Scottish Parliament, 29 September 2005

272 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Official Report 29 September 2005

Youth Justice

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 9 th report in 2005, "Inquiry into Youth Justice". I call Bill Butler to speak to and move the motion.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

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?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

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 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 9th 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).

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Many thanks for stepping in to open the debate.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

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.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

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, will the minister agree with me 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?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

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 also, 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.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

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.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

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?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

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.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

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?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

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.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

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 hearing 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—

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I was just about to finish, but I will give way.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

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 what is a worthwhile and excellent report.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

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.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

: 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.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

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.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

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.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I come to the debate as a grumpy old man.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Hear, hear.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

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.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

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 nearly doing 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.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

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.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

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.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

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?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

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.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

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.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

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.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

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?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

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.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

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.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

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.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

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.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

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 systems 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.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

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.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member share my concern that more than 6,000 fine defaulters were sent to prison last year?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

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.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

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 the minister 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.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member accept that it depends on relationships between agencies rather than on whether they are within the same boundaries?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

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.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I accept what the minister is saying, but does he accept that, where it is everybody's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

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?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before Miss Goldie answers that, I have to say that Ms Byrne has been held up.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It was all sweetness and light.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that there are adequate numbers of chemistry teachers in secondary schools. (S2O-7701)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As part of the commitment to increase teacher numbers to 53,000 by 2007, recruitment to chemistry postgraduate certificate in education courses this year has increased by 271 per cent compared with the figure for 2003.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware that his boss said in April in a reply to a parliamentary question that there was no evidence of any significant shortages of physics teachers or chemistry teachers. However, a recent survey by the Royal Society of Chemistry showed that more than one in five schools in Scotland has had to turn pupils away from studying chemistry as a result of a lack of teachers. Given the results of that survey and the importance of science subjects for the modern economy, is the minister happy that he is doing enough to ensure a supply of chemistry teachers?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am well aware of that report, which I looked at closely before I became a minister. One interesting thing about being a minister is that ministers can get a bit of inside information about such things.

I draw Mr Morgan's attention to the recruitment figures—that is the top line. There were 31 recruits in 2002-03, 53 recruits in 2003-04 and 115 recruits in 2005-06. By anybody's account, such increases are substantial and we are confident that they will deal with the need. There is no shortage of chemistry teachers coming through the system as a result of the Executive's workforce planning studies, which are fairly detailed and take on board potential retirements over the immediate period, for example.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I have been a chemistry teacher and a teacher trainer and therefore have a keen interest in the matter. The minister knows that considerable work is being done on the curriculum for excellence and the assessment for learning programme. The latter is particularly important for teacher development in how subjects such as chemistry are taught and could well help to increase the number of students moving to degrees and on into teaching. Will the minister assure us of his continued support for the important work on how a subject is taught?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Sylvia Jackson is right to make the point that it is not only the numbers that are important. The quality of how the subject is taught is also important, and that is very much at the heart of the Executive's agenda for excellence.

Some 415 people studied chemistry at degree level in 2001-02. The figures increased to 470 and then to 500 in 2003-04. Therefore, there does not appear to be any lack of interest. The support includes support for science centres and other ways of trying to interest young people in pursuing careers in chemistry and—more generally—knowledge of chemistry.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it plans to monitor the impact on house prices and the working age population in the Highlands and Islands and other parts of rural Scotland of the new pension tax legislation which will allow investors to include residential property in their personal pension portfolios from 6 April 2006. (S2O-7699)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The new pension rules that will be introduced from April 2006 are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. If there should be any evidence of the changes having a negative impact on the Scottish housing market—in the Highlands and Islands or anywhere else—the Executive will raise any concerns with the UK Government.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I hear the answer, minister, and I am grateful for it. However my question was really about the concrete steps that you might take to monitor the situation and whether you have considered fully the outcome, which could see more houses with low levels of occupancy, increased homelessness and reduced numbers of working people in rural Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Obviously, we will keep an eye on it. However, the regulatory impact assessment of the policy concluded that there is unlikely to be a significant inflow of pension capital into residential property. It proposed that the consequences of investing in self-invested personal pensions will mean that, for most people, residential property will not be an appropriate investment and that the impact of the changes is likely to be small.

I remind Jim Mather and others that at the moment around 200,000 people hold specialised registered pension funds including self-invested personal pensions. I also remind him that more than 15 million people hold ordinary pensions and that most of them can invest in residential property via those pensions.

It is correct to say that the changes will increase the number of pension funds that can potentially invest in residential property because the restriction on SIPPs will be lifted. However, we are talking about a very small proportion of people; currently, 1.3 per cent of the total number of investors can purchase residential property as part of their pension funds

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the proposed health promotion bill will specifically improve the health of children. (S2O-7714)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Ministers are currently discussing the scope of the health promotion and nutrition in schools bill and intend to consult on a range of options for legislation, all of which are directed specifically at improving the health of Scotland's children.

Our aim is to build on the hungry for success programme and to develop a health promoting environment in all schools. We will be considering new powers to remove products from the school environment which are damaging to child health, such as sugary drinks. The bill will help to underpin not only the quality of food on offer to Scotland's schoolchildren but also to embed a real, sustainable focus on health improvement within Scotland's schools.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister welcomes the Secretary of State for Education and Skills' belated recognition of the importance of nutritional standards in school meals.

Does the minister recognise that the way to work is not just to say that we will ban things, but to encourage children—such as those from my former primary school, Gateside Primary School, who are attending the Parliament today—to choose healthy eating options? Children need to eat good quality school meals, and other meals, throughout the day.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Iain Smith makes some good points. Of course, the matter is wide and is not susceptible to a simple solution. We must deal with both the take-up of the food that is on offer, which must be attractive and interesting to children, and with dietary habits. Indeed, the issue is also linked to exercise.

