Scottish Parliament

Thursday 19 June 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

Financial Outturn 2007-08

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, on the financial outturn for 2007-08. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 10-minute statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.

09:15

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney): I welcome this opportunity to inform Parliament of the provisional budget outturn for 2007-08.

Although we inherited the 2007-08 budget when we came into office last May, the responsibility for managing it lay firmly with the new Administration—and we have managed it to a level of precision unseen by any previous Administration.

The 2007-08 budget was originally approved on a departmental basis, but we used the opportunity that was afforded by the autumn budget revision last November to formally restate that budget on the basis of the Government's portfolio structure. That reflected the establishment of a smaller and more effective ministerial team and put in place a much more streamlined structure for the Scottish Government, which is better equipped to deliver our policies and priorities.

I also used the autumn budget revision to draw down from HM Treasury more than £600 million in end-year flexibility balances, which was necessary to cover two major additional factors that we inherited from the previous Administration: first, we required resources to meet the bulk of the original budget overcommitment of £220 million; and secondly, we required resources to meet the additional costs of capital expenditure programmes that had been approved by the previous Administration.

In addition to meeting those obligations, I provided additional capital funding of £100 million to support a range of projects in the higher and further education sectors, and funding of £30 million to meet some early policy commitments of the new Government, which included the removal

of bridge tolls in February and increased support for Scottish international development projects.

At the second of the routine budget revisions in the spring of this year, I used the opportunity to formalise a number of transfers between budget lines in order to align them with predicted spend for the rest of the year. That was in accordance with normal procedures and the principles of sound financial management. In any given year, there will be fluctuations in budget performance, and this Government—just like our predecessors—has addressed those factors.

As a clear demonstration of that sound financial management, I am delighted to report today that the provisional outturn for 2007-08 is expenditure of £27,367 million against a departmental expenditure limit budget of £27,409 million—an underspend of just £42 million.

The end-year flexibility of £42 million that has been generated by the provisional underspend is by far the lowest total ever recorded by any Scottish Administration. It represents less than 0.2 per cent of our DEL budget, which is equivalent to less than half a day's spending by the Scottish Government. That is in stark contrast to the levels of underspend reported at this time over the past four years: £623 million in 2003-04; £382 million in 2004-05; £139 million in 2005-06; and £135 million in 2006-07. That amounts to an accumulation of £1,279 million in underspends between 2003-04 and 2006-07, which the previous Administration left to languish in HM Treasury's coffers.

The achievement of such a low level of underspending reflects our proactive approach to budget management and our desire to make maximum use of the resources that are available to us. For the first time, the end-year flexibility balance, which is held on account at HM Treasury and is due to appear in its public expenditure 2007-08 provisional outturn publication in July, will have decreased significantly.

The opening balance of Scottish end-year flexibility at HM Treasury of £1,528.6 million, which was published last July, will have fallen by nearly £600 million to around £950 million. This is the first time since 2002-03 that the end-year flexibility balance held by HM Treasury has fallen below £1 billion. I need hardly remind Parliament that that is Scotland's money, which is intended to be used for the benefit and the interests of the people of Scotland. Where the previous Administration failed to make use of those resources, we have already shown that we will not be so tardy in using them for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Not only have we reduced the balance by £600 million during the past financial year, we have secured access to the vast majority of the remaining balance over the next three years.

The unprecedented agreement that I made with HM Treasury as part of the spending review settlement ensures that we have guaranteed access to £300 million in 2008-09; £400 million in 2009-10; and £174 million in 2010-11. That is a total of £874 million, which has already been factored into our spending plans as outlined in the spending review document that was published last November.

Outturn against the Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 limits will be published in the Scottish Government consolidated accounts and is expected to show an underspend of approximately £216 million, subject to audit. That includes variances of approximately £100 million in capital charges; £21 million resulting from lower demand in student loans; and £21 million in national health service and teachers' pensions. Those variances are outside the departmental expenditure limit and have no impact on the delivery of our policies or the resources that are available to the people of Scotland.

The underspend of £42 million represents our headline underspend figure and measures our performance in managing the Scottish block of public expenditure. However, in announcing and celebrating that achievement, we recognise that there is no room for complacency. The efficient and effective management of our budget remains a key characteristic of the Government.

We are pursuing our programme of investment in the future of Scotland, despite the lowest increase in the United Kingdom spending settlement for Scotland since devolution. Parliament will recall that, over the next three years, funding will grow at an average of only 1.4 per cent per year, compared with an annual average increase of 4.3 per cent over the three years of the spending review 2004.

We will pursue our programme by continuing to govern with a sharp focus on delivering the maximum value for the taxpayer and the maximum impact on the Government's purpose. The outturn position that was achieved in 2007-08 provides ample evidence that we are fulfilling our promise to the people of Scotland to act wisely in the Scottish interest.

We will also govern to ensure that we retain in Scotland, for use in developing the Scottish economy and public services, as much of our resources as we can.

It remains a key objective to ensure that we maximise the use of the resources that are available to us and avoid any suggestion of a return to the bad old days of leaving languishing at Westminster £1.5 billion of budget that is intended to benefit the people of Scotland.

This Scottish Government has managed, and intends to continue to manage, the budget

effectively in the best interests of the people of Scotland. However, it is becoming clear that we will have to overcome significant obstacles put in our way by the financial arrangements under which we operate and the actions of the UK Government.

We have been denied around £120 million of consequentials arising from the £1.2 billion of additional funding that has been given to HM Prison Service in England and Wales as a result of the Carter review.

Lord Sutherland said in his report published in April that it was "clearly contrary to equity" that people in Scottish care homes were denied attendance allowance while those in care homes elsewhere in the UK received it, and he called for the restoration of £30 million a year to the Scottish budget.

The continued suspension of the council tax benefit mechanism remains contrary to the spirit of "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy" and is estimated to deny Scotland approximately £100 million per annum of funding to which we are properly entitled.

We need to be sure of a fairer deal on issues such as animal disease after the lessons of last year's impact on Scottish budgets of foot-and-mouth disease in the south of England. In that situation, policy is devolved to us but budgets are retained by Whitehall and spent at its discretion.

I intend to continue to pursue those and other issues with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of funding and that its people are treated equitably.

The Government has today announced a level of underspend that is the lowest ever achieved by any Scottish Administration. It bears testimony to our sound and prudent financial management and demonstrates our intention to use all the resources that are available for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. We have around 20 minutes for such questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.

I remind all members that contributions should be made through the chair, which means that members should refer to other members by name or title.

Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab): I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of the breakfast edition of his statement.

Underspend in the Scottish Executive budget has, of course, been on a downward trend for some time. It would be churlish not to congratulate the cabinet secretary on continuing that trend.

Recent practice has been for finance ministers to report the full underspend, not just the DEL underspend, in order to avoid any suggestion of hiding any of it. In this case, that would be £216 million rather than £42 million. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that sum demonstrates a rather more modest improvement? Is that why he has reverted to using the DEL figures? Can he explain why, on previous occasions, he believed that the higher figure was the important one but, on this occasion, he argues that the lower figure of £42 million should be the headline?

Given that the cabinet secretary has allocated allowed EYF draw-down in his spending plans—indeed, he has made a virtue of that—can he explain what measures he has taken to allow for contingency and flexibility by way of reserves, central unallocated provision or money that is available under any other heading? How will he deal with the unforeseen?

The cabinet secretary referred to proactive budget management. What plans does he have for routine autumn budget revisions this year?

John Swinney: I thank Mr Gray for the generous remarks at the start of his contribution. He correctly records the fact that I have reported the underspend of £42 million on the basis of the DEL figures. That is consistent with the declaration of underspend that has been put to Parliament by my predecessors throughout the period of the existence of the Scottish Parliament. In my statement, I recorded an underspend against the Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 limits of £216 million. As Mr Gray knows, the difference between that figure and the DEL figure is that the budget act provision includes annually managed expenditure over which the Government has no control. The provision that I think is the appropriate indicator of performance is the DEL budget, for which the Government has full responsibility. Of course, that is also the approach that was taken by my predecessors.

On forward budget activity, the Government has not made provision in the 2008-09 budget for contingency. We recognised the tightness of the financial settlement and realised that it was important that we allocate resources fully to maximise effective spend. In the course of any year, underspends emerge in particular programmes. Part of the routine financial management over the year will be to identify those resources timeously and ensure that they are allocated appropriately to deal with any pressures that emerge.

I expect to come to Parliament with autumn budget revisions. That would be the normal way of ensuring that our financial programmes are properly aligned with the expectations of Parliament. I will give due notice to Parliament of those provisions at the appropriate time. Of course, I will appear before the Finance Committee to address any issues that arise from that.

Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con): I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement.

I will pick up on the points that were just raised about flexibility and dealing with the unforeseen. Given that the balance at the Treasury is being reduced quite significantly and the overall level of underspend is falling as well, does that not mean that, if the unforeseen were to arise late on in the financial year, after the Government had taken all reasonable steps to reduce underspend across all portfolios, there is a greater risk than previously that the unforeseen might have, shall we say, unforeseen consequences? What measures is the Government taking to ensure that, if something arises late on in the financial year, the consequences for the Scottish budget are not extremely serious?

