Youth Justice
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3317, in the name of Miss Annabel Goldie, on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee, on its ninth report in 2005, "Inquiry into Youth Justice". I call Bill Butler to speak to and move the motion.
It is an unexpected privilege to be able, on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee, to move the motion. My colleague, Annabel Goldie, extends her apologies to Parliament. Obviously, she is stuck—not in transit gloria, but certainly in transit—somewhere outside Linlithgow. I will not attempt to substitute for Miss Goldie—given her inimitable style, no one could—but I will, nonetheless, do my level best to open for the committee.
It is a pleasure to open for the Justice 2 Committee in the debate on our report "Inquiry into Youth Justice". By way of a preamble, I record my thanks, and those of my fellow committee members, to the clerks for their support and hard work in the task of compiling our extensive and thorough-going report into the youth justice service in Scotland. I also thank all the witnesses who gave evidence before the committee in formal session and those who helped to facilitate evidence-gathering sessions and site visits in locations throughout Scotland during the 12-months-plus duration of the inquiry.
The subject is not narrow, so in order to arrive at a set of recommendations that we hoped would be both sensible and practicable, the committee agreed a remit that was both focused and manageable. We decided to review the effectiveness of multi-agency working in the planning and delivery of services to young people and then to assess the impact of any gaps that we might discover in service provision. That two-pronged approach allowed us to deal with the salient matters in the complex and challenging matter of judging how different agencies work successfully together to meet the complex variety of needs that young offenders present. Those are needs that the inquiry states at the outset:
"no single agency could hope to meet."
I believe that this morning's debate will reflect the complexity and wide-ranging nature of the planning and delivery of youth justice services that are instanced in the committee's report. With all members of the committee, I hope for a good, serious debate. I am sure that members' contributions will be both serious and thoughtful and that members will avoid being overtly partisan.
The issue is serious and the task that we face as a Parliament is to ensure that we deliver for all the young people of Scotland, even those who have offended. We need to ensure that those young people are integrated, or reintegrated, into society and become useful members of our nation. I am sure that several committee members will mention that we are in no doubt that there exists a need for a multi-agency structure to plan and deliver effectively services for the very small percentage of our young people who offend. I stress that only a very small percentage of the under-18 population in our country offend. It is therefore essential that
"the constituent parts of the multi-agency presence dovetail to ensure its overall effectiveness."
So, the issue is about working together—the committee made a number of recommendations on multi-agency working. I am sure that some members will refer to the desirability of coterminosity between agencies where that can be achieved, although it is not always possible. In such cases, services need to be delivered based not just on core agencies such as social work, but on the inclusion of housing, education, culture and leisure services.
In particular, the committee felt that education services have a vital role in the delivery of effective youth justice services, but that they
"are not always sufficiently aware of the importance of their contribution nor effective in delivering it."
That is a concern, which is why I am glad that the Executive's response to the committee's report, entitled "getting it right for every child", which was published just after our inquiry was put into the public domain, includes proposals to require education, the voluntary sector and other non-core services to work together to produce for each child an integrated assessment, plan and record, which will be used by all agencies.
If we are serious about reintegrating young people who have offended, we must do so in a co-ordinated fashion that recognises the particular needs of each child. Such an approach would fit with the committee's conclusion on the essential role of local authorities in transforming the concept of corporate responsibility into practice on the ground. I am sure that members will reflect on that.
The committee believes that we need to accept that young offenders are not exclusively the responsibility of social work departments. I am pleased to note that the Executive will shortly issue guidance on a quality improvement framework to support integrated children's services, so that support will be given to planners and service providers to agree common outcomes, objectives and targets, and to evaluate progress towards them.
I wish to refer to the important role of the voluntary sector, which is another area on which members may wish to comment. The committee was pleased to hear the Minister for Justice's
"clear encouragement to the voluntary sector to play its part in the development of local youth justice strategies."
Committee members recognise that there will be local differences as to the best way of achieving that. We were unanimous in stressing the need for voluntary sector involvement in youth justice strategy groups. That involvement is essential, which is why I am glad that in its response to the inquiry the Executive promised that vital voluntary sector involvement in youth justice strategy groups will be checked and followed up.
Two other aspects of multi-agency working are worthy of note—funding and data sharing. On the latter, the committee felt
"that agencies are struggling to achieve effective data sharing, are concerned about possible conflicts between operational requirements and legal constraints, and are looking for further guidance."
I welcome the fact that the Executive noted in its response that it is working to provide that guidance on data sharing. I hope that it will be available soon, because it is one of the prerequisites of the integrated approach that we all agree is the way forward.
Members may also wish to comment in particular on funding, which is vital. The committee rightly felt—I agreed with the rest of the committee—that there are too many funding sources, each with its own timescale and reporting requirements. Also, too much funding is for pilots and short-term initiatives. The committee felt that proper roll-out needs to be planned from the beginning.
I despair to hear that point again and to read it in the report, given that previous committee reports on diversions from offending made a similar point. We made the point five or six years ago, but the situation remains the same. Is Bill Butler as saddened by that as I am?
Obviously I am concerned, but I am given a degree of comfort that the Executive in its response has agreed that
"more can be done to consolidate and rationalise funding streams"
and that it is exploring ways of doing so. I hope that that exploration will be expeditious. Perhaps the ministerial team will comment on that.
I turn to some of the gaps in services that the inquiry highlighted. The committee believes that diversionary services are critical in preventing youth crime by keeping young people out of formal criminal processes and supporting them so that they are not drawn into offending behaviour. That process is vital and diversionary services are key to it. As members will know, the services range from restorative justice programmes to innovative ways of working with leisure and recreation services. The committee believes that diversionary services are worth while, but that their provision throughout Scotland is patchy and that evidence about their effectiveness is not yet well developed. Members may wish to reflect on that in the course of the debate, although I note the Executive's intention to analyse mapping returns so that it can get a clearer picture of diversionary services' availability and their outcomes in each area. I accept the Executive's unwillingness to issue formal guidance to local authorities on minimum diversionary provision; that unwillingness is based on a belief in subsidiarity, in which every member should believe. However, I hope that local authorities are positively encouraged to develop such services.
The report also voiced a legitimate concern about
"the apparent variation in the availability of services for young people involved in offending who have substance misuse problems."
Again, members may wish to comment on that. In passing, I note that the Executive takes the view that it is up to local drug and alcohol action teams—DAATs—to assess local needs and to design services accordingly. I ask the Executive to ensure that the provision of such services is strictly monitored so that, as the committee recommended,
"sufficient coverage of services across Scotland"
is ensured. Perhaps the ministerial team would like to comment on that gap, which the inquiry uncovered.
The committee also expressed serious concern about the availability of child and adolescent mental health services, or CAMHS. Although I recognise and accept the steps that the Executive is taking to develop mental health services for young people in general and, to a lesser extent, for young people who offend, the committee retains
"serious doubts about the adequacy of CAMHS provision in Scotland".
Obviously, workforce shortages mean that there are unlikely to be quick fixes, but the committee was correct to urge the Executive to develop mental health services as speedily as is humanly possible. Again, I look forward to the ministerial team referring to the committee's concern on that.
The committee welcomed the expansion of residential and secure care services and urged that a national strategy be developed to avoid the risk of inappropriate placements. I acknowledge the Executive's belief that a national strategy is not required, as the individual needs of each child should be key to service provision, but I would like a comment from the ministerial team on the committee's recommendation.
Throughcare services were also felt to be patchy, with no central co-ordination of services. Members may wish to discuss that in the ensuing debate. The committee felt that national standards for throughcare should be audited and enforced. The Executive's commitment to work with local authorities to monitor progress towards meeting national standards in throughcare is welcome, as is its commitment to the allocation of officers to supervise those who are subject to supervision on release.
I hope—I am sure—that this will be a serious debate on what is a serious subject for the people of Scotland. It must be the aim of every member to ensure that all Scotland's young people are able to make a positive contribution to our communities and to society in general. The Justice 2 Committee's ninth report is a useful and practical aid to achievement of that objective.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recommendations contained in the Justice 2 Committee’s 9th Report 2005 (Session 2):
Report on Inquiry into Youth Justice (SP Paper 370).
Many thanks for stepping in to open the debate.
I commend Bill Butler. It is a brave man who would attempt to substitute for Annabel Goldie, but he did so exceptionally well. He has not only offered Parliament a comprehensive overview of the committee's report but has touched on a number of significant subjects.
This is a welcome opportunity to debate the Justice 2 Committee's report and to focus on youth justice issues. I pay tribute to the committee for the work that it has done. It took a significant amount of evidence from a wide range of groups, and the report is both comprehensive and balanced. We welcome the report's acknowledgement of our national strategic approach and our support for national and local agencies, and we acknowledge the committee's concerns and recommendations for action in specific areas. It has made many pertinent points well.
We agree with the committee—it would be foolish to disagree—that more can be done. We have made huge strides in the last few years, but there is more that we need to do. We have attempted to concentrate on increases in funding, and we have put in place the necessary infrastructure. Having done that, we must now turn our focus to delivery.
When we talk about youth justice, it is important that we remember that the vast majority of young people in Scotland do not offend. Of those who do, most will respond positively to the guiding hand of a concerned parent, the support of a teacher, the involvement of a youth worker or a warning from the police. Our starting point in tackling youth offending must be to place the young person at the centre of what we do. We need to put their needs and their deeds at the centre. That is not about excusing their behaviour or their actions, but about providing support where and when it is needed, as well as challenging their offending behaviour.
We must do that because we care passionately about young people, because we do not want to lose anyone to a life of crime and because we want to help them to turn round their lives and make the most of the opportunities that are out there for them. We want to enable every young person in Scotland to become a successful learner, a confident individual, an effective contributor to society and a responsible citizen.
So, what are we doing to tackle the youth offending of the minority? Wherever possible, we are looking to prevent and divert young people from offending through positive interventions. We are investing heavily in community safety partnerships, in community quality of life and in closing the opportunity gap—all of which seek to engage young people in their communities and to divert them from crime.
Bill Butler touched on an important point, to which I may return if I have the time. It is exceptionally important that we give young people the opportunity to do something positive in their communities. During the summer, I visited a project called the pulse in West Dunbartonshire. It is an imaginative scheme that has, as Bill Butler suggested should be done, brought together a range of services—education, youth services, the police, social workers and others—to offer young people a variety of opportunities to engage in activities that they enjoy but have probably never had the chance to experience, such as music and drama, outdoor activities and various leisure activities. What I saw there was positive and enthusiastic engagement with young people. I hope to learn more over the coming months about how successful that project has been.
We are committed to developing services for children, but we are also committed to reforming services, including the children's hearings system, to ensure that our children and young people get the help and support that they need when they need them. We want to challenge their behaviour and meet their needs, and we want to intervene in an appropriate, proportionate and timely manner to improve their life chances. Consultation on those proposals closes tomorrow.
We need a wide range of interventions such as counselling, work with families, and supporting education, which all rightly have a place, so that we can ensure effective action in all cases. Intensive community-based programmes, including electronic monitoring, and residential and secure care also have their place, however. For some offenders, an antisocial behaviour order might be appropriate. Many members will know that last week an antisocial behaviour order was deemed appropriate for a young person in my area of Renfrewshire.
