Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a comment rather than a question, convener. Criminal justice social work staff carried out a review of nearly 18,000 cases, so it is worth putting on record our thanks to them for doing that. We have heard in various committee evidence sessions about the workloads of staff in the justice sector, so I imagine that that was quite an undertaking in itself.

Yes, convener. I welcome the minister and her colleagues to the meeting.

I put on the record that I am very supportive of this. As Russell Findlay has said, the churn in the court system has been a massive issue; indeed, it was a massive issue that the Justice Committee considered in the previous parliamentary session—and, I imagine, even before that. We should therefore be welcoming any steps to address the issue—it is good that the minister has recognised that and has brought forward something with the potential to deal with the matter.

That brings me to my question, minister. I know that this is a pilot, and that you will review it, but do you have any early indications or assessments of the impact that it might have on the backlog from Covid as well as the longer-term backlog? It is okay if you do not have any numbers—I know that Katy Clark has asked for an update in due course—but do you have any early assessments with regard to what this might mean for the numbers?

It is really helpful to have that on the record.

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I welcome the talk about the possibility of the age of criminal responsibility being increased because, when we scrutinised the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill, that was a major talking point for the committee members who were involved in it. The same is true for the place of safety power, which is what the regulations are about. I welcome the explanation that the minister gave, in that the power has been used only four times.

I ask the minister to answer a question that has come up through some of my constituency work. Because of the legislation that is now in force, some constituents are under the impression that the police can no longer talk to children under the age of 12—it is not about charging them but about talking to them. Is the minister able to confirm that that is not the case and that the police can engage with children, as they can with any other member of the community? That is the advice that I gave to my constituent but he asked that I raise it in the Parliament.

Like others, I broadly welcome the letter, but, as Rona Mackay has said, the measures that are being taken could go a bit further. After the announcement of the children in care and justice bill in the programme for government yesterday, I think that the trial period is probably to set us up for a time when no one under the age of 18 will be in a custodial setting. If some young people are going into secure care through the criminal justice system, there will be implications for Scottish Government funding. As Jamie Greene rightly said, the letter states that only one young person in secure care has been sentenced.

I have raised the cross-border issue with the committee before. I am aware of that from my time as a social worker; it is not new. I have concerns about it. When I was a social worker, a trip to the north of England—and to the north of Scotland, which is a similar distance—was not an uncommon occurrence. I also visited secure care centres, where young people were making relationships with people from various parts of England.

Placements are a two-way thing. It will be particularly difficult to stop that when both partners are relying on them. I am not saying that they just will be stopped—the letter mentions plans

“to reduce the number of cross-border placements”.

I assume that that refers to Scottish kids going across the border.

In either scenario, the Scottish Government will have to speak to the relevant stakeholders in England and Wales. If there is no space for young people in England, they will have to continue using space here and no Government is going to turn a young person away. We need to increase capacity here to meet the policy objectives for how we treat our young people who are sentenced.

There is a big discussion to be had here. Cross-border placements are not new: they go back decades. I might be wrong—any stakeholder who is watching should feel free to pull me up on this—but I think that that approach came from decades-old assumption that, when kids needed secure care, it was better to get them far away from the community where they came from. The thinking around that has changed, but the historical placement of kids has not, if that makes sense. I think that the idea came in the 1970s, when people thought that a kid who needed some time away should be taken a couple of hundred miles away. Cross-border placements will be a real issue to deal with.

I take this opportunity to mention that I have had some contact on this matter from lawyers, some of whom are constituents. As Katy Clark has just said, there are concerns, from their point of view, about the funding of legal aid and, therefore, the ability of defence lawyers to operate. Given that we are dealing with a backlog, the situation is clearly not a good one. This is a similar point to that made by Rona Mackay and Jamie Greene, but it feels to me as if the Government’s response has been quite robust.

We are not, as others have said, mediators. I think that the suggestion from the clerks—that we take the matter into the budget scrutiny period that we are now entering—is the right one. We can examine it then, and we can perhaps ask stakeholders and the Government more about it to see whether the impasse that seems to exist can be navigated around. The Government will not want a situation in which the backlog cannot be cleared, because defence lawyers cannot do their work. Indeed, that will be in no one’s interest.

As I have said, I think that the suggestion that has been made is the right one, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to comment. I have had several pieces of correspondence on this matter; I imagine that some correspondence has gone to all committee members, but two or three constituents have contacted me, too. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I would welcome that visit, and I welcome the letter.

I wonder whether we might be able to tie this into the session that you mentioned earlier, on mental health in policing. The topic might be brought to us by officers; however, as you rightly said, it is an area of growing concern, so more officers are probably experiencing it at some level, perhaps when initial contact is made. I wonder about the emotional impact of the nature of some of the alleged offences, and whether we could get information about that in a sensitive manner in the upcoming session.

I do not have any questions as such, but I want to put on record the fact that I welcome the instrument, as I am sure that we all do. I think that it is a good step forward. We should be doing all that we can to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for custody for women. There will be some circumstances in which that is not possible, but getting as close to elimination as we can get and putting in place provisions to support women who end up in custody can only be welcome.

I think that it does. However, you have talked about the heated nature of the debate, but it came as a surprise to me—although maybe it did not to other members—that there is a lot of consensus about the matter, regardless of what side of the debate people are on. In essence, it is felt that there is no need for the three-month period.

Although I appreciate that response, I will go back to the last part of my first question. Is the Government open to reviewing the provision in the later stages of the bill, perhaps at stage 2?

Thanks, cabinet secretary. Given that other people want to come in, I am happy to leave it for now.