 I welcome to the 11th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have apologies this morning from Collette Stevenson, and I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting as her substitute. We have also received apologies from Jamie Greene. Our first item of business this morning is to agree to take agenda item 4 on evidence heard today in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Our next item of business is consideration of evidence on the Children, Care and Justice Scotland Bill. I welcome to the meeting Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Natalie Dawn, Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, Katrina Dalrymple, Deputy Director of Community Justice, Tom McNamara, Head of Youth Justice and Children's Hearings and Barry McCaffrey, Lawyer with the Scottish Government. It is a warm welcome to you all. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome both ministers to their new roles and to thank the former Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown, for his engagement with the committee over recent years. I refer members to papers 1 and 2, and I intend to allow up to around about 90 minutes for this session. On that note, I would like to invite the cabinet secretary and or minister to make some brief opening remarks. The minister will make an opening statement. I thank the committee for having us here today. I should also thank the witnesses who appeared at your 29 March evidence session. Scotland and all the parties in this Parliament made a commitment to keeping the promise. One of the Government's stated commitments is to end the placement of children and young offenders institutions by 2024. The bill takes forward this part of promise keeping, and it also advances rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Notably, this bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators Fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute young people in court where that is deemed necessary. Independent sentences in Scotland's courts will still be able to deprive a young person under the age of 18 of their liberty where appropriate. However, the bill makes it clear that where a young person under 18 needs to be deprived of their liberty, that should be in secure accommodation rather than in a YOI. Public protection and dealing with any risks of harm to others will remain key considerations in the provisions that you have before you. Members will also recall that the previous Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into secure care and prison places for children and young people. Their report concluded that no young person under the age of 18 should be placed in polemont when a place in a secure care unit would be more suitable. Research tells us that children who commit harm are often the very same children that have already been harmed by others. They have often faced multiple trauma and adversity. Those issues need attention in the right setting. As you have heard, YOIs are not primarily designed to be therapeutic environments for children. Secure care centres are specifically designed to be trauma-informed and age-appropriate. They offer a high staff to child ratio of skilled professionals to meet the complex needs of young people. When a child is placed in secure care, public protection and safety are critical. Facilities are locked, the supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive. Members can be assured that secure care can and indeed already does care for those children who pose the greatest risk of serious harm. I know that stakeholders unanimously express support for ending the placement of children in YOIs but also express concerns about resourcing. The Scottish Government is already investing in secure care capacity and a national resourcing and implementation group is due to start this work in early June. Drawing on the evidence sessions, that work will support preparations for financial years 24 to 25 and the years beyond. I hope that those opening remarks have been helpful and I look forward to answering your questions on the bill. Thank you very much indeed minister. If I may, as usual, I'll start off questions and then I'll bring in members. In your opening remarks, minister, you mentioned some of the witnesses that we've already heard from and some of the very helpful evidence that we have heard. I would like to open up questions looking at the issue around age. Broadly, one of the main provisions of the bill is that people under the age of 18 are no longer placed in a YOI or even a prison. The committee heard evidence from a range of witnesses that there should perhaps be more scope for an individualised assessment process of a child or a young person to determine whether and where a child or a young person should be detained. That would be based on factors such as their development, their maturity and perhaps their neurological development. Aside from the issue around resources, are there any other particular barriers to being able to provide an individualised assessment process for children that are entering the criminal justice system and potentially are entering a secure environment? I'll start with your specific request in and around children entering the criminal justice system. The reason that I'm the lead cabinet secretary given my justice portfolio and the minister is coming from the children in care perspective is that the bill that is before the committee just now is very much about that intersection between how we meet the care needs and uphold the rights of children but also in the context of the demands and expectations in and around our justice system. What is imperative is that if we as a Government and indeed a country are absolutely focused on reducing risk and reducing re-offending amongst young people, we have to start with addressing their care needs. Unless their individual needs are addressed, that will be a barrier to addressing and managing risk. If we don't address and manage risk, we will not reduce re-offendant. Therefore, it is imperative that both the children's hearing system and in particular the court system have the widest range of disposals available to them. In terms of barriers, which you specifically mentioned, convener, right now, children below the age of 18 can indeed be placed in secure if they have been convicted of an offence, but of course there are existing legal barriers. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that all children under the age of 18 and that, of course, is the definition of a child for the purpose of this bill in accordance with both the promise and the UNCRC that a child is under the age of 18. Therefore, irrespective of their deeds, they should be able to be placed in secure accommodation, notwithstanding that, when those children come of age, they can then transfer to a young offenders institute and, depending on the length of their sentence, progress into the adult system. Would there be scope for factors other than age to be considered in terms of that sort of placement process, so risk perhaps, and that is something that is topical at the moment, the nature of the crime, which, to a certain extent, I would imagine, is already undertaken? You are quite correct, convener. Obviously, the committee will be aware of the work and the development of risk assessment tools, for example, by the risk management authority. It is based on evidence and is quite correct that the risk management tools for children have to be distinct from those for adults. The advantages of placing all children in secure care, where an offence has been committed, is the flexibility in secure accommodation to really be focused on those tailored-made individual assessments of need and risk. The committee will be aware of