 Thank you. We welcome to the twelfth meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2023. I would like to welcome Ben Macpherson, Bill Kidd and Pam Duncan Glancy, who are joining us this morning for the first time as members of the committee. They are replacingLAUGH, Graham Day and Michael Marra. On behalf of all the members leaving us, I wish to thank Cocab, Graham and Michael for all of our invaluable contributions to the work of the committee. As Ben Macpherson, Bill Kidd and Pam Duncan-Clancy are joining us for the first time today, our first item of business is to invite each of them to declare any relevant interests. Can I go first to Ben Macpherson, please? Thank you, convener, and good to be with you colleagues. I would just refer members to my register of interests and in particular my registration on the role of Scottish Solicitors, which may be of pertinence on certain occasions. Thank you, and now to Bill Kidd, please. Thank you. I'm really pleased to be on the committee. I have no relevant declarations. Thank you, and Pam Duncan-Clancy, please. Good morning, thank you. I, too, am pleased to be a member of this committee. I'm looking forward to the work that we'll do together. I refer members to my declaration of interest, but I also would like to declare that I have a bill in the area of education that has come to this particular committee, the Young Disabled People's Transitions to Adulthood Bill. Thank you very much. Obviously, due to the changes in the committee's membership, the next task is to choose our deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of this committee. I understand that Ben Macpherson is the Scottish National Party's nominee. Do we agree to choose Ben Macpherson as our deputy convener? Agreed. Thank you very much. The next item of our agenda is to hear evidence on the Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill, and I welcome our panel of witnesses. We've got Ben Frugia, director, Social Work Scotland, councillor Tony Buchanan, councillor for East Renfrewshire Council, and children and young people's spokesperson on COSLA, Jackie Irving, chief executive of the Care Inspectorate, Stephen Birmingham, head of practice and policy at Children's Hearing Scotland, and Jenny Broche, regional manager Scotland, information commissioners office. Thank you all for coming. We have a lot of ground to cover today, so we will move straight to members' questions and breaking a habit of a lifetime. I am getting the first question today. The committee appreciates that provisions in the bill relating to the definition of a child have been put forward as Scottish Government policy, but do witnesses have any views on the definition of a child as proposed in the bill? For example, in your experience of dealing with children and young people, is 18 appropriate? Who would like to take that one? Not much to say beyond that under data protection law, a child is defined as a person aged under 18, so that's in keeping with data protection law. Children, those individuals aged under 18, are also given specific under data protection law, and that is set out until 13. There has been a long-held aspiration of Children's Hearing Scotland to raise the age of referral for the principal report up in 2018 to make sure that we are compliant with article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Rights of the Child, which is absolutely anyone under the age of 18 is defined as a child, so that is absolutely correct and appropriate. I fully agree with my colleagues that we welcome the rationalisation that the bill represents in terms of bringing the age more in line with our expectations about 18. It was implied in your question, but we have thought, rather than reservations, just about how we operationalise this with systems that have become very accustomed to other definitions. I want to ensure that, in the implementation of the legislation, we have really thoughtful consideration of that to make sure that we are not creating any risks by making this change. However, in general, we are very welcome. The bill, of course, rather than changing the age of the child, looks to extend the availability of services that are currently available to children to what we would consider adults. That is an area that also requires a bit more discussion and consideration. I agree with my colleagues that COSLA's view is very much that we agree with the change. It ties us in very nicely with the UNCRC as it has been up to 18. I think that, as the points have been made, we are fully supportive of that. We would see children up to 18 being treated as children and treated in an age-appropriate manner. The other thing is that we would acknowledge that some children, even beyond 18, their chronological age might not reflect their developmental age and their children in the hearing system that are often being subjected to traumatising experiences. That obviously has an impact on their level of maturity and the support that they need, so absolutely in the support of it. On that point, I am sure that we will get into that later on in the discussion today. I move to further questions on the subject to Pam. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. Thank you for the submissions that you have given us in advance and for leading on that question. It is where Jackie has left off that I would like to begin, if that is okay. The committee has heard quite compelling evidence around development and chronological age, as you have just described. How would the panel consider that we would design a person-centred approach that would be responsive to the difference between chronological and developmental age, and how do we end that cliff edge of age-based detention? I wonder if, perhaps, Jackie, since you begun that, I would be keen to hear from Ben and Stephen if that is okay, convener. In relation to secure care, which is obviously the big part of it, the legislation would only require—you cannot keep someone beyond 18 at the moment legislatively. I know that there is potential within the bill that that might be extended within their 19th year, but not up to their 19th birthday. One of the things that we are aware of from previous cases and just examples is that, for those children who might go to secure on a justice basis, either on remand or they have been sentenced, it can get quite tricky if their sentence ends after their 18th birthday. We do know of cases in the past, not many, but somewhere children have been insecure, rightly so, because, obviously, they can go just now. This is more mandating at this legislation. Then they have had to go into a young offenders institute appallment for the last three weeks of their sentence, as an example. I think that ability to extend into 19 allows that flexibility so that children are not being moved unnecessarily. Can I just ask—do you think that 19 is the right point at which to make that decision, given some other legislation, particularly the promise, looks at supporting people up until 26? Here, we need to balance the provision of looking after a range of children in a secure setting from as young as 10 or up until. I think that there is a balance there in terms of that mix of children stroke young people you would have in there, and that potentially there are risks. Whilst it would be ideally helpful, I do not think that the provision at the moment would allow us to actually accommodate that many children, but that is not my area of expertise. That is, obviously, for the secure establishments to talk about, but I think that the older those children get, if they are in or young people with severe charges against some quite significant risk, will come on, probably, I am sure, later to how you manage that mix of children, children coming from the hearing and children coming from the sort of justice side, obviously, via the hearing, ideally. I can see where the promise I would support—the promise, absolutely we do—but I think that what is helpful in this is that there is that little bit of flexibility beyond 18, and it is not just a cut-off at 18, but that is some of the challenges that we are set. I agree with what my colleague Jackie said. There are a few points that I suppose to add, I hope. In the conversations that we have had within the social and social membership, I think that there is an appreciation that, as long as we continue to have child and adult services, we will have a cliff edge somewhere. We, of course, focus and discuss in our space, of course, on social work and social care services, but this is just as much an issue with health services, particularly for the group of children that we are really talking about today. It is acutely an issue. I think that that needs to come into the mix. How are we, in a very systemic way across all the relevant public services, adapting to these changes' ideas about when it is appropriate to move children from one service area to another, or, in this case, young adults? I think it might feel blunt, but there is a point where children must become adults, particularly if we maintain that service structure. I think that that is what many young people would want to happen, too, the rights and independence that come with that designation of being an adult. I am not sure that there is an age that answers your question, and I suppose that is probably the core point I want to emphasise, is that the only way we address that cliff edge is through really person-centered planning how you framed your question. We can only do that with sufficiently robust and skilled workforce. It is not really about the legislation. Legislation will help, of course. It sets the framework, but the reality for individuals is about, do you have professionals who are building a plan around you that is really tailored to your needs irrespective of your chronological age? That would be true of somebody who is 70, as it is with their 17. I think that that is the direction that we would really want to see the focus being, the legislation being enabling, but the real focus on, do we have the capacity in the workforce to work in that way? I agree with Ben. There is a cliff edge, but there potentially does not need to be a cliff edge between children's services and adult services. I welcome the provisions in the bill to extend the option for children's hearings to ask a local authority to provide guidance up until the age of 19. That is a progressive move. I also think that the provisions within the bill in relation to the status of young people that have ever been insecure care in terms of being looked after and potentially having their rights to pathways care extended up until 26 is a progressive move and one that we certainly welcome. There is an argument in terms of, I suppose, that notion of corporate parenting for those young people that have been in the care system, that have particular needs, that could extend further, but that is outwith the remit of the children's hearing system. At the moment, we are doing a review of the secure care pathways standards and we are working with young people who have been in, before they go in, been in and come out of secure care. As well as those who are on the sort of what we would call the edges of secure care. You have just touched on that in relation to the pathway out of secure care. That is a really important part of the responsibilities of corporate parents, local authorities and any services that are currently involved, including health, et cetera. That will tell us a lot about that journey for the child before, during and after secure. That is due to publish in September this year and I think that that would be fairly informative in terms of just making sure, no matter what the age, when they are coming out, that there is a good plan in place and there is good support there. Thank you. That is a good theme of conversation. I think that one potential deficiency in the bill in its current iteration is, I suppose, a sufficient appreciation, particularly on the financial and resourcing side of some of those increased aspects. Those are innovations that we would welcome, obviously, in addressing that cliff edge up from 18 up to 26, but of course extension of corporate parenting responsibilities and duties is not a cost-free exercise. Are we confident that if we are raising expectations rightly and increasing our promise to these young people that we can actually meet that promise? That is a common theme in the conversation but in social work Scotland. I welcome that, but I am concerned that there will not be the implementation plan and the resourcing sufficient to match the ambition that is being articulated. I know that we will come on later to questions in that sort of theme later on. Pam, have you got anything else on one? One final question on the theme. I did have a question on finance but, as the convener said, that will come later, I think. Further to this, Ben, in the evidence that you have submitted from social work