Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would always be candid and say that there is more to be done on that matter.

As far as possible, we want to have parity between systems, notwithstanding the fact that the children’s hearings system is fundamentally about addressing the needs of children, as opposed to punishment.

The bill will increase the obligation on the principal reporter, who will now have a duty, rather than discretion, to inform victims of their right to receive information. That information could relate to the fact that a hearing has taken place or to the outcome of the hearing. For young people who are progressed through the criminal justice system, a victim notification system is currently in place.

I contend that this very specific bill increases the rights and protections for victims, but it is not our only intervention in this area. As, I suspect, Mr Findlay will be aware, we have undertaken other consultations on what else we can do within the broader system to ensure that victims’ needs are met. We have also consulted on initiatives such as a victims commissioner.

We are actively engaged with regard to what we need to do to enhance the rights of victims. As we move forward, there will be other policies and legislation that will help to address the matter.

It is important to highlight that, over and above the financial memorandum, there is a national resources group, because some of these issues need to be unpicked further. I will come on to talk about the cross-border transfer issue separately, but I recognise that there is a need for a clear pathway. Over and above the issues that are detailed in the financial memorandum, we are engaging intensively with stakeholders on this.

My understanding, from work that Scotland Excel has done, is that there is capacity in the system to meet Scotland’s needs. If you remove the cross-border transfers—just for argument’s sake—we have the capacity here in Scotland to meet our needs now and to meet our expected needs in the future, notwithstanding the fact that we could get further information and those expectations could change.

I have also pointed to the beds that we are now funding, which came off the back of a pilot. I think that I mentioned earlier that, in terms of Scottish Government funding, the number of beds in the estate will increase to ensure that we have stability and certainty.

It is fair to say that a place of safety is always preferable to a police station. I would want to avoid police officers feeling stuck in a particular situation and ending up not taking a young person to a police station because they have worries that go beyond that being unsuitable, leading to even more risk-averse practice. The current provision is that someone is taken to a police station when that is necessary and proportionate, and when not doing so might be impracticable, unsafe or inadvisable.

We have live engagement on that issue, particularly with the Scottish Police Authority. The committee might be aware that a conference on children in conflict with the law, in which a lot of attention was focused on the issue, took place last year.

On the basis of my portfolio interests, I am keen that we give the matter further thought. I do not know whether there are any quick and easy solutions through the bill necessarily, but we are just at the beginning of the bill process. I know that there is interest in measures such as multi-agency care settings for children who are in conflict with the law. I suppose that I am trying to convey to the committee that that is definitely an area on which we must have more focused activity and thinking.

We need to be crystal clear on that point. We need to look at issues of reform around young offender institutions, but 16 and 17-year-olds are being moved from the criminal justice system into the children’s hearings system, albeit that, for some of those children, that will be done on a temporary basis for the purposes of their care while they are 16 and 17. The children’s hearings system is for children up to the age of 18 and, although there could be approaches, interventions or work with young people in a secure setting that could provide learning for an adult setting, we need to be clear that extending secure accommodation that is for children in order to meet the needs of offenders who are adults is not an option.

There are a number of legal issues, as well as physical issues, around that. That does not mean that we do not need to constantly review and challenge ourselves on the care of young people in young offender institutions—hence the work around refocusing the use of custody for adults, as well as the need to focus on and improve, for example, mental health support and opportunities to reduce reoffending and to tackle the issues around the heavy use of remand in Scotland. However, there needs to be a clear line.

I will start, and the minister might wish to come in later.

I am aware of the history of the issue—it goes back many years—and it is imperative that we have the right provision at the right time, which requires resources. Going forward, we need to be confident that we have the capacity to meet the needs of children who are being displaced and shifted from the criminal justice system into secure accommodation.

We know that there has been a reduction in the number of young people—16 and 17-year-olds—who receive custodial sentences. Over the past decade or so, that number has fallen by 93 per cent. Therefore, we are talking about a comparatively small cohort of young people.

The most recent figures that I have seen, which are just a few days old, show that we currently have six under-18s in Polmont YOI, and there are currently 12 vacancies across the secure estate. I do agree with Ms McNeill that we need a vigilant eye, because absolute predictions about the circumstances in which a young person will go through the court system are always hard to make.

I think that we are starting from a good baseline position with regard to our understanding of current capacity and the likely demand. I do not need to repeat what is in the financial memorandum and the work that underpins it, but I would just highlight to members our work on secure care plus, which is about our having the correct contingency plans in place to ensure that, in all circumstances, we can meet the needs of any child at any time in an establishment.

This is a complex area, with many issues to do with funding, and I would also highlight the longer-term work that is being undertaken to reimagine the secure estate. I will continue to keep an acute and keen interest in it.

The minister might have something further to add from her perspective.

I will briefly add to that, Mr MacGregor. The children’s hearings system cannot operate after a child’s 18th birthday other than by exception, so there will continue to be a need for young offenders institutions. Again, at the discretion of the governor, young people can remain in a YOI until they are 23, before being transferred to an adult prison.

Given the view of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland on the inappropriate nature of young offenders institutions for children, if children are no longer committed to YOIs, that will give us opportunities to look at the care and support that is provided in them. I am also aware of the review on mental health services in YOIs.

Improvements can be made in various custodial establishments, but there are no plans to remove young offenders institutions because secure care—other than with the exceptions that the minister has outlined—applies for children up to the age of 18.

I will draw parallels with some of the innovations and changes that have been made in the women’s estate, because that probably provides a better comparator. In the women’s estate, there have been significant moves towards trauma-informed practice in custodial settings. The new women’s national facility will open in the summer, and two smaller units for women—one in Dundee, which I visited recently, and one in Glasgow—have already been established.

I am conscious of the questions about resources that members have raised, but there is an opportunity to think about the type of care, support and rehabilitation that we provide and how we better address reoffending in the context of a custodial environment.

With regard to the gravest of offences, the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate will, as with any case, have prosecutorial independence. In those gravest of cases, where the young person is progressed through the criminal justice system and, as can happen, a hefty custodial sentence is handed down, what happens in practice is that, if the young person is 16, they will spend the first few years of their sentence in secure accommodation, progress to a young offenders institution and then go to prison. What I would want to convey is that secure accommodation, with its levels of security, the intensive nature of supervision and other inputs, is an appropriate place for all child offenders who require such accommodation. That does not mean that they will not go on to serve the remainder of their sentence in the adult sector.

Under the Promise and the UNCRC commitments that the Government has made—there is, of course, cross-party support for implementing the Promise and for meeting our obligations under the UNCRC—all children who have offended and for whom a custodial disposal is required will, if they are under 18, go to secure accommodation in the first instance.