Against that background, Iain Smith will recall the First Minister's statement in which he said that over £70 million would go into the hungry for success programme over the next three years in order to allow local authorities to build on the work that they are doing at the moment in this context. The money will allow them to go forward in an area in which Scotland is already leading the world.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to develop and expand the school nursing service to achieve the standards set out in "A Scottish framework for nursing in schools". (S2O-7659)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

NHS boards have made good progress in implementing the standards set out in "A Scottish framework for nursing in schools", in co-operation with education authorities, community health partnerships and a wide range of health and education professionals. NHS boards will be able to build on that in the future development of the service.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am sure that the minister will agree that the school nursing service has an enormous contribution to make in improving the health and well-being of children and, indeed, communities.

However, is the minister aware that many of the people who work in the field, as well as many parents and families, are not experiencing on the ground the improvements and expansion in the service to which successive ministerial statements and Executive policies have aspired? Will the minister look into the matter in order to ensure that we develop the full potential of this vitally important service?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are very clear that we need to make further progress in this area. At the same time, it is important to say that the approach in Scotland is very much one in which the public health nurse is the professional in the school. We no longer have school nurses such as those of us who were at school some decades ago might remember and imagine.

We are doing things in Scotland in a way that has not as yet been done in England to the same extent—although England is moving in that direction. We are broadening the skills and capabilities of nurses in schools to cover the whole range of public health issues and to work as part of a wider public health team. It is towards those aspirations that we will encourage boards and their partners to continue to strive.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the minister's comments about widening the role of school nurses to involve them in a public health role. That is extremely important. Is the minister aware that in many schools there is an endemic nits problem? Many of us will remember the nit nurse from our days at school, but that role seems to have diminished. Now, nurses in schools do not appear to be dealing with the problem, which seems to follow a direction from local authorities. Has there been a change in policy in dealing with nits? The matter is amusing to many, but it is a serious public health issue.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

It is a serious issue. I am not aware of any change in policy on the approach taken by nurses who work in schools. Their role is to operate within a wider team; it is no longer focused on inspection, as was once the case. That is the right direction of travel. At the same time, it is important that the whole public health team takes some responsibility for ensuring that no new public health threats arise on school premises.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for Rowallan castle. (S2O-7668)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Historic Scotland plans to provide regular access to the property next summer. The delicate nature of the surviving historic elements makes guided tours the best means of access for visitors. Tours were arranged this summer on a pilot basis and proved to be very popular, as did doors open day in early September.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As a participant in the Ayrshire doors open day at Rowallan castle, I enjoyed the wonderful, hitherto closed, castle. As the minister indicated, we have an opportunity to open the castle to my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun and to people from beyond. However, that will require the castle owner and Historic Scotland to reach agreement on access facilities. Will the minister assure me that she will do all that she can to broker such an agreement, which will allow the public to share the history of the castle and the wonderful views from the castle across Ayrshire, and provide employment in my constituency?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am very much aware that the castle provides a much needed tourism resource for East Ayrshire. In fact, it will become Historic Scotland's only staffed property in the area. I know that Historic Scotland is keen to work with owners to ensure that access is realisable. At the moment, there is a plan for a development comprising an hotel, a golf course and leisure facilities on the site. Historic Scotland wants to work in partnership with the estate managers to ensure that joint arrangements can be made so that the aspirations of both organisations can be complementary.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how long on average it takes Historic Scotland to reach a decision regarding a listed building where the local authority has granted planning consent and referred the matter to Historic Scotland. (S2O-7697)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Last year, Historic Scotland dealt with 98 per cent of those applications within 28 days.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister will be aware that North Ayrshire Council passed plans for the refurbishment of Nardini's cafe in Largs, which is a category B listed building, in February. Historic Scotland has had an application for consent before it for six months, and has been in consultation with the developers and the local authority for more than a year. To date, no decision has been made. Is the minister aware that there is the real prospect that if Historic Scotland continues to drag its feet, the project to upgrade and reopen Nardini's will collapse, and that up to 80 local jobs and an important part of Ayrshire's heritage will be lost? Is that kind of delay consistent with the Executive's enterprise agenda? Can the minister guarantee that she will examine the situation to see if a conclusion of some sort might be reached in the foreseeable future?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As members will have understood, given my answer to Mr McFee's original question, it is unusual for Historic Scotland to take this long to deal with an application. However, the case is a complex one that involves the proposed demolition of a 200-year-old listed building to allow the work at Nardini's to go ahead. That obviously cannot be entered into lightly—all possible avenues must be explored before permission to demolish that listed building is granted. Historic Scotland is involved in consultation and discussion with the developers and the local authority. I am sure that there will be a resolution very soon.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I declare an interest: I live in a listed building.

In view of the concerns about climate change, will Historic Scotland re-examine its policy about the work that is permitted on listed buildings and consider allowing work such as attaching a wind turbine or installing double glazing?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am pleased to announce that I do not have to declare an interest in that regard, as I no longer live in a listed building.