John Swinney: Mr Brownlee seems to be terribly concerned this morning by the unforeseen. We always monitor issues that arise, and we are already monitoring various factors in the budget to identify where potential pressures might arise in the period ahead.

We have a significant budget—today, I have announced figures that relate to our 2007-08 budget, which totalled over £27 billion. Within that budget, we have flexibility that will allow us to adapt to challenging circumstances that might emerge. The situation is routinely monitored with that in mind by me, the permanent secretary, the strategic board and the Cabinet. We will take appropriate decisions to guarantee that we are able to support the programmes that the Government has announced.

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, which will be, we presume, the last before the summer recess.

Rather than the unforeseen, which Mr Brownlee mentioned, I want to ask Mr Swinney about a number of foreseeable issues that he will have to deal with.

Yesterday, the governor of the Bank of England said that rising food and energy prices could push UK inflation above 4 per cent. Further, interest rates are set to rise and the credit and financial squeeze is a reality, as anyone will find out if they talk to any of the one in six householders across

the country who fear losing their jobs. Those factors are foreseeable—they are commentators' assessments of what is happening. Given that today is Mr Swinney's last statement before the summer recess, does he agree that he could have used this opportunity to consider some of the wider economic influences that the Government and the country face?

Further, why was there no comment in Mr Swinney's statement on how he is going to fund capital projects such as the new Forth bridge? He promised to make such a statement to Parliament before the summer recess. Why, too, was there no mention of pay policy, which is a significant part of overall Government expenditure? Is his policy still that there will be no redundancies in the public sector?

Finally, why was there no mention of the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" report—the famous GERS? We are told that the press—not Parliament—will receive that tomorrow. Possibly, Mr Swinney could confirm when the rest of us—that is, MSPs—will see that particular paper. Is it still a "dodgy dossier", to use his words? Will the authors, who are, of course, now Mr Swinney's civil servants, alter the report in light of Mr Swinney's comment in 2007 that

"the authors have once again admitted that it says nothing about how Scotland would fare with the benefits of independence"?

What are the authors to do this time, and when will we hear about it in the Parliament?

John Swinney: On a number of occasions in the past few weeks, I have commented extensively to Parliament—over the complaints of many, I suspect—about the wider economic circumstances. The governor of the Bank of England set out some very real issues and challenges. That is precisely why the Government remains committed to its agenda of reducing the costs of business, to ensure that we protect Scottish business and support it to weather what will undoubtedly be a difficult climate. I look forward to Mr Scott's support in that process.

On capital projects, the Government published its infrastructure investment plan in March. We set out our capital allocations in the spending review document in November, and all of that detail was approved by the Parliament in the Budget (Scotland) Act 2008 in February. We have in no way deviated from those plans. We will make a statement to Parliament about the replacement Forth crossing during 2008, which is precisely what we said we would do. Mr Scott will hear that statement when it is ready to be delivered.

The Government has published its pay policy, and I can confirm to members that this Government will not preside over any compulsory

redundancies in the programmes that we take forward.

Mr Scott will be aware that GERS is a product of the statistical teams in the Scottish Government and does not involve oversight from ministers. I understand that it will be published tomorrow. I cannot recall there ever having been a ministerial statement to Parliament about GERS. All that I can say is that, if that approach was good enough for Mr Scott over the past eight years, it is good enough for me.

The Presiding Officer: We come to questions from back-bench members. As always, time is limited, so I beg members to keep questions brief and to ask one question per member.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on having a very sustainable budget. The record low underspend figures are highly commendable. Significant progress has clearly been made with regard to the balances that are held at Westminster but, by my calculations, £76 million of Scotland's money will still be "languishing"—as the cabinet secretary put it—in the Treasury for a further three years. What further steps will he take to try to retrieve that important money for Scotland?

John Swinney: Mr Adam will be aware that, as part of the spending review arrangements, I secured an agreement with the Treasury for a three-year allocation of draw-down from end-year flexibility, which will be used to support the delivery of public services in Scotland over the next three years. Part of the terms of that agreement was that any further end-year flexibility that arose during that period would be held on account and released only in exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, we would make appropriate representations to the Treasury. However, the arrangement that we have secured to have access to £874 million of Scottish resources held at the Treasury allows us to invest that money in supporting Scotland's public services over the next three years.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): I note from the attachment to the cabinet secretary's statement that there is an underspend of £22 million in education and lifelong learning, which comes at a time when there is a requirement to reduce class sizes, find jobs for probationary teachers and build schools that are fit for purpose. Will the cabinet secretary explain the reason for the underspend in the face of those major policy challenges?

John Swinney: One of the remaining challenges with regard to the Scottish Government's budget arrangements is that we are required to provide the Finance Committee with a

reconciliation of budgets on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis. As a member of that committee, Mr Kelly will be aware of that. That means, essentially, that we do not have the opportunity at advanced stages in the financial year to reallocate expenditure to take into account the fact that some programmes may have emerging underspends at that level. We are now down at those levels. We have a global figure of £42 million and a very tight management level in relation to the effectiveness of public expenditure allocations.

What has emerged in the Government's handling of the budget is a focus on ensuring that we leverage out as many resources as possible. We have allocated more resources to education during the past financial year. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was able to announce resources for the higher and further education community; to put in place resources to assist with capital allocations for school building; and to allocate more resources to increase the number of teachers in employment. A number of steps have been taken to ensure that more resources are available in education, and the Government is delighted with the impact that that has had on work to achieve its priorities.

Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West) (SNP): The people of Scotland have already benefited from the £600 million of underspend that the cabinet secretary has managed to recover from the UK Treasury. In response to Brian Adam, the cabinet secretary said that he has negotiated the draw-down of more money over the next three years. How does he intend to ensure that we do not get into the situation again in which Scotland's money languishes in London instead of being used to benefit the people of Scotland?

John Swinney: Mr FitzPatrick's point is important, as most members will acknowledge. My response is to ensure that we have the maximum ability to use the resources at our disposal for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I have put in place arrangements to ensure that the planning of end-year changes in the Scottish Government's budget can be done in a fashion that allows us—subject, of course, to the consent of Parliament—to manage within the Scottish block the fluctuations in expenditure between portfolios to guarantee that we maximise the effectiveness of our expenditure.

We have recorded an underspend of £42 million this year. Frankly, I do not think that we could have got that figure any lower, although we will, of course, try to do that in the years to come, in order to maximise the effectiveness of our end-year spend. We will work to ensure that there is a willingness among portfolios to transfer resources to appropriate programmes—subject, as I said, to the consent of Parliament—in order to guarantee

that we maximise the end-year expenditure of resources that are available to the Scottish Government.

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): There is a Micawberesque aspect to the way in which Mr Swinney is presenting this. What would the overspend be in the current account if the draw-down from the Treasury were excluded? That is the real figure—the amount that you are spending over your annual income. Can you confirm Brian Adam's point that £76 million will be all that is left in the Treasury by April 2011 for contributions to major infrastructure projects such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the lower Forth crossing, all of which will have to be funded from your revenue income? Are we storing up huge problems for the future? Are you, in effect, making Scotland bankrupt?

The Presiding Officer: I am certainly not, Mr McNulty. I asked members to address other members through the chair. Somebody of your experience should know how to do that.

John Swinney: That was a scurrilous allegation to level at you of all people, Presiding Officer. The only thing that was bankrupt with regard to that question was the intellectual bankruptcy of Mr McNulty's proposition.

The previous Administration negotiated with the Treasury the level of draw-down that was anticipated in the financial year 2007-08. Had I not drawn down, I would not have been able to support the capital programmes that were initiated by the previous Administration, which Mr McNulty supported. Those programmes, which were all committed and which I inherited, would have had to stop.

The Government has ploughed on with capital programmes, much to the irritation of members such as Mr McNulty and Mr McAveety—they are horrified that we are going ahead with the M74 extension and other such projects. The draw-down was essential to ensure that we met the infrastructure commitments that the previous Administration made and the revenue budget overcommitment of £220 million that we inherited. We have secured a three-year agreement—which my predecessors were unable to do—that allows us to factor amounts into our spending review proposals for the next three years. Parliament has, of course, approved the first part of that in the 2008-09 budget.

Mr McNulty is not technically correct about the level of underspend that is likely to be at the Treasury in 2011. I imagine that we will contribute further underspend at the close of the financial year in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The number will be larger by 2011 than Mr McNulty's rather crude calculation suggests. We will aim to ensure that, in

the process, we maximise the impact of the public expenditure in benefiting the people of Scotland.

Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con): Having £1.279 billion at Her Majesty's Treasury is probably not in Scotland's best interests, but neither is having zero pounds and zero pence. In the interests of flexibility and being able to cope with the unforeseen, what is the appropriate balance to have at HM Treasury?

John Swinney: Mr Brown's question takes us into ground that I am delighted to enter, with regard to the appropriate level of financial responsibility for this Parliament to retain. It is perfectly rational to have resources held in reserve if we can have access to them at appropriate times. However, there is a difficulty: the previous Administration found that it had a mounting set of resources held at the Treasury that—unlike under the arrangement that we have now secured—it was unable to access and deploy for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

It is obvious that if the Parliament had wider financial powers and financial responsibility, we would be able to manage our finances much more effectively and comprehensively than is possible within the limitations of the responsibilities that we have. Of course, that is an aspiration of members on the Government benches; I am not sure where Mr Brown sits on the spectrum, but I know him to be an aspirational young man so I am sure that he wants the Parliament to have more such powers.

Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD): In the context of the credit crunch crisis, my colleague Vince Cable has suggested that some people in the financial services sector appear intent on nationalising debt while continuing to privatise profit. I listened to the cabinet secretary's statement and the comments of some of his party's back benchers and it is hard not to conclude that the cabinet secretary and the Government are hell-bent on privatising blame and nationalising self-congratulation.

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, although any underspend is welcome given reports of crisis meetings of the Scottish Government strategic board in January, at which civil servants prevented ministers from overspending on the budget, in light of the dodgy accounting on the Scottish futures trust, the lack of detail on planned efficiency savings and the various references to "smoothing" and "illustrative figures" in relation to the SNP's budget, there is likely to be considerable scepticism about the detail of the cabinet secretary's statement?

John Swinney: That was a cheery contribution from the Liberal Democrats. My goodness, Mr McArthur must have been up all night crafting his soundbites.

I reassure the member that the Government has recorded an underspend of £42 million. I would have thought that that would have provided an opportunity for Mr McArthur to demonstrate some of the grace that Mr Gray showed when he congratulated the Government on its performance. Instead, as usual, Mr McArthur reverted to type and whinged from the sidelines.

The Presiding Officer: We must conclude questions on the cabinet secretary's statement—we are already into the time for the next debate. I apologise to members whom I am unable to call.

Youth Justice

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2204, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on youth justice.

09:47

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing): I am delighted to present to the Parliament a new youth justice framework, "Preventing Offending by Young People: A Framework for Action".

At the outset, I re-emphasise the Government's overarching purpose: to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. Young people and their families and communities are at the heart of that vision for Scotland. There can be few more pressing issues for this Administration than the need to tackle problems associated with youth crime. The successful future of Scotland depends on getting it right.

When we talk about youth crime and youth justice it is imperative to stress that the vast majority of young people do not offend. Most of our young people make an extremely positive contribution to society and are valuable and valued members of their communities. We need to build on the great qualities that young people bring to our society: energy, enthusiasm, creativity, an appetite for learning and huge potential for the future. At the same time, we must acknowledge that a small but significant number of young people offend and reoffend. It is therefore essential that everything possible is done to address the issues in a young person's life that cause offending behaviour.

The purpose of the framework is to outline a shared ambition of what we, as national and local agencies, want to do to prevent, divert, manage and change offending behaviour by children and young people and how we want to do that. In driving forward our work, we will focus on prevention, early and effective intervention, managing high risk, victims and community confidence.

We are proud to have developed the framework jointly with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, the Crown Office, the inspectorates, the Association of Directors of Social Work and Audit Scotland. Many large third-sector organisations have also welcomed the framework. Indeed, I had an extremely

constructive meeting with a number of key players last week.

Our shared vision is to work together as national and local partners to deliver real improvements on the ground. All our partners will have a part to play in taking the framework forward through their various responsibilities. I have been greatly encouraged by the extremely constructive spirit of the discussions that I have had with all the parties involved in the development of the framework and I place on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to the work.

The framework's foundations were laid some time ago. For a number of years, the youth justice agenda in Scotland has been busy: there have been national standards, targets, legislation and we have had new money. During that period, a great deal of positive work has been carried out with young people and lots of good practice has developed. However, we have to ask ourselves what impact all that activity and extra money has had on outcomes for young people. For example, despite the £7 million of Government funding that has been devoted to antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s since ASBOs were introduced in 2004, only 14 ASBOs have been issued. It is perhaps no surprise that the appropriateness and effectiveness of ASBOs have been questioned.

Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab): Surely the minister is not suggesting that the number of ASBOs that have been issued should be a measure of the success or otherwise of the policy. I think that the Parliament agreed that ASBOs should be issued only when other interventions had failed. It seems strange to regard the number of orders issued as an indicator of success or otherwise.

Fergus Ewing: We must take into account the effectiveness of expenditure of public money. If £7 million has been devoted to junior ASBOs and only 14 such ASBOs have been issued, by my arithmetic the cost must have been £500,000 per junior ASBO. The member might not agree with me on every occasion, but what I say is not my judgment but the judgment of Audit Scotland in its report "Dealing with offending by young people: performance update", which set out the number of ASBOs that had been issued—at the time it was even fewer than 14. The Auditor General for Scotland said in the report:

"the impact of this activity on improved services and outcomes is not yet demonstrated ... sustained reductions in offending behaviour have yet to be realised."

The road to Polmont and Barlinnie is paved with good policy intentions.

This Government has clearly signalled its belief that if action to tackle offending and antisocial behaviour is to be effective it must be taken at the

earliest possible stage. We are determined to ensure that all young people have more choices and chances and that positive opportunities are available for all. Perhaps Cathie Craigie agrees that if £7 million were spent on providing more choices and chances rather than on junior ASBOs, the outcome might be more successful.

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Will the minister kindly suggest specific alternatives to junior ASBOs? What proposals does he have in mind?

Fergus Ewing: From my discussions with the third sector last week, my impression is that the belief that more effort on prevention and intervention would pay dividends is common ground among key players—that seems almost axiomatic. Indeed, there is such clear consensus on the matter among all people who are involved on the front line that it is scarcely a matter of controversy. I will mention specific examples.

We are already delivering on prevention and intervention through cashback for communities funding of around £7 million, which is providing a wide range of physical and cultural opportunities for young people in our communities. We are investing money confiscated from drug dealers and organised criminals in choices and chances for young people. After all, when asked what they want most from Government, young people most often say, "More things to do." That is what we are trying to offer. According to the old saying, crime pays, and it is now time for criminals to pay up.

I am particularly keen for youngsters who have been identified as being on the cusp of developing a pattern of offending behaviour to be given the opportunity to take part in structured outdoor activities on residential courses. In the long-term fight against crime, prevention is better—and far less costly—than cure.

Of course, that does not mean that we should ignore the small but significant number of children and young people who have complex needs and present a high risk both to themselves and to others. Their needs should be met and the risks that they pose managed to ensure that they have an opportunity to change their behaviour and become positive contributors to society. I believe that the word "divert" comes from the Latin "divertere", which means to turn aside—I see Bill Aitken, that noted Latin scholar, nodding sagely at that—and that is what we wish to do with these young people.

Although this framework signals a new approach, it builds on the best of what has gone before. I recognise, again, the positive work and commitment that have taken us to this point and will highlight a couple of examples of the effective work that is going on. For example, NCH's early

intervention project, which works with not only primary school age children who are at risk of offending or who display challenging behaviour but their families, has been very successful in diverting children from entering the youth justice system. Moreover, by working together effectively, agencies in Fife have in the past year cut in half referrals to an overburdened hearings system—a particular problem, which the Conservatives have identified in their amendment.

Following a successful pilot, we have extended intensive support and monitoring to help to manage high-risk and vulnerable young offenders. I have seen for myself how effective a strong bond of trust between a youngster and the worker deputed to provide support can be. I could cite many more examples, but time does not permit.

This framework, which covers prevention, diversion, intervention and risk management, sets out a new approach to achieving better and more consistent ways of tackling offending by young people. However, although we are united in our focus on this problem, I am under no illusion about the task that faces us. I very much welcome the time and effort taken by all the partners to come up with this framework, which I hope that we all can unite behind. By doing so, we can secure a safer, stronger future for our young people and Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the positive contribution that children and young people across Scotland make to society; believes that every young person deserves the best start in life; is committed to giving young people more positive choices and chances and removing the barriers that prevent some from realising their potential and leading successful lives; notes that there are a number of young people who do not realise their potential and get into trouble and recognises the need to intervene quickly and effectively to turn their lives around; further recognises the need to support victims of offending, and considers that communities, the third sector, the private sector, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Government need to work together to build a more successful Scotland by preventing offending and intervening early with children and families at risk.

09:58

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): Another week, another justice debate. Either the ministers are on performance pay or they just like our company. Who knows?

Youth justice is a wide-ranging subject that, officially, covers a huge age range from eight to 21. It can mean different things to different people and, in presenting the "Preventing Offending by Young People" framework document to Parliament, the Government has set out some of what the issue means to it. Labour can certainly support some of its views. For example, we do not

disagree that the vast majority of young people do not offend. As we know, there are offenders as young as eight—and, sadly, offenders who are even younger, but the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight and I see no reason to change that position. Some—though not all—of those children and young people come from our most marginalised communities; many do not get the best start in life and come from families with histories of offending. They have poor parental relationships and their aspirations are low.

When in government, Labour recognised that the cycle of poor achievement, low expectation and social exclusion had to be broken if we were to improve the life chances of those individuals and to help to change the overall picture of youth offending. However, we never allowed—and will never allow—someone's background to excuse bad or criminal behaviour. As well as shaping policies that identify where things go wrong and acting accordingly, Governments must also act against offenders who break the law and behave badly.

