Young People and Families
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4999, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on young people and families.
One of the first debates that Parliament held after the 2003 election was on young people. It followed an election campaign that had been dominated by the subject of antisocial behaviour and was shortly before the introduction of Executive legislation to address that issue, so it was understandable that several Labour members took the opportunity that the debate presented to talk about the antisocial behaviour of a minority of young people. However, that topic did not come to dominate the debate and many members of all parties spoke passionately about the creativity, energy and positive spirit of young people in Scotland, as well as about the pressures that they face.
Television coverage of the debate that night was, however, introduced by a predictable sequence of images, which consisted of slow-motion footage from closed-circuit television cameras that showed only the very worst behaviour that could be attributed to young people. Although we have disagreed consistently with the Executive about the contents of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, we have never accused members of deliberately reinforcing that link—of attempting consciously to tar all young people with the brush of antisocial behaviour. However, on national television that night, the effect was there for all to see—it has remained the case ever since.
The first distorted stereotype of young people is that they are antisocial, disruptive and criminal; in the language that is sometimes used by people who should know better, they are "hoodies" or "neds". The second stereotype is that of the angelic innocent—the vulnerable child who is in need of constant protection from predators of every vile description. Both stereotypes are, of course, based on some truth. The first becomes powerful in relation to the disruptive or offending minority of young people and the second in relation to the shocking, but mercifully few, cases of tragedy through abuse, neglect or violence. It is entirely right that government at all levels aims to address both those extremes as effectively as possible, even if politicians disagree about the right course of action.
What of the lives of the rest—the majority—of our young people, who fall between those two stereotypes? We have brought the debate because of a concern—which is felt not only by us, but by members of other parties and by parents, professionals and young people—that young people's lives are too often impacted on by policies and systems that are designed to deal only with the extremes of life and which react only to the stereotypes that I described, with the result that the spontaneity, freedom and, even, the risk that are normal and necessary parts of growing up can be lost.
Our motion begins by acknowledging some of the many factors that can influence young people's development. In particular, I emphasise the importance of relationships with peers, family members and adults. We regard the justice-led approach to problem behaviour as defeatist—when all else has failed, all we can do is make an order and threaten punishment. However, relationships are not easily amenable to court orders, and we reach too often for that option before all else has failed.
We need only look at the report that was published this week on funding of children's social work services, which shows that the acute need for such services outstrips core funding by some 60 per cent. I do not wish to take away from the Executive's provision of money to encourage more integrated working, but the core services remain woefully underfunded.
Voluntary sector services have achieved impressive results, but still struggle because of short-term funding. I am talking not only about the ill-fated Airborne Initiative that the Executive so irrationally decided to axe, but about other programmes that are provided by organisations such as NCH, Fairbridge and Barnardo's and the 800 voluntary family and support services. That work is reducing reoffending rates, saving taxpayers' money and giving young people reasons to make better choices in their lives, so why do we take those services for granted? We would not expect other bodies that are engaged with such problems, such as the police and the courts, to put up with insecure funding, but we expect it of the voluntary sector, despite its distinguished record of success.
The Institute for Public Policy Research, which is a Labour think-tank, has expressed concern about similar issues. It has coined the term "paedophobia" to describe a society in which adults are increasingly fearful of young people and perceive them to be a menace or a threat, even when they are simply hanging around with friends, which young people have always done and, I hope, will always do.
Fear is also generated by the second stereotype: many adults are afraid to step in to look after other people's children because they are worried that they will be perceived as a threat. The result of both fears is unwillingness to engage with young people, which exacerbates the poverty of the relationships between the generations.
The IPPR is correct to say that neither condemnation nor absolution will do us any good. We must recognise the social, economic and cultural changes that have taken place in society and, instead of bemoaning the present, we must face up to it. That is why we end our motion with an appeal to the Executive
"to develop a comprehensive strategy for supporting families and young people"
that is designed to meet today's needs.
Members of all parties want the best for Scotland's young people, their families and their communities, but it should be clear by now that a further justice-led response to problem behaviour will only give us another dose of authoritarian measures that will distract us from the need for longer-term solutions and, crucially, from the need to foster positive relationships, which will do more good than any court order. I ask members to support the Scottish Green Party's motion.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that children and young people are shaped by their relationships and experiences at home, in their schools and communities, by the physical space they find themselves in and by their economic circumstances; understands the absolute importance of these factors at the centre of healthy development; acknowledges that families and young people need support from time to time and that communities, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Executive share a responsibility to meet this need; regrets, however, that public debate in Scotland has increasingly reduced children and young people to simplistic stereotypes, either as innocents to be protected or as problems to be contained; in particular regrets that the tone of debate on antisocial behaviour has distracted attention and resources from the need to address the wider issues in young people's lives; believes that where problems such as youth disorder have arisen local communities are best placed to decide on the appropriate response; therefore rejects the idea of forcing local authorities to use specific antisocial behaviour measures against their better judgement, and calls on the Executive to develop a comprehensive strategy for supporting families and young people.
I was incredulous as I listened to Robin Harper's description of the Executive's policies for children and young people. The challenge of enabling every young person to have opportunities in life, to fulfil his or her potential and to enrich our society is central to what I am in politics for. I believe that it is also central to the vision of the Scottish Parliament and of Scottish ministers. The Government has put children and young people at the top of its agenda, so this morning's debate is a timely opportunity to identify what we have achieved and where the continuing challenges lie.
Our vision for Scotland's young people is for all of them to be nurtured, safe, healthy, achieving, included, respected and responsible. We want them all to be confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. There is an extent to which such phrases are a mantra that ministers repeat when necessary, but they arise from the national debate on education, and they strike chords with professionals, parents and young people and give direction and purpose to our programmes, policies and practice in support of children and young people.
Since 1999, we have made a difference for young people in numerous ways. In education, more than 12,000 newly qualified teachers have entered our schools since the introduction of the teacher induction scheme in 2002, and we are well on course to achieving our target of having 53,000 teachers in the workforce by next year, which is central to our ambitions for the system. That is to say nothing of the provision of a cadre of classroom assistants to support that teaching.
We have reformed and modernised our schools on an unparalleled scale since the launch of our "ambitious, excellent schools" programme two years ago, and we have begun the transformation of schools through our leadership and chartered teacher programmes and the establishment of 27 flagship schools of ambition, more of which will follow.
There is concern about the facilities that young people can use. How does the minister feel about the public-private partnership contracts that lock young people out of schools and mean that they cannot take part in youth activities because the rents are too high?
