Children's Services
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1663, in the name of Jack McConnell, on children's services.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject of children's services. Giving our children the best possible start in life is something that I feel passionately about and I know that I am not alone in that. I want to make it clear, given the new ministerial title for my portfolio, that I do not regard having one minister for children as the best outcome—it is very important that every minister is a minister for children and that every MSP takes issues relating to children seriously.
This morning we had a long debate on education. As a former teacher, members would expect me to see education as vital to giving children the best possible start. However, education is not the whole story. Childhood should be a time of learning, stimulation and development, against a background of safety and security. School has a part to play in that, but it is only a part. Any teacher knows that the children who have a nourishing, supportive environment at home are the ones who benefit the most from school.
Every child matters and deserves such a start in life. However, too many children are born into poverty and immediate disadvantage. In Scotland, 30 per cent of children live in poor families. That figure is down from 34 per cent in 1997, but it is still far too many children. Our policy should be not only to ensure that all children in Scotland have the best possible start in life and are supported through the early years, but that we integrate services and intervene on behalf of those children who are most vulnerable at different times—perhaps through poverty or for other reasons—to give them the same start that we would wish for our own children.
Some children have parents who are unable to give them the care and support that they need and deserve, while other children have special physical, emotional or educational needs either in the long term or at particular times in their lives. Many need help and support if they are to realise their potential and live happy and fulfilling lives. I want to talk about what we are doing to help make that happen. It is not just a question of resources, although we are devoting considerable additional resources to children's services across the Executive, but a question of new kinds of services and new ways of working.
First, we have to realise the difficulties that parents face in seeking support if it marks them out as a separate group or as failing. Universal services such as school education, health services and child care must provide an easy gateway to more intensive or specialist support. Secondly, we need a preventive approach that provides support before problems become intractable, and which reduces the need for crisis intervention. That is not a new idea, but the Executive is acting upon it. Prevention involves two kinds of early intervention: support in the early years of a child's life and support early on when need or risk is identified, which usually occurs at key transitions in those early years.
Sure start Scotland is about a good start in life. It is supporting at least 5,000 children and their families in achieving that. Continued funding is allowing the expansion of support to families with babies and toddlers, and is focused on deprived communities and groups. The idea is to provide stimulating play opportunities for children, together with support for their parents. That may mean advice and information on diet or child development. It may mean respite by providing child care. It may mean group support. The key point is that we look at the parent and child together, and not as separate entities.
For the future, I want us to take this approach up the age range to pre-school children and older. New community schools will be an important part of that. We have 47 new community school projects already, and I announced plans earlier this month for another 15.
Prevention and involving parents are still key themes when it comes to offending teenagers, of which each year, in the 16 to 17-year-old age group that was mentioned during question time, 11,000 are referred to Scotland's courts. We published yesterday the independent evaluation of the Freagarrach project, which aims to reduce reoffending by persistent young offenders. It is run by Barnardos, with funding from the Executive. The evaluation shows that the project has had an impact. Key factors have been involving parents during the project and post-project support to help young people to sustain their progress. I commend Barnardos, NCH Scotland and others for the work that they have done in leading the way in this multidisciplinary positive approach to turning round the lives of our young people.
Effective support needs different agencies to work together. It is rare that any one profession or agency can deliver effectively on its own. Children and young people need integrated services, with education, social work, housing and health services working together. That means statutory agencies working with the voluntary and independent sectors, and working across professional boundaries. That is true not only for a family centre and a new community school, but for packages of support for individual children with their own specific needs.
Is the minister able to give any comfort to voluntary services, particularly services such as playbuses, which at present stumble on from year to year on one-year funding followed by one-year funding followed by one-year funding?
I hope that the three-year budget that this Executive and local authorities have, and which other bodies are starting to receive from the Executive—it is a practice that is beginning to develop in the health service also—will give all those organisations a more stable financial framework on which to plan their services.
Already at local level throughout Scotland there is much good practice, but we want to spread that good practice. To achieve that, we have set up a team of five secondees from social work, education, planning, health and the voluntary sector to help us. They will produce an action plan by the late summer, setting out how best to support integration and co-ordination and identifying practical examples of what works and, equally important, what does not work.
The changing children's services fund will provide a catalyst for spreading good practice to deliver better outcomes for children. Where local authorities, health and the voluntary sector together produce proposals for better-integrated and preventive services, they will receive additional funding. We have issued today a consultation paper, which seeks views on objectives for the fund and our proposals for allocating resources. We want the process to be as simple as possible. We do not care which agency manages the resource; what we care about is making a difference to children's and young people's lives.
The bulk of the funding will come on stream in April 2002. That means that the action plan will help partner agencies to plan how to make best use of the fund. The plan and the fund aim to embed different ways of working. In all our actions, I want us to give priority for the 12,000 or so young people who are in the category of looked-after children. We will continue to improve core aspects of children's services such as child protection and, where needed, residential care.
A recent conviction has led to renewed concern about how adequately we protect children, particularly those in residential care. It is worth reminding ourselves of the important steps that are being taken to make children today safer than children of a generation ago. The proposed commission for the regulation of care will provide independent inspection of care homes. Looked-after children have access to independent advocacy services. Training for residential child care workers is being extended and improved. We are committed to setting up an index of adults who are unsuitable for work with children.
However, answers also lie in our general attitudes to children. I want to ensure that all structures of government pay attention to children in their decision making. Some people have called for a children's commissioner. Last year, the Executive asked the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider whether a commissioner would bring benefits that existing structures could not. I am pleased that the committee, amid other important business, has now fitted that task into its timetable. The Executive is sympathetic to the idea of a children's commissioner. We want to be clear about the functions that such a commissioner should have and the added value that will be provided.
The Parliament is changing our political culture and extending consultation and participation. We must be sure that a commissioner would provide something more. The Executive's memorandum set out the issues that need to be examined. I look forward to seeing the committee's report later this year, before we advance our debate and decisions.
I have set out our approach to children's services. We have the opportunity to take a significant step forward and achieve more than incremental change. I say that because of what the users and providers of services say to me. We must not forget that much hard work has been done. However, an appetite for change and a will to do better exist. Our job in the Executive and the Parliament is to seize that opportunity and take a significant step forward.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry. I am in my last minute and I am finishing.