However, it is important that we view in context the use of antisocial behaviour orders for young people under the age of 16. Such orders should be used ordinarily only when other measures have been tried but have failed; for example, when it looks likely that secure accommodation will be required. They should be used only as one element in a range of measures that are designed to change a young person's behaviour.
We also need to ensure that we have effective links between the youth and adult justice systems and that we make the necessary links in order to share good practice and reduce reoffending. An example of that is the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. We cannot be, and we are not, complacent.
The important themes of the committee's report—improving multi-agency working and addressing gaps in services—are crucial if we are to have the youth justice system that we want. The report has helpfully flagged up a range of important issues; in some, work with local partners is already on-going, in others, more action is undoubtedly required. Our response to the committee made it clear that we are committed to working with partners to take action.
We want to ensure effective multi-agency working. We will place new statutory duties on all responsible agencies to work together to ensure that young people get the support that they need, we will ensure that there is appropriate representation in all youth justice strategy groups and we will ensure that we identify and share examples of effective multi-agency delivery and information sharing.
Although it is undoubtedly the case that much more can and should be done to improve multi-agency working in youth justice and in children's services, does the minister agree that many of the problems that the committee identified are not specific to that area of service delivery? One need only look at our work in the Audit Committee, for example, to see that better multi-agency and joint working is necessary across public services.
Will the minister assure me that as well as working within his own portfolio, he will work with ministerial colleagues across the Executive and with local delivery agencies to ensure that in culture, training and practice the mindset and the systems are developed that will ensure that joint working becomes a reality so that we are not repeating this cry four or five years from now?
Susan Deacon makes a valid point. She is right: multi-agency working does not apply just to youth justice. The time is right for examination of how services are delivered locally and across Scotland; indeed, the concept of community planning is an attempt to ensure that agencies come together at local level. However, much more needs to be done. We need to reflect on the experience of the past five or six years in considering the best way forward. We do not want to create bureaucratic responses and we want at the same time to ensure that we break down barriers. There is no excuse for people to retreat into their own areas of responsibility and to blame others when things go wrong.
We also need to address gaps in services. Since 2000-01, funding for youth justice has increased remarkably from £3.5 million to £63 million this year. That is a huge increase in anyone's language. Most of that money has been used to build capacity to allow local authorities, police, and the voluntary sector to bring new services on stream. That means services that are designed to meet local needs and priorities and address local gaps. Bill Whyte from the criminal justice social work development centre for Scotland told the Committee:
"more has probably been done in the past three years than had been done in the previous 20 years."—[Justice 2 Committee, Official Report, 11 January 2005; c 1257.]
Bill Butler made a valid point about different funding streams and the need to ensure continuity. We need to examine that, but we are encouraging three-year funding streams under the Scottish compact. At the same time, however, we also need to try out some pilot projects.
Without skipping over other points that the committee raised, let me simply say that we will certainly work to ensure that there is better and more co-ordination. Having had the opportunity over the summer to visit a number of projects such as Includem, I have been heartened to see the work that is being done to make a positive impact on the lives of children and young people from sometimes very difficult backgrounds. I was very much encouraged by the commitment not just of the staff in those projects but, it is fair to say, of the young people who were being engaged with. That commitment can make the difference.
Changes will not happen overnight, but we are in this for the long haul. We are committed to providing the support—including funding—that local partners need. The committee's report highlights a number of key issues and areas and I hope that we can, by focusing on those, build on existing activity and continue to look forward. I am confident that we can make our vision for children and young people a reality.
I commend the committee for its work.
Before I call the next member, I point out that we have several gaps because of this morning's transport problems, so other members who are present may have the opportunity to participate in the debate if they wish. I have invited one member already, but she took it as a bit of a dig, so I want to make it clear that the offer is genuine and is open to everyone.
I put on record our thanks to the committee, the clerks and all those who were involved in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the deputy convener. Having occasionally appeared at the committee as a substitute, I appreciate the difficulties that he must have experienced today. It is hard enough to prepare for these debates at the best of times, but when one has prepared oneself to sum up the debate and one is then asked to lead it, immediate problems arise. Important debates such as this, which are the final outcome and the public airing of a committee's report, have a natural beginning, middle and end, but Mr Butler managed to set the scene not only correctly but with aplomb.
Although the committee's denigrators might say that the report is, on the face of it, worthy but dull, there is nothing wrong with that. Not all action by a legislature, executive or other public or voluntary sector administration needs to be snappy or sexy. However, any action must be worthy and must address the fundamental problems. The report's summary of conclusions confirms the breadth of the problems, for which there is no single solution. The problem of the small minority of young people who behave in a deeply antisocial manner will not be addressed by a snappy soundbite, because it is deep-rooted and multifaceted. Short-term action, such as the ASBO in the deputy minister's constituency, is required, but the fundamental need is for long-term action.
As my colleague Christine Grahame has pointed out, many of the committee's recommendations have been made before but have not been acted on as well as they should have been, so it is necessary that we repeat them. The need for multi-agency planning and multi-agency delivery to address the gaps in services may be a classic no-brainer, but we need to continue to address the issue. I am glad that the committee forswore the opportunity to seek tabloid headlines and instead went for a more sensible and practical approach by asking for pragmatic steps to be taken to deal with the issues that have been raised.
The committee inquiry took place at a time when the press was full of headlines such as those that we have seen in more recent weeks. According to a United Nations report, Scotland is the most violent place in the world, and other reports have said that Scotland is the murder capital of western Europe. However, that is not the case, and to say so is clearly nonsensical. I am glad that all political parties in the chamber have sought to knock that down. Such reports do us no favours and they certainly do our young people no favours. The perception that we need to live in an almost gated community because every young person is a potential mugger creates serious problems for intergenerational understanding.
Does the member share my disappointment that the UN survey chose to interview only 250 people from a geographical area of Scotland in which there are particular problems with violence? Does he agree that for that reason the conclusions that were reached are entirely invalid for Scotland?
Absolutely. The UN report was flawed, and it is a credit to all members that they repudiated it.
Stewart Stevenson is right to say that there are hot spots—or whatever terminology one chooses to use for them. The statistics for murder—never mind knife crime and other matters—are serious. There are areas of our country that are of fundamental concern. In most of Scotland, people can leave their car keys in the ignition and their door open without being robbed or having their car stolen, and both young and elderly people can move around in safety. However, there are problems in areas of deprivation, in particular, as well as in some other areas, where there is simply bad behaviour. We must address those problems. Fundamentally, our approach to youth justice is tied in with the most recent report that was published on deprivation. I will return to that issue.
The minister was correct to point out that the overwhelming majority of our children are a credit to themselves, to their families and to their communities. However, a small minority of children are seriously out of control. A chief constable in England has described them as feral youth. That is a rather distasteful phrase, but it is symptomatic of the culture, which we must address, of almost nihilistic behaviour that is antisocial, self-harming and dangerous to others.
The great danger is that there will be a war on a generation. I am glad that Susan Deacon is in the chamber, because I remember attending a school meeting at which she said that there are many complaints from middle-aged and elderly people about youngsters hanging about, but that youngsters have always hung about. Simply hanging about is not a crime, although hanging about with a sword or a dagger or in order to mug an old lady certainly is. I am taken by the fact that Miss Goldie is stuck in Linlithgow, because many years ago, when I was growing up in that town, I used to hang around in the railway station, because it was warmer than standing or walking around outside. That was not a crime, but our society is driving towards removing youngsters from such places when they are not doing anything wrong. That creates a sense of alienation, which we must address.
We should recall that youngsters are more likely than others to be the victims of crime—a fact that we often ignore. In our society, the person who is stabbed or murdered is more likely to be a member of the offender's peer group than someone else.
The solutions are deep rooted. Obviously, short-term action needs to be taken, whether through ASBOs or by ensuring that there are sufficient secure residential places for those who are a danger not just to others but to themselves. However, we must drill down to the fundamental issues. That is where I perceive the strength of the committee's report to lie. It discusses the worthy but dull actions that need to be taken, but it makes it clear that the root solution is to address the fundamental issues. Like Susan Deacon, I have shared a platform with Roger Houchin. The problems of youth justice are to be found mainly in the areas of multiple deprivation. When 25 per cent of our prison population comes from only 56 of the 1,222 local authority areas, there is clearly a serious problem, which we must address.
There is no one simple solution. We need to get people into work and to provide rehabilitation. The report also identifies the need for longer-term funding. On page 39, it states:
"There is too much short term initiative-based funding",
relative to longer-term and core service funding. There is a clear driver for the Executive and all political parties to seek short-term fixes, and such action is necessary.
I agree with what Kenny MacAskill has said about the difficulties of short-term funding. Sometimes, given the pace and scale at which we have invested, we have had to try out new things, and it would be wrong for us to give guarantees of indefinite funding for such initiatives.
That said, we should try to introduce some stability where something has been proven to work. The context of which Kenny MacAskill speaks—the huge scale of deprivation and the links to antisocial behaviour and criminality—poses a challenge for us all in the Parliament. One of the things that we might all have to face up to is that we need to start to invest at a greater level in such areas than we invest in others across a range of services—health, education, social work and housing—to make a proportionate difference. Such a funding approach might have consequences for other parts of Scotland. Does the member agree that we need to face up to that situation?
Such choices might have to be made. We cannot invest in one area without considering where the money is taken from.
However, where I have sympathy with the minister is that I agree that not all short-term initiatives necessarily work. We live in a world in which there is a great deal of risk aversion, and we are criticised for not being an entrepreneurial society—that certainly applies to the public sector. We have to be prepared to fund initiatives; if they fail, that does not mean that we should not try something else.
We do not have all the solutions. If a clear solution existed on the internet, we would simply download it and use it. We need to look at the deep-rooted problems and try to work out solutions. We also need to work with individuals, because at the end of the day, antisocial behaviour is a problem of individuals, and we have to recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
The simple element of repression—although that wording is not used—in the United States is not seen as a longer-term solution. The Scandinavian model that looks to address the problems is far preferable. I am grateful for the initiatives that have taken place in Strathclyde and Lothian, in which police work towards problem solving with youngsters as opposed to simply employing crime control or management methods. We have to get to the root of the problem and ask what is causing it. In many instances, the problem is not the young person who is offending, but his drug-addicted mother or alcoholic father. Unless we address the root of the problem, we will simply be offering a short-term fix and the problem will recur when the young person is released from wherever they have been held.
We welcome the report. Although it has drawn to our attention matters that have been touched on before, that does not mean that it does not have lessons to teach us. It draws to our attention the fact that although we need to take short-term action, we are still seeking a long-term solution. We recognise that the vast majority of our youngsters are a credit to our country, but we must drill down deep with a small minority of youngsters, look at individual solutions to their problems, be prepared to take risks—as the minister was correct to say—and invest resources, because that is the long-term solution.
I begin by thanking Bill Butler, the deputy convener of the Justice 2 Committee, for stepping in to replace Annabel Goldie this morning. As the old BBC test card used to say, this was due to circumstances beyond her control.
I add my congratulations to the clerks and members of the Justice 2 Committee for undertaking such an important inquiry into, and subsequently producing its report on, youth justice. I also commend the Executive for setting aside time this morning for a proper debate on the committee's findings.
