlined many of those ways.
I welcome the minister's announcement of £10 million for small organisations that work with young people. Donald Gorrie made a good point, which is that we do not have a register of such organisations. Perhaps someone should take that on board and consider how a register could be produced, which would allow MSPs to refer to the organisations in their own areas.
A huge prize awaits us if the problem of youth offending can be cracked, which is why the Executive is pursuing that important topic. Youth offending has been the biggest issue in my constituency of Edinburgh South since I was elected last May—I get more letters about it than about almost anything else.
It is worth highlighting that people under 21 account for 66 per cent of those who are prosecuted for car theft; 56 per cent of those who are prosecuted for theft from locked places; 45 per cent of those who are prosecuted for housebreaking and 44 per cent of those who are prosecuted for vandalism. The peak age for crime is between 14 and 16. However, I do not agree with Annabel Goldie and Margaret Mitchell that youth courts are the right place for such young people. The right place for them is in the children's hearings system.
What can we do to speed up the system and ensure that persistent offenders get the help that they need and that the victims, who have too often been ignored in the process, get the justice that they deserve? There has been much criticism of the speed with which people are treated in the system, which can be frustrating for all involved. In addition, such a situation is of no benefit to the victims.
As others have highlighted, one reason for the backlogs is the lack of social workers. Not long after I was elected, I visited a reporter's office. I had never been involved in the children's hearings system previously and I wanted to learn what reporters and panel members do. I must admit that I could never be a panel member. I talked to a group of them in Edinburgh: they are highly dedicated people who work for nothing and I admire their dedication to their work. They said that they did not feel that they got the required back-up and that there was a perception that there was a lack of social workers. It does not help when local authorities throughout Scotland bid against other local authorities for social workers. Perhaps that needs to be examined. We are achieving a satisfactory level of social workers in some areas, but there is no doubt that we are not doing so in some urban areas. Margaret Smith referred to that.
The children's reporter and the panel members told me that they do not get information, such as police referrals and social inquiry reports, quickly enough. To help the reporters and panel members to do their job, we should try to address that problem. Nationally agreed time standards for referrals are not being met, and only five councils in Scotland met the target for 75 per cent of social inquiry reports to be delivered within three weeks.
I welcome the minister's announcement, in reference to her meeting with local authorities and chief executives, of the commitment of new money. More money will be made available to tackle the problems, but councils must ensure that the new money is used effectively. As an ex-councillor, I have a jaundiced view because money that is given to local councils for specific uses tends to be sidelined for other things. We must ensure that the money that we give to local councils will be used for front-line services with children's panels.
The improvement in our communities' quality of life will come about only when persistent offenders are dealt with effectively and when we can further reduce the level of offending. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to a balanced approach to deal with young people's problems. Positive directions to take include retention of playing fields and parks, and initiatives such as the Go4it campaign, which encourages young people to get off the streets. I believe that that is the way forward. We must also support a locally based and well-resourced system for dealing speedily with persistent offenders.
Debates on youth justice are always worth participating in, partly because we always have the enjoyable sight of the usual spat on youth justice issues between the Labour Party and the Scottish Socialist Party. Apparently, this is one of the rare occasions when, compared with some of the speeches from the Labour side, I and my Conservative colleagues look like a bunch of pinko liberals, which I am pleased to say does not happen often.
We are not having that.
Swift denials from my left, I see.
I want to comment on a number of points that were made in the debate. First, I will touch on the issue of diversionary activities for young people, which was raised by a number of members, including Donald Gorrie and Robert Brown. I recently visited in Blairgowrie in Mid Scotland and Fife an initiative called thrillseekers, which was set up to provide an alternative for young people who hang about street corners, and which encourages participation in a wide range of activities. The project was launched in 2001 and has gone from strength to strength. It involves police officers, youth workers and volunteers from local youth organisations.
The project was set up following concerns about the volume of youth-related calls to the police at weekends. As in any rural community in Scotland, the police in Blairgowrie received calls about under-age drinking, antisocial behaviour and vandalism. Specific groups of young people were identified as being most likely to be involved in those problems and it was agreed to develop activities that would keep them otherwise engaged on Friday evenings and at weekends.