Historic Scotland is well aware of the issue that Maureen Macmillan raises. As one would expect from that agency, it constantly reviews and considers its policy and how it is implemented on the ground. I am happy to give Maureen Macmillan the assurance that she seeks: Historic Scotland will bear the issue in mind.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met education officials at Scottish Borders Council and what issues were discussed. (S2O-7711)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Scottish Executive officials are in regular contact with their counterparts at Scottish Borders Council to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Is the minister aware of the deep concern of parents and local residents over the consultation on the future of Channelkirk Primary School in Oxton in my constituency? What powers does he have to ensure that Scottish Borders Council provides accurate information during that process? It has made an error in some papers, which state that the number of residents in Oxton is just over 100, whereas it is just over 500. When the minister's officials next meet Scottish Borders Council officials, will he ensure that proper and accurate information is given to parents and the local community so that they can fight what I hope will be a successful campaign to secure the future of that excellent school?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Scottish Borders Council is consulting parents on the proposal that the pupils from Oxton might go to a new school in Lauder. That is a matter for the council. It would not be appropriate for ministers to comment on a particular school closure proposal, although it is important that the council sets out the arguments and takes account of views and, of course, that decisions are made based on accurate information. If there is an inaccuracy, it should come to light during the consultation period, given that one of the key purposes of the consultation is to enable parents to ask questions and seek clarification. I cannot comment further, as the consultation is on-going.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that Channelkirk Primary School has 54 pupils, with 11 who are enrolled in the nursery and that, as Jeremy Purvis said, the local community numbers about 500? That is hardly unsustainable. If the school closes, it will set a new high level that is required for schools to stay open in the Scottish Borders and elsewhere. As Scottish Borders Council is not listening to the people of Oxton, will the minister meet with their representatives to discuss the matter?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I repeat that school closures are broadly a matter for local authorities, subject to exceptions, of which Christine Grahame is aware. Councils are the democratically elected bodies whose job is to consult parents and decide what is best in their local area. Legal remedies are available in certain circumstances and ministers can take final decisions, but only on a limited set of issues. The present matter is for the council and not for me.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the release of figures stating that 148,000 people in Scotland suffer from diabetes and that up to 500,000 women in the United Kingdom may have diabetes without realising it, what measures are in place to offer diagnostic checks more widely. (S2O-7672)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We now have a strong focus on the importance of identifying diabetes at an early stage and the Executive supports a range of measures to prevent, diagnose and treat diabetes. That work is supported by the establishment of managed clinical networks in diabetes at local level throughout Scotland and by the incentives in the new general medical services contract. The national screening committee is undertaking a review of diabetes screening, which will help to determine what additional action may be required.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister consider a more creative approach to providing information to people who may suffer from diabetes and to those who need to undergo the diagnostic process? Will he build on the examples of good practice in Greater Glasgow NHS Board?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

There are good examples throughout the country. Indeed, many of our high street pharmacies already deliver diabetes checks for those who walk through the door. Our framework shows how seriously we are taking the issue in Scotland. We lead the UK in our diabetes measures, but we are not resting on our laurels. We are trying to develop the approach that Professor Kerr's review supported, which is to break down traditional primary and secondary care boundaries. The managed clinical networks—which are very effective, as I have seen at first hand—are identifying risk, ensuring that the risk is categorised and ensuring that we get to those patients who need treatment the most.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the fact that diabetes can lead to circulation, sight, heart and kidney problems, as well as strokes, should not more emphasis be placed on early diagnosis to ensure early intervention for many problems?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The new contract that we have with our GPs is delivering exactly that. The management of risk in our communities, through the GP contract and the quality outcomes framework, is doing exactly that. We are also leading the country on the issue through our managed clinical networks, which are identifying those who are most at risk and making interventions at a primary care level and outwith the secondary care sector. We are doing extremely well on the issue, although we are not complacent. We are keeping a close eye on the work of the national screening committee's review.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1836)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I meet the Prime Minister regularly and we discuss a range of issues.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Perhaps when the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, he will tell him that pensioners deserve far more respect than they were shown at the Labour Party conference yesterday.

On another matter, is the First Minister aware that the Enterprise and Culture Committee this week unanimously backed Dennis Canavan's bill to make St Andrew's day a national public holiday? Will the First Minister now join the growing consensus and back the bill?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Prime Minister is well able to defend himself without my assistance. I understand that he apologised for yesterday's incident, and he was absolutely right to do so.

I believe that we, in Scotland, should celebrate St Andrew's day more and use it more to celebrate Scotland. That is why we have spent so much time and effort over the six years of devolution on increasing the profile of St Andrew's day internationally and on celebrating St Andrew's day more in Scotland. However, for a number of good reasons I am not yet convinced that there is a case for a public holiday on St Andrew's day.

The St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill would not guarantee a public holiday for everybody in Scotland. A decision to call a public holiday would not, in any case, guarantee a holiday for anybody, especially in the private sector; it would merely increase pressure on employers in the public sector to give an additional public holiday. If we are to consider the proposal, we need first to ensure that St Andrew's day is recognised more as a day of national celebration and, secondly, to think through the consequences and costs of such a measure far more effectively.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that many employers, including the Parliament, already give a holiday on St Andrew's day. Surely it is time that Parliament took a lead and encouraged more employers to do that to mark our national day.

Is the First Minister aware that Scotland has fewer public holidays than any other country in the European Union and that, more important, we are one of the few countries—not just in Europe, but in the whole world—that does not have a national holiday to mark its national day? Is not it time for us to catch up by using a St Andrew's day holiday to celebrate and promote Scotland both at home and abroad?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have always taken great pride in St Andrew's day; I have done everything I can to promote Scotland internationally on St Andrew's day and in advance of St Andrew's day and in Scotland I have celebrated Scotland around St Andrew's day, but the reality is that St Andrew's day is not a recognised national day of celebration such as other countries have. I would like it to be such a day, but we are not there yet. More Scots celebrate Burns night than celebrate St Andrew's day.

