Young People
The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-943, in the name of Peter Peacock, on a better deal for young people, and on two amendments to that motion.
I have made clear in the chamber before how much the Executive values the rich contribution that Scotland's young people make to our national life. We value the selfless contributions that they make as carers and volunteers and as active participants in a range of activities, benefiting their own development and enriching local and national life. We must continue to celebrate the contribution that our young people make.
However, many of our young people encounter barriers to their full participation in our society and face many challenges and risks through the early years of their lives. Today, I want to focus on how we can deliver a better deal for those young people. In particular, I want to set out the plans that we are putting in place to review our children's hearings system.
Before moving on, I will deal with the amendments, so that I can give myself space to talk more fully about matters relating to the children's hearings system. We will not accept the Tory amendment, because we think that what it proposes would do more harm than good to our young people.
The Scottish National Party amendment relates to adult justice, which is not the subject of today's debate. The amendment rather presupposes that ministers did not give full and careful consideration to what we knew would be a controversial decision on the Airborne Initiative. Such decisions are never taken lightly; they are only ever taken after careful and detailed consideration of the issues.
Sometimes, difficult decisions have to be taken and in this case the decision has been taken not to continue funding for that project at the end of the current three-year funding period in March. That has been done partly on value-for-money grounds, but also in order to achieve greater throughput of offenders to other appropriate programmes and to strengthen provision for drug-misusing offenders in particular. Let me make it clear that the money released because of that decision will not be used as a saving to the taxpayer; it will be available for investment in other programmes and projects that will deliver the range of services that we need to help to cope with a particularly challenging group in our society.
We are already active in finding non-custodial routes to dealing with offenders, both youth and adult. We have made record investment in community disposals and we are investing a further £10 million in diversionary activities in the community through the antisocial behaviour measures. In addition to that, we are investing £3 million to double the restorative justice programmes that we have in place and £13 million in intensive community-based support programmes to support and help people on antisocial behaviour orders and tagging orders to stay out of custody.
In the adult sector, funding will increase by 100 per cent in the five years to 2005-06. We are committed to the national roll-out of drug treatment and testing orders by 2005 and to national coverage of restriction-of-liberty orders. The Executive is extremely active in finding alternatives in the community to custodial sentences. The Airborne Initiative is one project that was doing that, but for the reasons that I have set out we will not be continuing its funding, so we shall not support the SNP amendment.
More than half our young people are going on to further and higher education; youth unemployment in new deal groups has fallen by 63 per cent in the past four years; absolute levels of child poverty have halved in recent years; the number of teenage pregnancies is falling; the number of permanent exclusions from schools are also falling; and exam results and literacy skills are improving. However, there is still much to be done to deliver a better deal for all our young people.
Sometimes young people need extra help to cope with barriers and difficulties in life. Sometimes the behaviour of some young people is challenging and needs managed or is simply unacceptable and needs dealt with. We are determined to ensure that children and young people get the help and protection that they need when they need it. For those who need that support, we are already investing in the provision of a wide range of services. Sure start's support for vulnerable families with young children, the youth justice system, which diverts young people away from crime and tackles the offending behaviours of those who get involved in offending, and support for those with barriers to learning are but a few examples of where we are making a difference for our young people.
However, as I said, we need to do more. That is why we have established a Cabinet delivery group of senior ministers to look at the delivery of improvements in children's services. That group, which I chair, will identify and tackle issues on which, across the Executive, we need to work together more effectively. We need to link our work to that of the many agencies that are our partners in service delivery in the community.
First, the Cabinet group is in the process of refreshing our vision for children and young people. Secondly, we are working to make our delivery systems more effective, by exploring how we can simplify and make more transparent our systems for funding, planning and decision making. Thirdly, we are working to give greater prominence to the central importance of information sharing. There are clear circumstances in which information needs to be shared with other professionals to ensure that the best possible support or interventions are available for individual children, which is particularly crucial when there are anxieties about a child's safety.
The minister may be aware of the concerns that have been expressed on a number of occasions about the restrictions that the Data Protection Act 1998 could place on professionals seeking to ensure the very protection that he is talking about. Will he consider the impact of data protection legislation on the professionals he has mentioned?
Absolutely. We are investing, through the modernising government fund, to enable secure sharing of data among service providers while protecting people's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. We are also developing guidance to issue to all those involved to make it clear when it is entirely appropriate to share information and not breach the terms of data protection legislation. That work is going on as I speak and we hope to issue the guidance very soon to ensure that nobody is caught out by any doubts or misinterpretations of the situation.
The fourth area that the Cabinet group is working on involves consideration of what more needs to be done to ensure that we have a well-trained work force to work with our young people. We must have a work force with the skills and support that it needs to deliver the range of services that our children require. We have taken several steps to start that process. For example, we have established the Scottish Social Services Council, which has set a minimum qualifications level for people working in child care. We are investing heavily in the recruitment and training of new social workers and, in the past two weeks, Euan Robson has announced a further continuation of our fast-track recruitment of social workers, which is bearing good results and will continue to do so in years to come.
The fifth area that we are developing is quality assurance and independent inspection of services. We lead the world in the self-evaluation and inspection systems used in our schools, but we do not routinely inspect the quality of front-line social work services or children's services that are provided between agencies. In the past, we have not had clear standards and expectations of what should be provided, so we are developing plans for inspection and quality assurance across children's services. We have focused our initial attention on setting a framework for standards for child protection and I plan to announce details of progress on those matters next month. That is all part of our effort to provide a better deal for young people.
We had a full debate on child protection at the end of last year and I do not intend to repeat the account of all the work that is being undertaken to drive forward essential reform of our child protection services. However, I will say more about one area to which we attach the highest importance: our unique children's hearings system, which makes a significant contribution to our work and that of all other agencies working with children and young people.
The children's hearings system seeks to give all children referred to it a better deal. It seeks to tackle the problems of those who are most vulnerable, those who are offending and those who face hardship, abuse and other risks that blunt their lives. Where the system works—and it frequently does—it offers support and brings about positive change for children. Panel members report no greater satisfaction in their work than seeing a child who has come through the system turn his or her life around as a consequence.
The balance of cases coming to reporters in the hearings system has changed significantly over the years. Many more children are being referred today on care and welfare grounds. Many of those cases are extremely complex, with an increasing proportion of the children affected by drug abuse in their families.
Too many children are not getting the service that they require. We know that in 22 per cent of a number of cases that we examined no social worker was attached to the family for a period of several months after a disposal from the panel. Quite simply, that is not good enough. Action is already under way across a range of issues to make improvements. I have already touched on the fast-track recruitment and training of social workers. Fast-track hearings are also being piloted; they are showing the impact that co-ordinated and targeted resources can have on the more persistent young offenders. Youth justice teams have been established in each local authority area and specific programmes to address offending behaviour are being put in place. National standards for youth justice will be in place by 2006, but we recognise that we must examine all our approaches and do so without any fear.
Although between 2001-02 and 2002-03 the number of children who were referred for offences seems to have dropped, there was an increase of more than 10 per cent in the number of those who have 10-plus offences—the most serious cases with which the children's panels deal. In view of the substantial rise in that group, how does the minister intend to address the needs of those who are particularly at risk of repeat offending?
There are many things that we seek to do for those young people, through the work of Margaret Curran and others. One reason why we introduced the fast-track pilots in the children's hearings system was to try to ensure that we made a bigger impact on that group. The early evidence shows that fast-track hearings can indeed have an impact on reducing offending among those young people. We want to examine seriously the outcomes of the pilots and see how we roll forward that work over the coming period of time.
Our hearings system was established more than 30 years ago, following work completed by Lord Kilbrandon 40 years ago this year. Since Lord Kilbrandon reported, much has changed. The challenges that we face and the patterns of behaviour in the community have changed, yet the system has never been reviewed. We need to look constructively and critically at how the system is operating and where and how it might be made more effective.
The partnership agreement states that we will hold on to the "fundamental principles" of the system and this we will do. However, we should also take the opportunity at the start of the 21st century to look at how those principles fit with today's society. We will formally launch the review of the hearings system next month and we are keen for all sectors of Scottish society to participate. Clearly, people in the system will have many ideas to contribute, which we will welcome, but we also need to ensure that the wider public understand the system and endorse its approach to improving the lives of children and communities. We will therefore be starting the review process with a wide and open discussion across Scotland.
The review will concern the main principles of the system and what we need it to do for Scotland in the future. Ministers will hold consultation events the length and breadth of Scotland in early summer to facilitate public discussion. We will highlight the issues facing the hearings system and provide opportunities for the system's principles and what the review seeks to achieve to be explained. We will help others to arrange local events across the country to engage as many people as possible in the process.
The purpose of that first phase is to seek reaffirmation of the core principles of our system and to invite suggested changes and improvements. The process will help to inform the kind of hearings system that we need for the 21st century. In the autumn of this year, we will conduct a more detailed consultation on the specific changes and improvements that we need to deliver that system. We will then develop plans to implement those changes as quickly as possible. If necessary, we will seek to legislate later in this session of Parliament.
Looked-after children are a group in our community who require particular attention and support. There are more than 11,000 looked-after children in Scotland. We know who the children in the group are—we know each and every one of them. We know that they are disproportionately likely to do less well at school. We know that they are more likely to become homeless, to be unemployed, to get into drug and alcohol misuse and to spend time in prison.
That is why we have invested £10 million to begin the process of improving the educational attainment of looked-after children as a basis for enhancing their life prospects. Every school will have a designated teacher to champion the needs of the looked-after children in that school. It is crucial that we have ambition for that group of young people. We have set a target that each young person leaving care should have at least a standard grade in English and mathematics. Currently, only around a quarter of our care leavers achieve that, which is simply not good enough.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
As I have already given way to Fiona Hyslop, I will give way to Lord James.
I call Fiona Hyslop.
No, I am giving way to Lord James.
I am happy to allow Fiona Hyslop to intervene.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I appreciate what the Executive is saying about looked-after children. However, we seem to be setting lower standards for looked-after children than for other children. We need to look beyond that. The other serious concern about looked-after children is the lack of co-ordination between different departments and services. Looked-after children are being failed. We have promises from the minister, but we need firm action instead of visions and expectations.
I take the rare opportunity to agree with Fiona Hyslop, at least on her first point. We are saying clearly that we are not doing enough for those young people. That is why we are investing in resources, particularly in learning resources, to try to ensure that we give those young people the foundations that will help them to thrive throughout the rest of their lives. There is much more that we need to do, which is why we are also investing in packages for care leavers to help them in the transition from care to adult life. As I said, we are committed to doing much more and I am grateful for the Parliament's support for all our efforts in that regard.
I see that the Presiding Officer is looking at me menacingly.
Not in the least this morning. We have time.
In that case, I am happy to give way to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Before the minister finishes his speech, will he state his position on the mandatory drug testing of young children in schools?
We take extremely seriously the issues of drug use and drug supply in schools. We want those issues to be tackled in the most effective ways possible. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton might not be aware of this, but earlier this week I wrote to the head teachers' associations in Scotland asking them whether they thought that there were any powers that they did not have. If, in due course, they respond by telling me that they would like further powers at school level, that is something that we will consider. I want to pursue the matter in a considered way, having consulted the head teachers—the key people who have to make decisions about those matters.
I think that Keith Raffan also sought to intervene. I will take his intervention now.
I wanted to ask about truancy. There are some excellent anti-truancy projects, not least the one in Alloa, of which the minister might be aware. Will he say how those projects could be broadened out? Truancy is a particular problem in relation to looked-after children. Intervention in the school environment is needed in order to prevent a continuation of the cycle of reoffending.
I take this opportunity to agree with Keith Raffan. One thing that we are seeking to address much more effectively in schools is the whole business of truancy. We are doing so partly through the development of a better school curriculum that has more flexibility, choice and vocational options so that young people can increasingly choose a path in the education system that suits their attributes and aspirations while ensuring that they have the core skills that will carry them throughout their lives.
