Seòmar agus comataidhean

Under the Promise and the UNCRC commitments that the Government has made—there is, of course, cross-party support for implementing the Promise and for meeting our obligations under the UNCRC—all children who have offended and for whom a custodial disposal is required will, if they are under 18, go to secure accommodation in the first instance.

Secure accommodation is, of course, about providing support and interventions on the broadest range of matters. It is about providing age-appropriate, holistic support, and that should be provided for children who are being prepared to be reintegrated into the community post a secure placement. It is also very important that the proper aftercare arrangements are in situ. In addition, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of children go to secure for quite a short period. For children who are not spending two or three years in secure accommodation as part of a longer sentence, it is really important that the planning for their return to the community commences on admission.

That is a very live issue. Irrespective of where a young person is placed, if they are deprived of their liberty and are destined to be released, we need to set them up for success, not failure, on liberation. That also applies to adult prisoners.

Does the minister have anything to add to that?

Convener, the minister will make an opening statement.

A longer-term trend is the reduction in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds being incarcerated. Notwithstanding that, though, the fact is that, last year, nearly 1,000 under-25s were still imprisoned.

On your specific question, some profile work is being carried out on the under-25 population so that we can plan things as much as possible and try to anticipate future demand and expectation. Some work is also going on with Scotland Excel, which manages the current secure care contract, and that is a change from what was going on when I first became aware from a Government perspective of some of the issues in and around this policy area—

Convener, I will start on your question around children entering the criminal justice system. Given my justice portfolio, I am the lead cabinet secretary for the bill, while the minister is coming from the children and care perspective. The bill that is before the committee is very much about that intersection between how we meet the care needs and uphold the rights of children, and the context of the demands and expectations in and around our justice system.

If we—as a Government and, indeed, a country—are absolutely focused on reducing risk and reoffending among young people, it is imperative that we start by addressing their care needs because, unless their individual needs are addressed, that will be a barrier to addressing and managing risk. If we do not address and manage risk, we will not reduce reoffending. Therefore, it is imperative that the children’s hearings system and, in particular, the courts system have the widest range of disposals available to them.

With regard to barriers—which you specifically mentioned, convener—right now, children below the age of 18 can be placed in secure accommodation if they have been convicted of an offence, but there are existing legal barriers. For the purposes of the bill, and in accordance with the Promise and the UNCRC, the definition of a child is a person who is under the age of 18. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that all children, irrespective of their deeds, should be able to be placed in secure accommodation, notwithstanding that, when those children come of age, they can transfer to a young offenders institute and, depending on the length of their sentence, progress into the adult system.

That is a very important question. A range of colleagues across the Government have a direct interest in throughcare standards. You can well understand that, although they may be primarily a matter for justice ministers, there has to be an interest from housing ministers and other ministers who are focused on community services.

From my perspective, aftercare is one of the key issues. When people are released from custody, there is a period of transition, and any period of transition comes with risks. We know from all the evidence that, for some people, there can be a heightened risk of overdose when they are released from prison. That is why the peer-to-peer work that we are funding—which will be extended into all prisons—in respect of naloxone, for example, is so important.

I should perhaps have mentioned in my general update that we published on Monday our updated pathway from prison to rehab. I am a big advocate of prison to rehab. Rehab is not for everyone, but it should be there as an option for everyone for whom it is considered appropriate. We needed to do further work to ensure that both prison staff and people who are leaving custody are better prepared for what to expect when someone moves from a custodial setting into rehab.

It is about the continuity of connections with a community, even if the person been removed from that community. Planning for someone’s release should not be left to the last minute. I have a great personal interest in this area given that I have been a prison social worker in three establishments and my last post, prior to being elected to the Scottish Parliament, was at the state hospital. As with all planning, it needs to start not just early but at the point at which people start their sentences.

On your point about the evidence around heroin-assisted treatment, I should say that it is used more frequently in other countries—in Switzerland, for example, about 8 per cent of people with problem drug use receive it—and there are different models elsewhere that, arguably, are more cost effective. We have a very high-threshold model, partly because of Home Office regulations.

With regard to the national mission, I have been absolutely crystal clear about residential rehabilitation. It is not for everyone but, under my stewardship, we will invest £100 million in residential rehabilitation and aftercare and in improving pathways to accessing it.