Scotland, you have noted that the bill does not fully understand the interface between guardianship and adult support and protection. Could you tell us a bit about what you think it should do in that space and what should be understood and addressed in the bill in that regard? I will perhaps dodge the question about exactly what the bill should do but I suppose that we raised it as an issue where we think the bill at the moment does not sufficiently explain how it will manage the impact on the other bits of legislation, largely adult legislation as we described it, which will affect the same population. What will be the interaction between legislation that moves, for sake of argument, children's services over a proportion of the adult population while we still have adult legislation that affects that. In social work, in truth, we have separate teams, largely operationally, that will work then, will have responsibilities and duties in respect of the same population of people. I think that we would want to be reassured through the rest of this bill process that there is real thought about how potentially other bits of legislation are going to be amended and what will be the consequences of that and write down to a practice understanding of how teams should be working where you have an individual who would fall within the scope of this bill but, of course, would also have, for instance, protection concerns which an adult team that meets the tests that require to be investigated. Which team should have priority, which set of legislation is paramount, I think that that is not yet sufficiently explained. I think that it can be. Again, I am not going to offer a solution to that but I think that we would want to see a solution before this bill became an act. Thank you. Under the bill, and this is something that I know we have had some discussions about, excuse me, previously, it is going to be possible that a child who has been convicted of a serious crime is going to be placed into secure accommodation with young people that are there on welfare grounds and they are particularly vulnerable young people as well. Is that a cause for concern and what steps might need to be taken to make sure that the rights and the best interests of all the children in secure accommodation are taken into account? Do you want to come first, Jackie? That is fine. I have obviously heard the evidence given by other people in relation to this and it is an area of concern and needs to be considered. There will be an element of young people, children who have come, who are on a justice order, who are ending or insecure just now, but it is that seriousness that is not of the crime and the risk that they pose. I think that that is where there will need to be a sufficient development of staffing in relation to understanding how you manage that complex mix of children. I suppose the other difference as well will be children who are there on remand or post-sentence. The secure unit will be told and instructed to take them whereas currently those children who go on a welfare basis, the secure unit would quite rightly assess their ability to provide that care. That makes it quite different and staff within those establishments will have to adjust to that and the management as well. It will be an additional demand and a complex set of circumstances to try to care for and ensure the safety of all those children because some will be there because of their own vulnerability and some will be there because of the risk that they pose to others. There is an element of that already in the current population where the criteria for meeting a secure care placement will be either about their vulnerability or about their risk to others or both. That severity would need to be well supported and that will require resource and a bit of a culture change because it is the need to look after all those young people. The practicalities that some of our secure estates are not hugely large. We do not have a huge ability to manage their estate differently, but that would be one of the things that you would want them to look at, is how they are co-horting of caring for children who have maybe different needs. The other thing that we anticipate and I think that we have seen it in other services residential and community-based is that increase of children presenting with neurodiverse needs, which adds another complexity as well. Ben or Stephen Dither, do you want to comment on that or, as Jackie covered, most of that ground? What I would say is that the numbers of young people in youth offenders' institutes are quite small. I have faith in terms of the secure care providers being able to manage that risk. I understand that there is a review of the secure care estate and the secure care standards as well, but I think that it could be managed if the right investment, particularly in staff and infrastructure, was put in place. Okay, so yes, broadly agree with what Stephen said. I think if framed in terms of do we have a concern about the population of children you described moving into secure in general terms, no, actually I think that's the right place for their needs to be met, but I think our concern would be about whether that happens into the secure estate as it is now. I think there is change that is needed, both in terms of how it is constituted and how it is populated, in terms of that estate that needs to happen, not for every child, perhaps, but for some of them to give us real confidence that this would be the safe and right move for all the children who are going to be impacted by that. Thank you, Ben. Can I move on to the next block of questions from my colleague Stephen Kerr, please? I turn to the children's hearing system, so I think that most of my questions are going to be directed from Stephen to Stephen. We are going to have an exchange between Stephen. Stephen, in terms of the volume of hearings, what will this bill do in terms of the number of hearings within the children's hearing system? Yes, we've looked at the figures and we've forecasted the figures with our colleagues in SCRA, and we anticipate around about a 10 per cent increase in terms of the number of hearings and the number of young people coming into the children's hearing system. In terms of actual numbers, Stephen, we're looking at around about 2,400 additional hearings a year and around about 1,020 additional young people coming into the children's... 16, 17-year-olds coming into the children's hearing system. So, just one other thing, I suppose, of looking at our capacity issues, what we're looking at is around about 320 additional panel members in area support team volunteers to support that impact in terms of the numbers. So, that's how you deal with... That's the capacity answer, is it? That's the capacity issue, yes. And what does that involve? Getting 320, did you say? What does that involve? In practical terms, how long will it take? What's the process? Yes, so we're planning for implementation around about April 2024, but we think the numbers will start to come in in full around about the summer 2024, if the book bill keeps on schedule. The way in which that works, and I suppose our core role is to recruit, train and support panel members to make legally binding decisions in the best interest of the child. So, what we do is we're hoping to recruit around about September, potentially the next year as well, and then we provide a high level of training. And do you have the capacity to deliver? We have the capacity. We've made a case in terms of the financial memo of understanding, which I think is... Which you have seen in terms of the resource implications in terms of cash. The main challenge for us will be in relation to recruitment. We've got a well-oiled machine in terms of providing high-quality training to panel members. The pathway is that it takes about 18 months from once we've recruit pre-appointment training for... And how easy will that recruitment be? How much... I mean, what do you anticipate? It's always a challenge, but it's something that she wants hearing Scotland has always met. There's been a number of challenges in the... It's quite a step up though, isn't it? It is a significant step up. We've got a track record of adapting to changing conditions we did during Covid. You're coming across as we're confident we can deal with this. I'm confident with the right planning and the right support that we can deal with it. What does this bill do in terms of the fundamental role of the children's hearing system? Does it change it in any way? I don't think it does. I think it reflects our aspirations to be rights-respecting and treat all children the same. At the moment, you've got a two-tier system, Stephen, where those young people that are subject to compulsory measures get treated differently from those 16, 17-year-olds that aren't subject to compulsory measures. We see this as an opportunity to bridge that gap and make sure that our welfare-based system, which looks at age-appropriate support for children, whether they've come into the conflict with the law, whether they need additional support and protection, that we can meet those needs. We well commit, but there will be a challenge in terms of resources. A challenge in terms of resources, I'll just expand on that a little more, because I had a very confident response to my question about capacity. What are you actually specifically meaning when you say a challenge around resources? So the issue will be in terms of the impact, will be around recruitment, so can we get… Availability of candidates? Yeah, can we attract the right candidates that will be able to meet the increase in demand with the age group? But there's other changes in the system, and I suppose there's a sequencing issue in relation to the work that David Mackie and The Promise are doing in the hearing system working group, which we'll look at the future role of Parliament. Which we'll find out, I think, next month, yeah? 10th to 11th, I think, is under a report. Yeah, so we'll be a bit more informed about all of this when we see what they're proposing. Yeah, but we're confident that we can meet the challenge, because we welcome it, and we think it's the right thing to do. What about the existing members of the panels? Will they need to require additional support and training, since they're going to be dealing with a distinctly different age group? Absolutely, and we're already working on that. So the way in which the hearing system is set up, insurance hearing Scotland, is that the national convener can make certain training mandatory, so we will make the training in terms of the caring justice bill and the implications of that mandatory for all panel members, and we're already making initial contact with experts in the field in terms of how we provide a high level of specialist training. So you've got this additional training to give to existing panel members. You're going to have to recruit 300 and whatever new panel members, and you're still smiling. Yeah, it's not without its challenges. It's not without its challenges, but it's the right thing, and we're fully supportive of it. All right, okay. I mean, this is an opportunity to indicate whether you think there are challenges that we need to be aware of as parliamentarians. I suppose that there is a challenge in terms of can we continue to rely on the good will of, rather than when we've got two and a half thousand panel members across Scotland in order to meet the future requirements of the hearing system, and that's a systemic challenge. What do you mean by that good will of the panel members? Well, they're volunteers. Oh right, they stay on board. They're all volunteers. Yeah, retaining them, and also just in terms of that commitment. And we have a brilliant committee group of volunteers, but they are volunteers. So we're the largest legal tribunal in Scotland, and we're reliant on volunteers in order to deliver our statutory services, as there is an inherent challenge there. Yeah, and that brings us back to next month's report. That's right. And what that might suggest is a possible set of changes. What about the... Oh, please, Ben, yes. Yes, sorry. I've been sticking exclusively to speech. No, no, just to give Stephen a break, I suppose. But I think Stephen said something really nice, that with the right planning and support, we can do this. And I suppose I would want to echo that confidence. With the right planning and the right support, and when I say support, I mean investment, implementation planning, consideration of capacity, we can do anything. And I suppose that, yeah, indeed. So I think with what's absolutely integral to this bill is ensuring that that plan is there, I would suggest. The plan and the resources. Precisely. The plan indicating what resources will be invested. I can see Tony nodding. I better let him say something about that. Ben and Stephen have touched on it. I think the knock-on effect is that if