Secure Accommodation
The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on strengthening Scotland's secure accommodation. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
I very much welcome the opportunity to tell members about the work that we are doing to improve the effectiveness of secure accommodation in Scotland. I will also draw the Parliament's attention to some of the challenges facing the sector. I will paint a rounded picture for members, highlighting both the strengths and the weaknesses in the secure estate. By making this statement, which has been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I hope to get consensus across the chamber that we need to work together to ensure that Scotland's secure provision is fit for purpose. We need a secure estate that both helps to improve outcomes for the small number of high-risk young people who require it and protects the public.
I hardly need to remind members of Scotland's long and proud tradition of taking a child-centred approach when it comes to services for young people. The focus of the Scottish children's hearings system on needs as well as deeds is unique. Scotland's secure estate is located firmly within that welfare framework. It provides high-quality care and education for young people up to the age of 18 who have been deemed by children's hearings to pose a serious risk to themselves and/or others or who are required to be detained by the court. Young people are placed in secure care by local authorities or, in the case of those who are sentenced by the court, on the authority of Scottish ministers.
Scotland has seven secure units, offering 124 places. Five of them are owned and operated by independent charities: St Mary's Kenmure in Bishopbriggs, East Dunbartonshire; St Philip's in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire; Kibble in Paisley, Renfrewshire; Rossie in Montrose, Angus; and the Good Shepherd centre in Bishopton, Renfrewshire. Two units are owned and operated by local authorities: the Elms in Dundee; and Edinburgh secure services in Edinburgh.
Staff in secure units work daily with some of Scotland's most challenging, and yet most powerless, young people. During my visit to Kibble secure unit in Paisley earlier this week, I was impressed again by the fierce commitment of staff to the young people in their care. I am sure that members will agree that the work that secure care staff carry out to help stabilise lives, protect youngsters and make our communities safer is invaluable—although, I regret to say, it is too infrequently recognised or celebrated. I therefore take this opportunity to thank all those who work in secure accommodation for what they do for our young people.
In March we saw only too clearly how challenging that work can be. St Mary's Kenmure in Bishopbriggs, near Glasgow, was forced to close temporarily following a serious disturbance, during which a number of young people absconded from the unit. Although that was a unique incident in Scotland's secure care history, it gave the whole secure estate occasion to reflect on the difficulties associated with caring for young people. A number of important lessons have been learned, particularly in relation to staffing and security.
I visited St Mary's Kenmure on 29 July, shortly before it reopened. David Whitton MSP, in whose constituency St Mary's is located, joined me on the visit. I spoke to staff and was reassured by the measures that the board of managers has taken to address the factors that contributed to the incident and to minimise the risk of such an incident happening again.
Immediately following the events in March, the board of managers of St Mary's appointed an independent expert to lead a thorough investigation. Managers and staff at St Mary's have worked incredibly hard over the past four months, and I am delighted to report that they have successfully implemented the recommendations set out in the internal report as well as those made in the inspection report from the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. Improvements include stronger and more effective leadership; a revised management and staffing structure; better staff induction; replacement and reinforcement of external windows; training for staff in the new security procedures; and repair and redecoration of damaged areas.
St Mary's Kenmure has now reopened, and I am pleased by how responsibly the unit, which has a long history of positive inspection reports, has acted in facing up to the issues that led to the crisis. I am also confident that others in the sector, through the well-established secure forum, will become wiser as a result of that traumatic experience.
Moving on to the strategic issues facing the estate, I acknowledge the very significant programme of investment in the secure estate that was made by the previous Administration, which we are committed to completing. The investment of more than £20 million increased the total number and geographical spread of secure places, and improved specialist provision, with the creation of a dedicated unit for girls and young women and better support for those with mental health problems. The final stage of the redevelopment will be completed shortly, with Rossie due to open its refurbished unit near Montrose early in 2009.
However, the improvements to the estate have come at a cost. The increase in demand that was projected when the programme was planned has not come to pass. At a time when our prisons are bursting at the seams, secure units have experienced difficulties in maintaining capacity. Let us be clear: a reduced number of young people in secure care would be something to celebrate. There are strong signs that more young people are being kept safely in their communities as a result of the increased availability of alternatives to secure accommodation. One such alternative is intensive support and monitoring, which this Government has rolled out to all areas of Scotland.