The statistics—the evidence—show that more and more people are being publicly funded to access residential care. For me, it has always been a balanced ticket. We need to be serious about abstinence-based recovery and the option of residential rehabilitation, but we must also be fearless about harm reduction.

Accountability is important—I have never made an appearance in Parliament or in front of a committee without talking about accountability. It is probably the thing that I have spoken about most in my current role. I never walk away from my own accountability, and I am always open to scrutiny. We need accountability at each and every level. Families and service users are right to point out where it is not working, because, through our work on residential rehab and MAT standards, we now have more information than ever before about what is and is not working. As we progress with the national mission, we will sort what needs to be sorted.

I will talk about evaluation and the monitoring of resources, but first and foremost, I want to say, as a point of principle, that I do not hear many, if any, debates and discussions about the cost of treatment for other health conditions. It always seems to me that we have more in-depth discussions—or, if I can put it this way, more concerns are raised—about the cost of treating people with drug and alcohol problems. We have to move beyond that, because part of our problem relates to stigma and the perception that exists sometimes in our society that some people are deserving and others less so.

My starting point in all of this is to ensure the right treatment for the right person at the right time. Different treatments cost different amounts of money. There is a difference between the cost of methadone and the cost of Buvidal; residential rehabilitation is considered expensive by some people, and I think that it is fair to say that heroin-assisted treatment is expensive, too. However, I am determined to get the right treatment for the right person at the right time.

The HAT project will, of course, be evaluated by Glasgow Caledonian University, and that evaluation will put all the facts in one place. Heroin-assisted treatment works for some people. Indeed, there is an international evidence base showing that, for people who have very long histories of using, in this case, heroin and other substances and for whom other treatment has not been successful, this treatment provides an opportunity to stabilise them, engage with them and have a discussion about other supports that they might need. The evidence also shows that such treatment reduces the use of street drugs. If, as I have done, you have ever met parents who have lost a child, you will well understand that the priority is not necessarily the cost of a particular treatment, but whether the treatment will work for a particular individual.

I appreciate the opportunity to join the meeting and I commend the three committees that are involved for joining forces and ensuring that there is joined-up scrutiny of our national mission, which aims to be joined up throughout every tier of Government and across Government.

Members will be aware that our work in response to the task force pre-dates the publication of its vital final recommendations. Work on the implementation of MAT standards and on our national naloxone programme has preceded the task force’s final report. Committee members will also be aware that, in January, we published a full response to the task force’s 20 recommendations and 139 action points. As well as holding a debate in Parliament, I shared our response to the 139 action points with the relevant committees. Since then, we have endeavoured to keep the committees and Parliament fully informed about where we are.

Colleagues, particularly those on the Criminal Justice Committee, have been following the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill since January. That bill is of particular interest to me because it will put an end to prisoners being released on Fridays or before a public holiday, which will improve standards of throughcare. The bill will also change how we use bail.

Members will recall that I gave an update yesterday on the Government’s response to the rapid review of better ways to join up healthcare for people with co-occuring mental health and substance use conditions. As you would expect, I have met the Minister for Transport to work through some of the finer detail of the pilot of concessionary travel. We also continue to be very focused on the implementation of MAT standards. The committee will be well aware of the ministerial direction on that and of the monthly and quarterly reporting that different areas are subject to. I will update Parliament on that again in June.

We continue to make progress on access to residential rehabilitation, which is another pillar of the national mission. The monitoring report that Public Health Scotland published yesterday shows that, in the quarter from October to December last year, we had 228 statutorily funded residential rehab placements, which is the highest-ever number. That means that, over the lifetime of the national mission, we have funded more than 1,100 residential rehabilitation placements.

Our national mission reporting arrangements underlie all of that, and members will be aware of the outcome framework that we are working to. We also publish an annual report each year. The most recent one was published in August last year and there will be a further report later this year.

I have had many conversations with people over the piece in different formats. When I came into this post, I had a lot of introductory meetings but, given the independence of Police Scotland and the Crown Office, it is better to have a lot of the discussion at official to official level. The last thing that I would want to do would be to derail any plans or progress because it was perceived that I was interfering with the operational independence of Police Scotland or the Crown Office.