Beyond that, a range of measures is being put in place in schools across Scotland to deal with young people who are beginning to show signs of truancy. Home-school link workers are one example, as is the project to which Keith Raffan referred. In Scottish education, we have not traditionally been good at taking examples of good practice where they occur—indeed, excellent practice is to be found in many, many schools—and rolling it out effectively. That is one of the roles that we seek to ensure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education undertakes. We want to do much more to ensure that good practice is shared generally throughout the education system so that the good lessons that have been learned in tackling truancy, for example, can be applied more widely.
The minister might be aware that there are some difficulties in accessing child psychological services. That has become an on-going problem for a number of young people in a number of areas. Will he undertake to consult all his ministerial colleagues and discuss with them how improvements and connections can be made?
Karen Gillon raises an important point. As part of the overall system, child psychologists are crucial at certain periods. A lack of child psychologists in the system can lead to delays in making appropriate interventions to support young people. We are clear about that. We are not just looking at the issue, but taking action to improve the supply of child psychologists in the system—we are determined that we will do that and optimistic that we can achieve it. It takes some time to train the necessary staff and to give them the professional skills that they require in our schools, but we are well on the way to addressing the problem.
We are clear about our commitment to get a better deal for our young people in Scotland. We have put in place sound policies and an ambitious programme of modernisation to tackle areas in which we think further progress is required. We will not flinch from the difficult decisions that are required to modernise and better support and protect our young people. We have great young people in Scotland. Every day we are making progress to secure the better deal for our young people to which I hope all members aspire. I commend the motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament values the very positive contribution made by Scotland's young people and is committed to ensuring that they have the opportunities and support that they need to develop their skills and talents and participate fully and actively; supports the Scottish Executive's commitment to working with young people, their families and communities, with the newly appointed Children's Commissioner, and with those responsible for service delivery, to provide high quality universal services and targeted support for the most vulnerable; welcomes the Executive's commitment to helping looked after children make the transition to successful, independent adulthood, to ensuring that all children are safe from abuse and neglect, to addressing offending behaviour and to reviewing the Children's Hearings system to develop and improve the current service; recognises that young people are often predominantly the victims of anti-social behaviour, and welcomes the Executive's commitment to tackling it more effectively.
The debate is welcome. It is important that we focus on the positive contribution that the overwhelming majority of young people make to society as well as on the trouble that is caused by a minority. I commend the Executive for so doing.
It is worth reminding ourselves that for every young offender in Scotland there are many more young people who are vulnerable and neglected, who need support and not chastisement and whose needs we as a society continue to fail to meet as effectively as we should. If we supported vulnerable children better, I think that we would do much more to tackle youth crime than we will ever achieve through punitive measures alone.
To improve support for young people, we have to face up to the challenges that confront us, which include the fact that vacancies for qualified social workers and other posts in children's services are high and continue to rise. Local authorities estimate that there is a £150 million shortfall in funding for children's services. Although the number of looked-after children in Scotland represents around 1 per cent of all young people under the age of 18, there remains a shortage of foster places for youngsters who desperately need the stability and normality of family life. My colleagues will address many of those points during the debate.
The focus of the amendment in my name is deliberately narrow. The amendment calls on the Executive to "reconsider"—I stress that word—
"its decision to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative."
I am pleased to say that that point of view has attracted considerable cross-party support. Today is the first opportunity to debate in Parliament what is an extremely contentious and controversial decision. It is appropriate that that opportunity has been taken.
Any comprehensive strategy on young people must seek to tackle the offending behaviour of a minority of young people. That means that it must focus on preventing young people from becoming offenders in the first place. However, it must do more than that. It must also embrace the notion that a young person, once he or she starts to offend, is not necessarily a lost cause. We must always look for the best and most effective ways of addressing and challenging the offending behaviour of young people; we must find the best ways of making young people face up to their behaviour and try to change it.
It is a fact of life, however sad, that for some young offenders prison is the best and the only option. However, for many offenders prison is not the best or the most effective option, yet—proportionately—in Scotland we send more people to prison than almost any other country in Europe. The latest figures, which were published earlier this week, show that the prison population is continuing to rise—it is up another 2 per cent on the last figures. Nearly 1,000 young offenders are in Scottish prisons right now.
Sending more and more people to prison might not be a problem if it were having a positive effect on levels of crime and reoffending, but it is not. Scotland has one of the worst reoffending rates in Europe and, as we know, violent crime is increasing. The truth is that for many offenders—particularly young offenders—prison just does not work. Short-term prison sentences especially do not work. Offenders go in, they come out, they reoffend and they go straight back in through a revolving door.
That is why there must be—I know that the Executive agrees and that it is committed to this—a range of alternatives to custody for courts to consider. It is important to stress that alternatives to custody are not soft options. In fact, many alternatives to custody are much more demanding and challenging than short-term prison sentences, which do little in the way of rehabilitation.
I agree with Nicola Sturgeon on the cycle of reoffending. Does she, too, think it interesting that the former chief inspectors of prisons for England and Wales, Stephen Tumim and Sir David Ramsbotham—particularly in his latest and quite remarkable book—and Clive Fairweather up here and Derek Lewis down there have all talked about exactly what we are talking about, which is sending fewer people to prison and breaking the cycle of reoffending by getting kids and young adults into training and education in prison?
Keith Raffan's point is extremely valuable and important. Later, I will talk about what I consider to be the formidable expert opinion in Scotland in support of that approach to tackling reoffending—an approach that is seen in initiatives such as Airborne.
The problem with prison—especially short-term prison sentences—is that, because it does not challenge the offending behaviour of prisoners, it is not as successful as many alternatives to custody in reducing reoffending. Any penal policy worth its salt must be effective as well as tough and any strategy for young people must include a range of measures, because there is no single solution. There must be a range of measures that are designed not just to contain the minority of young people who offend, but to challenge and change their behaviour.
In its public statements, the Executive agrees with that. The motion rightly refers to "addressing offending behaviour" and the Minister for Justice claims to be committed to reducing the prison population and tackling reoffending. Against that backdrop, the decision to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative seems perverse.
The Airborne Initiative offers a tough and intensive alternative to custody for some of the most difficult and persistent young offenders in the country. There has been a great deal of comment about the infamous "Chancers" documentary, which some say showed Airborne in a bad light. However, given the type of offender the initiative deals with, it is no surprise that the project has encountered problems and challenges along the way and that it does not succeed in rehabilitating every young person who comes its way. For a programme that deals with high-tariff offenders, particularly in the age group that it deals with, a high drop-out rate goes with the territory.
Nevertheless, the success of Airborne has been impressive and has been improving. People who complete the course are less likely to reoffend than others who are sent to prison or who receive other community-based sentences. A study for the Executive completed in 2000 by researchers at the University of Stirling suggested that the reconviction rates for those who attended Airborne were 21 per cent less than for those who received alternative sentences. It also concluded that Airborne provided
"a valuable addition to the range of non-custodial options available to the courts."
Okay, that was four years ago and I accept that there is an argument that time has moved on. However, since then, Airborne has been praised by the Scottish Executive. Only a few months ago, Justice Department officials wrote to the outgoing chairman praising him for his good work and the progress that had been made by the initiative. I understand that a report by the social work services inspectorate—although I do not know, because it has not been published—identifies significant progress and improvement in the service that Airborne is providing.
That brings me back to Keith Raffan's point. In addition to the views of the management and staff of Airborne and the graduates of the programme—although I suppose that it could be said that they are bound to stick up for it—there is a significant and formidable body of expert opinion in Scotland that is adamant that the Executive has got it wrong. Twenty-three respected individuals in Scotland, including a former High Court judge, academics, businessmen, the former bishop of Edinburgh and former prison inspectors of both Scotland and England have put their names to a letter supporting the Airborne Initiative and are part of the campaign to persuade the Scottish Executive to change its mind.
In his opening remarks, Peter Peacock said that the decision on Airborne was well considered. Although I accept that the Executive may have more information than is available in the public domain, all we have had from ministers—who, as far as I am aware, have not so much as visited the initiative—is an assertion that the initiative does not provide value for money. Not a scrap of hard evidence has been offered to back that up. The figures cited by Airborne of £116 per week for a place on the programme—albeit when it is full—compared with £574 per week for a prison place have never been challenged by the Scottish Executive.
I welcome the SNP's support for Airborne. Unfortunately, that support was not evident in the constituency when Airborne was facing a difficult move to Braidwood House. The absence of the SNP and list members was notable. Will Nicola Sturgeon say on how many occasions the Airborne Initiative has been full?
Last year was the second best year for participation in the Airborne Initiative, but the fact that the programme has had problems and has found it difficult to reach full capacity does not render it worthless. As I said, the nature of the programme and the nature of the offenders it deals with almost make it inevitable that problems will exist. However, where there is evidence that something is worth while and is making a contribution to solving a problem—and although Airborne is by no stretch of the imagination making the only or even the biggest contribution, it is making a worthy contribution—I suggest that the Scottish Executive should turn its mind to addressing how to help it to solve its problems, rather than simply pull the rug from under it.
As the principal funder of the project, the Scottish Executive would be quite within its rights to insist on changes to the operating methods of Airborne, but it has not done so. Instead, it has asserted, with no evidence, that the initiative does not provide value for money. I have just cited the figures of £116 a week when the project is full. Even if the project is only half-full, the costs would still be almost half the cost of a prison place. To my knowledge, the Scottish Executive has never challenged the figures. What people object to is the fact that a decision has been taken that does not appear to be based on hard, solid evidence.
In any event—this is the point on which I will close—there is a danger that week-for-week comparisons miss the point. Someone who is referred to Airborne, or any project remotely like it, is, at the point of referral, heading for a life of crime—a life in and out of prison with all the costs that that will entail over a number of years for the public purse. Even if Airborne is not successful all the time, when it is successful it prevents that from happening. I listened to a chap yesterday who had gone through the Airborne project. He had been in and out of prison, but is now in employment and about to set up his own business. When the project is successful, it turns people who would otherwise spend most of their lives in jail into citizens who make a contribution to society, get jobs and pay taxes. How can that be quantified in pounds and pence?
My amendment asks the Scottish Executive not to make a snap judgment today to reverse the decision, but to reflect on the arguments that are being made in support of Airborne—and on the expertise of those making them—and to think again. The amendment asks for common sense and a listening ear and I hope that members of all parties can unite to support it.
I move amendment S2M-943.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Executive, as part of its overall strategy to address the offending behaviour of young people, to reconsider its decision to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative."
My interests are as registered in the register of members' interests. I welcome the debate this morning. Having read the Executive's motion, I see that it touches on many areas that impact on young people.
Although the First Minister has restated continually that education is a key priority and although he talks about youth crime, it is obvious that the Executive is failing to deliver on its promises, such as its manifesto pledges on primary school pupil attainment in reading, writing and mathematics. The fact is that young people, parents, teachers and taxpayers are getting a raw deal. Teachers involved with children are getting a raw deal through more bureaucracy and paperwork, and violence against them has soared under Labour, regardless of whether the Minister for Education and Young People blames the statistics. Parents of children are getting a raw deal as they have little input in their child's education and few have genuine choice. Children, parents and taxpayers are getting a raw deal, because there have been record levels of investment with little to show for it apart from increases in violence, truancy and indiscipline. There is now an attack on a member of school staff every 12 minutes of the school day, which is unacceptable.
Most important is the fact that young people feel alienated because attainment remains too low and violence against pupils is too high. Now it appears that the First Minister is warming to the Prime Minister's plan to allow random drug tests. We will be very interested to hear the First Minister's answer to Keith Raffan's question later to see whether it mirrors the reply that the Minister for Education and Young People gave Parliament this morning. It is the latest Labour plan, which can easily damage trust between teachers and pupils if applied inappropriately. Carrying out tests without parents' authorisation could be a questionable policy.