The truth is the opposite of that. PPP is a method of funding that takes into account the long-term usage of schools. It is one of a number of methods of funding capital expenditure that exist in our society. To a substantial extent, PPP has dealt with the neglect that followed the activities of the previous Administration. Throughout Scotland, many new schools have been built that would not have been provided without PPP.
Young people have new opportunities both in school and out of school. They can learn a musical instrument or try different sports, for example through the club golf initiative. Moreover, young people and voluntary organisations have benefited from more than 800 volunteering places that Project Scotland has offered since May 2005.
We have not shirked the challenges and the difficult questions: we have developed a strategy that supports young people who are not in education, employment or training in making a success of their lives and we are taking action to improve the educational outcomes of looked-after young people and give them the chances that they deserve.
Through the local action fund, we have also provided £5 million for new facilities such as skate parks, midnight football and youth cafes, to keep young people away from crime. There are now 1,500 more support projects for young carers than there were in 1999.
I do not want to take anything away from the many achievements that I am sure the minister will—given the chance—spend another four minutes listing, but I wonder whether he will reply to the point behind our motion and my colleague Robin Harper's opening speech, which is about how the perception and stereotyping of young people can harm their place in society in the years to come.
I am not entirely sure that the stereotype to which Mr Harvie refers has not, in fact, been enhanced by seeking to debate—as we are this morning—a motion that is based on a fallacy. I also point out that the Green motion is a policy-free zone that neither makes any suggestions nor provides any answers to the questions that Mr Harvie has raised.
The reality is that the Executive is doing positive things for young people. I wish sometimes that the Greens would acknowledge more than they have the extent to which policies for young people in Scotland have changed. We have introduced a massive programme of action.
Will the minister give way?
No. I have already taken two interventions.
Scotland is at the leading edge in empowering young people. We do not just talk about them: we talk to them, involve them and—most important—we listen to them. We engage with the Scottish Youth Parliament and support dialogue youth and Young Scot. Last summer, we hosted the inspirational world youth congress in Stirling, and our schools are enlivened by pupil councils and by groundbreaking peer mentoring and buddy schemes.
Next week, our consultation on the national youth work strategy will end. Many young people have contributed to it and have told us what is important to them. I have been impressed by their vision, passion and ideas and am determined that our youth-work strategy will be fully focused on delivering the best possible outcomes and opportunities for those young people.
High-quality informal learning activities let young people enjoy themselves as they develop confidence and skills, so a youth-work approach has succeeded in engaging many young people who might find more formal learning difficult, or who have had problems in the past. Some of the organisations that we support carry out excellent work in giving young people new opportunities and a brighter future.
We have provided more than £120 million to support community learning and development and youth work delivered through local authorities. We also provide funding for voluntary youth organisations' headquarters. As Mr Harper rightly acknowledged in his opening speech, the uniformed organisations and the voluntary youth-work sector in general do a tremendous job. This year, we have also allocated additional funding to improve facilities for young people.
This Scottish Government has made its commitment; it has put in place the structures, the funding and the programmes. We know that we rely on teachers, youth workers and others in the field to give life to our vision, but our commitment to and our ambition for young people are unlimited because they are our future. We welcome Parliament's support for our work and the chance to hear members' individual perspectives in the debate.
I move amendment S2M-4999.2, to leave out from "that children and young people" to end and insert:
"the vital importance of all young people being able to fulfil their potential; pays tribute to the contribution young people across Scotland make to their families and communities; knows the importance of the family in providing support and guidance for young people; welcomes the fact that child poverty has been reduced by over a quarter in Scotland, that the Scottish Executive has introduced universal nursery education for all three to four-year-olds, that the Executive has seen record levels of investment in schools and teachers, that more of our young people are going on to higher and further education, that youth unemployment is at a record low and that more parents are in work and have access to support and childcare; recognises further that some parents require extra support to bring up children, that decent families and young people need to be safe and protected in their homes and communities, that young people supported by and having access to good quality youth work opportunities have an important role to play in improving their communities, and reiterates the determination of this Parliament to stand up to antisocial behaviour, to end child poverty and to provide every child and young person with the best possible start in life."
I must say that I did not react to Robin Harper's speech with incredulity. Although I did not agree with all that he had to say, his contribution was thoughtful and measured. The minister might have been better served by taking the same tone in his speech.
Robin Harper's comments on the role of the voluntary sector, which the minister touched on to some extent, were very important. Too often in this country, we take the view that Government knows best and has all the answers. However, individuals, families and voluntary groups can make a much greater contribution to the development not just of young people and families but of society as a whole.
In my amendment, I seek to spell out what I feel are the more important themes with regard to young people and families. In fact, they are the same themes that apply to any other group in society. After all, in debates such as this, there is a danger that we focus too much on the differences between groups instead of on what binds us. Issues such as the safety of individuals in our society and employment and educational opportunities are matters of concern not just for younger generations, but for all generations.
The biggest thing that any Government can do for young people is provide them with educational opportunities. In this country—as in, I concede, other countries—the education system is simply not helping a hard core of young people as much as it needs to, so we must look very carefully at how we can improve opportunities for the bottom 20 per cent of pupils.
We need to look at employment opportunities for young people. As we all saw yesterday when we were lobbied by physiotherapists, too many people are spending time in training without getting the employment opportunities that they need to progress and to go on to live the lives that their parents created for them.
Last year, the think-tank Reform published a very interesting report on the so-called iPod generation. Some members are Thatcher's children—in other words, they spent their formative years under a Conservative Government. I see Alex Johnstone raising his hand, but I was not really referring to him.
The member mentioned Mrs Thatcher. Did not she say once that unemployment was a price worth paying?
In their 18 years in power, the Conservatives gave unprecedented opportunities to young people. Indeed, the record of the last Conservative Government was significantly better in that regard than the record of the Executive that Mr Rumbles has consistently supported.
The Reform report highlights differences between the generation that was born after 1975 and the preceding generation with regard to opportunities to buy their own homes and to build up pensions and retire. The generation before mine had such opportunities, thanks in part to the Conservative Government of the time. However, that is not the case for my generation, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's changes to the tax system, which make it more likely that retirement incomes will be significantly reduced; thanks to increases in house prices and stamp duty for average house buyers, which make it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy somewhere, never mind meet the mortgage payments; and thanks to the Executive's changes to public services, which mean that they are not of a standard that young people and others have a right to expect.
Instead of coming up with some strategy for young people and families, the Executive needs to focus much more on the basic issues that affect all generations. Frankly, I feel that the minister is rather complacent. He would do better to listen to some of the effective points that Mr Harper made than to sit back, fold his arms and reflect on a job that he seems to think has been done.
