Chamber and committees

Yes, I do. As I said, the committee has heard evidence to that effect, so it is not necessarily about whether I believe it. That is what the key stakeholders are saying.

That is in a similar vein to the questioning from Mr Kerr.

As I said, the Scottish Government is working with the key stakeholders and those involved to ensure that we can implement the bill. We are aware of persisting challenges around staff recruitment and retention in the social care sector, and those issues have obviously been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Scottish Government block grant to local government of £13.5 billion is an increase, despite the most challenging budget settlement since devolution, so the financial resources are there. In terms of support, the Government will work with local authorities on that.

I am satisfied. I am confident in that. Again, Children’s Hearings Scotland has said that it will be possible. We have the working group under way and, if there are any issues or concerns, we will work through them.

The Sentencing Council rightly has a statutory duty periodically to review the sentencing guidelines that it publishes. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs intends to meet the chair of the council to discuss that work and, when doing so, will raise the general question of how the council plans to keep its guidelines under review, including those on the sentencing of young people.

Yes, they were considered.

It is not for a minister to comment on a live case.

Appropriate safeguards remain in that any measure must be absolutely necessary, proportionate and in the child’s best interests and, in limited circumstances, in order to protect the public from serious harm. You say that that is a subjective test, but harm was always contained in the definition, because psychological injury or psychological harm was always included in the current criteria of injury.

I am sorry—I can see that you want to come back in.

It is, and it always has been, a matter for the panel members to decide what impact the child’s behaviour has on themselves or others and whether the criteria are met.

I will bring in Debbie Nolan, as I know that she would like to give more information.

No problem. Thank you, convener, and good morning.

I start by recording my appreciation of the committee’s diligent work on the bill and that of all witnesses, those who have appeared before the committee and those who responded to the committee’s call for views. Your efforts have made a huge contribution to the important discourse on how we can improve Scotland’s approach to the children and young people who come into contact with our care and justice settings.

Scotland and all the parties in this Parliament committed to keeping the Promise by 2030. The Government’s implementation plan for the Promise was published just over a year ago and received cross-party support. The bill takes forward various key aspects of the Promise. It advances rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and brings consistency across various parts of legislation to the definition of a child as a person under 18. That approach builds on our getting it right for every child principles and our youth justice vision.

You will be aware from evidence to the committee that there are inconsistencies in how Scotland treats particular 16 and 17-year-olds. By raising the maximum age of referral to the reporter, the bill takes action, addressing many such discrepancies in how 16 and 17-year-olds experience the children’s hearings and criminal justice systems and how those two systems interplay. It provides all children with the opportunity to access the hearings system in cases where they may need the care and protection of that system or in cases where they are in conflict with the law. Importantly, the bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute children and young people in court where deemed necessary.

The bill makes provisions to improve the safeguards available to all children in the criminal justice system. Scotland’s courts will still be able to deprive a child of their liberty but, in line with the Promise, the bill makes it clear that detention should normally be in secure accommodation rather than a young offenders institution, at least until that deprivation needs to end or the child turns 18.

I know that members of the committee have visited secure centres across Scotland, as well as HM YOI Polmont. You will have seen therefore that YOIs are not designed primarily as bespoke environments for children. Secure care centres are established to be trauma-informed and age-appropriate settings. They offer a high staff to child ratio of skilled professionals with the specific qualifications required to meet the complex care and support needs of young people. Secure care can and, indeed, already does care for those children who pose the greatest risk of serious harm. The supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive, and you will have seen from your visits that, when a child is placed there, public protection and safety are critical elements. Facilities are locked.

I know that stakeholders unanimously expressed support for ending the placement of children in YOIs. However, concerns have also been raised about capacity and resourcing. The Scottish Government is not complacent in that area, which is why the reimagining secure care project, which the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice is undertaking on behalf of the Government, is running in tandem with the bill. Moreover, a national implementation group for the bill is due to start its work in early June.

Turning to the matter of cross-border placements, none of us want children and young people to be removed from their communities and placed far away. However, those arrangements need to be able to happen in some exceptional circumstances. I am aware that the committee has heard some powerful evidence of such situations, but there must be rigour in how such placements are planned for and implemented in order that they are not detrimental to children’s rights. The bill will provide powers to ensure that rigour. For temporary placements, responsibility rightly remains with the placing authority, which knows the child and plans their care.

The bill also gives further and more flexible powers to make providers more accountable for those types of cross-border placements.?That enables the introduction of further requirements on residential providers, alongside extra powers for the Care Inspectorate in relation to placement providers.

Stakeholders have expressed support for the bill but have also raised considerations about resourcing more broadly. We are acutely aware of the need to work with partners to prepare for the bill and ensure that systems, settings, policy and practice are ready for it. That is why the multi-agency implementation group that is planned for June is crucial. That inception meeting of key partners will help us to explore resource and capacity requirements in more depth while co-designing governance and oversight measures.

I hope that those opening remarks are helpful. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.