Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Official Report 662KB pdf

---

Secure Care for Children and Young People

Agenda item 4 is the continuation of our inquiry into secure care for children and young people in Scotland. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting Kirsten Hogg, head of policy, Barnardo’s Scotland; Deborah Nolan, practice development manager, centre for youth and criminal justice; and Karen Dyball, head of children’s services (north west), Glasgow city health and social care partnership. I thank the witnesses for their written evidence, which the committee has found really helpful in advance of our hearing from them in person, and I refer members to paper 3, which is the public paper, and paper 4, which is a private paper.

The committee has heard about the complex health issues and needs that many children and young people present with when they enter secure care. Have those issues and needs changed over time? If so, have our responses managed to keep up with developments?

Who would like to start?

From my perspective, the numbers of young people coming into and going out of secure care have fallen over the years, but the fact is that we have put quite a focus on alternatives in Glasgow. The situation in the rest of Scotland might be different, but in Glasgow, we have a number of effective interventions through which we try to support young people in staying in their own communities.

As I have said, the numbers in Glasgow have changed; at its height, the figure might have been 35 young people in secure care, whereas today we have 10. That is because the focus in secure care has shifted from sentencing to welfare provision, and we are very much focusing on the community and on trying to support young people in staying with their families. I know that you have already taken evidence on social isolation, and in Glasgow, we are clear that, to address that problem, we want children and young people to stay in their own homes and for that to happen in the widest sense.

People talk about the secure context as a way of fixing young people and their mental health issues. However, although we can try to reduce the worst effects, we are not fixing young people, and we need to look at solutions that focus on what happens before and after their period of secure care to ensure that we get the best possible outcomes.

We absolutely agree with the evidence from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland on the complex needs of the young people whom we support through our services in HMYOI Polmont, and we would also add to the evidence that you have heard about the greater incidence of mental health need and the fact that that is not necessarily manifesting itself as a greater incidence of diagnosable mental health conditions. In some cases, the issue is not that needs are changing or increasing but that we have a greater understanding of those needs, particularly the impact of adverse childhood experiences, developmental trauma and so on.

That is not to say that such experiences are deterministic; after all, not all young people who grow up in adversity will go on to develop symptoms of trauma. However, many of them will, and very many of the young people whom we see in the prison population of Polmont have different experiences of trauma, bereavement and loss that need to be supported. That is certainly an area that should be focused on. Such interventions do not always have to be complex; all that might be required is a simple focus on these young people’s relationships.

11:45  

We would echo those comments. The data and information that we have on secure care and the number of young people in custody show a reduction in the numbers. However, although there has been significant reduction in the number of young people in custody, we have been hearing of a massive increase in the complexity of those young people’s needs. Last month, we had an average of 38 under-18s in our young offenders institution, but the information that is available suggests that they have much more complex needs, with a much higher level of adverse childhood experiences, which often manifest themselves as trauma; high levels of mental health and emotional wellbeing needs; and a high prevalence of, for example, learning disabilities and substance misuse.

The children who are in secure care, which is our most restrictive form of care, will often present with very high—indeed, extreme—levels of need and vulnerability. As has been mentioned, although there has been real change and an on-going fluctuation in the number of young people in secure care, they are presenting with an extremely high level of need.

Need is actually the crux of this issue, and perhaps the crux of a lot of the discussion that we will have today is how we most appropriately meet the complex range of needs of those children on the basis of those needs rather than through a service-driven response.

Although the term “adverse childhood experiences”, which Kirsten Hogg and Deborah Nolan have both mentioned, has come more into vogue, what it describes is by no means a new thing. Children have, as we know, been having these experiences for decades now—and I am thinking in particular of victims of childhood sexual abuse. Is enough being done to ensure that people can disclose such things in a safe environment—say, a school—and that interventions can be put in place early on? As we know, the vast majority of perpetrators of such abuse are in a position of trust; indeed, they are often family members. Is enough being done to tackle that issue?

The ability to disclose is obviously a very important first step. However, in their report “The right to recover”, which was published perhaps a year ago, my colleagues at the NSPCC identified a gap in the support services in Scotland, with a real lack of specialist support for people once they come forward and make a disclosure.

That is helpful. Does anyone else wish to comment?

There is a genuine commitment to creating as many opportunities as possible. In Glasgow, for example, some of the pupil equity fund money has been used to increase counsellor time and availability, and there is a commitment in the city to ensuring that every school has a counsellor and every young person access to counselling. There are also a number of bespoke services to support children and young people.