I agree absolutely that, if we are serious about the matter, Parliament needs to take a lead. However, taking a lead does not mean just choosing the easy option. It is not just like giving a kid a sweetie; it is about educating people on how a St Andrew's day holiday could be used properly. Therefore, although the committee's report endorsed the general principles of the bill, it is important that we take into account that it also requests that Parliament have a serious debate on the effect of the proposals as well as on the deficiencies in some of them. When we debate the bill next week, I hope that we will do just that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If the First Minister is not convinced himself——clearly he is not—will he acknowledge that many people in his party and in the Liberal Democrats do support Mr Canavan's bill? Will he at least agree with me that the bill should not be a matter for the party whips? Will he and his deputy, Nicol Stephen, allow their respective parties a free vote on the issue when it comes before Parliament next week so that the true will of the Parliament can prevail?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish National Party has been the most consistent of all parties in not allowing its members free votes, in disciplining its members for speaking out and in ensuring that good, long-standing members like Margo MacDonald have had to leave the party simply for expressing their personal opinions. The SNP ensured that Dorothy-Grace Elder, who gave a lifetime to the Scottish National Party and who was a valued member of this Parliament for four years, was kicked out of the party and had to leave the Parliament. The Scottish National Party cannot give anybody lectures on free votes. Its members need to sort out their own internal procedures before they can comment on anybody else's.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I thank the First Minister for agreeing to meet me to discuss my bill; I look forward to persuading him to support it.

The general principles of the bill have the unanimous support of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the support of a record 75 MSPs from all parties and none, and it has the support of 85 per cent of respondents to my nationwide consultation. Does not the First Minister agree that it would be absolutely untenable for the Executive to call on the people of Scotland to celebrate St Andrew's day while using the party whipping system to scupper a St Andrew's day holiday?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I understand Dennis Canavan's long-standing commitment to the idea of a St Andrew's day holiday.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Dennis Canavan was chucked out of the Labour Party.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Swinney.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I remind Parliament that Mr Swinney was the leader of the Scottish National Party when all those people were thrown out of it for expressing personal opinions. The SNP did not have much to celebrate when he was its leader—certainly not individual opinion.

As Dennis Canavan knows, I am not instinctively hostile to his proposals. I recognise and respect his long-standing commitment to the celebration of St Andrew's day and the proposal that it be made a national public holiday. However, I hope that he will respect many members' view that if Parliament is to consider such a proposal, it is important that we think it through carefully.

The effect of Dennis Canavan's bill would not be to guarantee a national public holiday, as he says in the accompanying notes to the bill. Rather, it would simply increase pressure on public sector employers to release public sector employees at significant cost to the taxpayer, without anybody in the private sector getting an additional public holiday.

If we are going to celebrate St Andrew's day in the future, we must think through what we are doing so that we can do that effectively. I would prefer to do that on a cross-party basis and in a way that would move us forward rather than simply try to grab headlines like that crew over on the SNP benches. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for us to have a constructive debate next Thursday. The Executive will respond constructively to the committee's report.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1837)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet we will discuss our progress in delivering the commitments that were given in our 2003 partnership agreement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In our exchanges last week, the First Minister said that he hoped that the Conservatives would welcome the Scottish Executive's proposals on reform of the law on bail. I welcome them, but with some reservations.

As the First Minister is aware, our present law on bail is already weaker than that which applies in England—it has been since 2000. In the relevant English statute, there are still categories of accused persons who are prevented from being given bail in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Will the First Minister tell Parliament whether the Scottish Executive proposes to introduce in this country laws on bail that will be at least as tough as those which apply down south? Will our statute use the same language about "exceptional circumstances"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr McLetchie has used a cleverly worded question to imply that there are some outright exemptions to the availability of bail in England. That is not the case, as he perhaps acknowledged in the very last words of his question.

He has used a similar approach in what he has said about the European convention on human rights. The document that the Minister for Justice published on Monday notes:

"The European Court of Human Rights has recognised a number of reasons which may make it appropriate to refuse bail".

Those reasons include obvious issues that would cause public concern, such as the possibility that the accused would

"Fail to appear for trial ... Take action to prejudice the administration of justice;"

or, in other words, interfere with victims or witnesses. Other reasons for refusing bail include the possibility that the accused might reoffend—an issue of serious concern across Scotland—and, fourthly, the possibility that the accused would

"Create a risk of public disorder."

Mr McLetchie is wrong to make such generalisations in Parliament, because it is important that people in Scotland clearly understand that our system of bail involves a judge making an individual decision in the light of the facts that are presented to him or her.

As the Government in Scotland, we are determined to have a clearer system of bail and remand that is more consistently applied in courtrooms throughout Scotland. We want clearer conditions that count against the granting of bail for people who are charged with the most serious offences, especially those who have a record of offending. Critically, we want to ensure that if people who are given bail conditions breach those conditions, their sentences will be disadvantaged as a result. Our specific proposal on Monday that a person who breaches bail conditions will have their sentence quadrupled should be welcomed by every party in the chamber.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister is right to say that I chose my language with care; I did not speak in generalisations but quoted from the statute. The relevant statue in England says that, in relation to certain categories of offender, bail will be granted only in "exceptional circumstances". My question was whether the same language will be used in the statute that will be introduced in this Parliament. I had thought that the First Minister would be able to give a fairly simple and straightforward answer.

The First Minister cannot, however, deny that whatever proposals are put in place, our law on bail will still be weaker than it was before changes were forced on Parliament as a result of incorporation into our law of the European convention on human rights. The First Minister has implied that our law will be the same, or as strong as, the law down south. Will he confirm whether such a change is necessary because law that is made by the Scottish Parliament is in an even tighter ECHR straitjacket than applies in England, or because the Executive chose as a matter of policy when this Parliament changed the law in 2000 to relax the law on granting bail?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, Mr McLetchie has confirmed that there are no completely non-bailable conditions in the English system. He has stated that clearly, so he should not imply that anything other than that is the case.