One of the key tasks and challenges that faces politicians is to leave the country for which they are responsible in a better state for the generations that follow them. I hope that we can all work together to achieve that for the sake of this and future generations of children and young people in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that every child should get the best possible start in life and support through difficult periods as they grow older; welcomes a consideration of a remit and role for a Children's Commissioner; approves the measures being taken to support parents and improve the life chances of children and young people through early intervention, and endorses the action being taken to strengthen partnership working between local councils, the health service and the voluntary sector.
The minister will have noted that the SNP has lodged no amendment to the motion, because we fully endorse all aspects of it and because I truly believe that there should and can be much agreement on children's issues. I am pleased that we are having the debate, even though it was first scheduled for 9 November last year, has been allocated the shortest time slot in the parliamentary timetable and was introduced by the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs rather than, as the title used to be, the Minister for Children and Education. Notwithstanding his opening remarks, I think that the fine distinction may be lost on many people.
I wonder what all that says about the message that the Parliament gives in regard to the priority that it places on children and young people. I am sure that many members received the e-mail yesterday from a young person who was totally disillusioned after trying to discover what the Scottish Parliament had to say about young people's issues and finding nothing. He wrote:
"Why is this the case? In some months time, there will be an election, and by this time, I will . . . be eligible to vote. I will, I suspect, choose not to because of the total lack of interest in young people in the Parliament."
We would be foolish to ignore that perception. He feels that the Parliament is ignoring him, so he is ignoring the Parliament. We all have a responsibility to ensure that ever more structures are in place to empower young people and encourage their participation in the democratic process.
The bottom line is that children and young people deserve a Government that fully recognises their needs and rights, and effectively supports families in caring for them. I would be the first to say that the Executive has made good progress. I wholeheartedly support the focus on early intervention and preventive services, particularly the sure start programme and new community schools. However, there is no room for complacency.
I will remind the minister and members of what more we could achieve. Needs and rights underpin everything that we want to achieve for children. The UK Government signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and a number of the issues that are covered in that convention are now devolved matters. However, it is a fact that many of the 54 separate international standards are not being complied with and that children's basic human rights are being consistently disregarded. That surely must be unacceptable to everybody. The challenge for the Parliament is to embrace policies to ensure that the convention is implemented in a meaningful way, so that all Scotland's children benefit from full provision of the rights to which they are entitled.
That brings us to the need for a children's commissioner in Scotland. That is long overdue, since at least 18 other countries now have children's commissioners. I very much welcome the minister's comments today and his generally more sympathetic approach to the issue. I hope that the minister can be further persuaded that Scotland's children's commissioner needs to have a powerful role and remit. In fact, I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee might be persuaded to bring forward legislation in its own right to bring that about. An independent champion of children's rights, answerable to the Parliament not to the Executive, would be a huge step forward in ensuring that children's voices are listened to and that laws and policy that affect children and young people take account of their needs. The suggestion is not new and it is not recent; it is about time that it went on the fast track.
The minister wants to know what more the establishment of a commissioner might achieve. Well, he touched on it himself. It is a continuing source of shame for us all—this is not, at the moment, a criticism of the Executive—that 34 per cent of Scotland's children live in poverty; that 41 per cent of those are under five years of age; and that the proportion of households with children that have under 50 per cent of national income has trebled since 1979 from 10 per cent to 34 per cent.
We all know how negatively poverty impacts on the lives of those young people. We talk about exclusion; they live exclusion. They experience inequality every day of their lives. Refugee children experience discrimination and racially motivated mistreatment. Disabled children do not enjoy the same access to childhood opportunities and life chances as non-disabled children. Child suspects as young as 14 are held in police cells or detained in adult prisons until a space is found for them in a secure children's unit. There are 20,000 homeless children in Scotland; 367,000 children live in households affected by dampness or condensation; and 11,191 vulnerable children are looked after by local authorities. Nobody could say, hand on heart, that those families are being effectively enough supported to care for their children. That is the job that has still to be done.
We should remember that those children are largely powerless, with no political or social power. That is why, child strategy statement notwithstanding, we need to ensure that every piece of legislation passed by the Parliament has a child impact statement attached to it, so that we can be sure that children's well-being has been considered in all policy implementation, that children's rights are a central consideration in any new legislation and that we are promoting child and family-centred policies.
As I will say later, I have no especially strong view on the issue of the children's commissioner, but I am interested to tease out of the member what she means when she talks about a children's commissioner and, in the same breath, the problems of dampness in housing. Is she suggesting that a children's commissioner would be responsible for speaking up for children who live in damp housing to, say, a local authority?
The basic determinants of a children's commissioner's remit should be the promotion of children's rights, the challenge of any breaches of children's rights and an influence on law, policy and practice—that takes in everything I have mentioned.
On the concept of child impact statements, the Housing (Scotland) Bill does not demonstrate much attention to children's interests. That highlights the weakness of the child strategy statement, which lacks any kind of independent external monitoring or public reporting to the Parliament. Why? I am sure that we could do that.
I want to mention physical punishment. When I asked the Minister for Justice when the Executive would produce a response to the consultation of February last year, he said "Soon." That was last September. Giving children the same protection under the law on assault demands the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement. I am not alone in wanting to move society on from smacking children to positive non-physical forms of discipline, just as we have moved on from condoning domestic violence. I hope that the Executive will be radical in its decision on that issue when it eventually comes to a view on it. In fact, I encourage the Executive to be radical and ambitious in all its children's policies, because I can promise that there will be good support from the SNP if that is the case.
I reiterate that children and young people in Scotland deserve a Government that fully recognises their needs and rights and effectively supports families to care for them.
Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to the minister for being slightly late in entering the chamber at the beginning of the debate. The crisis in local government funding was causing some excitement outside.
Like the SNP, the Conservatives are not moving an amendment to the motion, because it says basically what we would all like to hear. Nobody could possibly disagree with the terms of the Executive motion. However, what is in the motion must be backed up with action. We must have a situation in which we can see positive results.
If we look at the current situation with regard to children in care, we can see that it is far from satisfactory. There has certainly been a reduction in recent times in the number of children who are physically in care, but the number of children who are being looked after has slightly increased, which must concern us. It must concern us, for example, that 17 out of every 1,000 children in Glasgow are in care. Although figures for other parts of Scotland are lower, almost 1 per cent of children are in care.
I would like Bill Aitken to clarify exactly what means when he uses the term "in care". Does he mean children who are looked after and accommodated? If that is what he means, it is important that he says so. I am not quite sure what he is actually trying to say.
What I was anxious to establish was the differentiation between those who are accommodated and those who are being looked after in different circumstances.