you're having all additional children's hearings, there are more people coming through the system. There are therefore the impact of that, or the knock-on effect of that, is we're going to require potentially more social work involvement, or require more care involvement in our care centres, which are obviously at the moment very limited and we touched on earlier, moving into that movement of how do you increase that capacity, how do you deal with those issues? Because there is a knock-on effect. I have a feeling there are going to be more questions on that. That leads to the additional cost because you then require further training. You need a workforce, which can then deal with those increased capacity and take on those challenges. And that, again, unfortunately comes back to then the cost. You have one final question, Stephen Cairn. I have one final question. This is really, I think, directed again to Stephen. And that is around the scope to introduce additional elements of restorative justice into the children's hearing system. For example, specifically mentioned is community sentencing. Your views on that? My views on that is that restorative justice has a role to play in terms of young people that are potentially caused harm or coming to conflict with the law. I think that my reservation would be about mandating that on to children and young people. And I think there's an opportunity to co-produce what that restorative justice might look like with the young person or the child involved. I think it's less likely to work if it's an order and it's an absolute requirement. I think there is something about sitting down with a child or a young person and seeing what they think is the right way to respond to a particular issue in terms of their thoughts in and around restorative justice and providing the right level of support so that they can actually do that. And the right level of support for the panel members to know how to apply that particular level of sentencing. But I'm not sure if the panel members... I don't think they can apply a sentencing in that case. I think that what they could do is they could make a recommendation to the local authority to consider restorative justice. Right, fair enough. Yeah, got it. Thank you. Bill Kidd wants to come a supplementary on this theme. Yes, thanks very much, convener. And that's a lot of really interesting information, actually. Pardon me, but with 320 additional panel members to be sought by about this time, they're up to maybe July next year. That's a lot of people. I was wondering about sourcing of candidates and do you go out and look for the candidates or do you just wait for them coming to you because they've heard about the role and they think that that would be something that would be a great thing for them to contribute to because they're volunteers. But sourcing of that number of candidates for such an important role, what sort of level of capability do they have to display in order to be taken on board? In terms of that, the recruitment process is robust and they have to go through extensive pre-service training. So it is a big ask of them. In terms of the numbers, it's worth maybe qualifying that we're looking around about 270 panel members. And then in addition to that, we've got area support teams. So they're volunteers that essentially support panel members at a local area. So we're on the case in terms of looking at an enhanced area support team which would involve some remunerated posts in and around that to make sure that that support is of a high quality. And in terms of our recruitment campaign, we run a recruitment campaign at least every year. We go out to employers who are often very generous in terms of releasing staff to sit on panels. And we've got a strong track record in terms of recruiting and sustaining the number of panel members we need in order to provide the support that we do. That's very helpful. Sorry, yes, Ben. I think children's training Scotland has done a really great job in terms of its recruitment campaigns over the past few years. I think the concern that the Social Work Scotland membership has had about this is perhaps less about the capacity of children's hearing Scotland to achieve this task and more about the context in which it's trying to do it. And it could try to recruit panel members when there's a fundamental reform of the children's hearing system will be difficult. You know, trying to bring anyone into a system that's in massive flux will add a great deal of complexity. And it's, I don't know, of course, but it's very likely that Sheriff Mackie and his group will suggest some pretty fundamental changes to the children's hearing system. So I think it's that kind of contextual thing that probably raises concerns rather than children's hearings Scotland's ability to do this in completely normal times. I think that's a good point. One other point, Bill, just to follow up on Ben's point, is I suppose we're aware that volunteering numbers have gone down nationally and I think the cost of living has impacted on that. So we are aware of the pressures and we're planning for that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Willie Rennie, over to yourself now, thanks. We've covered some of this already in terms of whether the secure units are fit for purpose for this new cohort, but I just want to explore it a little bit more. What was striking for us, because we've done a number of different visits, was that the understanding between the moment and the secure units is pretty limited. They don't really have that much exchange with each other, so there needs to be a bit of learning and understanding about what each other provides and therefore how the transition can manage. So I think that fits in with what you've already talked about. But it's not that new for some of the units. They are dealing with some young people who are in this, if you call it, a cohort. So it's not that new, but nevertheless there needs to be an understanding. But one thing that came out was health services. When we went to Polmont, the NHS was part and it was almost a statutory service inside Polmont. So they had the best when they needed it immediately without having to have long waits, for instance, to get mental health support etc. That wasn't the case in the secure units. Now they were able to, through good personal relationships and building up with local health boards, get that, but it wasn't guaranteed. Do you think that this is something we need to address in the bill or otherwise? Perhaps you could maybe just talk about that. And whether it covers not just the health service but other areas as well, who would like to go first? Ben, I'll try and be brief. Yes, I think it's absolutely something that needs to be attended to. It's a source of real grievance, I think, and challenge. I think within the Social Work Scotland membership the extent to which the NHS plays a role in this cohort and around this cohort, particularly in the provision of secure care, a significant proportion of which is about attending to the mental health needs of children and the neurodiversity of children now, as Jackie said as well. So we would love to see this as an opportunity to probably fundamentally look at the role the NHS plays around the secure estate and the provision of secure type options for children and young people who have complex behaviours. But we would absolutely welcome this committee's focus on that and the bill's attending to what are some real challenges on the current system around that. Mr Contrpute, too? I think, in some respects, there has been a shift a bit. I've been in Social Work Scotland for a long time. I didn't tell you how long I feel old. But you know, there used to be a great frustration if a young person wanted to secure about how you got them, particularly forensic mental health service support. That has shifted a bit, I think, although I might have practised office name a current role, and therefore the health board within which that secure service set would provide into the secure unit is my current understanding. But one of the challenges was then when you moved that child back to the local authority of origin, that service isn't necessarily a transition service, and I don't want to be wrong. I have negotiated transitional arrangements for some children in my previous history, but that, again, is a bit like a cliff edge. So, you know, you're taking them out of what is a very secure setting into the community, and some of their supports that they've had in there might be diluted or not there at all, or you're getting them having to refer them to another service with, obviously, some challenges. So, it's something I have no notes on, but I just know from a social point of view that's my background that that would be something that I think makes a significant difference to the ability for us to collectively ensure the best outcomes for those children and young people. I mean, that was certainly an issue that was raised, so I think you're more up-to-date than you think. Anybody else want to come in on that? So, the next point was then, that secure care was considered to be the last resort, and it was expressed by some that we go round the houses on every other option, and eventually sometimes end up with secure care, when actually secure care may be, in some instances, the first option that should be chosen. Do you think that we're getting the balance right with that last resort option? Does that make sense? I'll comment on that, Willie. Certainly, from a children's hearing perspective, we have to have explored every other possibility. I think that depriving a child of the liberty is probably the most extreme measure a state can take against a child. The UN have criticised the UK in terms of the levels and the way in which that's done, and referred to depriving a child or the liberty of depriving them of their childhood. It's an extreme measure, and I think that every other possibility should be explored. The UN, comment 24, and the Beijing rules talk about that being absolutely the last step and for as short a time as possible and as near as possible to that community. So I think that the position on that is right. Because it was expressed to me that sometimes that did more damage by going through all the other what they considered second best options, when a period in secure would benefit and then allow them to transition back. Are we going to an extreme position, do you think, by trying to follow that? You're pretty sure about that? I mean, secure is about therapeutic care. It's about rehabilitation and reintegration. I think the decision making process can happen pretty quickly when levels of risks are high. But I think that is the right, that should be the last resort. Should we have a greater array of services that can provide that therapeutic care without the need to deprive a child of their liberty? Absolutely. The fact that because of the way we've allowed the system to develop over the past two decades, that intensive wraparound education and health care happens in secure is a weakness of our system, not a strength. That helps a lot. That was a very useful line of questioning there for later on. Ben Macpherson, please, over to my new vice-convener. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I have some questions around finance, building on the questioning from my colleague Stephen Kerr. Mr Farugia, you talked about the operationalisation of the bill once passed under the will of Parliament. Councillor Buchanan, you talked about the implementation challenges, and I note that because of as discussed, the changes in the bill will require significant system changes with implications for services, resources and the workforce. Perhaps starting with Councillor Buchanan and being interested in the views of the panel on any additional costs that are likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions in the bill in your view, and what level of funding is required to successfully implement the proposed changes with due consideration to the pressure on the public finances? As you know, Ben, there is already huge pressure on public finances in a number of difficulties, and we have a number of potential changes in the offing that could again impact on that. If we look at the increased number of hearings that we touched on, that generates an increased workload in terms of both care services and social work services that are going to be required on the front line. Our services and every authority at the moment, it's fair to say, are under significant pressure dealing with the day-to-day issues that we all have around the country. Therefore, the resource is going to need significant improvement. It goes without saying, and all colleagues have touched on it. If we want to make this work, and I think that we all do, we all want to see better services, it was touched on just there about the last resort would be secure care. All of the services that are required to be delivered on the front line to assist children and young people need to be done, ideally at a local level, generally as close to home as possible, unless there's a particular reason for it not to happen in that manner. But all of that takes additional resource. Speaking on behalf of all authorities, I think that we all take the view that our front line services at the moment are under pressure. We are adding to that, and that has to be looked at. The only way that can be looked at is by ensuring that, when we have a workforce that is sufficient in number and sufficiently well trained to deal with those issues, and the cost implications of that will likely be significant. But they have to be done because it's about achieving what we all, I think, agree is the right thing to do. But there is a cost to delivering those services. Can I ask just as a supplementary before others come in? Did COSAL have appropriate input in your view into the financial memorandum and the costings of the Government, and has COSAL done any of its own cost analysis with regard to the implementation of this bill? I would need to go to officers and get them to contact you to give you any figures. What I do know is that we are under pressure with the current services that we deliver. To put an added burden on that is going to increase that, and that's where the work would need to be looked at and done to ensure that that added burden can be managed accordingly. And just as well, and then keen to hear from other panellists who wish to contribute on this particular issue of financing, but is there an anticipation from local government and more widely of a preventative spend effect so a reduction in costs in the medium to longer term as a result of this legislation? Well, I think we would all look at this and prevention should be at the heart of everything that we're doing if all of the processes that are laid out in the justice moving forward have the desired outcome, which would be preventing a recurrence, preventing a child moving into adult care services or even into the adult justice services. If you prevent all of that, then yes, it is significantly more, I would say, cost effective. But that cost effectiveness isn't going to be realised in the space of one year or two years. Some of that is almost going to be generational to look at those differences. And I think the difference is that preventative spend now will have an impact, but it won't necessarily be able to be measured in a year or two years time. It is going to be an on-going process where you would hope in the future we will see the outcomes that there is a reduced impact on the care services, a reduced impact on the justice system. But that's going to take a time to filter through and that's one of the difficulties, I think, in terms of finance because the money has to be put in just now to deliver that care to provide that preventative measure. But it's not measurable in a short space of time, I wouldn't think. Just to come in on that preventative spend or the aspect of prevention, I think we, firstly, to say that we are aware and obviously the inspections we do across the country that our colleagues are under, they are stretched, I think that's probably an understatement and they're struggling for staff. And we also know that we're not necessarily getting as many social workers through training and placements et cetera that we would need. In the country, but I think, in the piece of work we're doing in terms of the secure care pathway, that's why we're looking before, during and after. So what prevention was available, how successful was it before children go into secure care? And I think we still struggle with that. The emphasis should be on prevention or costs. Measurability, I suppose you can measure it in the short to medium term outcomes for children and young people. Because you're actually preventing them going into more high tariff kind of services. But it is a real challenge for the local authorities and services out there, I would say. So we shouldn't, this won't fix everything. This is almost you're taking children at a certain point in their life. But actually, if you do that bit beforehand, which is highly intensive community based work, if we don't get that right, then this will be a constant stream into secure. It's helpful. May I have Mr Fridge as well? I appreciate it's very difficult for a financial memorandum to capture all of the anticipated costs or the likely costs that will arise through the introduction of new legislation. I think it's very difficult but it's not impossible. And I think this financial memorandum could do better on that front. I think not with a huge amount of time but with some investment of resource and attention and conversations we could get a better, stronger picture. For instance, in the financial memorandum there are, to pick up on the theme, savings projected about transfers of money between social work teams. That is both highly unlikely in relation to the reality of demand but also just actually not how funding works because of legislation. So funding for justice services is ring-fenced for justice services. So any perceived savings that will be accrued there that won't really be savings but if there were they couldn't be transferred to children services. So I suppose those things I think could be unpicked better and a stronger case made through the financial memorandum. I think the really important thing that really picks up on what Tony was saying is that this bill pushes rightly, pushes us to make changes in the current system but the current system, the current workforces, this is about people, the human beings are fighting to stand up at the moment. So pushing them to move forward is right in so many ways but the fighting to stay standing, fighting to maintain the level of quality and services that we have now and I think that's where the social work Scotland membership is really torn by legislation like this and lots of legislation that comes before you and others, other committees is that it's the right aspiration, it's the right goals but a lack of confidence I think about our ability to actually deliver it and a knowledge and a reality from experience that ultimately what happens then is a critique of the professions and the workforces and the systems that are required to deliver this. It looks like failure rather than a healthy appreciation at this stage about the system's ability to deliver what it's being asked to do. Do you want to come back in again, Glenn? Yeah, I think it's important that you know that preventative measures beforehand before we get to this stage it's really about fulfilling the aspirations of the promise you know so we're although we're talking about the key injustice bill here you know really if you think about what we have committed to rightly so in fulfilling the aspirations of the promise that has another that is a linked piece of legislate well policy that really needs to be kind of appreciated in this whole picture so because we do I use the word and I apologise cohort but we do tend to see children and adults in groups of you know what the criteria is but actually if you look at the whole system and fulfilling the promise about keeping children in their communities supported at home supported at schools you know supported by social work where that's required and house then it's the whole system that actually needs to work to to fulfil all those commitments for the promise. Thank you. I'm pouring points. Mr Remingham and then his broadsheet as well. Yeah just briefly and I would agree with Ben's observations in relation to the financial memo for us at Children's Hearing Scotland I think that the biggest risk factor and the thing that's going to make the biggest difference is these intensive support packages that are offered to 16 17 year olds we know looking at the data that the children coming into children's hearing system the threshold has gone up and up no longer a children coming in for I don't know Skyving school or shoplifting offences they're coming in with a range of complex needs and new 16 17 year olds coming into the system that haven't been in the system before are likely to have some of the highest highest levels of needs it's going to be acute mental health issues there's going to be issues around sexual exploitation there's going to be issues around homelessness there's going to be issues around poverty so I think the most important factor personally in terms of the effect of implementation of this bill will be those intensive support packages that are available that made available at a local level to support some of the most vulnerable young people that are going to be coming through the system I just want to come in briefly so Stephen has mentioned that there's going to be a 10% increase in numbers coming through the children's hearing system and he's mentioned the intensive support packages I think what that means is that it's also going to be an increase in the volume of personal data and this is personal data that's sensitive personal data and it relates to children vulnerable children at that as well and there's a real risk of harm if that data is for example shared and appropriately not held securely if children can't access their data protection rights so I just wanted to highlight that as part of all of this we need also need to be thinking about the resource that's put into ensuring that you have good data protection practices, policies, procedures and places as well and that does require a resource unless you have the time and capacity and ability to make these really complicated decisions that can have a real world harm you're going to struggle we mentioned prevention I think if you can prevent harm by having good data protection practices in place and that's a really important part of prevention the promise as well mentions that the importance of good record keeping it's a part of particularly for children who've been in care it's their record of their life history and if that falls by the wayside because of resource pressures that's a real risk of harm there and I just wanted to highlight that thank you all of the important points on implementation and some follow-up for us as well Stephen, do you have us a brief supplementary? because there's been quite a lot of implied stuff here around that these costs exist somewhere else for example in the written evidence from the Children's Hearing Scotland it says it's important resources are moved from existing provisions into children's hearing system so where were you thinking these costs were that we could move them so that they would I think when the aspirations of the bill and no one the aspirations of the bill is to move wherever possible to move children out of the criminal justice system into the children's hearing system so I suppose with that the resource should follow right so from the criminal justice system into the children's hearing I mean it's that true and in other children's services and I suppose that my question is that true in other areas I mean how much of this is new money is my underlying question Ben made that point earlier that the money can't yes he does didn't get a precise feeling about it though he gave quite a precise answer is something that I'm understanding on that one sorry quickly in relation to criminal justice funding having managed criminal justice services it is actually one of the remaining ring fence areas of budget so if in a local authority you underspend that in any way or save it it goes back into the public pot there's no ability for that local authority to say I'll move that money it would need to be a kind of national position so that should hopefully answer your question but that's just the criminal justice funding exactly but in the interest of time I can't go on to questions now from Stephanie Callahan please thank you Stephanie thank you convener and I suppose this falls on actually quite well from what you were saying Jenny so I'll come to you first we did hear from Kate Wallace from Victim Support Scotland and her evidence that there was a real lack of information sharing and that people who'd been harmed by children or young people didn't get information about their cases so I'm just wondering do you feel the bill is actually strong enough on this? so my understanding of the bill is that it places an obligation on the children's supporter to inform victims of their right to receive information but I don't think it changes as far as I'm aware the information that victims can receive I mean these are really complicated decisions and I think in other legislation that set out what factors have to be considered when providing information to victims I've mentioned before data protection law there's an expectation of kind of high levels of privacy attached to how you process children's data it really shouldn't be disclosed unless there's a compelling reason but there