Missing Children Alert System
Good morning. The first item of business is a Liberal Democrat debate on motion S3M-4245, in the name of Robert Brown, on a missing children alert system. We are reasonably relaxed about timings—seven minutes is just a broad guideline, Mr Brown.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Announcements about timing just before the commencement of one's speech are useful.
Last night I spoke at a hustings meeting on behalf of our candidates for the European Parliament elections. Various candidates from the UK Independence Party and fragments of the socialist parties—a platform of no fewer than ten candidates—spoke about their dislike of the European Union and all its works. Those sentiments are ill founded for a variety of reasons, and the motion, which the Liberal Democrats lodged in the lead-up to the 4 June poll, identifies an example of the value of European co-operation to which I hope that all members can sign up. Lodging the motion was our practical way of marking international missing children's week.
It is thought that about 9,000 children go missing each year in Scotland. Some incidents involve teenagers who have problems at home, some are the result of short-term family tussles that are resolved, and some are the result of misunderstandings. However, a significant number involve real peril for and major harm to the child, and an increasing number have a cross-border or pan-European dimension. We should not forget the significant issue of child trafficking, which is of considerable and increasing concern to many people throughout Europe.
It is well understood that the first 48 hours after a child has been abducted are critical and that an immediate response to the child's disappearance is vital. In October 2007 the European Commission identified the need to develop cross-border mechanisms to combat child abduction. That led to a working paper, which called for agreement on common minimum standards and proposed arrangements involving a pre-alert, a formal request by the state Government with a standardised message to other member states, and a national or local alert in other countries. To be effective, the approach would require an agreed protocol for use, a crisis handbook that contains contact details, and a common channel of communication, and better co-ordination, between child alert mechanisms in the member states, given that it is inevitable that mechanisms are at different stages of development and operate in different ways according to national requirements. A declaration on the approach was adopted by the European Parliament in April this year.
A Commission decision in 2007 required member states to make available throughout Europe, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, the free telephone number 116 000, as a missing child hotline. The hotline is operational in a number of European states and has strong support from the Commission vice-president, although it is not yet operational in the United Kingdom.
The gold standard is the Amber alert system, which has operated in the United States of America for the past seven years. Enforcement agencies, broadcasters and the transport and wireless industry work in partnership to activate an urgent bulletin or announcement in serious child abduction cases. If we adopted the Amber alert system, in a matter of minutes after a child has been reported missing to the police, all police forces would be alerted and television and radio programmes would be interrupted and pictures of the missing child would flash up on screens. Text messages would be sent to all subscribers, and Interpol, Europol and foreign police forces would be put on alert. The entire European Community could work together to find the child. Quite often, such activity is enough to compel the abductor to hand over the child. That has been the satisfactory conclusion in a number of cases.
Liberal Democrats know that the issue is vital and of huge importance to affected families. I hope that members of other parties agree. We are aware that progress has not been as rapid as many people wanted it to be. The mechanism of the EU, working in partnership with the UK and Scottish Governments, should be harnessed to produce an effective system in which this country participates fully. We know that on some subjects the Scottish Government can put aside its coyness about partnership working with Westminster. This must be one such subject. The operation of the full Amber alert system and the 116 000 helpline, and swift communication and co-operation throughout Europe when necessary, will be made easier by a firm commitment at Commission and European Parliament level. The prize, which is beyond price, is the safe recovery of many more abducted children and the relief of many more families.
We know from the well-publicised ordeal of the family of Madeleine McCann of the horrible situations that arise when a child is not recovered, when investigation procedures are perhaps flawed and when action is not as swift or effective as we all hope that it would be. We all want to reduce the chances of such situations arising. We want a European Amber alert system and universal take-up of the free missing child alert hotline, including in Scotland and the UK. We need to ensure that Scotland and Britain are at the forefront of that approach and that it is operational in every country in the EU and in associate countries.
Scotland and Britain have quite well-developed internal mechanisms to deal with child abduction, but problems can arise when there are cross-border issues, given the increasingly globalised economy and world in which we live. The abduction of Madeleine McCann while she was on holiday in Portugal could and might have involved—it is unfortunate that we still do not know whether it actually involved—individuals from other countries. An increasing number of matrimonial break-ups have a cross-border dimension. Nine out of 10 such cases do not lead to huge problems, but it can be difficult to get children back from other countries. We know from the experience of the European arrest warrant, which was backed by Liberal Democrats and other parties in the European Parliament, that the speed of arrest in criminal situations has been greatly accelerated by the ability to have common mechanisms and common action throughout the EU.