What has been encouraging about the experience of the thrillseekers project is that there has been an impact on crime figures, with a dramatic reduction in youth-related calls at the weekends. When I visited the project recently, I saw for myself some of the activities that it runs, which include sports, dancing, disc-jockeying and trampolining. I was impressed by the commitment of all those who are involved in the project and by the range of activities. The thrillseekers project has been successful in addressing the problems of young people's boredom in the rural communities in Strathmore; it has led to a reduction in residents' calls to the police about antisocial behaviour and vandalism involving young people and, importantly, it has improved relations between the police and young people in the area. I understand that the project has been shortlisted for an award in the crime and disorder reduction category of the UK Tilley award scheme, and I wish it well with that.
I was pleased to hear the minister announce cash for diversionary activities and I hope that projects such as the one that I have outlined will be given the support that they need to continue and encourage more young people to get involved. Robert Brown mentioned voluntary and uniformed organisations and the difficulties that many of them have in operating. The problem for many such organisations is not one of resources as such, but of getting adult volunteers to support the organisations.
Does Murdo Fraser agree that the problem is not so much one of getting volunteers as of having the resources in place to train them? Does he agree that such organisations could deal with an awful lot more children if greater training support was given?
Robert Brown makes a fair point; that is certainly part of the situation, but there is still a problem with getting people to volunteer in the first place because of the way that society has changed. For a start, adults have less free time than they once had and there is also a fear among some adults that, if they work with children, they might expose themselves to certain risks, of which we are well aware.
I will pick up on some of the other points that have been made. Colin Fox and a number of others said that it is important not to stigmatise young people. I agree with that absolutely; only a very small minority of young people are involved in crime. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that young offenders create a problem for many people in our communities—members of all parties have referred to that—and it is important to note that many people have lost confidence in the youth justice system because they see persistent offenders committing offences time and again and either do not see action being taken or do not see it being taken quickly enough.
That is why the fast-track children's hearing that the Executive announced previously and an extension of that pilot are so welcome. The fast-track hearing will help to speed up the process, but there is a need for matters to be dealt with not only quickly, but effectively. My colleague Annabel Goldie referred to the report that was published in December on some of the delays that have been encountered in the children's hearings system throughout Scotland. I am sure that the minister agrees that many of those delays are unacceptable and I appreciate her comments that she realises that they are.
We need more consistency, but we also need a wider range of disposals for children's hearings, such as electronic tagging. We also need youth courts—my Conservative colleagues have already referred to them—not only for 16 and 17-year-olds, but for 14 and 15-year-olds. The young people who persistently reoffend, whose behaviour the children's hearings system is not addressing properly and who seem to cock a snook at the justice system and children's hearings system, should be sent to youth courts. The children's hearings system is not working for them, which is why we need youth courts.
We must restore public confidence in the youth justice system. As far as they go, many of the Executive's proposals are welcome, but the Executive must acknowledge the centrality of the children's hearings system. We need to speed up justice, deal more effectively with offenders and deal very effectively with persistent offenders. That will mean setting up new youth courts for 14 and 15-year-olds who are at the core of the problem. Those measures would make a real difference to reducing youth crime and would restore public confidence in the justice system.
I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Annabel Goldie.
I will begin my speech by doing something rather unusual for me: congratulating a Conservative member on her speech. Annabel Goldie deserves to be congratulated because it is the first time in a while that she has come along to a justice debate with a speech that is vaguely relevant to the topic under consideration. It is clearly an example of a new speech for a new year.
As is ever the case in debates on youth justice, the variety of speeches that have been made demonstrates the issue's complexity. As a number of members outlined and highlighted, to tackle youth offending is a big challenge. It is a challenge that many of our communities want to be met effectively because of the problems that they encounter as a result of youth offending. Given the announcements that the Executive has made and the proposals in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered now, expectations in communities are high: they expect changes to be made as a result of the Executive's proposals and the legislative changes.
However, despite all the new resources and the legislative proposals, the cornerstone of our youth justice system will remain our children's hearings system. Much has been said about the merits of the system: as Scott Barrie pointed out, it is often held up as an example of the way in which things can be done and it is a system of which other countries are envious. However, as I have said in Parliament on a number of occasions, that does not mean that the system cannot be improved. That is a challenge that I believe is still to be taken up.