The best way for young people to get a better deal is for the Executive to understand that the current monolithic state structures need real, radical reform. If the Executive is serious about giving young people a better deal in education, it must give parents choice and head teachers more power through the schools passport policy. If the Executive is serious about tackling the problems of crime and disorder, it must deal effectively with young offenders, particularly those who offend persistently. That requires early intervention and the identification of parents who might be struggling to cope and whose children are therefore most at risk of becoming involved in crime.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton refers in his amendment to the schools passport policy. How much money from scarce public resources would go to the substantial subsidy for private schools?
The answer is none. If Mr Rumbles wants to intervene and contribute, he is welcome to do so, but we expect him to do a bit of homework first; then he can make a constructive contribution.
Let us take one example of where the state structures and central policies threaten common sense: the policy of class sizes of 20 for all secondary 1 and secondary 2 classes in English and maths. Some schools will agree that that is what is required, but other schools might have other priorities. Why not let the school's head teacher and school board decide how best to use the resources? That would give the best deal for every young person in school.
I welcome the Executive telling us that it is committed to the principles in the report "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". We support many of the report's recommendations, such as recommendation 17, which calls for a further national review of child protection in three years' time to discover what improvements have been made, and what has to be improved upon.
Nevertheless, I am saddened by the facts laid before us. The percentage of looked-after children who attained standard grade English and maths fell this year, with only 36.4 per cent attaining them in 2002-03. That is a damning indictment; the Executive is failing most of those who have the greatest need.
I repeat my party's stance in welcoming the nomination of Kathleen Marshall as the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. She will raise to a much higher profile children's issues and interests, safeguard the rights of children and give children a stronger voice in Scotland.
It was interesting that YouthLink Scotland's research findings, "Being Young in Scotland in 2003" pointed out an area where we should do more work. The findings state:
"Young people's knowledge of local and national political structures is poor and this appears to reflect on their attitudes towards voting, with fewer than half agreeing that it is important to vote. This suggests that campaigns to tackle voter apathy need to target young people as well as older ones and may need to start with raising knowledge."
That is a message not just for the commissioner but for parliamentarians, teachers and parents.
Will the member give way?
I must move on to Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. We consider that it is right that we pause and reflect on the Airborne Initiative before any irrevocable decisions are allowed to stand. The announcement appears to have been a knee-jerk reaction, rather than a fully considered decision.
I will leave members with some wise words from Winston Churchill, who once said:
"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
Let us give all our young people a start to their future through innovative and high-quality education.
I move amendment S2M-943.2, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"acknowledges that having a strong economy with efficient and effective well-run public services benefits all in society, and specifically calls on the Executive to adopt the schools passport policy, which gives all schools the incentive to achieve and maintain high standards, thereby ensuring a better start in life for Scotland's young people."
I must confess that I liked Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's quotation from Winston Churchill; it was a good quotation that summed up the issues in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to open for the Liberal Democrats and to support Peter Peacock's motion. I also welcome the announcement about the review and the way in which it is to be approached. I will return to that in due course.
The Communities Committee is dealing with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and the arguments about the bill should be pursued in that context. It cannot be said too often that most young people do not offend and do not bother their neighbours. Young people are our future and it is of huge importance to our country to ensure that they have the opportunities and support that they need to develop their skills and talents.
The Education Committee is considering stage 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, which is designed to secure a better deal for young people with additional support needs. In recent weeks the committee, and individual members of it, have met inspirational young people and their parents, teachers, friends and supporters.
The opportunity to engage with young people is one of the huge privileges of being convener of the Education Committee. Last week I met the education committee of the Scottish Youth Parliament and the previous weekend I attended an event organised by the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum. As we all know—this has been mentioned in the debate—young people in care face more challenges than do any other group in society. Many of the people whom I met at the event had had a poor start in life and quite a few had been in trouble with the police, but they all had a remarkably optimistic approach and many of them wanted to put their personal experiences to use by becoming youth workers. They were all a tribute to what can be done when the proper mechanisms are in place to support young people who have had that starting point in life.
Behind today's motion is an emphasis on helping children who are at risk. I welcome the commitment, which echoes the partnership agreement, to renew, develop and improve the children's hearings system. The children's hearings system, which treats children and young people as being in need of care and protection regardless of the reason for their appearance before the panel, is one of Scotland's great jewels. I should point out that the system was recently applauded by the Scottish committee of the Council on Tribunals as a model of what a tribunal system should be. The panels recognise that the ned of 15 or 16 is pretty likely to have been the child who suffered parental neglect or abuse at the age of six. Concentration on that matter should make those who have knee-jerk reactions to youth crime pause for thought.
It would be wrong to pre-empt the review but it is clear that the main problems for the hearings system in recent years have been to do with resources, in relation to the social workers who are available to support it, and the lack of alternative disposals that offer young people routes out of the restrictions of their home life and the poor start that they have had, meaning that they have not had the opportunities that others take for granted to build confidence and develop talent. The minister said that 22 per cent of people who go before the panels do not have social work reports. Unfortunately, the situation is patchy across Scotland and the problem is focused on areas such as Glasgow, where there is a significant shortage of social workers. I believe that people are still being brought back to the panels after three months to determine whether anyone has dealt with them in the meantime.
Against that background, the decision by the Justice Department to close down the Airborne Initiative is regrettable. I hope that the minister will be prepared to consider that matter further, although I am aware that it is not his departmental responsibility. Such issues are never black and white, but the voluntary sector is cursed by structural funding problems and is under constant pressure to reinvent the wheel. In the Social Justice Committee, in the first session of the Parliament, we talked with Margaret Curran about the revolving door syndrome in relation to drug addicts, homeless people and repeat criminals, but it also applies to voluntary sector projects. The unique experience that they have built up over years of work is lost due to their closure and the dispersal—if I can use that word in this context—of staff.
As Nicola Sturgeon said in her extremely moderate speech, the Airborne Initiative deals with a hugely difficult clientele—young people who have failed repeatedly and whom the system has failed—and is clearly more effective in terms of costs and results than is sending people to jail.
The issue must be considered in a wider context; it is not simply a matter of one project. The difficulty is that we must compare apples with apples. We need to be clear about what the research is, what the background is, what works and what does not work. I am well aware that the Executive has supported an increasing number of projects to try to deal with this area but, nevertheless, the Airborne Initiative is an example of why we should not commit ourselves to one particular approach. We need a basket of arrangements that will help various sorts of people in different contexts.
The minister is well aware that a wide range of eminent and knowledgeable people have expressed concern about the Airborne Initiative's loss of funding. In that regard, I suggest to him and to the Minister for Justice that it would be worth while to remit the issue to a suitable committee of the Parliament that could examine the project's record and the minister's criticisms of it, report on the issues—perhaps in the wider context that I have spoken about—and address the issue of whether an Airborne mark 2 might be created with the aim of improving the service while keeping together the expertise of the staff. That might require continued funding for a period, but I think that it would be an honourable way forward that would suit the mentality of the Scottish Parliament.
That is an excellent suggestion and, like Robert Brown, I hope that the ministers will take it seriously.
I thank Nicola Sturgeon for that intervention.
I would like to deal with the general principles of the debate. It is a bit of a pity that the debate has focused on the Airborne Initiative because the motion touches on wider issues. The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have much to be proud of in terms of their record on children and young people. We have taken action to help children in care and have supported with funding and consideration educational services for those with additional support needs. We might want to do a bit more in relation to our support for youth organisations but we are awaiting the youth strategy, which will allow us to examine that aspect in context. Like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, we have welcomed the recent appointment of Kathleen Marshall as Scotland's first children's commissioner, following the work in the first session of the Parliament of Karen Gillon's Education, Culture and Sport Committee. All those developments are positive signs and are attributable to the existence of the Scottish Parliament and its ability to concentrate on such matters.
There is a considerable future ahead of our young people. It is crucial that we put in place resources and support mechanisms that will give all our children the opportunities that they might not have had in the past to enable them to develop their full potential to become citizens of the country in the most advantageous way and to develop their careers and perspectives as well as they can.
I would have loved simply to address the Executive's motion in the main part of my speech, as there are many elements in it that I support, and many issues that it raises that we need to address, but I am fuelled by a sense of urgency in relation to the Airborne Initiative, so I will be dedicating as much time as I can to that subject.
First, however, I would like to address a couple of the points that have been made so far. The minister has mentioned that a review of the children's hearings system will be undertaken, but I am worried by the fact that, apart from a brief mention in Robert Brown's speech, no one has so far dealt with the issue of social work. The problems that the children's panel system has faced over the past 20 or 30 years—since the Kilbrandon report, in fact—have been to do with a lack of social work provision. That is the problem that needs to be addressed. I think that merely setting up a committee to undertake yet another review of the children's hearings system is absolutely secondary to addressing the real problem. The minister referred to the fact that there is now a Cabinet delivery group, so I assume that the Education Department is working hand in hand with the Justice Department and social work departments on this matter, but I would like to hear from the minister exactly what the delivery group is saying about social work provision in relation to our attempts to help young people. I do not want to hear simply about a review and extra supports for the system—
I have some sympathy with what Robin Harper is saying about social work provision. However, does he accept that, in relation to the children's hearings system, local authority provision is equally important? One of the difficulties that we have had with the children's hearings system has been to do with the fact that disposals become the responsibility of the social work department rather than the local authority as a whole.
I absolutely accept that point and I would like the minister also to address that matter when he sums up.
All too often, people address structural matters rather than what is in front of them. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, for example, talked about examining the structures of education. My view is that our education and support system needs to take account of the needs of young people in relation to the experiences that they have at school. Why is it that many people play truant? What is it in our education system that causes young people not to turn up for what, for many of the poorest ones, should be their opportunity to improve their lives?
Will the member take an intervention on the issue of structures?
I am sorry, but I am in the middle of making a fairly important point, which links in with what I want to say about the Airborne Initiative.
The curriculum in our schools is placing ever greater restrictions on the ability of head teachers to develop a flexible ethos that allows children to be released into more positive experiences.
Several members have already mentioned how we should trust and respect our young people. Recent research from Cambridge that looked at young people in the United Kingdom—I am sure that it is also applicable to Scotland—showed that 75 per cent of young people are involved in some kind of volunteering.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to young people's interest in politics. The Cambridge research showed that 35 per cent of young people in the UK had signed a petition of one kind or another. Our young people are interested in engaging in society and in responding to political affairs. The issues in their schools may be quite minor, but young people get out there to argue their case, sign petitions and so on. However, given that many young people are turned off by politics, we need to look at what happens in schools. Instead of just being taught about politics, they need to be able to experience it.
You have one minute.
Oh, gosh.
That is where the Airborne Initiative comes in. As I have discussed with the minister on previous occasions, the level of outdoor education provision in Scotland has been declining, yet it has been accepted for years that, if we want to develop young people's self-esteem and self-confidence, outdoor education is one of the best experiences to which they can be exposed.
At the end of the debate, I want to hear the minister explain why he can find £10 million for extra help for children's panels, £13 million for intensive community work and a doubling in investment—that is, a 100 per cent increase—in extra programmes for adults who have been in trouble and have been sent to prison while, all of a sudden, he cannot continue to provide a mere £600,000 to Airborne. That just does not add up.
Airborne provides something that is absolutely unique. The Executive will be chucking out the baby with the bath water if the rug is pulled from under Airborne's feet. We have two weeks. I am happy to hear what Robert Brown said, but I am also happy that the SNP has lodged its amendment to the motion.
I have to hurry you.
I plead with the Executive to listen and to accept the SNP amendment.
I am glad that the very first line of the motion for debate this morning highlights
"the very positive contribution made by Scotland's young people".
It cannot be stressed often enough that the vast majority of young people engage constructively in their local communities. Like other members, I pay tribute to the young people who recently assisted us in appointing Kathleen Marshall as the commissioner for children and young people.