I do not know how many members have had the opportunity to visit local authority children's homes. I know that Scott Barrie, in his former existence, probably did so. Most of us who have had the opportunity to do so have a degree of concern about the way in which those homes are run. Generally, the accommodation is not of the standard that we would expect children to live in.
We must recognise that, although abuse scandals may have painted a picture that is not a true reflection of the overall situation, there are problems about the general running of local authority homes. Those problems sometimes relate simply to cleanliness, the basic discipline that is imposed and the way in which the kids are generally looked after. Those things can be far from satisfactory and we really have to see what we can do about that.
The easiest solution to the problem is to ensure that fewer kids are in homes. In that respect, surely we should be looking at the adoption system to see how adoptions could be carried out in a much more expeditious manner than at present. Sometimes it takes a ridiculous length of time to carry out an adoption.
I am concerned that Bill Aitken seems to be making the assumption that adoption is the answer for many of the children and young people who are in children's homes today. Many of those children and young people are not in homes for an extended period of time but are there because of particular family circumstances. They maintain contact with their families, will return to their families and have no wish to be adopted by an alternative family.
I fully accept that that is the case, but the point that I am making is that that is not possible in some cases. It is ridiculous that the adoption process should take the length of time that it seems to take at the moment. That would be a way of reducing the numbers of youngsters in those homes.
Will Mr Aitken give way?
No, I must get on with my speech. We have considered the question of a children's commissioner and we are slightly ambivalent in our attitude towards that. There are certainly aspects of that proposal that find favour, but there is a definite and genuine fear of interference. Should a commissioner be speaking up for youngsters who are well able to speak up for themselves? Will that commissioner interfere with the running of families where there is no sound case for doing so?
I seek clarification in regard to the Conservative member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The committee will consider the serious issue of a commissioner on the invitation of the minister. There is a broad assumption that we want to get it right. Is Bill Aitken indicating that the Conservatives will not be in support of the idea or that the Conservative member will engage positively in the committee to try to get the best solution to the problem, so that we can move forward together?
I am totally confident that our member on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will listen to all the evidence presented to the committee and thereafter will make a measured judgment on the advisability or otherwise of having a commissioner. I am certain that he will look for the role of the commissioner to be specified to a much greater degree before he is satisfied that such an appointment is necessary or desirable.
There are other aspects that we must consider. I was horrified to hear the minister's response to a question at question time, coincidentally from Scott Barrie, on the children's panel system. The children's panel system is going to find itself in a degree of difficulty, because it is probably not compliant with the European convention on human rights. We know that and something will have to be done to rectify the situation.
I suggest that we must examine closely the general operation of the children's panel system. It has been in existence almost without change since the implementation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. To my mind, children's panels perform a valuable function in dealing with children who are disadvantaged, but Conservative members and I are far from satisfied that the system is able to cope with persistent offenders and those who present either a threat or a nuisance to society. The minister's response today will have caused considerable alarm among those who know just how ineffectual the children's panel system is in that respect.
In conclusion, we see nothing to disagree with in the motion. It is anodyne, probably deliberately, and we understand the reasons behind that. There is a lot of work to be done and we look forward to the completion of that work.
Jack McConnell said in introducing the debate that childhood should be a time of stimulation and learning, against a background of security and safety. I entirely concur with that, as I am sure the chamber will.
In many ways, this is an important motion and it comes before the chamber at an important juncture for Scotland. The principles of the children's hearing system are being probed in a current court case and there has been horrific news in recent weeks about the extent of child abuse on the internet. That shows how crucial adequate protection of children and young people is in today's society.
The overarching theme of Government policy is, quite rightly, how we enhance the ability of our children to fulfil their potential in life. Sadly, in so many areas of society, due to a variety of restrictions such as disability, poor health or social disadvantage, the vision of a society of opportunity for all our citizens is still an aspiration awaiting realisation.
The creation and existence of the Scottish Parliament is leading to a step change in how we tackle children's issues and rights. The recently announced children's change fund is potentially of major significance for children with disadvantages or disabilities. We should not be too hung up on targeting only deprived areas. Many problems are widespread across all communities. A disabled child is a disabled child whether he or she lives in a deprived area or an affluent area, in a town or in a rural area.
Figures produced by Capability Scotland indicate that only 18 per cent of disabled children attend a youth or uniformed organisation. Sporting activities outside school physical education classes are attended by disabled children at only half the level of the national participation rate. I make no apology for concentrating on disabled children. We must remember that not all disabilities are physical and visible. Many children suffer from problems such as dyslexia or learning difficulties, social phobia, emotional trauma or other problems of that sort. They are not visible, but they are none the less damaging to self-esteem and enjoyment of life.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks in fairly legal terms about a child's views being given due regard in all matters affecting the child in accordance with the child's age and maturity. What that means in practical terms is that a child's perspective is often different. Many of us tend to forget what an enormous worry we had as teenagers about what seem to us as adults to be less important matters. We must include the important and different dimension of the child's perspective in the way in which we attack our public activities.
Irene McGugan was right to touch on the children's aspect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It is helpful to be reminded that the children of homeless families may have lost a parent through matrimonial break-up, will probably have moved school, will have lost contact with their friends and will have shed tears at having moved to a strange, unknown and frightening area. That is not really covered by a bland reference to all the other circumstances of the matter. To say that bills such as the Housing (Scotland) Bill have to be child-proofed is not just nit-picking.
That brings me on to the proposal for a children's commissioner, which the Liberal Democrats have supported. It is important that the children's commissioner should be effective in creating added value. We do not want gesture politics. We do not want political correctness for its own sake. We want to hear what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has to say on the subject.
I will make one suggestion of my own, if I may. Scotland is a small country and the institutions that we have must reflect the size of the country sensibly. There are already a number of commissions at United Kingdom level and there is a consultation on a Scottish human rights commission. Those commissions should all work in close collaboration with each other, possibly in the same building. However, it would be a good idea to envisage a children's commissioner as one arm of the proposed human rights commission.
Irene McGugan touched on the fact that there is an overlap of objectives between the European convention on human rights and other international treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should think of a commission rather than a commissioner because what counts at the end of the day is that the level of resources is adequate, that the staff are experienced and that they are trained to understand the issues. It is important that that commission should operate in a rights-based framework. It would not be there to interfere in everything or to run public agencies. Its concern would be the procedures, the level of resources, the creation of opportunity and the implementation of meaningful rights.
That is children's rights at the chalkface. The Executive are going about this the right way. I support the motion.
I welcome today's debate although, as has been said, it has been delayed.
