Justice Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Official Report 590KB pdf

---

Secure Care and Prison Places for Children and Young People

Agenda item 2 is consideration of the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report on secure care and prison places for children and young people in Scotland. I refer members to paper 3, which details the Scottish Government’s response.

Do members have any comments on the Government’s response? Should we take any further action? There will be a chamber debate on the committee’s report and the Government’s response on 17 March, when there will be an opportunity to discuss the issue fully.

To me—I do not know whether this is to do with the circumstances in which I read it on the train coming down to Edinburgh—the Government’s response seems a tad defensive; it is almost a case of, “There’s nothing to see here.”

I have concerns about three areas of the Government’s response, the first of which relates to health and wellbeing. On our recommendation about swift access to services, it says that the host board would provide healthcare services for a young person who was placed in secure care. However, it goes on to qualify that by stating that the host board would

“be commissioned to do this by the ‘home’ board of the young person’s usual place of residence”.

I hope that there will be no undue delay associated with what sounds like a very bureaucratic process. We know that many young people who are in secure care are from outwith Scotland. There should be no doubt about whether that information will be forthcoming.

In relation to our recommendation on the expansion of secure care beyond the age of 18, the Government’s response says:

“The Scottish Government will also work with SPS around a roadmap of young people entering Polmont, in order to consider ways of reducing this.”

If the Government is considering alternatives, it does not seem to me that it should be engaging with the Scottish Prison Service, the role of which is clear.

In relation to suicide, I am concerned about the fact that the initial assessment of suicide risk is carried out

“by a prison officer and, if there are concerns, a healthcare professional.”

I understood that a health assessment was carried out on young people who enter custody. It does not seem to me that a pro forma—even one compiled by health professionals—would necessarily pick up a young person who, in going into such testing circumstances, was at risk of suicide.

There are some positive aspects of the response; I just had concerns about those three points.

It is helpful to raise those issues at this stage. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will undoubtedly listen to what we have to say, and I hope that he will reflect on that when he speaks in the debate on the report.

I share some of John Finnie’s misgivings about the tone at certain points in the Government’s response. It is inevitable that the Government will put the counterargument, so a bit of rebuttal or defensiveness is to be expected, but John Finnie has given two or three examples where the Government’s response is a wee bit disappointing.

It is helpful to know that the debate on the committee’s report is to be held on 17 March. It might be worth our returning to this after that debate, depending on the response that we get from the cabinet secretary or whoever responds to the debate, to see whether there are issues that we need to follow up because of offers made by the cabinet secretary or because matters were not dealt with satisfactorily in the opening or closing speeches.

That is a worthwhile suggestion.

I broadly agree with what John Finnie and Liam McArthur have said. I would put a different slant on the response: rather than reading it as being a defensive response to the questions, I saw it as outlining what has been done or what currently happens. We have had detailed responses to the questions and, as the committee picked up, there are clearly issues, so it is great that we will have the debate to bring those out. All the stakeholders who came to the committee will be very happy that we have secured a debate and have a chance to flush out some of the issues.

11:45  

I totally agree with Fulton MacGregor. It is hugely important that we look into the issue and I am really pleased that we are having a debate on it. I agree with John Finnie’s first point about the local centre—I hope that the bureaucracy does not get in the way of all that. That is a wee bit cloudy.

On the deaths from suicide in prison, a paragraph on page 11 talks about the time lapse between a death in prison and a sheriff issuing a fatal accident inquiry determination. It says:

“In response to concerns raised by bereaved families about the impact”

of such delays, the SPS

“committed to updating their website quarterly to include the medical cause of death as listed on the death certificate, with a link to all published FAI determinations. This information is due to be updated in January 2020.”

Would it be possible to chase that up and see whether it is actually happening?

It would be helpful to get that in advance of the debate.

The debate will take place on 17 March. Does the committee agree that, following that debate, we can consider what has been said and decide whether further action is required?

Members indicated agreement.