Seòmar agus comataidhean

No problem. Thank you, convener, and good morning.

I start by recording my appreciation of the committee’s diligent work on the bill and that of all witnesses, those who have appeared before the committee and those who responded to the committee’s call for views. Your efforts have made a huge contribution to the important discourse on how we can improve Scotland’s approach to the children and young people who come into contact with our care and justice settings.

Scotland and all the parties in this Parliament committed to keeping the Promise by 2030. The Government’s implementation plan for the Promise was published just over a year ago and received cross-party support. The bill takes forward various key aspects of the Promise. It advances rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and brings consistency across various parts of legislation to the definition of a child as a person under 18. That approach builds on our getting it right for every child principles and our youth justice vision.

You will be aware from evidence to the committee that there are inconsistencies in how Scotland treats particular 16 and 17-year-olds. By raising the maximum age of referral to the reporter, the bill takes action, addressing many such discrepancies in how 16 and 17-year-olds experience the children’s hearings and criminal justice systems and how those two systems interplay. It provides all children with the opportunity to access the hearings system in cases where they may need the care and protection of that system or in cases where they are in conflict with the law. Importantly, the bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute children and young people in court where deemed necessary.

The bill makes provisions to improve the safeguards available to all children in the criminal justice system. Scotland’s courts will still be able to deprive a child of their liberty but, in line with the Promise, the bill makes it clear that detention should normally be in secure accommodation rather than a young offenders institution, at least until that deprivation needs to end or the child turns 18.

I know that members of the committee have visited secure centres across Scotland, as well as HM YOI Polmont. You will have seen therefore that YOIs are not designed primarily as bespoke environments for children. Secure care centres are established to be trauma-informed and age-appropriate settings. They offer a high staff to child ratio of skilled professionals with the specific qualifications required to meet the complex care and support needs of young people. Secure care can and, indeed, already does care for those children who pose the greatest risk of serious harm. The supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive, and you will have seen from your visits that, when a child is placed there, public protection and safety are critical elements. Facilities are locked.

I know that stakeholders unanimously expressed support for ending the placement of children in YOIs. However, concerns have also been raised about capacity and resourcing. The Scottish Government is not complacent in that area, which is why the reimagining secure care project, which the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice is undertaking on behalf of the Government, is running in tandem with the bill. Moreover, a national implementation group for the bill is due to start its work in early June.

Turning to the matter of cross-border placements, none of us want children and young people to be removed from their communities and placed far away. However, those arrangements need to be able to happen in some exceptional circumstances. I am aware that the committee has heard some powerful evidence of such situations, but there must be rigour in how such placements are planned for and implemented in order that they are not detrimental to children’s rights. The bill will provide powers to ensure that rigour. For temporary placements, responsibility rightly remains with the placing authority, which knows the child and plans their care.

The bill also gives further and more flexible powers to make providers more accountable for those types of cross-border placements.?That enables the introduction of further requirements on residential providers, alongside extra powers for the Care Inspectorate in relation to placement providers.

Stakeholders have expressed support for the bill but have also raised considerations about resourcing more broadly. We are acutely aware of the need to work with partners to prepare for the bill and ensure that systems, settings, policy and practice are ready for it. That is why the multi-agency implementation group that is planned for June is crucial. That inception meeting of key partners will help us to explore resource and capacity requirements in more depth while co-designing governance and oversight measures.

I hope that those opening remarks are helpful. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

I accept what it says; witnesses are more than welcome to give their opinion. I have already said that the numbers fluctuate, so I do not think that there are inaccuracies, but the costs need to be updated.

That is fine. Thank you, convener. I am happy to get to your question.

I know that that issue was raised during the evidence sessions and in written evidence. As I said, following careful consideration of the responses to the consultation, the Scottish Government is content that additional legislative provision in relation to restraint is not necessary to ensure the safety of the child and others. That is because an overly prescriptive approach to minimising restraint practices could have adverse consequences in relation to escalation and criminalisation. Instead, ministers consider that a blended framework of regulation, guidance, practice support and precise reporting is likely to serve Scotland’s children best.

Work is on-going with partners to reduce and, where possible, eliminate the use of restraint with children in care. That includes working with the Scottish physical restraint action group to explore definitions of restraint along with the availability of data, training and support.

There are no inaccuracies. It needs to be—

Yes—it needs to be updated.

Sorry?

I think that that would make sense, if it is decided that it would be better to have a regulated service. At the moment, as you have mentioned, information on the use of handcuffs on secure transport is organised by local authorities and is not held centrally, so there are issues around that. The short answer to your question is yes—that could be considered.

No—I do not accept that. You asked me whether I accepted what COSLA said, and I said that I do. Witnesses are free to say what—

It is factual in its context, yes, but as I said—

We are listening to views and—as I have made clear throughout the entire committee meeting—we are happy to look at the matter as we go forward. There are no plans for what you describe at the moment, but that can be addressed if the requirement is there.