When youth justice is discussed, a common theme runs through members' contributions—namely that early intervention is the key both to reducing reoffending and to the delivery of an effective youth justice system.
The Justice 2 Committee's report highlights the considerable challenges to be overcome in delivering those objectives. They include filling the gaps in service provision and the requirement for a clear understanding of what partnership working and best practice entail. In particular, the committee expressed reservations about whether the concept of corporate responsibility exists in local authorities. I am sad to say that the problem is not a new one. For too long, Scottish local authorities have been signed up to the theory of corporate responsibility without delivering in practice. Such a prerequisite is fundamental to ensuring that youth justice services are delivered in the best and most efficient way.
The report also emphasises not just the importance but the necessity of ensuring that each youth justice strategy group recognises the contribution that the voluntary sector can make and that, where appropriate, the groups actively seek to involve the sector in the delivery of youth justice services. In that respect, the committee expressed profound concerns about the stability and continuity of funding. There is little doubt that the voluntary sector has the experience, expertise, flexibility and innovative thinking that will help to deliver the multi-agency approach to which Susan Deacon alluded and which is so necessary to the delivery of youth justice services. Indeed, projects set up by voluntary services and organisations such as the Barnardo's project in Falkirk, which is aimed at reducing youth reoffending, have been a huge success and speak for themselves. I urge the minister to bear those points in mind in making funding decisions and to ensure that the voluntary sector is properly provided for. Funds should not be simply allocated automatically to local authorities in preference to voluntary sector organisations.
The report highlights gaps in the provision of addiction services at a time when the problems of binge drinking dominate press and media coverage. Such an omission is worrying. The committee was also concerned about the variation in the provision of services for young people with substance misuse problems and about gaps in the provision of services for young people with learning difficulties and/or behavioural disorders.
Various worthwhile suggestions have been made about the best way of addressing such concerns. I add to that list by suggesting to the minister that he extend supervised attendance orders so that the modules, which include alcohol and substance abuse counselling and literacy and numeracy testing, are available not only to fine defaulters but as a disposal of first instance for young offenders appearing at court or at a children's hearing. Such a simple early-intervention measure would have a significant impact on youth offending and on the delivery of a more effective and efficient youth justice system.
I echo Kenny MacAskill's plea for an increase in the number of secure places for young offenders and, again, make the case that drug and testing treatment orders should be available to the district courts and the children's hearings system.
I also press the minister to revisit the issue of youth courts and ensure that 14 and 15-year-old persistent offenders who are currently languishing in the children's hearings system are referred to them. Not only would that free up the children's hearings system to deal with vulnerable children with social and behavioural problems, it would, crucially, speed up the whole process and lead to a more effective—
Will the member give way?
I was just about to finish, but I will give way.
I wonder whether Margaret Mitchell's comments demonstrate a misunderstanding of what the children's hearings system does. It tries to draw in children who need support and to provide solutions to their problems. Prosecution is all very well as a different method of getting at the matter, but it does not solve the problem of how we change the offending behaviour of the children and young people who come before the courts or the children's panel. We will not sort that out by moving things from the children's hearings system to the courts—in fact, we will probably make matters worse.
I am talking about 14 and 15-year-olds who are persistent offenders, who have been in the children's hearings system for a number of years and for whom every possible option has been considered. In such cases, in line with the principle of early intervention, it seems eminently sensible that those children should be passed on to youth courts. I freely admit that youth courts are working for 16 and 17-year-olds because they have the necessary resources, sheriffs, monitoring and accountability. However, if a choice is to be made because unlimited resources are not available, my preference would be for 14 and 15-year-olds to be sent to the youth courts to curb their offending behaviour as soon as possible and to give them every opportunity to set off on the right track.
Again, I congratulate the Justice 2 Committee on producing a worthwhile and excellent report.
Much as I would like to believe that Annabel Goldie is hanging around Linlithgow station waiting for Kenny MacAskill to turn up, I think that her delay is a result of the deficiency of the public transport system, which I am delighted that the Parliament took the opportunity to improve yesterday by voting to agree to the general principles of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to run the Waverley line to my constituency.
As a relatively new member of the Justice 2 Committee, I arrived late to the committee's inquiry. Although the committee's report may be worthy but dull, it provides a thorough analysis and reflects what Kenny MacAskill referred to as deep-rooted and complex issues, which he felt required a long-term approach. The report goes a considerable way towards providing an analysis of the deep-rooted and complex problems and an indication of where fundamental, long-term changes to our approach to youth justice are needed.
In other justice debates, I have said that it is my belief and that of the Liberal Democrats that the justice system should be effective, efficient and fair. By "effective", I mean that it needs to work so that our communities are safer when people have offended. By "efficient", I mean that it must work fast and be cost-effective. Susan Deacon spoke about the importance of the efficient government review not just for the youth justice system, but for all Government departments. It is crucial that that review includes an element of better working and does not just strive to reduce costs. The justice system needs to be fair to ensure that we do not stigmatise our young people in particular. In a previous debate, I mentioned my concern that there had been too much focus on the respect agenda and on categorising young people as neds, without reference to the fact that, through volunteering, growing numbers of young people provide a huge benefit to all our communities.
I want to focus on a few areas in which the report has highlighted that there are considerable problems. Bill Butler referred to the difficulties with coterminosity. Alcohol misuse, the need to have better partnership working, funding and what approaches will be effective in the long term are other issues with which I wish to deal, but first, I agree with Kenny MacAskill that we are a remarkably safe society. I was extremely disappointed with the UN report, which I felt was as valid as the comment made by the former mayor of Washington when he said that, if you took away the shootings and the homicides, Washington was the safest place in the world. Scotland is a safe and remarkably violence-free society, and we must always consider what we would like to do on criminal justice in that context. That is as true of youth justice as it is of adult justice. We are a safer society than we have been. Recorded crime has fallen since last year and that has been a trend for 15 years.
That said, there is still a small number of young people who offend. It is important that youth justice plays a part in seeking to reduce recidivism in young people. Regrettably, the fact that young people's drinking is increasing is directly related to offending. In the most recent survey, 23 per cent of 13-year-olds and 46 per cent of 15-year-olds reported that they had drunk alcohol in the previous week. In the most extreme cases, young people under the age of 13 are admitted to hospital for serious alcohol misuse. I represent the Borders general hospital area, which is not categorised as being highly violent, but within the past year, more than 10 young people have been admitted for very serious alcohol poisoning.
On the member's point about alcohol and young people and the problems that he has rightly highlighted, I wondered whether he supports the proposed opening hours for off-licences in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament. The bill initially suggested almost unlimited opening possibilities. Does he support the amendment that was agreed to this week by the Local Government and Transport Committee to restrict the hours of sales of alcohol in off-licences? Off-licences in communities often cause problems when young people hang around them.
The solution must, as far as possible, be local, and the licensing system should reflect local circumstances. I hope that the importance of a local solution is given a serious and sympathetic hearing in the debate. Such an approach would allow local licensing officers and others, taking part in youth justice work with other agencies, to find the most effective solution for their area.
I recently met representatives of Lothian and Borders police's safer communities department, local authorities and housing associations. Kerr Scott from Scottish Borders Council has put together a highly dedicated and outstanding team to ensure that there is proper working between all the agencies. As an example of how a local solution can be more effective, any young person found in possession of or under the influence of alcohol in the Borders is automatically referred to an alcohol project in Galashiels. In the past, I have raised the need for long-term funding for such projects. When the police work in proactive co-operation with the council and others, much can be done within existing powers, without necessarily changing the licensing regime. Following the automatic referral of a youngster to the alcohol project, their parent or guardian has an option to allow them to opt out—not to opt in. That kind of tough approach is ultimately far more effective for young people, and all the local agencies in the Borders support it.
The committee's report also raised the issue of coterminosity. Although Bill Butler commented that one solution may not fit all the areas of Scotland, fortunately the area that I represent has coterminosity between the council, the police, the health board and others, which allows proper partnership working. Consistency of approach is also important, especially when an individual is moving from youth justice into adult justice. Integrated children's services, which I hope will work with the criminal justice authorities, will be an indicator of proper co-operation and joint action. With regard to the youth justice team and the ASBO team in the Borders, the outcome of such joint working can be real results. A core group holds monthly meetings with the police, the ASBO team officer, registered social landlords, NHS Borders, representatives of accident and emergency and primary care services and a solicitor from Scottish Borders Council; the core group can also co-opt other agencies. The committee found that an important aspect was that those who attend joint meetings should be empowered to do so and motivated to make decisions. In the Borders, the antisocial behaviour strategy group meets bi-monthly to co-ordinate the whole approach. There are models elsewhere that give the committee a degree of confidence that such approaches can work locally.
Speaking of approaches that can be effective, I was delighted to host a meeting in the Parliament, which the Minister for Justice attended, with Fairbridge on its prison project. Of the young people with whom the project works, 76 per cent have no formal qualifications, 45 per cent have no experience of work and 25 per cent have difficulties with reading and writing. Since January, of 61 young men and women who were offenders but who have been released, 77 per cent continue to engage with Fairbridge's prison project. Fourteen of them are in employment; five are on the Fairbridge programme in the community; two are in education; and one is doing voluntary work. Only 20 per cent have returned to prison. It is by far the most effective project that we have seen in Scotland so far. I hope that it does not remain a pilot and that it secures long-term core funding in future.
I hope that even though the report may be worthy but dull, it indicates that we can be successful in some areas.
We come now to the open debate. Before I call the next member to speak, I will explain that I am budgeting on the arrival of two members who are believed to be still in transit. If they do not arrive before the end of the debate, there may be some flexibility to allow more time for the closing speakers. For the moment, the open debate will run on the basis of six-minute speeches.
It has been extremely interesting and informative to be part of the inquiry. Members of the Justice 2 Committee have met many thoughtful people who are committed to the welfare of youngsters. We have seen examples of excellent practice and innovative methods and have come to understand the complexity of the task that is faced by local authority departments, the police and the health services. We should also not forget the input of the voluntary sector at this time of great change. As Bill Whyte, the director of the criminal justice social work development centre for Scotland, said,
"more has probably been done in the past three years than had been done in the previous 20 years."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 11 January 2005; c 1257.]
The pace of change is itself a challenge.
Everyone, from practitioners to the Executive, agrees that an holistic approach should be taken to youth justice. That means multi-agency planning and delivery of services. The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration noted that people are now more prepared and able to take a radical look at how we deliver services. The Borders youth justice strategy group said that more organisations were now realising that they had a valuable role to play.
We are under no illusions about the difficulty of setting up joint working. It has not always been easy for the police to share information with social work or education departments; sometimes it has not been easy for the social work and education departments in the same local authority to share information with each other. It is evident that such barriers are being broken down. There are good examples of joint working, such as the Moray youth justice team. It may be easier to build relationships within a local authority with a small population. I do not think that coterminosity has anything to do with it; there is not coterminosity in Moray, but people know and trust one another.
The committee was impressed by the Edinburgh youth justice services. Our visit showed us that good practice was about having a clear strategy and about building interagency relationships. We ended that day by meeting the youth justice strategy group, which expressed optimism that much better co-ordination now existed between projects. All strategy groups should strive for that, although it is not easy. Dr John Marshall from Greater Glasgow NHS Board said:
"Great challenges exist for joint working between mental health services in the NHS and social work services at various levels. There is a lack of understanding of roles and different languages are used".—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 16 November 2004; c 1115.]