Stewart Maxwell said that our children's hearings system is about dealing holistically with children and addressing their welfare needs in a variety of ways. Any member who has met children's panel members or who has sat through a children's hearing will have witnessed the frustration that members of a panel can have because of problems in accessing resources, whether the resource is a social worker, an appropriate programme or a place in secure accommodation. There is therefore one thing that we must ensure that our children's panel system can do. There are often times when, to deal with a child's welfare, we have to deal with that child's parents. Panel members often become frustrated because when they see sitting before them a child who has a history of offending behaviour, one of the main ways in which they could tackle the offending behaviour would be to address some of the issues that the child's parents must address. That needs to be considered.
Does Michael Matheson agree that to bring that issue into the review of the children's hearings system would be a more appropriate way in which to deal with it than would the proposal on parenting orders in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill?
I would like to ensure that we preserve the role of the children's hearings system, which is to deal with children's welfare. However, I also want to acknowledge that the way in which we have to address the matter is complex and might mean that we have to address it through parents. For example, one or both parents might have an alcohol problem, so we might want to address that rather than to deal with only the child. It is important that the children's hearings system be given the resources and that it be able to direct such changes.
I welcome particularly the minister's announcement of new funding for restorative justice schemes, but as several members, including Nicola Sturgeon and a number of other Scottish National Party members have highlighted, the shortage of social workers who work in children and families services is a continuing problem. Social workers have a key role in delivering many of the programmes that will probably be provided under the new funding and, as Stewart Stevenson highlighted, there are areas where considerable numbers of cases remain unallocated because of the shortage of children and families social workers. I therefore hope that, when we provide new funding, which is often for local authorities to provide the new schemes, we will ensure that we match those resources with the necessary staff, whether they be social workers, community workers or youth workers. We must ensure that whoever is supposed to deliver the programmes has the resources to ensure that the staff are in place to deliver them.
Rhona Brankin made a good point when she stated that a number of local authorities have staff shortages in their children and families services, but are able to continue to provide quality services. That is an example of the dedication of staff who work in those departments, and of their determination to deliver quality services, although they often operate under extreme pressure. Recently, a colleague who works in the Govan social work office pointed out that that office operates with a 50 per cent vacancy rate in its children and families division. I was told about that only a couple of weeks ago, so I presume that it is still the case. How can we expect that office to deliver what is expected of it when it operates with such a high vacancy rate?
Although we welcome the new resources and the new provisions that will be made, we must recognise that they will place greater public expectation on the local authority services that are meant to deliver the programmes. If we do not ensure that those services have the resources to do that, they will continue to struggle to meet public expectation.
Bill Butler hit the nail on the head when he said that we must ensure that we have a balanced approach to the problem. Such an approach should tackle and challenge the offending behaviour of young people while recognising the social circumstances from which many of those young people come. We must not underestimate those social circumstances and the impact that they can have on an individual's behaviour in future years. If we ensure that we have a youth justice agenda that addresses the problem holistically, we will start to tackle the problem more effectively.
As several members highlighted, only a small minority of our young people get involved in criminality, but there is a greater challenge that must still be faced: we must ensure that we give young people opportunities so that they do not get involved in crime in the first place. The Executive still has some way to go in addressing that challenge.
This has been an exceptionally good debate, with several thoughtful and measured speeches. In general, there has been wide support for what is happening, albeit with some differences in emphasis, pace and investment. I will come back to those differences.
Colin Fox made a good speech; he had clearly put a lot of thought into it and I will come back to some of the points that he raised. However, I will get this point out of the way: he said that he could not take any interventions because he had only six minutes. That is the same length of time that Karen Whitefield had, and she was expected to take an intervention from Colin Fox's colleague. If the Scottish Socialist Party wants debate and wants others to take interventions from them, the same courtesy should be extended in return.
In the debate, everyone recognised that there is a problem in the country, but that it comes from a very small number of people. By and large, our young people are a credit to themselves, to their families, to their communities and to the country. We recognise that it is only a minority that cause the problems. In welcoming the minister's speech, Colin Fox said that we now recognise that it is only a minority and that it is good that the ministers now have a sense of proportion in the debate. However, if Colin Fox and others had listened to what has been said about young people, not only by Cathy Jamieson but consistently by other ministers, they would know that we take every opportunity to pay tribute to the vast majority who are decent, well-behaved and responsible young people. We have been consistent in what we have said. We recognise that the majority of young people are a credit to the country, but we have to consider what needs to be done about the minority.
