Chamber and committees

I am very pleased to speak in the debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, which is a secondary committee for consideration of the bill. We took evidence on the justice provisions, and I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence.

In the short time that is available to me in the debate, I want to highlight two key issues. The first is the use of secure care. The bill proposes that any child aged 18 or under should be held in a secure care setting rather than in a young offenders institution. It also provides for a young person up to the age of 19 not to automatically transfer to a YOI if that is in their best interests and it is not contrary to the best interests of other children in the secure care facility.

During our scrutiny, the governor of HMP and YOI Polmont told us that, at that point, he had seven young people in custody, but he said:

“no 16 or 17-year-old child should be in our care.”

He said that holding them in secure care rather than in a YOI was

“Morally ... the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 March 2023; c 19.]

His view was supported by other witnesses, including Linda Allan, whose daughter Katie took her own life in Polmont and who now campaigns on behalf of young offenders. I pay tribute to Linda for her courage when speaking to the committee.

Secure care is not a soft option. A young person in secure care is still removed from the community, but they will receive far more appropriate care than they would get in a prison setting. Staff-to-offender ratios are better, and staff are more appropriately trained and skilled to provide a trauma-informed setting within which young people are better supported and their needs met.

It is for those reasons that there was strong support for the proposal that young people aged 18 or under should no longer be held in a YOI and that they would be better held in a secure care setting. However, we need assurances that the necessary resources will be put in place to deliver the changes that will be necessary, given that secure care places can cost up to four times as much as a place in a YOI.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies, and Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

Our first item of business is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and her officials Clare McKinlay, who is a solicitor in the Scottish Government’s legal directorate, and Michael Halpin, who is defence policy manager in the directorate for safer communities.

I refer members to paper 1. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the supplementary LCM, after which we will move to questions.

Thanks for raising that. There are a couple of points to make here. First, time is against us—we are under pressure of time. I am assuming that, if there was an update regarding the Lord Advocate’s position on the matter, and if she felt it appropriate to share it with the committee or with the Government, she would do so. The key issue concerns timescales, unfortunately.

I thank committee members very much for raising those issues. We will ensure that they are included in the committee’s report.

On that note, the question is, that the committee agrees with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should not give its consent to the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, as set out in the Scottish Government’s draft motion. Do members agree?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)

The issue will now move to the chamber for all members to debate, based on our report. With that, I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending this morning.

We will now have a short suspension while we wait for the next team to come in.

Absolutely. As the minister said, one of the important areas of work is the preventative work that is being done. I suppose that prevention and intervention are absolutely key.

I think that you might have jumped ahead to our next agenda item.

On that note, we will move swiftly on.

Our next item of business is consideration of any final issues that we want to raise in our report on the supplementary LCM. Again, I will open up the meeting for members to raise any specific points.

I remind members that we will be having a public evidence session next week on the issue of police officer suicide, which I hope will be an opportunity to raise some of the issues that Russell Findlay has outlined. I know that he is very interested in that particular issue.

I know that DBI has been an option for a number of years, and it is relatively straightforward. My understanding is that police officers can use DBI as a referral option for somebody they encounter who is experiencing poor mental health. Ultimately, that would normally be routed to the person’s GP, who would pick up the referral and engage with the person. There may be some other points of contact along that pathway. I know that it is considered to be a successful, user-friendly and well-established option. If it is helpful, and if members are happy to do so, we can ask for some more detail on DBI. I think it is quite an important tool in the toolbox overall.

Jamie, was your second point in relation to the enhanced mental health pathway?