Those are the challenges that we must get over.
Questions arose from our evidence taking. Was there equal engagement from all sectors? Was social work being left to bear the load? What role were education and leisure services playing? Were health services—particularly psychological services—readily available? Answers were not always positive. Data sharing was seen to be difficult and bound up in bureaucracy. It is evident that departments do not always communicate effectively, and not only in local authorities. According to practitioners, different Executive departments can also promote initiatives for young people that do not gel together. For example, NCH Scotland said that youth justice is not a front-loaded priority in the health services. Consequently, when pressures on health budgets occur, other priorities are given precedence.
As a former teacher, I was especially interested in the role of education in youth justice strategies. It is not difficult to pick out youngsters in the class who are probably heading for trouble. How can schools help to prevent that from happening?
A lot of concern was expressed about education services. Includem noted that many of the young people with whom it had been involved had a history of interrupted education and Barnardo's Scotland emphasised the importance of keeping young people in school and maintaining links with mainstream education.
When I was a teacher, schools often excluded pupils for truanting. That seemed to me to be counterintuitive, but it was to protect the school's back. Truanting leads to shoplifting, substance misuse and so on, so the policy now is much better—to exclude from the classroom, yes, but not to exclude from the school. We have to hold on to those children.
The theme of early intervention ran throughout the evidence. Moray youth justice team worried that too much concentration on persistent offenders might make us miss those who were just at the start of that road. Schools can play a part in alerting youth justice teams to possible problems.
As is always the way after a report has been finished, more information has come along. I would like to mention one or two initiatives that I have discovered. In Orkney, a confidential chat room for professionals who deal with young people has been set up. A teacher might flag up a problem that she has come across with a youth in school. The local policeman might note that he had met the young person late at night and had been a bit concerned about them. The local doctor might then read that and agree that there is a problem. In an informal way, therefore, a child or young person can be noted as being in some kind of danger and can then be supported.
Yesterday, I attended a briefing given by representatives of Barnardo's about young people who exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour towards younger children. In presenting their research on that difficult subject, the Barnardo's representatives said that such behaviour was on average first noted around the age of 10, but that it took four years for a referral to be made, by which time it could be a case for the courts rather than for the children's panel. Early intervention is crucial in such cases. That underlines the importance of the voluntary sector in youth justice, which we felt was not always recognised by the statutory bodies.
I also recently attended a conference on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which made me think that many young people who end up in the justice system might suffer from that disorder, given their impulsive behaviour. I would like to think that some research could be done on the disorder in Scotland. I believe that other countries have found a close connection. I also mention autistic spectrum disorder and learning difficulties in the same context.
I thank the clerking team and the committee's adviser, Fergus McNeill. I will close with the thought that many young people who offend are as much in need of care and protection as those who appear before the children's panel for welfare reasons.
I come to the debate as a grumpy old man.
Hear, hear.
Thank you, Hugh. That is because I, too, had my travel interrupted. I left Linlithgow at 6.02 am and got here at 7.40 am, so perhaps the disruption did not intrude too much.
Reading the Justice 2 Committee's report, I am reminded of a quotation from Barnett Cocks:
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled."
Let me illustrate my grumpiness on that. When I looked at the summary of conclusions and recommendations, I played the game that I often play when I want to get a quick sense of what is in front of me: hunt the verb. Among the various recommendations, I see one on coterminosity. It says:
"effective planning … must therefore be developed."
That is not too bad. Another recommendation is on the role of local authorities. It uses the phrase:
"we invite the Executive to consider".
The recommendation on the involvement of the voluntary sector says:
"We recommend that the Executive asks each … group to explain".
For the role and remit of strategy groups, the wording is:
"we suggest that the Executive considers".
We read that:
"education services have a critical role".
That is good. Under the heading "Multi-agency delivery arrangements", the report says:
"We invite the Scottish Executive to undertake some evaluation".
And so it goes on. That is a bit light on solutions, although there are a lot of suggestions for new work for the Executive. That will make the Deputy Minister for Justice very happy because, of course, he is underemployed and needs such suggestions.
I return to the point that my colleague Kenny MacAskill made. The challenges are genuinely difficult. What the Justice 2 Committee has come up with reflects that difficulty, which we all face.
Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was signed on 2 December 2000 in Nice, is on the rights of the child. Paragraph 2 states:
"In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration."
I should also mention article 15, which is headed "Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work". In many respects, we are all failing our children in relation to meeting our duties under the charter and our obligations to wider society. In fulfilling those duties, we benefit—we benefit from children who are engaged.
The numbers are interesting. I am slightly surprised that other members, particularly the minister, have not already cited them, because they contain some good news. The number of prison receptions went down by 22 per cent in the period from 1996 to 2004 and the decline was continuous. The figures for young offenders are even better: over the same period, the number fell by 38 per cent, to 1,908 from 3,058. Interestingly enough, receptions for drug offences are down by nearly half. Therefore, there is good news out there. Even receptions for fine defaults are down by 40 per cent for adults and by 61 per cent for under-21s in that period. That is something to build on. However, the average numbers in prison have gone up—we are putting more serious people away for longer. That is against the background of the suggestion on page 27 of the report that there are perhaps half a million no-offence referrals, in which children touch the system. Others have mentioned the need to act at that point.
I agree with what Margaret Mitchell said about the need to address people's literacy and numeracy when they come into contact with the justice system. I think that the issue should be addressed earlier, because it is clear that low levels of literacy and numeracy will cause problems for children later.
The national standards for Scotland's youth justice services, which were developed and published in the minister's name, illustrate much of the problem of multi-agency working, because they include long lists of targets and of the interactions that there have to be between the police, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, social work, the reporter again, the children's hearings system and the council.
The danger is that, by looking at things in that way, we might lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a young person. The key thing that we lose sight of is responsibility. We lose sight of who is responsible, who has to do what and who has to deliver to support our young people and to ensure that they do not get into trouble. We also lose sight of what that costs us to do and, equally important, what it will cost us as a society and in our budget if we do nothing—the problem, as well as the solution, has a cost. I am not terribly clear what the balance between those costs is.
I smell something of the classic comment from The Economist 10 years ago:
"The British Civil Servant – a man"—
or woman—
"who cannot be bribed to do wrong nor persuaded to do right."
I believe that the report is somewhat symptomatic of that approach. I do not know who gets fired if things do not work. Political accountability is clear, but the minister does not run things; he sets the strategy, but who gets fired if things do not work on the ground? I am still no clearer.
Stewart Stevenson told us that he is a grumpy old man today. If I had got up that early, I would be pretty grumpy, too. Thankfully, I had a little longer in bed.
I congratulate the Justice 2 Committee members and the clerks on the work that they have done in producing the report. No member of any party would question the importance of the issue. The youth justice system is crucial if we are to give every young person in Scotland the opportunity to grow, thrive and fulfil their potential.
I do not think that anyone would be shocked by some of the report's top headlines, such as that diversion services are patchy and underdeveloped and that there are huge gaps in mental health and addiction services.
Last week, I visited Edinburgh prison at Saughton. Of course, I was not the only politician to go there last week—not all went through the same door. I went to see the governor and to be given a tour of the education and rehabilitation services, because I had heard from colleagues in the justice field that what was happening at Edinburgh was particularly impressive—and so it was.
I had flagged up to me some of the behavioural problems of the younger men who were graduating—if we can use that term—from the youth justice system into the adult criminal justice system. Some of those problems were linked not only to the men's imprisonment and their offending behaviour, but—crucially—to bereavement. I was told that behavioural issues linked to bereavement and parental addiction were becoming huge problems. I asked the natural question: what is society doing to prevent such problems for the next generation? After the briefest of pauses while they glanced at each other, the two people to whom I was speaking said, "Nothing."
That reply might be a bit of an overstatement, but it is clear from the people to whom we all speak as MSPs and from the committee's work that we are not doing nearly enough. Without those vital services, no enforcement, preventive order or punishment will ever be effective in the long run in dealing with a problem that many people throughout Scotland have to put up with. The young people who are now being electronically tagged and receiving ASBOs—such as the person to whom Hugh Henry referred—were toddlers when the enforcement-led approach that ASBOs represent was first put on the table. How well have we served them since then? To what extent have we ensured that they have been able to fulfil their potential to grow and thrive? I believe that they have been failed.
I became a member of the Parliament in 2003 and immediately had the delight of serving on the Communities Committee and dealing with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. At the time, I argued that the order of priorities was wrong. I did not argue that all the wrong things were being done; my view was that things were being done in the wrong order. Our first job should have been to consider what Hugh Henry described as positive interventions. We should then have worked out what we could do to reinforce, strengthen and reform the existing systems, such as the children's hearings system, to make them better able to do their job. After that, it would have been clear what the necessary new enforcement measures would be. However, exactly the opposite approach was taken and the new enforcement measures are now in place. I hope that those measures will help, but I doubt that they will do anything to address the problem in the long term until the issues that the committee's report addresses are given greater priority.
The minister said that his starting point is to put the young person at the centre of the Executive's approach. However, it is interesting that he talked about young people after they had become young offenders. The starting point should be the children who are being born today. We know that having high-quality child care and nurseries, parents who have the time and support to be as good parents as they can be, good diets, youth work provision and high-quality play spaces help to prevent young people from becoming involved in low-level offending behaviour. Those things should be our starting point.
We have distinctive structures, historical factors and institutions in Scotland and we have the opportunity to take a distinctive approach that recognises children's rights, which Stewart Stevenson mentioned. Those rights are enshrined in documents such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As was said in a debate last week, the United Kingdom Government does not always take such an approach.
In politics, what everybody thinks is important is not necessarily what is important. Health is a good example. People think that health is a big election issue, but it is not. The treatment of illness and ill health and the potential loss of hospitals are big issues, but health is about matters such as junk food, lack of exercise and high-stress lifestyles—things that do not have a high political priority. With respect to crime, prevention and rehabilitation are difficult to sell—a headline about being tough on crime is always more appealing. Children should be society's highest priority, but we are failing to do what is in their best interests. I add with regret that police officers are now receiving calls in Scotland not about young people being rowdy or offending on the streets, but about their being on the streets at all. A society that considers that to be a problem has got its priorities wrong.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address some of the key aspects of the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry into youth justice. I open by echoing the minister's comments that only a minority of young people offend and that the vast majority of Scotland's young people make a positive contribution to our communities and to society as a whole. Indeed, our young people are a great source of optimism for the future; they are talented and enthusiastic participants in much of what is good about Scotland.
As my committee colleagues have said, children and young people are more likely than anyone else to be the victims of crime and antisocial behaviour and so are equally concerned about those issues. However, we need to recognise that a minority of young people do not respond to the existing measures of the youth justice or criminal justice systems and that an even smaller minority—less than 1 per cent—are disruptive and sometimes even dangerous. We cannot get away from that fact. Although those persistent offenders are small in number, they have an excessively negative impact on our communities. It is for that reason that a wide variety of resources must be targeted at tackling the problem, for the sake not just of those young people, but of the communities in which they live.