Intensive support and monitoring services—ISMS—provide local partners with a robust alternative to secure accommodation and show how the combination of support and control can keep young people and communities safe in a more cost-effective way. Early evidence shows that that community-based alternative is having a real impact, with reduced reoffending and improved outcomes. No wonder practitioners prefer ISMS to under-16 antisocial behaviour orders, which are designed in a way that risks doing little more than setting children up to fail.
However, the providers of secure accommodation cannot sustain a position in which costs exceed income and which is already threatening outcomes for young people. Does Scotland want to lose in an unplanned manner what is arguably world-class provision? Do we want a situation in which increasing costs mean that purchasers are forced to make decisions on a financial rather than a child-centred basis? I am sure that members in the chamber this afternoon will share my concern about those issues. Our priority must be to work in partnership to ensure that Scotland has the right range of services to keep young people and the public safe, while maintaining youngsters in their communities wherever possible.
We have therefore made a commitment with COSLA to work with secure providers to find a sustainable way forward that makes the best use of the estate and meets the needs of vulnerable young people and their communities. That work will include looking at the opportunities afforded by capacity in the secure estate to address the needs of other vulnerable young people.
This Government is committed to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and we are working to keep children out of prison. That is why we will legislate next year to abolish the unruly certificate, which enables children to be remanded to adult prisons. A short-life working group, the securing our future initiative—SOFI—has been tasked with considering how best to meet the nation's need for secure accommodation over the short to medium term. The group will produce recommendations for the Government and COSLA by spring next year. That work is being undertaken as part of the national residential child care initiative that was announced by the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, in February. The initiative is aimed at shaping the future direction of services to suit the needs of children and young people, in order to ensure that residential placements are the best choice for those children who need to live away from home. Both pieces of work are being independently led on the Government's behalf by the Scottish institute for residential child care.
Members will surely agree that the young person's best interests must be at the very heart of future policy direction. Our secure estate must reflect the needs of troubled young people rather than society's inability to provide alternative care. To repeat Adam Ingram's recent message, we want every care home, including secure care homes, to be the first and best choice for those children and young people, rather than a place of last resort. That is why it is vital that we work in partnership—including with local authorities, providers of secure care, young people who stay in secure care, their families and communities—to ensure that our secure accommodation estate is fit for purpose for today and for where Scotland wants to be in future.
The minister will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
We agree that it is vital that the secure accommodation estate is fit for purpose and that the right lessons are learned from the events of March this year at St Mary's Kenmure. There are lessons for communities, for staff—some of whom, unfortunately, were the victims of assault—and for young people who are in secure accommodation either because they are vulnerable or because their behaviour needs to be addressed effectively. Can the minister assure us that Parliament will be able to debate fully the recommendations of the working group on secure accommodation that he has asked to report by spring?
Given that the report on St Mary's highlights capacity issues and the relationship between staff and local police, will the working group focus on how effective joint working might be achieved to ensure the smooth running of the estate? Will ministers continue to be involved in securing that?
If unruly certificates are abolished, might that not be expected to lead to greater demand for places in secure accommodation? In that context, does the minister agree that it would be short-sighted to reduce capacity in the estate? If the proposal goes ahead, what contingencies will be put in place for the few young people who are dealt with in that part of the system because their behaviour is simply too challenging or poses too serious a risk to themselves or others for them to be handled within the community or within secure accommodation?
Finally, although the report focuses on what was a troubling and disturbing incident, the minister also mentioned the need to celebrate good work. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the excellent practice that takes place in secure accommodation is shared across the estate, particularly through staff training?
I welcome Richard Baker's general approach to the issue. I will try to answer as best I can each of his questions in turn.
First, it seems to us entirely reasonable that there should be a debate in the Parliament in due course. My view is that we should wait until we and COSLA have digested and considered the SOFI report, which we expect to have received by spring 2009. Thereafter, members should most certainly have an opportunity to debate the report's findings, once they have had a chance to consider the issues. I confirm that there should be a debate—subject to the usual channels being able to organise that—which I suggest should happen next spring.
Secondly, the short-life working group to which I referred—SOFI—has been tasked with considering how best to meet the nation's needs for secure accommodation over the short to medium term. I want to share with the Parliament SOFI's membership, which shows—this might influence members' thinking—that we have the right people, with a broad range of expertise, to address the problem. Romy Langland is SOFI's independent chair. The group's membership includes representatives from: social work; the care commission; the Scottish Government; COSLA; various of the secure establishments; academia; Includem; ISMS; and the Scottish Prison Service. A broad range of people are included on the group. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt SOFI's decisions, but with an average cost of £4,500 per person per week, we all acknowledge that the costs of the estate are extremely high.
