Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your daughter made a very astute observation. People will be divided on it, but with regard to sentencing, it begs the question of whether custody should be the first thought in such cases. I have no further questions. Thank you very much.

Good morning. I want to explore this area of policy—Linda Allan, you have said that we should go further—and whether, if we were to explore it further, we are actually equipped to do it. Like Jamie Greene, I am trying to get my head around all this. Kate Wallace, earlier, you spoke about what your concerns would be, and you focused on the need for a risk assessment for secure accommodation. Does it all fit together in policy terms? In my limited understanding, for a start, we do not have enough secure accommodation, so that is a question that we will have to address to ministers. However, the principle of the welfare of the child is the overriding principle of the children’s hearing system. Therefore, regardless of any offences, we must look after the welfare of the child.

If we go beyond the age of 18, we need to explore how that would operate, because between the ages of 18 and 21, people are not children. Therefore, if we were to put them in secure accommodation, it seems to me that the pieces do not all fit together. As you were speaking, I was wondering whether, if we are serious about that, a bit of a redesign is needed.

I am reading through the briefing, which says that we are not going to hold under-18s in Polmont any longer, and we might go beyond that. There are also references to remand and how that can either be in secure accommodation or in a “place of safety” although I really do not know what that means. It just feels as though the policy does not really fit and there is going to have to be a wholesale change to the system.

My own view is that I do not think that a risk assessment of someone who committed a serious offence would be enough to satisfy victims or their families that simply putting everyone together in secure accommodation is a solution. If you want to respond in any way to that, I would be grateful.

It is for Karen Reynolds and Justina Murray, if that is okay.

Good morning, minister. People on the earlier panel, who were really excellent, were trying to pinpoint priorities for what needs to be fixed and where the gaps are. A couple of things came out of that discussion: first, an issue exists about recruitment and the funding of posts—some of the posts are temporary, so staff are not applying for posts that need filled; and, secondly, the whole funding process seems so bureaucratic that it seems to me that simplifying it might be an important step. What do you think about those two points?

Thank you for your presentation, which was really informative.

Reading through all the information that we have been given, we can see that the plan and law reform are needed and that we have additional Government funding of £50 million a year. How wisely is that money being spent or being planned to be spent?

There are a lot of priorities. One of the key points for me is that men are by far the biggest cohort of people who are losing their lives. Is the money being directed in the right way? Can we see where it is being spent? Are you, as the experts in the field, clear that the £50 million is being spent in the right places?

I feel that the committee needs help in drilling down into that. Karen Reynolds talked about where the money would best be spent. Justina Murray said that there is not a shortage of money. Can you help the committee with that? From what people are saying, there does not seem to be a clear picture of where the money should be spent to get the results that you want.

Lots of pleas have been made about the importance of residential rehabilitation and connected services. Is that an important starting point to fix this? As a legislator and a committee member, I am struggling to understand what it is that you want to say to me about that. Where should we push Angela Constance to get results with the money that you say is available?

I will follow that up with a specific question. What progress has been made on expanding residential services? I know that that is only one part of the picture, but it is an important part. Has there been an expansion of services? Can you tell us now, or will you be able to tell us later, what exactly that amounts to?

Okay. Craig Naylor, you look as if you want to say something.

That is really helpful; thank you.

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and thank you for the summary of the instrument in front of us. I do not have any particular issues with supporting it and I welcome what you have said about the UK and Scotland not recognising Russia in the provisions for assistance.

From the paperwork, I am trying to ascertain what level of crime the order would cover. Would it cover all crime? From what you are saying about the Lord Advocate being involved in certain proceedings, I assume that we are talking about more serious crime. Given the provisions in relation to bank account information, is this all about dealing with serious and organised crime? I just want to understand the parameters of the powers given under the instrument.