The issue is important, and it is not controversial. I hope that the motion, which we debate in international missing children's week, will attract the support of members of all parties. It highlights a valuable approach, which needs the attention of the Scottish and UK Governments in partnership and will lead to a significant and worthwhile difference in the mechanisms for dealing with child abductions.
I have done quite well to finish in seven minutes, Presiding Officer. I move,
That the Parliament supports the establishment of strong cross-Europe working to ensure that there are effective, linked "Amber alert" systems in place to bring European-wide attention to missing children; understands that early action is critical in locating missing and abducted children and that the experience of those countries that have alert systems in place, such as the United States of America, is extremely positive; welcomes the formal adoption of the written declaration on Emergency Cooperation In Recovering Missing Children as a resolution of the European Parliament in April 2009 but regrets that European countries currently fail to cooperate effectively when recovering missing children and that progress has been slow, and calls on the Scottish Government to work proactively and constructively with the UK Government to ensure that all missing children alert systems and cross-border cooperation policies, including the 116 000 European hotline, are operational as soon as possible to bind the country effectively into the European system.
This is one of those occasions on which I am happy for members' speeches to overrun.
On behalf of Scottish Labour, I commend the Scottish Liberal Democrats for securing the debate. There is no doubt that the Amber alert system has great merit and would make a difference to the protection of children from people who pose a threat to community safety.
A great achievement of the Parliament is that we can show unity when we give priority to children's safety. We have done that on a number of occasions. I experienced such unity when the sub-committee of the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament considered the management of registered sex offenders. The need to ensure children's safety lay at the heart of the sub-committee's report.
Many parents have experienced that heart-stopping feeling when we momentarily lose sight of our child. The relief that we feel when we find them is indescribable. It must be unbearable for parents who are not so lucky—there are many well-publicised examples, such Kate and Gerry McCann. We need to be convinced that every opportunity is taken to enable a missing child to be found by the relevant authorities. The missing children alert scheme would provide added protection.
Every year some 130,000 children go missing in Europe. We know that the sooner information on a missing child reaches the public, the greater the chance of tracing them. That is why the proposals for an EU-wide alert scheme are to be welcomed. We know that a similar system in the United States works well, as Robert Brown said. Since 2003, that scheme has recovered more than 400 children, of whom 80 per cent were recovered in the crucial first 72 hours. I am aware that the proposed scheme has the majority backing of MEPs, including Catherine Stihler and David Martin, and I hope that we are a step closer to ensuring that any child who goes missing in Europe is given the best chance of being recovered.
As I said, every year, more than 130,000 children go missing in Europe. Most are returned within a week but, on average, each year six children are never found. The pain behind those statistics cannot be described. That should ensure our determination to progress the issue and look at every possible avenue to ensure the safety of our children. There is no doubt that a scheme similar to the Amber alert scheme in the United States would save lives. The European Parliament's initiative is a good example of how Europe-wide action can make a real difference.
The USA's Amber alert scheme operates in 13 states and has successfully saved the lives of many abducted children by breaking into media broadcasts to give details of suspected child abductions and by flashing up messages on highway signs that alert drivers to keep an eye out for children. Robert Brown spoke about the scheme's approach. The criteria that are used to trigger such alerts are as follows: the child should be under 16 and missing; a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent thinks that the child might suffer serious harm or death; the child must have been kidnapped or be suspected of having been kidnapped; and there must be sufficient descriptive details of the victim or the offender to justify the alert.
Having spent 10 years as an MSP, it seems ridiculous and unacceptable to me that such a scheme is not already in place. Many of us have the notion that such a scheme should involve a much more sophisticated approach—I learned that as a result of scrutinising the legislation on the management of registered sex offenders.
We live in a computer age. We use the internet, mobile communications, blogs and so on. Surely we can use such information technology to our advantage to ensure that our children are given every possible opportunity.
The Parliament is at its best when we work together to ensure the safety of our children. I urge the minister to listen to all the parties' points of view and implement a scheme that plugs the gap that exists nationwide before more children go missing. I appreciate the challenges that the minister will face with many of the bureaucracies that exist throughout Europe, but it is extremely important that we progress the issue through this debate and the many other debates that will take place.
I call on members to support the amendment in the name of Richard Baker.
I move amendment S3M-4245.1, to insert after "UK Government":
"and to encourage Scottish police forces to collaborate with their UK and European counterparts".
It goes without saying that the abduction of a child is an unimaginably traumatic experience—the worst nightmare—for a family. I welcome the motion, which supports the call that the European Parliament made in September 2008 for member states to develop national child rescue alert mechanisms and to establish co-operation for cross-border searches for and recoveries of abducted children. The response to a suspected abduction of a child must be immediate and co-ordinated, and it is important that the search for abducted children is not constrained by national borders.