I move amendment S2M-4999.1, to leave out from first "regrets" to end and insert:
"believes that the most important duties of the Executive towards young people are to provide them with better opportunities for education and employment, a safe environment with affordable housing in which to live and public services which are efficient and effective, and calls for a greater focus from the Executive on delivering improvements in public services and providing opportunities for young people, families, and everyone else in Scotland."
A stark warning that society is demonising its children has been issued only this morning. A leading Scottish political figure has said that Scottish society is at
"a very dangerous tipping point"
because adults are turning young people into hate figures. That figure was not Robin Harper; it was not my colleague Kenny MacAskill; and it was not any of the Conservatives. I hate to tell the Executive that it was Ewan Aitken, the Labour leader of the City of Edinburgh Council. In that regard, Derek Brownlee was right to accuse the minister of complacency.
As members recall, Ewan Aitken was until very recently the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' spokesperson on education and young people. However, this morning, he is quoted as saying that
"the nation's youth was being ‘demonised' and that it was vital to address the misconception that most of them were up to no good".
In that respect, I welcome the fact that the Greens have raised the debate, because we do young people a disservice if we do not address their very real concerns. No one underestimates the problems that are caused in our communities by persistent young offenders' antisocial behaviour. However, as I said, we do young people a disservice by not reflecting the wider issues and the longer-term implications of a policy that deals with the symptoms rather than the causes of the malaise in our society.
In my brief time, I want to focus on early intervention. Yesterday, Parliament debated the Education Committee's report on its early years inquiry, which concluded that if we want to tackle society's problems and try to change it for the better, we have to consider early intervention. The same applies to justice issues. A study by the Glasgow children's reporter shows that 40 per cent of persistent young offenders aged 15 had first been referred for care and protection at the age of eight.
There is a sense of urgency and alarm because we have seen 55,000 children and young people referred to the children's reporters this year. The care and protection figures have escalated, and I know that the minister has acknowledged the problems, but referrals for criminal behaviour have actually remained fairly static. If we accept that those who are vulnerable and are under care and protection have a tendency to become persistent young offenders later, and if we do not tackle the mismatch between the escalation of the care and protection figures and the other issues, we are storing up problems for the future, because once a young person is in that cycle it is difficult to get him or her out.
I am certainly not going to argue with Fiona Hyslop about the number of referrals, but does she appreciate that the number of referrals for protection has gone up because the facilities and social work capacity exist in communities to ensure that those cases are captured, whereas in the 1970s and early 1980s they would not have been captured or referred, so the support packages would not have been put in place to help those young people?
I appreciate the point that Jeremy Purvis makes; I said that the increase in numbers is complex. However, one of the concerns that we have heard from children's reporters is that they have to refer cases back because social workers and police are referring cases in the first place because they see doing so as a passport to getting services. That is where the pressures and constraints are.
Because of the Executive's focus on youth offending as an issue for social work, social workers' career prospects are better in criminal justice than they are in child protection social work. Vacancies for child protection workers exist for longer than do those in other areas. Committees of Parliament have suggested that it might be appropriate for all social workers to have mandatory child protection sessions, because of the shortages in child protection. When we consider the demonisation that takes place and the concerns that have been raised by some child protection cases, we can understand social workers' anxieties about specialising in child protection.
Early intervention can work. I recently visited the Blackford Brae project, which is run by Barnardo's Scotland. That facility deals with young people, many as young as primary-school age, who are in fear of exclusion. It also saves the state money, because it helps young people to stay in mainstream education and tackles their antisocial behaviour when they are very young. If it is not tackled when they are young, the result can be overcrowded prisons and other pressures later.
I wonder about the minister's comments and about his willingness to trot out the Executive's successes. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats really want to be part and parcel of an Executive that uses such antisocial behaviour rhetoric, as opposed to action. I see some interesting grimaces on Mike Rumbles's face, but I seriously believe that the minister's comments belied his sense of discomfort. Perhaps we will get a Labour minister with responsibility for justice to sum up, or perhaps the Liberal Democrat minister will be able to tell us in his summing up speech what he really thinks.
I apologise for coming in slightly late, Presiding Officer, and for missing part of Mr Harper's speech.
I welcome the opportunity to debate young people and families, so I congratulate the Green members on their choice of subject. I intend to focus my comments on how we, as policy makers, can support families and benefit our children and young people. However, I cannot go on without looking at the second part of the Green motion. I do not understand why the Greens seek to defend those whose actions make other people's lives a misery. I do not see children or young people as victims or villains. The only people I ever hear speaking in such clichéd terms are members of the Scottish Green Party. I want to ensure that people can live their lives in peace, and I am proud that the Labour Party has championed respect for others and has backed that up with legislation. The Greens—and, it seems, Ms Hyslop—need to realise that people cannot just do what they want, and that considering others will make for a better society.
I return to my original point.
Will Mary Mulligan give way?
I will not give way just now.
The Children in Scotland briefing states that parents and families are key to ensuring that childhood is a positive and nurturing experience. Children prosper best where they have a stable family life—we all agree about that. I am attracted to Children in Scotland's notion that national parenting and family support strategies should be developed. Some families clearly face more challenges than others, but I challenge any parent in this chamber to deny that they could, at some point, have done with a little more support and advice. Few people are supported by extended families these days, as we live away from such families. The problem is that there is a stigma associated with looking for support because it is not the normal thing to do and we do not know where to go, so most people struggle on.
At a recent meeting of the Parliament's cross-party group on children and young people, we heard about the helpful idea that services should be available from birth. Parents are most receptive at that time, but that needs to be the start of support, not the only support. Children and families can face challenges at any age, and we need to establish a range of supports that families can dip into when they need them.
The mapping of the present services should show what needs to be done. I have recently been involved in such an exercise, following the Justice 1 Committee's consideration of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. I was appointed as reporter to the committee on family support services, particularly in respect of distressing situations of family dispute or breakdown. I will give my report to the committee first, but there are two brief points that I would like to make today.
First, one of the most disturbing things for children and young people is animosity between adults in a household during the acrimonious breakdown of a relationship. Therefore, relationship counselling, mediation and sympathetic legal advice and support are crucial. Such services exist, but they are at risk and there is concern about their future provision. Secondly, once a relationship has broken down, particularly where there is acrimony, one of the most important services is the contact centre. Only in a few cases should a child's right to contact with both mother and father be denied. Contact centres are a practical way of providing contact and re-establishing relationships between adults while focusing on the needs of the children. My report should be available by Christmas, but I hope that we will see those services being supported well into the future.