There is a growing understanding and awareness that people need to be able to seek support. That support might come not necessarily from statutory services, but from a range of opportunities that has been created through partnership with the third sector and which allows children and families to take the approach that feels comfortable for them.

That is very important. We need to ensure that these young people do not feel that things are out of their hands and are growing arms and legs, and that they are comfortable with the way ahead.

Good morning, panel. On social isolation, which has already been mentioned, I note that the report on Polmont by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland says:

“Social isolation, as a key trigger for self-harm and suicide, should be minimised, with a particular focus on those held on remand and during the early weeks in custody.”

What are the panel’s thoughts on the impact of social isolation on young people in general?

The evidence from the mental health review and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research about suicides was very clear about the detrimental impact of social isolation on children. The broadened definition of social isolation in the review was helpful, as was what it said about the factors that contribute to it, particularly for children who are in custody.

The report identified remand as a huge factor in the isolation of those children. It has given us an important opportunity to think again about our use of remand for children and how to ensure that, if they are remanded, they are enabled to have the maximum benefit of that time in custody. The report made it clear that opportunities are not available for children during that period. That echoes the findings of work by us and partner organisations with young people in custody, which showed that it is inherently difficult for children on remand to get access to services.

As well as seeing social isolation as a factor in itself, if we look through a trauma lens, we can also consider it as a layering factor. Trusting relationships that have built up over time can be very beneficial to young people who need mental health support because of their experiences of trauma. Social isolation prevents them from getting the support that they need.

As part of our youth work support in Polmont, our youth workers go out to young people like those whom you heard about in the previous evidence session, who simply do not feel able to come out and just want to stay in their rooms. Our youth workers go in and try to develop close relationships with those young people to help and support them to feel confident about coming to smaller group work or something along those lines. There is support, but resource issues come into play, as always. There is a limit to the amount of time that can be devoted to trying to break down barriers and develop trusting relationships.

The centre for youth and criminal justice points out that there is no requirement for individuals on remand to undertake work or educational classes, and many young people on remand refuse offers to do those things, thereby exacerbating the problems of social isolation. You spoke about your colleagues having to go into cells to get young people to engage with educational opportunities. If young people cut themselves off while they are in custody, should there be a choice or should the undertaking of educational opportunities be enforced?

All the services and support that we offer are available to young people on remand, but they are very highly subscribed. In contrast to the reports that you heard in the previous evidence session about services that young people do not want to engage with, we find that our youth work service and our here and now service, which specifically helps young people who have experienced trauma, bereavement and loss, are massively oversubscribed.

The resource element of what you have suggested would be very important. If all young people on remand were asked to access our services, they would not be able to, because we are full to capacity. Young people are saying, “We like to come to work with you—we like the relationships that you build with us and like that you trust us.” That has come through in a number of reports, including the chief inspector’s report.

Even if there were to be compulsion, I imagine that there would still need to be choice. If the services that people want to access are oversubscribed, that would be part of the dynamic.

From the perspective of statutory service provision, I would say that a focus on developing good relationships with young people is a conduit to encouraging them to participate. The relationship with the third sector, and investment in services that have the capacity to build those relationships, is the way forward, in custody and outwith custody, and we should develop those services.

Lots of young people choose not to take the services that are available pre-custody. We need a shift in service provision so that we are clear that we are providing the right services, in order that young people feel that they can engage safely and build relationships, pre and post-custody—and, I hope, avoid custody.

You have identified that although the numbers have reduced, the complexities of the issues that the children and young people are dealing with are more significant. Is it fair to say that, across the secure care sector and custodial units, the provision of child and adolescent mental health services and other support for mental health issues is patchy, or is it consistent?

It is important to differentiate secure care from custody. Our submission refers to the risks that arise for young people when the two environments are equated. The environments are very different; we might well come on to discuss that.

Significant concerns have been raised in both environments about health service provision and the in-reach of services. I know that at the previous evidence session for the inquiry, the committee discussed the challenges of access to mental health services for secure care providers, such as who has responsibility, the lack of a clear pathway for children who are in secure care to access health services, and equity of access. Through the secure care national project, concerns were raised about the interface between the health board and local authority that place a child and the health board and local authority that host the child and the secure centre. There are challenges in access to services for our children who are in secure care.

As I am sure the committee is well aware, there are numerous concerns about the ability of children who are in the community to access mental health services. The picture is complex and is magnified for our children who are in secure care.