Scotland's police forces are at an advanced point in developing a Scottish child rescue alert system. That system, which is being developed by an Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland working group that includes Scottish Government representation, draws on the European Commission's 2008 best practice guidance as well as on the practical experiences of police forces elsewhere in the UK and the National Policing Improvement Agency. The Scottish child rescue alert system should be fully in place by 2010. I think that I can provide reassurance on the point that Paul Martin raised by informing him that, this week, the police successfully finished a cross-UK exercise in which the child was found.
It is worth taking a moment to distinguish between cases of child abduction, which are exceptionally high risk, and the more general problem of missing children. There might be one or two child abductions in the whole of the UK in a year, but estimates of the number of incidents in which children go missing or run away are as high as 100,000 a year throughout the UK. Children can go missing for several reasons, each of which should be a cause for concern for all of us.
We are working closely with our Cabinet Office colleagues in the UK Government to simplify the process for reporting missing children, and there will soon be a tendering exercise for a new Europe-wide 116 000 hotline to become operational throughout the UK. We are also doing further significant work to improve services for young people who place themselves at risk by running away, developing systems for locating children who are missing from education, and working to protect those affected by forced marriages.
Will the minister clarify when the 116 number will be introduced? Will there be information and publicity about it? Obviously, people will need to know about it in the first instance.
As I said, there will soon be a tendering exercise for the hotline to become operational throughout the UK. Robert Brown is correct to say that, for the line to work successfully, people must know that the number is the 116 number. I understand that the 116 number is used throughout Europe, which is why we will have it. I am sure that Robert Brown recognises that, before the child rescue alert system is fully put in place, it is essential that all the operational challenges are properly addressed—most notably, the huge volume of calls that the use of such a system will produce. Thousands of calls are likely to be generated, and it is essential that the police are fully prepared to handle those calls and deal with the follow-up investigations. Robert Brown will appreciate that.
Child protection has been a key priority for the Czech presidency of the EU, and it will be a key priority for the incoming Swedish presidency. Indeed, fairly recently I attended a justice and home affairs council in Luxembourg as part of the UK delegation at which it was clear that the Czech presidency has given an excellent lead on such matters—on the significant issue of abducted children, but also on tackling the sexual abuse of children on the internet.
In conclusion, the Scottish Government is delighted to play its part in improving provision throughout Europe for at-risk children, particularly those who go missing or are abducted.
I, too, congratulate Robert Brown and the Liberal Democrats on raising such an important issue.
As we have heard, the case of Madeleine McCann and the plight of her parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, have made the public much more aware of the important issue of missing children. However, it is important to remember that Gerry and Kate McCann are not the only parents who have been left inconsolable by the disappearance of a child.
I know that Gerry and Kate McCann have studied best practice in the United States, which is internationally acknowledged to be the world leader in recovering missing children. Since 2003, nearly 400 abducted children in America have been recovered, and Belgium and France have now adopted the American approach. Some 80 per cent of abducted children in the US are recovered within the crucial first 72 hours. Early intervention is the key.
We welcome the European Parliament's April resolution to adopt the written Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children. We should record that it was my colleague Struan Stevenson MEP who initially proposed the written declaration in the European Parliament, before it was jointly sponsored by Edward McMillan-Scott, who is a Conservative, Diana Wallis, who is a Liberal Democrat, and Labour's Glenys Kinnock. Having spoken to Edward McMillan-Scott this morning, I know that he is particularly appreciative of the support that Glenys Kinnock provided in her capacity as chairman of the all-party rights of the child group.
However, more must be done, particularly in relation to the setting up of a missing child hotline, the Amber alert system and a European child resource and policy unit. The Amber alert system in the United States is named after a nine-year-old who was killed by her abductor. It operates like a severe weather warning, with an alert bulletin that is issued following the suspected abduction of a child. The alerts are distributed by the emergency alert system via commercial radio stations, satellite radio stations, television stations and cable TV, as well as e-mail, electronic traffic-condition signs, LED billboards and wireless device short messaging system text messages.
In France, a similar system has been adopted. In the handful of cases in which it has been used, it has been 100 per cent successful. Once the local police decide to issue an alert, a centre in the Ministry of Justice in Paris activates it within 30 minutes. Belgium has a similar system.
It is important to note that, in the US, there is growing concern among advocates for missing children that the public are becoming desensitised to Amber alerts as a result of the high number of false alarms. A false alarm is defined as the issuing by the police of an Amber alert without strict adherence to the US Department of Justice's activation guidelines. Any similar system that is adopted in Europe or, indeed, in Scotland will have to ensure that alerts are issued in the correct circumstances.
