���˿���

I think that the meeting will be very useful and beneficial for the updated costs. The timing of it is expressly to pick up on the stage 1 committee evidence, to which I referred in my previous answer, and to support any necessary revision and updating work ahead of stage 2. The costs will need uprated and updated—there is no getting away from that. As I said, however, I think that the engagement and the evidence that we have had so far will be the best method to prompt discussions around the working group and its future work.

As I said in my previous response, the 16-bed pilot scheme will go a long way to ensuring the viability of secure care centres going forward. Obviously, we have a lot of work on-going on reimagining secure care. That phase is preparation for the bill, ending the use of YOIs for under-18s and the Promise statement that

“Scotland must fundamentally rethink the purpose, delivery and infrastructure of Secure Care, being absolutely clear that it is there to provide therapeutic, trauma informed support.”

That will—

Let me finish, please. The work of reimagining secure care will have four phases, and it will involve looking at issues with regard to funding going forward. However, the last-bed pilot scheme is the method that we are currently using to look at how to make secure care centres more financially viable.

Yes, absolutely, it could.

I thank Mr Greer for that question. For the committee’s benefit, I should say that the bill makes no alterations to the backdrop regulation for secure transport, so it is not quantified in the financial memorandum. However, as I have already said, we are listening to the views that have come forward during stage 1 on that and a range of other areas, and they will be explored and any refreshed financial forecasts made for the bill.

That question might be better directed to one of my officials. I ask Tom McNamara to answer it.

I will hand over to Brendan Rooney to talk in detail about that.

Thank you, deputy convener, and good morning to the committee.

The fundamental principles that the bill takes forward are as follows. Where children come into contact with care and justice services or into conflict with the law, Scotland must respond appropriately, and that should happen in age-appropriate systems and settings. Our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our commitment to keep the Promise are clear on those points, and those commitments benefit from cross-party endorsement in this Parliament.

The bill takes forward important measures to improve experiences and outcomes for children in Scotland, especially those who need extra care and support. The bill builds on our getting it right for every child principles and our youth justice vision. By helping to address the causes of the child’s offending behaviours, we can assist them to desist and to rehabilitate and, in turn, we can prevent further harm and minimise the number of future victims. In doing so, we can help to improve outcomes for everyone in society.

In relation to public expenditure, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that these change programmes are advancing. The negative economic and social costs to society, both at the time and into the future, of offending and crime are well documented. For example, the Promise “Follow the Money” report estimated the cumulative private costs of physical and emotional harm, lost output and public service costs to be £3.9 billion. By investing in services that take an early intervention approach, we can lead to more positive pathways being taken more often for individuals and communities.

We are coming from a strong baseline. Between 2008-09 and 2019-20, there was an 85 per cent reduction in the number of children and young people who were prosecuted in Scotland’s courts and a 93 per cent reduction in 16 and 17-year-olds being sentenced to custody. Although the Government is not complacent and it recognises that there will always be a level of offending and a requirement for care and protection in any society, the bill represents a solid step forward.

The Government has engaged widely on the forecast costs. In addition to our full public consultation, extensive engagement has taken place with a host of partners and stakeholders. The cost forecasts in the financial memorandum are based on the feedback and figures that were provided from that engagement.

I am aware that the stage 1 process has brought to light some helpful additional detail and updated information. That is part of the legislative process and we absolutely welcome it. The Government is alert to the need to ensure that forecasts can be refreshed and as up to date as possible. That is why the multi-agency resourcing and implementation group, which starts meeting next month, will be crucial to our preparations. We will work with partners to explore individual and combined resource requirements in more depth and report any necessary updates or clarifications to Parliament.

That work will feed into budget profiles for next year and the years beyond, as is the established process for financial planning regarding proposed legislation. We are, of course, mindful that parliamentary agreement is required and will therefore keep projections refreshed as the bill moves forward and is amended through scrutiny.

The issue of secure care funding has been a key topic in stage 1 scrutiny. We have had a last-bed pilot running in each of the four independent secure centres and we are exploring extending that exercise towards funding up to 16 secure beds in 2023-24, so that sufficient capacity will stand ready should the bill be passed.

We are also looking closely at the appropriate mechanisms for funding remand costs and will update when we have concluded that work. We welcome the additional insight and precision emerging from the stage 1 process in various parliamentary committees. That is integral to producing the best possible quality in our legislative output.

I hope that those opening remarks have been helpful and I look forward to taking the committee’s questions.

It can be difficult to quantify those future costs. However, I will bring in my official Tom McNamara to clarify the point.

That will be based on discussions that take place with the working group.