Chamber and committees

I encourage the others to comment on what the cabinet secretary said about the reasons for the move. She talked about issues around behaviour post-Covid and the challenge of the poverty-related attainment gap. Basically, she said, “We have enough on our plate just now and we need to consider whether we should move forward when all those other things are going on.” Is there any merit in that argument, Dr Brown?

Dr Marsha Scott, from Scottish Women’s Aid, made the important point that an awful lot of the young women who are in secure units are there on welfare grounds. There is a gender issue here, and the vulnerability is even more significant in those cases.

I take the assurances that you have given us this morning, and we will wait to hear more about that at a later stage. Thank you.

Victim Support Scotland made it quite clear last week that it does not think that its discussions with you have been particularly fruitful or that its arguments have gained much traction so far. I hope that what the minister has just said is reflected going forward, so that Victim Support Scotland’s concerns are addressed at the heart of the bill, because that is a fundamental concern.

I think that the whole committee was pretty shaken by the really strong evidence that was provided last week. Witnesses did not quite say, “Stop the bill,” but they were not far away from it. That is a big concern for us, which is why we are being particularly difficult with you this morning. We just do not think that you have really got a grasp of the severity of the situation. This is a really important bill and we want to deliver on the Promise, but I have to say that, so far, we have not been convinced by what you have told us and there is an awful lot of work to be done.

Movement restriction conditions encapsulate all the problems that we have covered this morning. From finances to staffing capacity and the rights of victims, it is all wrapped up in that one area. One issue is how victims get information about movement restriction conditions to allow them to plan for their own safety. How can we make sure that that information is shared with victims?

Yes.

I am not asking you to go into huge detail; I am just asking you to deal with the point that my colleagues have raised, which is that the rights of victims in the system must be fully respected in the same way as the rights of those who are at the heart of the children’s hearings system. You have not really given us an indication that you are going to shift, and I think that you need to shift.

The single point of contact is not—

Before you do that, I just want to say that, although there was broad agreement about the need for a single point of contact, if that single point of contact cannot share the information that is necessary, it is pointless. The principle of sharing information and respecting the victim’s rights needs to be at the heart of this, or all the apparatus means nothing. I do not know whether Shona Spence can tell us more, but that is the fundamental point.

Movement restriction conditions are not enforceable, are they? Why can we not make them enforceable?

COSLA told the committee that the costs of MRCs are unknown because of their bespoke nature, which speaks to the point about the finances for the bill. Social Work Scotland said that the intensive support that is needed is not available in some parts of the country and anticipated that, over time, panels will lean towards not setting MRCs due to a lack of confidence that the support will be there.

We cannot estimate how much this will cost. Even if the money is available, the capacity does not seem to be there, according to Social Work Scotland. Again, that speaks to the issue of staffing.

What will we do about both of those areas to give us a better handle on the issue? Otherwise, MRCs will just not be used in large parts of the country. How will we address that?

Kate Wallace from Victim Support Scotland, whom we have just been talking about, told us last week that

“a number of children who are in secure accommodation on welfare grounds have expressed real concern about the proposed change for 16 and 17-year-olds to go into secure accommodation as opposed to a young offenders institution. Their concerns are absolutely about their own safety, and we share those concerns.”

She went on to say that that

“may replicate some of the problems that we have had in young offenders institutions if the situation is not managed well.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 25 October 2023; c 16.]

What can you tell us to convince us that the situation will be well managed?