I pay tribute to the previous Administration's work to increase the number of secure places, which we supported. However, our expectations that demand for places would rise inexorably, perhaps to as high as 200, have not been realised. Perhaps that is good news. No one wants to see a child in one of these institutions if there is a better and safer way. During my visit to Kibble last week, I saw some very troubled youngsters. If there are better ways of helping them, it is our duty as a society to find them.
On 21 February, the cabinet secretary announced plans to abolish unruly certificates, which allow children aged 14 or 15 who appear before a criminal court on a charge to be remanded in prison custody. Prison is no place for children. There are no children in prison in Scotland as I speak; that is as it should be. I believe that the governor of Polmont takes a similar view, and, as far as I am aware, it is a unanimously held view in the chamber. Next year, we will legislate to abolish unruly certificates.
Plainly, we want best practice to be used throughout Scotland. Those who work in secure units are often exposed to the risk of attack or assault in a way that is unparalleled in most other lines of work. We should acknowledge the professionalism of those people in using their character and skills in managing the most challenging and difficult of youngsters, and in doing so successfully so that the youngsters emerge on the other side.
I thank the minister for early sight of his statement, which I find to be measured and realistic, in contrast to some of the statements that he made earlier this week.
We all agree that prison is simply not an option for the detention of youngsters. At the same time, we have to provide a safe and secure environment for troubled youngsters who cause difficulties to society and who are frequently a danger to themselves.
The minister talked about a commitment being made with COSLA to work with secure accommodation providers to make the estate sustainable. However, I suggest that that means that there will be a loss of capacity. Although the number in residence at the moment is fewer than is provided for, will he confirm that there will always be the facility to ensure that any troubled youngster who needs residential accommodation will have it?
Will the minister explain more fully the meaning of having
"capacity in the secure estate to address the needs of other vulnerable young people"?
An approach that puts vulnerable young people alongside those who are potentially dangerous seems inconsistent and dangerous.
The secure units are considerably aware of the need to treat separately youngsters who are in secure units for different reasons. When I visited the new, ultra-secure unit at Kibble this week, I saw that youngsters were kept in separate wings: those who had been sexually aggressive were dealt with in one area; those who were there on welfare grounds were held in another; and those who were remanded or convicted were held in another. That may not be the practice in every secure unit, but I hope that those who manage the secure estate are extremely aware of that practice.
Bill Aitken's first, and perhaps main, question was whether we can guarantee that every child who needs a place will have one. Plainly, there has been investment in the secure estate of around £20 million, much of which was put in by our predecessors; we have put in around £3 million. It does not really matter who spends the money, as we all agree that it should be spent. The number of places in secure units is being brought up to 124. That capacity will be reached as St Mary's capacity increases—St Mary's is being reopened in a phased fashion and has not yet reached its full capacity. I believe that it will do so by the end of this month. Its present capacity is 15, which will increase to 24. When that happens, we will reach the figure of 124.
The main problem, which SOFI is grappling with in a focused way, is that most of the secure units require to be operating at or near full capacity to break even. In other words, unless they are full or nearly full, they will sustain a revenue loss. That creates an extremely difficult challenge for them, to which I wanted to alert Parliament formally. That is why we want any closure not to be driven by financial considerations but to arise in a planned way, and why SOFI has been charged to do such work, which we will bring back to Parliament for discussion in due course.
The problems are very real. Given that the average cost per week per child is £4,500, we are talking about a very large sum of money to look after a group whose members include some of the most challenged and vulnerable children in Scotland, as well as children who have committed crimes and who present a real safety risk to the public.
I am not in the business of being a guarantor. I am a Government minister; I am not undertaking the somewhat fixed and absolute role of a guarantor. By working together across parties with everyone involved, we can at least reach the best solution so that a substantial number of secure places will continue to be available in Scotland, which I hope will be adequate for the purpose—although, as Bill Aitken will understand, it is a demand-led service.
I, too, welcome much of what the minister said in his statement—with the possible exception of the addition to the language of two new acronyms, which we could perhaps have done without. I welcome, in particular, the absence of children from the adult estate. Will the minister clarify the steps that are being taken, beyond the introduction of ISMS, to allow the legislation that is planned for next year to be effective? Is ISMS the only such mechanism, or have other steps been taken?