National standards for secure care have recently been developed. They very much build on the calls for action that came from the secure care national project and they give a focus to how we ensure that young people gain the health support that they require. The standards will be launched in due course, which should assist with the situation, but health boards must be on board as key partners in that.

My next question might be unfair. Given all that, what priorities need to be focused on—not as a silver bullet, but as something that would make a significant difference to addressing the concerns?

We must fully meet the health needs of our children who are in secure care, which needs a partnership approach. Secure care centres provide a high level of mental health support, programmes and interventions, but a much more holistic focus is needed on what the whole system can provide to children while they are in secure care. That needs a partnership approach with community partners to provide the in-reach and the continuity of care when children leave secure care centres and return to their home environment.

I echo Deborah Nolan’s points. Even young people who have access to CAMHS and forensic CAMHS in the community find that, as soon as they move, they must shift who delivers their services. That is an issue even though we have the hospital that is based in Irvine because, if someone’s service is delivered from Glasgow, the service will be delivered by someone different in Irvine.

A thread throughout the evidence has been the importance of relationships. When someone goes into secure care, which the law describes as a last resort, they have the further challenge of a complete change in caregiver, which includes the mental health service provider, even when the provision was good.

In the best case, we can use services that are available to us. In Glasgow, we are fortunate to have forensic CAMHS, which allows us to have a formulation for young people. We can describe the challenges for a young person and how the caregivers should meet their needs, regardless of where they go. It is important to build on that to get the best care for young people.

Deborah Nolan and Karen Dyball have talked about the importance of continuity—we got that message from the panel two weeks ago. Concern has been expressed that the funding structure can rub against that, because who will provide services over the longer term is uncertain. Do you share the concern about the need to build in more visibility of funding and certainty about who will provide services?

12:00  

I am not entirely sure of the question. I am not sure whether you are referring to the model of funding for secure care and secure care services.

I am.

The evidence indicates that there are various concerns about our current approach to commissioning secure care services for our children. Those concerns have been illustrated on multiple levels, referring to the market approach and the lack of a national commissioning model. However, we should still be able to provide a continuity of care for our children, because health boards will have a responsibility to children throughout their journey. Likewise, local authorities are responsible for children while they are placed in secure care, and they will still have that responsibility when the children transition out of secure care, by virtue of their position as the lead professional. There are structures in place to support continuity, but the question how they are currently working forms part of the challenge.

Is that view shared in Glasgow?

Yes, and the situation is further complicated by the placement of children from English local authorities. At any given point over the past couple of years, that has been between 30 and 50 per cent. That dilutes the local knowledge and expertise of CAMHS, as they are delivering services that are not developing the themes around Scottish children with different needs and different placement times. That further complicates an already complicated picture.

When we are talking about how the mental health supports in Polmont or those that can be accessed in secure care interact with services in the community, it is really important, as Debbie Nolan said, to put that in the context of the challenges that are faced by young people who are trying to access mental health support in the community.

We have examples of young people whose mental health needs have been properly addressed for the first time upon their entry into Polmont. That is the first time that they have been able to access such support. That is by no means the norm for everyone, but the challenges around accessing mental health support, particularly for young people who are looked after—given the instability of their lifestyle and the instability caused by a system that can move them between placements—might mean that it is not possible for them to access CAMHS services. Young people whom we know who are using drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism for their mental health problems might not be able to access CAMHS services because of that. Sometimes, people with a diagnosable mental health condition, including some of the young people we have worked with who have not been able to access CAMHS services to support them in the community, have been able to access such support once they have come to Polmont.

There is evidence that their behaviour is as much concerned with trying to put themselves in a position where they will get support from services that they are not getting in the community. There can be a pattern of offending behaviour in order for them to put themselves back into secure care or indeed back to Polmont.

I do not think that the numbers that we work with are great enough for me to be able to make that sort of assertion.

The point that the panel made regarding partnership working is key, and an important element in that being successful is ensuring that the practitioners, whether in secure care or in Polmont, have the relevant training to be able to identify and refer. That point is made clearly in the HMIPS report on mental health services at Polmont. The same report indicated that 50 per cent of people at Polmont may have some form of diagnosable learning disability or difficulty, so I was concerned when I discovered that the mental health training that was being provided did not cover neurodevelopmental disorders. That seems to be an oversight. What are the panel’s thoughts about delivering training and what the content of the training should be? In particular, should there be a focus on neurodevelopmental disorders?

