Chamber and committees

Thanks very much, Phil. I will go to Annika Joy next.

Thank you, Annika. We will move on to Graham, please.

Yes. If we have time, I am more than happy to bring him in.

Agenda item 2 is a decision on taking business in private. Does the committee agree to take in private item 4, which is consideration of today’s evidence?

Members indicated agreement.

That is really interesting. My colleagues will pick up on movement restriction conditions in a bit more detail. We have talked a lot about the bill regarding where a child has to be deprived of their liberty and the point about no child under 18 being committed to a prison or young offenders institution but going to secure and residential care. Do you wish to share any further views? We have already heard about those issues, but I just wanted to give you an opportunity, in case anybody has anything further to say on that before I hand back to the convener.

Do you get feedback from the young people themselves? What is their opinion? How do you test that feedback?

Okay. Does any other witness want to come in on that point?

We have had some great and detailed answers already with regard to smaller, safer, trauma-informed secure places for our young people. Do you think that the bill goes far enough in addressing the recommendations in “The Promise”? Sue Brookes, do you have anything to say about that?

I know that we have covered quite a lot of ground, but I am just going to pitch these questions out there, just in case there are any gaps that need to be filled in.

We have mentioned a few inconsistencies that already exist for 16 and 17-year-olds, depending on whether they go through the children’s hearings system or the criminal justice system. If there are any further inconsistencies that you can tell us about today, that would be really helpful.

Chloe Riddell nodded her head first. I think that Laura Pasternak also wants to come in, and Meg Thomas as well. Brilliant.

Does the bill go far enough? Could it go further?