Children go missing for many reasons. The Children's Society estimates that 130,000 children run away, are ejected from home, are abducted or—worse—are injured or killed in the UK each year. Unfortunately, we have no agreed definition of a missing child. The police make no distinction between missing adults and missing children. Also, despite a guidance note that was issued in 2005, each police force operates a different system. Although not mentioned in the motion, that is another issue that must be addressed.
The European Commission is responsible for the establishment of an emergency number for missing children—the 116 000 number. However, only four countries, which do not include the UK, have adopted it thus far. The McCanns want to see a European children's centre, similar to the centre in Washington, bringing together Governments, the police and the voluntary sector in a united front to progress work on, for example, the elimination of layers of frustrating bureaucracy and duplication of work. Such a centre would provide a single focal point for data collection, drafting of policies and public communication on all aspects of policy.
The Children Act 1989, which was introduced by Margaret Thatcher and was probably the most far-reaching and progressive legislation in Europe, made the interests of the child paramount and gave children the right to be heard in the UK courts and to have independent legal representation. We should be pushing for the introduction of those concepts across Europe.
We will support the Liberal Democrat motion at decision time.
We come to the open debate. I will not give time limits at this point.
We know that people of all ages go missing every day, but there is something about a child going missing that has a heart-chilling effect on loved ones and the wider public. Anyone who has ever had that experience, even if only for a short period of time—which is the experience in most cases—will never forget it. It is the living nightmare of all parents, with all the fears about and emotions around what might or might not be happening to their child. That is what makes the experience feel as if it is never ending; it is almost impossible to bear until the child is found.
For a mum or a dad, the horror of a child going missing for ever has to be the worst nightmare imaginable—it is impossible to come to terms with. Some children simply leave under a cloud. Of those who are abducted, some are never seen again and end up being abused on the black web by a paedophile ring. Others are sold as slaves into the sex trade that flourishes worldwide, including in the UK. As we all know, no country or people are safe from traffickers.
Anything that can be done to ensure that a lost child is found must be done. Anything that the Parliament can do to help connect cross-border agencies must be done—indeed, that can only be a good thing. When it comes to missing children, no border or barrier should be put in the way of finding them and returning them to their homes.
As other members said, the first few hours of a child going missing are vital to finding them. The noise that is created in alerting the wider public to the missing child is profound, as the American Amber alert system has shown. The US system is there for all to see—it is evident what it means to all those involved in finding a missing child. The evidence points to a good number of successful recoveries, so why reinvent the wheel?
Most European countries have now put in place a domestic warning system to protect and recover lost children. However, those systems are simply that: domestic systems that operate within the country's borders. We know from the American experience that cross-border and cross-agency early-warning systems and publicity can destruct even well-organised crime. We must join up the intelligence and information and get it out there early, child by missing child. That must be done on a pan-European basis—indeed, on a worldwide basis, given that the world is growing ever smaller.
We should put in place an alert system that can trace a missing child effectively. I support in full Robert Brown's motion. If implemented, it will save a life of nightmares for families—mums, dads, grans, uncles and aunts—and communities.
Like other members, I am grateful to Robert Brown for bringing the matter before the chamber today.
With the on-going campaign that Gerry and Kate McCann are fighting in the European Parliament to create an effective Europe-wide missing child alert system, the debate could not be more timely. It is impossible to debate the issue seriously other than in the European context. It is clear to me and to other members who have spoken in the debate that if ever there was a case for pan-European co-operation, this is it. The ease of cross-border movement within the EU demands that we take a co-ordinated Europe-wide strategic approach to such an alert system.
Just as in the US, no one state or agency can act alone to tackle child abduction effectively. All European countries must therefore act together to implement an alert system. I am sure that—with the possible exception of UKIP—there will be very little party-political divergence on the matter today or on the campaign for such a system in Europe. The McCanns have made it perfectly clear that a Europe-wide alert system would have improved the chances of finding their daughter Madeleine in the crucial first few hours following her abduction.
As other members have said, the first such missing child alert system was established in the United States, following the abduction and brutal murder of Amber Hagerman in Arlington, Texas. Arlington residents were so shocked at the tragic event that they contacted radio stations in the Dallas area to suggest that they broadcast special alerts if a child was ever to be abducted again.
The Amber alert programme has grown to the extent that it now covers the entire United States. As other members have said, the programme uses strict eligibility criteria to decide which cases should be broadcast. That ensures that members of the public do not become blasé about alerts, which is recognised as something that reduces the efficacy of the programme.