We know that many of the young people who end up in the criminal justice system are among the most disadvantaged in our society and that they come from some of our poorest communities. Invariably, they are the children who are deemed to be in need. For that reason, we are absolutely right about and should be proud of the approach that we have adopted in Scotland, which is to take an integrated approach to the linked issues of juvenile care and justice.
I am not sure whether to take as a compliment Kenny MacAskill's comment that the committee report is "worthy but dull". There is nothing dull about trying to tackle the complexity of youth offending in order to improve outcomes or about trying to prevent young people from ending up in the criminal justice system in the first place. Perhaps what he said was just an unfortunate choice of words.
The committee considered the framework of youth justice services in Scotland in order to see what arrangements were in place in the planning and delivery of services. We then asked whether the services were working effectively, what was working well and where the gaps were. We were well assisted by a variety of witnesses, who are far too numerous to mention, and by our special adviser, Fergus McNeill. I add my thanks to those that other members have given.
I will focus briefly on multi-agency working before moving on to highlight a couple of gaps in provision. In so doing, I give recognition to the considerable work of the Executive in the area. Like my colleague Maureen Macmillan, I was struck by what Bill Whyte of the criminal justice social work development centre for Scotland said:
"more has probably been done in the past three years than had been done in the previous 20 years."—[Official Report, 11 January 2005, c 1257.]
We should acknowledge that, although youth justice is a challenging and complex area, in which quite a lot has already been done, more can always be done to reduce the level of youth offending.
Given the multiple causes that lead to offending behaviour, it is only common sense to say that multiple agencies should be required to work together in order to tackle it. The convener and I paid a visit—it was less fraught in transport terms—to Hamilton to consider multi-agency working and to look specifically at the youth court pilot that began in June 2003. One of the conclusions of the interim evaluation report on the Hamilton pilot was that offenders are being dealt with more quickly and that there is positive evidence of multi-agency working—we found that, too. However, even with that successful example of agencies working together, we became aware that local authorities are not taking corporate responsibility for young offenders as seriously as we would want them to.
The committee found that, invariably, youth justice strategies are driven largely by social work despite the fact that, as Maureen Macmillan highlighted, we know that education is often a key factor in reducing offending, given that most young offenders have educational difficulties. We saw that education services did not even begin to understand the importance of their role in youth justice or to have the flexibility to deliver what was needed. Clear, explicit guidance is needed on the role of education services in youth justice. I welcome the minister's acceptance of the need to place a stronger and more effective statutory duty on local authorities as a whole.
We were also told that agencies are struggling to share data effectively, as they are concerned about legal constraints. We would welcome some kind of statutory duty being placed on or clarification provided to those agencies in relation to data sharing.
I will deal quickly with the gaps in addiction services and mental health services. We know that half of young offenders have an alcohol or drug problem, yet we heard that there is considerable variation throughout Scotland in the availability of addiction services for young offenders. If those young people cannot access such services and their problem is not addressed, the likelihood is that they will reoffend.
There is also a huge problem with the lack of child and adolescent mental health services. Although there may not be a direct link between mental health problems and youth offending, we know that mental health treatment is essential in dealing with some of the behaviours that are exhibited by those who go on to offend and reoffend.
All those issues are important at a strategic level, but, in closing, I emphasise that there is lots of innovative work on the ground, as the minister touched on. For example, the pulse project in my constituency in West Dunbartonshire is, yes, about diverting young people who are at risk of touching the criminal justice system, but it is ultimately about preventing offending behaviour for a new generation.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Justice 2 Committee's report on its inquiry into youth justice. The report is about compassion. Patrick Harvie should reflect on that. As a member of the committee when the report was started, and as a member of the Justice 1 Committee now, I have an interest in improving youth justice services. As a constituency MSP, I too often see instances of youth justice services having failed young people and our communities. In my area, antisocial behaviour is often caused by a small number of persistent offenders who have fallen through the current gap in youth justice systems. Tackling youth justice issues and ensuring that no one is left out could do as much to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities as can antisocial behaviour orders or dispersal orders.
Just last week, I was at a meeting of the Inch community association at which antisocial behaviour was raised. The issue has been and continues to be a persistent problem in my constituency. The association is concerned that there remains a small core—and it is only a small core—that causes all the problems. I agree with Bill Butler, the minister, Kenny MacAskill, my colleague Jeremy Purvis and others—and it is worth saying again—that the vast majority of children in our communities are law abiding and are a credit to the communities in which they live.
I have mentioned in the chamber before the good work that the youth action team is doing to address the wider issue of youth crime in my constituency. It is a City of Edinburgh Council initiative involving housing and the social inclusion partnership, which has helped to reduce youth crime. I was pleased to be at the same stakeholder group's launch of a new safer communities unit, encompassing four new police officers who are dedicated to making the community in Edinburgh South a safer place.
Today I will focus on the variation in the services that are provided throughout the country and the need to share and implement best practice. During its inquiry, the committee rightly discovered that that is—as others have said—a huge multi-agency challenge. While I was on the Justice 2 Committee, I was part of a visit to Dundee. Derek Aitken, Dundee's youth co-ordinator, met us and during the visit we became aware of just what a multi-disciplinary network of youth services Dundee has. We met the Dundee youth justice group; victims of youth crime, or VOYCE; the choice project, which is a fast-track children's hearing pilot that is doing extremely good work; and many other groups.
Bill Butler referred to one problem that was highlighted, which is that the short-term funding that many organisations are given means that there is often not enough time to evaluate some of the pilots meaningfully. That was a concern, which requires closer examination by the Executive. The problem is complex, and it will not just be solved by a committee report. As the report points out, youth justice is often seen as the problem of social work or as being just about the children's hearings system. However, we all know that the issue is much wider than that.
I am concerned that many local authorities do not seem to take corporate responsibility for youth justice, which is a situation that I hope the Executive will address. I strongly support the committee's call for the Executive to assess the organisational structures that the youth justice teams—the bodies that actually engage in service delivery—have put in place. It is vital that we identify best practice in multi-agency delivery and implement it throughout Scotland. In that respect, the youth justice network at the criminal justice social work development centre for Scotland must be fully resourced. Many smaller local authorities may see only a small handful of the most problematic cases, so it is vital that they can draw on the experience of the 12 youth justice groups.
On best practice, I highlight the role that the voluntary sector plays in delivering youth justice services. I have seen at first hand how Fairbridge in Edinburgh, which my colleague Jeremy Purvis mentioned, has achieved fantastic success in reducing reoffending rates. Jeremy Purvis talked about the percentages, but the most telling one is that 77 per cent of people with whom Fairbridge has worked from HM Prison Edinburgh, HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and Cornton Vale have not returned to prison. Barnardo's also runs a number of successful schemes, to which members have referred, especially for those who are at risk of offending behaviour. However, too often, funding for such projects is not sustained.
As I have said, funding is provided for a new initiative but, after three years, it often moves to another new initiative, which forces the successful project to close. It is vital that programmes that are proven to be effective continue to receive funding, although I accept that projects that are perhaps less successful may close. We need to find what works best and support it for the long term.
I welcome the report and I call on the Executive to pay attention to its recommendations—our young people and their communities will thank the Executive for doing so.
This is an unexpected speaking opportunity, but I welcome it, as I have taken an interest in the subject over the years. My vantage point is different from that of many other members who have spoken—I was not a member of the committee that compiled the report, so I have looked at the issue with a slightly different eye. I want to share two overarching observations that I have made.
The first theme that I want to develop is that of how we can really make progress on improving services, which is the point that I raised in my intervention on the minister earlier. When I read the report, the headings, themes, words and aspirations that we see so often—about the need for improved multi-agency working; for an interdisciplinary approach; for better data sharing; for better sharing of best practice; to tackle the fact that there are too many pilots and short-term initiatives and a multiplicity of funding streams; and to get better at supporting and involving the voluntary sector—screamed out at me once again.
Jackie Baillie and others made an important point about the enormous progress in the field of youth justice and elsewhere. However, I contend that we need acceleration of the pace—we need to increase the effort that we put in to ensure that the aspirations about the way in which services are delivered really happen; otherwise, the potentially serious consequence is that gaps may arise between the Government's genuine policy commitment and the expectation of service users, and between the increased amount of investment in many services and the impact that is felt.
Let us make no mistake: the weaknesses that have been identified in the youth justice system are shared in many other areas, such as older people's services, services for those with special educational needs and health improvement services, to name but a few. To my mind, the big prize in implementing the report—and a host of other reports that have been generated in the Parliament in the past six years—will be in ensuring that we get better at delivering public services in Scotland. That means that, as well as many of the specific issues that have been addressed today, we must tackle issues such as that of building leadership and management capacity in the public sector. The 21st century social work review is an enormous opportunity to do just that in an area that will have a direct impact on youth justice as well as across a range of other services.
Training and education are important, too. If we train people in silos, they will practise in silos when they go out into the world of work. We have not yet brought people together across professional boundaries right from the start of their training and the educational process, as we could and should.
Does Susan Deacon agree that that could apply equally to the voluntary sector, which is sometimes more successful in delivering public services—and not only to peer-to-peer young people's groups, such as Up 2 U in Peebles, but to the professionals in the voluntary sector? Does she agree that, if the state sector is doing training and management, that can be transferred to the voluntary sector?
I agree absolutely. The frustration for many of us is that that is not being done, although it is not rocket science. It requires a focus on people and consideration of what makes us tick, how we learn, how we work and how we co-exist. If we bring people together at an early stage—including people in the voluntary sector—that will build relationships, trust and a mutual understanding. If those things are not present, frankly, no amount of guidance, regulation, rules or prescription will deliver the joined-up services to which the committee's report and many others aspire.
The second theme that I will touch on briefly is early intervention. I often feel that early intervention is a misnomer, as it is never too early for intervention. So much of what goes on under the label of early intervention takes place in adolescence or, at the earliest, in primary or secondary education. However, early intervention can and must start from birth. A robust piece of work on youth justice was undertaken by the Executive during the early months of devolution, in 1999-2000. That report focused on the twin pillars of the justice system—which is the primary focus of the report that we are discussing today—and prevention. The report drew together overwhelming evidence to show that support for infants from birth—meeting their nutritional needs and nurturing and caring for them from an early stage—has a direct effect on how they behave later in life. Again, much of that is not rocket science: the evidence base is before us.
To be fair, a huge amount has been done by the Executive and the Parliament to address the prevention agenda; however, it is important that we do not forget that, in talking about early intervention, we can and should always get better at pushing our efforts further and further upstream. We regularly call for more police officers; perhaps if we called for more midwives, health visitors, nursery nurses and the like, we would build a better society for the future.
I congratulate Susan Deacon on a very thoughtful speech. As my colleague said, areas of deprivation are where young people are more likely to offend and be offended against. That links with what Susan Deacon said—intervention cannot start early enough. Children need good nutrition and care from parents who, themselves, do not have destructured lives.
I will speak on a practical level about the role of the children's hearings system, to which children who are in need of care and attention—whether they are offending or not—will be referred. Only 25 per cent of referrals to the children's panel concern children who are involved in criminal pursuits; unfortunately, children who have begun to come apart at the seams and have not yet committed a criminal offence might do so if there is no intervention at that stage.