I would also like the minister to give the Parliament a flavour of the level of underoccupancy at the last count. Is it geographically varied? How is it measured? What options is he considering? For example, I am aware that Kibble, which he visited last week, has quite a number of facilities other than the secure unit for dealing with young people who are at various stages and in various situations, therefore it has flexibility that might be lacking elsewhere. Is there scope to use the secure estate for suitable young people of 17 or 18 years of age who would otherwise be in young offenders institutions? I am talking about young people other than those who already come under the aegis of the children's panel. Can he give us a flavour of those issues?
We intend to introduce the criminal justice bill next year, through which we will abolish unruly certificates.
I fully agree that Kibble provides many facilities in addition to the secure unit. Its day centre has been particularly successful in guiding youngsters towards work. It has a great connection with various local businesses, which have engaged and played a part. Given that Kibble is possibly unique in providing an additional day centre facility that offers work-based approaches to providing boys with training, particularly in the construction trades, it could play a part in the expansion of our policy on community sentencing and non-custodial disposals. That issue was raised with me at Kibble in the course of my visit. Robert Brown seems to be so well acquainted with my visit that I am surprised that he was not in the room at the time.
In general, intensive support and monitoring services, which were introduced by the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, allow people who are at risk of offending or of harming themselves to be monitored and supported in the community. Evidence from the case studies and local evaluation exercises indicates that those services have been effective for a significant number of young people in reducing offending. I saw that for myself in Inverness when I went to see the work of Action for Children. Other charities have done similarly good work across Scotland.
The youngster builds up a bond of support and trust with a social worker or other professional person, which is key. That relationship is geared towards the provision of mentoring, support and counselling, and can divert the youngster from antisocial behaviour. The early, positive signs of the success of the intensive support approach are evident. If that prevents children from being sent to secure units, so much the better for them and for us all.
When I visited the Elms in Dundee, I was incredibly impressed by the commitment and dedication of the staff. Secure units such as the Elms have an important role to play, but they are no substitute for early intervention. Tackling drink, drugs and deprivation is vital to reducing the number of young people who are sent to secure units. What measures is the Government taking to ensure that fewer of our youngsters end up in secure units?
I join Joe FitzPatrick in acknowledging the work that is carried out by the Elms in Dundee. I believe that it caters for boys and girls and that it is managed by Dundee City Council.
This Government wants as many people as possible to be diverted from antisocial behaviour and offending. Our approach to that task involves a variety of methods. In that task, we are greatly assisted by the excellent work that is done by the police and the fire service, as well as by the third sector. The work that is being done to divert youngsters away from crime and antisocial behaviour is not generally recognised or understood in Scotland. It is not reported by the media, perhaps because it is good news not bad news. Particularly after the antisocial behaviour review is completed next year, I want to focus on the good work that is being done and harness cross-party support to ensure that there is more of it. That will mean more children being directed away from crime and antisocial behaviour and given more choices and chances to take part in sport, leisure and other pursuits, which, once they have tried them, will help to turn them away from temptation.
I concur with the minister's consensual vision of how we can take secure accommodation forward. However, I would like him to assure us that the resources that are provided for the 124 places will continue to be provided. He said that he wants to find a sustainable way forward. Does that mean that there will be no reduction in resources and that those places will continue to be provided?
I can provide an assurance that we want to continue to see the funding of those places. Part of the funding is from the Scottish Government and part is from local authorities. As I have mentioned, five of the secure units are charities that are not owned or run by the Government, but they play a part.
The costs of secure units are extremely high. Plainly, if alternatives can be made to work without jeopardising public safety or disadvantaging the children concerned, we would all like those children not to be sent to those units, otherwise they will end up looking as frightened and alone as some of the youngsters whom I saw this week.
We all want to achieve the same objective. We have absolutely no plans to cut anyone's funding, but we are aware that the institutions and secure units face difficult financial challenges. One reason why I am on my feet today is to share that news with MSPs and to encourage them to visit the units, as Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Whitton and Mr Brown have done, and find out for themselves what the problems are, so that they can contribute more effectively to the debate about how we can devise the best solutions.
I welcome the minister's statement, particularly his reference to the incident at St Mary's at the beginning of the year. What discussions are taking place and what measures are being put in place to ensure that there is no repeat of such incidents in secure accommodation elsewhere in Scotland?