Colin Fox and others are right to say that it is not just a question of responding to young people when they behave badly. We must try to change their behaviour and prevent problems, but we must also articulate our determination to act when bad behaviour manifests itself.
The Executive has taken a joined-up approach because we want to change attitudes and prevent bad behaviour. That is why we are investing so heavily in early-years education and in programmes such as sure start. That is why we are spending so much more to put support into primary and secondary schools. We believe that if we give young people a chance, they can respond and we recognise that sometimes families can be under pressure and need support. It is not just about reacting to problems; it is about preventing them, while saying clearly that we will take action when people's behaviour demands it.
A number of specific points were raised in the debate. Nicola Sturgeon again mentioned secure places. We are providing more secure places, but we cannot simply say, "This number of extra places will appear overnight." Planning is required, which takes time. However, the extra places will be provided—we can argue about the numbers, but we believe that our approach is sensible and balanced. Of course, Nicola Sturgeon may continue to think that the solution is more investment and more places—I suppose that that would be consistent with the rest of Scottish National Party policy, which is to allocate more money to every problem in Scotland, irrespective of the available budget.
Margaret Smith asked about secure places that are provided specifically for girls. For the first time, we are now providing a secure facility for girls at the Good Shepherd Centre. That work is being developed and other places will be provided for girls.
A number of members mentioned the need for more social workers. The Executive has recognised that need and is investing more money in social work through local authorities as well as helping to recruit and retain social workers and consider their training. Stewart Stevenson made the valid point that that additional investment represents part of the reason why there have been so many vacancies. We published data in June 2003 that showed that, nationally, there were 144 more social workers in children and families services than there were in 2002. We are fast-tracking social work trainees and anticipate that 469 new social workers will enter the work force this year.
I think that Mike Pringle made the valid point that, as we try to address problems in recruitment and retention of social workers, it is not helpful to have bidding wars between areas, in which one area simply steals social workers from another. A balance must be struck. That is a matter for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and we have raised it there.
I said that consensus has largely been reached in the debate, but the only fundamental area of difference relates to the Conservatives' bizarre notion about the extension of youth courts to deal with 14 and 15-year-olds—indeed, at one point in the debate I wondered whether they would suggest that we send 12-year-olds to the youth courts. I do not think that Nicola Sturgeon's question to the Conservative members received a proper answer. However, leaving that aside, members have broadly welcomed the work of the youth courts and their extension to Airdrie. Karen Whitefield graphically outlined the benefits that that extension will bring to communities in her constituency.
Annabel Goldie asked about time intervals. We should acknowledge that the report that she mentioned contained a description of a new regime to secure improved performance by all agencies. We will be looking to have a regime that has a higher level of reporting because we are determined to ensure that there is proper continued and adequate scrutiny. In the course of her speech, Miss Goldie mentioned community mediation in Ayrshire. The Executive has said in a number of debates that mediation performs a valuable role and has a significant contribution to make. We will consider the matter carefully.
Will the minister give way?
Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer has indicated that I should move towards summing up.
On information to communities, which Margaret Smith mentioned, our initiative in the Forth valley is about ensuring that victims and communities are informed of what is happening so that they feel that the justice system is not ignoring them completely. On sharing information, the minister answered Christine May's question, but we will continue to consider the matter. We will also consider the question that she asked about prisons.
In conclusion, I will dwell on the points that Rhona Brankin made. She is absolutely right that it is not just a matter of putting more and more investment into the system; we must ask what we are getting for that investment. As she said, we need sustained monitoring and evaluation and, as she suggested, we will consider what the inspection units are doing throughout the Executive. We will consider the role of the social work services inspectorate, because Rhona Brankin is absolutely right that we need consistency, but we also need evidence that what we are investing is having an effect. It is not just a matter of there being more money. This has been a good debate and one that gives us great encouragement in making progress on youth justice. I look forward to the consensus that has been shown continuing throughout the year.