Before I delve into that, I endorse Susan Deacon's request for acceleration of the pace of delivery. In an intervention on Bill Butler, I made the point that this report seems to be cauld kail rehet. The Justice 1 Committee hit on all the same bullet points years ago, including the need for continuity of funding and more secure places for those who are under the remit of both the social work and justice departments. At one stage, the committee asked why the funding does not come from one funding stream rather than competing funding streams. We also identified the lack of social workers and the lack of an index of diversionary and throughcare programmes, as well as the absence of a database and an inability to share information across the various agencies. We discussed the silos that people work in—their own little territories—in the voluntary sector and in Executive agencies. That has all been talked about before; we need to deliver more.
We are at phase 2 of a review of the children's hearings system. I will quote heavily from a letter from the Scottish Borders Council children's panel advisory committee to bring the panel's concerns to the minister's attention. The hearings system was the jewel in the Scottish crown of dealing with difficult children and children with problems. The system has a quasi-informal set-up, and its methods are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Most important, its approach has always been child centred rather than to see the child as a problem or someone to blame; it has looked for solutions rather than punishments.
One or two issues were of grave concern to the advisory committee, and I would not like the advisory committees to be undermined. Statement 14 in the "Statements of Intent" of the Executive's "getting it right for every child: Proposals For Action" states:
"If appropriate, community representatives or victims might be invited to sit in on the Hearing to reinforce that the behaviour has an impact on others, and to understand better what efforts are being made to address the child's behaviour."
The Scottish Borders Council children's panel advisory committee's response does not support that at all. It says:
"This could have a negative effect on the child by distorting the focus of the Hearing away from the needs of the child, which must remain paramount.
That is important.
Does the member agree that although the remit of the children's panel is to focus on the needs of the child, which are indeed paramount, one cannot have a children's hearing without making reference to the grounds of referral that bring a young person before a hearing? In my experience of children's hearings, when those grounds relate to an offence, not enough focus is given to the grounds of referral rather than the outcome of the hearing.
The grounds of referral should be made very clear; the panel must be fully apprised of all the facts. However, having someone else sit in on the hearing might distort it. The advisory committee was open to the idea of links with victims through a system of restorative justice; the issue was simply that if the victim sits in on the hearing, the atmosphere created will be more like a trial than an investigation into circumstances.
Statement of intent 16 states:
"Children's Hearings should provide information to communities about the nature of decisions made and their outcomes."
The advisory committee had serious concerns about the lack of clarity in that proposal. Although it would support the publication of general information about decisions, it would not want to publish individual decisions publicly. What is meant is not clear from the statement of intent.
Statement of intent 21 suggests:
"We propose amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the requirements that Children's Panels and Children's Panel Advisory Committees be linked to local authority boundaries."
Jeremy Purvis quite rightly made the point that, in the Borders, we are extremely lucky, in that all the services—including the health board, the police, the council and the children's panel—are coterminous, which makes it so much easier to work in a team. Other areas are not so fortunate. Penicuik in the Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale seat is in the Midlothian Council area and is perhaps sometimes isolated from services. Team working is terribly important. The advisory committee does not support statement of intent 21.
The recruitment, training and retention of panel members are ignored, which is a huge issue. Years ago, I argued in the chamber against the Executive's resistance to allowing people over the age of 60 to sit on panels. I know that that now happens. I thank the Executive for that and welcome it. However, complex issues concerning children come before panels. The panels need support, training and recognition. Increased pressures on panel members to go on weekend training are ignored.
Although we are saying good things in the chamber, children's panels, which are so special to Scotland, need to be looked after, cherished and addressed. I would like to hear the minister respond, if not today then in due course, to the issues that I have highlighted, which come from front-line panel members.
I begin by apologising to colleagues for missing the start of the debate. I was caught up in the rather tortuous travel arrangements that I assume many of us experienced this morning.
We have spent a great deal of parliamentary time and energy in discussing youth justice over the past six years, and I am pleased that we have. It reflects the anxiety and unease that exist on the subject in our communities. No one can say that the issue is not difficult; nor are we claiming that we have got the approach exactly right. However, I am pleased with the measures that we are taking and with the priority that we have given the problem. For today's debate, perhaps the most important of those is the efforts that we are now making to integrate our work across the various public agencies.
I was disappointed to hear some of Patrick Harvie's remarks, as I had hoped that today's debate would not be conducted in the same terms as our discussions on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. The portrayal of measures that are designed to crack down on antisocial behaviour as somehow demonising all young people has now been seen, I hope, as a sterile and artificial diversion. The respect agenda—the idea that offensive behaviour in the community will not be tolerated or go unpunished—is at last being seen as part of a range of policies that are designed to help and to support young people to make the most of their talents and abilities, no matter their circumstances.
Those policies range from early intervention programmes, the expansion of nursery education, the child tax credit, the surestart scheme and investment in new school buildings to reform of the children's hearings system, the recruitment and training of more social workers and even the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill, which has been introduced. Our policies are designed not just to give all our children the best start in life but to ensure that they have more than one chance.
There will always be a tension between allowing young people the opportunity to address their offending or antisocial behaviour and protecting the community. Undoubtedly, we have shifted the balance towards community safety, but we have not done so by writing off our young people. Just as we now have a range of sentencing options and a new confidence that criminal or offensive behaviour will be punished, so too we have put in place a range of supports to turn individuals who display such behaviour around. Today's debate is about ensuring that both approaches, and both types of service, work together.
I am pleased to note the presence in the chamber of the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, Robert Brown, who will sum up the debate for the Executive. That is a clear signal of the Executive's multifaceted and joined-up approach to youth justice. Other members have already highlighted the importance of education, which is also identified in the committee's report, and I have already mentioned some important initiatives. However, I take this opportunity to flag up to the minister the importance of the Executive's integrated child care strategy. I know that a lot of work has been done on developing that policy, but the witnesses at yesterday's meeting of the Education Committee made a strong plea for the strategy to be published as soon as possible.
In any debate on youth justice, the use or abuse of drugs is a central issue, although I am not sure how much attention it has received this morning. I refer not so much to drug abuse by young people—although there are gaps in addiction services for young people throughout the country—as to the commonplace use of drugs in their homes. The extent of the problem of drug abuse among families, especially in our big cities, is very worrying indeed. How can we expect young people to know how to behave or conduct themselves when so many parents or guardians are abusing drugs or struggling to cope with their addiction? In parts of Glasgow, scarcely a case comes before the children's panel in which drugs do not feature somewhere in the home background. It has been estimated that something like 4,000 to 5,000 children are born each year in Scotland to drug-abusing families.
As I have already argued, there is no simple or single solution to the problem of youth offending, but the ubiquitous presence of drugs needs to be challenged. Any integrated approach must include specific measures to address the impact of drugs in the home.
Would the member welcome the extension of drug treatment and testing orders to district courts and to children's hearings, given the extent of the problem that he has just outlined?
I will need to check, but I think that drug treatment and testing orders are being rolled out and are being used to a far greater degree than was previously the case. That is a recognition of the need for a range of measures to combat drugs. However, the point that I was trying to make is about family backgrounds. We need to tackle not only the misuse of drugs by offenders but the use of drugs in the home, so that young people are brought up in the right environment. The problem is not just the abuse of drugs but, for example, the number of families who are on methadone scripts and who are struggling to control a drug addiction. We need to recognise that background when we are trying to address young people's behaviour.
We need to reintroduce a culture of respect through our youth justice policies by punishing those who do not show respect for others. However, through social work, health support and education, we need to give to young people the self-respect that will, in turn, allow them to treat others properly. The committee's report and the Executive's response to it demonstrate that that is now happening. I commend both Parliament and the Executive for their efforts.
I commend the Justice 2 Committee for its report, which touches on a number of important issues. For example, it refers to the need to audit what exists at the moment, which is hard to do, because this is a varied area of work involving many different organisations. We need to know what is happening and what works.
We need to involve voluntary organisations far more than is the case at the moment. One problem with Governments is that they do not like voluntary organisations. They like to overcentralise everything and to produce a piece of paper that tells everyone how they should do things. That is not how voluntary organisations work. There is a great deal of rhetoric about voluntary organisations, but the whole government system is hostile to them. We must change that and destroy overcentralisation.
The report speaks about the importance of education, which is a good point. It discusses detailed issues such as problems with data sharing, which seem to hold up much of what should be good activity.
Susan Deacon has just left the chamber, but I would like to build on her remarks about early intervention. She said that we must go further upstream. I agree entirely. At the moment, we look at a river that is flooding and say, "The flooding starts here, so we must do something about it there." That is fine, but the flooding is caused by the fact that someone has chopped down all the trees further up the river. We must attend to that. We must attend to the society that we have created, in which there is a lack of good things for young people to do and a lack of support for families. The youth work system has been massacred since local government reorganisation 10 or so years ago. We must put much more effort into youth work, family support, informal education and so on. Good things are happening here and there, but there is no sustained drive to support them.
I am sure that Donald Gorrie recognises the significant investment that has been made in youth justice services. I know that he is raising a broader issue, but he talks about the investment that is needed and what must be done to translate that into practice at local level. I would be interested to hear whether he thinks that that should be decided by the Executive from the centre or whether he thinks that there should still be local decision making that is able to respond to local needs. If it is the latter, there will always be variations across Scotland that we cannot resolve from the centre.
There must be local decision making, but we must have a more effective local democratic system and greater accountability, so that people can point out that council X is not doing something right and put a boot up its rear to ensure that it does it better. That should be done by local people, rather than by the Executive.
In a previous debate, there was some dispute about the phrase "core funding". The phrase does not matter, but the concept does. There must be continuing funding—call it investment, or what you will—of organisations that provide many of the services that we need. We need to support successful projects much more than we do at the moment. Many of us have repeatedly made speeches about projects such as Freagarrach or Fairbridge. Everyone agrees with us, but the projects are never copied. We are in the position of a family that goes to the farmers market, buys some produce, goes home to eat it and says, "That's really good produce. Next time, we'll try another stall." We put our money into something else, instead of saying, "This is a really good project. Let's get on with it." We must support what works well. We must interpret best value in a more civilised way, taking human aspects into account, rather than just accountancy aspects.
We must involve young people. Young people are difficult, and many of them are inarticulate. The only difference between them and us is that we are difficult, but are mostly overarticulate. If one gets together with young people, one finds that they have ideas and they are not stupid. They know much better than I do what is needed in their areas, but we do not ask them. We need to get together with them and say, "Look, what is really needed in your community?" We want to give each community the right resources and say, "Right, you've got a local problem, the adults and young people will get together and sort it out," and, with all respect, I am sure that they will do it much better than MSPs or ministers could.
I thank the Justice 2 Committee, the clerks and the witnesses for producing their worth-while report. Although I had nothing to do with it, I thought that it was an incredibly interesting read, and those of us who have worked in the youth justice system appreciate that it touched all the buttons.
I will pick up a number of points that others have made. Margaret Mitchell touched and expanded on the corporate responsibility of local authorities, which is a serious issue that we have to look at. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 placed a duty on local authorities to be the corporate parent of looked-after children, yet in numerous debates in the chamber we have talked about how that has not quite worked and how, yet again, the social work service has been left to take on the corporate parenting role that was envisaged for the local authority. Paragraph 39 of the committee's report states that there is clear evidence that the corporate identity of local authorities has again been negated and, as Jackie Baillie said, that it has been left to the social work service to deal with youth justice.
