³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Are some young people being put in secure units just now because the threshold to apply a movement restriction condition is quite high? Could we avoid putting them in a secure unit if the threshold were lowered, with the appropriate support package, of course?

Are there young people who are in secure placements longer than they would be if the threshold were lowered to allow movement restriction conditions to be applied in a way that allowed them to leave secure accommodation earlier, again with the significant caveat about an appropriate support package being in place? I do not think that that has been discussed in evidence so far.

This is not part of our questioning, but I wonder whether investment now in social work and local authority engagement with 16 and 17-year-old young people will not just be the right thing to do but represent a cost saving in future years, as they might be less likely to have direct interaction with the judicial system. Is it worth making that investment?

I have half a supplementary question now, because witnesses have already dealt with the idea of not setting up young people to fail by not putting a support package around them when they get a movement restriction condition, so I will not pursue that part of it. However, we have not really heard about any potential opportunities arising from altering the threshold to make it easier to apply a movement restriction order.

Witnesses have said that putting a restriction on a young person’s liberty is a major thing to do and that legal advice and so on is required before it is applied. However, if it was applied instead of a placement in a secure unit, it would represent less of a restriction of liberty. It could be applied in order to get a young person out of a secure unit earlier—as a pathway to restoring liberty by giving the young person their rights back on a tapered basis—which would be an additional benefit.

Could you outline whether you believe that there are opportunities along the lines that I have suggested, so that we do not just hear the potential negatives?

Finally, I note that Ben Farrugia did not suggest any additional rights that he might wish to see at this stage, but instead said that we should get these ones on board in legislation, see how they pan out and then go back and consider the issue. My briefing paper suggests that I might want to nudge you slightly on that. Is there a case for saying that children should never be detained in a police station under any circumstances? If so, should that be in the bill? Can you provide any practical examples in which there would be no alternative to detaining a young person in a police station?

Those are the two extremes, if you like: should we go further and put something in the bill, which would mean that we would lose the flexibility, or, as a counter, do we need to have flexibility? I am targeting Ben Farrugia with that question.

Ben, do you want to add anything?

I welcome the regulations, which amend schedule 6A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and mean that there will be reciprocal candidacy rights with four European nations. I place on record my hope that those rights will be extended in short order to all European Union nationals who have made their home in Scotland. It is a pity and a shame that we are in a situation where we can do that for only four nations because of Brexit. There may be a policy drift.

I will leave it there. I am content with and agree to the provisions before us.

That is really helpful. Thank you.

Ruth Maguire has asked most of the questions that I wanted to explore. I understand why most of the witnesses are quite sceptical of some of the aspects of the bill in relation to MRCs, but they jumped out at me as a potential opportunity for a young person. Perhaps I am being naive, but if the case for the young person going into secure accommodation was borderline, perhaps a less severe restriction could be placed on them, which might be provided by the MRCs.

I would like to turn the whole thing on its head, if that is okay. What might you see as positive about using movement restriction conditions—with regular review, and with appropriate legal advice and advocacy—instead of secure care when less restrictive orders have been rejected as inappropriate? So far, all we have heard is the negatives. What are the positives?

That is helpful. I will bring in Meg Thomas in a wee second, but first I want to put something on record—I hope that I will get nodding heads and will not have to go to three different people to get the same answer. We heard from the first panel that movement restriction conditions can be used when young people are stepping down from secure care back into the community. We heard a concern that, if there is no wider support package, we might be setting up the young person to fail or not meet the conditions. It might escalate their interaction with not just the children’s system but the adult judicial system if we do not get the wider package correct. Do you concur with that?