Seòmar agus comataidhean

The submission from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland says that the proposals

“appear not to address issues such as training for staff”.

That is now a critical consideration for the committee, given that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s response cites that the proposals lack detail on training. The response from the panel so far has been that that is an operational matter for Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board.

There has been discussion about vague ideas about starting to recruit. I understand that the opening is to be in January next year, which seems quite close. How can the committee have any confidence that the concerns that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland raised are being addressed?

Given that it is quite a new model, is it important to have more direct oversight of the detailed training programme, the detailed operational mobilisation for the facility, and information on where it currently stands on vacancies, recruitment and the appropriate training programmes for each person recruited, so that we can have more confidence that the concerns that were raised by pretty serious stakeholders are addressed?

If the policy is influencing behaviour and causing substitution in any way, can you suggest any mitigations that could assist in reducing the harms that might be present? I know that the interdependency that you described is complex, but are there any specific measures that you might consider?

Could any adjustments be made to the scheme that would allow for the public sector to capture a share of that? Is it possible?

I appreciate your time.

If I may be clear on the fundamental concerns, the national youth justice advisory group said:

“NYJAG don’t believe the measures should be authorised as they stand as children under eighteen have different levels of need and maturity and require appropriate age and developmental stage supports.”

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said:

“We would recommend that alternative proposals be developed, using as a starting point the Secure Care Standards and Pathways”.

The centre for mental health and capacity law at Edinburgh Napier University said:

“There should therefore be a detailed human rights impact assessment undertaken in addition to this limited consultation.”

Is the minister’s position that the committee should disregard what those stakeholders have said?

Obviously, 100 per cent of the additional revenue that is generated by minimum unit pricing flows to the private sector, not the public sector. Do you have a view of how much revenue has been raised as a result of the policy?

Having listened to the statements and evidence from the minister and the officials, I do not have enough confidence to support the recommendation that the Parliament approve the instrument, given the human rights concerns outlined in submissions to the committee.

I have noted the reassurances received but, until we have documentary confirmation of those, it is hard to come to a firm and confident conclusion that the stakeholders who are critical are content. Therefore, I propose that the statutory instrument be deferred with a view to incorporating safeguards that stakeholders feel are absent and to allow for a detailed human rights impact assessment and a children’s rights impact assessment to be undertaken.

I will outline the key takeaways for me. First, the consultation was too short—it spanned just two weeks, and it received nine responses. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland was not included in the initial consultation distribution, so contributed late.

There are also concerns about whether children and young people in facilities such as the one that is proposed can consent to measures that are authorised under the 2005 regulations, including invasive searches and swabbing. Adding a children’s facility to the list under the regulations that are used in adult services is, on the face of it, at odds with the Scottish Government’s commitment regarding incorporation into Scots law of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although we have noted the reassurances received from the minister, firmer protocols are needed to ensure that we have confidence in that behaviour.

No children’s rights impact assessment has been undertaken by the Scottish Government, which says that it is not necessary, as similar regulations are in place in similar facilities. However, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland says that that itself is of concern and notes:

“We are concerned that these proposals appear to have reached this stage without the creation of a Children’s Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA). It is likely that a CRIA would have brought to light, at an early stage, the concerns we outline”.

On that basis, it is not appropriate to recommend approval at this stage.

That is helpful.

I visited the H17 facility in Copenhagen on 12 October. A key point that was raised in discussion with the people there was the strength of the co-location of services, but they also had some concerns about the direct co-location of the enhanced drug treatment service with the overdose prevention centre. Is that a potential issue for concern?

It is easy to mix us up—I think it is the glasses. [Laughter.]

I went along to the Calton community council consultation event on 28 September. It is fair to say that it was fairly confrontational. What lessons have been learned from that exercise?