that, just because the physical environment in secure accommodation is smaller. It is more intense support and a more intensive way to address the risks and needs of children who are in conflict with the law. It is an area that providers of secure accommodation are already experts in. They have all been doing this for a number of years, with a children who have committed a variety of offences. I hope that that helps to answer. That is helpful. I will bring in other members, if anybody would like to kick things off. Pauline, do you think that you would like to come in and then go on off? Thank you, convener. Good morning. I would like to welcome the minister to your post. I think that I have already done that already to the cabinet secretary. I totally wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I have raised issues in this Parliament where there have been horrible cases where people took their own lives because they should have been in secure accommodation. Let us be clear that this is something that I support. What I am concerned about—I wonder if you could address this—is how is the Government going to achieve this? Is there a plan? Do you have a plan? Given the very strong statement that you have made, how are you going to create the places and the funding to make this happen? Is there a stepped approach to how this year are you going to create so many additional places? I realise that you cannot do it in one go. However, the only way that statement can have any validity is if you can tell the committee that you have some plan, albeit incrementally, to reach the number of places that you would need. This has been a controversial issue in this Parliament for some time. I know that the cabinet secretary has been well aware of how far back this goes about the sensitivities around who is getting secure places. This is the fundamental question that I think needs to be addressed by the Government, if you could answer that. That would be great. I will start with that. The minister and I, of course, wish to come in later. I will start with answer Ms McNeill's question, because I am aware of the history of this. It goes back many, many years. It is imperative that we have the right provision at the right time, and that does, of course, require resources. We need to be confident that, going forward, we have the capacity to meet the needs of children that are being displaced, shifted from the criminal justice system into secure accommodation. We know that, in terms of the reduction in young people—16 and 17-year-olds who are now receiving custodial sentences over the last decade or so—that has fallen by 93 per cent. We are talking about a comparatively small cohort of young people. Right now, the most recent figures that I have seen that are just a few days old, we have six under-18s currently in Poland, and there are currently 12 vacancies across the security state. I agree with Ms McNeill that this needs a real vigilant eye, because absolute predictions about the circumstances in which a young person will go through the court system are always hard to predict. I think that we are starting from a good baseline, from a good position in terms of our understanding of current capacity and the likely demand. Members, I do not need to repeat the financial memorandum and the work that underpins that, but I will highlight to members the work that we are doing around secure care plus. That is about ensuring that we have the correct contingency plans in place to ensure that, in all circumstances, we can meet the needs of any child at any time within the establishment. That is a complex area. There are many issues about funding, as well as the work that longer-term work has been undertaken to reimagine the secure state. However, it is an area that I have an acute and will continue to keep a keen, very keen interest in. I do not know from the minister, from her perspective, she may have some further things to add. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am happy to add on to that, although the cabinet secretary gave a very thorough answer. Broadly, the numbers fluctuate, so it is hard to give a definitive answer to this overall. Currently, there is capacity. There are currently six children in young offenders institutes and there are 14 beds available in secure care. There is capacity just now, but, as I said, that obviously can fluctuate. The financial memorandum took care not to underestimate the number of children on average to provide headroom for that in terms of going forward in those changes. At the moment, it should never be the case that any young person goes to a young offenders institute because there is not capacity, so that is something that obviously is going to be at the forefront going forward. As the cabinet secretary noted, the reimagining secure care is looking to... I am so clear about this. What you are both seeing at the moment is that, based on looking at the under 18s that are in a young offenders institution and you have 12 vacancies, you are putting this because that has not really been the case before. I know for certain that William Blinsey-Brown did not go to secure accommodation because there was no place. I need to go on life in Poland on remands, which I want to ask you if a remand is included in this in the circumstances. Is your position that it is the reduction of policy change, if you like, that has resulted in the vacancies? I just wanted to be clear why that is. I think that there is a longer-term trend in the reduction of 16-17-year-olds being incarcerated. Notwithstanding that last year, there were nearly 1,000 under-25s that were still imprisoned. In terms of your specific points, there is some profile work going on looking at the under-25 population so that we can plan as much as possible and try to anticipate future demand and expectations. There is also some work going on with Scotland Excel, who managed the current secure care contract, which is a change from when I was first aware of some of the issues from a Government perspective. I like to be clear when I get an answer that you are saying that it is a policy change that has resulted in a reduction in custodial sentences is the reason why we have 12 vacancies. I have understood that. I was giving you the backdrop, and I was giving you accurate information about the current situation that today there are 12 vacancies in secure accommodation and in polemont. I am asking why that is. Are you confident that that trend would continue? My first question to the minister is whether you plan adequately for your policy position, which I fully support. If your evidence to the committee is, we have a good starting point here, because the policy trend is resulting in vacancies, so we can start here. I thought that I had said in my original answer that we have a good starting point, that we have a good basis to go forward to. I am asking why. Is that 93 per cent reduction a coincidence? Is that 93 per cent reduction in the number of 16-17 rows that are being sentenced is due to work that has commenced over the last decade about where it is appropriate shifting young people into either alternative prosecution or alternative to custody, where that is appropriate? That is about the whole systems approach to youth justice that commenced in 2011. In terms of going forward, because where there is a reasonable point that is being made that if we are increasing the legal route for all children under 18 in the system to go into secure, that will of course increase demand on secure facilities. I am saying as of today that there are six young people under the age of 18 employment and there are vacancies, but we need to be vigilant that there is always capacity, so some of the work around funding and the fact that right now the Scottish