The benefit of such a planned and strategic approach is that it minimises delay in responding to child abduction and thereby maximises the time available directly after an abduction has taken place to locate and rescue the missing child.
The Amber alert programme in the US has been successful in rescuing children from abductors. The US Department of Justice reports anecdotal evidence that perpetrators are well aware of the power of the system and, in some cases, have released an abducted child on hearing the alert.
The advent of new information-sharing technologies offers great potential for information to be broadcast widely and quickly following an abduction. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which are now accessible via mobile devices, offer the opportunity of fast dissemination of information to large numbers of the public, which can include photographic information about an abducted child and any information that is known about the abductor.
I was pleased to learn from Fergus Ewing's speech about the work that ACPOS is undertaking in Scotland on the issue, which is certainly welcome. I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to play its part in working alongside the UK Government and Governments in other European nations to create a system that maximises the opportunity to locate abducted children as quickly as possible.
I welcome Robert Brown's motion. He is right to highlight the success of the Amber alert system in the US and equally right to suggest that we should learn from that success and establish a similar system across Europe. Emerging information and communication technologies offer the opportunity of making child abduction a much more risky prospect for any would-be abductors, which can only be a good thing. I hope that the Parliament will support the motion in Robert Brown's name and the amendment in Richard Baker's name.
It can be difficult to be one of the last members to speak in a consensual debate. The fear is that one ends up simply repeating what has already been said—or what has already been repeated. Indeed, my pen has been busy during the debate as I scored out much of my speech, so I doubt that I will make my four minutes.
We should, however, make no apology for devoting parliamentary time to such an important subject because it gives us an opportunity, as a united Parliament, to make clear our commitment to doing all that we can to find abducted children as quickly as possible. Perhaps the debate will have some influence on the Parliaments of other nations in Europe that are not fully signed up to the idea of an Amber alert system. I support having such a system and the call for other European nations to get on board in that regard. In particular, I acknowledge the benefits of the 116 000 hotline number, which will soon, I am pleased to hear, be operational across the UK.
I have heard members talk about the 116 000 number. What is Anne McLaughlin's view of the 999 system? Should it be made redundant or should it be incorporated into the Amber alert system?
I might well make my four minutes now.
I would probably instinctively dial 999 if a child went missing, and I would expect the operators to put me through to the right people. However, we must remember that not every country in Europe uses 999. I think that the comparable number in Spain and Germany is 112, and it is 997 in Poland, so a person coming into this country will not instinctively dial 999. If we had a pan-European number that every country used, people would use it instinctively if their child went missing.
There are critics of the Amber alert system, as other members have said. However, the thought of what the McCann family and, going further back, the family of Ben Needham, who went missing many years ago, and others have gone through convinces me that even if, as some American critics suggest, only a third of missing children are reunited with their families because of the Amber alert system, it is well worth the effort.
The biggest criticism in the United States appears to be not of the system itself but of misuse or overuse of it. The US Department of Justice issues guidance that should be followed before going to the Amber alert system—Paul Martin listed the criteria. One criterion states that the child must be at risk of serious injury or death. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies have ignored that and there have, as a result, been many false alarms. Only 30 per cent of the alerts that were issued in 2004 met the criteria and many of the remaining 70 per cent turned out to be false alarms.
The problem that results from false alarms—John Lamont made this point in his speech, but I cannot score out everything in my speech—is that people become desensitised. Text messages, e-mails or interruptions to radio or television programmes should happen only in an absolute emergency. The public must know that, if "Coronation Street" is interrupted, it is not time to go and make a cup of tea but time to sit up and take notice. If such interruptions happen too often, people will simply switch off and switch the kettle on. None of that, however, is an argument against having the Amber alert system; rather, it gives us an opportunity to learn from the US's mistakes. Perhaps in doing so, Scotland can work towards becoming one of the world leaders in best practice.
While calling for an Amber alert system, we ought not to underestimate the amount and quality of work that is going on and the good practices that are being used by our police forces. I spoke yesterday to a police officer who is experienced in missing children cases. Much of what he said has already been discussed in the debate, so I will not repeat it, but he also said that the most crucial aspect of a scheme such as the Amber alert scheme is consistency of approach among forces and other agencies, such as the media. The motion calls for such consistency across national borders. It may not be straightforward to set that up and it may not be easy to get agreement across the nations but—to paraphrase both Andrew Carnegie and the Arctic Monkeys—nothing worth having is gotten easily. For all those children who are still missing and—it is painful to say it, but it needs to be said—for all those children who are still to go missing, we must get the international agreement that the motion seeks, whether it is easy to do so or not.