The motion starts well, but it is spoilt by the ridiculous assertions about antisocial behaviour. We need to consider whether there needs to be some way of ensuring that couples understand the responsibility that they take on when they become parents; Scottish Marriage Care's REACT—relationship education and counselling team—project is an apt way of offering such assistance. Too often, we hear about the right to have a child, but not that there is recognition of the responsibility that goes along with it and which will give the child a stable and loving home. Parents are the primary carers, but Governments need to provide support.
The Tories' amendment flies in the face of their record of huge youth unemployment, with endless schemes such as the youth opportunity programme and the youth training scheme, massive repossessions of houses while interest rates were at 15 per cent, and unemployment and homelessness that led to family break-ups—all from the party that claims to be the party of the family.
The best that politicians can do is recognise and celebrate the role that parents play. By supporting parents, we can ensure that our children and young people have the happy and healthy lives that we want for them.
I will continue the debate by asking members to consider the relevance of our social and physical environment to the behaviour and experience of young people. As Robin Harper said, the Institute for Public Policy Research described the current popular attitude as paedophobia. As a society, we seem to be scared of sharing our space with young people. We are fearful for them if they are our own and fearful of them if they belong to someone else. We squeeze them indoors, out of harm's way, and try to stop them making use of public spaces. If we take a moment to think about it, we will all recognise that the lives of young people today are constrained in ways that we would not have been happy about when we were young people.
Of course, some young people will want to break out and rebel. At this point, I will tell a story from my own village. For a while a few years ago, a lot of young kids—boys in their early teens—were skateboarding in the small car park in the middle of the village, which was clearly inappropriate. They were making impromptu jumps out of oil drums and planks of wood, which was dangerous for other users of the car park, and they were a bit noisy. One elderly resident, who was also a community councillor, crossed the road to speak to them one day. The boys told him that they did not have anywhere else to skateboard. He said, "What would you like?" They explained that they would like a dedicated skateboarding area. He suggested that they come to the community council, and they did. I was on the community council at the time. Those 14 and 15-year-olds gained a huge amount of respect as a result of the way in which they presented their case to the community council. Their proposal was taken forward and they got their skateboard park. The point of the story is that if we cross the road, go to the young people and talk to them, we will often find that underneath the noisy exterior, and notwithstanding behaviour that is inappropriate for a public area, is a 14 or 15-year-old who is worthy of respect.
At the moment, our towns and regions seem to be competing to see which of them gives out the greatest number of antisocial behaviour orders or installs the greatest number of CCTV cameras. Those with the highest tally win applause on the front pages of the press. Instead of that, our communities in our towns and regions should be competing to see which can successfully include, not exclude, the greatest number of people.
Young people need space—physical, social and emotional—in which to discover who they are and what they want. Research from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment shows that starting a community garden and a residents association did more to reduce crime in a London tower block and reduce the fear of crime among its residents than did building security fences, installing CCTV and concreting over a nearby outdoor space. Others may insist that being tough only means creating barriers, making dispersal orders and even giving custodial sentences, but the facts show otherwise. Rather than banishing children we should be encouraging them to step out into the world, engage with others and learn about themselves.
In my region, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers runs a scheme called the Highland youth environment heritage programme, which offers young people who are struggling academically the chance to receive training and to socialise on local conservation projects. So far, more than 1,167 volunteer hours have been clocked up. Young people who complete the programme are encouraged to join local conservation groups so that they mix with a wide range of people in their community or even move on to set up their own conservation projects.
Highland Council has led the way in engaging young people in the planning process. It recognises that for the planning process to be beneficial to and respected by the whole community, its plans for urban and rural areas should respond to the needs of the whole community, including young people. That may seem an obvious statement to make but, when we make policies and plans, the views and experiences of young people are often overlooked. The Executive has attempted through guidance and advice notes to build a systematic approach to engaging with young people, but it has not done enough to ensure that those ideas are put into practice.
Under-18s make up 22 per cent of the Scottish population. We cannot get anywhere by vilifying them and ignoring their views. We need to make spaces that we as adults can share with young people. A strong policy on supporting young people and families is important, but it is up to the Executive to ensure that it does not leave young people in a policy ghetto.
Today's debate is an opportunity to examine the chasm between Executive rhetoric and delivery. It allows us to focus on young people as guardians of our nation's future and not as the cause of our present problems. It suits too many on the Executive benches to characterise young people as dark creatures of the night. Mike Rumbles may gesticulate, but that serves only to confirm the correctness of the reference.
I turn to the motion and the amendments and the intention behind them. The Executive amendment retains but four words from the Green party's substantive motion. It seeks to delete
"acknowledges that families and young people need support from time to time"
and insert
"reiterates the determination of this Parliament to stand up to antisocial behaviour".
It seems that every time we discuss our youth, the Executive seeks to insert negative references to antisocial behaviour. It is as if youth and antisocial behaviour are partners in the same dance. As long as that continues to happen, we are sending unhelpful messages to our youth: we are telling them that they should be disconnected from the mainstream of Scottish society and life.
I respect Robert Brown's championing of youth issues, but he does our youth a disservice and reveals his inner convictions about the merits of youth by the words that he gets sucked into using, perhaps by his Labour partners or, more simply, as the result of drafting by civil servants who are not sufficiently sensitive to what needs to be done.
The way we deal with antisocial behaviour is ambiguous. At the heart of the ambiguity is the sense that we view the whole issue as essentially a criminal justice issue but, by virtue of the way in which charges relating to antisocial behaviour have been incorporated into law, in essence antisocial behaviour is dealt with by the civil and not the criminal law. If people commit crimes, we should use the criminal law to address that. Our use of the civil law fudges the whole issue.
What has been missing from the debate so far is the issue of children as victims. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of actions that come under the charge of antisocial behaviour are perpetrated by adults, not children. I refer to antisocial behaviour that results from drinking, drug taking, deprivation and violence. The BBC has on its website a helpful discussion under the unhelpful heading "Are Scotland's young people demonised?" Dave from Glasgow comments:
"In some areas we are into the 3rd generation without +ve family role models. As a voluntary youth worker in inner city Glasgow I have known and worked with kids whose parents (& grandparents) set an awful example … If this is the environment for people in their ‘impressionable years' then what hope is there."
The answer to parliamentary question S2W-28897, which I received yesterday, reinforces the real difficulties that kids experience. My question was
"how many people have been found guilty of committing an offence specifically involving child victims in each year since 1999",
which is the year the Executive came to power. It may surprise members to hear that the latest figure was 545, which is 50 per cent higher than the figure for 1999, which was 368. There has been a steady increase year on year. We do ourselves no justice—and we do youth no justice—if we do not accept that children as victims should be at the core of the debate. Children should not be demonised as the cause of the antisocial behaviour difficulties in society.
