Debating in Schools
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1998, in the name of Brian Monteith, on encouraging school debating. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the great benefits that school debating can offer to students; believes that debate develops powers of argument, increases understanding, boosts critical thinking and promotes engagement with society; considers that students who take part in debating show stronger communication skills, raised self-esteem, are better at working in teams, become more articulate and objective and are likely to be better equipped to become active citizens; believes that the opportunity to take part in debate can have a real impact on the life-chances of young people, particularly of those from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds; supports the work of the English-Speaking Union (ESU), with schools throughout Scotland, in promoting and organising debate; notes that its National Juniors Debating Competition has attracted more than eighty entries from schools across the country, and welcomes the innovative new debating outreach programme that the ESU is launching in January 2005 in conjunction with North Lanarkshire Council.
Before I get into the meat of my speech, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Bureau for selecting my motion for debate this evening. I also want to thank all the members who signed up in support of my motion. I also support the sentiments that Richard Lochhead expressed in his amendment to the motion. However, for technical reasons, I was unable to incorporate the text of his amendment into my motion.
I intend to concentrate on the English-Speaking Union and its role in debating in Scotland, so as to leave room for members to talk about other organisations that are involved in debating and to pass on their own anecdotes, of which I am sure there will be a number.
I will start with a quotation:
"I understand democracy as something that gives the weak the same chance as the strong."
Those words were spoken by Mahatma Gandhi. Members might be surprised that such an aggressive, in-your-face debater as me would choose to start the debate by quoting the great man, but I believe that one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is the ability to debate, to argue one's point, to defend one's position and to try and persuade others of it.
It is difficult to talk about politics today without talking about voter apathy, especially voter apathy among younger voters. I am sure that all members in the chamber agree that it is important to encourage younger people to participate in the democratic process. We want an electorate that is informed and interested; one that holds us to account. We want an electorate that is involved; one that feels part of the democratic process.
Debating develops powers of argument, increases understanding, boosts critical thinking and, most important, promotes engagement with society. Students who take part in debating show stronger communication skills and raised self-esteem, and are better at working in teams. They are often more articulate, more objective and more likely to be better equipped to be active citizens. Debate has been shown to have a positive effect on literacy standards in schools. Those are attributes that we can all aspire to for Scotland's young people.
For many years, the English-Speaking Union has run a range of debating and public speaking competitions for schools in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. This year, three competitions for secondary schools are being run in Scotland. The competitions have attracted entries from more than 70 schools and more than 400 young people are taking part. However, only a minority of schools are involved and most pupils will not be able to experience debating and public speaking. I recall that when I was at Portobello High School it was difficult to become involved in debating: there was sporadically a debating team, which I, for one, did not take part in.
This Parliament should support the ESU's efforts to develop a programme that concentrates on Scottish schools that have traditionally lacked access to debate. The four finalists in the ESU juniors competition final last year, which I attended as a judge, were all state schools that had, on their way to the finals, defeated some notable independent schools that had more of a tradition of producing teams and taking part in debating competitions.
Brian Monteith points out that the debating champions were pupils from state schools. Does that account for the fact that no members of the Labour Party or the Scottish Socialist Party are present for the debate? Are they absent because they are afraid of Brian Monteith's debating skills or because they believe that they have perfected their debating skills to the extent that they have no need to attend the debate?
That is an interesting observation. I will leave members to judge whether my superior debating skills have frightened them away or whether some other attraction accounts for their absence.
I must press on rather than try to score points. I will leave that to other members—although I may not want to keep that habit.
We must provide opportunities for students to build skills and experience in order to raise the levels of self-confidence and social engagement among young people from disadvantaged communities. We often talk in this Parliament about trying to raise Scotland's self-confidence so that Scotland is a more outgoing, self-confident nation. Debating is inherently part of the communication of that self-confidence.
The ESU's programme addresses directly the recommendations in the discussion paper "Education for Citizenship in Scotland", which was endorsed by a number of Scottish Executive ministers, including the First Minister. It supports the four key learning outcomes: knowledge and understanding; skills and competencies; values and dispositions; creativity and enterprise.