Government funds one bed in each of the four independent providers. As you will see from the financial memorandum, there are plans for the number of funded beds to increase. That is part of the work about us ensuring that we have always got the right contingency arrangements in place, notwithstanding that there is further work going on, in particular with providers and multi-agency partners, to ensure that should we need the flexibility to put in additional support to any provider that we are in a position to do that. That is really helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning, panel, and welcome both to your new posts. Cabinet Secretary, earlier you talked about the need for intensive support being given to young people going into secure care. Earlier in the private session, we heard that the opinion was from a care experience person that there should be a mental health professional in every secure care setting permanently. Is it something that you would envisage taking forward and the aspect of staff training for that? Obviously, this is stage 1 of a bill process. There are matters of how we amend and approve the legislation, but there are also matters that are perhaps more about policy and practice. We are currently engaged with providers and the sector to ensure that the best possible care, support and supervision is given to young people going forward. There are questions about what is the best way to access on-going mental health support for young vulnerable people. There are key issues about staff training. In my knowledge and experience, staff operating in the security state are very well trained and have a high skill base. However, we want to ensure that people and children in particular can access the right treatment at the right time. I will give a commitment to look closely at the evidence that committee has been provided and any subsequent recommendations that committee makes in its report. There will be children who have committed more serious crimes being placed in secure care, and that is a cause for concern. They will obviously be in with younger, more vulnerable children. I wonder how that can be managed and would suitable risk assessments be taken in that instance? Again, that would presumably require staff training to deal with the balance of that situation. The starting position here is that the arrangements and the staff within the security state are their bread and butter. They deal with children from a range of age groups. Primarily, I think that the latest figures that I have seen are that the majority of children going into secure care are at that older age group 15, 16 and 17. Staff already work with a high proportion of children who will have a history of the commission of assaults or working with children who have a history of perhaps using or brandishing weapons. They already have that expertise. That should give us confidence, because irrespective of the route that children go into secure accommodation, whether that is via the criminal justice system or whether it is the children's hearing system, whether they are on measures to do with their own care and protection, or whether it is the care and protection of others. There is an overlap. There is a real similarity in terms of the history of adverse childhood experiences. 98 per cent of children who appear at court will have a history of being in the children's hearing system. They will have high levels of vulnerability. Children whose destination is secure but, via the children's hearing system, will also have had an instance of conflict with the law. The research undertaken by the Children and Young People Centre for Justice demonstrates that the risks and needs of children in secure are not dissimilar. There are always exceptions. That is why we need to have contingencies and flexibilities going forward with the work in and around secure care plus. Should there need to be arrangements where we can quickly support and facilitate additional staff or other additional intensive measures in a secure environment or, indeed, adaptions to the property, we need to be able to do that. However, where secure has an advantage over prison care is its flexibility and its ability to respond to the individual needs but also to the individual risks presented by children. Staff who work in secure accommodation are well acquainted with addressing not just the needs of an individual child but the context of the other children that they also have responsibility for. Prisons are not places for children and that is something that we have already discussed this morning, but we do acknowledge that there are circumstances where people need protected from children who have caused harm. There are rigorous risk assessments involved with both the child itself and the children who are already in the secure care centre, so that is something that we really want to emphasise. I want to add that the secure care centre is the most appropriate form regardless of the gravity of the crime in that situation because the secure care centre is going to be the nurturing environment that has the best chance of giving a child or a young person the chance to rehabilitate, the chance to change their path in life, and that is something that I think needs to be emphasised with this in comparison to older adults. First of all, I could maybe ask a question that has arisen from the evidence that you have given so far, just so that I can be absolutely clear about why we need this legislation and why there are currently six young people in Poland. Is there a legal barrier to stop those young people being transferred into secure care at the moment? Yes, that is my understanding, but I can of course conscious that Ms Clark is a lawyer, but we may want to defer to officials on this. I am more than happy to take that. I am sure that Barry will correct me if I am wrong, given that he is the official lawyer in the room. At the moment, the 16 and 17-year-olds, if they are prosecuted in court and they are under a compulsory supervision of order, are deemed to be children, so the court can place them into secure care. Obviously, there are 16 and 17-year-olds that are in the court environment that are not under a compulsory supervision order. I do not think that the provision exists at the moment to send them to secure care, so they would have to go to a YY. I have not worked as a solicitor for many years, but what you are saying is that, because of the nature of the court disposal, it is not possible for the Scottish Government to transfer those children from Poland into secure care, and that is why this legislation is required. That is really helpful. That has clarified things for me. I have a couple of questions, if that is all right. I appreciate the cabinet secretary that she wishes the widest range of disposables to be available. I know that secure care is very expensive. I fully support what the Government is trying to do here. I was at the STUC congress yesterday in Dundee, where there was a debate about the cuts in justice social work and, indeed, the cuts more widely in terms of children's services. The cabinet secretary has spoken about the need for resources. To what extent are alternatives available other than secure care, which, as we know, is very expensive? It may be less expensive, but it may involve some of the rehabilitation and support that both the cabinet secretary and minister have referred to. Earlier this morning, we spoke with two young women who have experienced both the prison and secure care settings when they were 16 and 17 years old. Although we do not know everything about those individuals, particularly one of those women, it was not clear whether she should have been in prison, but she was a care leaver and should have been thrown