The reality is that our proposals to amend statute to improve the criminal justice system will be appropriate for the Scottish legal system. Those proposals will be part of our overall package of reforms to Scotland's criminal justice system. The reforms are designed not just to toughen up sentencing, but to make it more consistent. They will ensure not only that people who are given a custodial sentence are required to undergo a proper process of rehabilitation, but that those who are given community-based sentences receive meaningful sentences that they remember for all time.

The package is designed to ensure that we have more specific laws and more consistent application of a system of bail and remand, and that we toughen up the system that deals with breaches of bail conditions. That is critical to ensuring that people go through the courts more quickly, that between appearances when they are outside the court system they are caught when they breach bail conditions, and that the sentence that is applied to them for that breach is additional to the sentence that they would otherwise have received. That is a comprehensive package. It does not deal with the issue in headlines or one-off single measures in statute. The package reforms statute, but it also reforms the system. That is precisely what we need to do.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Today it has been reported that the Vucaj family—Glaswegians for the past five years, whose treatment has so outraged people in Scotland, as we debated last week—were taken from their beds at 4 am this morning, to be removed from the country with nothing but the clothes that they wore and their Glasgow accents. Following that report and the First Minister's decision that a protocol needs to be put in place to defend the rights of the Vucaj children and others in Glasgow who are living in fear, does the First Minister agree that there must be an immediate suspension of dawn raids in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If there is to be a system of immigration and asylum in this country, there must be a system for implementing the rules when decisions on individual cases have been made. There are two things wrong with the current system. I agree that there should be a system and that sometimes even force will be required to implement the rules. However, I also believe strongly that individual cases should be dealt with more quickly than happens at present and that people should not have to wait five years for a final decision. I also believe that, where that final decision involves deportation or removal from the country and a family with children under 16 is affected, a clear protocol should be established that involves education and social services in advance of any action being taken by the immigration authorities.

I discussed the matter with Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, on Sunday afternoon. He has agreed that the establishment of such an agreement in Scotland and, perhaps, elsewhere would be advisable. We will continue those discussions as soon as possible, to ensure that we in Scotland have a regime that ensures not only that there is consistent application of immigration and asylum rules but that the system operates humanely.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what percentage of citizens live on less than £10,000 per annum, what action the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the disposable incomes of individuals and households living on the lowest incomes and whether it considers that they should be exempt from local taxation. (S2F-1842)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have reduced the percentage of people in households living on less than £10,000 to 23 per cent by 2003. We are improving the lives of everyone on low incomes by supporting people into sustainable employment, driving down fuel poverty and extending concessionary fares. In addition, nearly a quarter of Scottish households receive council tax benefit and 400,000 receive full benefit.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I wish that the First Minister would answer questions. After eight years of Labour in power at Westminster and six years of the Labour-Liberal Executive here at Holyrood, 47 per cent of Scots live on incomes of less than £10,000 a year. In a rich country such as ours, almost one in two people are living on less than £10,000 a year. Will the First Minister today accept finally the dire need to help people on the lowest incomes by scrapping the unfair council tax and ensuring exemption for those who live on under £10,000 a year?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What Tommy Sheridan says is untrue. In 2003, the proportion of households in Scotland living on less than £10,000 a year was 23 per cent. The figure has come down dramatically since the change of Government in 1997 and since the establishment of devolution and the coalition Government in 1999. The best way for more people to find themselves above that income line and facing less of a challenge in respect of their household income is for us to ensure that there are more jobs and a more successful and prosperous economy in Scotland, and that people have the skills, the talent and the opportunity to participate in that economy. If people in Scotland are to get those jobs and be sustained into the future by a growing economy, the last thing that they need is the policies of Tommy Sheridan and the Scottish Socialist Party.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Deputy Presiding Officer—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, Mr Sheridan, I did not call you to speak again.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I have to say to you that it is not the protocol that we have in this Parliament that when the smaller parties are offered—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order. Mr Sheridan, you have a single supplementary. Occasionally you are given a second supplementary, but I have chosen not to give you a second supplementary today.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That is totally unacceptable. I wish to question—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Sit down, Mr Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I will not sit down!

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Sheridan, resume your seat. I suspend the meeting.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Jackie Baillie to ask question 4.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not wish wilfully to challenge the authority—[ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I do not wish to wilfully challenge the authority of the chair, Presiding Officer, but I hope that you understand that this is the first time in two years that the smaller parties have not been given the right to ask two supplementaries. The First Minister specifically alleged that I had lied in Parliament. I want the opportunity to clarify whether he was referring to households when the question that he was asked referred to individual citizens, 47 per cent of whom live on incomes under £10,000 a year—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Sheridan, I think that we have now moved beyond your point of order.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The First Minister should be gracious enough to accept that he is wrong, and to apologise for misleading Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Sheridan, you have made your point. Please resume your seat.

Let me make it very clear that it is the responsibility of the occupant of this chair to decide who is called and how frequently they are called for a supplementary question.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is fairness.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Excuse me, Mr Sheridan. You have had your say; I will now have mine.