Wind up, please.
Robert Brown said that the debate
"is based on a fallacy."
Of course, many of the things that the Executive does to invest in and support young people have the support of the SNP, but I say to the minister that we have to judge the Executive not by what it does but by what it achieves. On the measure of the answer to my parliamentary question, we are not achieving nearly enough.
Please close.
The present relationship between the Executive and youth can be characterised as one that is based on trust and understanding: the Executive does not understand youth and youth do not trust the Executive.
Congratulations are due to the Greens for launching a roll-back of the media's disproportionate representation and the Executive's stereotyping—as we saw in Mary Mulligan's contribution—of young people as yobs and neds.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I do not have time to take one.
If the Executive and Labour members think that that is not the case, they are in denial. They need only to open their newspaper to see that that is what they are doing. A survey that was undertaken for Kathleen Marshall, the commissioner for children and young people, was much more accurate in taking the views of young people on how they feel they are perceived by society and what they want. The survey, which was returned by 16,000 young people, showed that their top priority is things to do. However, absolutely no political will is attached to that demand.
Robert Brown's speech was straight out of a Disney movie. What he said about the facilities that are being provided for young people is a complete fantasy. His words have nothing in common with the reality on the ground. In its briefing for the debate, Children 1st said:
"We already know what is most effective in helping to stop young people from offending and from ‘antisocial behaviour'—young people-designed, well-resourced, accessible youth work provision."
Earlier this year, I spoke at the play schemes annual general meeting. Adults in lots of working-class communities give up their time free of charge to run play schemes with activities for young people during the summer and Christmas holidays. The big advantage of play schemes is that they are run by adults who know the young people in their area: they live in the same street or round the corner and play with their own kids. They are involved with the young people. The entire meeting was spent discussing funding. People cannot get minibuses and because the services are privatised they do not have free transport on First Bus or First ScotRail to go to Ayr for the day. They do not know where to go, they do not have any support and no one is funding them. The play schemes are cheap, because they are run by volunteers in the communities, but they are folding all over the place.
Four months ago, I attended a public meeting at Renton community centre, which was attended by 200 adults and young people who were there to discuss how to save the centre, which is in a deprived community. Just for good measure, Labour-run West Dunbartonshire Council was going to close the library across the road, too—bingo. The young people and adults at the meeting put their hands up and voted to occupy the centre, because if they lost it they would lose all the activities that are provided there, such as youth clubs and tae kwon do and majorettes clubs.
There are no spaces for young people in our communities. It is impossible to find a place to use in the evening that does not cost a fortune. School lets cost £30 per hour. It is impossible for the community volunteers who organise the football clubs and beavers and cubs groups to find a place to use. My son's beavers group was cancelled last week because the room had flooded and the floor was damaged. Guess what? There was nowhere else to go in the community—and my community is not the worst.
The two young 13 and 14-year-old girls who live above my office in Paisley say, "What can we do? We've nowhere to go." They are always hanging about in front of the building, because there is absolutely nothing for them. Eventually, we managed to get a youth club in the school for one night a week.
Helen MacKenzie, who set up families united, was a candidate for Scotswoman of the year at last Monday's event. However, 1,000 drug users cannot get a penny from the council or even space in a church hall for a drop-in centre. Those are the people at whom the Executive aims its antisocial behaviour policies. The way in which Executive members are presenting the issues is an absolute disgrace.
The report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which will be published in November, says that we need structured youth work but that we cannot force young people to get involved. We could solve the problem by making every school playing field, school hall and gym hall available free of charge. If we did that, volunteers who care about their communities would organise activities for young people. That is the type of policy that the Executive should propose in the debate.
The first think-tank that I want to mention is made up of the 56,720 constituents of Glasgow Springburn, whom I represent. Such people are missing from a debate in which the Greens make constant reference to think-tanks and organisations that do not reflect society.
The vast number of organisations that I have represented since I became an elected representative in 1993 do not demonise young people. The vast majority of young people in our communities—99.9 per cent of them—are good, hardworking people from hardworking families that should be commended for supporting them.
We have talked about the tiny minority of people in some communities in Scotland who have been allowed to rule those communities. Mary Mulligan referred to such people. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 was passed to deal with the tiny minority of people who cause difficulties, such as the problems that the Dennistoun community in my constituency experienced. Since a dispersal order came into effect in Dennistoun on February 13, I have received e-mails, letters and telephone calls. The vast majority of the community supports the use of the dispersal order and is delighted with the result.
Will the member give way?
I will come back to the member.
We have heard from the database of excuses, but we should challenge the people who say that there is nothing for young people to do and who do a disservice to the people who support the clubs that Frances Curran mentioned. There is a wide range of activities for young people in Dennistoun. I printed off from the Dennistoun online website a list of the activities that volunteers, churches and many organisations provide in the community. The volunteers need support. We should challenge the parents and young people who say that there is nothing for them.
Will the member give way?
I will come back to the member.
That is the challenge—
Will the member give way?
I will come on to the Green party.
We should ensure that parents channel young people into the activities that are available.
It is intriguing that the Green party claims to be the champion of young people. I read carefully the 2003 Green manifesto, which cost £2.50, but I found no reference to children and young people—[Interruption.] I heard someone say, "What about the Labour Party?" The Labour manifesto did not contain as many pages on young people as it should have done, but it had four more pages on the matter than the Green manifesto had. Perhaps the issue will have more coverage in future. Our manifesto talked about how we would support young people.
The member was talking about dispersal orders before he moved on to manifestos. The problem with dispersal orders is not dispersal; it is what happens after dispersal. Where do the young people go? Is Paul Martin confident that the young people who have been dispersed in Dennistoun are using the facilities that he mentioned? If they are not doing that, where are they?
I assure Patrick Harvie that I would not want the young people simply to be dispersed to other parts of my constituency. The focus of the dispersal was on not just challenging unacceptable behaviour but identifying the young people who are at risk in the community. I will not give confidential details, but one 11-year-old used to spend every night of his life outside the G101 Off Sales shop in Alexandra Parade. I do not want young people to spend time outside off-sales shops. As a result of intervention, that individual and others have been channelled into more constructive activity. That happened because there was a dispersal order; there was no other way of channelling that young person into more effective and constructive activities.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but Mr Martin must sum up.
If other parties continue to oppose the use of dispersal orders and other measures in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, they should say so in their manifestos. They should tell the people of Scotland that they oppose dispersal orders—
They do not work.