In the time that is available to me, I want to deal with two broad issues that affect young people: our education system in general and our children's hearings system in particular. However, before I do so, I want to pick up on Robin Harper's final point about the need for a commitment to outdoor education. Let me enlighten members who are not already aware of this that several local authorities, including my local authority in Fife, are still involved in running an outdoor education centre at Ardroy on the west coast of Scotland. I benefited from attending courses there when I was at school and I know that people continue to do so. We should consider the centre at Ardroy as a model.
Under Lothian Regional Council, there used to be an outdoor education teacher in almost every secondary school in Lothian. I believe that only two or three schools still have that as part of their timetable. The reality is that outdoor education provision in Scotland has declined over the past 20 years.
Obviously, I have no expertise from which I can speak about provision in the Lothians or by the City of Edinburgh Council, but the issue that Robin Harper has highlighted is perhaps just another good example of the reasons why people should move north of the Forth, where they could enjoy a much better education system and standard of living.
As usual, the Tory amendment is an attack on Scotland's comprehensive system of education. Let us be honest. The Tories have never supported comprehensive education and never tire of complaining about it. Whether they call their proposal "school passports" or use some other euphemism, the point remains that, whatever name they choose for it, the Tories' policy is to reintroduce some form of selective education.
I believe that every school in Scotland should be an excellent school and that a high-quality education should be available to all. That is why I believe in the comprehensive model. I am proud to have been educated at a comprehensive school, as, I am sure, are most members who are present in the chamber. The principles that created comprehensive education are as sound now as they were when I commenced high school some 30 years ago.
We all agree that we want all schools to be excellent, but the sad fact is that many schools are not. How does Scott Barrie respond to the members of his party who move house to live in the catchment area of a better school?
Given that parents have some choice over which school they apply to send their children to, it is not necessary for them to move house. Allowing the vast majority of young people to go to the school in the area in which they live is a much better model for driving up standards than encouraging people to choose a better education by either opting out of the state system or moving house.
If one examines the indicators that influence people about which school they wish their children to attend, one does not need to be a genius to work out that the schools that appear to do much better are schools such as—if we take my local education authority as an example—Madras College and Bell Baxter High School, which have much better catchment areas than other schools. We need to recognise the difficulties with some of our catchment areas and do something about them, rather than focus on trying to get more people into particular schools.
Will the member give way?
No. I have given way enough and I must press on.
I accept that there is a need for the system to be invigorated to meet the needs of our young people in the 21st century. Allied to that is the fact that only motivated pupils will fulfil their potential in the classroom and in later life. That is why the school curriculum needs to be reformed to increase student choice and to create a well-balanced core curriculum. The additional choices should include vocational training.
In the couple of minutes that I have remaining, I want to deal with the children's hearings system, whose role in assisting young people I was pleased to hear highlighted in the minister's opening speech. He was right to draw the distinction between those who appear at a hearing on offence grounds and those who appear on grounds of care and protection. As any children's panel member or social worker will confirm, the most difficult, traumatic and lengthiest hearings are those for which the grounds of referral are the care and protection of the young person. That is particularly the case where the person involved is very young.
I am pleased that there is to be a review of our children's hearings system. The last review took place in the lead-up to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which changed some elements of our child protection system. The old system's place of safety orders were replaced by child protection and child assessment orders, for which application must be made to the sheriff court rather than to a justice of the peace. The old system certainly needed updating, but the new system that was put in place is more onerous and bureaucratic.
I suggest that the new system sometimes does not protect children in the way that it should because it requires people to go through so many hoops to establish the grounds of referral. The review needs to look at that issue. We must be careful to take cognisance of the fact that, without an effective child protection system that protects those who are most vulnerable, all the other aspects of our children's hearings system will not function as well as they should.
It is good that we are having a wide-ranging debate this morning. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions in due course.
I welcome the opportunity that today's debate presents and Kathleen Marshall's appointment as the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. That is an excellent move. We wait in anticipation for the role to be fulfilled properly.
Like Robin Harper, I am concerned about the Airborne Initiative. I have much else to say, but I start by mentioning that, because I want to get in as quickly as I can the fact that I am happy to support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. The Executive has shown a pitiful lack of resolve in its support of the Airborne Initiative. The minister freely admits that the Executive is anxious to provide alternatives to custody and to get our prison population down. It is good to have alternatives to custody and we should be considering such things all the time. However, when we are provided with a real alternative aimed at the short-term repeat offenders whom the Scottish Prison Service admits it can do little with, the Executive throws in the towel. It is unfortunate that when we are scraping around looking for alternatives, a good one is closed down in the face of opposition. I hope that the opposition in the chamber today will be fierce.
I hope that the minister is not pulling the plug on the Airborne Initiative as the result of a television programme or of nimbyism and local opposition. I also hope that it is not being closed down on the ground of cost, which would be really unfortunate. Airborne has achieved much success and graduates of the initiative freely admit that, given the choice, they would rather have done their time at Low Moss prison because that would have been the easy option. Airborne is not an easy option but it is successful. The Scottish Socialist Party will support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment and I am pleased that she has lodged it.
I have made my plea for the Airborne Initiative and I hope that the minister will take it on board. I move on to the many points that I want to make in the debate.
We are aware that many of our young people are doing well, but there are lots of young people in our communities who are not doing so well. I will start with those young people who are looked after away from home. I was happy to hear the minister's comments about improvements to that situation. I have seen some of those improvements for myself and I know that teachers have now been appointed to support young people who are in local units between schools and the local care homes. However, there is no room for complacency.
One of the issues that we have with young people who are looked after away from home is the situation in which they find themselves in children's units. In many cases, the combination of young people in those units is not right. Often, vulnerable young people have to go into a unit where there are other young people who are out of control. We are reaping the results of local authorities not supporting alternative placements for young people with the most significant problems—those who need treatment, support and family support so that they can get back into mainstream schools. If we put a young person who is violent or has a drugs problem into a children's unit with a vulnerable child, there will be more abuse. Unfortunately, a lot of that happens in children's units in our communities.
We do not have permanent staff in such units and, often, the staff are not trained. That is not their fault, because there are people who are willing to be trained and who want to be permanent but who are moved from one place to another on short-term, temporary contracts. The system lacks continuity of care for children. It would be far better if we invested in professionally trained people and a proper system in which small units support children who, through no fault of their own, have to be looked after away from home. We must pay people a professional wage and give them professional training to achieve that.
We must also keep open alternative placements for children who are out of control. Those are a small minority of children, but they have a huge impact on other young people in and out of schools. It is time that we acknowledged the problem. Tagging such young people, as suggested in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, would be completely disastrous. For a start, many young people who were tagged and had to stay in their homes would abuse their sisters or mothers. They need to have treatment and support. They are out of control and it is not good enough to decide just to throw them back into the family home and tag them so that we know where they are, because they will still have problems that have not been dealt with. Such punitive action is completely ridiculous and I hope that the idea will go away.
In our schools and communities there are other vulnerable young people such as those who live daily with domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. It is time that we realised that our teachers must be properly trained to deal with such situations. Teachers do not know enough.
I am a teacher and I know that many teachers do not get access to women's aid courses on domestic violence, do not have the chance to work with drugs workers and do not get the support from the community that would enable them to do the job that they have to do. For goodness' sake, let us put some decent funding into family support in our communities. I was saddened to learn that the Cumnock family support facility has just closed due to lack of funding. It supported drugs users and their families in an excellent fashion. I plead for joined-up working to support young people in our communities.
It would be fair to say that there is a genuine sense of anticipation about the minister's summing-up speech. Of course, there always is.
I have said before that, in debate, our critics are our greatest friends. Those who consider what we are doing and make constructive suggestions for modifying our behaviour, policies and practices are the ones to whom we should listen most closely. We should test the challenges that they give us.
Members should note that the SNP amendment deletes nothing from the Executive's motion. If we wanted to, we could play petty, party-political games and fiddle around with it, because the Executive congratulates itself on certain things. I am happy to subscribe to what the Executive has said, but the request to reconsider the Airborne Initiative seems to be gaining widespread support.
In his contribution, Robert Brown said that the partnership agreement contains a commitment to help children who are at risk. In many ways, the Airborne Initiative picks up those who remain at risk through late childhood into early adulthood, and that is why we support it. Robert Brown's proposal to refer the issue to a committee for consideration is one that I find attractive, although I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues. Were it to be the Communities Committee, of which I am a member, I know that Johann Lamont, the convener of that committee, has been ruthless—I think that that is the correct word—in her pursuit of protecting communities throughout Scotland from that small minority of children who cause problems. I am sure that, because of its deliberations on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, the committee has the background to equip it to consider the issue in a fair and unbiased way. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, but I judge that it has accepted that there are problems. As yet, the committee has to flesh out its agreement on the solutions to those problems, but that is politics and that will be dealt with in due course.
The plea for interim funding to allow the Airborne Initiative to continue is well made and I hope that the minister will be able to give an appropriate response.
During the Communities Committee's deliberations on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, members have been to places throughout Scotland and have listened to children who behave well and who make a substantial contribution to our communities and to children who have got into trouble. The former grotesquely outnumber the latter; we should be absolutely clear about that. We have been to Polmont young offenders institution and we have seen the effect of the programmes that take place inside that institution, which appear to be beneficial. For those who have not quite graduated to Polmont, there is a need for programmes outside such institutions.
A remark was made earlier that reminded me of the first law of epigenetics, which is that the more highly optimised an organism is for one environment, the less able it is to adapt to another. The key is for the courts and the children's panels to have a diverse range of solutions and disposals for offenders. That is based in reality and in science.
A lot has happened since I was young. A lot has happened since most of us were young. I am a graduate in mathematics—not a terribly good one—and so is my wife. Occasionally we are asked to help youngsters with their school homework. A few weeks ago, a 13-year-old came to ask for help with homework and we found that the boy was studying mathematics that we had studied in our inter honours year at university. Nevertheless, he needed a calculator to do basic arithmetic. I make no censorious remark in saying that—Bell Baxter High School is a fine school, as Scott Barrie said, and I was happy to go there. However, we did things in a different order and at a different pace, and things have undoubtedly changed.
Rosemary Byrne hoped that the idea of tagging young people with problems would go away; however, many of the problems in our society simply will not go away.
In their manifesto, the Liberals made it clear that they supported the Airborne project, and I was delighted to hear that repeated today.
On 10 October 2002, Richard Simpson said:
"we must have processes by which it is accepted that the Executive's decisions are not always totally right or totally wrong, but are balanced decisions that are made on the evidence that is presented to us."—[Official Report, 10 October 2002; c 14589.]
Today is an opportunity for the Parliament to put party politics to one side and to accept that the Executive will get it right sometimes, although not all the time. It is an opportunity for us to grow as a Parliament and to look beyond the tiny cost of buying some time for the Airborne Initiative to give us time to consider the issue in committee. I urge the minister to take that opportunity.
I apologise to colleagues for being late this morning. I had the usual train trouble. My speech will probably be out of step with everything that has been said so far. When I saw the motion, I thought that it was important to talk about the opportunities to support and develop the skills and talents of young people. I do not intend to talk about youth offending. I hope that the debate balances up by the end, as it is important that it reflects the positive contribution of young people.
I want a comprehensive strategy for young people that deals with their aspirations, their future in work and education and the challenges for us in tackling poverty, protecting their childhood and, through our work on the international scene, eradicating their exploitation and prostitution. The Scottish Executive has a comprehensive strategy for tackling those issues, but I want the strands of it to be pulled together so that we can have a national debate about what young people want. I want to see it in a formulation that can be discussed in schools and colleges to ensure that young people get a say in their future.
One of the key issues is how we engage young people in talking about their future. That can be a difficult thing to do. One of the ways in which it is possible to tap into the thinking of young people is by considering issues that matter to them. Members will know that I am passionate about the music industry, as is Ken Macintosh. We have the opportunity to engage young people by using the music industry as a vehicle to bring them into the debate about what they want. The credibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister went up no end when they were seen at the MTV awards. That was not just about being seen to be young and trendy, although I know that they both think that they are; it was about recognising the contribution that the MTV awards make to the Scottish economy. I received comments from several young constituents who thought that it was important for the Scottish Parliament to be seen to regard the MTV award ceremony as important. It is a significant event in the lives of many young people. It is important that we, as politicians, think about how we can engage young people in different ways, and that is one of the channels.