will be situations particularly if it's a safeguarding situation where it is appropriate to share and certainly data protection law would never get in the way of sharing data in that kind of situation but it's complicated and it's about balancing the rights of the child who has caused harm against the rights of the victim who may well also be a child as well I think the other thing to bear in mind is to think about the purpose of the information sharing and what you're hoping to achieve in terms of the objective and what is absolutely necessary to share in terms of personal data in some cases it may be necessary if it's a safeguarding case as I've mentioned in other cases it may just be to provide that victim with information about how the children's hearing system works more generally and that's enough to fulfil the purpose I hope that answers your question Yeah, that's great, thanks I wonder Stephen if you would like to comment Yeah, I mean Jenny's right what it does is it places a duty on the reporter to provide information of the existence of a compulsory supervision order but what it doesn't do is provide details of what's within that compulsory supervision order so if you look at for example the two new provisions in the bill in relation to a young person being prevented from going to particular premises or communicating or communicating with a specific person or a class of persons that wouldn't be included within the information that would be shared with victims but you would hope I suppose from a children's rights perspective where that information could potentially impact on the rights of a child for example if it was another child that could potentially be harmed that there would be ways of sharing it that wouldn't require a legislative change and that could be done at a local level so if for example there was if for example there is quite serious there had been a serious sexual assault or something like that there was a suggestion as well that there should be a victim notification scheme that's kind of similar to what you have for adults as well and that being about you know people feeling that they are able to keep themselves safe and have agency in anything around that aspect or is it? I suppose that the risk assessment around that would be hugely complex and I think it would have to happen on a case by case basis both in terms of the risk to the victim but also to the risk to the child that had caused harm so I wouldn't really want to say much more about that and if I could just pick up my next question you might want to go back to that a little bit as we all been and Tony you both I think mentioned in your submissions about having a single point of contact and the fact that that would that's something that could be quite important for victims I suppose it goes back to what Jenny was saying about having that trust and being able to get information about the process and I'm wondering how important is that how critical is that and does that kind of to some extent I suppose perhaps support the victim so that you know it's not really about getting too much individual information but about them feeling that they can have trust in the system and that they're being supported through the process so I'm yes I'm very very happy to to say sorry obviously not not an expert in the areas of this very technical area of information sharing but I do think it nicely illustrates that the real appropriate complexity that we're trying to wrestle within an area like this and probably there's no solution which within which everyone feels completely satisfied I think probably but I think your follow-up question about the single point of contact I think does take us into a space that is I think I have on occasion sat on the victim's task force along with Kate's been there and I think that's really what's resonated with me is that there's the stories about people feeling isolated and alone when they've been a victim not having access to not just information but you know somebody who's supporting them through that experience and so that's why it featured in our response I think it picks up on the earlier answer about how we address the cliff edge it's about human beings working with human beings that's how we address these issues and I think we probably can operate in a very safe space around information sharing not sharing an appropriate information but also reassuring a victim that they're being heard and being listened to and being able to plan for their safety as you rightly expressed from Kate's remarks so yes we think it would be positive to ensure that that's being in some form doesn't have to use that term a single point of contact but that we're ensuring that victims have access to human beings who can help them with that and are there changes that you feel should be made to the bill to really emphasise that or that's a good question I'll take that into consideration and think about what we think could be added thank you to anyone else who wants to I know that Ruth has got a supplementary on this line of questions if you've finished yeah okay Ruth Ruth Cunfiner thank you panel Steven if I could just come to you just for a bit of clarification there you said that we couldn't tell a victim details of compulsory supervision order which I absolutely appreciate coming at this from perspective and I know you'll all have examples as well real life examples of where harm's been done and there is a victim in terms of the victims safety planning you said that there could be informal ways that children and their families might be able to understand I suppose I'll just say it bluntly that understand that they would be safe and they would be not encounter the person who'd harmed them in areas is that the sort of thing that you mean where there could be a way that they could be informed partially but they're not getting the details of the individuals you would hope because yeah you would hope at a local level that the police or social worker if they felt someone was particularly at risk we would actually inform that person that they were at risk and is that element of the sort of safety of the victim is that caught up in existing guidance for practitioners and professionals at the moment I'm not an expert unless I don't want to comment any further I wouldn't want to say definitively to that it's not but I have to say that my lack of ability to articulate to you that it is probably suggests that it's not sufficient in this area but again this is an innovation this bill it's taking us into new territory there's been a lot of work done in the last couple of years with the increase in the age of criminal responsibility that would probably be relevant and appropriate in this area but I'll be honest that I've not actually had within the sort of Scotland membership lots of conversations in this area and I think your line of questioning and line of questioning before suggests that we do we do need to think more about this and about how we would operationalise this bit of the bill sure okay that's helpful thank you thank you come in on that certainly Jackie yes I mean I think in whilst I don't disguise what's being said you know what we need to remember is that the child or adult protection responsibilities of local authorities and statutory partners I please remain for anyone whether you're a victim or a perpetrator so you would hope in a local level that's even saying if you became aware that for example the the risk the person who's causing the risk is breaching any conditions or is you know potential got the potential to harm someone that other processes would then be put in place whether they're a a child victim or an adult victim that there would be those processes of child protection adult protection that statutory partners have to actually put in place and make sure that everyone is safe yeah I hear what you're saying and I'm sure that in in extreme circumstances that happens I suppose I'm just thinking which I'm not going to start talking about specific examples but there are examples where harm can be caused that isn't reaching that level that we could maybe be preventing I suppose that's where I'm thinking of just one point Ruth Jackie I suppose one of the measures would be around the movement restriction conditions to those later on or do you want to do you want to pick up your line of questioning now then it's not if that would be acceptable yes that's fine we'll jump ahead we'll skip in the queue thank you convener and apologies other committee members so we've heard in terms of compulsory supervision orders some concerns that they might not attract the same safeguards in terms of depriving children of their liberty the obvious one was the entitlement to legal representation and I saw that children's hearing system had some concerns about methods for tracking which might be shared by the information commissioner in terms of right to privacy so I'd just be here keen to hear reflections on that so we can get on the record what the concerns are around that moving forward I don't know if Jenny wants to go first in terms of information yeah I mean my understanding is a lot of the detail in this will come through secondary legislation because this bill gives ministers the power to set regulations in terms of what kind of devices can be used and so on and so forth just to note on that so there is an obligation on Scottish ministers to come to us as the information commissioner's office to consult on any preparations for legislation and that could include secondary legislation that involves the processing of personal data so we would expect when that secondary legislation comes through that there would be formal consultation with ourselves in which case we can look at the detail and provide the nuanced feedback I mean I think just the general principle of this is that if any tracking or monitoring is in place it has to be absolutely necessary and proportionate so again as I mentioned before you're looking at what is the purpose what are you trying to achieve what's the minimum privacy impact that you can have in terms of the solution that you're using to enforce these movement restriction conditions you know what you want to be shying away from is making sure you're not collecting excessive data I think it will also have to be determined partly on a kind of case by case basis so for example if your purpose is to prevent an individual to visit a place where they might purchase drugs for example so it's kind of welfare approach you know is it appropriate for the tracking and monitoring to be on the whole time so you can track where they're going I wouldn't have thought that that would mean that the data minimisation principles says that you must only process the personal data that's absolutely necessary for your purpose so it's about being clear on purpose it's about being clear on a case by case basis what's necessary and proportionate in terms of children's rights to privacy that was something that children's healing system had raised that's right and I suppose in terms of the movement restriction conditions it's worth maybe just pointing out to committee what essentially it's doing is decoupling them from secure care authorisation so lowering the threshold replacing what was previously described as injury with harm and I mean if we look at the numbers the numbers are quite low at the moment in terms of the number of movement restriction conditions in place I think 23 25 last year 15 the year before so quite low numbers but what we might see as a result of this bill is an increase of the numbers because the criteria essentially is being lowered in relation to I suppose the data protection elements and the data aspects we do have some I suppose unanswered questions in relation to the monitoring if a movement restriction condition is put in place how is that going to be effectively monitored and one of the points in the policy memorandum support in the bill it did mention GPS so I suppose there is an issue there that we just would want further clarification on in relation to the GPS monitoring and how that data would be used and I would say because we took it if you wouldn't mind chair in terms of we're talking about movement restriction conditions there is another area that caused us maybe just a little bit of concern which was around the change in criteria around psychological harm so talking about fear, alarm and distress as opposed to previously talking about injury and we think that's probably quite a subjective test and we would have to do quite a bit of work in terms of refining the criteria and the practice guidance in and around that and I would hope that my colleagues in local authorities and other health and social care services would do the same so there was consistency of application I'm grateful for you for you raising that that was another concern that we had there's the subjectivity of that social work Scotland also mentioned in their response