Irene McGugan noted that the SNP had not lodged an amendment to the Executive's motion. I remind her that the Executive accepted an amendment from the SNP on this subject when we debated children in the Parliament last year. I do not know whether that means that there is a great deal of consensus on the issue, but it goes some way to indicate that. However, I take great exception to some of the comments that Bill Aitken made in the later part of his speech; I will return to them.
I welcome the minister's statement that the debate is about attitudes to children. I pointed out in the debate in the chamber about looked-after children that one of the difficulties in our society is how we have viewed children; often in the past we have done things to children rather than with them.
The amendments that were inserted in the bill that became the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, where the views of children were given more importance than the original bill seemed to suggest, go some way towards establishing that it is important to listen to children, to what they are telling us and to what they are asking for.
The Executive motion refers to partnerships: those are important at pre-school, school and post-school levels. A good indication of the way in which partnerships should be working is that the Minister for Health and Community Care will sum up this debate on children's services. That shows that children are not seen as the province of one Government department, but stretch across numerous departments. In the past, children have too often been seen as a homogenous group, which we can all think about as children rather than seeing them as a collection of individuals with a variety of needs.
The minister also mentioned how important parent support was, especially in pre-school years. As someone who, in his previous profession, attempted to support vulnerable parents in difficult situations, I know that there is a great deal of stigma about being referred to statutory social work agencies. If we are serious about offering parents support at crucial levels, it should not be seen as the hard end of a stigmatised service but as a service that is available to almost everyone. Pre-school screening is vital in ensuring that the service is perceived as the province not of a neglected few, but of the many.
We must address Bill Aitken's point about the children's hearing system. The system has much to offer offenders, whether they are under or over 16. I have worked with some intensive youth packages that offered support to some very high-tariff offenders who were under 16. The social statistics indicate that the peak age of offending is between 14 and 25; and the fact is that all countries face the same difficulties no matter whether they have a youth custody courts system or a children's hearings system.
Locking people up at 16, 17 or 18 does not work; the rate of reoffending is incredibly high among people who have received custodial sentences at that age. If we are serious about breaking the cycle of repeated offending, it is important to intervene at an early age and to ensure that we do so appropriately.
As I said in my question at question time this afternoon, I think that the children's hearings system is an excellent vehicle for some of those young people because of its particular focus on the welfare model, instead of the justice model. That is why we should consider keeping some young people between 16 and 18 in the hearings system rather than return them to the adult court.
This afternoon, I will raise the issue of teenagers, who form an often forgotten group within the designation of children and young people. They have their own special problems separate from children and certainly do not like to be seen as children.
I am also pleased that the Minister for Health and Community Care will sum up, because I want to focus particularly on the issues of drugs misuse and mental health among teenagers. I am afraid that, with members' permission, I will quote many facts and figures, as it is important to realise how many young people are affected by those problems.
In 1998-99, 1,228 young people were referred to the children's reporter for alcohol, drugs or solvent abuse. Of the 1,193 who were referred for alcohol and drugs misuse, 17 per cent were then referred on to a hearing; 9 per cent were given voluntary support; and 74 per cent received no intervention. That 74 per cent represents 882 young people who, although identified as at risk, received no help at all. How did such a situation happen?
That might have happened because one of the grounds for referral to a children's hearing is that the hearing must include positively beneficial outcomes for the child. Sadly, it has been accepted that the children's hearings system cannot always have such positively beneficial outcomes. The principal reporter of the Scottish Children's Reporter Association, Alan Miller, has identified one of the problems as
"the low availability at present of drug treatment services dedicated to the under-16 age group".
I have raised the issue before in parliamentary debates and, a year on, I see no great evidence that the Government has supported enough specific projects for young people under the age of 16 suffering from drug, alcohol and solvent misuse.
Many mental health problems among young people exhibit themselves in such misuse. In 1998, there were 114 suicides in the nought-to-24 age group, which is a dreadful figure for Scotland. In 1997-98, there were 15,025 NHS attendances for child and adolescent psychiatric hospital appointments but, in that period, only 100 day-patient beds were available in Scotland for child and adolescent psychiatric patients. That figure has risen since 1997-98 to 108 day-care beds, but that is still only 108 beds for 15,025 NHS attendances. We must recognise and examine the problem, and we must ensure that the means are made available to tackle it.
I highlight an innovative cross-sectoral project that is exactly what we are talking about today—the mental health development fund initiative for looked-after children and young people in East Dunbartonshire. In 1997, a one-year pilot project was set up with £140,000 to cater for 200 young people who were looked after or accommodated. It was supported by East Dunbartonshire Council, Greater Glasgow Health Board and the NHS mental health trust in the area, in an excellent example of cross-sectoral working. Sadly, that pilot scheme ended at the beginning of this year. The internal evaluation of that project states that residential staff and foster carers benefited immensely and were able to deliver higher-quality care by having consultation with mental health professionals who were able to inform and, crucially, to legitimise their practice. The evaluation also stated that it was hoped that, if the project could be sustained and further developed, it might provide a Scottish demonstration site for a mental health vision for looked-after and accommodated young people. That is most important in East Dunbartonshire, with Kenmuir St Mary's School, which is the national secure care unit for young people.
I end my speech with a plea to the minister. The project has approached the Scottish Executive for funding for an external evaluation, to ensure that it can become a national demonstration project. I ask the minister to ensure that the project receives that funding.
I welcome the debate and begin my speech by highlighting the problems that are faced by gypsy traveller children.
On 13 February, the Scottish Travellers Consortium launched a report on educational issues for gypsy traveller children throughout Scotland. Social justice is described as the Scottish Parliament's greatest aim, but gypsy traveller children have yet to feel the benefit of that, as they still experience a high level of social exclusion. We can and should help those children.
Research by Save the Children in 1996 showed that only 40 per cent of gypsy traveller children of primary school age and 20 per cent of those of secondary school age attended school regularly. The average length of time that they spent in school was four years. Many children spoke of being put at the back of the class and not being properly attended to by the teachers, as they had not been through the whole curriculum. One child said:
"How much does it cost to take 15 minutes extra just to work with the traveller kids when they are new?"
Another child said:
"I think every school should have some kind of teacher that the traveller kids or the black kids could talk to if they were getting bullied."
In England and Wales, funding has been granted to provide traveller education services. That funding is not available in Scotland; therefore, the few specialised education services for gypsy travellers rely on a small number of committed individuals. I would like something to be done to alleviate those problems.