I will mention a few other things that have been going on. The cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on the Scottish contemporary music industry, of which I am the convener, has proposed a number of initiatives that are worthy of consideration. Soma Recordings recently organised an event in the Arches to teach 600 schoolchildren about the importance of the music industry and how they could be part of it—not just as performers but by learning about the technical skills, creative writing and other aspects that the music industry brings together. My favourite idea is something that Ken Macintosh is directly involved in—the use of low-frequency, restricted-service radio licences, which has attracted a lot of attention lately. In Paisley, the use of 28-day licences has allowed young people to learn how to become DJs, presenters and producers. Unfortunately, there is a charge of £10,000 attached to such a licence. The matter is reserved, but we should engage with the United Kingdom Government to try to bring that price down. Such licences are a useful tool for training young people and one that I think they appreciate.
Does my colleague agree that, as well as improved community access to restricted-service licences, the making of decisions about the issuing of RSLs in Scotland rather than in London would be beneficial for local communities?
I agree with that. If we could enable access to such licences, that would be beneficial. Since we aired the possibility of such licences, I have received many requests from people for more information about them. It would be good if we could decide the issue here, in Scotland.
It is important to ask young people what they want from their lives, whether in leisure or in their careers. For some time, I have argued that we should pull together the surveys that Barnardo's and Children 1st have carried out so that we can have a national strategy and know that we are providing the type of things that young people want. Probably the most difficult age group to tackle is the 13 to 17-year-olds. They may no longer think of themselves as children and may want to do more mature things; however, sometimes what they want to do is not available to them. Work needs to be done around the needs of that age group.
Aside from what young people want, an important issue is mental health. I recently dealt with the tragic case of a young constituent who lost his life because of the unsatisfactory mental health service that is offered to young adolescents. We need to debate the issue in Parliament at another opportunity. It appears that the service in Glasgow is limited and stereotypical and needs to broaden out to deal with severe mental health problems. There is the will to have a new service in Glasgow and there is some thinking about it; we just need to ensure that we make it happen.
It was quite refreshing to hear a minister give a realistic appraisal of the current problems. Too often, we are aware of the problems but sit here listening to ministers defend the indefensible, so I welcome the minister's remarks. I also welcome the setting-up of a Cabinet group to tackle youth services and delivery systems as well as information sharing and the inspection and quality of services. I further confess that I actually enjoyed Robert Brown's speech—and I told him so. I am getting a wee bit worried. However, I give credit where credit is due and, on this rare occasion, I thought that he gave a moderate and considered speech. Nonetheless, as an Opposition politician, I have a responsibility to highlight the issues that I hope will be considered by the new Cabinet group.
Currently, the debate on young offenders and children's hearings is generally conducted in the context of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. We need to acknowledge the Audit Scotland report to which the minister referred, which highlighted the fact that between 300 and 500 children on supervision were not getting the service that the children's hearings system prescribed. Contact was made with half the children on supervision less than once a month, and 37 per cent of children's files did not contain a recognisable care plan. Those are only some of the issues that were raised in the report. If the Executive is committed to addressing them, as the motion that we are debating suggests, they need to be considered seriously.
I note on page 4 of the NCH report entitled "Where's Kilbrandon Now?" that, for boys, 1,600 more referrals to the children's hearings system are made on the grounds of care and protection than are made on offence grounds. Although the minister mentioned that, looking behind the figures for referrals to the children's hearings system gives us a much better understanding of the sort of support that these children need.
The NCH report also states:
"From being a system for dealing mainly with those who require compulsory measures of care, the hearings system has become almost the only route of access to services for children in need of care and protection. This is because of deficiencies in the systems responsible for identifying children in need and providing appropriate voluntary support and care for them. The hearings system was not designed for this purpose, so it is no surprise that it has been engulfed in a rising tide of care and protection cases that distract it from its primary purpose."
Surely that is a strong and clear signal to the Executive that it must address the needs of some young people. Before they can even consider realising their potential, they must be enabled to live free from abuse and other problems.
On the point that the children's hearings system cannot cope with cases, does the member not accept that there is a parallel system to the children's hearings system? The child protection system, with its child protection case conferences and the child protection register, clearly identifies those who are at the most severe risk. Those children can then be allocated the resources that are required for early intervention to ensure that they do not go into the children's hearings system.
I acknowledge Scott Barrie's comments about the mechanisms that are in place. However, the NCH report has concluded that the system is not giving children the necessary care and protection.
The Executive also needs to examine the report's comments on the limited range of disposals. Although I welcome the minister's announcement of what I presume is an additional £10 million for alternative community disposals, the NCH report says:
"Allied to the failure to implement disposals is the lack of imagination and investment in … leisure, health, education and community services".
That point has been consistently raised by those who have given evidence to the Communities Committee on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I look forward to the Cabinet's report on the matter.
If the Executive is serious about full and active participation and the development of skills and talents, we need to assess and diagnose children as early as possible for conditions such as autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia. In too many cases, potential development years are lost due to delays in or the absence of early assessment and diagnosis and the lack of health care and learning support.
Two weeks ago, I raised the case of a 14-year-old boy in Inverness who was sent home because of the lack of a learning support teacher and who now receives four hours of one-to-one tuition a week. That boy is not the only person who is not realising his potential; his mother had to give up the opportunity of a good job to stay at home and care for him. Parents as well as children are being affected by the situation.
I notice that Peter Peacock referred to having a well-trained work force. I hope that, as Rosemary Byrne said, training will be given to nursery school staff and teachers to identify signs and problems. I also hope that a system of early assessment and diagnosis is introduced for learning support. If that does not happen, we will exclude many young people from any opportunity to develop skills and talents.
As many members have pointed out, it is important that we emphasise the great contribution that many young people make to our society. They are not the problem; they are the solution. They are our future.
The motion contains some good words. Indeed, I very much welcome the way it begins, because it tries to counter the demonisation of young people by certain people in the media and through some ill-judged remarks by politicians. It is important that we put across a positive view of young people. However, we are looking for the Executive to back up its good words with good deeds. Although many good measures have been introduced or are in the pipeline, we need more.
In that respect, the Executive's decision on the Airborne Initiative sends out absolutely the wrong message. There is no point in shooting the messenger—after all, Mr Peacock was simply spouting some stuff that was written by some Executive apparatchik. That said, there has to be serious movement in the Executive's position on the matter and I hope that the minister who will reply—who I know is very sympathetic to many of the issues about which I am enthusiastic—will be able to say something, or that some other comment can be made before 5 pm this afternoon.
There are two ways forward on this matter, both of which could be taken. First, Robert Brown made the excellent suggestion of having a parliamentary committee examine and evaluate alternatives to custody such as the Airborne Initiative and others, make suggestions for future initiatives and propose further development and more funding.
Secondly, the Executive could have constructive discussions with the Airborne management. The Executive might legitimately feel that it is not getting value for money, that not enough people are going through the system and that the initiative is not correctly jigged. It might also have criticisms of the management itself. However, the supporters of the Airborne Initiative feel that its ethos is important and that it provides a unique service that should be improved and built upon. As a result, there is scope to look for ways forward.
After I visited the Airborne Initiative, I corresponded with the ministers at the time and the management. In a letter, the Airborne management suggested:
"Our current nine-week residential module could be adapted to provide shorter or longer, residential or community based programmes aimed at clearly identified target markets."
It might be helpful to have discussions along those lines.
Donald Gorrie will have heard my earlier welcome for Robert Brown's positive suggestion to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee. However, does Mr Gorrie agree that, if such a solution were to be accepted, there would have to be a clear guarantee that it would be accompanied by a commitment to continue the funding for the Airborne Initiative, pending the outcome of any inquiry?
Yes.
The Liberal Democrat view is that there should be a variety of alternatives to custody. Indeed, I believe that members around the chamber share the view that there should be a basket of alternatives, as Robert Brown said. For the record, the Liberal Democrat manifesto—which, as a loyal member of the party, I pay great attention to—said that we will
"Increase support for schemes aimed at persistent offenders that have proved more effective at reducing reoffending than traditional methods, in the way that Freagarrach and the Airborne project have."
As I said, we want a variety of methods. In that respect, I think that the Airborne Initiative offers a very important alternative to a particular section of the community. It is a residential course and provides an interesting mix of mountain expeditions and heavy psychological warfare on young people to help them to sort themselves out. In fact, it helps a significant number of those young people. At the very least, several dozen people in Scotland who would probably now be in jail for the umpteenth time are not in jail and are constructive and useful citizens. The Executive's reasons for getting rid of Airborne are wrong.
I have a genuine question. I wonder whether Donald Gorrie can enlighten us as to why the trainees on the current course at Airborne were sent home, despite the fact that Executive funding for this year had already been given.
I have no idea; I do not manage the Airborne Initiative.
The Executive is comparing Airborne with new schemes that have not yet proved their worth. Those schemes might be good, but the position should not be an either-or one—either we fund Airborne or we fund interesting community schemes elsewhere. We should fund both.
If youth justice is the Executive's top priority, it should be the top priority for our money. We must put our money where our mouth is and invest seriously in the whole range, from ordinary youth work, youth workers and youth facilities to alternatives to custody and schemes such as Airborne. I earnestly urge the minister and her colleagues to be more flexible and to take account of the widespread support for Airborne and the desire to use it in a package of alternatives to custody.
I begin in the same vein, I hope, as my colleague Pauline McNeill, by discussing the valuable and positive contribution that Scotland's young people make. Scotland is a nation that values and celebrates the diversity of all its citizens. The First Minister's statement in the chamber yesterday drove home the importance of valuing that diversity.
We face many challenges that cannot be underestimated, not the least of which are demographic, economic and technological changes. We compete in an ever-changing global market. Gone are the days that my parents' generation and some of my contemporaries enjoyed, when the majority had a job for life. It is estimated that young people now face having 10 job changes in their working lives. That is a challenge for us all. We must ensure that our young people have the best possible start and that each child and young person is given the necessary support and skills to realise their full potential. In my previous life, I worked for 18 years in further and higher education and I cannot emphasise too strongly the need to develop the potential of young people in the FE and HE age range. I agree with Pauline McNeill that the ages between 13 and 17 are also crucial.
It is important to remove social and economic barriers that might hamper children's development in their early years. I welcome the pledge to double the spending on the sure start programme. I am sure that many members are aware of examples of how that programme has benefited our communities. I also welcome the fast-track recruitment programme for social workers.
I chair the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on survivors of childhood sexual abuse and I welcome the progress in the area of child protection. I have seen at first-hand in my constituency such progress, and first-class partnership working and inter-agency support. I am sure that similar progress is being made throughout the country. However, outcomes that children see and feel the benefit of are still highly dependent on the performance of social work departments. The quality assurance that the minister announced today for front-line agencies and inter-agency working is welcome, because it will ensure parity of standards throughout the country.
Statistics show that many people who have problems in adulthood with alcohol and drugs have suffered a catalogue of abuse as children. As the minister is aware, each such case is a personal tragedy. We must continue to ensure that measures are taken to protect our children. I draw members' attention to the short-life expert working group that Malcolm Chisholm set up. We can look forward to a national strategy that will ensure that consistent standards are achieved throughout the country.
I believe that education is the ladder of opportunity, particularly in our most deprived communities. Therefore, I welcome the Executive's commitment to tackling the opportunity gap at all stages of schooling. In particular, I welcome the reform of the curriculum to include vocational training. Not all our young people want to go into totally academic careers, so vocational training is most welcome. Our education system is crucial for the development of our children and our economy. Education and training are vital and we cannot allow financial impediments to prevent our young people from continuing with their education. I welcome the roll-out of the education maintenance allowance for all 16 to 19-year-olds from low income families, which will ensure that the financial barrier is removed.
