³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

A range of training practices are already under way. I am not sure whether that came up at last week’s committee meeting. The SCRA confirmed that all children’s reporters receive mandatory training on domestic abuse from Scottish Women’s Aid. There is also trauma-informed training for children’s panel members of Children’s Hearings Scotland. That training is one of three mandatory training practices that include training on coercive control and domestic abuse. A training programme is being developed for the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice, and it will become mandatory after the bill receives royal assent. That programme is being worked on and developed directly in relation to the bill. I am trying to cover the bases—I have touched on Children’s Hearings Scotland and the SCRA. In addition, there is training in place for social workers who are engaging with the organisations that I have just mentioned.

I am not entirely sure of the details around that. I have been looking more at the overall picture for victims and witnesses. I will pass the question about the specific organisation to Brendan Rooney.

The child’s rights should be the same regardless. Obviously, every case is different and the process would depend on whether a case was handled by the criminal courts or dealt with in another way.

I will bring in Shona Spence to follow up on your exact point.

On the issue that information would not always shared, I emphasise that that is not something that would be laid out in statute; it would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I imagine that information would not be shared if that would impact on the victim.

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.