³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I certainly would not say that anything has been ruled out. I am aware of that proposal from Victim Support Scotland, which has been raised and discussed in the meetings and the engagement over the past couple of months. What I am saying is that I want to ensure that any decisions are taken with regard to what is right for the victim. There is very much the possibility of retraumatisation around certain experiences that people have had. Everybody is different and every situation is different. I emphasise that I want to ensure that the system works for the victims regardless of what their requirements are.

Nothing has been ruled out yet. We are looking at a range of measures and different issues for stage 2, but that is something that I would have to go into at stage 2.

I want to follow up on that and reiterate my point. If there are approaches that are being taken in other countries that the committee thinks are examples of good practice—you have raised one such example with me this morning—I am more than open to suggestions or to your pointing that out to me in order that we can look into it, because I am always open to considering anything that might improve things.

Okay.

I thank Mr Kidd for that question. I appreciate that those concerns were raised in the evidence session last week.

The bill affords looked-after children status to all children who are sentenced or remanded to secure accommodation if they do not already have such status. As you alluded, those children may choose to take up an offer of aftercare support. However, I am keen to point out that the vast majority of children in such scenarios will already have looked-after children status and entitlements.

The financial information relating to the bill states that the numbers and the costs, which will be individual to each young person’s package of support, cannot necessarily be quantified. However, for illustrative purposes, the document gives figures from Social Work Scotland, estimating that it will cost around £200,000 per year for social workers to support around 30 children per year. However, as I have said, it is difficult to quantify this, because of the numbers and because the children in question would already have that status. That said, as with many other aspects of the bill, I am happy to monitor the cost going forward.

As I said, it is for secure care centres to manage that. If there are concerns about children interacting with other children or young people in a negative way, that should be highlighted and managed in that estate. I am absolutely alive to the concerns that have been raised.

As I have said, work is under way on reimagining secure care, so I would wait to see the outcome of that.

I said in a previous answer that I would look into the concerns of young people that Mr Rennie has raised. I have confidence in our secure care centres. I cannot comment on those cases specifically, but I will look into them.

We need to be clear that secure care is not a prison. When children are being placed in secure care centres because they have come into conflict with the law and are being deprived of their liberty, the bill seeks for that to apply to all children and young people under the age of 18 in an age and stage-appropriate way and in a therapeutic environment where they can benefit from intensive care, support and education. That is in line with trying to ensure that they do not reoffend or repeat the offences.

Although I appreciate that there are concerns about where secure centres would place those children or young people who have committed those offences, as I said, that issue has been managed for a number of years. The only thing that the bill changes is the age limit. It would be for the secure care centre to look, on a case-by-case basis, at how placement would impact on the child who has committed the offence and, equally, at how that would impact the children or young people in and around that secure care centre, and to ensure that that is managed appropriately.

That is something that will be monitored going forward—or I am happy to monitor that. I have met secure care centres in the past to understand how the process works, and I am equally happy to look into concerns that are being raised about the process at this time.

I hope that that provides some reassurance. However, as I said, I will monitor any further concerns and continue to look into them.

As I said, if that is deemed appropriate for both children, that is a decision that has been made. However, I—

We are considering them.

We can certainly come back with a more detailed answer, if that is something that the committee would like.

I have been due to meet my counterpart in the UK Government on the bill twice. The first time, the meeting had to be delayed because it fell at the same time as the stage 1 debate for the bill, which could not have been foreseen. The second time, the meeting had to be delayed because there was a reshuffle.

I was at a bilateral conference last week in relation to a different matter—early learning. However, my counterpart was a part of the delegation for that as the minister with control over early learning and childcare. Despite the fact that my meeting with him during that event was not in relation to cross-border placements, I raised the issue with him, because I have been trying to get into a meeting with the UK Government since taking post. I raised the matter with him and our officials are now working together to confirm a date when we can sit down and discuss the matter.

One of the things that I want to highlight the most is that, although cross-border placements can be essential sometimes for some children, the decisions that are being made about cross-border placements should take into account what is right for the child. Those decisions should be based only on what is right for the child.