���˿���

The proposal has been worked through and discussed. The process is on-going, so, if we see that there will be issues with capacity, the Scottish Government will absolutely—

As I said, we will continue to monitor the situation. I do not rule anything out. On your point, we are committed to funding the interventions for vulnerable youth service, which is hosted by Kibble, as you might be aware. IVY is a specialist psychological and social work service that provides three types of service: professional consultation and advice, psychological assessment and psychological intervention for children who are at risk of harming others. Such support can be given to those on the edge of secure care and to those in secure care settings. We are committed to that service.

As I said, I do not rule anything out as we go forward.

Secure care would be very much a last resort as an alternative to police custody. I would have to hand over to my officials to give the costings.

As I have said, the financial memo sets out the headline costs and was produced following in-depth engagement with partners and duty bearers. Given the nature of care and justice services, there is a high degree of variability.

As I have mentioned to other members, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that the change programmes could have to society. The negative economic and social costs to society of offending and crime are well documented. For example, the “Follow the Money” report, which is associated with the Promise, estimates that the cumulative private costs of crime, physical and emotional harm and lost output, as well as public service costs, are upwards of £3.9 billion. A huge amount of money is being spent in that regard. Although the costs in the financial memorandum look large, if you balance them against that other sum, you can see that there is real potential there.

Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, each child’s care, even within a secure care centre, is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is defined by the child and the support that they need. Secure accommodation centres already utilise a range of interventions and strategies to meet the needs of all children, to ensure that their safety is maintained and that risk is managed. That is important in relation to the member’s comments about the most serious offences.

Risk assessment and risk management frameworks allow for decisions about the level of care, the supervision and the restrictions on a child to be bespoke, proportionate and tailored to the needs of that child—that is what I was referring to when I mentioned dealing with things on a case-by-case-basis. That is to ensure both their safety and the safety of others in the secure centre.

We have no plans to change that or to separate children who are placed in secure care on the basis of considerations such as their route into secure care, their age or the offence type. Yes, we will listen, and we will work with those who are involved, and we will continue to monitor the issue as we go forward.

We need to recognise the wider backdrop to the issue. Over time, there will be a saving for society and for public expenditure. As I said, the financial memorandum sets out the headline cost and was produced via in-depth engagement with partners and duty bearers. As my officials have pointed out, given the nature of care and justice services, there is a high degree of variability, so it can be difficult to forecast. The Scottish Government wanted to avoid underestimating in many areas, and obviously there are significant financial implications. As I said, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that the change programmes could have for our society and for public expenditure.

I think that you had another question tacked on to that.

A range of measures are under way, and that point is under consideration. Secure care is more appropriate for 16 and 17-year-olds, as I have mentioned. The environment is age appropriate and child centred, with focused work to address the child’s specific behaviours. As I have said, a therapeutic and educational setting can help to lead children to healthier development and better outcomes, and it can decrease the likelihood of future offending.

Secure care is the right setting to better support children who require to be deprived of their liberty in order to address their underlying needs and the causes of their behaviours and to help them to reintegrate, to recover, to rehabilitate and to desist. That, in turn, will reduce the number of future victims and will benefit society as a whole.

Children are not mini-adults. A child’s propensity to alter their behaviour and change their path can be far greater than that of adults, as I have already mentioned this morning. Safe and trusting relationships are the absolute cornerstone of promoting children’s healthy development and positive outcomes. Through the provision of 24/7 care, the relationships that secure care staff can provide are absolutely key. That was something that the member mentioned specifically. The knowledge, skills, training and ratios of staff—there are often two staff per child—are supportive of the development of such relationships.

Staff in secure care centres must be registered and qualified in relation to care and education. The care-based, child-centred ethos and environment that secure care affords are supported by the centres, which are registered, monitored and inspected by the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland.

I hope that that goes some way towards answering the member’s question.

No—that would be its opinion.

On the support for social work, I will hand over to my official, who might give a clearer response on that.

Further to the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019, in February, we published a list of places of safety. Each local authority identified its own resources areas, which included foster care and children’s houses. Therefore, that work is already under way.