The framework document is extremely wordy and, to be honest, rather convoluted. I know what it is driving at—it is certainly very difficult to disagree with its view that every child should fulfil his or her potential and that we should intervene with positive choices and give young people chances—but it lacks any kind of reality check. It makes no mention of the fact that, in too many of our communities, young people are still committing serious crimes, or of the fact that they must be dealt with robustly if our communities are not to feel that society tolerates bad or criminal behaviour. In fact, the approach set out in the document seems very soft to me.

In Glasgow, there have been 6,501 referrals on offence grounds, involving almost 3,000 children. The Sunday Herald recently reported that children as young as five are running about brandishing knives and other serious weapons. Although there is probably some exaggeration in that claim, there is probably some truth in it, too. The newspaper also reported that young people felt that they had been born into a gang culture. Indeed, Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan of Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit has said:

"Young men from deprived backgrounds who have poor parental relationships can often find the support they don't find within their families among a group of similar young men. The gang therefore becomes almost like an extended family."

It is believed that there might be more than 200 gangs in Glasgow alone. Gang culture sustains—

Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill: Please allow me to finish this important point. Gang culture sustains high levels of offending and significant resources are needed to change that situation. Minister, we want you to show where those resources will be invested. We can get those young people out of those gangs, but you must show that you are prepared to put money into that kind of exercise.

You mentioned the cashback scheme, which Labour and the Liberal Democrats support—and, in fact, introduced when in power. We are still waiting for you to demonstrate in your sporadic announcements—

The Presiding Officer: I am sorry to interrupt, Ms McNeill. I ask you to address your remarks through the chair.

Pauline McNeill: I apologise, Presiding Officer.

We are still waiting for ministers to show that that cashback money goes to the communities that are most affected by drugs. The violence reduction unit that I mentioned is carrying out very important work in that respect. Crimes of violence and dishonesty and, indeed, lower-level crimes such as vandalism and graffiti can blight communities and must be tackled robustly.

The minister appears to be backtracking on ASBOs for under-16s on the ground that the measure has not been proven to work. However, the Scottish National Party Government's approach to tackling antisocial behaviour must not slacken. It has already been sleeping on the job on this issue, and it will let down generations of people if it does not commit fully to the concept of challenging behaviour. Given the Government's decision to abolish, in April, ring fencing for tackling young people's offending, it is going to be very difficult for people to judge where the resources are going and for the Parliament to find out whether the Government is putting its money where its mouth is.

Indeed, the Government does not even appear to want to count the number of persistent young offenders. I would appreciate some clarity on that matter and an indication of how we are expected to monitor its progress.

Sandra White: Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill: I will, if it is on that point.

Sandra White: The member refers to young people reoffending. Does she not agree that constantly demonising young people makes them offend more and that, in fact, the best way forward is early intervention to find out the reasons for persistent young offenders' behaviour?

Pauline McNeill: I have already discussed that point—and, indeed, have moved significantly on from it. This is, after all, supposed to be a debate.

In their amendment, the Tories criticise the previous Administration for failing to reduce the number of persistent young offenders. When we were in government, we were at least prepared to say what we were doing, to be transparent and to show where progress was being made. This Government is not prepared to do that.

The Labour amendment seeks to add a reality check by calling for the rolling out of youth courts and by recognising the key role of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. We should note that the act did some important things, by empowering communities and by introducing joined-up thinking to ensure that agencies think and act together in tackling antisocial behaviour. In my opinion, there is no better example of that than Glasgow Community and Safety Services, which is a unique organisation. The partnership brings together the local authority and Strathclyde Police to tackle offending. For the first time, civilian officers are knocking on doors and challenging the behaviour of young people. They have mapped out the names of the gangs and offenders and they are challenging their behaviour. That is what tackling antisocial behaviour is about.

Why is the Government not rolling out youth courts until 2009? The Government has said that it believes in early intervention and speedy justice. Youth courts have demonstrated great success and in the light of the evidence the idea that the Government will not even think about rolling them out until 2009 should be unthinkable. We know that that means that the courts will not be rolled out during the current parliamentary session.

On young people in prison, the Government has announced its intention to remove unruly certificates from the Scottish prisons system. Labour will support that move if the Government demonstrates how it will cope with difficult young people who currently would be kept in those institutions, but we have not heard from the Government on that. "Preventing Offending by Young People" also states that the Government will honour the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by not imprisoning children. I seek clarification on what that means because, as members will know, the convention defines childhood as being up to the age of 18. I am not sure whether that is a change in policy direction.

In summary, the Government needs to be prepared to be tested on its policies on youth justice. It needs to show us exactly how it will use the resources and new money to which the minister referred and give the Parliament a mechanism so that we can test whether progress has been made.

Clarity is needed on what the strategy means when it states that it aims to

"shift the focus from service provision as the vehicle for delivery of outcomes to building the capacity of individuals, families and communities".

Minister, a lot of that needs explaining—we need to know what it means. Yes, we can support the Government's general direction in tackling youth offending, but we need a harder edge on this. We want the Government to demonstrate that that harder edge is there.

I move amendment S3M-2204.2, to insert at end:

"and, while recognising the demand for services and initiatives to prevent young people offending and re-offending, considers that the criminal justice system must also seek to deal with those offenders who persist in breaking the law and disrupting communities; further recognises the important role of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004; believes the youth court pilots have been successful and calls for further rolling out of youth courts across Scotland, and further believes that the Scottish Government should ensure adequate funding is in place to support youth services and the youth justice system across Scotland."

10:08

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): In opening, I correct the minister on one point: it was once disparagingly said of my education that I had little Latin and less Greek.

There is not a great deal that separates the parties this morning, so it is important to underline that the vast majority of Scotland's youngsters are a credit to us. Having recently visited a couple of schools and received visitors—along with Robert Brown—from a school that is not in the best area of Glasgow, I can say that the children were a credit to themselves and to their parents. Not everything is negative. However, some youngsters are problematic—and a small minority seriously so—and we do neither ourselves nor them any favours by failing to acknowledge that and by failing to cope with the problems that they cause.

Paragraph 1.3 of "Preventing Offending by Young People" indicates that the preferred option is prevention and early intervention. That is entirely true. After all, prevention is better than cure. Sadly, in some family units, the problems are depressingly predictable and early intervention is essential in those circumstances.

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): Does Mr Aitken accept that there is a high correlation between those who come before the children's panel at the age of six for neglect and the other family difficulties to which he referred and those who come back again at the age of 15, 16 or 17 for offending? Does he draw any conclusions from that?

Bill Aitken: Absolutely. I shall come to that presently.

One issue that we must address—I know that Robert Brown, Sandra White and Pauline McNeill share this concern—is the lack of amenity, particularly in Glasgow and other urban areas. Open spaces where kids could kick a ball without causing a problem are vanishing and opportunities for recreation are simply not available. Another issue—although perhaps not for this debate—is the restrictions that we are imposing on youth organisations. In becoming perhaps a little bit too restrictive, albeit for the best of intentions in respect of child safety, we may be restricting the voluntary sector's ability to play its part in preventing antisocial behaviour.

When kids get into trouble, the children's hearings system comes into play. Robert Brown is correct to say that many of those who offend have, earlier in their lives, been offended against. When I attended a series of children's hearings a few years ago, I found it a depressing experience because practically every case involved neglect or abuse. It seemed almost inevitable that the children who were the subject of the hearings would appear in later life before another hearing, if not before a court, on criminal grounds.

The children's hearings system, which was set up by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, is much vaunted—although, significantly, no one else has copied it—and still has a real role to play. However, the research under which the system was introduced is well over 40 years old. We need to look again at the system's operation, as the amendment in my name suggests, because, in some respects, it is simply not working. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that a review will be forthcoming at an appropriate point.

The disposals that are available to the children's hearings system are inevitably limited. I am attracted to the strategy document's proposals on introducing restorative justice, but that will work only if it has an impact on offenders. For instance, I understand that when, two or three years ago, some youngsters in Glasgow who had vandalised a park were put to work to correct the damage that they had caused, they were made to work for all of 20 minutes. Although the publicity highlighted the advantages of restorative justice, such work would not have had an impact on those offenders. We need to demonstrate to offenders that we mean business.

Sadly, one of the biggest problems that Scotland faces is drugs. There is unanimity in the Parliament on that. Given the unfortunate fact that there are many instances of drug abuse among those under the age of 16, it would appear appropriate to extend the disposals that are

available to children's panels to include drug treatment and testing orders.

We also need to look at age limits more generally. The 16-year-old of 1964, when Kilbrandon published his report, was quite different from the 16-year-old of today. We must consider whether the children's hearings system is equipped to deal with that type of offender. Youth courts certainly seem to be the answer.

This is a complex matter; it is not simple, and I do not suggest that members on the Conservative benches have all the answers. However, we must cope with the small minority who are causing trouble. If we fail to do so, they will continue to cause trouble, their pattern of offending will escalate and many of those who enter the children's hearings system will inevitably continue to graduate to the dock of the High Court.

I move amendment S3M-2204.1, to insert after "around":

"notes with concern the failure of the previous administration to reduce persistent young offending by 10% and recognises the increasing drain on time and resources that offence referrals are having on the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA); recommends that an increase in disposals available to SCRA, such as an extension of drug treatment and testing orders, would enable it to intervene more effectively; recognises that the sending of 14 and 15-year-old persistent young offenders to youth courts would allow children's panels to concentrate more on referrals for non-offence grounds."