some concerns around this area so anything you would like to share I think they've been really well articulated much better than I could by Stephen and Jenny but yes just to fully support what was what was just said and do you have to social work Scotland have any opinion on that in some of these conditions the focus may be on the the child keeping away from harmful people or places rather than us doing something about harmful people or places yeah I mean yes I mean you know I think it's it's uh I I I understand why it's drafted in the way it is but of course we would much rather it was about protecting the children and creating safe spaces for them to to grow okay and any other panel members wish to add anything I suppose it is in terms of MRC you know it really needs to be it has lowered the threshold I suppose it's lowered but it really needs to be a consideration the balance of the risk and the restriction of liberty because it is a form of restricted liberty it's not secure care but it is restricting a child to the freedom and the other thing I would say in relation to practice around children who have got an MRC is that there needs to be enough support around that that you're not just relying on a movement restriction order you're actually wrapping a bit back the intensive support around the child because otherwise it's not going to work actually it's just restricting the liberty without any support and kind of rehabilitation so it's that where the the sort of greatest opportunity for them to be helpful to children lies if that support goes with it rather than just the yeah I've just done information to let that support I think legal representation is really important and that automatic because at the moment we're secure care authorization you get automatic entitlement to legal representation but a restriction of liberty for a child is a significant decision and I think that child and that family should have automatic access to legal support specific about that that access needs to be there before the decision is made so that there's an influence on the decision not just when the MRC is made that you're sure you're concursive even with that view I think yeah and I think that's being considered by a local authority for example as an application to the hearing then I think that would be it would be not just to then go into that compensation the family child not having any professional advice yeah if I might just add I think that really nicely illustrates as well the level of change that's going to be expected in a children's hearing setting where you've got some quite complex legal technical arguments between families and children's advocates over issues like this so I just think it illustrates what we were talking about earlier about the scale of the change the change that I think we can do if it's well planned and properly resourced but still quite a considerable innovation and I find that told you of anything to add from a causeless perspective Tori, yeah again the points have all been covered yeah I think what has to be highlighted and it's just been touched on is the intensive support nature around any restriction of liberty because that has to be factored in and that again creates an additional burden so that has to be part and parcel of the whole process yeah we're maybe keeping someone out of secure care but that restriction in itself is still going to require intensive support whether that be legal social care or social work alongside that okay thank you thanks convener that's helpful we've a supplementary on this from Bob Dorris thank you thank you very much convener I've got half a supplementary now because I think witnesses have already dealt with the idea of not setting young people up to fail if you don't put a support package around them when you bring in in a movement restriction condition so I won't pursue that as part but we've not really heard about potential opportunities of making the threshold to apply a movement restriction condition easier to apply so it's just whether there is and I would ask whether given that witnesses have said putting the restriction on a young person's liberty is a major thing so legal advice and all that kind of thing before it's applied but if it was applied instead of a placement in a secure unit that's less of a restriction of liberty and if it was applied to get a young person out of a secure unit earlier as a pathway to restoring liberty then that's an additional giving young people their rights back on a tapered basis I think it's all relevant to us so could you outline whether you believe there are opportunities along the lines that I've suggested so we don't just hear the potential negatives of this Yes, do you think there are opportunities? I think there are opportunities in terms of just keeping children safe and I suppose if we're thinking about secure care authorisation that should be the last resort but can I pursue that? Are there young people being put in secure just now because the threshold to apply a movement restriction condition is quite significantly high who otherwise may be able to avoid going into secure placement if the threshold is lowered with the appropriate support package of course I think that's it if there's the appropriate support package is in place I couldn't say whether there are I couldn't move, I couldn't say but I do think there are opportunities in this area if the appropriate support package is in place if I was here giving evidence on a piece of adult criminal justice legislation we would be saying opportunities to keep individual adults out of custody and in the community where they can have a more successful rehabilitation we should be pursuing and I would need to be consistent with what we're saying here as well Are there young people maybe in secure longer than otherwise there would be if the threshold was lowered to allow movement restriction conditions to be applied to allow them to leave secure accommodation earlier again with that significant caveat of an appropriate support package have we heard any of this in evidence so far I don't think you could actually confidently say yes or no on that one because there's been no research or data done in that respect and I suppose the decision making for going into secure is very specific and actually you need to meet those conditions for the duration that you're insecure so if obviously you're not then testing you know risk etc but actually there'll be various factors that will influence the decision of coming out of secure and ending that order and obviously it would go back to the children's hearing for a panel to make that decision and support what the local authority might be recommending one way or the other so that I think that's the thing about secure there is very good regulation around that decision making once they're in and very frequent review and obviously anyone can ask for a children's need at any point so I don't think it'd be the only thing that would be affecting their decision about them coming out so it's a bit of a complicated one Okay thank you Thank you and now on this theme we have a very brief sub from Stephanie Callahan before we move on to questions from Ross Greer Thanks Thanks very much for bringing me back in convener Jackie mentioned ASN earlier on and Tony you spoke about what you were speaking about intensive support and intervention there as well so I'm just wondering it does seem at times from the evidence that we've heard that actually people are trying to get the most out of their time places like young offenders in institutions or at secure care as well and actually at that point suddenly everything speeds up and you get the diagnosis that young people maybe if they'd had those in advance wouldn't have quite ended up in the place that they're in so just to see if there's any comment in that and I can see you nodding Ben You're summarising the narrative within the social work Scotland membership around secure care for the past decade that it is I think an unfortunate reality that if we had a better array of community-based services we could at least be diverting and preventing a proportion of that population from needing to have their liberty deprived but there is a an appreciation and reality that for many of them they will get the access to the support they need by going into secure care which is we should not having to be made that having to make that trade of their liberty to secure the service they need Thanks for letting me take that in the record Thank you That's great Thank you very much for waiting, Ross Greer Can we come to questions from yourself now? Thanks, convener Not at all It was all really important and useful questions and answers for our evidence My line of questions primarily related to transport provision for secure accommodation I think it's probably mostly going to be for Tony in the first instance you've probably heard or heard of evidence that we received in previous sessions from secure accommodation providers who were laying out to us essentially the complete absence of transportation provision based in Scotland and citing examples of in the worst case scenario a young person needing to be transported from one side of Glasgow to the other or from Montrose to Ninewells hospital and the transport provision having to come from Portsmouth or more often than not certainly at least from the Midlands or somewhere far far south of here I wonder just in the first instance Tony from the local authorities perspective presuming you're having to deal with as to find the transportation provision Why do you think this has happened? Is this a case of market failure in Scotland or is there something else that means nobody's actually providing this service here? Yeah, I think potentially it is a failure of the market and I think and you're right what you've said is children are waiting on occasions a ridiculous amount of time to be transported a relatively short distance because a vehicle has to be brought up from south of the border if you like which is ludicrous I'm sure all of us would agree that there shouldn't be that situation I think it's very much a case of that if we're looking at the care centres that we have and we only have four isn't my understanding? I think it's fair to say that our view would be that and I can read out the use of a lot of the points that has been chaired by COSLA because it's been highlighted for all of those issues that it would make more sense if those care centres were able to provide that transport or had it was part and parcel of the care service that's provided because that to me would seem the logical approach given the failure in essence of the market just now and the costs involved and indeed the time that young children and the children that are waiting perhaps in the not most suitable environment because they could be currently being held in a young offenders institution because of a time delay in getting transport they could be getting held in a police cell because of those delays which makes no sense I think in anybody's book Thanks for our answer I should say if anybody else on the panel wants to come in do feel free to indicate but just on that point around the centres themselves providing it what what is blocking that at present because one way or another it needs to be paid for at the moment it's separate private providers are being paid for presumably in an ideal world you could simply reallocate the money that's being used to that it goes straight to the centres they provide the service but it's obviously not as simple as that so what's currently preventing the centres from putting on transport provision themselves that I'm not 100% aware of I don't think it's within the gift of the centres at the moment to do that whether that be down to cost or the support that's required to put that in place and to run that as a service and I think that's part and parcel of the difficulty I think it's something that personally needs to be reviewed to ensure that the centres do have that ability because it just it makes so much more sense than waiting for hours or indeed days potentially to have someone transported which for us across our centres is probably a relatively short distance Thanks Ben I would want to provide the committee with some reassurance that this issue has been exhaustively explored over the past couple of years with the leadership of COSLA and the Centre for Youth Justice and they've done a I think we've having been part of that at times part of that conversation explored a number of options and I suppose I've been reassured by the thoroughness of that process but it has got us to a point where which you've articulated in your question really I think we understand the problem well we understand what some of the solutions are but ultimately you still need to push one of those solutions over the line and one obvious one is the providers providing transport there is a cost to that they would