out of care when she was 16. We know that has happened to many young people. To what extent is the justice system being asked to step in due to failures in relation to responsibilities that are not the responsibility of the cabinet secretary for justice and home affairs? The failure, collectively, to properly fund youth services, social work and, indeed, to provide the support that the state should be providing to young people in care when they are over 16. I do not know whether the minister has a better place to answer that. I will pick up the point on community justice services. We invest in community justice services to the tune of £134 million. £123 million is ringfence for local authority criminal justice social work services. Again, some of that is ringfence around bail assessment and bail supervision around £3 million. We invest in community justice services not because they are cheaper, but because they are expensive and that secure care is even more expensive. If we inappropriately use either secure care or prison, it is a very expensive way of making matters worse. However, we invest in community justice services not because they are cheaper, but because the evidence tells us that we should be investing in community justice services. I will not deny that there is pressure on the public pound. I think that many of the challenges that local government is experiencing is what the Scottish Government is experiencing across the board. I will never demur from the importance of investment. What I would point to is, while acknowledging the challenges, is that the local government settlement went up in real terms while there was a real-terms reduction to the Scottish Government block grant, but I recognise the pressures. It means that we need to work even harder at the shift in culture, policy and practice that is, first and foremost, based on the evidence, notwithstanding the investment in community justice services. I can assure you that we will continue. Can I just pick up on that? We know that there have been real-terms cuts in community justice, and I appreciate the points that you are making. We also know that it costs roughly about £40,000 a year to keep someone in prison. I know that it depends on which prison, but that was the broad brush figure that we were given. We were told that it is about four times as much to keep someone in secure care. I wonder why it is that we have not seen more significant shifts in budgets to put money into social work and community justice. I appreciate both the cabinet secretary and the minister who have taken up their posts. I am not holding them personally responsible, but there seems to be a disconnect between policy and where we are putting our money. I might point to some of the statistics that I quoted to Ms McNeill earlier. We are seeing prosecutions of children and young people decrease custodial sentences among young people and decrease in referrals to the reporter on offence grounds. We must be doing something right in and around supporting young people both in terms of reducing re-offending and focusing on what is the best disposal for them and, indeed, for the community. Of course, there are always competing demands on shifting resources from acute care to community services. Even if we are reducing a prison population, for example, we still need to have that establishment up and running. What I would point to is—this is historical, and it is there for good reasons—is the ring fence of criminal justice social work funding. I know that ring fence is not always a popular word, but that came about 20 years plus ago because criminal justice services were not getting their fair share of resources. It is a small service, in comparison to the children and families community care services that have been sidelined. I will certainly want to protect the position of community justice services as well as community justice social work services. I am not in any way doubting the cabinet secretary's personal commitment, but does she accept that there has not been that structural shift that we need in resources? I think that I would always be candid and say that there is more to be done in that matter. In terms of the resources, I show that there has obviously been a great deal of media speculation around the sentencing guidelines for under-25-year-olds, particularly in relation to very serious offences. Could the cabinet secretary perhaps outline the non-dicustorial disposals that are available, not particularly community service, because that does not necessarily have a rehabilitation element as such? However, what is available in terms of support and rehabilitation that adequately focuses on trying to rehabilitate individuals who have committed very serious offences? Could she perhaps outline what is available to the courts? Obviously, in general terms, I will do that. What in the old days we called community service, that was about a kind of fine on your time, but of course community service these days sits up in the broader panoply of a community payback order. With a community payback order, there can indeed be requirements for rehabilitation measures to be in place. We also have arrangements in and around electronic tagging and monitoring. There are also arrangements around sex offenders registration, mappa, public protection arrangements, and in some instances, court can ask for report backs to review a situation. There are a range of disposals and approaches that are available to the court. Some of those rehabilitative measures can, of course, be intensive, whether that is one-to-one work or group work. I welcome both the minister and the cabinet secretary formally to their new positions, and I thank the minister for that earlier statement at the start of the session. My first question is following on a bit from the conveners. I am very supportive of this, as are the stakeholders, as you will be aware. I know that I might be jumping ahead a bit here, because we are putting through the legislation at the moment for the 18, but I am keen to hear where the Government stands in terms of this being a starting point, the 18 being a starting point. I think that a lot of the evidence that we have heard, including the evidence that we have heard privately today, which was really powerful from two individuals, is that 18 is still very young, as is 21-25. I just wonder if there are any thoughts, maybe the minister first, in terms of where the Government might see this going. Thank you very much for your question. Yes, absolutely. Obviously that is a little bit in the future, so the bill focuses, as you rightly said, on under 18. The bill focuses on children under the age of 18, because that is what is in line with the UNCRC. We absolutely recognise that people under the age of 25 are still developing. In many areas, Scotland has and is still developing a very distinct approach to young people aged between 18 and 25 years of age, but I think that the considerations at the moment for under 18s are very different, particularly in terms of rights. For example, the bill makes provisions for young people to remain in secure care, having been sentenced or remanded before the age of 18 until 19, but that will only be possible when the approach is not contrary to the best interests of other children. As we look at young adults over the age of 18, the number of people in the offences who would be affected by a different approach massively increases, as you have seen from the numbers in terms of those who would be in secure care currently in YOIs. In previous evidence sessions, I know that witnesses were broadly supportive of this bill being a starting point to look beyond that scope of beyond 18. We are also mindful of the Sheriff Mackey Heating System working group, which is