As is my normal practice on the rare occasions that I take First Minister's questions, I called Ms Sturgeon three times and Mr McLetchie twice, although the Presiding Officer frequently gives them more questions than that. In applying the same rule, Mr Sheridan, I gave you the single supplementary that is your entitlement. In the case of Ms Sturgeon and Mr McLetchie, I had the foresight to advise their offices of what I was going to do, so I now apologise to you for failing similarly to advise you. I trust that that explanation is sufficient. On the basis that there has been a genuine misunderstanding, and accepting Mr Sheridan's comment that he is not attempting to challenge the chair's authority, I am prepared to consider the matter closed.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Sheridan, I think that, if you are happy with that, it might be best if further words were left unsaid and we moved on to Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the First Minister how the new proposals on bail and remand will ensure greater public safety. (S2F-1839)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The new measures on bail and remand, which the Minister for Justice published on Monday, will tighten the provisions of granting bail, make the courts explain their decisions and ensure that breaches of bail conditions are dealt with more robustly.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the new measures, but key to the successful implementation of any justice reform is its application by the judiciary. Will the First Minister indicate the effect of the measures on the current practice that is followed by judges and sheriffs in granting bail? Will he also indicate whether guidance on arriving at bail decisions will be issued to the judiciary?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Guidance will be issued. Moreover, there will be a clear explanation in statute of the factors that will count against granting of bail, which will include provisions in relation to the most serious offenders and those who have a past record of offending. The courts will also have a clear remit in the new system to deal more expeditiously and effectively with people who breach bail conditions. I hope that that package of measures—which includes tighter conditions on people who are able to receive bail, more proper application and enforcement of bail conditions and tougher sentences for those who breach those conditions—will ensure that we can restore confidence in the bail and remand system.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does the First Minister agree that when reports on, for example, the effective likelihood of re-offending are presented to the courts, a system must be in place to ensure that they are accurate and that the courts take a more consistent approach to them, not only to make our communities safer but to ensure that people who are accused remain accused until they are proven guilty?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The presumption of innocence is a very important legal principle, but we must ensure that our system takes due account of public safety. Because the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that we can do that, we have introduced a package of measures that will ensure that although our courts will, of course, base their decisions on individual cases on accurate evidence and analysis, they will do so more consistently and—in the eyes of the public, I hope—more robustly.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Office regarding how its anti-terrorism plans will operate in Scotland. (S2F-1843)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Home Office to ensure that Scotland's interests are fully covered by any terrorism legislation and policies.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I invite the First Minister to agree that an offence of glorifying terrorism, as proposed by the United Kingdom Government, is unnecessary and would be unworkable and impossible to police and prosecute effectively. Does he recognise that had such a law been in force in the 1980s, councillors across Scotland would have faced charges and possible prison sentences of up to five years for their decisions to acknowledge a man who was in prison for sabotage and for attempting to violently overthrow the Government of South Africa? Is he concerned that, under the proposed 20-year rule, a number of Labour politicians who decided to rename St George's Place Nelson Mandela Place 19 years ago might still be open to prosecution?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I certainly hope that that is not the case, given that I was one of those council leaders. One of my proudest days was the day that we named the Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum's main gallery after Nelson Mandela, for which I was joined by Sir Shridath Ramphal, the then secretary-general of the Commonwealth. He said that such individual decisions were ripples in a sea that would create a tidal wave that would sweep Nelson Mandela out of jail and South Africa to freedom and democracy. Although such actions may have appeared to be tokenistic to some people at the time, they were important gestures of solidarity that helped the international movement to end apartheid.

I hope that, following the consultation that the Home Office is leading and the decisions that it takes, any new laws will be framed carefully to ensure that people who make legitimate democratic points are not covered by them, but that those who incite hatred and terrorism are.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the First Minister how many drug dealers were convicted in 2004. (S2F-1838)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The latest available statistics are for 2003, when there were 1,639 convictions for illegal supply or trafficking of drugs in Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Is the First Minister aware that senior police officers now suggest that several families in Scotland have built up cumulative assets in excess of £100 million and that the overall turnover of the drugs industry in Scotland is in the range of £3 billion to £5 billion? That suggests that between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product is in the illegal drugs industry. Will the First Minister seek to retain for Scottish benefit all the moneys that are retrieved from drug dealing—which are currently capped at £17 million a year—rather than allowing them to be a tax on Scotland that is taken south?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Dear oh dear. I thought that "It's Scotland's oil" was a poor old slogan that the nationalists had dragged back from 30 years ago, but to start saying "It's Scotland's drugs" is going a bit too far.

The reality is that those of us who have to deal with such matters rather than simply come up with silly simplistic slogans and ideas are now catching drug dealers at a rate. I will give Mr Stevenson an example of that. In 2002, the number of crimes related to drug dealing that the police in Scotland recorded was 10,139. In 2003, that number had gone down to 8,807. In 2002, the number of convictions was 1,353, but in 2003 it had gone up to 1,639. I hope that Mr Stevenson will agree that we are being effective in reducing the number of recorded instances of such crimes and that we are being highly effective in convicting those who are responsible for them.

One of the reasons for that is that we work in partnership with the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, our police forces and the many UK agencies—including HM Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities—that work closely with our drug enforcement agency. Those agencies have to be paid for from somewhere, so it is appropriate that we should share the proceeds and then join together to catch drug dealers. It is appropriate that, rather than getting involved in silly nationalist arguments about where the money is going or whose tax it is, we are effective at catching drug dealers in Scotland and getting drugs off Scotland's streets.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I wonder whether I could focus the First Minister's mind on the definition of "drug dealer". The figures that he gave in good faith mean very little. Many of the people who are convicted of dealing drugs are users, who are simply selling on drugs to feed their habits. Yesterday I chaired a conference on aspects of drugs policy. Many such aspects need to be considered afresh and we need new measurements of success—if we can classify it as that—and an assessment of which methods and policies have been failing. I speak as someone who was chairman of the Scottish Drugs Forum nearly 20 years ago and I can assure the First Minister that nothing has improved.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Unlike other party leaders, I welcome Margo MacDonald's right to express her opinion on such matters. However, in this case I do not agree with her. Since the establishment of the Parliament there has been the creation of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the passage through the UK Parliament of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We have taken measures to work in partnership with other agencies to increase the number of convictions for drug dealing, and we have introduced drug treatment and testing orders in our courts.

