Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system is still not letting me in. 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)

Rachael Hamilton wants to ask a quick supplementary question.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of an affirmative instrument. I welcome to the meeting Siobhian Brown MSP, who is the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and her supporting officials from the Scottish Government. Lisa Davidson is a senior policy officer in the courts and tribunals branch, and Leanna MacLarty is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 1 and I invite the minister to speak to the draft regulations.

If you have a concern, I can advise you that you have the ability to lodge a motion to annul the instrument with the chamber desk, and that the issue will then be discussed and debated in the chamber. The committee’s timetable does not allow for us to discuss the instrument again, but that route is available to you, should you wish to take it.

Thank you. Many of the findings of the asylum inquiry resonate with the evidence heard by our committee, such as people not feeling safe in the hotels, the food being inadequate, people having to rely on charities and people experiencing barriers to accessing health care, including mental health care.

The inquiry also reflects on similar inconsistent evidence provided by Mears Group and the third sector organisations. The third sector has been quite critical of Mears, while local authorities have said that they work well with the company. Mears has said that it works well with all partners associated with asylum accommodation.

Do you think that there is inconsistency between the evidence from private contractors and third sector organisations? I would also be interested to hear your views on the use of private contractors in the context.

You recommended that Mears should put an amount of money into providing a mental health and wellbeing service for asylum seekers and refugees. Has there been any movement on that?

Baroness, you have provided powerful, compelling evidence for our inquiry. I thank you for taking the time to speak to us and giving us all that information and insight.

We will now draw this evidence session to a close. I once again thank Baroness Helena Kennedy very much for attending.