have to maintain the vehicles and the staff to provide the transport on an ad hoc basis we can't predict when children are going to need secure care so how one so who should be responsible for sustaining that kind of additional cost that would that be added to the cost of placements would it fall on local authorities or on the Scottish Government so that's in a very reductive way that's where we've got to with that conversation so I do feel there is a plan there if and if this committee will want to hear more I'm sure I'm sure that the right colleagues from COSLAW and CYJ could talk about it but it does need final push to try and get a much more sustainable and appropriate child-centred model I hear every month I hear a case an individual example of a child who's had a completely inappropriate experience in relation to transport which are reflected in the evidence you've got and we must bring that to an end as soon as possible keen to move on to talking about particularly the COSLAW led working group and how we get to those solutions but just touching on exactly what you've said there have been evidence of this coming up on a monthly basis at the moment one of the issues that we're facing is how we report against that so I suppose again initially directing the question to Tony are local authorities confident at present that in an instance where a secure transport provider has had to physically restrain a child for whatever reason and by whatever method that you as the local authority responsible for that child are being informed of it are you confident that in those instances there's a consistent reporting mechanism and does that vary by local authority or individual authority setting policy for what that reporting should look like or is there anything national? Shouldn't it? There is a specification that goes out in terms of that and I can read out the specification you wish and it states that the provider will have in place appropriate strategies to help a child manage their behaviour in line with the holding safety guidance a physical restraint must be lawful i.e. a last resort only the purposes of protecting the child or another person from harm using the minimum necessary force for the minimum necessary time and never for the purposes of discipline or punishment and staff must be trained in the physical intervention of techniques by an accredited body they must be subject to refresher training and annual recreate accreditation a restraint with this criterion will be unlawful and should be treated as a child protection concern and safeguarding issue it may also be a criminal offence each time any intervention or safe hold is used the team around the child must be informed there should be an appropriate recording and monitoring process including any intervention to try and avoid a safe hold duration of the restraint of the child's views of the incident if appropriate and the decision making around the safe hold verbal feedback will be provided upon arrival at the child's destination with appropriate paperwork within 24 hours and quarterly data on the use of safe holds will be presented at monitoring meetings and the provider will not use mechanical restraint or handcuffs nor use pain as a form of restraint that's the expectation that's what goes out with every transport recommendation if you like and that's what we would expect to be upheld and really welcome you reading that out onto the record there how confident are you at present that reality reflects what's in that guidance bearing in mind the evidence that has been submitted to all of us in various guises at various points recently personally I can't answer that I think that's up to my colleagues that are on the front line and delivering those services and requesting that to perhaps they would have the information to hand I don't have that information to hand I think that in terms of the caring spectrum what we would expect is good practices for the receiving surface so the secure surface particularly for children come from anywhere so they're going to be cross border within Scotland is to be clear before they come how they're getting there what the arrangements are for getting them there now we have heard the evidence and we certainly hear off and identified poor practice but we also see evidence of good practice and that's simple things it's not you know like a social worker being present with the child on transport or a social worker I think on one case going to the secure surface ahead of the child so they were there to help prepare them settle them or a social worker for example maintaining telephone contact during a long call and that the child's got an understanding of where they're going to physically you know which country and where they're going to what to expect that the family have that and that their views are taken on board and I think that all pertains for a more open conversation then should something have gone wrong or a restraint be held on transport that that would be transferred to the receiving service and the service therefore also letting the local authority where that child comes from know this may be an incident how confident am I that written rationale and decision I'm not sure and I think that would be the question for the secure services because they'll be the first people that be where you'd expect that to be kind of communicated so unfortunately we don't have anyone here but that is maybe a supplementary question you'd want to ask them We at social Scotland don't collect information on that kind of thing so I can't give you a definitive answer either but I would perhaps I mean I think that we're talking small numbers and I think that the level of information which my members do have about the experience of the children who are in transport to a secure unit would suggest that good and bad the information is being reported through the kind of framework which Tony outlined Thanks, an essential daftladi question here about the funding if a young person injures himself or has some kind of medical issue that they need to go from secure accommodation to a hospital to take that as an example who pays for that that someone needs to procure the transport provider is that the secure accommodation centre who are paying for that from the funding the kind of block grant of funding that they're given for the child or are they invoicing the local authority for individual journeys like that how does the funding work I actually don't know I think it will be a combination so if you're in a secure service in the west of Scotland and you need to go to I don't know Queen Elizabeth or the Royal Alexander hospital which isn't that far away you know that might be fine if it's longer away then I think that negotiation would probably happen with the local authority to say we're seeking that but I think it'll be a combination of things and would that is that potentially delaying the journey if does that negotiation about who's going to pay for this and to take place before the young person is actually placing a vehicle and taking to wherever they need to go for whatever it might be this issue hasn't come up to me as a so I'm not saying it isn't a big issue but it hasn't come up in the conversations I've been part of the national secure care group or those spaces that this being an issue I'm sitting here moderately confident again not with the information necessary but moderately confident perhaps that that this is managed within the current framework of provision of secure care and a lot of the secure care providers do maintain transport of their own the issue is about getting children to and from secure care at the start and end of their placement there so I suppose if it was a medical issue then our expectation to Cure Spectre would be that child gets that medical treatment as soon as possible as you would for anyone I think if it's about going to secure or from secure even to court for example or to children's hearing then that cost normally falls to the local authority right thanks and just finally the local authority pick up the tab for that and I think unless there's an emergency in which case as we say we would need to be looked at and find out where those costs are end and just finally Tony in cause of submission you say that you believe that secure transport should be included in regulations here can I just check is that are you supportive of a power in the bill that would give minister the power to make regulations in this area you're not looking for anything that's actually in primary legislation specifically on like the criteria of the standards for secure transport you would be content with that being a regulation making power for ministers no I think it's something that if we have secure centres I think it leads on to that they should be able to provide the transport to and from those centres I think that would make sense obviously there's an increased cost in terms of providing that transport but I think those costs are probably significantly less than the current weight and costs involved in transport coming from south of the border travelling much further and probably at much greater cost than it would be I would suspect than having our centres provide that provision McGuire that's Jackie Irvin there sorry so I think just to add to that in relation to having a regulation or having those services regulated the question then is well who would regulate them and just to be clear the key aspect that nothing falls within our legislation to allow us to regulate transport particularly if it's based out with Scotland any service out with Scotland we've got no jurisdiction on but we are involved in our sort of working group discussion with Scottish Government and other colleagues and in relation to the myriad I suppose of complex issues around transport but there's no one solution I think jumping out at people at the moment but just to be clear that that wouldn't because there has been some some people maybe assume that the key aspect could take on that role and we can't as it is okay if you were to take that on would that require a change in primary legislation or could we do that through second? require a change in legislation yeah thanks and obviously an additional cost yeah right thank you thank you for that line of questioning talking about transport and cross-border activities can I move to cross-border placements please the funding model we've heard in secure care depends on centres running with at least 90 percent of occupancy so some of the words are a bit harsh I'm not comfortable with saying words but it's and this is generally more than the number of Scottish of young people that we have that are coming from Scotland into these centres so many of the centres are therefore relying on those young people being placed in their care from south and other parts of the United Kingdom do witnesses have any views on cross-border placements and are you aware of any differences in the fees that might be charged to Scottish young people and those from elsewhere in the UK Jackie so I suppose anecdotally I understand it's probably a higher fee but I've not got that detail to hand I think there's a particular issue here in relation to what the bill is suggesting for the care and spectrum in cross-border placements so particularly around regulation of services in Scotland that would take a cross-border placement and that would be not just secure because we know that children will come across the border and be placed in open residential settings for want of a better description and I think one of the issues we've put back in our submission was really we are we need to better understand what's proposed within the legislation around specific standards and outcomes in relation to cross-border because you would expect it to be the same outcomes we're seeking for Scottish children and we regulate ourselves in services by using the health and social care standards developed by healthcare improvement Scotland and the care inspectorate so we've got some anxiety about creating another set of standards so you've then got a twin track system where we should be treating children whether they're from England, Wales or Scotland with the same against the same standards so we'd kind of urge against creating another set of standards for cross-border so the other complication is that it's obviously been suggested that we would when we are registering a service in Scotland for the first time that if they plan to take cross-border placements we would register them for that as well as local placements I think the reality is if you're in existing service you would need to apply for that registration from reading the bill but actually the reality is even if you haven't got that stipulated in your conditions of provision the market position is such that you might receive a call on a Friday if you were a service and you're a business from a London but they're saying have you got a placement yes I've