The ESU's programme aims to provide young people from all backgrounds with the opportunity for structured debate, both within and without the classroom. The ESU aims to work with at least 75 per cent of Scottish schools over three years and to develop a range of in-lesson resources and teaching materials for the use of teachers, debate mentors and pupils, to support subjects and courses across the curriculum.
ESU Scotland needs funding of some £280,000 over three years to design and implement the programme, which it hopes to introduce from the start of the 2005-06 school year. The Executive is always introducing or funding new initiatives: this is one that I believe would bring real benefits. All I will say to the minister is that it should be given careful consideration.
Turnout at the 1992 general election was nearly 78 per cent, but turnout at the 2001 general election was just under 60 per cent. That was the lowest voter turnout since universal adult suffrage began. MORI suggested that the low turnout was particularly pronounced among young people—only 39 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds cast their vote.
Turnout for elections to this Parliament has been even worse. Only 49 per cent of registered voters turned out in last year's Scottish Parliament elections. That was down from 58 per cent in 1999. Fewer than half of those in Scotland who were able to vote did so. For the sake of democracy—which we sometimes take for granted, but which many countries desperately aspire to—we must do more.
In 1999, five MSPs under the age of 30 were elected to this Parliament. In 2003, only one member under 30 was elected. If we want to have a vibrant, young Parliament, as well as vibrant debates, we should consider having more debates in schools. We must aspire to inspire our young people. We must ensure that they have an interest in the future. We must ensure that they understand that it is a future in which they have a stake. By encouraging debate in schools, we encourage young people to start questioning those who represent them; we encourage them to hold us to account; we encourage them to get involved and be part of the democratic process.
The ESU hopes to hold the final of its debating competition here in the Scottish Parliament. It has already attracted sponsorship for competitions from organisations such as Asda. I hope that it will be possible to signal the start of a concerted effort to encourage and increase debating in schools and to help develop the MSPs of tomorrow.
I too support the efforts of the ESU and anyone else who promotes debating skills in schools. Like you, Presiding Officer, I was a schoolteacher in a previous life. Once, when I looked at my timetable at the beginning of the new term, I saw that Friday was dedicated to a double period of class 3C—35-plus of them, full of testosterone, weekend thoughts and hostility. I thought, what would I do with 3C for 80 minutes on a Friday afternoon? Desperation bred the invention of the debating afternoon.
What started out as a rescue package for me became the highlight of the week for those children. It became the carrot that ensured they did their exercises during the week. We had our little ups and downs, of course. When I introduced the debating afternoon I made it a golden rule that I would chair everything, because I had to keep control of proceedings, and I knew that they would be up to mischief and propose topics that might embarrass me. However, as I am sure the Presiding Officer is aware, I could embarrass them before they could embarrass me. I told them so, they believed it, and we progressed quite happily.
Those afternoons became quite a star, with the result that, quite unexpectedly, my other classes said, "When are we getting a debate, Miss Grahame?" Miss Grahame found herself having to debate, and it became part of my schedule to have debating periods for all classes. From that grew something for first year, who were of mixed ability. They were not quite up to debating, so I thought, "I'll wean them on to it." Instead of debating, we had afternoon talks. I am moving slightly from the topic of debate, but it is all to do with children gaining confidence, particularly those who are not good at writing.
I remember one afternoon when into the classroom came a slow worm, a ferret and a brick. They were the subject matters of the talks to be given by my pupils. The slow worm was passed around the classroom—first to me. I had to pretend that I was not frightened of it. I hated it but, being the true teacher that I was, I handled it with bravura and passed it round the class. We had a lesson from the pupil about his slow worm. Then the girl brought in her ferret, which I refused to handle. The ferret was entertaining in itself, and we had a long talk all about it and how to care for it.