children's hearing redesign, which is yet to report. I think that the wider developments will provide us with evidence-based and valuable learning, and then we can look to that in the future, certainly. At the moment, young offenders institutes will continue to provide custodial facilities for those up to age 23, but I absolutely take your point that that is definitely something that we need to look at going forward. To briefly add to that, Mr McGregor, the children's hearing system cannot operate after a child's 18th birthday, other than by exception. Therefore, there will continue to be a need for young offenders' institutions. Again, by exception, young people can, at the discretion of the governor, remain at a YOI till their 23 before transferring to the adult prison. Given the inspectorate of prisons' view on the inappropriate nature of young offenders' institutions for children, I think that if children are no longer committed to young offenders' institutions, that will give us opportunities to look at the care and support within young offenders' institutions. I am also aware of the review on mental health in young offenders' institutions. Going forward, there are improvements that can be made in various custodial establishments. However, there are no plans to remove young offenders' institutions, because secure care, other than by exception, the minister has outlined applies for children up to the age of 18. You have already, cabinet secretary, pre-empted my next question in, because I was thinking about one of the things that we spoke about with stakeholders. I think that it was the last session, which is part of the answer. Do you think that possibly young offenders' institutions have been more modelled on secure settings? Do you think that that could potentially, in the future, be a resource in issues? Given that the impression of secure care is a very positive one, do you think that the young offenders' institutions could be more modelled on the secure settings? Is that a potential answer to that question? Where I would draw parallels with some of the innovation and changes that have been made in the women's estate, I think that I am probably a better comparator. In that, we have seen in the women's estate significant moves towards trauma and foreign practice within a custodial setting. The new women's national facility will open in the summer. We have already seen the establishment of two smaller units for women, one in Dundee, which I visited recently, and the one in Glasgow. I am conscious of the resource questions that members have already raised. However, I think that there is an opportunity to think about the type of care, support and rehabilitation, and opportunities to better address re-offending within the context of a custodial environment. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That sounds very positive. That is probably one final question for yourself, minister. Rona Mackay began to touch on it. Do you think that there is a wee bit of work that needs to be done with the public on what secure care is? In terms of your officials, you will know that the committee members here will know that people who work in the sector will know, but I think that there is possibly a perception that secure care is somewhat a softer touch. Whereas if anybody knows anybody who has been in secure care or dealt with that knows that the person still very much looses their liberty, it is not a soft touch for the young person or individual. We actually heard that again today in the private session, so it is definitely a lot more therapeutic, a lot more beneficial, and it seems to be best for young people. Do you think that there is a job of work to be done there in terms of communicating that to the public so that it is not seen as almost soft justice of whatever you want to call it? We certainly do not want to give that impression anyway. Secure care is without doubt the most intensive and restrictive form of care that there is in Scotland. I mean, I have visited a centre myself. It is a place where a child is deprived of the liberty, as the member stated, in a locked environment alongside, at the same time, the provision of care, support and education. I mean, when a child is placed in secure care, public protection and safety is to the absolute forefront, the child is cared for in a locked facility and in the longer term, as the child is provided with support to aid their rehabilitation and reintegration. I guess that comes back to what I was saying earlier. It is about finding that balance between the restrictions and the reduction of liberty, but also that nurturing environment where 16 and 17-year-olds who could have committed those offences have the chance to rehabilitate themselves in an appropriate setting. There may be more work that needs done around conveying that image, but there is definitely not a soft touch. As well as conveying that image to the public, to the judiciary, to the sheriffs, do you think that that needs to be done or do you think that they are there with that? Maybe more for the cabinet secretary. I mean, there is, I do not mean to sound dispassionate in any way. I think that the important issue here is about what the evidence tells us about what will work in the rehabilitation of people who have come into conflict with the law and therefore what works in terms of improving community safety. I am of the view that whether it is society or whether it is members of the judiciary or members of the public, people are well able to engage in that debate and to engage in that debate based on the facts. It is really important, particularly when we are dealing with sensitive and very emotive issues where there is, of course, great public interest in. I think that it is important that we always have the courage to talk about what the evidence tells us and what is going to work in rehabilitating young people or, indeed, other offenders and how that will improve community safety. That is why this legislation is important, but it sits in the context of a wider refocusing of justice policy. Russell Findlay and then they will bring in Jackie. Thanks very much and congratulations to you both on your new appointments. In the last session we heard evidence that secure accommodation costs something like four times as much as prison and that Scotland has got 84 secure places currently with the largest provider of these being St Mary's. Jim Shields of St Mary's said that funding right now was precarious and it needs certainty, whereas Professor Lorraine Johnson said that at times the St Mary's relied on cross-border placements to be sustainable, with some English local authorities paying 35 per cent more than the Scottish Government pays. In the eventuality and the likelihood of more secure accommodation being needed, do you have any projection on how much more will be needed, how much it will cost and whether the financial memorandum is properly factored in the concerns being expressed in that last session? It is important to highlight to the committee that over and above the financial memorandum that there is a national resources group here because some of those issues need to be unpicked further. I will come on separately to talking about the cross-border transfer issue, but I recognise that there is a need for a very clear pathway going forward and that over and above the issues that are detailed in the financial memorandum that we are engaging intensively with stakeholders on that. My understanding from work that Scotland Excel has done is that there is capacity within the system to meet Scotland's needs. If you remove the cross-border transfer just for argument's sake, we have the capacity here in Scotland to meet our needs now and what they are expected to be in the future notwithstanding