10:14

Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD): I welcome the debate and I certainly agree that our children and young people make a positive contribution to Scottish society. As the minister and Bill Aitken said, there can be no doubt that the vast majority of our young people—whom I would define as being those not just up to the age of 16 but beyond that—are hard working, positive about what they want to achieve and know where they are going. Indeed, I think that today young people know where they are going even more than they did in Kilbrandon's day and they know how they are going to get there.

I agree with the minister that young people who offend often do so because they get bored. Young people need assistance and support in reaching their goals. I am sure that all members could give examples of good practice that serves young people well and helps them to achieve their potential, but I will set out two.

The City of Edinburgh Council's schools sports academy involves 44 talented pupils from throughout Edinburgh, including from three schools in my constituency—Gracemount high school, Liberton high school and James Gillespie's high school. Thirty-six of those pupils have

progressed to regional and national squads in sports across the spectrum. Next year, the council will expand the number of pupils by 30. I fully expect and hope that many of those pupils will go on to represent Scotland at the Commonwealth games or even the Olympics, as well as at many national competitions and finals.

My second example shows how a small event—we might call it an acorn—can grow into something that affects a wide range of people in the local community. About three years ago, Liberton high school got a new headteacher, Donald Macdonald. The school had not been doing well and many problems in the local community were generated by a small number of its pupils. Donald Macdonald was a new leader and his troops—the teachers—needed new direction. A new regime was begun, with one of the first acts of the new head being to introduce a school uniform. I believe that that was significant. The uniform was not entirely rigid, but it was definitely identifiable with Liberton high. When Donald Macdonald took over, the existing report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education was not good. However, in the first three years after the change in leadership, I became aware of a gradual but significant improvement in the school. The police are grateful for that, as there is less offending in the area.

Last week, I attended the annual prize-giving ceremony at the school, which was a well-staged event, with more than 100 pupils receiving prizes. Many of the pupils are going on to universities and colleges. There is now a real buzz about the school—what a change in the past three years. The latest HMIE report says that the school is the most improved school in Scotland, but Liberton high's aim is to be the best school in Scotland. The young people of Liberton high were given a new direction; they have taken the opportunity and the entire community has benefited. That example illustrates that, when young people are given a new direction, they can improve and the improvement affects all of us.

How do we improve young people's attitudes? I agree with the point in the Government's motion about early intervention. After my election in 2003, I well remember a visit to a primary school in Edinburgh South. Coincidentally, it was Liberton primary school. Before I met the pupils, I met the staff and we discussed behavioural problems. One teacher told me, "It's all about early intervention. I can identify the pupils who are going to be trouble within a week of them starting in primary 1." The Liberal Democrats believe that we should all support a culture of early intervention, with professionals in nurseries and schools working to identify those who are at risk of offending.

New York has a good scheme under which a team of young people aged 14 to 18 is drawn from local schools to propose solutions to juvenile justice issues. In addition to giving young people a voice, which does not happen often, the scheme helps the policymakers, who can make better decisions with that youth input. Down south, the Home Office has extended the British crime survey to include 16-year-olds. However, the Scottish Government, in response to a question from Margaret Smith, has refused to do so. I ask the minister to reconsider. We realise that young people are less likely to share details of minor incidents with their parents or the police and we believe that extending the Scottish crime survey to 11 to 15-year-olds would offer a greater understanding of how crime affects young people in Scotland. That would allow more information to be gathered, which could be used to shape better messages on encouraging young people not to engage in crime, carry knives or engage in antisocial behaviour.

In the past two days, much has been made of the SNP's attitude to young people and alcohol. I realise that the SNP proposals are not only about stopping 18 to 21-year-olds purchasing alcohol in off-licences, although from the press coverage one might think so. However, the Liberal Democrats do not believe in that approach. We believe that there are already enough tools in the toolbox. For example, very few retailers who are caught selling alcohol to minors are prosecuted. Although 357 retailers were caught selling alcohol to underage customers in 2005-06, only 70 were prosecuted. Identifying those who flout the law is progress, but it is meaningless if they are not prosecuted. I urge the minister to encourage the Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that all such people are prosecuted, which would send out a hard message to retailers who sell alcohol to underage drinkers.

Other discriminatory measures, such as the increased use of the Mosquito ultrasonic dispersal device, should be avoided. The minister admitted that he has not yet examined the issue. Will the Scottish Government clarify its position on the use of the Mosquito? I ask the Government and the Scottish Conservatives to back the calls for a ban of that device.

I move amendment S3M-2204.3, to insert at end:

"calls on the Scottish Government to introduce children's rights impact assessments to show how government decisions impact on the rights and wellbeing of children; notes that young people are themselves often the victims of crime and therefore calls for the extension of the Scottish Crime Survey to under 16s; believes that young people must be engaged fully in the ongoing review of the national antisocial behaviour strategy including improving the provision of diversionary activities; calls for increased involvement of young people in delivering solutions to youth

crime through innovative measures such as a youth justice board and youth justice panels, and calls for an end to the use of all ultra-sonic "Mosquito" dispersal devices."

10:20

Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): The debate is important. I thank the minister for his positive speech. Far from condemning children, he talked about the positive contribution that the majority of young people make to society. We must not forget that some of the children we are speaking about are as young as five and six. I acknowledge the issues that are raised in the Labour and Tory amendments and warmly welcome the motion. For too long, the youth justice system has been too focused on demonising and criminalising young people who commit offences. Although their behaviour is unacceptable, it is too simplistic to rely solely on punishment as the panacea for all ills. The time is right to consider why young people get into those situations and why too many of them cannot find a way out.

I hope that the Parliament will move forward together on the issue. I hope that we can reach common solutions to the problems, which affect all the constituencies and regions in Scotland. I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, particularly the points about the Mosquito device, which I believe goes against children's human rights. I thank Mike Pringle for his thoughtful speech. Youth justice is too big and important simply to be used as a means of political attack. Members must act responsibly and contribute positively.

We must put young people at the forefront of the policy decisions that affect them. It could be said that it is little wonder that young people act in certain ways when we consider the behaviour of some of those who are said to represent them—present company excluded, of course. We must take into account young people's views and concerns in our approach to the problems. A recent report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child identified as one of its main recommendations the need to involve children in decisions that affect them. I would be grateful if the minister told us what steps the Government will take to ensure that young people's views are taken into account. I suggest that an appropriate starting point would be the current antisocial behaviour strategy review, which has been criticised for having no clear plans to engage young people. I ask the minister to comment on that in his summing-up speech.

Another key point that has been highlighted is about children's right to play. There are not enough activities for young people. As Bill Aitken mentioned, places where kids play—particularly parks in Glasgow, although the same is true in

other areas—are slowly being eroded. Many people I speak to mention concerns about the rise in youth crime and antisocial behaviour, but in the exact same breath they identify the solution and talk about a need for more facilities such as sports centres. As the minister said, young people need more things to do.

We can all agree that the Government's efforts so far to provide more opportunities are laudable. The cashback for communities scheme, which has been mentioned, is hugely successful and is a perfect example of how we can tackle the problems. We can fund projects to support young people who are at risk, such as drop-in services and outdoor activities. However, to return to my earlier point, such initiatives should involve young people at every stage of the process. It is not good enough, and is not conducive to helping young people, to build a basketball court and then bemoan the fact that no one uses it, or that young people just hang about in it. Did the young people want it? Did we ask them whether they wanted it? Did we involve them in the process? The key point is that we must involve young people. If we take that approach, new facilities will be successful and will, I hope, flourish. I ask the minister to consider seriously involving young people at all stages.

To tackle the problems of youth crime, we must also try to change attitudes to violence. As has been said, many young people grow up in an environment in which violence is accepted and is seen as a routine and ordinary part of life. We must consider certain activities that are covered in the media that may glorify violence and desensitise people to the reality. I give the example of cage wars, which involves two contestants locked in a cage battling it out while being bayed at by a huge audience. The event came to Glasgow twice last year and was widely condemned, including by Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan and me. We thought that it was highly inappropriate to have glorified gladiator contests in a city with some of the highest levels of violence in the UK. As a Glaswegian, I am not proud of that, but it is a fact.

I accept that these are contentious and difficult issues, but we must tackle them nonetheless. I hope that the Parliament will support us in doing so. We must take difficult decisions together, not just for the sake of the Parliament but for the sake of future generations, to change our attitudes and, perhaps, even the media's attitude to reporting on children. We never seem to hear good news from the media—it is always bad news. If there is anyone in the press gallery, I hope that they will look at good examples of what young kids are up to.

Every one of us wants Scotland to be a safer and fairer place. To achieve that, we must take our

young people with us and ensure that they see themselves as part of Scotland's future.

10:26

Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab): It is strange that the motion that we are debating starts by saying that the vast majority of young people in Scotland make a positive contribution and are valued members of their community. We do not have to say that—we are dealing with youth justice policy and understand that only a small minority of young people ever become involved in the justice system. For members to start their speeches by making that point is an excuse. In this week, when one half of the Scottish National Party Government is discussing votes for 16-year-olds and the other half does not want 18 to 21-year-olds to purchase alcohol in supermarkets or off-licences, it is an absurdity.

Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP): Does the member agree that the problem is not what we believe but what the press portray? With respect, that is why the first line of the motion was included.

