Chamber and committees

That might be a very important factor in considering whether a young person should remain in secure care after their 18th birthday, up to their 19th birthday. There are broader provisions in other legislation that address the question of what is the most suitable disposal for somebody with a learning disability. There are obviously issues for any person with a learning disability who is engaging with the court system when there are issues of capacity.

There is a broader issue but, in relation to secure care, a learning disability might be a factor in enabling a young person to stay past their 18th birthday, up to their 19th birthday. There would be an individualised assessment of the needs of that child and the other children in the establishment.

I understand why Mr Findlay asks that question. That is the raison d’être of the current provision, which is being extended to under-18s. The local authority requires to be notified, because it might well have information about that young person’s background and so could highlight to the police issues of vulnerability. I would certainly be happy to engage on that issue in relation to safeguarding. It should be considered in the context of the evolving capacity and rights of young people as they get older.

The minister might also have some thoughts on that.

You are quite correct. The committee will be aware of the work on the development of risk assessment tools—for example, by the Risk Management Authority. That is based on evidence, and it is correct that the risk management tools for children have to be distinct from those for adults.

The advantage of placing all children in secure care when an offence has been committed is the flexibility there to really focus on those tailor-made, individual assessments of need and risk. The committee will be aware that the physical environment in secure accommodation is smaller, and it involves more intense support and a more intensive way of addressing the risks and needs of children who are in conflict with the law. That is an area in which providers of secure accommodation are already experts—they have all being doing that for a number of years with children who have committed a variety of offences. I hope that that helps to answer the question.

I suppose that I was giving you the backdrop and accurate information about the current situation. Today, there are 12 vacancies in secure care accommodation and, in Polmont, there are six children under 18—-

The 93 per cent reduction in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds that are being sentenced is due to work that has commenced during the past decade.

Work has been done on when it is appropriate to shift young people into either alternatives to prosecution or alternatives to custody, which is related to the whole-systems approach to youth justice that commenced in 2011.

The reasonable point has been made that, if we expand the legal route so that all children who are under the age of 18 and in the system go into secure accommodation, that will increase demand on secure facilities. Today, there are six young people who are under the age of 18 in Polmont and there are vacancies, but we need to be vigilant that there is always capacity.

Some of the work is on funding. The Scottish Government funds one bed in each of the four independent providers, and, as you will see from the financial memorandum, there are plans for the number of funded beds to increase. That is part of that work that we are doing to ensure that we always have the right contingency arrangements in place. Notwithstanding that, there is further work going on—in particular, with providers and multi-agency partners—to ensure that we are in a position to put in additional support for any provider, should we need to.

The starting position for the arrangements is that, for the staff in the secure estate, this is their bread and butter. Staff deal with children from a range of age groups—the latest figures that I have seen show that the majority of children who go into secure are in the older age group: they are 15, 16 or 17—and they already work with a high proportion of children who have a history of committing assaults or using or brandishing weapons. They already have that expertise, which should give us confidence.

Irrespective of the route by which children go into secure accommodation, whether it is via the criminal justice system, via the children’s hearings system or under measures to do with their care and protection or the care and protection of others, there is an overlap between them, and a real similarity in their history of adverse childhood experiences. We know that 98 per cent of children who appear in court will have a history of being in the children’s hearings system and will have high levels of vulnerability. Children who reach the destination of secure accomodation via the children’s hearings system will also have had instances of conflict with the law. The research that the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice has undertaken demonstrates that the risks and needs of children in secure are not dissimilar.

Having said that, there are always exceptions, which is why we need to have contingencies and flexibilities in place. That includes the work in and around secure care plus, which enables us to make arrangements, if necessary, by which we can quickly support and facilitate additional staff or provide other additional intensive measures in a secure environment, or make adaptations to a property. We need to be able to do that.

Where secure care has an advantage over prison care is in its flexibility and the ability to respond to not only individual needs but individual risks that children present. Staff who work in secure accommodation are well acquainted with addressing the needs of an individual child while considering the context of the other children for whom they also have responsibility.

That is my understanding, but I am, of course, conscious that Ms Clark is a lawyer, and so I may want to defer to officials on that.

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

Forgive me—I thought that I had said in my original answer that we have a good starting point and a good basis to go forward on.