that we could get further information and that could change. In terms of, and I have also pointed to the beds that we are now funding and that came off the back of a pilot and I mentioned earlier, convener, that the number of beds within the estate in terms of Scottish Government funding will increase to ensure that we have that stability and certainty. Is the number of beds being increased? Well, I suppose that the point that I had made, I mean I wouldn't rule that out for sure, but the point I made that if you discount cross-border transfers that in terms of the work that Scotland Excel has done looking at the numbers of children that have been in the YOIs over the years and the number of children in secure care that they have capacity. Of course, the cross-border transfers are from the equations, Scotland's going to have capacity, but that brings into play the problem of the cost because these cross-border places are paying 35 per cent more. Scottish Government will therefore have to find that money to fund those places at a higher rate. Will they not make St Mary's house available? Well, there is an important point about the financial stability of the secure sector going forward. We know, for example, that they need to be at 90 per cent capacity to, that's their financial stability vector, if you like, so the system has capacity for Scotland just now, but that is because of the reliance, if you like, on cross-border transfers. That's why we have started to fund beds and there are plans for us to increase the funding of beds so that we can ensure that for children who are resident in Scotland that they can be cared for and insecure if that's required. We also heard evidence from Victim Support Scotland in the previous session who say that victims of crime, often young people, are really surprised by the lack of information and they describe it as an information vacuum, so that is when cases go not to courts, which at least are public, but to the children's panel system. There was a particular case that has been well publicised recently in which a young girl was severely beaten by another young person. This young person was subject to bail conditions, but those had been lifted or removed without the person's knowledge or the police's knowledge, causing great distress, understandably. Does any consideration have been given into more transparency around the greater number of cases that are likely to go to children's panels? If that's not even public, whether it could be something that should be informed of towards the victims and their families, what work or consideration has been given into that? As far as possible, we want to have a parity between the systems as much as possible, notwithstanding that the children's hearing system is fundamentally about addressing the needs of children as opposed to punishment. In terms of the bill, it increases the obligation on the principal reporter, who now has a duty as opposed to a discretion to inform victims of their right to receive information. That could be about the fact that the hearing has taken place and about the outcome of the hearing. Obviously, for young people who are progressed through the criminal justice system, there is the current victim notification system. I contend that the specific bill increases the rights and protections for victims. It is not our only intervention in that area. I suspect that Mr Finlay is aware that we have undertaken other consultations in and around things such as what we can do within the broader system to ensure that victims' needs are met. We have also consulted on things such as victims commissioner. We are actively engaged in what we need to do to enhance the rights of victims. Of course, there will be other going forward. There are other policies and legislation that will help to address the matter. The bill could potentially include the right or the requirement of the children's panel to inform victims of outcomes. What the bill, as it stands right now, is that it places a duty on the principal reporter. Just now, he or she has some discretionary powers, but the bill puts a duty on the principal reporter where they have the information on the victim and contact details, etc. I appreciate that that is not always the case, but where the principal reporter has sufficient information on a victim, the principal reporter can contact the victim and advise them of their rights to receive information, whether they would wish to receive information. The type of information that they would be entitled to receive if the victim so wishes is the notification that a hearing is taking place and the outcomes of that hearing. Let me check with the officials and the lawyer that I have articulated exactly how the bill currently stands for Mr Finlay's interests. I can just confirm that, under section 179b of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011, it is enshrined that the information that is potentially available to victims is information about the determinations in relation to the system, including whether a compulsory supervision order has been made or any other action in connection with the case. That is the starting point from the current framework. There are certain young people, and I know that those cases are incredibly rare, but certain young people commit extremely serious crimes back to one not so long ago, in which a 16-year-old raped and murdered a six-year-old girl. In a case like that, that individual will be sent to secure accommodation. I wonder if there is an acceptance that, sometimes, in the rarest cases, extreme cases, that is not appropriate and whether the bill should have some kind of mechanism that would allow for those kinds of cases. In the gravest of offences, the Crown Office and Lord Advocate, as they do in any case, have prosecutorial independence. In the gravest of cases in which the young person is progressed through the criminal justice system and can happen in those gravest of cases that hefty custodial sentences are handed down. What that means in practice is that, if that young person was 16, they would spend the first few years of their sentence and secure progress to a young offender's institute and then to a prison. What I would want to convey is that secure accommodation is given the levels of security and the intensive nature of the supervision, as well as the other inputs, is an appropriate place for all child offenders who require secure accommodation. It does not mean that they will not, of course, go on to serve the remainder of their sentence in the adult sector. The bill allows for them to remain within secure accommodation until what age is that, 19 or 21? If that is considered to be, so by and large it is 18, that is the norm. That would apply to all children in secure accommodation and not just children who have committed the gravest of offences. If it was considered to be in their best interest without conflicting with the interests of other children, that is an option for the people who are most closely involved in their care and supervision to come to a view on that. Going back to the original answer, it is an absolute, as far as the bill stands, anyone under a certain age. The promise and the UNCRC commitments that the Government has made and of course there is cross-party support of both the promise and implementing the promise, and also cross-party support in terms of meeting our obligations under the United Nations Charter for the Rights of the Child. For us to meet those commitments is that all children who have offended and where a custodial disposal is required if they are under 18 in the first instance, they may go to secure accommodation. Thank you and take this opportunity to welcome you both to your new rules also. Was that the private session earlier