Our next item of business is consideration of the correspondence that we received on 29 April 2025 from the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, Natalie Don-Innes MSP.
The letter provided an update on the Scottish Government’s work to restore secure care accommodation capacity for young people in Scotland. I refer members to paper 3, which contains the letter. We will discuss our views on what action, if any, we want to take in response to it.
Does any member want to come in with comments or observations on the correspondence?
I am glad that the subject has come up. There is a crossover between our role and the role of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in relation to secure accommodation.
From our perspective, it is important to keep an eye on the matter to make sure that, in meeting the commitment that no young person under the age of 18 will be in custody but will instead be in secure accommodation, that does not give unfair disadvantage to the young people who are in secure accommodation on other grounds and that there is sufficient accommodation.
A rumour was circulating—although it was not confirmed—that a case was in court about a week ago for which secure accommodation was not available. That has not been confirmed. However, at the time of a statement on the issue, I asked the minister whether she was satisfied that there will be enough accommodation.
When it comes to court matters, the sheriff has no cause to ask whether accommodation is available; they can ask only whether the person will be detained. Previously, the sheriff would have asked about that and, if secure accommodation had not been available, some other arrangement would have been found. That is why people such as William Lindsay Brown ended up in Polmont prison. It is vital for the Criminal Justice Committee to monitor that area as the policy is embedded.
The correspondence from the minister outlines an update on secure accommodation contingency planning and ensuring capacity, and details some of the work. You are right that that is one of the key areas for this committee—we should be provided with updates and follow the developments.
I agree 100 per cent with Pauline McNeill’s comments. The situation is on-going: St Mary’s Kenmure in my constituency paused admissions, which caused a shortage of beds. That pause has been lifted, but there are still fewer beds than there were before. I see that Rossie up north has four new beds, but do they offset the ones that St Mary’s has lost? There is an issue with capacity.
I am keen to ask for an update on the reform of the contractual model for the provision and financing of secure places. The Justice Committee tackled that question in the previous parliamentary session, and we are not in a different situation now. We should ask for an update on that model, although one may be coming.
That is a good point to raise. Although there is an update on capacity at Rossie, what is it in addition to, and how does it affect the overall figures? I have made a note on the reform of the contractual model too—thank you.
I share the same concerns about capacity. I am also interested in the processes when capacity is reached. When somebody needs to go into secure accommodation, and there is none because capacity has already been reached, what is the process? Where are the kids going and what are we doing about it?
The letter highlights the new post of a “dedicated professional lead”. I would like to know more about what that is and what improvement it will give to the service. It also highlights a
“contingency plan with up to £2 million”
in funding. What will that additional funding achieve? Will it achieve extra numbers in accommodation and how will that impact the service?
I am musing on something based on what Rona Mackay said. It is hoped that St Mary’s will go back to having 24 beds before the summer. The minister said that she will update us before the summer, which we may want to note in order to make sure that it comes through.
Let us say that St Mary’s goes back to having 24 beds. As Rona Mackay pointed out, Rossie has added four contingency beds. As I understand it, those places need to operate at 90-plus per cent capacity in order to break even. If St Mary’s goes back to having 24 beds and Rossie adds four, what impact does that have, given the capacity that Sharon Dowey talked about, on the 90 per cent break-even point? There might be nothing in that, but listening to the conversation I wondered whether we need to satisfy ourselves about it.
Thank you for that—I have made a note of it.
I propose that we seek further information from the minister—which may be forthcoming in any case—on the points that we have covered: whether what is being proposed will be sufficient accommodation; clarity on capacity and reform of the contractual model; what happens when capacity is reached and what the arrangement is for that; and, as Liam Kerr said, the impact of restoring capacity at St Mary’s, taking into account the four beds at Rossie, set against the 90 per cent capacity requirement.
There is a statement to the Parliament tomorrow about secure care. Some of those issues may be clarified.
Thank you. Are members agreed that we will highlight those points? We are aware that a statement is forthcoming later this week, during which some of the points may be covered.
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I remind members that our next meeting will be on Wednesday 21 May and our main item of business will be to hear from a public petitioner, alongside other witnesses, on the issue of making non-fatal strangulation a standalone criminal offence in Scotland.
12:27 Meeting continued in private until 12:56.Previous
Cybercrime