Chamber and committees

We have covered some of my points in discussing whether the secure units are fit for purpose for the new cohort, but I want to explore them a little bit more.

We have done a number of visits and have found it striking that the understanding between Polmont and the secure units is pretty limited; they do not exchange much with each other. A bit of learning and understanding about what each of them provides and, therefore, how the transition can be managed is needed. That fits in with what we have talked about. It is not that new for some units that deal with young people who are in this cohort. Nevertheless, there needs to be an understanding.

One issue that has come out is health services. When we went to Polmont, we saw that the national health service is part of it; it is almost a statutory service inside it. People there therefore have the best when they need it, immediately, and without long waits to get mental health support, for instance. However, that is not the case in the secure units. They are able to get such services where good personal relationships have been built up with local health boards, but it is not guaranteed. Do we need to address that in the bill or otherwise? Should it cover not only the health service but other areas?

People have expressed to me the view that going through all the second-best options, as they consider them to be, sometimes does more damage when a period in secure care would be of benefit and would allow the child to transition back. Are we taking an extreme position by trying to follow what you have set out, or are you pretty sure about what you have said?

That helps a lot.

Do you think that the tools that are available to the children’s hearings system should be broadened? There has been talk about perhaps giving it greater powers on restorative justice and so on. How would that happen? What more should be given? I am quite happy for others to come in if they have a view, but I would like to hear from Alison Gough first.

Could I just ask one follow-up question? That all sounds eminently sensible so what is the hard bit? What will be the most challenging aspect of what you have described?

Would anybody else like to come in?

I asked that question because, through the bill, we are putting more faith and trust in the children’s hearings system. You have identified that your experience of the system is variable. Do you have concerns that the children’s hearings system will not be able to live up to our expectations? If so, what do we need to do with the system for it to be able to do so?

Perhaps Sheriff Mackie would like to explain a bit more about his work on the working group. You perhaps heard some quite strong words in our earlier evidence session about attitudes within the justice system and among some people in the children’s hearings system. How would your reforms address those issues? Could you tell us a bit more about that?

If those things do not arrive, could we see longer waiting times?

This is a question for Alison Gough. You have said some quite strong things about the children’s hearings system and about attitudes in the justice system. Could you elaborate on that and say how widespread you think those issues are?