But all eyes were on Brian and his brick. What could he do with a brick that would surpass the slow worm and the ferret? Brian, who was not known for being articulate, came up to the front with his hammer and his brick. I said, "What are you going to do, Brian?" He paused—his delivery was slow—and replied, "Ah'm gonna cut it in half, miss." "You are?" All eyes were now on Brian, his brick and the hammer.
So Brian slowly chipped away at the brick with the sharp end of the hammer, and then paused—for he was a bit of a dramatist—with his hammer in the air. He tapped it and, sure enough, the brick fell apart in two halves. There were tiny little crumbs of brick on the floor. The applause was spontaneous. He was top of the class. We then found out that he had followed his brickie father for days. In simple words he said, "And that is how you halve a brick." That was the whole point. The ferret watched the whole proceedings quite happily and probably learned how to do it too.
The point is that through using oral communication, which many children are denied in the classroom, they can star and shine. After that, I made a point, when assessing pupils, of giving a substantial number of marks to people based on their oral contribution, whether in talks or debates—in memory of Brian and his brick who, as members will realise, I remember to this day.
I congratulate Brian Monteith on securing this important debate. This is the first occasion on which I have agreed with absolutely everything he said—and it will probably be the only one because it is not likely to be repeated.
There is nothing more important for kids, young people and, indeed, adults to develop than the skill and ability to think, speak and argue on their feet. We in the Liberal Democrats pride ourselves on having democratic procedures for the selection of parliamentary candidates. Prospective candidates produce a focused election leaflet with an address, but we do not know whether they have written it. I have been to several hustings in selections for parliamentary candidates—for the Scottish Parliament and for the European Parliament—at which people have gone in with a clear idea about who they will vote for and have then voted differently.
The Parliament should do its utmost to encourage the development of this important communication skill in schools, because it is greatly underrated. Brian Monteith was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the skill. It is important not only for debating, but in everyday life at work or at home—and even in arguments between husband and wife. I am glad that we have a husband and wife partnership in the chamber who can confirm the importance of developing the skill—I see them nodding. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Ewing household at times. The development of the communication skill also increases self-confidence.
I praise the work and role of the English-Speaking Union. I understand that it organises three separate competitions at school level, one of which, the national juniors debating competition, is held exclusively in Scotland. About 72 schools participate, which is only 15 per cent. I read with great interest about the pilot project in North Lanarkshire, which seems to be well developed. Workshops are held with the aim of getting kids to learn debating and arguing skills and a competition is held at the end. I hope that the project will be developed and spread out to the rest of Scotland and that the Executive will support that financially.
When I was a member in another place, I wanted to start a school debating competition up in north Wales, where my constituency was. I wrote to the noted journalist, Robert Harris of The Observer, who organised The Observer's mace debating competition. I received a delightful hand-written letter in reply inviting me to go along and see the competition in action. He asked me along to a final at Westminster School in London, but he did not tell me that he had put me down as a judge with him, Ludovic Kennedy and Quintin Hogg. It was an extremely intimidating experience, but it was followed by a fluid, alcohol reception and an extremely good dinner. I remember that event with great affection and I learnt a lot from the experience.
I am glad to say that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch in the Parliament is in the process of selecting two delegates from Scotland to go to the Commonwealth Youth Parliament in Queensland next April. Margaret Ewing and I are on the executive of the branch and we will sift through the applications next week. I hope that other members will come along to hear the finalists and perhaps even help us to judge, when we hold debates in a committee room to choose the two Scottish representatives—that would make the process more democratic.
Last night, I attended a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisation's reception and annual general meeting. A young speaker there—I wish that I could remember her name because it should go into the Official Report—spoke at the end, after Susan Deacon. I should have warned Susan that I intended to refer to her, but I think that that young speaker was actually better than her—she was only 17 and she was absolutely terrific. She had notes in her hand, but she did not refer to them. I said to her, "Why on earth did you have them? You're great." She is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, which is an organisation with which we in this Parliament do not interact nearly enough. It is obvious that talented young people are members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and we should support and encourage them. Out of that, I hope that a national competition may grow, supported by the Parliament.