For example, to prevent gypsy traveller children from feeling excluded, a local authority site at Collin, near Dumfries, has acquired a large portakabin in which a primary teacher works for three afternoons a week and a nursery nurse for two. The teachers assess the children and introduce them to school in an environment that has pictures from the children's social background on the walls, such as horses, trailers and fairgrounds. That welcoming environment allays the fears of children and parents. The experiment is working and should be tried elsewhere.
Information technology can be used to allow gypsy traveller children greater access to education; however, it costs money. Over the next few weeks, the Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am a member, will visit gypsy traveller sites to collect information. I welcome that. A little understanding and a more welcoming attitude could do much to help the children of that group.
I agree with much of what Mr McGrigor says about the needs of gypsy traveller children. Can he explain how, if the Conservatives were able to implement their policy of removing all schools from local authority control and making them all grant-maintained or opted-out schools, the services that he is requesting for traveller children could be provided?
They could be provided through a little thought and the use of specialist teachers.
I think that the most shocking news that I have seen recently—apart from the Indian earthquake—is the Wonderland Club child pornography case. As it followed revelations of abuse in children's homes, it is all the more serious. Sam Galbraith said that we must protect our children, and that point has been reiterated by the new minister with responsibility for education, Jack McConnell. I agree with them both, but point out that the new menace that is emanating from the internet is out of control and is deadly dangerous to children.
Child pornography must be contained and stamped out. While the Government has some control over written material, what is the point when horrific material concerning the revolting exploitation of young children can be downloaded from computers by people with even a limited knowledge? What is worse is that those revelations are merely the tip of the iceberg. We must congratulate the police on their involvement in Operation Cathedral, which was spread across 12 countries and led to arrests and the seizure of three quarters of a million images of children suffering sexual abuse. However, The Independent yesterday stated:
"Operation Cathedral was hailed as a success, but as a wake up call to law enforcement agencies and children's charities, it has been deafening. The paedophiles are using technology to get the upper hand. The police have won the latest battle, but the paedophiles are winning the war."
We are dealing with a new menace and new measures are required to fight it. All the leading children's charities have condemned the leniency of the sentences, which vary between one year and two years. As the director of the child protection agency, Kidscape, said:
"You would get a longer sentence for accumulating masses of parking tickets or for burglary."
A Conservative amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill has changed the maximum sentence for such offences to 10 years—it would have remained at three years otherwise—but another Conservative amendment that would outlaw internet chatrooms that are used to lure children to abuse was rejected by the Westminster Government, which claimed that the law was adequate.
Childhood comes only once. It is all too precious, and innocence lost can never be given back. I believe that those offences might come under the obscenity legislation in Scotland, which carries a life sentence. Can the minister confirm that? Is he happy about the situation regarding the law concerning internet chatrooms? Will he put pressure on internet service providers to be responsible for material that they are indirectly providing? Will he give the Parliament and parents in Scotland an assurance that the menace of internet child pornography is a high priority for the Scottish Executive?
I welcome the minister's statement on the provision of early-years care for youngsters. I especially welcome the early intervention programme and the sure start Scotland initiative, which seem to set an agenda that will prove valuable to us in years to come. The earlier the intervention, the better.
Last night, I attended a seminar at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, at which Derek Reid, the headmaster of Burnfoot community school, spoke about how he had turned that school around. He, too, said that early intervention cannot come too early and that it sorts out problems at a point at which action can be taken. As has been said, it helps the youngster to become assimilated into mainstream thinking earlier on.
That school is a pilot school and the statistics that were given in that demonstration were astonishing. The school, which is in a deprived area, has been turned around totally from one that had failing results. Targeting was helpful to that school. Attainment and self-esteem have been raised. All the improvements have been achieved through the kind of joint working with the police, the social work department, the health service, churches and parents that the new community schools foster.
I highlight that example because of the wonderful presentation that was given, which convinced everyone attending it of the value of the school. The last thing that Derek Reid said was that he was not quite sure what would happen after the pilot finished in March 2001.
May we have an assurance from ministers that schools that have been introduced on a pilot basis will be given further support? The school is doing all the things that are outlined in the motion, such as joint working and early intervention, which will offer the protection that we want for children.
Will the Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs give me an idea of the progress that has been made on deferred entry into primary schools for children aged four and a half and whose birthdays are in January and February? Some of the youngsters concerned are immature when they enter primary school, and can find it difficult ever to catch up.
I received a communication today from YouthLink Scotland, which asked me to draw its work to the minister's attention. It offers young people of all backgrounds a healthy lifestyle and various activities, with organisations such as the Boys Brigade helping to look after them. YouthLink has asked specifically whether the minister can confirm that it will get national support in the voluntary youth work sector. Can it access the children's change fund? We must carry on supporting the organisations that are doing good work for us at all levels—at the stages of primary school, the teenage years and youth work.
As Robert Brown said, it is Liberal Democrat policy to have a children's commissioner. We must bear in mind how the establishment of a children's commissioner would impact on the advocacy role of other organisations, such as Children in Scotland. There is a need to look at the whole advocacy picture and at how the whole thing would hang together, as well as specifically deciding whether the children's commissioner represents the best way forward. On balance, I believe that it does, but the decision on that remains to be taken.
Finally, I agree with Fiona McLeod on the campaign that she has always run with regard to children being involved in decisions that are made about their future.
I want to highlight the need for a children's commissioner for Scotland and the promotion of young people's participation in decision making.
In my members' business debate on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which took place just over a year ago and which was supported by the cross-party group on children's issues, the need for a children's commissioner was raised by me and by others. I am pleased that the minister has welcomed consideration of the proposal to have a commissioner.
The role and remit of such a post has to be the subject of wide consultation. A commissioner represents the logical way to progress full implementation of the UN convention. In the response to the debate last year, Peter Peacock, the then Deputy Minister for Children and Education, said:
"If a commissioner can genuinely add something positive to the existing range of provision, we are prepared to consider it . . . we have asked the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider the issue".
The minister added that the committee was
"prepared to consider it".—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol 4, c 839.]
One year later, and that has still not been done—but I understand the pressures that were on that committee last year. I would like an assurance that the committee has identified time for consideration and conclusion on that issue.
I now refer to the issue of engaging young people in decision making, which could form part of the role of a children's commissioner, as Irene McGugan noted in her speech.