Cathie Craigie: We play to the prejudices of the press if we start motions with such lines. Sometimes the press listen to what is said in the chamber.

As all members are aware, early intervention and preventing offending are not tasks that can be accomplished easily with blunt instruments. That is why it is disappointing that we seem to be determined to malign Scotland's youth with headlines, while offering no real solution to the often substantial problems that face our communities and many young people. If any group in society deserves a second chance, it is young offenders. Scotland's prison population is largely made up of people who have lost their way. Almost all prisoners have a history of youth offending.

A series of risk factors show up time and again in the backgrounds of Scotland's prisoners. Those many risks include being male; coming from a deprived or disrupted family of which one or more members are already offenders; poor parenting, abusive parenting or no parenting at all; hyperactivity; a low attention span; truancy; and exclusion from school. As Robert Brown and Bill Aitken pointed out, the problems that lead to youth offending start very early in life. There is a real need for us to offer continued support for better family health care, parenting support, early education and child care. The SNP Government should commit itself to real policies to deliver early intervention, starting with the introduction of

Labour's policy of free nursery care for two-year-olds.

Early intervention to support vulnerable Scottish families is an important aspect of any policy, but it is not necessarily sufficient to address the root causes of offending behaviour. As well as working with vulnerable children, the Government should do more to help young people who are already caught up in offending. Young offenders need to have the opportunity to learn, often for the first time, that there are people in their community who think that they are worth something. Indeed all Scotland's young people benefit from learning to value themselves. It is hardly surprising that some young people lack self-respect and self-esteem if, for whatever reason, neither family nor school has equipped them with the resources that are necessary to make the transition to adulthood.

The Government is right to consider

"that communities, the third sector, the private sector, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Government need to work together"

to prevent offending and intervene

"early with children and families at risk."

However, where that intervention fails, young people who break the law and those who work with them must understand that communities and their friends and neighbours are not prepared to sit back and accept bad or criminal behaviour. People of all ages—young and old—are right to expect to be able to live in peace and quiet in their communities and to feel safe as they go about their daily activities.

In the previous session, Labour successfully passed legislation that was designed to give communities respite and to make young offenders face up to their irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour. Youth courts, tagging, restorative justice measures and ASBOs were all put in place and proved to be useful tools. The youth court at Airdrie is still working to provide swift justice for young people and communities. Restorative justice is working in my community for the good of the community. Tagging allows the community to get some peace and helps the young offenders concerned to address their offending behaviour. ASBOs provide respite for my community and help the young people concerned to realise that their actions have consequences. What is happening to the legislation under the SNP? From what we have heard this morning and from what we hear from members of the governing party, it appears that it has been parked on the sidelines, where it is gathering dust. That is not good enough for my community and for communities throughout Scotland.

I say to the SNP that it should start to take some action and do away with woolly justice debates.

We want not just words, but action, and to see what the Government proposes to do.

10:32

Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP): Presiding Officer, it may be a week or two since you or even I could be described as a youth, even charitably. However, as we both remember fondly St Martin's summer, halcyon days, children's laughter and the gentle strains of the Sex Pistols wafting across the grass, we come to this debate with the benefit of experience—perhaps not the most recent experience, but experience nonetheless.

I am sure that every member in the chamber can trade tales of people whom they have known or come across whose youth was wasted by a lack of engagement with society. It can be argued that society failed those youths. Our deliberations on youth justice must be underpinned by a determination to prevent any further waste of that asset.

The obligation that we carry is no easy burden—if there were a simple solution, it would have been used by now. Much as I have had occasion in the past to disagree with my good friends in the Labour Party, I refuse to believe that any Labour member has ever wished ill on the youth of Scotland or anywhere else. Where our attitudes and opinions may diverge is on the most effective remedies for addressing the problems faced by youngsters across the land and the problems that are caused by a minority of those youngsters.

I have long had concerns, which I am sure are shared, about the march of the ASBO. A temptation to label, pigeonhole and dispatch problems is common to all politicians, including me, but we should not fall for that temptation easily. I have to admit to a certain reluctance to hug a hoodie. The ASBO has its place, but that place is not at the forefront of the challenge of youth. The justice system and its outriders cannot be a panacea for the problems that society faces and should not be the first tool for which we reach every time; acceptance by and the encouragement of society can be far more effective.

Cathie Craigie: This morning, the Minister for Community Safety advised us that, over the past statistical period, only 14 ASBOs were issued. Does the member agree that that is hardly the march of the ASBO?

Christina McKelvie: It is the media attitude towards ASBOs. Cathie Craigie and I will probably disagree on this, but ASBOs are not an effective measure for dealing with youth crime.

Young people who are integrated into society instead of alienated from it must be a measure of

our success. I am pleased to see the Government taking us down a route that is more likely to lead to engagement than to disengagement. Tackling the drinking culture is essential; it is important to change the idea that drinking as much as you can is the ideal way to spend an evening. Alcohol has a place in our society and in oiling the social wheels, but it should not be the prime driver of socialising. Raising the qualifying age for off-sales purchases is a step in the right direction. It is important to send the message that alcohol consumption involves responsibility, as well as enjoyment, and implementing a unit price will carry that message further; cheap drink is not cheap for society.

The oversupply of alcohol has enormous costs in lost productivity, health spending and social breakdown. We should not allow those costs to be underestimated by the people who will pay the price. Test purchasing, a scheme to ensure the enforcement of age restraints, is one plank in the policy raft. Ensuring that the law is enforced as well as strengthened is vital to its success. Likewise, tackling the flow of drugs in our communities is essential. Drug misuse is not the preserve of the poor in our communities, as is so often suggested, but a blight that touches us all. Cutting the demand for drugs as well as tackling the supply—addressing both ends of the chain—requires concerted action across agencies. Educating children about drugs—what is what and what is not, and the ups and downs of drugs—is essential to enable them to make the appropriate choice when the opportunity presents itself.

I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on his initiative to take assets away from criminals and recycle them into the communities that have been damaged by those criminals. As members said, the cashback for communities scheme, funded from the proceeds of crime, is delivering societal benefits to some of our poorest communities. That is a step towards alleviating deprivation and the cabinet secretary should be congratulated on that.

Encouraging the youth of our nation to engage properly in constructive activities is the way forward. Youth crime is not a universal stain on our young people and youth justice should not be seen as a rod with which to keep all our youth in line. We should aim at rewarding good behaviour, alleviating deprivation, providing routes out of poverty for our youth and allowing hope. We should encourage our youth to lift their vision so that they see the possibilities and reach out to the far horizon, and we should praise the efforts that they make to get there.

Speaking with all the experience of my very recent youthful activities, I am encouraged by the direction in which this Government is travelling

and confident that it will pay dividends. We all have a journey to make, and it will be easier if we help each other along the path.

10:37

Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab): I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Pauline McNeill. Youth justice is a serious and complex issue that has no easy solution. The previous Labour-led Executives made huge strides in this area, but of course we need to do more as a Parliament. As elected members, we all face the task of ensuring that we deliver for every young person in 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.

When we talk about youth justice, it is important that we remember, despite what some members of even my party have said, that the vast majority of young people in Scotland do not offend. Indeed, only a very small percentage of the under-18 population in our country transgresses. 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 put the needs and deeds of the young person at the heart of what we do. That is not about excusing unacceptable behaviour or actions, but about providing support where and when it is needed, as well as challenging their offending behaviour. We must do that because we are passionately involved in thinking about the positive future that all our young people deserve. We do not wish to lose any young person to a life of crime; we want to help young people who have offended to turn their lives around and make the most of the opportunities that are out there for them. Our aim as a Parliament should be to enable every young person in Scotland to become a successful learner, a confident individual, an effective contributor to society and a responsible citizen.

Wherever possible, we should look to prevent and divert young people from offending through positive interventions. Investment in community safety partnerships and community quality of life are key to the success of that approach. It is crucial to give young people the opportunity to do something positive in their communities. We need to encourage imaginative schemes that bring together a range of services—education, youth services, social workers and others—to offer young people a variety of opportunities to engage in activities that they enjoy but may never have had the chance to experience in a structured and

positive way, such as music and drama, outdoor activities and various leisure activities.

The previous Labour-led Executive promoted such initiatives and the current Government has developed them. One scheme that is worthy of mention is the street football initiative that is funded by the proceeds of crime, which was initiated by the previous Labour-led Executive and is being continued, quite rightly, by this Government. As members will know, occupying young people productively, especially during school holidays, can be difficult. The objective of street football programmes is to target key disadvantaged areas where young people may often be tempted to indulge in antisocial behaviour or petty crime as a result of having no positive activity with which to become involved.

We need to do all that we can to ensure that many such projects and imaginative initiatives are available in Scotland's communities and are attractive to young people. For the minority of young people who become involved in gang culture and antisocial behaviour, we need schemes such as operation reclaim in Glasgow, in the constituency of my colleague Paul Martin, to help build new skills and teach young people that there are alternatives to booze and blades. We need to resource projects that get participants back into education or employment. By building self-esteem we can target repeat offending—we all acknowledge that that is a problem for which there is no easy answer—and reduce the incidence of low-level crime, which blights too many of our communities and makes ordinary working people victims when they do not need to be victims. That is unacceptable and that is what I mean by saying that we must have a balanced approach. There is an absolute necessity for such an approach.