I remember with much affection my days at the University of Aberdeen debater and our visits to many other universities including those in St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow. All those universities have kept up a strong debating tradition for as long as I have been acquainted with them. I pay tribute to the English-Speaking Union for its work and to the universities and many teachers in schools throughout Scotland who have contributed to maintaining the tradition of debating over the past 50 years. I also remember the days of John Smith and Donald Dewar at the University of Glasgow and the extraordinary contribution that the Glasgow debater made, and continues to make, to political life in Scotland.
The advantage of debating at school is not simply that it produces young politicians. It has many advantages for all pupils who get involved; for example, the way in which debating is practised in universities and schools makes it as much of an exercise in active listening as an exercise in speaking. It is important that that skill is being developed through the way in which schools have pursued the structure of debates.
Debating is also great fun and allows pupils to develop composure and self-confidence within a formal structure. If members want to see how people can have great fun within formal structures, they should go to University of St Andrews debates, which have perfected the notion of how to have fun in debating. Universities such as St Andrews should be commended for their part in encouraging debating. Over the years—I do not know whether it is happening this year—the University of Edinburgh has offered the services of its senior debaters to schools throughout Edinburgh and the Lothians to help pupils with their debating skills. It deserves a great deal of praise for that.
I echo the call for support to be given to the ESU. I would hate to put an absolute figure on such support, because if we are going to give some money to that organisation we should also explore whether the Executive could provide some minor financial support to encourage other avenues of activity to keep going or to get going. I believe that such a small investment in a subject of such immense value to Scotland would mean a very great return for the educational development of young people.
I congratulate my colleague Brian Monteith on securing this important debate. In his motion and opening speech, he highlighted the benefits that debating can offer pupils. I also add my support to the positive points that members have made about debating in schools and its impact on students' confidence and their intellectual and social skills. With fewer schools offering pupils the opportunity to participate in formal debates, I particularly welcome the ESU's activities and its national debating competition in Scotland.
That said, I want to concentrate on the forthcoming North Lanarkshire debates outreach programme. In September 2004, ESU Scotland reached an agreement with North Lanarkshire Council to run a three-month outreach programme from January to March next year that will be aimed at secondary schools in the council area. There will be a training day for teachers and three full-day workshops for participating schools, at which pupils will have the opportunity to watch a demonstration debate. They will then take part in various exercises including analysing and thinking up arguments for and against a motion before they have a properly structured debate.
North Lanarkshire Council is contributing £5,000 to the cost of the project, which will pay for a temporary project co-ordinator. I am delighted that only yesterday the Scottish Executive announced that it will fund the project to the tune of £2,500, which is certainly welcome.
Already 10 of 26 North Lanarkshire schools have signed up for the programme. I hope that this debate and coverage of the initiative in the local press will highlight and raise awareness of the project and encourage other schools to consider applying to take part. I particularly welcome the fact that the project is targeted at pupils in the secondary 1 to 3 category, because among pupils of that age there is usually still spontaneity and a lack of self-consciousness that can be built on so that they develop skills that they can use throughout their lives. The initiative is terrific and I wish it and all the participants every possible success.
I too congratulate Brian Monteith on his motion. I am sure that if the Labour members had known that he was going to make a decent speech for once in his life they would have turned up in huge numbers. Given Brian Monteith's opening remarks, I will take great pleasure in rubbing in the fact that I was one of the five members who were under the age of 30 when they were elected in 1999.
It is fair to say that the Scots are not the most confident people in the world and perhaps encouraging people to debate is one way of boosting confidence. When we speak to people about being a politician, many say that they hate the thought of having to stand up and speak in public or debate in forums such as the Scottish Parliament. I realise that the inability to do so has not stopped some people getting elected—
Or speaking here.