I call Cathie Craigie to speak, after which we will come to wind-up speeches.
As other members have been, I am pleased to speak in the debate and to offer my support for Robert Brown's motion and the amendment in Richard Baker's name. I feel the same as my colleague Anne McLaughlin, in that the back shift is always a hard shift to fill in such a consensual debate.
Discovering that their child is missing must truly be a nightmare scenario in the lives of any parent, as other members have said. Some of us in the chamber met relatives of Madeleine McCann two years ago when they came to the Scottish Parliament to highlight their needs and the difficulties that their family had experienced in getting cross-Europe co-operation in the search for their young niece. Although we all saw and felt their pain, in reality we in this chamber can only imagine how it must be for a family whose child goes missing for a prolonged time.
In these days of instant news and modern communications, I cannot understand why countries across Europe and, indeed, the world would not want to see a strong cross-border approach and a visible urgency in tracing missing children. Emergency co-operation in recovering missing children is essential, and I am pleased that Labour MEPs have been working for a number of years on the issue of tracking missing children, and that they fully support the written declaration on emergency co-operation that was launched last month, which calls for an EU-wide alert system. All that is required for that to become the official position of the European Parliament is for 50 per cent of the 785 MEPs in the European Parliament to sign up to the written declaration. It looks like that will be achieved without any difficulty.
We know from other countries in the world, where alert systems like the American Amber alert system exist, that such systems have been proved to be successful in recovering missing and abducted children. However, the voluntary approach that has been taken so far by the European Parliament is not working across Europe. While incidents of children going missing in Britain and other European countries continue, we must work together on that. I think that we can do that, which will help in tracking down missing children.
There is no benefit in my repeating what other members have said, so I will not take up my full four minutes. I conclude by saying that children cannot look after themselves, so we—parents, grandparents, policy makers, politicians and Governments—must act to adopt the simple and effective approach that will help when a child goes missing, which is the Europe-wide alert system. I encourage the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government and other European Governments to achieve such a system sooner rather than later, in the UK and beyond.
As has been said, the debate has been consensual. That is the case for one simple reason—although we in the Parliament have our differences now and again, we are all caring people and we recognise that we have a clear duty to look after society's most vulnerable people.
We should not exaggerate the problem—there is not a paedophile around every corner—but we must acknowledge that the problem exists. We require also to recognise that we live in a shrinking world, with all the enjoyment and advantages of that, but also with the result that dangers exist that might not have existed 30 or 40 years ago.
It is important to stress that we can do only so much. As has been said, about 130,000 children go missing in the UK every year. It is easy to categorise them under several headings. Children or teenagers might walk out of the house in a strop. Some disappear for a few hours then return and others might disappear for a few days or months, after which they usually return. Others might not return, but come to no harm. To deal with the problem of people becoming blasé, we must target the most vulnerable—young children such as Madeleine McCann. I recollect only two such instances. One is the tragic incident that involved Madeleine McCann and the other is that of a young boy who went missing on the island of Crete and who has not been recovered. There is no doubt that if the appropriate mechanisms were in place to highlight and publicise missing children in the first couple of hours of their going astray, the chances of recovering them would be much greater.
We should disregard cases—traumatic though they may be—in which a child is abducted by an estranged spouse, and concentrate instead on children who are abducted for obscure purposes that are never explained or, to be frank, for horrific sexual purposes. With sincere eloquence, Gil Paterson highlighted the horrors of every parent's fears about a child going missing, which we must recognise.
If we kept narrow the parameters for the cases to which the system applied, that would inevitably result in fewer cases being reported and would avoid the problem that Karen Whitefield, John Lamont and others were right to raise—that the public might become blasé and turn off because too many cases were publicised. If we concentrated on cases for which immediate notification would produce a result, the system would be of tremendous benefit.
I took some comfort from what the minister said. As Paul Martin said, it is surprising that we have not gone further down the road. International co-operation is important under several headings, and co-operation on missing children has perhaps been overlooked. However, action is now being taken and we are now going down that route. That can only benefit people who find themselves in the horrific circumstances of the McCanns.
We have had a good and informed debate on a serious and important issue. I join all the members who welcomed the decision of Robert Brown and the Liberal Democrats to bring the subject to Parliament. Society and Governments have no more important role than protecting our children and pursuing effectively those who are responsible for crimes against them, which rightly provoke revulsion whenever they take place.
It is important to have at our disposal every tool to achieve those aims. The proposed missing children alert system could make a difference in locating children who have been abducted. That is why the written Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children is an important step forward. As Cathie Craigie said, it is supported enthusiastically by Labour members of the European Parliament and across the parties, as we have heard.