on today and I agree with Fulton MacGregor, it was really really powerful. Some of the things that was discussed, I'll be quite frank and honest, I didn't even consider them. One of the young ladies was saying how daunting she found it after coming out of secure accommodation to be put into a flat to realise that she didn't have the basic life skills of maybe how to even put on a washing machine or pay a bill, which is something that most people wouldn't even think about. She says that it's purely down to because the care system did it for her while she was in the secure accommodation. Can I ask you what has been done to ensure that our young folk are getting the basic life skills that they need once they leave secure accommodation? Of course, secure accommodation is about providing support and interventions on the broadest range of matters. It is about providing age-appropriate holistic support and for children who are being prepared to be reintegrated into the community post a secure placement, which should be taken place. It's also very important that the proper aftercare arrangements are in situ as well. It's also worth bearing in mind that there are a number of children who perhaps go to secure accommodation and it may be for quite a short period of time as well. Therefore, it's really important that for those children who are not spending two, three years in secure as part of a longer sentence, that the planning for their return to the community should commence on admission. However, it is a very live issue. I suppose that irrespective of where a young person is placed, if they are deprived of their liberty, and it applies to adult prisoners as well for people who are destined to be released, that we need to be setting them up for success on liberation and not setting them up to fail. I'll check if the minister has anything else to add on that. It's just to make clear that this bill means that if children are placed in secure care, they will be treated as looked after children. As a result of that, they will be entitled to local authority support in terms of aftercare and some of the things that you've heard too. Thank you very much. Just quickly as well, something that they also said to us was that sometimes when they were put into police cells, they found that that was the most traumatic bit about it because they were suddenly shut in by themselves and there was very or little no support. I guess my question would be, are we going to have any consideration to find out if that's appropriate for children to be put there in the first instance, or are we thinking of finding a perhaps a better situation for them to be put in? The use of police custody is a really important factor. It's important to state that in terms of a place of safety, this bill doesn't change the definition of a place of safety, other than by exception where it's necessary and proportionate and to avoid further harm, a police station wouldn't be considered a place of safety. What this bill does in terms of the provision that currently exists for children under 16 in terms of the safeguards about what should happen should they be in a police station, bearing in mind that a police station can be a very frightening and distressing environment, particularly for a child. Those provisions that currently exist for under 16 will be extended to children under 18. That's about the constable or the death sergeant in charge. They have particular procedures to follow. It's about notifying a parent or another appropriate suitable adult, but also crucially lasing with the local authority as well, because the local authority might have information that's germane to the care and treatment of a child under 18. We published a list of places of safety in February, and that was further to the age of criminal responsibility act. Each local authority identified their own resources and areas. That could have included foster care in children's houses, so that's something that's already under awe. Even if they're picked up for—I'm trying to word myself—if the police are going to charge them with something that they could still go to a foster home, rather than a police cell, is that what you're saying? I wonder if I can pick up on the issue of children coming into police custody, because we've spent quite a bit of time looking at the issues around secure accommodation. In terms of children coming into police custody, regardless of what time of day that might be, I know how difficult it is for custody sergeants and custody officers to care for young people and meet their needs if you've got a busy custody centre, and there are quite a lot of issues and challenges already in place. Is it the case to say perhaps that children should, regardless of the crime type or offence that they've been admitted for, should just not be detained in a police station under any circumstances? Could that potentially be on the face of the bill? I know that that might have quite significant practical implications in terms of how you make provision for an alternative place of safety, but I'd just be interested in your views on that. I think that it's fair to say that a place of safety is always preferable to a police station. What I would want to avoid is that police officers feel stuck in a particular situation, that they end up not taking a young person to a police station because they're not just worried about it not being suitable, but that it then leads to some maybe even more risk averse practice when currently there is provision that allows where it's necessary proportionate, where it's maybe being practical or unsafe or inadvisable for someone not to be taken to a police station. It is an area that we are having live engagement on, so in particular with the SPA. The committee may be aware that there was a child in conflict with the law conference last year, and this was a particular issue where there was a lot of focused attention on. I can say to the committee that I'm certainly from my portfolio interest, really keen that we give this some further thought. I don't know if there's any necessarily quick and easy solutions in terms of the passage of this bill, but we're just really at the beginning of the process for this bill. I know that there is interest in things like multi-agency care settings for children that are in conflict with the law as well, but I'm trying to convey to the convener and committee that it is definitely an area that we need to have some more focused activity and thinking on. That's very good to hear, because I mean, like you, I'm very interested in the process of children coming into custody, and I know that where that can be avoided and an alternative option utilised, then I'm pretty confident that Police Scotland used those alternative routes, and it's interesting to hear about the conference focusing on that particular issue. I wonder if I can also just continue with another couple of questions. I'm just going back to points that other members have made around, and I think Fulton McGregor, you picked up around the provision within the bill that secure care is the default for under-18s, but this is a starting point. I'm just interested in whether one of the factors why the Scottish Government isn't yet extending that provision to 18 to 20-year-olds, for example, is because if you look at that cohort of young people in terms of offenders, if you like, there are, as I understand it, currently over 150 held, so 18 to 20-year-olds held in prison as opposed to five held in prison who are aged 16 to 17, so that clearly would have very significant implications for resourcing and physical accommodation being available. I'm just interested to know if that might be challenging, or if the Government can commit to looking at broadening out the age range