I should say that St Mary's operated for 32 years without incident and received extremely positive reports. The staff there have done an excellent job. Problems arose that have been the subject of two reports, but I have been advised that they have been dealt with and that the board of managers at St Mary's has successfully implemented all the recommendations that resulted from the expert inquiry. Perhaps the whole experience has been a sign to everyone in the secure estate to reconsider what they do and how they do it. I am sure that that has happened.
I have asked for the owners of secure units to be involved in SOFI's work and to have an opportunity to consider SOFI's recommendations before they are implemented. That will be done. After all, the owners must pay the bill if there is a deficit in their funding, and it is correct that they should be involved in the discussions on how we can progress in a planned fashion.
I believe that the lessons from St Mary's have been learned. The episode was extremely difficult and bruising for many of those who were involved. Plainly, we want to see engagements between secure units and the communities in which they lie, and we want to see the best possible relations between employers, staff and owners of the establishments. I believe that those objectives are being met.
I welcome the minister's statement, particularly as Mr Ewing's boss, Mr MacAskill, wrote to me on 17 September to say that he did not think that a statement would be appropriate. However, a statement has now been given. I also thank the minister for inviting me to accompany him on the visit to St Mary's, particularly as the management had forgotten to invite me.
Has the minister had any further talks with St Mary's management about the unit's operating at below care commission-approved staff levels and about what it is doing to tackle long-term staff absences that are due to illnesses and injuries? Does he believe—I say this with genuine concern—that now is the time to consider whether charitable organisations should continue to be allowed to manage units such as St Mary's?
I am pleased to have made my statement. It was right to make one today, and members have welcomed it.
Mr Whitton and I met St Mary's managers, and had a thorough discussion in an extremely long meeting about the problems that St Mary's has faced. The internal summary report to which I alluded earlier, which was commissioned by the owners and prepared by an independent third party, was made available to staff on request, and it has been made available to Mr Whitton and the MP for the area. The care commission's report is publicly available on its website. I have read those documents and the recommendations that have been made, and have been advised that the recommendations have been adopted in their entirety, which is a very good result. Indeed, St Mary's was allowed to reopen only after the care commission's recommendations were largely implemented, as Mr Whitton knows. The unit is being reopened in a phased way to ensure that it meets all the appropriate requirements and, like all secure units, it is subject to quite extensive regulation by the care commission.
Incidentally, that is why such high staff complements are needed in units. Indeed, they are probably the most labour-intensive institutions in the land, because such staffing levels are required to protect the staff and the children, but particularly the staff, who are at risk of assault. Their strength of character prevents them from being assaulted more frequently than they are.
The work of secure units is extremely difficult. There will be incidents, as the units deal with the most challenging children in Scotland. To suggest that staff will not have to face incidents that none of us would want to, or could, face is risible. Incidents will happen. The staff have an extremely difficult task. I am pleased that the recommendations of both reports have been implemented. I hope that we will all work together to ensure that our secure estate serves us well in the future, as it has done in the past and does now.
We are all relieved that the actions that the St Mary's board of management has taken have resolved the crisis of earlier this year. However, I want to press the minister a bit further. He said that other establishments have been requested to
"become wiser as a result of that traumatic experience".
However, have they been given a ministerial steer that they should establish whether it would be useful for them to adopt proactively any of the lessons from St Mary's or the practical actions that have been taken, rather than risk a similar incident to the one that happened in Bishopbriggs in the spring?
Plainly, the incident at St Mary's was unique. The member appears to suggest that other incidents of young people absconding from secure units have occurred that we somehow have not noticed. Unless he specifies what he means in his question—which suggests that other units are not performing properly or even in accordance with the law—I cannot answer the question. I cannot answer a question about unspecified allegations of unknown charges—that is for Franz Kafka to write about, not for me to reply to.
We have every confidence in the people whom Mr FitzPatrick and I have met, the other people who are involved in the institutions and the good work that they do. I hope that all members will unite behind that. The institutions are policed strongly by the care commission and others, so if anything is not being done as it should be, it will most certainly be picked up. The care commission inspections continue at St Mary's and some of them are not heralded—they are unannounced inspections. The units are rigorously policed and inspected and they do a good job. We should support them, not undermine them.