Further and higher education have a huge role to play in ensuring that our young people continue with education and training. I believe that our FE and HE colleges and universities are world class. They must rise to the challenge of ensuring that we have a high-quality education system. People will stay in education only if they receive appropriate, high-quality education and training. Citizenship and social and personal development are also important. We must help with the transition from education to work as much as possible. Careers Scotland and Futureskills Scotland have a huge role to play in that area. I chair the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament for construction, and it has been said there that the issue is not so much about skills shortages in the construction industry as about skills gaps. One of the big skills gaps in the construction industry is in engineering. We must prepare our young people to be able to meet the challenges of industry.
I want to talk about the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee, especially in the light of the European year of disabled people, about which the Minister for Communities gave evidence to the committee on Tuesday. I make a plea that, when we talk about all members of our community, we take on board the needs of people with learning disabilities and multiple disabilities. On behalf of the committee, I took evidence from different disability groups in Inverness. The document "The same as you?" has been produced and we have said that we want to value the contribution of all members of our society. Therefore, we must concentrate on providing funding and other support for young people with learning difficulties, those with mental health problems—as Pauline McNeill pointed out—and those with physical disabilities. We still face challenges in those areas.
Children and young people have energy, enthusiasm and motivation. They are our future. We should listen to them and, indeed, learn from them.
We have had a number of debates on young people and related subjects. We have had debates on children and young people, the children's hearings system, social work services, children's therapists, child protection, alternatives to custody, youth offending, the children's commissioner, and we now have this debate. It is clear that the Parliament, through members' business debates, Executive-led debates and committee debates, has touched on the subject of young people a number of times.
Many of the debates have been general in nature, as is the motion that is before us today. Therefore, it is relevant to accept an illustrative amendment to try to articulate some of the arguments, because we face an immediate and urgent situation in the shape of the Airborne Initiative. That situation reflects a regular theme of many of our previous debates; that theme, as Keith Raffan said, is breaking the cycle of deprivation. Children who appear in the children's hearings system for care and protection at the age of eight often end up returning as persistent offenders at the age of 11.
Robert Brown made an excellent suggestion about remitting the issue of young people to a parliamentary committee for inquiry. Do Ms Hyslop and the Scottish National Party agree that such an inquiry might consider Airborne in the broader context of the type of problems that alternatives-to-custody projects face, in terms of funding, administration, running and monitoring? There is too much paperwork and too much time is spent on scraping around looking for money instead of on helping people.
That point is well made. The Executive should welcome a parliamentary review of services for young people. Such a review should be viewed within the context of reconsidering the position of Airborne. However, for that to be meaningful, Airborne would have to have a short-term continuation of funding.
Robert Brown made a point about Airborne not being the minister's responsibility. We recognise that the Executive practises collective responsibility. Our debates on young people have been conducted in isolation from one another, but the same theme keeps returning: the need to break the cycle of deprivation. We must have an example of an effort to do that and the Airborne Initiative offers a golden opportunity to see an example of joined-up working from the Executive portfolios of education and young people and justice.
The minister stated that Airborne is not relevant to this debate because the initiative deals with older youngsters of 19 and over. YouthLink Scotland, which is the national youth agency for Scotland, recently commissioned a poll on the opinions of young people from the ages of 11 to 25; that illustrates the wide age range within which we can consider policy solutions for young people. It is appropriate to address the issue of the Airborne Initiative here and now, and we can do so by means of the SNP's amendment.
Child protection has been mentioned in the debate. We recognise that problems with care and protection in the early years can lead to problems later on. There is concern about the effectiveness and timescale of the implementation of the recommendations in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". I am pleased to say that the Education Committee, under its convener Robert Brown, is undertaking a child protection inquiry.
I share concerns that the timescale for review of the children's hearings system may miss some of the opportunities to make a direct intervention now. The City of Edinburgh Council is concerned that the percentage of cases in which no social worker has been allocated has increased from 9.5 per cent to 22 per cent. That is because of a 14.5 per cent increase in permanent vacancies in the children and families practice team, which represents a significant increase over the past three years. Rather than the issue being investigated over a period of time, after which it may be difficult to have direct intervention, the children's hearings system needs support now.
Part of the motion touches on looked-after children. Members may be aware that this week the BBC is running a season of programmes about looked-after children. In my household, I was forced to watch "The Story of Tracy Beaker—The Movie of Me"; the programme may not have reflected all children's homes, but it was important in reflecting some of the issues and concerns about looked-after children. It is imperative that the issue of looked-after children is addressed.
The interim report on fast-track hearings shows that a much higher proportion of children who were referred on offence grounds for persistent offending, in comparison with other young people who were referred on offence grounds, were living in a residential establishment—28 per cent against 3 per cent—and far fewer were living at home with both parents.
Statistics show that six out of 10 young people who leave care have no qualifications; 20 per cent have had a spell of homelessness and 60 per cent of young people receiving aftercare were not in education, employment or training. It is vital that we address those points.
What does being young in Scotland mean? We have a diminishing pool of fresh talent. We talk about fresh talent, but there are fewer young people for us to work with. We desperately need a national youth strategy and I would like to hear a timescale for that.
The Parliament has an opportunity to do the right thing today. We must give the Executive confidence to do the right thing by young people. It is essential that we recognise that, in relation to youth justice and youth offending, we need one voice, but many solutions. There must be a range of solutions to choose from.
Donald Gorrie made the important point that although this debate is general and the Airborne Initiative is by no means a solution to everybody's issues and circumstances, the Executive's decision will send out a message. If the Parliament and the Executive are serious about illustrating the fact that there are alternatives, we must take the opportunity for the Parliament, together with the Executive, to undertake a sensible and constructive consideration of the issue. That would be a job well done by the Parliament today.
I welcome the debate and the opportunity that it gives us to discuss what we are doing, through the Executive and through the Parliament, to give our young people a better deal. I am confident that our record and our commitment to young people speak for themselves.
Our commitment is perhaps at its most obvious in the improvements and investment that we have made in our schools. I have no doubt that the huge expansion in nursery education and in early-years support is beginning to pay dividends as those children progress through primary, secondary and tertiary education. Smaller class sizes, a more contented work force, the work of the discipline task force, new buildings and improved facilities are also making an impact.
Looking back over the past 30 years, we can see the success of our comprehensive school system. From a previous figure of one in 10, more than half of our young people now have the opportunity to access further and higher education. That is a success story on which we need to build.
I find it difficult to understand how the Tories can still push divisive, back-door selection policies such as the so-called passport scheme. I will direct my comments to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Murdo Fraser, because I was struck by the contrast between Lord James's comments in the Education Committee on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill—he argued eloquently for including our most vulnerable children in their local school—and his promotion of an elitist passport policy that is aimed primarily, if not exclusively, at our most able and articulate pupils. How does a child who attends their local mainstream school, where additional support has been put in place, benefit from a passport system that may remove the school's most gifted and able pupils?
Is the member aware that his distinguished father was rector of a very distinguished school in Edinburgh, which had about 30 feeder schools? That is an example of choice at its best. All that we wish to do is to extend that choice to many others who do not currently have it.
Perhaps the member is also aware that my distinguished mother was head of another school in Edinburgh, Drummond Academy. The Education Committee visited Drummond Community High School to see its work on special educational needs.
We are promoting inclusive policies that will help all in our society. The biggest issue facing our schools is not how we turn them into copies of a private school system, but how we improve the opportunities for and achievements of those who do worst out of the current system. Our work on closing the opportunity gap will deliver the best deal for our young people. Our new community schools, breakfast clubs, education maintenance allowance, improved access for pupils with disabilities—the range of measures that are aimed at tackling child poverty—are the policies that will be of most long-term benefit, not only to young people but to the health of our society as a whole.
I commend the Executive on the work that it is doing on the Young Scot card. We are all acutely aware of the need to promote good citizenship among children and young people; on a selfish note, that needs to be done not least to address the worrying attitudes to voting among those under the age of 25. The Young Scot card is an enabling initiative that increases access to services, encourages active participation in the community and can be used to tackle stigma. I believe that its use is well advanced in some areas, but I would welcome any information that the minister can give the Parliament on progress that is being made on rolling out the Young Scot card throughout Scotland.
On a similar note, I ask the minister what progress we are making on developing our plans for increased concessionary travel for young people. We know that it is unrealistic to build the sort of new sports and leisure facilities that our young people crave in every community in Scotland, but free travel is another way to address that issue.
I welcome the Minister for Education and Young People's comments on the children's hearings system. Several members have echoed that sentiment, but I was particularly pleased by the tone of his remarks and I look forward to the consultation later this year on the way forward for the hearings system.
As we know, the children's panel focuses on needs not deeds—a point that was mentioned by Robert Brown earlier. The system is at its strongest in preventing abuse and neglect and when it intervenes effectively at an early stage to help to protect our most vulnerable children. Conversely, the system is at its weakest where it has lost the confidence of the communities that it protects. That matter will have to be addressed in the Executive's review.
More important, to my mind, is ensuring that the support services that are needed to support the work of the children's panel are there when they are needed. The minister alluded to the shortage of social workers in some areas, which allows children who are on a supervision order to go from one year to the next without receiving any contact from the public authorities. I acknowledge my colleague Scott Barrie's point that that is a problem not exclusively for social work departments, but for local authorities more generally. As the minister said, the situation is unacceptable. Much as I commend the Executive's action in recruiting and retaining more social workers, I hope that Peter Peacock and Margaret Curran will give those specific locations their close attention to ensure that the situation is not allowed to continue. I commend the Executive's motion.
Yesterday, the First Minister made a statement in the chamber on population change. I welcome much of what he said, but it related almost exclusively to the fact that Scotland's overall population is falling. What he did not address—we need to address this issue in future—is the fact that there is population change within Scotland.
We know that for hundreds of years there has been a drift from rural areas into towns and that, in many ways, that drift continues today. The population drift is more obvious in certain parts of Scotland and perhaps less obvious in areas such as Aberdeen and the north-east, where it is masked by the fact that there is a high rural population. However, the residents are often commuters—people who use the rural areas as dormitories—and the people who are born and brought up in the areas still tend to drift away as ever they did.
The problems that cause that population drift are associated with the lack of housing, the lack of effective transport and—I suggest—the lack of appropriate levels of local government funding in certain rural areas. We know perfectly well that even in the north-east, where there is a relatively high level of wealth, there have been jobs crises in areas such as Fraserburgh and Peterhead, which are represented by Stewart Stevenson, who is not currently in the chamber. The Government must accept that, unless it is willing to address the anomalies in local government funding, there will continue to be serious problems in ensuring that rural areas, and the young people who live there, are properly supported.
The most obvious pressure in rural areas in the north-east—and, my colleagues tell me, in other areas too—is on small primary schools. That is largely as a result of funding problems. Some will argue that small rural schools with composite classes are an inappropriate way of educating young people in their early years. However, the evidence is plain: some of the finest schools in the country, with some of the best results at primary level, are small schools with one, two or perhaps three teachers.
I will give an example from Angus of the pressure that such schools are under. Angus Council, largely for financial reasons, has had to consider centralising primary school education. Small schools such as St Vigeans Primary School, which has been closed already, the Panmure school, which is currently under threat, and Stracathro Primary School, which has been threatened before and may be threatened again in the near future, are perfect examples of schools in which small numbers of pupils and small numbers of teachers succeed in producing education of a very high quality. Such schools are characterised by the fact that more than half the pupils are there as a result of placing requests. The quality of the education drew the pupils to those schools, because their parents were impressed with the schools' records.
From what I have heard from councillors, I understand that councils such as Aberdeenshire Council may be forced to take similar action to Angus, simply because of necessary economies.
I need to get on; I am sorry. I hope that Brian Adam will have the chance to speak later.