I welcome the publication of "Taking the Initiative", which is the first step in a three-year programme that has been undertaken by Children in Scotland and funded by the Carnegie UK Trust. Its aim is to promote the participation of young people in decision making, policy and planning. It disturbs me that that work has been commissioned because of growing evidence of young people's disillusionment with local and national organisations that serve their needs.
Many young people feel that their views and ideas are seen as irrelevant and are not considered, and that politicians are out of touch with the issues that affect them. We can see that disenchantment in trends among young voters. I will not quote all the statistics, as they can be found in "Taking the Initiative".
Although there appears to be a general lack of interest in politics—or perhaps in the political system—young people are interested in particular issues, such as education, employment, the environment and human rights. However, barriers that exclude young people from the political process include the limited number of opportunities for participation, lack of knowledge about how to engage in politics, and the view of politics as a strange subject that is difficult to understand. It is vital that the Parliament break down those barriers.
We must also recognise that participation should take account of diverse needs, circumstances and aspirations. As Scott Barrie pointed out, young people cannot be viewed as a uniform group. The voices of children who are excluded because of homelessness, poverty or disability are least likely to be heard. For the good of society as a whole, active citizenship must be encouraged from a young age. It is ridiculous to expect young people suddenly to become responsible, empowered citizens at the age at which they can legally exercise their voting rights.
I will pose some specific questions to the minister. Can the children's change fund be used to support local initiatives that are undertaken by children? With regard to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, what are the implementation plans for listening to young voices? For example, what guidance, training and best practice is there? Will the minister comment on the details of ensuring meaningful consultation, such as providing information in ways that are relevant and providing regular feedback?
Participation is a process. By exercising their rights, young people can appreciate the rights of others. By expressing their views and having them listened to and respected, they can learn to appreciate the views of others and the merit of a tolerant society. Only through active participation can young people grow in confidence and self-esteem and contribute to their lives and communities as responsible, empowered citizens.
I will highlight two sets of excluded children. First, children and young people with special needs are often excluded by society. Services are patchy. The level of service that they receive often depends on where they live. We need to ensure that receiving a high quality of service does not depend on where one lives—we must end services by postcode.
This week, I met a group of parents of disabled children called Fastrax. Those parents have strong views. They feel abandoned by service providers. They produced a report called "Intensive care: support in the first few weeks of life and then what?", which makes interesting reading. They complain that their needs and the needs of their children are not being recognised. Rather, they are slotted into services that often do not meet their needs. Their campaign focuses on the need for better equipment for their children. They believe that, through mobility, independence can be achieved, which will lead to self-esteem and confidence.
The parents' main concern is about poor wheelchair provision for children in Scotland. That is highlighted in the Scottish paediatric wheelchair service survey, which was carried out in 1998. That survey showed that parents were very dissatisfied with the quality of wheelchairs. Parents find them difficult to transport and manoeuvre, and too heavy; they think that they do not meet the needs of their children.
At the moment, many families spend about £2,000 on a wheelchair for their child. That cost recurs as the child grows and develops. Parents make the point that a quality wheelchair, which is matched to the child's needs, can make the difference between active participation in society and exclusion from society. What will the Minister for Health and Community Care do to improve paediatric wheelchair services? Will she meet the parents who produced the report to hear what they say?
Secondly, I will address the plight of refugee children—a cause that is close to my heart. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care heard the views of refugee children last week when they visited the Parliament. They talked about many problems with service provision, particularly relating to inadequate education resources. In England, ring-fenced money is given to education departments to meet the needs of refugee children. That is not the case in Scotland, but I am aware that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs is considering that matter.
The Save the Children report, "We Didn't Come Here for Fun", provides an insight into the concerns and fears of refugee children living in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish Executive will respond positively to the many recommendations made in the report and support the UK Government in removing the reservation in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for refugee children. That would be a major step forward.
We have agreed on much this afternoon. I hope that we get a bit more action and fewer words.
I was involved in piloting the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to the statute book some years ago in the House of Commons. That involved my receiving a severe reprimand from the Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, because she said that I had agreed to far too many amendments for the report stage of the bill. I do not regret having listened to Mrs Maria Fyfe because I hope that we ended up with a better bill at the end of it and I hope that the act will stand the test of time. We were reacting to the Orkney and Fife cases. A huge amount of work went into those. The act sought to lay out very clear responsibilities about the relevant services that should be delivered. We were well aware of social workers' difficulties, who cannot afford either to be ostrich-like when cases of severe abuse are reported to them, or to overreact. We hope that the act will be of considerable assistance.
I welcome the constructive approach towards the motion that has been adopted by all parties this afternoon. That mirrors the attitude that was taken previously by all parties in the House of Commons.
We are interested in the proposal that there should be a children's commissioner and we would like to look at the details with particular care. We hope that any proposals will enhance the role of the family and parents and that parents should be given the opportunity to speak up for their children.
The role of a commissioner must not be confused. Its remit should be specific so that jurisdiction is clear. Any bill that is introduced must not fail to protect all those who are vulnerable.
For example, the definition of a child might not include young children with mental incapacity. Young people who have special educational needs should be fully involved in decisions that affect their future. If a children's commissioner bill is to be introduced, the issue of whether the commissioner should be accountable to the Parliament should be considered carefully.
A subject that has not been covered during the debate—it has been addressed by the Prime Minister—is the sale of babies on the internet. I believe strongly that that practice is totally wrong. Exploitation of babies and young children must be prevented, whatever our sympathy for childless couples.
I pay tribute to Roger Kent, not because he was my immediate neighbour—which he was—but because he gave a lifetime of service to children and to social work in Scotland. In 1996 he was asked to report on children's safeguards and his report was published in 1997. I understand that the Government is implementing the report's recommendations, including those on child protection, independence, scrutiny of children's homes and the recruitment, vetting and training of care staff.
My final point is on travelling people, to whom my friend and colleague Jamie McGrigor alluded. Where travelling people's sites are established legally, there are usually fewer complaints from neighbours. I hope that the Administration will not fear to establish those sites where necessary, as the matter is of considerable importance—[Interruption.]
I strongly support the motion.
I apologise for the microphone howl.
As other members have said, the Liberal Democrats strongly support the motion. We also support the concept of either a children's commissioner or, as Robert Brown suggested, a commission. The important issue is that whichever is decided upon must have real power and must not be merely cosmetic and politically correct. We must not allow the negative brigade, which is present in the civil service and in other parts of Scottish life, to water down a good idea. It is important that the commission is strong.