got a placement that child would come so we need to be supposed realistic around that I think one of the things that people would also be keen to know is how many cross-border placements do we have at any one point in Scotland I think that's come up in evidence before and that relies on us being informed whether it's the local authority being informed because obviously a lot of the provision is independent or the key inspectorate being informed of cross-border placements so whilst it might become a technicality that you need to be registered to take a cross-border placement it wouldn't necessarily be something that if we discovered our placement didn't have that regulation that we would then it would be a technical issue we wouldn't be something that we would seek to deregister the whole service understanding that they're caring for all the children etc so I think there's just a bit of reality needs to be bared to that part of the legislation as it stands and I know that from visit that I took part in earlier this week that there are some providers that charge the same fees irrespective of where the young person comes from but they also intimated that that might not be the case everywhere so perhaps does anyone else want to comment on my in respect of cross-border in general it's a matter which exercises the social work Scotland membership a lot and Jackie picked up on some of this I mean there are existing expectations about the sharing of information about children who are being moved across borders and being placed in residential care for example or secure care in Scotland those are not always fulfilled by our English colleagues and it's not uncommon to find when there's been a serious incident about a child who's been placed here from England you know that's the first that the relevant local authority and health board to find out about it I have to say Scottish Government have been on the case about this for the last couple of years and this bill represents a staged approach to trying to improve what we can do in a complicated legal area where we've got different jurisdictions and a single UK internal market which does add some complexity but we welcome the fact that this bill is trying to take steps to improve how we can regulate with the small R despite Jackie's comments about the actual practicalities of doing that I think it's very welcome and we would like to see not necessarily in this bill but subsequently going even further to make sure we can provide great quality care to all children who were placed here but also that we're not creating a situation where some of our services are reliant on the flow of English children to sustain their model sorry, colleagues Stephen, can you make it briefly if you don't mind we've got another one I'll just keep my eye on the clock I'll make it very brief, convener the cross-border placements they circumnavigate the children's hearing system essentially numerous organisations including the PROMERS the care inspector have done a report themselves children's commissioner have highlighted the fact that those young people's rights aren't as well respected as they perhaps should be I suppose the issue for us would be when a child would on a cross-border placement was referred into the hearing system the issue is around navigating the two different jurisdictions like Ben alluded to and the complexities that that would entail thank you can we move on to questions now from Bob Doris, please thank you, convener I'd like to just have a look at enhancing children's rights actually in 17-year-olds when they are in police custody now I understand that the bill will first of all make sure that where absolutely possible they should be detained in police custody in the first place but that their parents should be notified unless they object in which case they can identify another individual to do so but they can object to that as well but the two things that will always happen is the local authority will be informed for the wider duty of care that they have and they cannot waive the right to solicitors I think I've summed up I hope I've summed up the enhanced rights are those sufficient what difference do you think they will make and are there anything else you'd like to add about the range of rights that I've suggested that perhaps should be added to maybe Ben you might want to go first on that yeah a really interesting area and again one which you know I would want to give you all reassurance that you know a lot of activity is going a lot of conversations about how to address this issue of children being held in police custody particularly by Police Scotland and partners such as us I think we welcome these innovations I don't think we've not necessarily put forward suggestions for further development and partly that's because the central theme of our evidence and my feedback today is we just need to be confident that we can do this so of course you know it's I think it's an appropriate suggestion of the enhancement of rights local authority is going to have an increased responsibility appropriately are we in a situation where we can properly meet that requirement and again I think we want to measure our pace of improvement to what we can actually do and even this will be stretching we have we have children and family social work teams which are at 60 70 capacity at the moment so you know this will be a this will be a stretch so those notification notification requirements and the active engagement from local authority social worker whoever would be a stretch have described it councillor Buchanan perhaps an appropriate time to take you in in relation to that no I get it I think that Ben has described that the pressure on our front line teams at the moment our social work teams our indeed the old teams and care teams is is massive you know not just from a finance resource point of view but from a point of view of actually having staff in place getting them trained and being employable if you like in terms of us being able to take them on because there is a significant shortage and like all of these things we would like to see massive improvements in that it does cost ultimately to ensure that there's training in place that there are enough social workers to fulfil the needs that we have I'm just wondering wasn't part of the questions but I'm just wondering whether that investment now with social work and local authority engage with young people who are 16 and 17 years old will actually be a not just the right thing to do but a cost saving in future years for the less likely to have direct interaction with the judicial system so is it an investment worth making? It's definitely an investment worth making I can't speak to the potential cost saving but because I've my experience so far it's been that those are very difficult to pin down but the reality is it's the right thing to do for the children and young people so it's the right investment to make okay and final question Ben you didn't suggest any additional rights that you might wish to see at this stage let's get these ones on board in legislation let's see how they pan out and then go back and consider but it's been suggested that I might want to nudge slightly on that having looked at my briefing paper is there a case to say that children should never be detained in a in a police station under any circumstances and if so should that be on the face of a bill and could you maybe provide examples for practical matters means that there's just no no other alternative to being a young person in a police station so that's the two extremes if you like should we go further put something on the face of the bill lose the flexibility or the counter do we need that flexibility so I feel I'm targeting yourself Ben no no it's okay I can easily answer that I think we need that flexibility still you asked can a case be made that children should never be held in police custody absolutely that case can be made that's for sure but the reality is with the infrastructure that we have in Scotland that for a number of years yet it is it is almost inconceivable to me that we won't have to use that resource sometime and credit to Police Scotland they are aware of that and are investing in their police estate to ensure that it's that it's improved to take account of that in respect of this population of children and young people but I think we've had lots of interagency conversation between police and social work about where other appropriate places of safety could be found for children that aren't in police custody the reality is this is a capacity issue and the police force for better or worse does have that capacity in relation to its custody suits where they can hold a child for their own safety or the safety of others and for the foreseeable future that will need to be the case so we would not be recommending that that goes on the face of the bill to something that we would not be able to deliver okay you want to flesh that out a little bit just in terms can you give a specific example of where other than just saying capacity issues of where police custody would be absolutely unavoidable and therefore we wouldn't want it on the face of the bill so before I bring in Jackie Irwin I just make that I think there's links to the legislation relation to age of criminal responsibility so for those children who are above the age of criminal responsibility the police will still have a statutory duty to investigate any crime against them so at this point you couldn't say that a 17 year old will never have to go into a police stage because that's the police's job I think what would give me it gives me assurance is that for under 16 year olds it's been the case you know all along that we would expect to be notified that that should be reduced as much as possible the time when you would provide an appropriate adult so I think what we're doing is this is helpful extending that to 16 and 17 year olds but I think in terms of unless the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 18 then we the police will still have to investigate those individual cases okay thank you Ben did you want to add in? no I think that's that's really clear right thank you um before we'll just come to the end Pam you did Pam Duggan you mentioned very early on you might have a supplementary if it can be brief because I've got an eye on the clock if you're still wanting to pick up thank you thank you I appreciate your using your discussion to do that thank you I will be brief it was about the support that young disabled people who are in the system might need it was mentioned earlier on are we aware or are we are we confident rather that the secure accommodation we'll be able to provide the additional needs support that you're seeing coming through the system more and more Jackie I can't say that from a practice point of view at the moment but what I would say is I would think there would need to be an adjustment on a bit because obviously children are assessed on a case-by-case basis about what their needs are and if they've got a disability or an additional neurodevelopmental issue then that should be assessed as part of the package of support and adjustments made to make sure that those needs are met thank you no that would be standard expectation that's great no thank you very much and I'd like to thank everyone for their time today we did cover a lot of ground so thank you very much we are now going to have a suspension until 10 past 11 to allow for a comfort break thank you very much thank you welcome back our next item is consideration of our recent external visits to the young offenders institute institution Pullment and the two secure units as part of the committee's scrutiny of the children care and justice Scotland bill the bill proposes that 16 and 17 year olds no longer be held in young offenders institutions and should 16 and 17 year olds need to be detained this will generally be in secure accommodation the bill will also provide for young people who are in secure accommodation to potentially remain there after they turn 18 although this will depend on the individual circumstances and not beyond 18 given the proposed changes committee members visited YOI Pullment and secure accommodation centres St Mary's Kenmure and Rossie The committee is very grateful to the governor of YOI Pullment Jerry Meekie to Jim Shields at St Mary's Kenmure and Mary Geeney I'm sorry if I get your names wrong I'm really it's just Mary when we met her at Rossie and their respective teams for facilitating these visits and to all of the staff that we met for taking the time to speak with us show us around their facilities and explain how they support the young people in their care and I also want to thank the young people that we also had the opportunity to speak with so I thank you all for your time today the public part of today's meeting is now at an end and we will consider our final agenda items in private thank you