The minister is concerned about overcapacity. Can he give the Parliament a flavour of that? What was the level of underoccupancy at the last count, and is it geographically varied? What options is he considering to make use of it? If there is undercapacity, could some of the more vulnerable 17 and 18-year-olds be kept out of young offenders institutions?
I stress that youngsters are sent to secure units only as a very last resort. No youngster is sent there unless other options have been considered and tried. Most of the youngsters who end up in secure units have difficult family circumstances. There may be no parents around, and perhaps not even any family. I totally agree with Mike Pringle's approach, but we should recognise that any child who is sent to a secure unit is sent there as a last resort and that we are talking about a small number of young people.
The most common age of young people in secure units is about 14 or 15, although sadly some are even younger. Occupancy levels vary. It would probably be more fruitful if I wrote to Mr Pringle, rather than give a rough and perhaps misleading figure. The key factor to bear in mind is that, unless the institutions operate at or near their full capacity, they are loss making. If they are making losses, there is a problem that we need to acknowledge and tackle. I understand that, of late, the occupancy levels have been fairly high, but they might fall off when St Mary's reopens to its full capacity, which will be fairly soon. I can write to the member with more information. For the information to be valid, it will need to show the occupancy levels of each establishment, because they are different.
Today, we have had a good opportunity for members to gain a better understanding of an issue that I do not think has ever been discussed or debated fully in the Parliament in the past nine years.
I am sure that every member welcomes the minister's commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Will he seek to write the convention into domestic legislation at the earliest opportunity?
We certainly respect and acknowledge the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and we wish to ensure that the practical imports of its provisions are fully observed in our legal system.
I welcome the minister's acknowledgement that, because of overcapacity in the system, there are serious issues in relation to the future of secure accommodation. Is the minister satisfied that councils are making referrals to secure accommodation without being influenced in any way by how much it will cost? When will he announce the full membership of the short-life working group—which I welcome—its remit and the timescale to which it will work? As the minister appeared to suggest that he will ask the group to consider allowing secure accommodation to be used for referrals by others, can he confirm who they will be? We may even have to consider the closure of one of the seven units.
I can share details of SOFI's membership with members. I thought that it was publicly available anyway, but I will ensure that the Scottish Parliament information centre is given a list of the members. I alluded earlier to SOFI's members' areas of expertise. It is no secret—we will show who they are. I do not want, in my answers today, to prejudge or restrict SOFI in its deliberations. There is no point in it carrying out its task if I pre-empt it with an extemporary, unscripted remark.
The member's first question was about local authority funding. I have mentioned the figures: £4,500 is the average cost per week of keeping a child in one of the institutions. That is more than £200,000 a year—the figure for prisons is around £40,000 a year. The reason for that is that the institutions require so many staff to run them safely and properly.
The member asks whether local authorities take account of finance. Local authorities must, of course, run their budgets properly, but they have, as I understand it, received a record budget settlement—that is a matter of record. I am working closely with Isabel Hutton, the COSLA spokesperson on the issue, to find a solution. I hope that all parties can work together to seek consensus on this difficult topic.
I lived directly opposite the St Mary's unit in Bishopbriggs for a number of years, and I had the experience of dealing with some of the young people from the institution. I never felt threatened at any time by their presence, but my experience tells me that some of the young people would have benefited by not being in the institution.
Does the member have a question?
I have a question.
Will the minister examine the use of intensive support and monitoring services? That would benefit some young people, such as those whom I believe should not have been in that institution in the first place, and it would also benefit Scottish society.
Intensive support and monitoring services were introduced in 2004, as an alternative to secure accommodation for young people aged between 12 and 17 who are being dealt with by the children's hearings system. The services consist of a wraparound package of 24-hour crisis-responsive intensive support and, in some cases, an electronic monitoring device—a tag—to help to provide structure and boundaries in a young person's life.
I acknowledge Gil Paterson's long-standing interest in campaigning on these issues. He is absolutely right to say that intensive support is an extremely useful way of helping those young people. Personally, I would prefer to avoid tagging, where possible. Tagging is pretty demeaning. If it is possible for intensive support to be provided without tagging, as it has been in Inverness, so much the better. I have seen that for myself, and I have discussed with young people how they found the experience. It only works if they build up a bond of trust with those who provide the support, counselling and monitoring—if that bond does not exist, the support does not work.
Gil Paterson is right. He spent many years working in the field, so it does not surprise me that he put his finger on one of the key ways forward for Scotland.