Seòmar agus comataidhean

Pinar Aksu and María José Pavez covered my next and final question, which is to ask what the panel thinks the Scottish Government and local authorities could do more of, within their powers. Could the Scottish Government and local authorities do more to mitigate the bill and the situation generally?

I do not disagree with a lot of what has been said, but at one of the round-table evidence sessions it came out that these situations are often very complex and pressures at work or work-related issues might be having an impact on the person. I might be wrong on this, but from what is in front of us, I am surprised that Police Scotland is not open to making some sort of analysis of that.

I know that we would need to be careful about how that analysis was carried out, but maybe work pressures are more of a leading factor. Jamie Greene was talking about various situations that police officers can find themselves in—especially in these times, when they have additional pressures. That could be used to try to find out if there is any pattern, perhaps of officers who attended specific types of incidents or have been involved in specific types of investigations against them. It might not always lead to the tragic situation described today, but might have other impacts on mental and emotional health.

I would like to see that analysis. The committee is taking a lot on and talking about what more the committee can do, but I think that Police Scotland has a bit of work to do here. I know that the committee asked Police Scotland to do that before and the response to that is under paragraph 10 in our papers. I do not think that it said yea or nay to that; it certainly did not say that it was going to do it. There is a bit of work to be done by the police to try to analyse those situations.

Perhaps they are doing that. They might write to the committee to say that they are in the process of doing it or have done it and what they have found.

That is the only way that we can find out what impact the work pressures are having on people’s health because such situations, as everybody round the table knows, are very complicated. Numerous factors are likely to be involved in a person’s wellbeing. The question is what role the job is having and whether a pattern is emerging over case after case of people who are experiencing poor mental or emotional health.

I second that.

Kaukab Stewart was chosen as convener.

Would Graham O’Neill or Phil Arnold like to add anything? As the convener said in her line of questioning, you do not have to do so.

Convener, congratulations and welcome to the role.

Good morning, panel. What a hard-hitting first 30 minutes it has been—and quite rightly so. I thank all the panel members for coming here. We know that it is not easy to stand up for asylum seekers in the manner that you have. That has to be commended.

Following on from the convener’s questions and your opening statements, I want to ask about rights and entitlements. I appreciate that some of you have already touched on bits of this. For the record, what are people’s rights and entitlements in seeking asylum? How do those rights and entitlements change when people are either refused asylum or granted asylum?

I am happy to start with Annika Joy, as she did not get in last time.

I am happy with that. I know that Phil Arnold wanted to come in, but maybe we could bring him in for the next answer.

Thanks very much for that, Annika. Again, that was a very hard-hitting contribution.

That was a really good description of what happens when asylum is refused. Can any of the other panel members describe how rights and entitlements change when asylum is granted? I see Andy Sirel nodding—I will bring him in.

To bring my questions together for the other panel members, my second question is: what impact do you think the Illegal Migration Bill might have on any of those rights when asylum is granted?

That sounds very positive.

My final question is for the minister. Rona Mackay touched on this. Does a wee bit of work need to be done with the public on what secure care is? You, your officials, committee members and people who work in the sector know what it is, but others might have the perception that secure care represents a softer-touch approach. Anyone who has been in secure care or has dealt with it will know that the young person still very much loses their liberty, so it is not a soft-touch approach for them. We heard that again today in our private session. Secure care is definitely a lot more therapeutic and beneficial, and it seems to be the best approach for young people, but is there work to be done in communicating that to the public so that secure care is not seen as soft justice or whatever we want to call it?

Thanks to you both.

I take this opportunity to welcome the minister and the cabinet secretary to their new positions, and I thank the minister for her statement at the start of the meeting.

I will follow on from the convener’s questions. I am very supportive of the bill, as are the stakeholders, as you will be aware. I might be jumping ahead a bit, because it makes provisions for people up to the age of 18, but I am keen to hear where the Government stands on 18 being a starting point. A lot of the evidence that the committee has heard—including the evidence that we heard privately from two individuals today, which was really powerful—is that 18 is still very young, as are 21 and 25. Do you have any thoughts on where the Government might see this going? I will come to the minister first.