that comes into secure care going forward. I think that we need to be really crystal clear on that point. Notwithstanding, we need to look at issues of reform in and around young offenders' institutions. In terms of 16 to 17-year-olds, what is happening here is that they are being moved from the criminal justice system into the children's hearing system, albeit for some of those children that will just be on a temporary basis for the purposes of their care while they are 16 and 17. The children's hearing system is for children up to the age of 18. I think that while there would perhaps be approaches or interventions or work that is done with young people in a secure setting, there could indeed be learning for that in an adult setting. We need to be clear that the notion of extending secure accommodation that is for children into meeting the needs of offenders who are adults is not an option. I think that there are a number of legal issues around that as well as physical issues. That does not mean that we need to be constantly reviewing and challenging ourselves on the care of other young people within young offenders' institutions. Hence, the work around refocusing the use of custody for adults as well as the need to be focused on improving mental health support or opportunities to reduce re-offending and tackle the issues in and around the heavy use of remand that we have in Scotland. I think that we need a clear line. I think that it also goes back to the discussion that we had earlier about individualised placement, risk assessment. There are some caveats to what you have very clearly articulated, given some of the evidence that witnesses previously shared with us around that need to consider maturity and other factors in an individual when considering placement. Any other questions at all before we finish? No, I think that that just brings us almost up to tiny, Rona. Just a brief question. What consideration are assessments being made of young people with learning difficulties who will not, the age threshold perhaps does not apply? Is that an individual assessment then? That may well be a very important factor in considering whether a young person should remain in secure care post their 18th birthday up to their 19th birthday. There are, of course, broader issues in other legislation that addresses what is the most suitable disposal for somebody with a learning disability. There are obviously issues for a child or any person with a learning disability that is engaging with the court system, where there are issues around capacity. There is a broader issue, but in terms of secure care, it may be a factor in enabling a young person to stay longer than their 18th birthday up to their 19th. Again, that is an individualised assessment on the needs of that children and the other children within the establishment. Thank you. I think that we have a final question from Russell. Yes, thank you. I did not realise we had time, but there was evidence in the last session about those young people who were in police custody under the age of 18. What the bill suggests or what the bill would do is give them the option for no parental contact to be made. I had asked the question about this in the last session, whether any consideration would be given towards those children potentially being subject to exploitation, whether it be by someone who is not their best interests at heart or organised crime, and whether the bill might have any way of addressing that. I understand why Mr Finlay is asking that question. It is, I suppose, the reason why current provision that has been extended to under 18s requires the notification of the local authority who may well have information about that young person's background so that they are able to highlight to the police issues of vulnerability. It is certainly an issue that I would be happy to engage on in terms of safeguarding. It is not the context of the evolving capacity in rights of young people as they get older, but the minister may have some thoughts of our own on that. Absolutely. It is of the utmost importance that we ensure that an inappropriate or unsafe person was not being contacted under the bill's provisions when a child is in police custody if aged under 16. Their parent must be informed or if aged 16 or 17, as the member has rightly stated, an adult is reasonably named by the child. Existing safeguards enable an appropriate constable to delay sending information for various reasons, including if that information is deemed necessary to safeguard and to promote the wellbeing of the child in custody. The local authority's will would always be notified that a child is under 18 is in police custody and can advise a constable that the person to whom the information is to be sent, i.e. a parent or another adult, should not be sent to the child. The local authority can then give advice as to who might be an appropriate person and the constable must have contact with this advice. In excess of a parent or another adult to the child could also be refused or restricted should the constable believe that this is necessary to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of that child in custody. That is something that the bill does take account for. That brings us pretty much up to time. I thank you all for attending today. We will have a very short suspension to allow our witnesses to leave. Our next item of business is consideration of correspondence that we have received from the Scottish Government on access to court transcripts. I refer members to paper 3. I would like to open it up to members for any comments that you have on the correspondence at all. I suppose that it is reassuring that, in one of his last acts in post, Keith Brown instructed a pilot to look into the possibility of providing court transcripts to at least complainers on sexual offences cases initially, so that is a good bit of progress. I suppose that we need to not lose sight of that and just ensure that what is being committed to is going to be put into action quite quickly and as long as we are clear as to what is happening. Absolutely. I think that we would all welcome the fact that the pilot has been proposed, which is very much a step in the right direction for us. Any other comments that anyone wants to make, Rona? Just to say that I am totally welcome, it is definitely a step in the right direction. I think that we should let rape crisis Scotland as Scottish Women's Aid and victims support know, because they have been quite concerned about this. I think that it will be important information for them. That is probably a very good suggestion. Anybody else at all? If not, you will note in the paper that there is a suggestion in terms of our follow-up action, so I think that we are all very much agreed that we welcome the moves to explore the possibility of a pilot to support access to transcripts for complainers and sexual offences cases. The one thing that I want to highlight is whether or not it would be feasible for a pilot to be delivered as part of or incorporated into the committee's stage 1 consideration of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, which is due for introduction shortly. As you quite rightly flag, Rona, we can obviously share correspondence appropriately with external organisations. I would open it up to views on that. Are members happy to agree? Unless I have missed it, I am not sure when it starts and how long it will last from those correspondence. I think that you are right. I think that we haven't got that detail yet, but we can certainly ask for some more detail in and around that. Are members happy with the actions as they are set out in the paper and we can follow that up? Okay, that concludes our public items and we will now move into private session.