We need to equip our workforce to meet the identified needs of the children to whom they will be providing care. Any training input would need to cover the broad spectrum of need.

We have spoken about adversity, trauma and the high level of young people with learning disabilities or speech, language and communication needs. Perhaps 50 to 90 per cent of the young people in young offenders institutions have speech, language and communication needs. We are developing our understanding of the impact of traumatic brain injury and its high prevalence, as well as diagnosed and undiagnosed mental health needs. It is important to equip our workforce to understand those needs and how best to support children with those needs and that we recognise the distinctive nature of child development and what children need as children, because, first and foremost, they are children. We must ensure that our training is tailored to an understanding of children; often, we use programmes or training courses that have been developed by working with adults and try to apply that to working with children. We know that that does not work, because it is based on an understanding of a different cohort. Training is important, but the culture and environment that we provide for the children are also important. Relationships are important. Well-trained staff and specialist interventions are important but the cultural environment that the children live within is also important and it will shape their day-to-day experiences.

There has been a lot of discussion about how we can make trauma-informed environments. We have to be realistic about how challenging it is to do that in facilities that are often set up with punishment as a key component. There was a lot of discussion about that at last week’s committee meeting. CYCJ and Barnardo’s Scotland have worked in conjunction with Polmont to support it on its journey to become trauma-informed. That is a good and admirable intention, but we must be realistic about how difficult it is to achieve in practice. One of the complicating factors about providing a trauma-informed environment is resources, such as staff availability, time and staff support. We must train, supervise and care for our staff so that they can care for the children. The physical and cultural environments can be barriers to the ability to provide trauma-informed care to the children in a young offenders institution.

For clarification, did you say that 50 to 90 per cent of young people have speech and language needs?

There are wide estimates but, for young people in young offenders institutions, the estimates are within those ballpark figures. If we flip it on its head, the majority of children who are in a young offenders institution will have speech, language and communication needs. We should tailor our approach so that we provide communication-inclusive environments for all children, because most of the children will present with those levels of need.

From our perspective, yes, it would be better to have training for the staff on the current provision, but is there an opportunity today for us to think about a different service provision to the as is, and to envision what we would like for Scottish children beyond Polmont and the existing secure care delivery? Could we be doing something different?

I will ask briefly about variability. The HMIPS report stated that, typically, in Polmont, it took eight days for a young person to be referred to CAMHS. The panel subsequently reflected that that was much better than what was experienced in the secure care environment. More broadly, how do referral times and levels of training vary between Polmont and secure care and within secure care?

I cannot comment on the referral timescales, but I know that a lot of work has been done on that. I can comment on training. To echo my previous point, it is important that we ensure that our training is child-focused and tailored to the needs of the child and, because we know that people change and move on, that we have a rolling programme of training within both environments.

If anything else occurs to you after today’s evidence session, you can always follow up in writing.

I will be brief because your comments have almost answered my question. I do not want to labour the point about training, but the HMIPS report stated that

“no NHS staff with training in adolescents, and none of the clinical staff have undergone the Essential CAMHS competency training that would be routine in staff appointed to a CAMHS service.”

Given that prison staff are dealing with very vulnerable children daily, has the report resulted in a positive change in training for staff, outwith the specialist CAMHS services? Is that actually happening?

I do not think that we can answer that question. It would be for the Scottish Prison Service to advise the committee on what it has done. I understand that some commitments have been made. The inspection report that went alongside the mental health review showed that some commitments on training and staff support had been initiated. However, it would be for the SPS to give the committee a clear breakdown of its intentions on the back of that point.

Would you agree that it is critical for the children in Polmont that the staff that they see every day are properly trained?

Absolutely. There is a raft of complicating factors in ensuring that that happens, but it is absolutely necessary.

Deborah Nolan touched on this briefly—I am sorry if it came up more fully earlier and I missed it—but I wanted your comments on the interaction between secure care services and Polmont at the point where a young person moves over. Is that process working well?

That is a very welcome question—it is important that we focus on transitions. We know that transitions for young people are often major, traumatic life events. That can apply to children entering secure care or custody from the community, as well as moving within establishments and returning to the community.

Under the whole system approach, the Scottish Government policy framework and national approach to working with children at risk of or involved in offending behaviour, there is a raft of guidance to support young people making the transition and to inform practice. There are various pieces of guidance to inform practice. We also have a raft of evidence from young people as well as stakeholders about what can work and what can aid those transitions most effectively. In addition, we have lots of examples of extremely good practice to support young people making that transition.

