Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system is still not letting me in. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not get connected. I would have voted yes.

There is an old adage that resonates very deeply, which says that one can judge a country by its treatment of its prisoners. Coping with difficulty while retaining compassion and humility is where the challenge really lies. Young people are our present and our future, and we obviously have to nurture them.

There is no denying that the criminal justice system in Scotland has evolved greatly in recent years, not least in its treatment of our young people who find themselves in conflict with the law. As someone who was previously deputy convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I state my support in principle for the bill and I acknowledge the committee’s scrutiny, as outlined by Sue Webber.

Ever since the hugely influential Kilbrandon report of 1964—one of the most important documents in youth justice history—we have proudly strived to take a progressive welfare-based approach, with varying degrees of success. Kilbrandon was able to recognise that the children who were labelled as offenders were hostages to fortune. They were not inherently bad or troublemakers; they were people who had been failed and were as equally in need of care as those who had suffered abuse or neglect. He recognised that, for many, their behaviour seemed inevitable, as if there was no other path.

Community Justice Scotland illustrated that through the story of a now-successful mentor working with vulnerable young people. James had a chaotic start in life, spending a lot of time with his mum in women’s refuges. By the age of seven, he was already engaged with the criminal justice system, having more and more run-ins with the authorities and, by his mid-teens, he had a custodial sentence, spending a night in Barlinnie, followed by time in a young offenders institute. He recalls:

“I was terrified and cried myself to sleep.”

Reading about James’s experience, I am further reminded of my time on the Education, Children and Young People’s Committee, listening to people such as Sue Brookes from the Scottish Prison Service, who said:

“Even if the rest of the establishment was empty, those children should be somewhere else.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 29 March 2023; c 13.]

Her dismay and discomfort at having to expose young people to such a harsh environment was palpable and, of course, understandable.

It will come as no surprise that I whole-heartedly welcome the proposal to increase the age cut-off for referral to children’s hearings from 16 to 18 years old and that I support the ending of placing under-18s in young offenders institutions.

I welcome the considerations of the Criminal Justice Committee, which Audrey Nicoll mentioned earlier. The independent care review made it clear that criminalising children and putting them in prison-like settings is deeply inappropriate. If we are to align more closely with the UNCRC, the bill must surely extend to 16 and 17-year-olds. Depriving children of their liberty deprives them of their childhood. That must be a last resort. By protecting that childhood, we move towards keeping the Promise to our young people.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to providing an updated financial memorandum that provides sufficient funding and resourcing for care-based alternatives to custodial sentences. I request that she addresses the transportation issues that my colleague Ross Greer has already mentioned very clearly.

In the words of the late American humorist Erma Bombeck,

“A child needs your love most when they deserve it least.”

According to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s publication of 2020-21, the most common contributory factor to be identified in a SAER was guidance not being followed. Last year, my constituent Kathanna McGivern, who is in the public gallery, sadly lost her grandfather, John, when he was receiving NHS care. The SAER that was carried out confirmed that guidance had not been followed, which may have caused or contributed to his death.

How can the Government and NHS Scotland effectively learn from adverse events in order to improve the guidance that is provided and allow best practice to be actively promoted across Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has undertaken of the results from NHS Scotland significant adverse event reviews. (S6O-02407)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 2.

Do members have any comments to make on the instrument?

As no members of the committee have indicated that they wish to ask any questions or make any comments, we move to agenda item 3, which is the formal business in relation to the instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Local Taxation Chamber and Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Composition and Procedure) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2023 be approved.—[Siobhian Brown].

Motion agreed to.

The question seems to be about the moral efficacy of using private contractors to deal with the situation of asylum seekers, who are in such distress.

That concludes our consideration of the SSI. I suspend the meeting briefly before we move to the next agenda item.

Our next item of business is consideration of evidence as part of our inquiry on asylum seekers in Scotland. Today is world refugee day, which is possibly a good day for us to come to the conclusion of our inquiry.

I welcome the first panel, which comprises Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, who is chair of the independent commission of inquiry into asylum provision in Scotland. She joins us remotely.

Good morning, and welcome, Baroness.