³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thanks very much for that, Annika. Again, that was a very hard-hitting contribution.

That was a really good description of what happens when asylum is refused. Can any of the other panel members describe how rights and entitlements change when asylum is granted? I see Andy Sirel nodding—I will bring him in.

To bring my questions together for the other panel members, my second question is: what impact do you think the Illegal Migration Bill might have on any of those rights when asylum is granted?

That sounds very positive.

My final question is for the minister. Rona Mackay touched on this. Does a wee bit of work need to be done with the public on what secure care is? You, your officials, committee members and people who work in the sector know what it is, but others might have the perception that secure care represents a softer-touch approach. Anyone who has been in secure care or has dealt with it will know that the young person still very much loses their liberty, so it is not a soft-touch approach for them. We heard that again today in our private session. Secure care is definitely a lot more therapeutic and beneficial, and it seems to be the best approach for young people, but is there work to be done in communicating that to the public so that secure care is not seen as soft justice or whatever we want to call it?

Thanks to you both.

I take this opportunity to welcome the minister and the cabinet secretary to their new positions, and I thank the minister for her statement at the start of the meeting.

I will follow on from the convener’s questions. I am very supportive of the bill, as are the stakeholders, as you will be aware. I might be jumping ahead a bit, because it makes provisions for people up to the age of 18, but I am keen to hear where the Government stands on 18 being a starting point. A lot of the evidence that the committee has heard—including the evidence that we heard privately from two individuals today, which was really powerful—is that 18 is still very young, as are 21 and 25. Do you have any thoughts on where the Government might see this going? I will come to the minister first.

Do we need to convey that image to the judiciary and to sheriffs as well as to the public, or do they understand that?

The cabinet secretary has pre-empted my next question. In a previous session with stakeholders, we considered whether part of the answer would be for young offenders institutions to be modelled more on secure settings. I know that there would be resourcing issues, but, given that there is a very positive impression of secure care, could young offenders institutions be modelled more on secure settings? Would that be a potential answer to the question?

Yes—that is agreed.

Thanks, Kate.

Linda, in response to Rona Mackay, you said that you do not think that the bill goes far enough with regard to age, and I would probably agree with that to an extent; however, I am conscious of the seriousness of offences, which is an important part of it.

How do you think that the Scottish Government can make things better with regard to the appropriateness of remand, to use Kate’s expression, either with this bill or with other legislation that I referred to, or that does not currently exist? How can we ensure that we are using remand at the right time and that we do not have situations in which people are on remand when they should perhaps not be there, which can make things more difficult for them?

Thank you, Linda Allan and Kate Wallace, for your evidence. Linda, it was very powerful when you spoke about your daughter’s description of people who she was in Polmont with. That is why it is so important that we hear that sort of evidence. As others have done, I want to put on record my thanks to you for coming forward.

I was going to say that my question is a wee bit out of left field, but it is related to what we have been talking about. As Kate is aware—she has given evidence on it—and as you might be aware, Linda, through your research, the committee is also looking at the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. The purpose of that bill, which is now at stage 2, is to reduce the number of people who are on remand in the first place. There is debate about whether that will work, but that is the main aim of the bill.

Kate, how does that bill overlap with this bill? With regard to the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, we are considering children under the age of 18 not being placed in custodial settings, so do you think that there is an overlap between the pieces of legislation? How can these two pieces of legislation work together?

The end of that response—although it has been a theme throughout our conversation—leads on nicely to my line of questioning, which is also about resourcing. I will split it into two parts.

In my previous life as a social worker working with children and families, I often visited young people who were in secure accommodation. I have to say that it was almost always a positive experience. I visited St Mary’s several times, although that was several years ago now. I thought that it would be good to put that on the record. For the benefit of my colleagues, I point out that such accommodation is very much a secure environment from which, as Jim Shields highlighted earlier, the risk of absconding is extremely low. It also provides a therapeutic environment that can lead to good results, so the idea of more people accessing it makes sense.

My question is for Lorraine Johnstone and Jim Shields. What more can be put in by way of resource, if the aims of the bill are to be met? Is it about bolstering what is already there in the four or five centres, or is it about creating more? Would you like the state, either through the Scottish Government or local authorities, to replicate what you have, or is it about bolstering what is already in place?