However, there are a couple of complicating factors in making such transitions. First, when such moves are carried out on an unplanned basis—for whatever reason—it can make it extremely difficult to ensure that they are managed appropriately or done in the best possible way. It can make it difficult to ensure that good practice and guidance is implemented if the young person is moving on a crisis basis. Where young people are moving on an unplanned or crisis basis, it is important that we reflect on the reasons that led to that, what we did during those periods and what we could do more of in future in order to prevent unplanned crisis moves or where they happen, to ensure that we are able to manage them as effectively as possible.

The inspection report and the mental health review have highlighted that, at times, those transitions are not handled as well as they could be and that, at times, the flow of information can be troublesome. That links back to what we said about continuity, and how important it is that we address all those factors.

Picking up on that last point, do any of the panel members have information on the impact of those transitions, whether they are done well or not, on the young person’s mental health?

12:15  

A wealth of evidence talks at length about the impact—at the initial and subsequent transitions—of depriving a child of their liberty. Colleagues down south in the beyond youth custody programme have done a lot of work on that and spoken at length about a young person’s transition from the community to a custodial or secure environment and back, the detrimental impact that that can have on their mental health and how challenging that period can be. A lot of evidence indicates how challenging those experiences can be for a child.

We would also draw attention to the transition out of secure care or, indeed, Polmont. We know that symptoms relating to trauma in particular spike before people transition out of that support and that the first six to eight weeks back in the community are critical; we also know that that is where it is really difficult to find a support service.

For a while, our here and now trauma, bereavement and loss service had a transitions worker who particularly tried to work with young people who were due to be released, to make sure that they had support in the community. In some local authority areas that was possible; in some local authority and health board areas that was not possible—the support just was not there. Focusing on the transition out of secure care is very important, too.

We have two staff dedicated to Polmont, to support young people to make the transition back out. It is enormously difficult to get the right route for young people who are coming out of secure care. It becomes a really big challenge getting the right package for them, post-secure care. Sometimes, there is a reluctance across providers to take young people whose profiles include going into and coming out of secure care. It takes a lot of planning to get the right resource and, wherever possible, to support that young person to go back to the placement that they have come out of—the secure placement is an additional placement, and that again adds trauma to a young person’s profile.

Last week, the committee discussed children being moved at the age of 18, which means that children who have been in secure care have an enforced transition into a young offenders institution, even if they have a short period of time left during which they could remain in secure care. That highlights the legal barriers and the challenges to taking a needs-led and developmentally led approach, to ensure that we care for children in the best possible facilities that meet their needs.

Has any work been done on collating what children or young people who have made the transition have said is the difference between secure care and young offenders institutions?

We have worked with children in young offenders institutions, some of whom had previous experience of secure care. We detailed that in our report called “‘Just a wee boy not cut out for prison’: Policy and reality in children and young people’s journeys through justice in Scotland”. The phrase

“Just a wee boy not cut out for prison”

is what one young person said about someone he had seen remanded to custody. To him and some of his peers, that was very evidently the case.

The young people involved were able to reflect back on their experiences of being in secure care. They told us that, in comparison with custody, the relationships that they had with staff were particularly beneficial, they had much easier and beneficial access to family contact, their educational opportunities were better and they were prepared much more for their return to the community. To caveat that, only small numbers of children were involved in our report. However, it is very important that we hear from those children.

Other work that we have done with young people is captured in our “Secure Care in Scotland: Young People’s Voices” report. Young people who had previously been, or were at the time, in secure care reflected back on their experiences. Although many of them said that there were things that they would like to be different, they also said that secure care was the right choice for them at that time and that it provided them with positive help and support. Indeed, some of them said that secure care had changed or saved their lives. Likewise, in our “Just a wee boy not cut out for prison” study, some of the young people told us that custody had prevented more serious harm coming to them or someone else, because they were able to say that they needed to be removed from the community at that time.

That takes us on to when secure care should be used, but I believe that another member will take that line of questioning.

If it is not covered, we can come back to it.

John Finnie, your line of questioning has been covered.

It has.

We have touched on this issue but, to be clear, as you are probably aware, the HMIPS report talked about

“The systemic interagency shortcomings of communication and information exchange across justice, that inhibits the management and care of young people entering and leaving HMP YOI Polmont.”