I will stand again on the Labour Party manifesto, which is in favour of defending the majority of people from the minority—
You must finish. I call Jeremy Purvis.
I will address what the Green motion describes as "youth disorder". For the benefit of Stewart Stevenson, who likes accuracy, I should say that the Green motion and the Executive amendment each refer to the matter. However, the Executive amendment refers to considerably more policies that are being delivered than have been mentioned in speeches by members of non-Executive parties.
Shortly after I was elected, I spoke to young people at the young people's forum in Midlothian, which is a pioneering project that brings together local government agencies, the police, youth workers and—most important—young people. The young people told me the results of police surveys on the needs of young people and older people in Penicuik, in my constituency. Some older people told the police that they wanted better street lighting, to reduce the fear of crime that they feel when young people are hanging around in dark streets. The young people also said that they wanted better street lighting, to reduce their fear of bullying from gangs in the town centre. When we speak to constituents, we find that they have shared needs and concerns, even though misconceptions about other generations sometimes underlie valid concerns. We must guard against pigeonholing when we develop Government policy for any generation.
It is therefore vital to put young people at the heart of decision making. Liberal Democrats want to establish a Scottish youth justice board, which would be different from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales in one important regard. The board for England and Wales is responsible for taking forward Government policy on youth crime, but we want young people to advise ministers and report to the Parliament on youth justice policy, which would be the first time that young people were entrenched in the decision-making framework of the Government and the Parliament. That approach would mean that when proposals for legislation were made, Executive strategies were developed and the Parliament debated the issues, young people's voices would be listened to.
The Scottish youth justice board would be a non-departmental public body with the ability to develop its own policies and approaches to young people and justice. It would advise on policy and on the operation of and standards for youth justice. It would also allow young people themselves to audit gaps in service provision. They could be involved on a regional or local basis or be members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Young people do not need us to give them a voice; they have a voice. What they need is a formal Government and Parliament setting where that voice is listened to.
Tomorrow morning, I will be at the school heads team conference in Galashiels, where all the heads from all the schools in the Borders get together to discuss youth issues. The heads are not the head teachers but the head and deputy head boys and girls and those who run their own student groups within the schools.
We have a generation of confident, inquisitive, entrepreneurial, eloquent and skilled young people. They are not Thatcher's generation, but the future generation of Scotland, of which we should be proud.
Although I do not necessarily disagree with the tone of the Green motion, it does not offer solutions. The UK Government has established youth offender panels in England for young people who have committed relatively minor offences, which are positive and involve community volunteers. Liberal Democrats in Scotland want to pilot Scottish youth justice panels. The panels would not in any way undermine or sit uncomfortably with the children's hearings system—I say to Mr Stevenson that that is a civil rather than criminal law approach to some offending behaviour.
We want to build on the English panels and on ideas from the Red Hook community justice center in New York, where young people are involved in hearing about and suggesting solutions to other young people's offending behaviour. Sanctions include community service, letters of apology, attendance at skill-building workshops, participation in conflict resolution or work on understanding alcohol and substance misuse. Young people who have previously been involved with the youth courts in New York are actively encouraged to take part. We have to bear in mind compliance—more than 91 per cent completed the sanctions that the young people imposed.
Our approach would involve young people. We would listen to them and they would be part of the solution. Solutions from other parties have been sadly lacking this morning.
As is not uncommon, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Robin Harper said. He was absolutely right to identify what young people need to develop properly and to acknowledge the role of the voluntary and statutory sectors in the provision of services for children and families. However, he offered a partial and slightly misleading analysis of what he saw as the problem and failed absolutely to suggest how services should be developed in the future.
I agree that dispersal orders and antisocial behaviour orders should not be used as a first resort, but nobody has ever said that they should be. In addition, none of the Green speakers indicated how they would deal with the small minority who cause problems for other young people, which Paul Martin identified.
Fiona Hyslop said that we should listen to the concerns and hear about the experiences of young people, with which I agree totally. According to ChildLine Scotland, the biggest problem for youngsters who contact it is bullying: 31 per cent of all the referrals to ChildLine Scotland last year concerned bullying by other young people. We need to acknowledge that. That ties in totally with what Labour members said during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004—although other members might not have heard it—which was that young people are disproportionately the victims of antisocial behaviour.
I resent any suggestion that I have ever demonised young people. My record both before and after I came to this place shows that that is not the case. I do not think that any of my Labour colleagues have ever demonised young people. That does not mean to say that they have not at times identified the difficulties caused by the small minority. Just because we condemn or criticise the behaviour of some young people does not mean that we are saying that the whole of that group exhibits the same behaviour. People have to differentiate between those two things.
I am slightly confused by the fact that the motion relates to findings from a left-wing think-tank, as Robin Harper indicated in his opening speech.
It is important to acknowledge that some young people are the victims of serious abuse. We cannot sweep that under the carpet or pretend that it is not happening; we have to deal with it. Fiona Hyslop is right that early intervention might be the way to do that.
I see young people not as victims or louts but as a cross-section of society and we have to recognise them as such. It concerns me when we pigeonhole groups in the way that some members have done this morning. Young people are not a homogeneous group, nor are older people or the vast majority of adults. We have to acknowledge that they are individuals in their own right. The motion does us no good by trying to pretend that people can fit only one of two stereotypes.
I find myself standing on the same ground on which I often stand in Green debates: that of having a shared agenda but reaching different conclusions. There is a great deal to commend in Robin Harper's speech. I agree that there is a problem in that the policies put forward by the Scottish Executive seem to have demonised young people. They have dealt with some extreme circumstances in extreme ways. There is no better evidence that the Executive also believes that than the reactionary way in which it has dealt with the accusation. We have heard negative contributions from the Executive parties today, although it has to be said that the two parties have made very different contributions—perhaps there is more of that to come.
It is one of the Conservatives' priorities to put forward policies that will deal with the problem. We have already heard Stewart Stevenson quoting Dave of Glasgow. I would like to quote young Dave Cameron of Witney in Oxfordshire.
Who he?
The leader of the Opposition in Westminster. When David Cameron went public with his views, which were described as "hug a hoodie", they were portrayed as controversial, but he was highlighting the point that lies behind the Greens' motion: the people who are being demonised by legislation such as the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 are not the people we seem to think they are. They are the young men and women of tomorrow. They will be the taxpayers and—my God—even the Conservative voters of the future.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, not at this stage. I have to get through this.