When young people transgress, there must be an appropriate degree of punishment. Antisocial behaviour must be tackled and, where appropriate, the variety of provisions in the 2004 act must be employed. I believe particularly that restorative justice services can be effective if they are supported and developed fully. They can be effective in forcing young people to see the harm that is caused to members of their own community by their unacceptable behaviour and ensuring that they make appropriate reparation—that is essential.

The minority of young people who indulge in antisocial behaviour and low-level offending must be encouraged to change their ways. Many will do so; for those who do not, condign punishment is required. I say to Mr Ewing that that must include as an option so-called junior ASBOs. They must not be the first option, but they must be an option.

Victims of offending demand and deserve nothing less.

10:43

Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD): Before I came to participate in the debate this morning, I had a meeting about a scheme that the previous Government initiated, called getting it right for every child. At the heart of that scheme is, in fact, the child. Many of the issues that speakers have covered are referred to in the principles of the getting it right for every child scheme—for example, early intervention and supporting opportunities—and that is all good. However, I am a little disappointed that a substantial debate about young people again comes under the auspices of justice. I understand that part of the reason for that is the framework that has been published; however, protecting our children and young people is complex, as is delivering services, so rather than yet again defining young people in terms of the justice agenda, it might have been helpful to have a wider debate on how to address all the issues affecting young people.

Too often, we are quick to label the young as troublesome, bad mannered, ill educated or just downright bad, although, as other speakers have said, the latter category applies to only a very small minority. Sadly, however, we are considerably slower to recognise that the young have been born in, live in, and are subject to the society that we, politicians present and past, have created for them. Far too often, society's general approach is to blame young people for the way they react to the society in which they find themselves.

Here we are again, defining young people almost exclusively in terms of the justice agenda, with a subtext that implies that that is the only way in which we can define them or deal with them. Perhaps what we should be doing is addressing the injustices that—directly, deliberately or otherwise—are done to them. Because of the misdemeanours of a few, we have—with the complicity of the more rabid elements of the tabloid media—branded all our young people as being bad to some extent. If we are here to talk about justice, that is certainly an injustice.

The victims of crime in our streets are more often than not the poorest, the most vulnerable and the least influential in our society. The most likely victims of violent crime are young males. Although offenders often have poor educational attainment and no qualifications, and although they often lack stable employment or opportunities to gain stable employment, we as a country are not making enough progress in tackling those wider social issues. The previous Administration and the present Government are taking steps, but

we are not doing so fast enough. Too often, we do not include the young people whose interests we all have at heart.

What I said about offenders does not excuse crime, nor does it mean that Liberal Democrats will shrink from appropriate measures that will address head-on the major issues in law and order. However, we reject approaches or policies that adopt a simplistic and authoritarian view of antisocial behaviour and the minor petty crime that is often an annoyance to older people.

Who can sound the toughest is not the challenge that politicians and people in the media face. The challenge is to tackle the problems of crime in our communities with policies that have been proven to work, instead of simply chasing headlines and proposing draconian measures. Liberal Democrats want the Government not to demonise young people but to invest in them. The Government should increase the level of financial investment in young people, doing so in the belief that those young people are the future of our country. The Government should give them a say in their communities and in the services that are available to them.

Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should be investing more in supporting a culture of early intervention and I look forward to the document on early intervention that I believe the Government will produce in due course. The Government should work with the agencies that are responsible for helping and supporting young people. I am sure that when my colleague Robert Brown winds up he will clarify the detailed Liberal Democrat policies in such areas—policies that encompass such ideas as youth panels and the successful youth court systems that have been piloted in Lanarkshire in my region. At the moment, the SNP Government seems less than keen to support such ideas.

We must remember that the success and foundation of every state is the education and support of its youth. There is no value in laying the blame for all society's ills at the door of our young people.

10:49

Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP): My remarks will concentrate mainly on some of the outcomes from the Scottish cashback for communities scheme. Important lessons have come out of that, some of which have already been touched on.

Five projects are being supported in Aberdeen, using money that has recently been announced. The first relates to a youth cafe in Torry, in the south side of the city, which operates on Wednesday and Friday evenings during term

times and offers other activities during the summer holidays. The cafe organisers have been approached by youngsters from Kincorth, which is no great distance away. However, the organisers feel that they do not have the facilities for so many youngsters. It would be a very good idea if facilities also existed in Kincorth. We know that youngsters are territorial, and we must acknowledge that when we provide facilities.

For the second project, I turn to an area of the city known as Fersands and Fountain—the name is a corruption of road names in the area—in which a wide range of work is done in a community project. Recently, a graffitied wall was repainted, and it seems to me that that work incorporated several useful aspects. First, it was creative; secondly, it was a group activity; thirdly, it built confidence in those who took part; and fourthly, it improved the environment. It would be appropriate to consider those four aspects for any activity.

Thirdly, Transition Extreme Sports offers activities on a very large space near the waterfront. The sports have to be confined to their own space, and some youngsters find them great fun; I am talking about skateboarding, BMX biking and that kind of thing. There are also climbing walls and other relatively mad music and art activities. We must allow our youngsters to be creative and to go off in their own directions, and we should ensure that they have opportunities to do so. A great deal can be done creatively with graffiti; it just needs to be done in the right place. I make that comment drawing on my experience as a trustee of the Hot Chocolate Trust in Dundee, which continues to offer such projects very productively.

The fourth project concerns Befriend a Child. It is a very different type of project, which provides an opportunity for a relatively young person to work one to one for a few hours with a younger person—subject, of course, to all the checks that we would expect—who suffers from a lack of social skills and confidence, which can happen for all sorts of reasons. During a few hours of such work, the younger person's self-confidence and skills can be built up. Such work is very valuable in its place, and when we consider group projects and national projects, we should not forget one-to-one work, which can be crucial.

The last project that I want to mention is Apex Scotland, which is a national charity that works with offenders. There is work to be done with people who have failed—people who have gone through the sausage machine, come out the other end and are seen to be offenders. The work of the charity is to try to make them employable—not to tell them that they are bad boys, or possibly girls, but to say to them, "Right, we need to move on

from here. What skills do you need?" We all know something about prisons and offenders, and we know that offenders' skills are usually pretty low. The ability to put together a curriculum vitae might be beyond most of them, but that is the kind of skill that we must help them to acquire and use.

Recently, I went to a community policing meeting in Westhill, to the west of Aberdeen, and found that the community police officers rarely take things as far as an ASBO. Cases go through a system that involves an informal warning, a letter to parents, and an acceptable behaviour contract.

I am very glad that the legislation on ASBOs is not going away. I entirely take the point that ASBOS are not the right answer, but there is value in the whole process of helping youngsters to understand what they are doing.

I finish with a quotation from an Audit Scotland report from last August, "Dealing with offending by young people":

"Most councils have found it difficult, both strategically and operationally, to overcome the differences between the child-centred focus of youth justice under the children's hearings system and the community-focused design of the antisocial behaviour legislation."

That has been described as a philosophical difference, and I have heard it widely commented on in social work departments. We must understand that if we are going to be child centred, the community-focused antisocial behaviour legislation is perhaps not quite perfect.

10:55

Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab): I apologise for having to pop out at the beginning of the debate. I was speaking to the school students who we see in the gallery, who are from Armadale—a very topical place at the moment. I will come back to that later.

I am delighted to take part in the debate. It seems obligatory to acknowledge—other members have done so, and the motion does it too—that the majority of children and young people are well behaved and a credit to their families. I do not say that flippantly, but with some concern that it makes us sound defensive. I am not defensive. It is right to challenge the behaviour of those who cause trouble, regardless of their age. However, more so than older people, the behaviour of children and young people is likely to be affected by those around them, which is why it is important to consider how we support not just the child or young person, but their family and friends.

The minister tries to acknowledge that in the final sentence of the motion. However, I am concerned that projects that support families are suffering from reduced financial resources. Just

last week, I heard that family projects run by Aberlour Child Care Trust are facing cuts to their budgets. I am sure that the minister agrees that if we are serious about early intervention and a comprehensive response to behaviours, such cuts do not make sense. I hope that he will look into that situation.

There has been much talk this week about the Armadale pilot, which prevents young people aged 18 to 21 from buying off-sales of alcohol. In fact, there have been so many ministers in Armadale this week that I had begun to wonder whether the rest of Scotland was getting a fair share. The pilot started as an antisocial behaviour measure, but clearly involved the misuse of alcohol. People from Armadale had complained to the police and the council that some young people were acting antisocially and vandalism was rife, and that alcohol misuse was often a contributing factor. As an aside, the pilot was never intended to be a health measure—although there are obvious benefits—and it was certainly not going to change the culture of alcohol misuse. However, I suspect that those are arguments for another debate.

The pilot included a number of measures. As alcohol was a contributory factor to the antisocial behaviour, the police sought to restrict its availability. They used test purchasing to ensure that alcohol was not being sold to under-18s. The plan with 18 to 21-year-olds was to stop them buying alcohol for younger friends or family. The police drug and alcohol liaison officer visited schools to discuss the misuse of alcohol with young people. The risk that alcohol might be replaced by other illegal substances was picked up on, too. The police did a floor sweep of known hot spots. When they found young people with alcohol, the alcohol was confiscated and the young people were taken to the police station. Their parents were called to collect them and referrals were made to the West Lothian drug and alcohol project.