Like other members, I would like to talk about various aspects of youth work, which is important and relevant. We should welcome the fact that the Government—or the Executive—will pay for the Scottish Criminal Record Office checks—the police checks—on youth workers. That is an important gesture and a big saving for the youth work fraternity.
The children's service change fund is a welcome start, but it must go further. It is targeted only at disadvantaged areas. Near here there are very respectable parts of Edinburgh that have a real problem with large groups of youngsters roaming the streets and parks and making a nuisance of themselves, because they do not think that there is anything for them to do. There are problems throughout Scotland in rural and urban areas, so to think that this issue affects only disadvantaged areas is quite wrong.
My excellent friend Nicol Stephen made a speech on a previous occasion in which he spoke about innovative approaches and integrated services. The real need is for core funds. I am all for innovative approaches if the core funding is adequate. We need our existing youth groups—local and national—to be properly funded for what they do. At the moment, they are not.
We should also give preference to young people who run their own affairs collectively. It is not just individual young people who need a say in their own personal life; we must encourage youth groups to run their own affairs. I was very proud of the fact that in the management of the Edinburgh City Youth Cafe—which I helped to start and which is just round the corner—the young people had more votes than the wrinklies. I thought that that was very good. However, when I became an MSP, my gas was put at a low peep when I discovered that the management of groups in Dingwall and Hamilton—I am sure that there are others—had votes only for the young people. The wrinklies could advise, but had no votes. That is good and helps to develop the self-esteem and character of young people. Preference should be given to groups such as those.
Early intervention has been mentioned. We have to do more to help truants and excluded pupils. Some parts of Scotland are awash with children who should be at school but who are wandering around, at a loose end and with nothing to do, because they have absented themselves from school, either voluntarily or compulsorily.
In dealing with alcohol problems, we have to offer more help to young people informally to allow them to be involved. Alcohol problems start at a regrettably young age and often lead on to drug and other problems.
A question that was asked during question time is relevant to this debate. It concerned water charges on voluntary groups that include young people. The Executive must confront the real problems that are faced by young people individually and by the organisations that try to help them locally and nationally. Rhetoric is good; but we need action.
I welcome the debate and the Executive's motion, which will not be opposed or amended, but supported by the Conservatives. Many quality speeches have been made by members of all parties. I do not wish to play down the impact of those that I do not mention, but I especially appreciated the speeches of Fiona McLeod and Jamie McGrigor.
The debate has been generally free of party-political rancour. That is to be welcomed. There is a consensus about support for partnerships that involve voluntary groups, charities, local authorities and state and private provision. Barnardos has been mentioned, as has the Boys Brigade. Such groups have a resonance with politicians in the chamber and with the public.
However, consensus should not mean that we are not analytical or critical, or that we do not ask the hard questions, or that ministers do not make hard decisions. We must be more precise in our language. I may fall foul of it myself, but there is a tendency to use euphemisms and jargon that are understood only by professionals in the field and not by the public or by children. "Looked-after children" is an example. When I use that term—making no judgment—parents seem both puzzled and angry. They see that as insulting because it implies that they do not look after their children.
I strongly agree. The term "looked-after children" conveys the idea to a lot of parents that they are seen as not looking after their children. However, was not it a Conservative Government that wrote that phrase into the Children (Scotland) Act 1995?
If I was to take the blame for everything that the Conservative Government did wrong in the past—
We would be here for ever.
—Mr McAveety would love me to death. As I said, there is a problem with language that is used and, if it can be judgmental and imprecise, we must ensure that the new language that we use is understood and appreciated.
Much has been said about a children's commissioner. At present in Scotland it is a philosophical idea that, on face value, has much to commend it. However, I retain an inquisitive and sceptical mind—it might mean different things to different people. An ombudsman to speak for children and defend their rights in national and local government would be appropriate. Individuals, such as children, who are otherwise disenfranchised should have a voice, but there could be conflicts between a commissioner and parents. As Lord James said, we think that the definition of a child should be unambiguous.
Irene McGugan referred to smacking—punishment is clearly an area of particular difficulty. It seemed that she was nailing the SNP's opposition to smacking to her political mast—perhaps that could be clarified in the SNP winding-up speech. There is potential for conflict between a commissioner who argues for children's rights and responsibilities and the responsibilities of parents. For example, there are those who think that parents should pay for the crimes of children; there could be conflict if a commissioner was arguing for more rights for children while their responsibilities were being borne by parents more and more.
I welcome today's debate and its constructive nature. We support the Executive in its efforts.
The level of consensus in the chamber at some times today, particularly this afternoon is, although immensely encouraging, creating difficulties for people such as Mr McConnell and myself. We come from a generation of political bruisers, who are used to tearing each other's throats out at the slightest encouragement. I am sure that we can find the opportunity to do so again.
Different generations.
If Mr McConnell wishes to intervene I am happy to allow that. I am older than Mr McConnell, but I have worn better. When one must listen Mr Monteith in consensual mode as well, it really does fairly take the breath away. I suspect that aliens may have stolen Mr Monteith and put a copy in his place.
What a compliment.
Does Mr Monteith want to intervene? The importance of today's debate is shown by the fact that there is no amendment from either of the opposition parties, and by the very high quality of the contributions. I defer to Irene McGugan as the real expert on the matter; she has indicated strongly that the SNP is keen to engage with positive and constructive views from all parties in the chamber to seek the best for Scotland's children.
I want to state my strong support for the Scottish youth parliament, but I have a number of questions that are outstanding to Mr McConnell about its funding. The youth parliament offers a major opportunity to have a body of people who can mirror the work that is going on in the chamber, who can speak for young people in Scotland, and who can learn about the processes of democracy without—as Mr Gorrie so eloquently and no doubt personally put it—the wrinklies being present. It is important that the Scottish youth parliament grows and develops, but it is desperately short of funding and has no full-time workers. That matter needs to be readdressed and I commend that action to Mr McConnell.
My second point is about community schools. I strongly support the initiatives that are being taken on community schools. Every school has the potential to be a community school and to bring a range of disciplines to bear in a community setting, to make sure that health, social work and a variety of other disciplines work constructively with teachers for the benefit of young people. We have to build on that in every school in Scotland, not only in schools that are already so designated.
I was at a meeting with Irene McGugan some days ago at which somebody referred to community schools as being "poor schools". What they were trying to say was that they thought that those schools were not as yet fully fleshed out or developed. We should put time and resources into fleshing them out, because there is a great benefit for young people and for communities in developing community schools. That is another matter in which I will be happy to support Mr McConnell as he develops it, although he is going fairly slowly at the moment—he needs to speed up a little.
