Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not mean to sound dispassionate in any way, but the important issue here relates to what the evidence tells us about what will work to rehabilitate people who have come into conflict with the law and to improve community safety. I am of the view that members of the judiciary and members of the public are well able to engage in that debate based on the facts.

Particularly when we are dealing with sensitive and emotive issues—and there is, of course, great public interest in this issue—it is important that we have the courage to talk about what the evidence tells us and what will work in rehabilitating young people or other offenders and how that will improve community safety. It is important that the bill sits in the context of a wider refocusing of justice policy.

The bill as it stands places a duty on the principal reporter. Just now, the reporter has some discretionary powers, but the bill will put a duty on him or her. Where the reporter has sufficient information and contact details for the victim—I appreciate that that is not always the case—they can contact that person and advise them of their right to receive information, and ask whether they wish to do so. The type of information that the victim will be entitled to receive if they so wish is notification that a hearing is taking place and of the outcome of the hearing.

I will just check with my officials, and the lawyer, that I have articulated accurately, for Mr Findlay’s interest, how the bill currently stands.

Sorry?

I would not rule that out, but Scotland Excel has looked at the numbers of children who have been in YOIs and in secure care over the years, and, if you discount cross-border transfers, we have capacity.

By and large, the norm is 18. However—and this applies to all children in secure accommodation, not just those who have committed the gravest of offences—what you have referred to would be an option open to the people most closely involved in the child’s care and supervision, if it were considered to be in the child’s best interests and if it did not conflict with the interests of other children.

The use of police custody is a really important factor. It is important to state that the bill does not change the definition of a place of safety. Other than by exception, where it is necessary and proportionate and to avoid further harm, a police station would not be considered a place of safety.

The bill extends to children under the age of 18 the provisions that currently exist for under-16s in relation to the safeguards around what should happen, should they be in a police station, bearing in mind that a police station can be a very frightening and distressing environment, particularly for a child. The constable or desk sergeant in charge has particular procedures to follow in relation to notifying a parent or another appropriate, suitable adult and, crucially, liaising with the local authority, because the local authority might have information that is germane to the care and treatment of a child under the age of 18.

Does the minister want to add anything to that?

That might be a very important factor in considering whether a young person should remain in secure care after their 18th birthday, up to their 19th birthday. There are broader provisions in other legislation that address the question of what is the most suitable disposal for somebody with a learning disability. There are obviously issues for any person with a learning disability who is engaging with the court system when there are issues of capacity.

There is a broader issue but, in relation to secure care, a learning disability might be a factor in enabling a young person to stay past their 18th birthday, up to their 19th birthday. There would be an individualised assessment of the needs of that child and the other children in the establishment.

I understand why Mr Findlay asks that question. That is the raison d’être of the current provision, which is being extended to under-18s. The local authority requires to be notified, because it might well have information about that young person’s background and so could highlight to the police issues of vulnerability. I would certainly be happy to engage on that issue in relation to safeguarding. It should be considered in the context of the evolving capacity and rights of young people as they get older.

The minister might also have some thoughts on that.

You are quite correct. The committee will be aware of the work on the development of risk assessment tools—for example, by the Risk Management Authority. That is based on evidence, and it is correct that the risk management tools for children have to be distinct from those for adults.

The advantage of placing all children in secure care when an offence has been committed is the flexibility there to really focus on those tailor-made, individual assessments of need and risk. The committee will be aware that the physical environment in secure accommodation is smaller, and it involves more intense support and a more intensive way of addressing the risks and needs of children who are in conflict with the law. That is an area in which providers of secure accommodation are already experts—they have all being doing that for a number of years with children who have committed a variety of offences. I hope that that helps to answer the question.

I suppose that I was giving you the backdrop and accurate information about the current situation. Today, there are 12 vacancies in secure care accommodation and, in Polmont, there are six children under 18—-