That is right. However, we can all identify with that. The people of Scotland are not that confident. I remember hearing a presentation from a civil servant a few months ago about a project on Scottish confidence that the Executive had undertaken. I was surprised that the project had never really been aired in public, because the presentation, which was based on really deep research, was fascinating. It showed a European league table of young people and their level of confidence. Scots were pretty far down; incidentally, the Greeks topped the table with the most confident young people.
We have a lot of work to do. It is important that we encourage people at as young an age as possible to express themselves and speak in public. My wife told me that in some nurseries, children are being encouraged to talk about their favourite toy, just to get them talking in front of other people. In primary 6, children are asked to choose a topic on which to conduct a debate in front of the class. We want to encourage those sorts of activities.
We know that there are many advantages to encouraging debating in schools, many of which Brian Monteith outlined, such as increasing young people's confidence and self-esteem, enabling them to work as a team, improving their communication and presentation skills and critical thinking and enabling them to understand the power of argument and both sides of an argument. It also serves the citizenship agenda that is coming into classrooms, as it gives young people the opportunity to research debate topics, learn about how their society and country works and learn about social and political issues.
For those reasons, the English-Speaking Union's initiative in North Lanarkshire should be supported. If it is successful, I hope that it can be spread throughout the country. I understand that the minister is putting cash towards the project, which we welcome. I have written to Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to see whether they are interested in following that example.
My parliamentary assistant, Mark McDonald, is a former president of the Scottish Students Debating Council and has a successful debating background. He went to a state school, but it is worth noting that only one of the five-member school team that will be representing Scotland in the world debating championships this year is from a state school and last year none of the team members was from a state school. I hope that the minister will address that important point. It is clear that there is a huge gap between the culture in the independent private schools and that in the state sector. If we are to boost the confidence of children throughout Scotland we will have to address that issue in the state sector. The question relates not only to the cultural issue, but to the funding issue. Many state schools do not have the cash to send teams to competitions elsewhere. Perhaps the minister could address that too.
It is appropriate that we are debating debating in the chamber because the Parliament has a role to play on the issue. Since 1999, 24,000 children have visited the Scottish Parliament to watch the debates and take advantage of our education service. There are nearly 800,000 children in Scotland, so we have a long way to go before they have all visited us. However, it is in all our interests to get as many children as possible through our doors to let them see how things work. If they visit, I hope that they go and try debating in their towns and schools. We can help to boost people's confidence in Scotland.
This has been an excellent afternoon for democracy. In the previous debate, an intelligent amendment from the SNP was intelligently accepted by the coalition powers that be, which is rare and welcome. Following that, we had an intelligent motion and speech from a Tory. Today has shown that we all have our good points.
I congratulate Brian Monteith on securing this debate. I also congratulate the English-Speaking Union on the work that it has done to promote debating. Further, I congratulate North Lanarkshire Council on its enlightened attitude to this matter. I have congratulated North Lanarkshire Council several times recently, which is quite worrying, in a way. Seriously, though, its efforts are to be welcomed.
We have all benefited from learning about debating. I learned a lot about it at school. I did not go in for university debating because, on the one or two occasions on which I went along, I found the debates to be entirely full of chancers who were trying to work out whether they could have a better career in the Tory party or the Labour Party—none of them considered the Liberal Democrats because that was in the 1950s, when we did not exist. Instead of running for office, I stuck to running. Of course, I have failed to attain office, so perhaps I should have done more debating and less running.
I learned some lessons from school debating. For example, I was once offended when some former pupils who were at university came back to debate at our school as big guests and spent all of their time rubbishing the other side instead of coming up with constructive ideas of their own. I said, "That is not for me." I suppose that I learned a negative lesson that day. I learned another negative lesson on another occasion. The master in charge of the school debating society was an extremely charming and nice man but totally incompetent administratively, which meant that none of his arrangements ever worked. Because of that, some of my colleagues and I moved a vote of no confidence in him, which caused him to resign. However, the masters and teachers had solidarity with each other and none would take his place, so we had humbly to crawl back to him and ask him back again. From that, I learned that one should never have a coup unless one has a plan B. I have never organised a coup since, so that was a useful lesson.