Eighteen to 21-year-olds were allowed to purchase alcohol in public houses. Through the best bar none campaign, those pubs were encouraged to make responsible sales. For example, the pubs ensured that they did not serve people who were already drunk. Finally, the youth action team was out and about in Armadale, speaking to the young people to find out why they were drinking and what other activities they would like to avoid getting involved in alcohol misuse.

The pilot has been successful and all involved are to be praised, particularly Superintendent Chris Griffiths. However, I think members would agree that it needed intensive resourcing and back-up. If it is to be rolled out throughout Scotland and is the example that people want to follow, the minister will need to guarantee

adequate resources for other areas. Six weeks of weekend pilots in a specific town is very different from Scotland-wide, 24/7, 365 days a year. The Scottish Government has raised people's expectations; I hope that they will not be disappointed. However, to give the minister some encouragement, Ross from Armadale academy said that he thought that the pilot was heading in the right direction.

As other members have said, we are proud in Scotland of the children's hearings system. The system sees many children who are there because they need protection, but there are others who need to change their behaviour. I recently sat in on a panel session in Bathgate and found that one of the difficulties facing panel members involved the array of disposals that they had available to them. In January, ministers indicated that there would be consultation on the administration of the hearings system. When will that happen? Will the minister ensure that any savings from that streamlining will be reinvested in the panels' front-line services? Is the Scottish Government planning any further reviews of the hearings system, particularly in relation to disposals? I agree with Mr Aitken that we should consider that issue, but I do not accept his assertion that we should remove 14 and 15-year-olds from the hearings system.

Early intervention is important if we are to reduce the influences that cause young people to get into trouble. We have the hearings system but, as Pauline McNeill and others have said, we have antisocial behaviour legislation and the youth court pilots. The fact that those measures were introduced by the previous Administration does not make them wrong. The Scottish Government should use the powers that it has—and build on them, of course—but we should not think that we must reinvent everything, including the framework, just to put the SNP's stamp on it.

11:02

Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): In a debate such as this, it is important to start on a positive note and, before we address the very real problem of youth offending, to commend Scotland's young people on their achievements. In my constituency, there are numerous examples of the positive contribution that is being made by our youngsters, day in, day out. From their involvement in youth arts, theatre and music to wider sports and recreation, our youngsters are making a difference and becoming responsible citizens; we all hope that that will sustain them into their adulthood.

Only this week, children from Dunlop primary school won a local sports and athletics competition involving 500 primary school children from

throughout East Ayrshire. All those children now have a taste for sport—perhaps that will encourage some of them to try for a Commonwealth games place in 2014. Mike Pringle made a similar comment. Other youngsters from several schools in the area contributed greatly to a recent exhibition of their local heroes in Kilmarnock. The kids' enthusiasm was incredible. They decided who was in—and who was out—and gathered pictures and illustrations of their heroes. The students from St Joseph's academy put together a production relating to Kilmarnock's railway heritage—including a contribution by Andrew Barclay—which was performed in full costume during a recent visit by the First Minister to Barclay house.

The achievements of those youngsters, and of similar young students throughout Scotland, do not find their way into statistical reports of the kind that we are hearing extracts from today, but it is important to recognise and celebrate the great things that our young people do. There are common threads through those examples, such as positive intervention at an early age; engagement with relevant and exciting topics, in which young people can make a real contribution; and the sense of purpose and achievement that is gained by recognition of a job well done. Those are positive forces in delivering our shared agenda for responsible citizenship in our society.

From those bright and hopeful beginnings, where and when do things start to go wrong for the minority of youngsters? How can we step in and prevent that? How can we reverse negative behaviour when it occurs? There is surely no doubt that the big three Ds in our society—drink, drugs and deprivation—play a huge part in pulling some of those youngsters towards a life of offending and serious crime. Current figures show that 84 per cent of 15-year-olds have admitted to having drunk alcohol and that 88 per cent of all criminal damage offences were committed when the offender was under the influence of alcohol.

Similarly, more than 1,400 children in Scotland were referred to the children's reporter in 2005-06 on the ground of alcohol or drugs misuse and 20 per cent of Scotland's children live in households where the income is less than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom median. To that cocktail of despair, we must surely add the demoralising effect on our youngsters who live in families where parents are substance abusers or offenders of one kind or another.

In Scotland, we have wonderful young kids with great potential who sadly, unless we can intervene positively, will follow a path of offending and a future life of crime at huge personal cost to them and huge financial cost to society.

Pauline McNeill: I compliment you on your speech. I assure you that I am not picking on you—

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): I certainly hope not.

Pauline McNeill: I reassure you, Presiding Officer, that I would not do that.

Will anyone on the SNP benches—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrat benches—address the point that those who offend should take responsibility for their behaviour? Surely the SNP is not arguing that we can blame society.

Willie Coffey: I am certainly not. Of course we want our youngsters and people in general to take responsibility for their behaviour, but the Government has a duty and obligation to try to address the issues by the kind of intervention measures that are proposed in the strategy.

What is to be done? Should we focus our efforts on the consequences of offending, find new and more ways of punishing the offenders and issue more unacceptable behaviour notices, acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs to youngsters; or should we focus more on the root causes and try to prevent problems from developing in the first place?

In my constituency, there are some youngsters under 16 who have been given large numbers of ABCs—34 in one case and 33 in another—but have not been given ASBOs and are, instead, under social work supervision orders. Members might be forgiven for asking what kind of supervision those orders provide when a youngster can go on to commit 34 crimes.

Having been a local councillor for many years, I can say with confidence that our community wardens—who I do not think have been mentioned so far in the debate—have played a significant part in reducing offending within my community. I do not have any figures to prove it, but I can see the difference and so can local people. In addition to reporting to the police and the local authority when necessary, the wardens focus on engagement, intervention and diversion, which are all benefits.

The Government is taking some bold steps in the fight to tackle youth disorder and crime. It is reassessing the antisocial behaviour strategy; tackling the problem of young people drinking alcohol; investing money in alcohol treatment and support services; deploying the test purchasing schemes that were mentioned earlier; investing money to tackle the drugs issue; and introducing the cashback for communities scheme, under which nearly £7 million that is taken from criminals will go back to our communities. Those are all positive measures that will, I am sure, give all

Scotland's children the chance of a brighter future. I am happy to support the Government's motion.

11:08

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): I welcome the framework paper and the tone of the minister's introduction. The debate has been of high quality from all quarters of the Parliament. Speeches of some importance have been made, and I will draw out one or two of them.

I compliment Hugh O'Donnell on his excellent speech. He drew out the importance of putting the debate in a more holistic context than the justice portfolio alone, and many of the speeches have borne out that point.

Bill Aitken, Sandra White and Nigel Don raised issues of play, adventure and open space. I add to those the significant point, which is relevant to the debate, that between a third and half of children who are starting school have some communication difficulty, which contributes immediately to a disadvantage and a potential for frustration and alienation that can follow them right through school.

Bill Butler talked from his professional experience about the need for positive experiences for young people. His speech did not quite have the same tone as those by some of the other Labour members.

Mike Pringle made an important point about the ability of teachers and other professionals to identify problems in five-year-olds when they begin school; most teachers would echo that. He made another point about the influence of good schools and good headteachers. I know from experience that a good school can have strong, supportive values, which can increase motivation and reduce trouble within the school and, importantly, outside it as well. That is a central point in the debate.

Youth justice is a controversial area of public policy. The key policies inevitably require to be assessed over the medium to long term, the challenges are complex and there is no magic wand to wave, but youth offending has too often been the subject of political gesture and tokenism—the victim of the spin doctors, whose influence we can see every time that a politician calls for tough or robust policies. However, we all know that the challenge lies not in sounding the toughest and chasing the easy headlines, but in tackling crime in our communities with policies that work.

There is a vital law enforcement and process aspect to that: a more visible police presence on the streets and in our communities is hugely important. A few weeks ago, at the cost of a night's sleep, I had the opportunity to go round

Glasgow city centre with the police from Stewart Street police station. It was the night after the European football match in Manchester, so it was a bit quieter than usual, but I was impressed by the way in which Strathclyde Police had been able to concentrate resources on making the streets safe at a time of huge pressure—as the pubs and clubs spilled out—and by its proposals to reduce the number of senior posts and divert resources to community policing, all of which the public will welcome.

From my time as Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I recognise the point that the Conservatives make in their amendment about pressures on the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. However, as deputy minister, I found that the system was being clogged up by unnecessary referrals that achieved nothing. They were largely neglect referrals, which—contrary to the position when the system began—now constitute two thirds of referrals. Eighty per cent of them did not go to a hearing and did not need to go to one; the issue was to ensure that services were in place to tackle those children's neglect or address their need for support. I tried to set in place mechanisms—which, I think, the current Government has continued—to reduce such referrals and allow the SCRA to concentrate on the cases in which its intervention was necessary.

At the end of the day, youth offending will not be solved by law enforcement alone; it will be tackled by dealing with the basic causes of crime and antisocial behaviour, which will