Chamber and committees

Following the announcement by the Department for Employment and Skills (DfES) on 23 November to suspend the Individual Learning Account (ILA) scheme in England, the Executive undertook a further review of the scheme in Scotland. Since then, extra validation checks have been implemented by Scottish Enterprise for all current claims, as a precautionary measure to protect public funds.Both the review and the validation exercise have highlighted a number of actions which need to be taken urgently to address some of the deficiencies in the system. I have therefore decided to close the Individual Learning Account scheme with immediate effect. Consideration is being given to what future arrangements might be put in place to support individual learning.I will be writing to all MSPs with more information shortly, and every ILA holder and Learning Provider will also be written to individually.

We estimate that around £22.6 million per annum was spent on prevention throughout Scotland, in 1999-2000 and 2000-01. On a per head of population basis, this equates to £4.42 per person per annum. However, if the calculation is based on 0 to 16-year-olds, the figure rises to £21.27 per person.It is not possible to provide a breakdown of these figures for Inverclyde. To do so would require a specific study, which would be time-consuming and costly. Prevention work includes not only direct expenditure for tackling drug misuse, but also generic expenditure, where a proportion of service time is related to additions work covering drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

The Executive's first Annual Report on Drug Misuse, published on 23 November, highlights a wide range of actions to help young people stay away from drugs. Some examples are:(a) in 2000-01, 97% of Scottish schools provided drug education;(b) the publication of the School Drug Safety Team's Guidelines for the Management of Incidents of Drug Misuse, and the provision of £3 million over three years from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2004 to implement the recommendations of the team's second report;(c) the allocation of around £18 million over the same three-year period as above to support the Changing Children's Services Fund, which includes the provision of prevention and treatment facilities for under 16s as a priority area;(d) through Scotland Against Drugs, we have supported many community-based projects designed to divert young people away from drug misuse, towards healthy and positive lifestyles, and(e) the Health Education Board for Scotland "Think About It" campaign, aimed at raising awareness of the risks of heroin to young people.The Annual Report also records progress on other aspects of our drug strategy, including enforcement work, which will help to stifle the availability of drugs to young people in Scotland. In addition, statutory and voluntary bodies across Scotland are engaged in local prevention initiatives.

The prevalence report shows that the level of Executive funding for drug treatment services is broadly in line with the level of problem drug use in NHS Board areas. Prevalence estimates, along with other relative indicators of need, will be taken into account in the future allocation of drug treatment resources.Grant Aided Expenditure to local authorities, through which funding for drug rehabilitation is allocated, is in accordance with an established formula which takes several factors into account, including population and deprivation.Scotland's Drug Action Teams have been provided with three-year budgets, to enable them to plan and deliver local services with a degree of stability and confidence. We have no plans to reallocate these resources within the current Spending Review period.

We estimate that £29.6 million will be spent in 2001-02 across Scotland, which equates to £5.79 per head of population, and £27.86 per head if the calculation is based on 0 to 16-year-olds.It is not possible to provide a breakdown of these figures for Inverclyde.

We estimate that around £29.6 million will be spent on prevention in Scotland in 2001-02. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this figure for Inverclyde.

A Policy Unit review of expenditure on drugs, published by the Executive in October 2000, estimated that around £22.6 million was spent per annum on prevention in 1999-2000 and in 2000-01. This included schools and health education, grants and research, community education, and health promotion. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of these figures for Inverclyde.

The investigation by the head of the Scottish Executive Development Department is now complete. Her conclusions and recommendations are available in the Parliament's Reference Centre. Executive action is being taken on all the recommendations.

I am pleased to announce the launch of Social Investment Scotland, a new loan fund for the social economy. Social Investment Scotland will provide loan finance and technical assistance to social economy organisations with the aim of stimulating wealth in disadvantaged communities by encouraging enterprise. The four Scottish clearing banks are providing loan finance of £3 million. The public sector is contributing £2 million to support the operational costs and development activity of the fund, to which I am making available £1,225,000 in grant over the next five years.

We published our consultation paper in February 2000 and received 220 responses. Many incorporated the views of numbers of parents and children. We are grateful for all the careful thought and analysis that went into the responses. I have placed a full analysis in the Scottish Parliament's Reference Centre and on the Scottish Executive website.In our paper we did not propose a complete ban on physical punishment of children. We intend to retain the right of parents to reasonably chastise their children. But we propose a clearer definition of what is "reasonable" and further express restrictions on what is allowed. The responses we have received generally support this approach.Of the responses

• 43% supported our proposals in general
• 34% called for a complete ban on physical punishment
• 17% did not support any change in the law, and argued for the right of parents to discipline their children as they see fit
• 6% did not state clear views.

Taking the responses as a whole, 77% of those who replied clearly supported further legal restrictions.A clear signal must be sent to parents and other adults caring for children that physical punishment must be kept within strict limits and only used as a last resort.Based on the views of those who commented, we will set out in statute the factors the courts must take into account when determining whether punishment was "reasonable". They will include:

• the nature, context of the punishment;
• its duration and frequency;
• its physical and mental effects, and
• the sex, age and state of health of the child.

This will be a non-exhaustive list so that other factors could be taken into account depending on the circumstances of the case.We propose to prohibit absolutely blows to the head, shaking, and the use of implements. We also propose to ban physical punishment of children up to and including a certain age, and we propose this be the age of two. Up to this age, it is very doubtful that a child would understand why he or she was being punished, and if the child was in any imminent danger it should be possible for an adult to restrain or remove the child physically from the danger rather than punish him or her.Finally, in accordance with the overwhelming response by those involved in these services, we will prohibit corporal punishment in childcare centres, by childminders and in non-publicly funded pre-school centres. This is consistent with existing policy for schools and publicly funded pre-school centres and will provide welcome clarity for employees in these settings. The change in the law will not cover baby-sitters or nannies in the home. We believe that parents should have the right to set the ground rules for discipline in the home and that these should be observed consistently by all those who care for children in their own home.We will seek an early opportunity for legislation.The primary consideration in decisions about children is the welfare of the child, and we recognise the fundamental role of parents in this. We hope that our proposals will protect children and encourage all parents to reflect carefully on their right to administer punishment to their children.Physical violence is the antithesis of the behaviour we want to promote in children. If we want children to behave well, we should set them a good example. A child should have explanations, a clear disciplinary framework and sanctions other than physical punishment wherever possible. Our proposed changes should discourage casual or excessive use of physical punishment or its use for inappropriate purposes. If children receive a good example from thoughtful parents, this should help lessen levels of violence in society at large.