Several members have referred to the impressive and encouraging examples of such work in the United States and in other parts of Europe. To establish an Amber alert system throughout the continent, Governments and police agencies will be required to work more closely together. As Anne McLaughlin said, making progress on such work can be difficult and, at times, frustratingly slow. However, every effort must be made to persevere with the initiative, because of its potential. It is good that at least an initial scheme is working in England and Wales, but we should examine examples from abroad of full systems that are operational and consider how we can make similar progress in Scotland. The UK-wide exercise that the minister mentioned is encouraging and we want to build on such work.
How best to achieve such a scheme will be debated. That might be through a Europe-wide scheme or through national alert schemes that communicate effectively with one another. Missing Children Europe has argued that having schemes that work within national boundaries but communicate with one another would focus attention in the country in which a child went missing and in the countries that border it.
John Lamont was right to say that we must ensure that the system is effective, which will take careful thought. Karen Whitefield said that it is important to consider how to implement schemes so that people are not desensitised to them when they have been in place for a while. Bill Aitken also referred to that. Those points were well made and need to be properly considered as schemes are developed.
The crucial point is that a system should, however it is achieved, work across borders. Effective collaboration between police forces is needed. I read in some of the debate about the proposal that some people are sceptical about how well police forces from different countries will work together. The key point is that police forces will increasingly have to collaborate more effectively as more free movement takes place in an expanding European Union. That thinking drives our amendment, which I hope Parliament will support.
Such co-operation is crucial not only in recovering missing children but in tackling other important areas of crime, particularly in alerting police forces when people with serious criminal backgrounds move into their jurisdictions—that issue has arisen here. Better joint working needs to happen, and implementing the missing children scheme should be part of that process. However, we know that that initiative alone will not be enough to make the progress that we want in order better to protect our children from crime.
We welcome the pilot in Tayside that will allow parents and guardians to ask the police whether new partners or other adults who have easy access to their children have convictions for child sex offences. That follows successful pilots south of the border and Paul Martin's campaigning work on Mark's law. The horrific offences against children that were detected through operation algebra and the successful prosecution of those who were responsible show the challenges that the police face in preventing and detecting such crimes.
It is a sad and sobering thought that more children will go missing in our country, but that is the bleak reality that we must face. We must do all that we can to deal with such appalling situations wherever they occur. The debate has shown that Europe-wide adoption of alert schemes would make a difference. The Scottish Government must work with the UK Government and Scottish police forces must work with their counterparts throughout the UK and Europe to progress that vital initiative. I am happy to endorse the motion in Robert Brown's name, which we will support at decision time.
I thank Robert Brown for lodging the motion. I continue to be encouraged by the progress that is being made in developing systems in this country for rescuing abducted children and in supporting services for missing children more generally. As my colleague Fergus Ewing indicated, we are fully supportive of, and engaged in, UK and Europe-wide initiatives. I point out to my colleague Gil Paterson and to Parliament that the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings became binding in the UK on 1 April this year. The Scottish Government, for its part, is running awareness events on child trafficking. In March, we issued guidance on safeguarding children who may have been trafficked and we are working with local child protection committees.
When we discuss discrete pieces of work such as the child rescue alert system or the 116 000 hotline for missing children, it is important that we offer the context on how those solutions fit with the range of work that the Government is undertaking in child protection. As members would expect, child protection is a top priority for the Government. Over the past couple of years, we have worked to shift the emphasis of those services in order to place increased focus on the need to intervene earlier and more effectively. That approach runs through everything we are doing through the policy frameworks with which members are familiar: the early years framework, "Equally Well" and "Achieving Our Potential". Getting it right for every child provides us with the foundation for delivering all the work that is covered by the frameworks and by all children's services. The approach recognises the crucial role that universal services play in supporting and protecting children, and the need for clear links between them and specialist professionals.
Members will be aware that in February this year I tasked a national multi-agency working group with considering how best to revise the 1998 guidance document "Protecting Children—A Shared Responsibility". It is important that the guidance that we provide to professionals is an accurate reflection of evolving national policies. We all recognise the importance of driving forward improvements in practice as quickly and consistently as possible. The review is a major opportunity to revisit and optimise every aspect of Scottish child protection provision. I intend that a revised guidance document will be available for consultation in the spring of next year.
My question concerns the definition of a child. In his speech, Bill Aitken suggested that we are concentrating on young children. I accept that false alarms are an issue, but will the minister confirm that we are dealing with children of all ages, in both the domestic and the international categories?