We should ensure that we do not just tackle the people who are dealing, but that measures are put in place for addicts. Increased resources have been announced again this summer for drug rehabilitation across Scotland, which will help people to get off drugs, thereby reducing demand as well as supply. In all those different areas in Scotland today, far more is taking place far more effectively than was the case pre-devolution. Parliament has a good record so far, although it recognises that we still have a long way to go.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Justice and Law Officers

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps can be taken to encourage more female and ethnic minority recruitment to the fire and police emergency services. (S2O-7662)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The fire and rescue services have introduced multi-tier entry and accelerated promotion to attract a more diverse range of applicants. Although there is a long way to go, the number of female firefighters has tripled in the past 10 years. In the police service, the percentage of women increased from 11 per cent in 1995 to more than 21 per cent in 2005 and the percentage of officers from ethnic minorities increased from 0.3 per cent in 1996 to 1.2 per cent in 2004. We are providing direct financial assistance to SEMPERscotland, an ethnic minority support organisation that is working to improve recruitment, retention and community perceptions.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the recommendations of an independent review into planning and race relations in Scotland? I urge that its recommendations be examined with a view to their being implemented throughout the uniformed services and ask whether that has been considered. Further, does the minister agree that the spotlight should then move on to retention, which he mentioned, and promotion opportunities for female and ethnic minority staff?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Any evidence that helps to advance the argument will be carefully examined. Marlyn Glen is right to mention retention: it is no success simply to recruit people in and then to lose them quickly. We want to ensure that when people join the uniformed services they are made welcome and that proper career development is provided and discussed. I want to see far more women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds advancing through the ranks of the police service and the fire service.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the information that Marlyn Glen and the minister have just given. The police force is implementing a gender equality action plan. I wonder whether it is being monitored by the Executive, whether there are any outcomes yet that can be discussed and whether consideration will be given to introducing something similar for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am not aware of any conclusion from those studies, but I know that the police service takes its responsibilities very seriously. I would encourage—as the Minister for Justice has encouraged—greater integration of women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Any evidence from the studies will be closely examined. However, I want to emphasise that operational issues are for the police and for chief constables.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to commence sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 to allow rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation to be sought by suitably qualified persons. (S2O-7647)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We will consider the case for commencement of these sections when we receive the report of the working group for research into the legal services markets in Scotland, which is due shortly.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the minister for her answer, although I think that I have heard talk of that working group before. Will she assure me that the reason for sections 25 to 29 not being commenced is not that the Law Society of Scotland frowns on the idea of losing such a monopoly? She will be aware that, under article 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, such monopolies are frowned on. The United Kingdom Government signed the treaty on our behalf and we must comply with the requirement to prohibit monopolies and remove unnecessary restrictions. Regardless of the outcome of the working group, I remind the minister that her prerogative does not extend to wilful non-commencement. I therefore ask either that she commences sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 or that she returns it to Westminster for repeal.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I can give Margo MacDonald at least some reassurance. It is fairly common for legislative provisions not to be implemented immediately after they are passed, but I acknowledge her concern in this case. During the passage of the bill that became the 1990 act, ministers gave a commitment that the provision in question would not be implemented until other provisions of the act—in particular, the introduction of solicitor advocates—had fully bedded down.

Beyond that, I really cannot comment on why previous Westminster Administrations did not implement the provision.

In 2003, we decided to review the matter. I thought it right that the research working group be asked to consider the issue in the context of its wider-ranging work and of a large number of issues that affect competition in the legal services market. This is not about wilful non-compliance but about trying to do the correct thing.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister believe that the decision not to commence these sections of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 has contributed to the fact that some individuals have been unable to secure legal representation to pursue their concerns about the conduct of solicitors? The whole environment has looked like a bit of a closed shop. Has the minister reflected on that point in her consideration of the issues relating to the regulation of the legal profession? Is she yet convinced that a great deal more independence is required in the system?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Mr Swinney has taken a close interest in this matter and he will know that we received a large number of responses to our consultation and that we actively encouraged participation. I know that some respondents have tried to complain at various stages and have found the process difficult, and that they have then found it difficult to secure legal representation. We will consider that when we respond to the consultation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that no offences of attempting or conspiring to commit torture are being committed in Scotland or Scottish airspace when US aeroplanes are transporting prisoners between Guantanamo bay and countries where the torture of prisoners is commonplace. (S2O-7722)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, foreign civil aircraft can make stops for technical reasons, such as refuelling, without requiring the permission of the state that they stop in. The Executive is therefore not informed if aircraft make stops of that nature, whatever their passengers or cargo might be, and has no legal authority to prevent such landings.

If anyone has evidence of torture, of conspiracy to torture or of the aiding and abetting of torture in Scotland, they should take the matter to the police.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that international human rights law places the onus firmly on the country with territorial jurisdiction? Is she aware that figures released by the US Federal Aviation Administration show that planes that are used by the Central Intelligence Agency to move prisoners across the world have used Prestwick airport for refuelling 75 times since 9/11 and other Scottish airports 100 times? Now that the evidence that the minister has asked for is in the public domain, will she instruct the police to investigate, or shall I?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I thought that I had given a fairly clear answer to that in my first reply. The Executive believes that the legal and judicial measures that are in place in Scotland meet international human rights standards. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, torture is a crime that carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. I think that I have made that point in the chamber before. The act applies not just to people who commit torture in Scotland, but to people of other nationalities who commit torture in other countries. I say again that if anyone has evidence of any of those activities, they should take the matter to the police.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Although I have discussed security issues with the senior management of Prestwick airport and have been reassured by them that all proper and reasonable measures are in place for the transportation of these most dangerous people, can I also have the minister's assurance that she, too, is happy with the security arrangements for the transportation of such prisoners through my constituency?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I refer Mr Scott to my first answer on this question. The Executive is not routinely informed—in fact, it is not informed—of such stopovers; nor would it be informed of the cargo. Mr Scott will also be aware that in my capacity as an Ayrshire constituency MSP I have met the senior people at Prestwick airport and have received assurances in that context.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how public safety is being improved in Scotland's towns. (S2O-7673)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