I would like to highlight one or two points that have been made in the debate. Many members have mentioned the important role that the voluntary sector has to play. I was delighted to hear Frances Curran praise the voluntary sector, because members of her party have failed to do that in relation to other issues in the past. It is important that we remember that the voluntary sector has a huge contribution to make and that Government resources, when available, can often stretch a lot further if they are directed through voluntary sector projects than if they are delivered through mainstream, nationally controlled systems. The additional motivation for those who work in the voluntary sector, which Frances Curran mentioned, is an advantage.
I cannot let this debate pass without returning to a discussion that was initiated largely by an intervention from Mike Rumbles, on the demotivation that young people experience as a result of unemployment. Yes, there have been problems with unemployment in the past, some of which were associated with policies of previous Conservatives Governments. However, the statistics appear to indicate that if we get another four years of this Executive we could have more unemployed people in Scotland than we had when the Conservatives demitted office in 1997. That trend is further underlined by the fact that, today, we have an underclass of young people who cannot find employment in the jobs that they are qualified to do and find themselves instead working in relatively menial jobs. The physiotherapists who came to Parliament yesterday are a good example of that. Many of them are well qualified but cannot find work.
The truth is that our amendment has the same objective as the motion, but reflects a Conservative view. The amendment suggests that we have perhaps put too much effort into ASBOs and funding public services when some of the money that has been spent in that way would have been better spent on increasing the economic opportunities for young people who want only a toehold on the ladder that we have been able to climb.
It has sometimes seemed that we are participating in parallel debates. The Green party's benign motion and the equally benign speech by Mr Harper were met with some vehemence and vitriol from the Executive parties. I have to contrast the Tories' moderate amendment and speeches with the quite illiberal comments from both parties on the Executive benches. That is unusual and surprising, but is a sign of the times that we find ourselves in.
I am aghast that there should be any suggestion that anyone in this chamber supports outrageous and bad behaviour. I disagree with many of the things that Mr Harvie and others have said about criminal justice, but I have never suggested that any member of this Parliament champions bad or outrageous behaviour. Frankly, it is wrong for political parties to suggest that that is the case, even if there is an election on the way. They should be addressing the debate, not making such suggestions.
Listening to Mr Brown explain his position, I was reminded of Harold Macmillan's claim in the 1960s—I was not particularly conscious of it at the time but have since read about it—that we had never had it so good. According to Robert Brown, we are now living in an absolutely fantastic world in which Scottish youngsters have never had it so good. I have to say that Harold Macmillan did not manage to sell that message in the 1960s and Mr Brown will not manage to sell it in the 21st century. We know that that is not the reality.
Youngsters are being stereotyped. That is unacceptable and it has to change. Nobody tolerates the bad behaviour that goes on in places such as Dennistoun, Bridgeton and so on. It is unacceptable and cannot be condoned—it must be condemned because it makes people's lives intolerable. However, we must remember that that behaviour is exhibited by a small minority of youngsters. The overwhelming majority of youngsters in this country are a credit to themselves, their communities and their families. We must support them, not run them down.
Further evidence that we do not live in a fantastic utopia is the fact that the statistics on child poverty are shameful for a modern, progressive, oil-rich country in the 21st century. To be patting ourselves on the back when a third of our kids are born into poverty is totally unacceptable.
We have to accept that societal changes have made matters more complicated. We have seen kids lose their innocence, never mind their right to roam. Things are a lot more difficult for youngsters, even though material conditions might have greatly improved for the two thirds of our youngsters who are not born into poverty. There has been a loss of an element of latitude. When I was a child, my elders adopted a "boys will be boys" attitude to behaviour that was, frankly, quite often outrageous and unacceptable. Certain behaviour was viewed as a rite of passage but that is no longer the case. It is immediately met by police intervention, a report to the children's panel or a referral to court.
We live in a car-owning democracy in which many people object to children playing football on the street. Blow me; some people even view it as a crime. Often, police have to intervene because the children are endangering themselves by playing football in the street, but there are individuals who believe that their right to use their prized possession outweighs the right of any child to play. That has to be addressed, although the issue of the provision of facilities is more appropriately dealt with elsewhere. The fact is that, although there might be more material benefits for children, there is also a great deal more hardship.
We need to have respect. I accept that and am on record as saying so. However, I believe that we are much better off thinking about encouraging responsibility. Our society needs people to take personal responsibility. People must accept that they have obligations as well as rights and that unacceptable behaviour will be challenged and punished. Equally, our society and Government must recognise that we have a social responsibility to our communities. Frankly, too many of our children are born to fail. The world of "Cathy Come Home" exists today, as it existed 30 or more years ago. We need to praise our youngsters and encourage good behaviour rather than simply tackle bad behaviour. The attitude of the Executive parties today was shameful.
This has been a short but interesting debate. It was particularly interesting to hear Kenny MacAskill's speech. If there was ever an example of someone trying to sit on both sides of the argument, that was it.
Earlier, I outlined our vision for young people and the programme with which we have given it substance and have tackled the challenges, many of them difficult and with a pay-off that comes only in the longer term. I was at pains to stress that it would take a lot of time to get to grips successfully with some of the challenges. I reject absolutely the allegation that has been made by one or two speakers that the Executive has become complacent on this issue. A large proportion of the time of ministers in my department and others is spent on dealing with the not in education, employment or training group, looked-after children, fostering strategies, the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill and similar issues that are central to the challenges that we face.
The Greens talk about a strategy. I have nothing against strategies but they must add value. As a number of speakers have said, there is nothing in the Greens' motion that helps with the production of programmes and policies to deal with the issues that they are concerned about. It is full of woolly sentiments—some of them, no doubt, admirable. In contrast, the Executive's policies in the past eight years have been comprehensive and thorough and have increasingly been making a difference for young people.
Scott Barrie talked about young people being a cross-section of society.
Government statistics show that there has been a 10 per cent increase in the number of persistent offenders. Does the minister think that the policy of ASBOs and dispersals has achieved anything?
I will refer to the point that Fiona Hyslop made about the figures for young people coming before the children's panel. It is true that there is a close connection between people who are in need of care and protection at younger ages and those who get involved in trouble and truanting at later ages. That is the central issue, in terms of the challenge, that we need to be careful about.
The central thrust of the Greens' position seems to be that the Scottish Executive's firm stand on tackling antisocial behaviour is simply an attack on the rights of young people. In fact, it has always been our aim to set young people free. It is not only the elderly who are scared to walk the streets at night; too often, the victims of antisocial behaviour are young people. The young suffer at least as much as anyone else, as a number of people have recognised, not least Stewart Stevenson.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I must make progress.
Some young people have nowhere to go because their playground is littered with broken bottles and they are scared to leave their street or their area in case they are attacked by a gang. It is young men and women who are most likely to be caught up in a fight in a city-centre pub. Young people have told us that they want us to stand up for them and to tackle these problems. They want facilities and opportunities—and we are investing significantly in them—but they also want a safer society.