Indeed. Robert Brown will be aware that there is some dissent over the definition of a child and on the age at which children become adults. For the purposes of our involvement in the child alert system, we are taking the view that any young person under 18 can be defined as a child. Normally in Scots law, a child is defined as someone under 16, so we are fitting in with our European brethren on that front.
If we are to intervene earlier and more effectively to protect our children—in those instances in which children have gone missing or where there are other concerns about their welfare—it is important that we take seriously our responsibility for ensuring that our young people get the help that they need, when they need it. For members of the public, that may mean a call to the police, the local authority, the national child protection line or the soon-to-be-established 116 000 hotline for missing children. For professionals, it will mean sharing information, considering risks and taking appropriate and proportionate action to ensure that our young people are safe and supported. It is the Parliament's role to ensure that practitioners and individual members of the public feel sufficiently supported and empowered to take on those responsibilities.
A wide range of work is under way in this critical area, and excellent progress is being made. However, we cannot be complacent, as much remains to be done. I am confident that the approach that we are taking is the right one and that we can continue to make changes that will have a real and positive impact on the lives of our children and young people.
We are happy to accept Richard Baker's amendment, which adds to the motion.
Monday 25 May was international missing children's day, the aim of which is to encourage and offer solidarity and hope to the thousands of parents around the world who have no news of their missing children. For many, it was a poignant reminder of the 9,000 children who are reported missing—just in Scotland—every year. As the Minister for Community Safety said, across the world hundreds of thousands of children go missing each year.
As others have said, if we are to be successful in recovering a missing child who is in danger of harm, the first 48 hours are vital. It is, therefore, crucial that the authorities have every tool that they need at their disposal during that time. That is why it is vital that the Scottish Government move to support a system like the Amber alert campaign in the US. Paul Martin may be more familiar with the internet, computers, Facebook and so on than I or even Bill Aitken, who referred to the issue—given our age—but I agree with him that advances in computers must make it much simpler to replicate the American system. I am, therefore, pleased that the Minister for Community Safety has confirmed that the new ACPOS system will be operational in Scotland by 2010.
Now that the UK is part of an open Europe, it is no longer possible to tackle all forms of criminality at local level. I echo the succinct remarks of Edward McMillan-Scott, MEP for Yorkshire and Humber and the European Parliament's Vice-President, who said that currently European countries fail to co-ordinate effectively when attempting to recover missing children. The system needs to be more robust and, crucially, faster.
In April 2008, Mr McMillan-Scott launched a cross-party sponsored Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children. After receiving the support of 418 MEPs, it was formally adopted as a resolution last month. The pilot system that is now in development is based on the successful US Amber alert system, which has recovered a huge number of children. The same system forms the basis for the UK child rescue alert system, which is managed through the missing kids website.
I was interested in what John Lamont said about the Amber alert system in the US, where people may be becoming blasé or desensitised because of the number of events or incidents that are reported; we heard about them being flashed up on road signs and across computers. It is important that we address that issue. The Minister for Community Safety explained the four different criteria that must be used to make the system robust. If, as John Lamont indicated, there is evidence that people are becoming desensitised in the States, we must be careful to ensure that that does not happen here. I agree that the scheme must be well publicised to be successful. People need to know about the systems that are available; when they enter the country, they should know to call 116 000, rather than 999. If everyone knows that one phone number is in use throughout Europe, that can only be good.
The UK child rescue alert system aims to set up or enhance child alert mechanisms in all member states; to increase the compatibility and co-ordination of child alert schemes; and to foster co-operation between national law enforcement authorities and judiciaries, in order to help transmit alerts rapidly and to develop structures and procedures that are aimed at resolving cross-border cases of child abduction much more efficiently and effectively. Several measures are already in place, including, as I have said, the 116 000 freephone European missing child hotline, which has been mandatory for member states since 2007 and is now operating in 10 countries although not yet in the UK.
Earlier examples of European co-operation on cross-border law enforcement show that it has been successful. Perhaps the minister's officials could investigate the Daphne III programme, which has been funded by the European Commission and is being tapped into by a number of European countries to give them funds to develop their schemes for recovering children who have been abducted or reported missing. The introduction of the European arrest warrant has also reduced extradition times from European Union countries from 18 months to 43 days. It is my hope that a new Amber alert type of system can be similarly effective.
Europe is in agreement, and the principle of an Amber alert system has already received cross-party support in Parliament through the motion that Kenneth Gibson lodged last year. I urge the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to support the development of a similar system that will work across the UK and across Europe and to ensure that existing alert systems and cross-border schemes, such as the 116 000 European hotline, are successful. Many members have referred to the McCann case. It is vital that we ensure that such cases are not inflicted on parents in the future.