Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that question. Obviously, that is looking to the future, and, as you rightly said, the bill focuses on under-18s, and that is because that is in line with the UNCRC. However, we absolutely recognise that people under the age of 25 are still developing. In many areas, Scotland has and is still developing a very distinct approach to young people between the ages of 18 and 25. However, at the moment, the considerations for under-18s are very different, particularly in terms of rights. For example, the bill makes provision for young people to remain in secure care until they are 19 if they have been sentenced or remanded before the age of 18. That will be possible only when that approach is not contrary to the best interests of other children.

I will come back to your question. When we look at young adults over the age of 18, we see that the number of people and the offences that would be affected by a different approach massively increases, as you have seen from the numbers of those who would be in secure care who are currently in YOIs.

I know that witnesses have been broadly supportive of the bill being a starting point and looking beyond the age of 18. We are also mindful of the Sheriff Mackie hearings system working group on redesign of the children’s hearings system, which is yet to report. Those wider developments will provide us with an evidence base and valuable learning, and we can certainly look to that in the future. At the moment, young offenders institutions will continue to provide custodial facilities for young people up to the age of 23, but I absolutely take your point that we need to consider this in the future.

Yes.

It is of the utmost importance that we ensure that an inappropriate or unsafe person is not contacted. Under the bill’s provisions, when a child is in police custody, their parent must be informed if the child is under 16, and, as the member rightly stated, if the child is aged 16 or 17, an adult reasonably named by the child must be contacted.

Existing safeguards enable an appropriate constable to delay sending intimation for various reasons, including if the intimation is deemed necessary to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of the child in custody. The local authority will always be notified if a child under 18 is in police custody and can advise a constable that the person to whom the intimation is to be sent—that is, a parent or another adult—should not be contacted. The local authority can also give advice as to who might be an appropriate person to contact. The constable must have contact with that advice. Access of a parent or another adult to the child can also be refused or restricted if the constable believes that that is necessary to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of the child in custody.

The bill therefore takes account of that issue.

I am happy to do so, although I think that the cabinet secretary has just given a very thorough answer.

Because the numbers fluctuate, it is hard to give a definitive overall answer to the question. Currently, however, there is capacity; there are six children in young offender institutions, with 13 beds available in secure care. Obviously, though, those figures fluctuate.

The financial memorandum took care not to underestimate the number of children on average in order to provide headroom as we move forward with these changes. At the moment, a young person should never have to go to a young offenders institution because there is no capacity, and that will be at the forefront of things as we move forward. Moreover, as the cabinet secretary has noted, this issue is being looked at in the work on reimagining secure care.

Again, that was a thorough answer, but I will add a little to it. Prisons are not places for children, as we have discussed this morning, but we acknowledge that there are obviously circumstances in which people need protected from children who have caused harm. There are rigorous risk assessments involved with regard to both the individual child and the children who are already in the secure care centre. We really want to emphasise that.

The secure care centre is the most appropriate form of care, regardless of the gravity of the crime in any given situation, because it will be a nurturing environment that offers the best chance of giving the child or young person the opportunity to rehabilitate and change their path in life. That element of secure care needs to be emphasised, in comparison with the situation for older adults.

We certainly do not want to give that impression. Secure care is, without a doubt, the most intensive and restrictive form of care in Scotland. I have visited one such centre. They are places where a child is, as Fulton MacGregor has stated, deprived of their liberty in a locked environment, while, at the same time, care, support and education are provided. When a child is placed in secure care, public protection and safety considerations are at the forefront. The child is cared for in a locked facility and, over a longer term, they are provided with support to aid their rehabilitation and reintegration.

That goes back to what I said earlier. We need to balance restrictions and the reduction of liberty with a nurturing environment in which 16 and 17-year-olds who might have committed offences have the chance to rehabilitate themselves in an appropriate setting. More work might need to be done to convey that image, but secure care is definitely not a soft-touch approach.

Yes—very briefly.

I make it clear that the bill means that, if children are placed in secure care, they will be treated as looked-after children and, as a result, they will be entitled to local authority support in respect of aftercare and some of the things that have been referred to.

Thank you for having us. I also thank the witnesses who appeared at the committee’s evidence session on 29 March.

Scotland, and all the parties in this Parliament, made a commitment to keeping the Promise. One of the Government’s stated commitments is to end the placement of children in young offenders institutions by 2024. The bill takes forward that part of promise keeping and advances rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Notably, the bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute young people in court where that is deemed necessary. Independent sentencers in Scotland’s courts will still be able to deprive a young person under the age of 18 of their liberty where appropriate. However, the bill makes it clear that, when a young person under 18 needs to be deprived of their liberty, that should be in secure accommodation rather than in a young offenders institution. Therefore, public protection in dealing with any risks of harm to others remains a key consideration in the provisions before the committee.

Members will also recall that the previous Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into secure care and prison places for children and young people. Its report concluded that no young person under the age of 18 should be placed in Polmont when a place in a secure care unit would be more suitable.

Research tells us that children who commit harm are often the very same children who have been harmed by others. They have often faced multiple traumas and adversity. Those issues need attention in the right setting. As you have heard, YOIs are not primarily designed to be therapeutic environments for children. Secure care centres are specifically designed to be trauma informed and age appropriate. They offer a high staff-to-child ratio of skilled professionals to meet the complex needs of young people.

When a child is placed in secure care, public protection and safety are critical. Facilities are locked, and the supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive. Members can be assured that secure care can—and, indeed, already does—care for those children who pose the greatest risk of causing serious harm.

Stakeholders unanimously expressed support for ending the placement of children in YOIs, but they also expressed concerns about resourcing. The Scottish Government is already investing in secure care capacity, and a national resourcing and implementation group is due to start that work in early June. Drawing on these evidence sessions, that work will support preparations for the financial years 2024-25 and beyond.

I hope that these opening remarks have been helpful, and I look forward to answering your questions on the bill.

I will focus on the whole-family approach. We have spoken about the importance of families being involved in rehabilitation and support and we have the Scottish Government commitment to the whole-family approach. How are your services working to ensure that family are involved? In what ways could that be improved or expanded, given further support?

Absolutely. I am glad that you mentioned children, because I wanted to ask what efforts are made to ensure that the views of children are taken into account. Often, children can feel very alone in these situations, and they can have specific thoughts on what can help and what support they or their parents need to get out of a situation.

You touched on poverty and other issues, and their impact on the ability to support people. With regard to the whole-family approach, can you describe how those sorts of issues—poverty, disadvantage, poor physical and mental health—impact on the ability to deal with drug misuse and whether your organisations are taking a joined-up approach to try to make an impact on all those issues at once? I genuinely do not believe that we will fix one thing without fixing the others.