We have to broaden out the perspective, and what Maureen Macmillan said about education was absolutely right. Education and schools have a key role in identifying the need for early intervention, which was mentioned by other members, because the vast majority of our children attend school. However, one often finds with youngsters who are referred either directly to the social work service or indirectly through the children's hearings system that people have had concerns about those youngsters for many years but did nothing about it, felt that they could do nothing about it or did not know who was supposed to do something about it. The concerns therefore were not articulated and remained with the individual, and the early intervention stage was not reached. The corporate role of the local authority is crucial.
We have to look at not only multi-agency working, but multi-agency training. Many of our professionals in local authorities and voluntary organisations come from a variety of professional backgrounds, and the training that they undergo is incredibly different. When one trains to be a teacher, housing officer, social worker or youth worker, one does not have much knowledge of what those other people who are being trained will do. We have to look to our institutions that undertake that training to ensure that they bring together those different professionals at an earlier stage in their training so that they have a better understanding of what other agencies do. When they are asked later to do multi-agency work, they will then be able to do it without the professional barriers and boundaries that they have sometimes faced in the past.
The links between the children's hearings system and adult courts are crucial. The remit of the inquiry into youth justice was slightly tighter than I thought that it might be, given that when we talk about young offending in social work, we mean young people up to the age of 21. The inquiry covered young people from the ages of eight to 18, so it did not concentrate on the court system as much as it would have done if it had dealt with young people up to 21—the age at which young offenders institutions no longer cater for young people. Within its terms of reference, however, the inquiry made the essential links between those two different systems.
We could be far more creative in the children's hearings system than we have been in the past, even under the current legislation, never mind in the review that is being undertaken. Too often in the past, when young offenders were placed under supervision, very few conditions were attached. We could be far more imaginative, in both social work and children's hearings disposals, about attaching proper conditions to what we expect from a young person who is under a supervision order as well as from the professionals who are supposed to be assisting that person with what they are expected to do. Too often, our expectations are resource driven, which means that we end up with outcomes that are based on resources instead of on the work that should be undertaken with a young person.
As far as resource-driven solutions are concerned, I do not deny that we have had a problem with the number of secure accommodation places in Scotland and that youngsters who clearly need such accommodation have not been able to get it. However, we must be careful about suggesting that simply doubling, tripling or quadrupling the number of places will solve things. Instead, we must be clear about what we want secure accommodation to achieve. It is a question not just of containment, but of how we help a young person, and we have to think about the sort of help that they can receive only in secure accommodation. In the past, social workers, children's hearings and other professionals have been too ready to see secure accommodation as a solution, not as an aid to a solution. Again, we must be clear about what we mean by secure accommodation; about the help that we think young people require; and about what secure accommodation offers above other forms of accommodation.
More needs to be done about youth justice, but we should not forget that considerable improvements have been made over the past few years. I have no doubt that such improvements will continue to be made. As a result, we should not simply say that everything in the system is bad. We need to acknowledge that, at long last, some things are improving and that, although we have some way to go, we are on the right track.
The somewhat chaotic situation that arose earlier this morning placed a great deal of stress and strain on Presiding Officers, clerks and business managers alike. However, cometh the hour, cometh the man, and the chamber should be grateful to Bill Butler for leading off the debate at the last moment. We are obliged to him. Indeed, it just goes to show that only a Partick Thistle supporter could win such a triumph from adversity.
The committee report has been described, not unkindly, as "worthy but dull". Everyone in this consensual debate has acknowledged that much in the report is well worth while. We must be concerned by the fact that in certain areas the multi-agency approach has not entirely worked, and I know that the Executive will address that problem. The report also refers to the voluntary sector in Scotland, for whose contribution to child welfare we must be very grateful.
We are concerned about operational requirements and legal inhibitors with regard to data sharing, and that problem must be addressed in the short term. Moreover, we must examine and seek to standardise the differing levels of drug abuse assistance throughout the country. The overall impression from the report is that, despite the best intentions, co-ordination is still patchy and it is important that we tackle that matter.
In his opening speech, Hugh Henry correctly pointed out that the vast majority of youngsters in Scotland pose no problems. Indeed, he could have strengthened his case by pointing out that only 2 per cent of youngsters are referred to the children's hearings system on offence grounds. Given that 3 per cent of adults in Scotland go before the criminal courts, it is clear that youngsters are performing somewhat better than we are.
The minister would be surprised if I did not take slight issue with a point that he made. Like many members of the Executive, he has trumpeted the success of ASBOs. I should point out that the common law of Scotland was in place long before the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 was introduced, and the fact that common-law provisions were not used represents a failure.
Kenny MacAskill was right to highlight the fact that youngsters are often the victims of crime and that they are assaulted and have their property stolen. Perhaps we should examine the issue against that background. Indeed, Mr MacAskill pointed out that problem solving should be one of the top criteria in considering the matter.
Margaret Mitchell was the first to highlight early intervention, which a number of other members subsequently mentioned. She underlined, quite properly, the fact that substance and alcohol abuse is becoming a growing problem and that we must be more determined in deciding how to address it.
Jeremy Purvis was correct to state that Scotland is a safe society, but we cannot afford to be complacent. I part company with him on his belief that there has been a reduction in recorded crime. It is my view, and that of my colleagues, that the figures do not reflect accurately the level of criminality in Scotland. That is because, unfortunately, the public, who are somewhat inured to the lower levels of criminality, are now complacent about reporting crime.
Stewart Stevenson is a man of many parts. He highlighted another one today when he revealed that he is the archetypal grumpy old man; few of us would take issue with that. He argued that the reductions in the number of prison receptions and receptions in young offenders institutions were an indication that things were getting better. I say to Stewart Stevenson that all the ways in which fine defaulters are no longer incarcerated are the reason for those reductions in figures. The situation is not getting any better.
Does the member share my concern that more than 6,000 fine defaulters were sent to prison last year?
I have made it clear all along that I do not think that the problem should exist. We should not be sending fine defaulters to prison, because we should be deducting the fines from benefits and salaries. Unfortunately, that idea does not seem to have penetrated the minds of Executive ministers.
Christine Grahame was correct to highlight that only 25 per cent of those young people who are referred to the children's hearings system are referred on offence grounds. I make clear the Conservatives' support for the children's hearings system. However, it must be of concern to the Executive that one third of panel members resign every year; indeed, I know that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People is concerned about that.
We need to examine the system, because a system that has been in existence for 40 years is not totally relevant to modern-day needs—the young offender of 1968 is not the same as the young offender of 2005. Although the welfare of the child should be paramount, the wider interests of society cannot be ignored. The ignoring of those wider interests is becoming a growing problem. We must consider how the system works, provide the appropriate number of secure places and think about how we can extend the powers of the children's hearings system to take in restorative justice, community service and compulsory attendance at attendance centres as forms of grounding. Most important, we must recognise that the age limits need to be examined closely. Young people who are aged 14 or 15 are not a suitable client base for the children's hearings system; they should go to a youth court.
As other members have done, I thank the clerks, the Justice 2 Committee's special adviser and, in particular, everyone who sent in written evidence and all the witnesses who gave oral evidence as part of the inquiry. I also thank Bill Butler, who stepped in in the committee's hour of need earlier this morning.
Like other members of the committee, such as Bill Butler and Jeremy Purvis, I joined the committee when it was midway through its inquiry, as a result of changes in committee membership. Although we were not present at the outset of the inquiry, we brought with us from our previous committees a new perspective that helped to move the inquiry along; it certainly did not detract from the committee's work.
I agree with the minister's view that more needs to be done. It is important for us to acknowledge that a great deal has already been done. I commend the Executive for that and do not doubt its commitment on youth justice. I accept that, as many members said, more has been done in the past three years than in the previous 20 years. However, the minister must accept that, in spite of the Executive's commitment, there is a problem with what is happening on the ground. I am sure that he accepts that more has to be done in that area.
One of the key messages that must go out from the debate and from the Parliament is that only a tiny minority of young people in our society are offenders. That point was made by almost every member—Bill Butler made it right at the start of the debate and the minister, Kenny MacAskill, Jeremy Purvis and various others all followed suit. It is extremely important that we do not demonise our young people. There are problems in some sections of our society, but they represent a tiny minority. The UN report seemed to reflect badly on Scotland but, like many others, I believe that it reflected badly on the UN rather than on Scottish society.
Susan Deacon's speech was exceptionally good. She is absolutely right when she talks about early intervention. My only point of disagreement arose when she talked about early intervention from birth; I agree that there should be more midwives and more nursery teachers, but I think that it should be early intervention before birth. There are issues such as smoking, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, whether we should add folic acid to food products such as flour and mothers' other dietary and nutritional needs. A range of issues need to be discussed, apart from deprivation among mothers-to-be, all of which have an impact on a child even before it is born.
The issue of coterminosity was raised by a number of members. I agree and disagree with Maureen Macmillan's comments about coterminosity. Lack of coterminosity can be overcome, as in the example that she gave in Moray. However, there is no doubt that coterminosity assists in interagency working. It should be the case that we have coterminosity wherever possible, although I accept that it is not always feasible, particularly in the rural areas that Maureen Macmillan represents.
Does the member accept that it depends on relationships between agencies rather than on whether they are within the same boundaries?
Absolutely. I accept that we can overcome the problems and difficulties of lack of coterminosity if people on the ground are willing to work together and to co-operate. All that I am saying is that, wherever it can be achieved, coterminosity has its advantages.
The Justice 2 Committee is not convinced that the concept of corporate responsibility is a reality in local authorities. The reality appears to be that young offenders are still viewed as the responsibility of social work departments, despite the essential role of other departments in meeting their needs. When the committee went round and examined various other departments, it found a lack of involvement in the process. Certain members highlighted education departments' responsibility in that area. Many individuals—it may be an individual rather than a systemic problem—believed that it was their job to turn up because they had a place on the committee, but that that was the extent of their responsibility, and that it was down to social workers to deal with the problem of young offenders. We must ensure that the message goes out that that is not the case.
The Executive is correct to point out that the guidance makes clear that
"It is the local authority as a whole that has ‘corporate responsibility' for implementing supervision requirements."
The guidance may say that and the Executive may say that, but that message is not getting through in some areas on the ground.
I commend the involvement of the voluntary sector in youth justice. It has a vital role to play, which we undermine at our peril. The role of volunteers is extremely important and we must ensure that they get the support that they deserve.
Many members, for example Kenny MacAskill and Mike Pringle, mentioned funding. The committee had profound concerns about short-term funding and the problems of funding that many agencies experienced. In about 1990—15 years ago—I worked in an area of long-term unemployment, in a project dealing with literacy and numeracy problems in adults. Much of the effort of such projects went into ensuring that they could get the funding for the next phase rather than into dealing with those problems. That issue is not new—it has been around for so many years that we should have tackled it by now; I hope that we will do so in the near future.