The question of the children's commissioner is important. Members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will enter into that discussion in a positive mode, and will support the idea of a children's commissioner. The debate has illustrated one or two of the many roles that a children's commissioner could perform. One particularly interesting role, which we should develop in our debates, is the way in which the Executive's child strategy—which is spreading down into local authorities—could be monitored and reported on by a children's commissioner. The commissioner could be the double lock of progress on the child strategy and I hope that we will enter that idea into the debate. I am also attracted to the idea of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee bringing forward legislation with the support of the Executive. That is something to explore.
There are key things that we want to make sure happen in Scotland. It is good that a strong concern for children and young people—in all stages of their development, in the ways that they develop and in the huge variety of issues, problems and possibilities that they present to society—has been identified across all the parties, albeit with some difficulty here and there. That is something that we can build on. It is, perhaps, one of the good reasons why we have a Scottish Parliament and—as I said at the beginning—old bruisers and warhorses like Mr McConnell and myself will just have to get used to consensus.
I welcome today's debate and the tone and substance of the discussion. It has been a relatively short debate, but all members who have spoken should be congratulated on covering so much ground. I know that I will be unable to respond to all the points that were raised. However, ministerial colleagues and I will take away the many and varied points, comments and suggestions that have been made, to inform our thinking as we continue to develop policy and take action for the benefit of Scotland's children and young people. Although it may have taken some time to hold a debate specifically on children's services, we should note that many debates in the Scottish Parliament have had the needs of children at their core. It is testament to the devolved Scotland that we have all been thinking carefully about the current and future needs of our young people.
I am conscious that many of the issues that have been raised and the services that have been addressed focus on the problems that young people face and how those are dealt with. Those issues are important and I note, for example, the many comments that have been made on the children's panel system and on wider issues in relation to youth crime. I know that justice colleagues are interested in considering such matters. However, the important message from today's debate, on which I am pleased to note that members agree, is that we should prevent problems from arising. There is a need for early intervention across policy areas and services to ensure that as far as possible problems do not occur in the first place.
One of the themes that underpin the Scottish Executive's policy is the desire to act, to act early and to prevent; not just to cure. That is why, in the agenda for children, the maternity services framework that I launched a couple of weeks ago is every bit as important as our education policy. All those elements combined have an impact on our children's future.
It is important that we have services across the range of areas that are necessary to support young people and parents. Part of getting those services right is investment, and I am pleased that we have made children's services a priority across the Scottish Executive. For example, we are investing £42 million over three years in sure start Scotland to give broad-based support to families with young children; £12.5 million this year alone in the children's services development fund; and more than £100 million over three years in the national health improvement fund, a core priority of which is services to improve children's health. More than £70 million is being invested in the children's services change fund—which Jack McConnell spoke about in detail in his opening remarks—the consultation paper for which has just been published.
The significance of those investment packages and the children's services change fund is that they address the point that many members have touched on, which is that the matter is not just about providing more services, it is about making sure that agencies work together effectively to provide better services. To be frank, for too long people have been made to fit services, rather than services being made to fit people. That is what we want to change with the investment packages, by ensuring that agencies must come together to access resources, not just throughout statutory agencies, local authorities and the NHS, but throughout the voluntary sector. We recognise that that sector is involved in effective partnerships across all those areas, which will make a difference.
I gave an example of a good cross-sectoral project in East Dunbartonshire. Will there be Scottish Executive funding for external evaluation of that project?
I am unable to give a specific answer, but I would be happy to write to Fiona McLeod with details. However, a common theme that runs through Executive policy is the desire to recognise good practice when we see it, to support it, and to make sure that innovative practice does not occur only in pockets, but is translated into universal practice. That is one of the key themes of the children's services change fund, which I am delighted we are developing.
It is important that, as we provide more and better services, we do not think only about quantity, but about quality. A number of members talked about the standards of service and care that are offered to young people. It is important in that context to remind members of the importance of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by Parliament. We often hear references to that bill in relation to the care of older people, but it is crucial to remember that the bill also covers many other groups, notably young people.
On that point—which was very well made—I notice that the Minister for Parliament is in his seat. I hope that he will note that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has made a request to be involved in later stages of the bill, along with the Health and Community Care Committee. The fact that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and the Minister for Health and Community Care opened and closed the debate today symbolises the need for the involvement of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee in the bill.
The precise detail of how the bill is considered and by which committees is a matter for others, but the general point that Mike Russell makes, which is the need for us to work across traditional divisions and across portfolios in order to ensure that we formulate the best possible policies and, where appropriate, the best possible legislation, is one with which we all agree. We have worked hard in the Parliament and the Executive to ensure that we work across boundaries.
As I said, the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill will be key to ensuring that the quality and standard of young people's care are at the level at which they ought to be. The bill will include residential care for children, adoption and fostering agencies, and secure accommodation for children, as well as day care and early education.
Part of our agenda is to provide more services, and part of it is to provide better services. The agenda is aimed at providing the highest possible quality of care and services. Many members touched on how best to achieve that. I echo what many members have said: the Executive believes that actions are more important than words. Our primary concern in considering the right mechanisms for taking forward change is ensuring that we get the best outcome.
We know that there is a great deal of support for the principle of a children's commissioner. As Jack McConnell said, the Executive is sympathetic to that idea. However, we said today, and we will continue to say, that we must be clear about the functions of that position and about how it will add value. I am pleased that many members echoed those points.
I am pleased that Elaine Smith and other members stressed the importance of listening to young people when developing young people's services. When I have met groups of young people in my activities as Minister for Health and Community Care and given them an opportunity to comment on and contribute to the development of services, I have been struck by how actively and enthusiastically they have taken part in that debate and dialogue. Throughout the Executive, we are committed to continuing to develop work through the youth parliament and the action programme for young people, for example. We will continue to listen to young people and to give them a voice.
Put most simply, our children are our future. We must all work together to give all our young people the best start in life. The legacy of the Parliament must be not only what we do for this generation, but what we leave behind for the next. That is the Executive's determination. We are determined to do that in partnership, across portfolios, between ministries and between Governments—across the UK where appropriate. We are determined to deliver a fairer, better Scotland for our young people. I will end on a note of agreement with the SNP. As Irene McGugan said, we are and we want to be radical and ambitious. We owe that to our young people. The Executive is committed to continuing in that spirit in the years to come.
That concludes the debate. I apologise to the minister; the stop-clocks are not working. That applies to the next item of business on which we will embark.