Seòmar agus comataidhean

When we visited a secure unit, we saw that good relationships had been built with local health providers as a result of the good efforts of staff. However, there were sometimes issues when individuals came from health boards outside the area. Continuity of care was an issue. The connections, the good service and the integration were mainly down to the good will of staff, and there is no guarantee that that will always be the case. Will you consider the possibility of the NHS providing direct support to ensure that things are more co-ordinated and seamless in the future?

Quite a lot of young people from outside Scotland are placed in the secure units, and there have been reports that some authorities are paying higher rates than the funding that is provided through the Scottish system. Are we dependent on those places to keep the secure units adequately funded? Are you comfortable with those differential rates?

Can I just go back—

When we went to Polmont, we saw that the national health service was integrated with the young offenders institution and was providing care directly. It seemed that people were able to get everything that they needed, when they needed it, because of that dedicated specialist support. We did not get independent verification that the service was provided to the standard that we would like it to be, but, nevertheless, the service was provided directly. That is not the case with secure units. Have you any plans to change that?

That issue was certainly raised, so you are more up to date than you think.

Secure care has been considered to be the last resort, but some people expressed the view that, in some cases, we go round the houses on every other option and eventually end up choosing secure care when secure care should have been the first option. Are we getting the balance right in relation to secure care being the option of last resort? Does that make sense?

We have covered some of my points in discussing whether the secure units are fit for purpose for the new cohort, but I want to explore them a little bit more.

We have done a number of visits and have found it striking that the understanding between Polmont and the secure units is pretty limited; they do not exchange much with each other. A bit of learning and understanding about what each of them provides and, therefore, how the transition can be managed is needed. That fits in with what we have talked about. It is not that new for some units that deal with young people who are in this cohort. Nevertheless, there needs to be an understanding.

One issue that has come out is health services. When we went to Polmont, we saw that the national health service is part of it; it is almost a statutory service inside it. People there therefore have the best when they need it, immediately, and without long waits to get mental health support, for instance. However, that is not the case in the secure units. They are able to get such services where good personal relationships have been built up with local health boards, but it is not guaranteed. Do we need to address that in the bill or otherwise? Should it cover not only the health service but other areas?

People have expressed to me the view that going through all the second-best options, as they consider them to be, sometimes does more damage when a period in secure care would be of benefit and would allow the child to transition back. Are we taking an extreme position by trying to follow what you have set out, or are you pretty sure about what you have said?

That helps a lot.

Do you think that the tools that are available to the children’s hearings system should be broadened? There has been talk about perhaps giving it greater powers on restorative justice and so on. How would that happen? What more should be given? I am quite happy for others to come in if they have a view, but I would like to hear from Alison Gough first.