Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is really helpful to have that on the record.

Like others, I broadly welcome the letter, but, as Rona Mackay has said, the measures that are being taken could go a bit further. After the announcement of the children in care and justice bill in the programme for government yesterday, I think that the trial period is probably to set us up for a time when no one under the age of 18 will be in a custodial setting. If some young people are going into secure care through the criminal justice system, there will be implications for Scottish Government funding. As Jamie Greene rightly said, the letter states that only one young person in secure care has been sentenced.

I have raised the cross-border issue with the committee before. I am aware of that from my time as a social worker; it is not new. I have concerns about it. When I was a social worker, a trip to the north of England—and to the north of Scotland, which is a similar distance—was not an uncommon occurrence. I also visited secure care centres, where young people were making relationships with people from various parts of England.

Placements are a two-way thing. It will be particularly difficult to stop that when both partners are relying on them. I am not saying that they just will be stopped—the letter mentions plans

“to reduce the number of cross-border placements”.

I assume that that refers to Scottish kids going across the border.

In either scenario, the Scottish Government will have to speak to the relevant stakeholders in England and Wales. If there is no space for young people in England, they will have to continue using space here and no Government is going to turn a young person away. We need to increase capacity here to meet the policy objectives for how we treat our young people who are sentenced.

There is a big discussion to be had here. Cross-border placements are not new: they go back decades. I might be wrong—any stakeholder who is watching should feel free to pull me up on this—but I think that that approach came from decades-old assumption that, when kids needed secure care, it was better to get them far away from the community where they came from. The thinking around that has changed, but the historical placement of kids has not, if that makes sense. I think that the idea came in the 1970s, when people thought that a kid who needed some time away should be taken a couple of hundred miles away. Cross-border placements will be a real issue to deal with.

I take this opportunity to mention that I have had some contact on this matter from lawyers, some of whom are constituents. As Katy Clark has just said, there are concerns, from their point of view, about the funding of legal aid and, therefore, the ability of defence lawyers to operate. Given that we are dealing with a backlog, the situation is clearly not a good one. This is a similar point to that made by Rona Mackay and Jamie Greene, but it feels to me as if the Government’s response has been quite robust.

We are not, as others have said, mediators. I think that the suggestion from the clerks—that we take the matter into the budget scrutiny period that we are now entering—is the right one. We can examine it then, and we can perhaps ask stakeholders and the Government more about it to see whether the impasse that seems to exist can be navigated around. The Government will not want a situation in which the backlog cannot be cleared, because defence lawyers cannot do their work. Indeed, that will be in no one’s interest.

As I have said, I think that the suggestion that has been made is the right one, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to comment. I have had several pieces of correspondence on this matter; I imagine that some correspondence has gone to all committee members, but two or three constituents have contacted me, too. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I would welcome that visit, and I welcome the letter.

I wonder whether we might be able to tie this into the session that you mentioned earlier, on mental health in policing. The topic might be brought to us by officers; however, as you rightly said, it is an area of growing concern, so more officers are probably experiencing it at some level, perhaps when initial contact is made. I wonder about the emotional impact of the nature of some of the alleged offences, and whether we could get information about that in a sensitive manner in the upcoming session.

I do not have any questions as such, but I want to put on record the fact that I welcome the instrument, as I am sure that we all do. I think that it is a good step forward. We should be doing all that we can to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for custody for women. There will be some circumstances in which that is not possible, but getting as close to elimination as we can get and putting in place provisions to support women who end up in custody can only be welcome.

You or someone else on the panel will perhaps correct me, but I think that Denmark is considering removing its reflection period.

On the reflection period—I hope that I am not standing on any colleagues’ toes here, as my question goes into the age issue—some stakeholders and panellists suggested that there might not be as big a debate about the reflection period for those over the age of 18 but that, if we are lowering the age to between 16 and 18, there should be a reflection period for those under 18 from whatever age they are until they turn 18. That was suggested by one specific panel, but you will have to forgive me, as I cannot remember which one. Do you have any thoughts about having a reflection period for the 16 to 18-year-old age group that is different from that for the rest of the population?

Thank you both for those responses. It goes without saying that members ask questions that do not necessarily reflect their views as individuals. It is important that we put the concerns that we have heard to the Government.

I will move on to questions about the requirement to be ordinarily resident in Scotland—unless someone else wants to come in on the three-month reflection period.

The bill provides that only people who were born in Scotland or who are ordinarily resident in Scotland may apply for a GRC. We heard concerns that that might mean that people from the rest of the UK travel to Scotland to apply for a GRC. Are those concerns founded? Is there international evidence to back up or dismiss them? Given the border situation in Ireland, I hoped that the evidence that we heard last week might clear that up. However, when Senator Doherty pointed out the current differences, I realised that that was not the best example. Does the Government have other examples?

I think that it does. However, you have talked about the heated nature of the debate, but it came as a surprise to me—although maybe it did not to other members—that there is a lot of consensus about the matter, regardless of what side of the debate people are on. In essence, it is felt that there is no need for the three-month period.

Although I appreciate that response, I will go back to the last part of my first question. Is the Government open to reviewing the provision in the later stages of the bill, perhaps at stage 2?

Thank you for that clarity.

In relation to the same provision, you will be aware that concerns have been raised about the language that is used in the bill—the term “acquired gender”. We have heard robust concerns being expressed about that. Do you have any thoughts on those concerns or on the use of language? To be fair, we also heard from witnesses—in particular, academics—a couple of times that they are concerned about the use of language, but that we have to call it something. The committee has taken that on board. What are your thoughts?