As others have said, Scots often lack self-confidence and I think that debating can give them that confidence and help develop articulacy. The stand up, speak up and shut up lesson is valuable.
I think that we should encourage debating in primary schools. It might be a bit of a generalisation but—based on my limited experience of speaking to children who visit the Parliament—I find that primary school children are more articulate and ask much more intelligent questions than the secondary school pupils do. It is a commonplace observation that, somehow, our young people—especially the young males—lose the plot in their first couple of years at secondary school. If we can get them harnessed in primary school, we would do them and us a lot of good.
I look forward to living long enough to see some of those young people entering this Parliament, debating with great skill and being less negative and party-politically hostile than we, regrettably, are. It might be possible for us thereby to arrive at a genuine democracy wherein people, not political parties, run the country.
I congratulate Brian Monteith on obtaining this debate and thank him for his opening remarks. I also thank members around the chamber for their remarks. There is a broad consensus on the value of debating, and that is immensely welcome. I enjoyed some of the reminiscences, and I am relieved that Donald Gorrie is not plotting another coup—that is of some comfort to me.
As members rightly said, many important benefits can be attributed to debating, including improved powers of argument, critical thinking, communication skills, self-esteem and team working. I suppose that those benefits could be encapsulated under the heading "active citizenship". I entirely agree that debating makes an important contribution to the development of those general skills and competencies in children and young people and that those skills and competencies are an important part of Scottish education.
Clearly, the curriculum has an important part to play and, as we announced on 1 November, there will be changes to the curriculum, with a three-to-18 curriculum for the first time. I am grateful for the support of parties throughout the Parliament for many of the ideas that are contained in the curriculum review and "ambitious, excellent schools". Learning and Teaching Scotland has developed materials to support teachers in equipping children from three to 18 with appropriate skills. Members will be familiar with some of the materials that are available on personal and social development, religious and moral education and social subjects, which promote thoughtful and responsible participation in political, economic, social and cultural life.
I agree with the point that was made about how intense and active the questioning can be when members go to primary schools. As Donald Gorrie said, there is a tail-off in secondary schools, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking to free up the curriculum and provide more space in it for activities such as debating.
I agree with what the minister says, but will he assure us that the Executive will actively intervene to drive school debating forward? It gave a generous contribution to North Lanarkshire Council, but is it prepared to make similar contributions to other local authorities in Scotland and actively to encourage debating, perhaps not least by holding a competition here in the Parliament?
On the latter point, a competition in the Parliament is more a matter for the parliamentary authorities. I will move on to the North Lanarkshire pilot in a moment.
I briefly mention pupil councils, because they are an important development and debates go on within them. In such councils we want pupils to have involvement in decision making; in coming to a decision one needs debating skills, and school councils provide a good focus for such skills.
There is a crucial point to be added. Pupils can have all the debating skills in the world, but if school councils do not have budgets so that they can take real decisions, all that pupils will learn is that democracy does not work, because nothing will happen after their debates.
That is an important point, and that is why in our proposals for extending devolved school management we say to head teachers and teachers that they are free to make decisions on the allocation of budgets. We envisage an important role for school councils and I appreciate that the decisions that they take must be followed through.
It is not only in the curriculum that there are chances for young people to develop. They can develop skills and confidence in extracurricular activity and, as members know, we have allocated funding to local authorities under the study support programme since 1999—this year, we committed £12 million. We also fund the Scottish study support network, which is based at the University of Strathclyde and which shares good practice and innovation. We have commissioned an evaluation of the study support programme, which will explore the range and impact of activities that take place in our schools. In taking from this debate the importance of debating skills, I will look to see how they feature in that evaluation, which is due to report in March 2005.
As members will know, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 changed the focus from processes to outcomes. Indeed, to use the four phrases in the curriculum review, the purpose of the curriculum is to make young people "successful learners", "confident individuals", "responsible citizens" and "effective contributors". Given the fit with each of those categories, debating and allied skills have a clear role in the curriculum of the future.