A range of measures are being undertaken to improve public safety in Scotland's towns. The Executive has provided £1 million over three years for the establishment of safe city centre initiatives. That approach has recently been extended to cover a further nine towns, including Kirkcaldy. Scotland's towns have also benefited from substantial investment in public space closed-circuit television systems, which are also funded by the Executive. A further £1 million is committed to expanding CCTV in shopping and other areas and to supporting businesses and others to reduce crime.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for that information. He might be aware that a safer town partnership has recently been launched in Glenrothes, innovatively using existing funding and partnerships with retail bodies. What discussions, if any, does the minister plan to hold with bodies such as the Scottish Retail Consortium to consider putting some small amounts of seedcorn funding behind more safer towns initiatives?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We have not specifically committed extra funding. We are in regular discussion with the Scottish Retail Consortium. We have held a number of discussions with business representatives about how to tackle retail crime and we will continue to do so. Although money is important, and although, as I have demonstrated to Christine May, we have made a significant investment, I hope that we can also continue to improve our operational practices and use the money effectively, looking at lessons that have been learned elsewhere and applying them. I accept the need for investment where it is appropriate; I also want good practice to be rolled out across Scotland.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether a shoot-to-kill policy exists in Scotland and, if so, when the decision to introduce it was taken and by whom. (S2O-7715)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The deployment of firearms by police officers is an operational matter for chief constables, but I can confirm that there is no shoot-to-kill policy in Scotland. Police officers who deploy firearms must operate within the law, and any use must be proportionate. Force may be used to defend oneself and others, but lethal force may be used only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is an imminent threat to life and that there is no other way of averting the danger.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am sure that the minister's response will reassure the public and members. What role or input, if any, will the minister have in any future discussion or decisions about a shoot-to-kill policy in Scotland, such as whether to introduce or review it in any circumstances?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I hope that I have made clear the current position, which is that this is a matter primarily for chief constables. It is important that police officers operate within the law. If it were thought that there had been a breach of the law, the Crown would take a close look. If there has been a death or if there are allegations of criminal conduct, any investigation into the discharge of a firearm by a police officer is carried out under the direction of the Crown. I think that that gives the public the reassurance I hope they will not require.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of any failings by its preferred bidder in the monitoring of electronically tagged prisoners and whether it can give assurances that strict supervision of monitoring will be in place. (S2O-7717)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We are at present tendering for the new contract to deliver electronic monitoring services in Scotland and the process will ensure that the contractor meets the strictest of conditions. The current contract is closely monitored by the Executive and that will continue under the new contract.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I thank the minister for that encouraging response. In light of the announcements made earlier this week that measures would be strengthened to deal with breaches of bail conditions, will similar measures apply to breaches of electronic tagging orders?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We have heard today from the First Minister what measures we are taking to deal with breaches of bail. It is important to recognise that electronic monitoring occurs in different circumstances. There is a provision for it for certain people who are on bail. If they breach the conditions of bail, they will be subject to serious consequences. Many people who are on restriction of liberty orders are also electronically monitored. If they breach the conditions of the orders they will be brought back before the courts and they could find themselves having to serve a custodial sentence instead.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are being taken to address violent crime. (S2O-7676)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Violence is never acceptable and the levels of violent crime in Scotland are a blight on our civilised country. We are developing a range of measures to prevent and reduce violence. For example, we are introducing tough new laws to tackle knife crime, supporting the work of Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit and supporting community safety partnerships and antisocial behaviour teams in addressing violence locally.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The minister will be aware of recent reports that highlight the fact that drunkenness plays a part in half of all murders in Scotland. She will no doubt share the view that there is a proven link between excessive consumption of alcohol and violence. Does she share the belief of representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that relaxation of licensing laws will lead to a greater increase in violence, or does she agree with me that, by challenging the culture of binge drinking, the new licensing regulations will encourage more responsible drinking habits and that that will help to address the problems associated with drunkenness?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I have made it clear that we have a problem in many parts of Scotland with what has been described as the booze and blade culture. We need to crack down on that. We need to change attitudes towards drinking. I do not want to see situations where young men in particular find themselves tanked up on alcohol at the weekend and become involved in violent behaviour, causing fear and alarm to other members of the public. The new licensing regime gives us an opportunity to tackle some of those problems and we must ensure that we have a mixture of an educative approach, particularly with our young people, and tough enforcement measures.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am moved to ask the minister to stop using the term booze and blade culture. Can we agree in future to refer to it as a cancer? The knife carrying that happens in our communities is a social cancer and we as politicians, the media and others at large have to address it as such, rather than give it the nice sound of something cultural. It is a cancer.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Tommy Sheridan makes a valid point about the amount of damage that is done as a result of the behaviour we are discussing. We could probably have a debate about the particular form of words that we should use, but the important point is that effective action must be taken to tackle the problem. The Executive is focusing on taking such action.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is employing to deal with people who offend whilst on bail. (S2O-7657)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Scottish Executive published its action plan on bail and remand on 26 September, which sets out 25 points for action to deal with the problem of people offending while they are on bail.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the publication of the action plan and especially the quadrupling of sentences for those who break bail conditions. Is the minister satisfied that the package of measures that she has outlined this week is compatible with the European convention on human rights? What is her response to the argument that the leader of the Scottish Conservative party put at First Minister's question time: that the ECHR absolutely fetters judges and prevents them from refusing to grant bail?