The schools are being put under pressure because of funding difficulties, for which I blame, to a significant extent, the underfunding of local authorities by the Scottish Executive. However, we have an opportunity here, and that is why I am very keen to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. Conservative education policy has often made a great deal of sense in the way in which it could be applied in the major cities; too often, however, that policy has fallen down in rural areas where choice is extremely limited or, in fact, non-existent. However, the schools passport policy is very different. It gives parents an opportunity to retain choice and to retain local schools in a way that no policy offered by any other party in this Parliament can. Our policy gives parents the opportunity to guarantee that, if they choose to place their child in a particular school, the funding will follow the child. Unless we adopt that policy, or one very like it, many of our rural primary schools will be threatened with closure. I would not be able to accept that if we want rural areas to maintain their populations.
It gives me great pleasure to support enthusiastically the amendment in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
I welcome the minister's remarks today—in particular, I welcome the statement that Parliament values the positive contribution that is made by Scotland's young people, and the restated commitment to providing those young people with the opportunities and support that they need to develop their full potential.
Investing in our young people is investing in the future of our nation. That investment is of paramount importance to Scotland's success. Many different issues arise, some of which my colleague Ken Macintosh mentioned, such as child care, early intervention, a good education, and career and voluntary opportunities. The issues cut across portfolios to include diet, nutrition and healthy lifestyles. Those issues start to affect a young person from birth. Promoting and encouraging breastfeeding, for example, is extremely important. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to Churchill. It may come as a surprise—not only to the Tories, but to the rest of the chamber—that I, too, can quote Churchill, who said:
"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."
Offering a better deal for young people involves supporting children and young people who are in difficulty. I am thinking of family problems, addiction problems, relationship breakdowns, looked-after children, and the minority of young people who persistently offend. We should welcome recent initiatives such as the fast-track recruitment of social workers, the children's commissioner and today's announcement on reviewing the hearings system. We should consider the role of parents who, of course, must take responsibility, but who may need help. In the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, the proposals relating to parents focus very much on providing help and assistance. The chamber should welcome that.
I want to focus on antisocial behaviour and young people. I was pleased to hear in Peter Peacock's announcement that we are holding on to the fundamental principles of the hearings system, which, of course, is internationally renowned. However, reviewing and consulting on the system is an excellent move.
Audit Scotland's report, "Dealing with offending by young people", says:
"Most children (an estimated 75% of the total number) on statutory supervision for reasons which include offending appear to be receiving the required level of service from councils. But hundreds are not."
The report goes on to say:
"Social workers see some children very frequently, but around half the children on supervision do not see their social workers often.
Children's Reporters aren't getting police referrals or social background reports quickly enough.
The strategic youth justice teams often don't have the right information or the right members to do their jobs well."
I want to consider the hearings system and the proposals in NCH Scotland's report, "Where's Kilbrandon now?" The report concludes that the children's hearings system still offers Scotland the most effective and humane response to children in trouble. It says that, if the hearings system is adequately resourced and imaginatively managed, it can be adapted to meet the needs of our time. The report describes the system as an economic and effective way for public agencies and professionals to work together in the best interests of the child. However, it also acknowledges some weaknesses—including a lack of public awareness, knowledge and support; recruitment difficulties; and the fact that the system has not been reviewed in its 30-year history. I am therefore sure that the minister's announcement will be welcomed.
I turn to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Much in the bill is welcome, especially the acknowledgement of the requirement for support services. There is no doubt that there are problems in communities, but they are not all to do with young people. Much serious antisocial behaviour and criminal activity is perpetrated by adults. Most young people should be congratulated on their positive input to Scottish society.
Does Elaine Smith accept that many of the people who argue most strongly for the proposals in the bill do so precisely because they are driven by the concerns of young people who live in communities where there is disorder? The life chances of those young people are seriously damaged. As long as there are vulnerable young people who have to deal with that behaviour, as well as coping with school and everything else, we have a duty of care towards them, through our proposals on antisocial behaviour.
That is an important point and I agree with it.
The small minority of persistent offenders who present with challenging behaviour also need help. They need intensive support and intervention. Most people would agree on that; the differences of opinion arise when we consider whether we have to extend antisocial behaviour orders and introduce electronic tagging. I do not agree that we have to.
In England and Wales, the dangers of the punitive approach can be seen. Barry Goldson, the editor of a publication on juvenile justice, said that such an approach has led to an 800 per cent increase over 10 years in the number of children aged 12 to 14 who are in custody in England and Wales. The dangers are also highlighted by the numbers of young people who try to harm themselves. I understand that, every day, four children in custody in England and Wales try to harm themselves or kill themselves. There is a high rate of reoffending in England and Wales, which is indicative of a system that is based on punishment rather than cure.
Alternatives to ASBOs include acceptable behaviour contracts, which the City of Edinburgh Council piloted last year. The council said that, almost at once, the contracts delivered a real improvement in quality of life to the affected community. In evidence to the Communities Committee, Dr Sula Wolff said:
"One must be terribly careful in relation to children … Children are developing people—they have a future before them and are open to change."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 3 December 2003; c 254.]
This debate and the Executive motion are to be welcomed. They give us the chance to celebrate young people's contribution and achievements. They are our future and we must invest in our future.
This has been a good debate; it has been moderate in tone and mostly moderate in substance. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is always moderate in style, if not always moderate in some of the things that he comes up with.
Let me start from a very simple premise: all members can agree that we want to give every child in Scotland the best possible start in life and that, through their childhood and teenage years into early adulthood, we want to give them every support and opportunity. We must also support single mothers—indeed, all single parents—so that they have time to spend with their children and to bring them up, and are not obliged to succumb to the pressures of earning a living.
I am sure that both ministers would agree that deprivation takes many forms and that it is not just financial. Pauline McNeill and Donald Gorrie were right to emphasise how lucky we are with the vast majority of young people in this country; they are a damned sight less deferential and a lot more inquiring than the members of the generation from which I come. We know that from schools' visits to Parliament, which are always refreshing, and from our visits to schools in our constituencies. It can be quite tricky when a forest of hands goes up and pupils ask questions that are sometimes much more difficult than those that ministers face. I am going to Bell Baxter High School—which has already been mentioned—first thing on Monday morning to speak to modern studies pupils.
When necessary, we need intervention in the early years, whether through provision for children with special needs—Mary Scanlon was right to mention the importance of early diagnosis of autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia—or by breaking the cycle of truancy.
In his opening speech, Mr Peacock mentioned the importance of rolling out effective pilot schemes. I am sorry that he is leaving the chamber, because I could not agree more with what he said about sharing good practice, which we do not do nearly enough. We do not roll out a sufficient number of successful projects. I will give examples of two types of such projects. The first type includes the Corner in Dundee and Off the Record in Stirling, which are excellent one-stop shops. I have visited them and I urge other members to do so if they have the opportunity. Those projects provide a range of services that help young people with the problems that they face. By going to them, young people can get help—away from the school environment and in privacy—from their peers and from those trained to deal with sexual or drugs issues, for example.
The second category consists of organisations such as Clued Up in Kirkcaldy and Crew 2000 here in Edinburgh, which do excellent drugs education and prevention work with young people. When teachers in Kirkcaldy schools detect a drugs problem—they do not need a sniffer dog or a blood test to do that—they call in Clued Up. A couple of years ago, I spent a day with that excellent organisation and saw the work that it did. Clued Up is brought into schools discreetly to work with groups of children, some of whom might have incipient drugs or alcohol problems. Catching such problems at that early stage is the way to do things, rather than the approach that came from Downing Street earlier in the week, which was another example of heavy-handed policy on the hoof. Mr Blair should look to Scotland, because we do it better. Crew 2000 does a great deal of good work on drugs education in the club scene.
The minister has my whole-hearted support. Successful projects should be rolled out but, as we know, many such projects have funding problems. The people who work on the projects and who are meant to be helping young people spend too much time scraping around for money and filling in bureaucratic forms for the Executive. They are not necessarily well trained as administrators or as fundraisers—they are trained to help young people.
We need continuity and consistency of funding. In that context, I strongly support the proposal that my colleague Robert Brown made on Airborne—
Will the member take an intervention?
Hang on a second—let me finish my point.
Robert Brown said that a parliamentary committee should be given the remit of considering the Airborne Initiative, although I would add that it should be considered in the wider context of the problems that similar organisations face in relation to funding, administration, monitoring, regulation and measurement of their effectiveness.
I will give way to Robin Harper first, then to Johann Lamont.
No. You are in your last minute, so Robin Harper had better be very quick.
Does the member agree that, if the Airborne team is allowed to disappear, a decade of good practice will disappear completely?
Airborne should be allowed to continue and a committee should examine the subject.
Will the member give way?
I would love to, but I am in my last minute and the Presiding Officer will not let me.
We should not only share good practice—we should look for it elsewhere. Examples include the excellent play area project in Wrexham in Clwyd, which was discussed in an informative Robertson Trust seminar not so long ago, and the highly effective mentoring projects that were introduced by the former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo. Imagination, innovation and continuity of funding are key. Our adage for such projects should be, "Let a thousand flowers bloom."
It is not simply a question of preventing offending in the first place; we must also break the cycle of reoffending. I am a passionate believer in prison reform and, in that context, I think that we should send as few offenders to prison as possible. When they are sent to prison, they should spend less time in cells and more time in education and training. When they leave, offenders should be given support such as that which is provided by the excellent Simpson House project, which is run by the Church of Scotland. Halfway houses should also be available.
I must hurry you.
Fine.
We should be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but let us also be intelligent in response to criminal behaviour and supportive of rehabilitation.
I want to pick up some of the points that have been made during this wide-ranging debate.
I turn first to children with special educational needs, which Mary Scanlon and others mentioned. I want to highlight a particular matter that is causing some concern to members, which is the nursery nurses' strike that I believe is due to start next week. I do not deny that nursery nurses have the right to go on strike, but such action will have a specific impact not just on children in nurseries but on children with special educational needs, who get the assistance of nursery nurses even though they might not be in nurseries. Parents of such children are extremely concerned that, in those circumstances, their children will not be able to access education.
When school janitors went on strike in 2001, schools that treated children who have special educational needs were given an exemption from industrial action. I urge Unison to think again and to consider exempting special needs schools and classes from all-out strike action, for the sake of the children and parents concerned.
Is the member prepared to accept that the 5,000 nursery nurses throughout Scotland are acutely aware of the need for special needs education and for pre-school education for all children? Will he join me in calling on the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to get back round the table to discuss a national agreement instead of trying to divide the nursery nurses?
I am reassured by the fact that Mr Sheridan says that the workers are aware of parents' concerns about the impact that their action could have. In the area in which I live, Perth and Kinross Council has already reached an agreement with the nursery nurses and the same is true of a number of other councils. I do not believe that a national settlement to the dispute is necessary. I do not want to get involved in discussing the detail of the dispute, but it would be helpful and considerate if the workers and the union were to exempt special needs schools and classes from action.
I want to consider the wider issue of the key role of public services—which the minister mentioned—and their interface with schools, which is the priority for most young people. As my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, in many cases there has been a serious failure by the Executive to reach attainment targets. Levels of truancy and violence in schools have been unacceptable.
Scott Barrie and Ken Macintosh referred to our schools passport policy, the point of which is to widen choice. At the moment, there is choice in education only for those who can afford it. We are talking about extending choice so that everyone will have it, not just those who can afford it. I would have thought that that was a pretty good socialist principle.
Labour members such as Scott Barrie are always saying that people should support their local schools and that we would have an excellent comprehensive system if only they did that. I wonder whether he has said that to his Labour colleague who is the leader of Dundee City Council, who does not send her children to a state school run by Dundee City Council but opts out of the state system altogether by sending her children to an independent school. The word for that is "hypocrisy", which we hear all too regularly from Labour members in Parliament.