How often have we seen situations in which territorial rivalries prevent young people accessing local facilities or in which young people are attacked walking home? This week, I heard of a young girl who was badly beaten. Her offence was to have moved to another area, which meant that she was viewed as a traitor to the territorial aspirations of the people with whom she had lived previously. That sort of attitude is the reality that we sometimes face on our streets. The vast majority of young people in Scotland are a credit to their families, their schools and their communities but we have to recognise that the behaviour of a small percentage—about one in 200 young people—continues to be a persistent problem. That is why we have had to make significant investment in local services to tackle the causes of some of the problems and to tackle youth offending and antisocial behaviour. That investment includes significant resources to prevent youth crime and to divert young people from trouble in the first place. There is no question about the connection: young people who were neglected or abused as young children are at the greatest risk of having mental health problems, of becoming homeless or of getting into trouble. That has all sorts of implications for how we tackle the causes of offending. However, it does not and cannot mean that violent and purposeless crime can be ignored, that community and personal lives can be devastated or that other young people should not be able to walk the streets in safety.
The appalling life circumstances of some young people make it imperative to have child protection structures in place to weed out the few people in child care positions who are a threat to young people, while remembering that 95 per cent of child abuse occurs at the home; to support and encourage good parenting; and to support good families, as a number of members have said. The questions of parental drug and alcohol addiction and of domestic violence are central to some of those issues.
That does not, as the motion suggests, relate to a simplistic stereotype; it is about real, lifelong suffering by vulnerable young people, the most vulnerable people in our society, to whom we do a significant disservice if we do not recognise that. The Executive's approach to young people is enabling, empowering and life enhancing. It is designed to widen opportunity and to develop confidence and skills. Young people are our futures. We have made substantial strides, and I ask the support of the Parliament in recognising those significant achievements while focusing on the major challenges that remain to be tackled before all our young people can fulfil their great potential.
This has been an interesting debate, and I am quite pleased with how it has gone, even when it came to the contributions that I disagreed with. Kenny MacAskill was quite right in parts of his speech, even if he disagrees with my fine contributions to the justice debates that we have held in this chamber. He put his finger on the point about the parallel nature of the debate. We have a set of issues here that are generally debated strictly in justice terms. Now we are debating them in terms that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People can respond to. I think that that is a positive thing. In future, I hope that we debate the issue more often in these terms, rather than in justice terms. There is a tension between the two agendas, and not always a healthy one.
I was disappointed that Robert Brown began by talking about his incredulity at the terms of Robin Harper's opening speech. He ended by accusing us of making a direct and deliberate attack and of suggesting that the Executive seeks to undermine the rights of children and young people. As Robin Harper said, we do not accuse the Executive of directly and deliberately attacking, demonising or seeking to stigmatise young people. Mary Mulligan accused us of defending those who make life intolerable for others. Scott Barrie resents being accused of demonising young people. I understand why people resent any implication that they are being accused of demonising young people. We do not make that accusation. Do the Executive parties, for their part, understand why those of us who disagree with their policies resent the accusation that we are seeking to defend people who carry out antisocial behaviour or that we are creating stereotypes merely by bringing the matter for debate in the chamber to discuss the consequences?
I am sorry to say that, in part, the Executive amendment sounds much like the article by Hilary Armstrong in this month's Parliamentary Brief, with its long list of glowing achievements. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, like ministers in all Governments, would like Opposition members to see only achievements and never criticise. The criticisms that we bring today are largely about unintended consequences, and they are directed at our society as a whole, not just at Government.
We accept that there is an issue of tone in the debate. Nevertheless, there are still significant issues at its centre about antisocial behaviour and the difficulties that young people face as victims, which Stewart Stevenson discussed. Some of us are concerned that the Green party seems not to recognise the reality of that or to give us the benefit of their proposals for doing something about it.
We have always recognised the reality of that. Robin Harper's speech made many references to the Executive's underfunding of children's social work services and to the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. It would be able to make more of a contribution if it had secure funding.
Derek Brownlee forced us to consider whether we are Thatcher's children or the iPod generation. He framed that distinction largely in economic terms. Without wanting to take away from the importance of the economic aspects of Derek Brownlee's argument, I am sure that he will agree that there is such a thing as society. I regret that the Conservative amendment seems to imply that the Executive's duties do not apply or relate to social or cultural factors. Like the Executive's amendment, the Conservative amendment removes the issues about how young people are perceived. That is to be regretted.
Fiona Hyslop cited Ewan Aitken, who has spoken about the danger of young people being turned into hate figures. I very much agree that none of us wishes to ignore the harm that is done through antisocial behaviour. I think that Fiona Hyslop understands our argument that, if young people continue to be perceived as not being welcome on our streets and not feeling part of society, the problem is likely to become worse, not better.
Frances Curran—albeit at a slightly higher pitch than I personally find comfortable—spoke about the funding problems for community groups, activities and facilities. As an adult in Glasgow with some money to spend and with access to transport to the city centre, I have a choice of a myriad things to do and places to go. If I did not have that choice, I think that I might behave quite badly sometimes.
Stewart Stevenson spoke about children as victims, and I agree with that. I would add that, when discussing issues around bad behaviour and crime, as politicians we all sometimes ignore the nuances and imagine that there is some rigid distinction between victims and offenders. That is not always so; it is not always cut and dried. I have been both, and I think that many other people have been both. Sometimes, we forget that important aspect.
I return to Scott Barrie's comments. He seemed to imply that bringing the problem of negative perceptions and stereotypes of young people for debate—as Labour's think-tank, the IPPR, has done—is somehow to create or reinforce the problem. He went on to focus on family support services, which was much more welcome. Referring to Mary Mulligan's contribution, I would like more of the Executive's contributions in this area to focus on the improvements that could be made if we were able properly to fund such services.
The last speaker I will mention is Paul Martin. I am sure that he will enjoy reading the Scottish Green Party's manifesto for 2003 much more closely and noting that it mentions policies relating to children on seven occasions and policies relating to young people on six occasions. If he wants, we could sit down with a cup of coffee later and I could point those out to him.
Would the Executive view success in terms of working with people—COSLA used those terms in The Herald today—rather than merely counting the number of orders that are passed? Or would it instead measure success in the narrow terms that Manchester City Council has used? It was bragging that, last year, it had one in 20 of its entire population under an ASBO. That is no kind of success that I can recognise, and I urge all members of all parties to agree that we should move forward on this issue with compassion and trust as our driving forces.