Do the agencies—the prisons, the courts, the police, the NHS and the third sector, although that list is not exhaustive—work well together? The report suggests that they do not work as well together as they could. Most importantly, what could be done to improve interagency communication, whether around an unplanned or planned change? Sometimes, when it is unplanned, a change will be last minute and, as we heard in previous evidence, there might difficulties in sharing communication. What could be done to improve that?

In our previous experience with difficult outcomes, as a local authority, we have tried hard to get the right information. Historically, the well-recognised complexity for us is that the whole secure care population is so complex that it is difficult to pick and choose particular young people with needs because those needs will be reflective of the needs of the entire population.

We have had some examples in which we have been very clear. Obviously, although a young person may self-report that they are okay, there is also a social worker at court who can also be clear that that should be overridden by the available information to the contrary. The need for the report to be fair is recognised. Everybody concerned is committed to doing the best for young people, but sometimes communication gets lost. The reports on young people who go into secure care and custody, and on whom we focus most, are available to us in localities. It should not be difficult to improve that communication and set up systems through which we are able to share—as far as possible—some of the concerns and needs of those young people.

There are many occasions on which agencies work extremely well together, but there are challenges to do with the consistency of joint working, which is a challenge in itself.

On the whole-system approach, the fact that 32 local authorities do things slightly differently causes challenges with consistency. There are very clear processes and structures in place to enable information sharing, although clearly evidence could be improved. For example, for children entering into custody, there is clear guidance on what information should be shared and when, and on arrangements for an initial custody review to be held within very short timescales, to ensure that the team around a child come together to share information, discuss need, risk and support, and ensure continuity of support.

The review report said that setting minimum expectations of what information should be shared might be beneficial, but monitoring and accountability also matter. If breakdowns are identified in a timely manner and addressed, we do not end up in circumstances in which people are asked to provide care for children without information on need and risk.

Okay.

Deborah Nolan, you said that there is a lack of uptake of education and work—it is not clear whether it is just education—by children on remand. Could you comment on the isolation of children on remand and on the increase in the number of suicides?

I would only echo what was in the mental health review report, which is that there are significant challenges for children on remand.

For children in custody, as was mentioned, there are issues with the availability and uptake of services, and about their ability to access services, which can contribute to isolation.

For children on remand in general, there are differences that relate to whether a young person is in secure care or custody during their period of remand. At times, legislative and financial imperatives can be a factor in the decision-making process, rather than the decision always being based on the needs and best interests of the child. That can prove challenging.

Finally, the submission from Barnardo’s Scotland comments on the uncertainty of one-year funding relationships and the resulting impact, which I know is an issue across the board. Perhaps the whole panel can comment on that.

Absolutely—that brings me back to my previous point about the importance of long-term trusting relationships and their restorative and healing impact for young people who have experienced trauma. Building those relationships is a key element of our services, but short-term funding can—in spite of our best wishes and intentions—make that difficult. Staff have lives to lead and if they do not know whether they will have a job next month, they may need to go out and look for another one. One small thing can have a big impact on young people with whom staff have been working over a long period of time. The member of staff may not want to leave—they may want to continue those relationships and that way of working. That is a challenge across third sector services, but it is writ large in this area.

We have been doing a lot of work in Glasgow to try to shift the relationship. We are trying to release funding that will be our money to spend over much longer periods of time so that we can achieve sustainability in this context and in a much broader context.

We are clear that third sector colleagues are sometimes in a better position than statutory agencies to form those kinds of relationships, and we need to think about how we can fund that. In Glasgow, we have been quite successful in shifting some of the high-cost out-of-city placements by bringing those young people back into the city, and spending the money and thinking about how we invest. We are investing in an intensive service to avoid young people coming in. That involves giving the funding to third sector partners, and thinking about doing so over a five-year period to ensure that there is sustainability so that we can guarantee relationships over time and build up quality services.

Does Deborah Nolan have anything to add?

No—I would just echo what has been said.

I thank all the witnesses for their evidence. This session has been really worth while, and the committee will look in depth at the evidence that you have presented today. Thank you for attending.

Before we conclude the public part of the meeting, I note the reports in the media that the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority has resigned. Should those reports be confirmed, it is disappointing that the committee was not informed. If the committee agrees, I will write to the SPA chair to seek more information. Do I have members’ agreement to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. The committee’s next meeting will be on 18 June, when we will consider two draft reports.

12:28 Meeting continued in private until 12:48.