As Robin Harper mentioned, active listening is a skill that is complementary to debating and, as Richard Lochhead pointed out, the ability to hear and understand the other person's point of view is important if one is to present one's own arguments in a way that will convince the other person of one's particular view.
Richard Lochhead also put his finger on an important point about participation, which I will consider carefully. There is some encouraging evidence of greater participation in debating by the state school sector, but there is some way to go. I hope that the curriculum developments, and the initiatives such as the one in North Lanarkshire—which I will come to in a moment—will stimulate greater activity.
On the Scottish Youth Parliament, which Keith Raffan mentioned, I think that we need a refresh. We are in discussion with the Scottish Youth Parliament about a number of ways in which we could, as it were, raise the game. The Scottish Youth Parliament has made a good start, but all sorts of things are required in order to bring it on a stage further. I look forward to further discussion on that.
I am sure that the minister did not mean to be condescending when he said that we need to refresh the Scottish Youth Parliament. From the performances that I have seen, I think that some of its members could refresh us.
My intention was not to be condescending about the quality of the Scottish Youth Parliament's work but to say that the organisational side needs some refreshing. We need to consider how we can help with that and how we engage with it. We have engaged to an extent but not as much as we should have done.
Next year will provide some important opportunities for the involvement of young people in major events. Young people will come to Edinburgh to attend the J8 summit, which will precede the G8 summit. I hope that that will provide an opportunity to encourage young people to present their views to G8 leaders in some way, shape or form.
Scotland will also host the important world youth congress next year, which will be attended by about 600 delegates from, I think, 120 or more countries around the world. The delegates will not simply come to one central point but will go around Scotland. They will share their experiences by working on individual projects, which local authorities and other organisations are developing.
Debate and discussion form an important part of the world youth congress. I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to go to Morocco to accept the flag—it is actually a conch shell rather than a flag—to bring it back to Scotland. The next congress thereafter will be in Beijing. The important point about the congress is that it will allow young people to engage in debate on a world stage with young people from 120 countries. That important initiative will require some major effort.
I draw the minister's attention to the Scottish children's parliament, which is a wonderful development. It has a lovely model that involves 20 little children's parliaments around the country. We had an impressive presentation here on the Scottish children's parliament about six weeks ago.
I am aware of that work. We need to understand further what has been happening with it and to take it on further if we can.
I welcome the English-Speaking Union's work with local authorities, which I have been fully aware of since meeting the organisation's Scottish director last March. Indeed, Jedburgh Grammar School in my constituency reached the second round of the ESU competition in 2003-04. Like other members, I am also aware that organisations other than the ESU promote debating and I am grateful for their work. My elder daughter participated in a debating competition, so I know that many organisations are involved.
Margaret Mitchell rightly mentioned the ESU North Lanarkshire outreach programme. We are waiting to see what happens with that important development. We were pleased to have been able to help with it, not just yesterday but a while ago. We shall take the lessons from what happens in North Lanarkshire and look carefully at how that programme—and young people's debating skills—has been developed across the whole council area.
Developments are also taking place in other areas. In Fife, for example, Madras College in St Andrews, Bell Baxter Academy in Cupar and Waid Academy in Anstruther are running competitions. There is an annual conference on international issues, which is attended by young people from most of the 26 secondary schools in North Lanarkshire, and lots of activities are going on in connection with debating and debating competitions. All of those developments are welcome. They contribute to the confidence of young people throughout Scotland, and we need to ensure the confidence of our young people in the future. When we look ahead, we see how many fewer young people there will be in a few years' time. The figures and demographic trends are quite alarming and we need to equip our young people, through the education system and through out-of-hours activities, with all the skills that they will need. Debating is one of the skills that will lead to greater confidence in future.
I reiterate our support for the work of the English-Speaking Union and I welcome the outreach work in North Lanarkshire. I look forward to seeing the results of that work in due course and to hearing about its progress and about how we can develop things thereafter.
Meeting closed at 17:57.