There must be acknowledgement that parental rights are central to any discussion about children and young people. There is a danger of the state's interfering too much in what should be the private lives of individuals. We remember from the previous session of Parliament the debates about the previous Executive's plan to criminalise parents for smacking their children—a policy that I am pleased to say was withdrawn.
We heard much from the minister today about the philosophy and ethos behind the Executive's approach. Family breakdown is a major social ill and a primary cause of poverty, social exclusion, susceptibility to crime and ill health. All the statistics show that families that are headed by a married couple provide greater stability and support for children than do families that are headed by other relationships. That is not a moral point; it is backed up by statistics. However, the Executive is forever telling us that we should not smoke because it is bad for us, that we should eat healthily, that we should not eat fatty foods and that we should take exercise. It is forever giving us those moral messages, but it is very coy and quiet when it comes to talking about the stability of families. The Executive must give more thought to the matter.
A number of members referred to criminal justice. Robert Brown referred to funding for youth activities, which I have raised in Parliament often in the past. My friend Donald Gorrie has often talked about funding for Youth Clubs Scotland, which provides diversionary activities for young people and helps them to stay out of crime. I am sorry that the funding for Youth Clubs Scotland was cut by the Executive to below the level that was set by a previous Conservative Government.
The SNP amendment concerns the Airborne Initiative. I have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the chamber, although I am no expert on the subject. However, I understand that there are concerns that the Airborne Initiative is an expensive way of keeping people out of crime, but I suggest that it is probably not as expensive as locking them up in prison for many years. The SNP amendment is moderate and well worded and asks the Executive simply to reconsider the funding issue. We are therefore able to support it.
We agree that much has been done, but much more needs to be done to ensure a bright future for all our young people.
We have had a wide-ranging debate today and, with the exception of the Conservatives' flagship policy on education, it has been broadly consensual.
Alex Johnstone rightly showed considerable concern about young people in rural communities who might be denied the opportunity to have their education as locally as possible. However, I say to him that, in the context of the overall Conservative education policy, he might want to look at public-private partnerships. One of the most significant drivers of school closures in rural areas has been the need to aggregate schools in order to make public-private partnerships stack up. That is particularly true in Aberdeenshire, to which he referred earlier. The passport policy will not address that situation.
We also heard reference to the announcement about drugs in schools that was made by our Minister for Education and Young People—a slightly more moderate announcement than that which was made south of the border. I would like to know—perhaps as part of the Executive's wind-up speech—just how many of the 40,000-plus exclusions in recent times were related to drugs incidents. Will the consultation that the minister is conducting with the Headteachers' Association of Scotland include that particular question in order to decide whether to proceed with drugs testing in schools? I have significant doubts about the value of drugs testing in schools and I suspect that it will not enhance relationships in schools if a blanket policy is introduced.
We have covered a wide range of issues from social work training to access to child protection. There is general consensus on most of those areas, so I do not intend to dwell too much on them.
However, I will highlight an area that has not been covered so far. Some 1,200 children aged 16 and over leave care each year and six out of 10 of those children have no qualifications. Such young people do not get a good deal. The fact that three out of 10 people leave school with few or no qualifications means that young people in general do not have a good deal. The minister was anxious to tell us that he was seeking sound policies and I commend him for that. However, I suggest to him that constant repetition of "better deal" sounds more like a soundbite than a sound policy. It is worth while that so many of our young people go on to higher and further education. However, we do not appear to be focusing on the significant numbers of young people who leave school with few or no qualifications, whether they fall into the category of those who are leaving care, of whom six out of 10 have no qualifications, or whether they are from the general population, of whom three out of 10 have none.
Much of the debate has focused on the SNP amendment, which is a measured amendment that merely asks that the Executive reconsider its policy on Airborne. Most members have accepted the principle behind that position and we have heard some significant suggestions about how the policy might be developed and addressed by the Executive.
In the previous session, Dr Richard Simpson passed remarks to the effect that the Executive does not always get it right, that there are times when balanced choices must be made and that the Executive does not necessarily come up with the right answer immediately. That is absolutely correct and it is equally true that every voluntary sector project naturally tries to perpetuate itself, although not every project is worthy of continued existence. To get that balance right is not easy, but the suggestion in the SNP amendment is that there is a route out of the Airborne problem in the form of short-term funding that would allow proper reconsideration by the whole Parliament. The concerns that the Executive might have about the detail of how that project can work could be considered at that stage. We need a range of services to ensure overall delivery of the kind of work that has been undertaken by Airborne. I look forward to hearing positive news from the minister in the wind-up speech.
It is telling that not one Labour member commented on the SNP amendment, with the exception of the minister.
I made reference to the amendment.
I apologise to Elaine Smith. I do not mean to have a stab at the Labour party; I think that it is positive that Labour members are not concerned negatively about the SNP approach to the matter and I am glad that they might be willing to listen to our approach. I hope that, at decision time at 5 o'clock, there will be an opportunity for reflection on the minister's earlier remarks.
I am pleased to be in Parliament this morning to underline how much we value our young people and to acknowledge the wide support for that throughout Parliament. It is vital that I, especially in my capacity as the minister who is progressing the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, have an opportunity such as this to emphasise the positive achievements of our young people both nationally and internationally. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity—although perhaps not as great an opportunity as I would like—to remind colleagues of the range and depth of the Executive's support for young people.
I have only a short time in which to make my speech, so I apologise if I do not respond to all of the wide range of points that were raised. I am sure that if I do not get to some of the points that Robin Harper and others raised we can find ways of ensuring that they are still responded to—I think that that will be down to Peter Peacock.
Let me address the Airborne Initiative. It may, for one project, have taken up a disproportionate part of the debate, but concerns were raised about it and it is appropriate that we address them. I understand that some members are concerned about the decision that has been taken on the Airborne Initiative. We wish, of course, to maximise all opportunities to keep young people out of prison and to enable everyone, wherever possible, to get another chance. We are strongly committed to rehabilitation and I have no hesitation in supporting that principle. I also say, however, that we owe it to all the young people who go through the programmes that the Executive supports to ensure that the programmes are of the highest quality and that they deliver. Sometimes, we have to hold our nerve when making difficult decisions—that is the life of members of the Executive.
The Executive is always happy to subject itself to parliamentary scrutiny on its decisions. The decision on the Airborne Initiative is no different. I listened closely to Robert Brown and I recognise the underlying principles and drives behind his speech: I think that I now know his analysis of the world fairly well. As an ex-committee convener, I support strongly Parliament's committee system. I may not always like what committees say, but I support them strongly and, as a minister, I value their scrutiny and comment.
I recognise the fact that this is a challenging area of work. We seek to make real progress to find more community-based disposals and to widen programmes. As Peter Peacock said, we are being successful in widening programmes and we are delivering success. We are always happy to engage in debate on that, however, and we are always happy to make our views the subject of comment.
I apologise if I pre-empt anything that the minister is about to say. She referred to the suggestion that Robert Brown made, which is supported by members of various parties, and she says that she is happy to have parliamentary scrutiny. Could she give a response specifically to the proposal that has been made? Would the Executive consider guaranteeing the funding of the Airborne Initiative pending an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into the effectiveness and value for money of the project? I appreciate that different members have different views on the matter.
I emphasise that we welcome parliamentary committees' views on priorities in this area. It is not appropriate for me to be specific about the matter at this moment, but I can confirm that we are happy to work with a committee of Parliament—as we always do—to consider the effectiveness of alternatives to custody, to consider the experience of practitioners and to consider what future options might be developed.
Does the minister accept that, although there are successful projects, it is necessary also to contemplate the possibility that some projects will be unsuccessful? Will the minister note Keith Raffan's suggestion that we need consistency? Will she outline how we could have a consistent approach so that every time a funding decision is made on a project it goes before a parliamentary committee for scrutiny? Does the minister agree that the role of the committees is to scrutinise the work of the Executive, but not to take lobbying positions on individual projects through committees to get a result out on the other side?
I have some sympathy with what Johann Lamont says. I do not think that anyone in Parliament would ever want us to establish some sort of invidious beauty contest of projects, whereby projects were referred to committees or to the Executive only when they had publicity and high-powered support, in which case their funding would be somehow more protected. I do not think that any member, including Robert Brown, would want us to get into that position.
It is vital that we focus on some of the substantial remarks that Peter Peacock made in his speech. The number of referrals for offending to the children's hearings system is 14,000, so we must get right our work in relation to young people. The review of the children's hearings system is one of the most significant policy developments in Scotland for some time in that area. Let me make it abundantly clear that we are very supportive of the work of the children's hearings system, and that we are looking to improve it.
Given the work that I have been doing on the matter, it is incumbent on me to emphasise the Executive's firm commitment to prevention and support. Our antisocial behaviour proposals will enhance the range of interventions that are available. The need to ensure that we have available a basket of interventions underlies much of the energy of the debate.
Our proposals will give agencies new tools with which to deal with the various forms of antisocial behaviour that communities experience. They will make it easier for multi-agency approaches to be adopted in relation to complex and sometimes intractable problems, and they will ensure that agencies are held accountable for their actions in order to protect and support the communities to which they are answerable. We will back such strategies with new money from the £30 million package of additional funding that I will make available over the next two years. That funding is over and above the package of £35 million that was announced by Cathy Jamieson.
I appreciate the many concerns of my colleagues about youth offending, and about the Airborne Initiative in particular, but does the minister agree that it would have been helpful if the debate had been balanced by what Parliament should be driving towards, which is to ensure that support mechanisms are in place that take into account young people's opinions about what they want Parliament to do?
I spoke about how the music industry can capture the interest of young people. Does the minister agree that another approach could be taken through contemporary dance and linking that with our targets on physical activity? If we engage young people in things that matter to them, that will link to what Parliament is doing. Does the minister agree that that is an important side to the debate?
I agree strongly with Pauline McNeill. One of my big ambitions with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill is to ensure that we provide the necessary resources and support that will allow young people to engage in much broader activities.
When we talk about young people we tend sometimes to focus on offending. I think that we have broadened our policies, but Parliament desperately needs to broaden its conversation—the way in which we talk about young people. We need a panoply of resources to support young people.
Ken Macintosh's speech helped enormously in that regard, particularly in relation to our work around transport, education and the Young Scot card, which has made an extremely successful contribution to provision of support services to young people. I will not go through all the details of where we are with the Young Scot card now, but I will get those to Ken Macintosh later.
The partnership has made very strong statements about where we will go with regard to supporting young people. We will have a review of the children's hearings system, as has just been announced, and we will support the Scottish Youth Parliament. We have extended provision of fast-track children's hearings, and there is additional support for localised action on youth crime. In response to a point that was made by Fiona Hyslop, I can say that work on the national youth strategy, which will be a centrepiece of the progress that we intend to make in this area, is now being undertaken. We will be taking that work forward shortly, and I am happy to engage with people on it. I acknowledge that Fiona Hyslop has recognised the significance of that work.
As Pauline McNeill said, we have had to address a range of issues in the course of our work with young people, which involves schools and leisure facilities. We must provide for prevention and give young people support when they are in difficulty. Much more can be done in that regard.
One of the most significant points that arose during the debate, if I may go out of step with Pauline McNeill a wee bit, is the attention that is given to young people in care. I do not think that the debate is an appropriate occasion for us to argue with the Tories about what they did or did not do, or for them to make comments about whether we have got our targets right or achieved them. I like to think that we could achieve some political consensus and that we could actually prioritise the needs of young people in care, which is one of the biggest challenges that faces us as a society.
As the minister who has responsibility for housing, I look at the homeless figures and I try to wrestle with the question of how we solve the problem of homelessness in Scotland. I note that a disproportionate number of young people who have left care are homeless. As Peter Peacock said, we know who they are. There are services working with them, and we can effectively touch and feel their lives. We need to—and we surely can—begin to get services right. On tackling the problems of young people in care, I argue that that is not a priority just of the Executive; it is worthy of Parliament and it is one of the central features of the work that we should take forward.