Many of the problems that we face are related to alcohol. I agree with some of Jeremy Purvis's comments about alcohol problems. However, I hope that I am incorrect in thinking that he said that every youngster who is caught with alcohol should be referred to alcohol counsellors. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. It is a perverse idea that every youngster who happens to be at a party with their pals or who happens to be under the age of 18 and has a glass of wine or a can of beer should be referred to alcohol counselling. That is a rather skewed and bizarre view of how we should educate our children about alcohol use. If that is what Jeremy Purvis intended to say, I cannot agree with him. We have to deal with the core, underlying problems, not just with the symptoms. We have to deal with alcohol abuse, drug abuse and deprivation, and with a society that believes that consumerism is the ideal way forward. The consumerist ideal says, "Get it all. Get it now", but many young people feel left out of that, which unfortunately leads to problems.
It has been a huge privilege to sit in Parliament and listen to the excellent speeches in this debate. The topic of the debate is highly important and I pay tribute to the Justice 2 Committee report that stimulated it.
Despite the difficulties that he had in having to introduce the debate, Bill Butler identified, as the committee had done, most of the main themes that subsequently emerged during the debate. I am thinking of the role of education services; the corporate responsibility of local authorities; the involvement of the voluntary sector; data sharing; funding; diversionary services; mental health services and so on. Hugh Henry took up those themes and spoke about progress, resources, funding and the development and reform of services that we are seeing in many ways across the board. I would like to draw together, if I can, some of the strands of today's debate.
As the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I can perhaps say that the justice system has to be set in context. It has to do with the pathology of society's failures. Links to other services—education, health and social work services—are extremely important. Although it is true that education services should be more aware of the role of youth justice services, it is also true—I say this to the Conservatives in particular—that the role of education services and schools in dealing with, or seeking to avoid, some issues that come out of the youth justice agenda is also extremely important. As is so often the case, it is a two-way thing.
The range of issues that have been raised during this morning's debate demonstrate clearly the complexities that are faced by those who work in youth justice and the huge importance of joined-up partnership working across all agencies. Kenny MacAskill and Stewart Stevenson talked about how difficult such issues were. Indeed they are.
It is not too much to say that a substantial part of the work of the Scottish Executive is devoted to supporting and encouraging the common ownership of issues and programmes by all relevant agencies. It is especially important that children and young people do not fall through cracks in the arrangements. That is important for their welfare and future prospects, and for the community at large, which benefits when we get things right and suffers when we get them wrong.
Youth justice services have to have effective links with many other organisations on a multi-agency basis. That idea leads to consideration of the relationships with local authorities, and local authorities' democratic mandate and role in providing services in association with partners in the voluntary sector and elsewhere.
One of the best speeches of the morning—dare I say it?—was from Maureen Macmillan. She described effectively the underlying connections with interrupted schooling and truancy. She also mentioned the interrelationships between police, doctors and teachers in Orkney, and the point that was made by Barnardo's Scotland that it can be—[Interruption.] I do not think that it was my pager that that noise came from.
As I was saying, Maureen Macmillan mentioned Barnardo's point that identification can take place at the age of 10 but that it can often take four years before references are made. The importance of early intervention was touched on by many members this morning.
The proposals that we have set out in "getting it right for every child"—proposals that will reform children's services and reform and modernise the children's hearings system—are very clear. Without effective partnership working, we will not secure the outcomes that we want for our children and young people. As Hugh Henry said, the matter is under consultation and the consultation closes tomorrow. I say to Christine Grahame and others that we will consider the responses carefully.
The basic outline of the children's hearings system is robust. Susan Deacon and Jackie Baillie talked about the links between our care system and our systems for dealing with young offenders. The central point that they made is entirely right.
Although I can understand the motivation behind the Conservatives wanting to take 14 and 15-year-olds out of the system, it is the wrong way to approach the issue. The issue is not so much the procedures as the philosophy and practice that underlie them. We are trying to divert young people from offending, challenge their offending behaviour and help both them and society by reducing the number of people who get involved in the criminal justice system. As Jackie Baillie said, we should be proud of the integrated approach to care and justice that has been taken in Scotland.
The new system that we propose will mean that all those who work with children and young people will have a collective and individual responsibility to ensure that children get the help and support that they need, when they need it, and that it is appropriate, proportionate and timely.
I think that it was Stewart Stevenson who asked who would get fired if things did not work. It is to be hoped that we will not usually be in the position of firing people. To coin a phrase, the point is that, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright." It is the responsibility of teachers, of assistants—
I accept what the minister is saying, but does he accept that, where it is everybody's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility?
I do not entirely accept that; that is obviously a risk, however, which I accept. However, in the context of trying to achieve integration of services, one of the key things is to get people to bring to the table the decision-making power and resources to achieve things in practice, so that everybody has ownership, which I think is a good concept in this regard.
The end result will be that fewer children should be referred to reporters, and there should be fewer hearings. Professionals will be empowered to act promptly, without the need for formal referral, and to take more responsibility. That is the answer to Stewart Stevenson's question when it comes to taking decisions.
Scott Barrie made a good point about hearings being more imaginative, with more imaginative use being made of conditions and supervision orders. The call to reform and revise the system to ensure that it delivers straddled many of the speeches from around the chamber.
The debate has highlighted gaps in services and the difficult issue of the relationship between central Government and local authorities. It is mostly for local authorities to take decisions on the ground in accordance with local priorities and working with voluntary sector partners. We will continue to play our part in encouraging, supporting and backing up local authorities in that context. Authorities are backed up, as Hugh Henry said, by an enormous increase in resource—from £3.5 million to £63 million—going into youth justice in this regard, along with money that is going into antisocial behaviour measures.
We are committed to reform and improvement. [Interruption.] That is not my pager, is it? I do not think so. Sorry—I think that it is mine, after all. I beg your pardon. We are committed to the reform and improvement of both children's services and the justice system. Youth justice is an important part of those agendas.
Most young people are a huge credit to their parents, their school and their country. I think that we have a wonderful generation of young people coming through, who will do great things for our society and communities in the future. Every young person who does not make it through the system and who does not fulfil their potential—who underachieves or who ends up in criminal activity—represents a tragedy that we all wish to avoid. I pay tribute to the Justice 2 Committee's report, which postulates a number of those themes. I am grateful for the support.
I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to the Parliament, for my late arrival, the reasons for which are reasonably well known. I was certainly not the only person to be affected. If being in a bus that took two hours to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh was a somewhat depressing prospect, it could have been worse: I might have been sitting next to Stewart Stevenson, in which case I should have given up on the will to get here at all. I very much hope that, when I get a ministerial car, I will travel with the same impunity as Mr Henry, and that such difficulties will diminish.
I pay thanks in particular to Bill Butler. I do not know whether he is still in the chamber, but I heard that, at very short notice, he picked up the ball running. I am indebted to him for doing so. I am sorry that he got landed in that position. I am also slightly sorry that I have been landed in this position: winding up without having heard all the speeches is slightly challenging. However, I have never lacked powers of invention, so I will do what I can.
I thank members for their kind remarks about both the Justice 2 Committee and our report. I know that I speak for the whole committee when I say that we are pleased if the report has contributed to useful debate. The report might seem modest to some. It did not require committee members to travel to far-flung parts or exotic climes. Glasgow, Hamilton, Dundee, Falkirk and Edinburgh were as far as we got, but the report is none the worse for that. It is a solid piece of work, which I hope will inform debate. I record my thanks to our clerks for their equally solid administrative support and immense patience. I thank our adviser, Fergus McNeill, and the many individuals and organisations who submitted evidence and facilitated visits. Of course, I also thank my fellow committee members.
Will the member note that the report was signed by the Scottish socialists and regret their failure to put up any speakers for the debate?
Before Miss Goldie answers that, I have to say that Ms Byrne has been held up.
Yes. I have been dogged by the same difficulties, so I sympathise.
I will emphasise a theme that has emerged during the debate: although youth justice is a subject that has not left the headlines since the advent of devolution, we know that, just as not all adults are criminals, certainly not all young people are hooligans. Young people will push barriers, because that is part of learning, but it is worth considering that the relatively small proportion of 2 per cent of children under 16 find their way to a children's hearing on offence grounds and almost 3 per cent of adults find their way to court. Perhaps we have a problem with youth crime, but we should view it in perspective; it is important that we do not lose sight of that.
The committee was slightly frenzied as it tried to find a remit for the inquiry. Members might have mentioned the scoping seminar that we held in Glasgow, which was immensely useful in focusing our minds. It was attended by a high calibre of participant and it was good to find that those participants were generally supportive of the existing youth justice framework, although they noted a range of gaps in service provision. That is how we decided the remit. The remit was chosen carefully and, although I did not hear Mr MacAskill's speech, I gather that it had a slightly sour note to it.
It was all sweetness and light.
Sweetness and light? I am not in a position to comment, because I was not here, but another member indicated that they thought that Mr MacAskill thought the report was pretty tedious and boring. The report might not sound sexy, but I thought that it was spot on in that it considered what matters. It is not setting off rockets, ringing bells or blowing whistles, but it is shining a bright light over the canvas of youth justice. I will not regurgitate the report, but it is important to recognise how broad and intricate that canvas is; it is a very close weave and it is extremely difficult to come up with dazzling proposals for any one aspect of it. The report does not try to do that; it tries carefully to tease out difficulties and make what I hope are sensible observations about them.
I hope that Christine Grahame was reassured to see that one of the first things we did in the report was commend the children's hearings system and express our support for its principles. As far as multi-agency working is concerned, one of the most telling descriptions came from Perth and Kinross Council, which said that interagency service planning and delivery was like a three-dimensional game of chess—I really do not think it could be described better. That begins to indicate the complicated backdrop against which we were operating as a committee.
What has struck me about the speeches that I have been privileged to listen to is that they have touched on many of the themes that the committee picked up, such as concerns about stability of funding and the need for an holistic and coherent multi-agency approach. That was picked up by Mike Pringle, Susan Deacon and Donald Gorrie. Maureen Macmillan made a positive contribution and explained the value of a networking approach in the real sense, which has certainly been achieved in Moray. A number of contributors rightly highlighted literacy and the need for education to form part of the general backdrop for our young people if we want to try to provide them with a stable platform for life ahead. Maureen Macmillan mentioned Orkney, but other contributors such as Jackie Baillie, Kenneth Macintosh and Robert Brown made good points about the significance of that area of activity.
The committee thought that early intervention was important. A number of members touched on that, but I thought that Susan Deacon made a telling contribution. Stewart Maxwell said that early intervention should happen almost before birth, but the point is that from the moment a young life in this country starts we have to be alert to how it will proceed. Scott Barrie said helpfully that if we are really going to try to achieve a corporate approach at local authority level, training will be required—it will not just happen.
During the debate, I was most struck by three issues: the role of the voluntary sector; drugs, alcohol and mental health facilities and services; and accountability, to which Stewart Stevenson alluded. I say to the minister that I was struck by the fact that there is a very real need for drugs, alcohol abuse and mental health facilities. My impression is that we cannot quite quantify what the supply needs for services will be to meet demand. The debate has highlighted that issue and provided a timely reminder to us all.
The committee was mindful of the role of voluntary organisations and specifically referred to that role in its report. Donald Gorrie pungently referred to that matter; he described the perceived hostility to the voluntary sector and talked about too much centralisation.
The debate has been useful. It has gone a long way towards further colouring what the committee has said. I hope that the report has helped to stimulate debate and I thank all members and ministers for their contributions.