Chamber and committees

Sorry—Stephanie Callaghan, please.

Laura Caven wants to comment on the topic. I will then need to move on to other members.

Scott, do you want to respond to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question?

Bob has something that he wants to pick up. Sorry—I am getting all informal.

To clarify, the bill does not repeal that plan, Pam.

We briefly extended the session there. I thank all our witnesses for their time today. It has been a really helpful and informative discussion.

The public part of our meeting has now concluded. We will consider the final items on our agenda in private.

I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I thank my colleagues for their diligent work on the bill so far, and all the people and organisations that provided evidence in person or in response to our call for views.

The committee thanks Gerry Michie, Mary Geaney, Jim Shields and their respective teams, who all generously gave their time and shared their insights when the committee visited HM YOI Polmont, Rossie Young People’s Trust and St Mary’s Kenmure. In particular, we are grateful to the young people whom we met on our visits to Rossie and St Mary’s Kenmure.

The committee is also grateful to the Criminal Justice Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work to scrutinise the bill and for sharing their conclusions and recommendations timeously, so that we could reflect on them when considering our report.

As our report makes clear, there is broad support for raising to 18 the maximum age at which a young person can be referred to the children’s hearings system. That would end the current inequity that means that only some 16 and 17-year-olds can be referred to a children’s hearing, whether on offence grounds or, as is the case for the vast majority, solely on welfare grounds.

However, our report also makes it clear that the success of the legislation will depend on the ability to give young people the support and interventions that they require to address their underlying needs.

The bill will pose significant resourcing and training challenges for a number of key agencies, including Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and local authorities, including social work teams. The committee heard that social work teams and others are already stretched and that they do not currently have the capacity to deliver the increase in support that the measures in the bill will require.

The committee was concerned about the lack of financial information relating to some parts of the bill and the lower estimates that have been used in respect of other parts, so it would welcome the minister’s committing to providing an update and expanded costings.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s statement and comment, it is not advice and guidance that teachers want; it is often practical help in responding to things such as additional support needs, behaviour, relationships, and seeking to improve parental engagement. I was under the impression that Education Scotland’s role was to offer that practical help. If it is not, what is Education Scotland doing?

I thank the minister for taking this intervention.

Surely she must agree that members are being asked to support the general principles of a bill without fully understanding its cost implications and without certainty that the Scottish Government understands them, either.

No—I will not yet, if the member does not mind, given the time restraints. I hope that I will cover the member’s point. Mr Whitfield might catch my eye later.

Given how vital support packages are for children and young people for successfully reducing reoffending and providing care for children with complex needs, the committee was firmly of the view that those updated and expanded costings must be provided ahead of the debate, to ensure that Parliament had the full information before being asked to vote on the bill.

Although we appreciate that the Scottish Government’s response to our report identified areas for possible inclusion in its supplementary financial memorandum, the committee is gravely concerned that the actual costs have not been placed before Parliament before it is asked to vote on the bill.

The timing of the debate was of the Scottish Government’s choosing. Given that the Scottish Government could not make the full financial information available ahead of today’s debate, it could have postponed it until a time when it did.

The committee’s visits to HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and the secure accommodation services that are run by Rossie Young People’s Trust and St Mary’s Kenmure helped us to understand the different environments and the tools that staff have to support the young people in their care.

There was broad support, including from the governor of YOI Polmont, Mr Michie, for the measures that will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be deprived of their liberty are no longer sent to prison or a young offenders institution, but rather to secure accommodation.

Many stakeholders highlighted that secure accommodation provides a more therapeutic environment than YOIs, by having staff who have more specialised training and higher staff-to-child ratios. The committee heard that such environments offer a far better opportunity for a child to receive care, be rehabilitated and importantly, following their time in secure care, reintegrate into their community.

However, the committee heard that 78 of 84 places in the secure accommodation estate are provided by charities that are dependent on occupancy rates of 90 per cent to remain viable. The Scottish Government ran a pilot scheme earlier this year to hold a bed in each of the independently run secure accommodation services, should a Scottish child need it. The committee noted that the Scottish Government was seeking to extend and increase that pilot scheme, to secure four places in each of the services, to provide capacity and, importantly, to make the centres more financially viable. I am pleased that the minister has confirmed today that the pilot scheme has been extended. I am sure that that will give a lot of support and reassurance to the secure care providers.

However, given the vital nature of their work, it is essential that secure accommodation services are financially sustainable. Although we recognise that a review of secure care, which is considering the funding of the sector, is under way, it is not due to report until spring 2024.

The committee asked the Scottish Government to urgently produce interim findings to set out how the measures in the bill are likely to affect the financial sustainability of the secure care sector, and we welcome the minister’s commitment to do that in August.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, successful implementation will depend on services that have not been adequately costed. There must be full costings and a commitment to provide the resources that are required in order to ensure that the bill can achieve its aims.