³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I suppose that I was giving you the backdrop and accurate information about the current situation. Today, there are 12 vacancies in secure care accommodation and, in Polmont, there are six children under 18—-

Forgive me—I thought that I had said in my original answer that we have a good starting point and a good basis to go forward on.

This is stage 1 of the bill process. There are matters to do with how we amend and improve the legislation, but there are also matters that are more about policy and practice. We are currently engaged with providers and the sector to ensure that young people are given the best possible care, support and supervision. There are questions about what the best way is for young, vulnerable people to access on-going mental health support, and there are key issues about staff training.

To my knowledge and in my experience, the staff who operate in the secure estate are very well trained and they have a high skill base. However, we want to ensure that people—children, in particular—can access the right treatment at the right time. I give a commitment to look closely at the evidence that the committee has been provided with and at any recommendations that the committee subsequently makes in its report.

The 93 per cent reduction in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds that are being sentenced is due to work that has commenced during the past decade.

Work has been done on when it is appropriate to shift young people into either alternatives to prosecution or alternatives to custody, which is related to the whole-systems approach to youth justice that commenced in 2011.

The reasonable point has been made that, if we expand the legal route so that all children who are under the age of 18 and in the system go into secure accommodation, that will increase demand on secure facilities. Today, there are six young people who are under the age of 18 in Polmont and there are vacancies, but we need to be vigilant that there is always capacity.

Some of the work is on funding. The Scottish Government funds one bed in each of the four independent providers, and, as you will see from the financial memorandum, there are plans for the number of funded beds to increase. That is part of that work that we are doing to ensure that we always have the right contingency arrangements in place. Notwithstanding that, there is further work going on—in particular, with providers and multi-agency partners—to ensure that we are in a position to put in additional support for any provider, should we need to.

The starting position for the arrangements is that, for the staff in the secure estate, this is their bread and butter. Staff deal with children from a range of age groups—the latest figures that I have seen show that the majority of children who go into secure are in the older age group: they are 15, 16 or 17—and they already work with a high proportion of children who have a history of committing assaults or using or brandishing weapons. They already have that expertise, which should give us confidence.

Irrespective of the route by which children go into secure accommodation, whether it is via the criminal justice system, via the children’s hearings system or under measures to do with their care and protection or the care and protection of others, there is an overlap between them, and a real similarity in their history of adverse childhood experiences. We know that 98 per cent of children who appear in court will have a history of being in the children’s hearings system and will have high levels of vulnerability. Children who reach the destination of secure accomodation via the children’s hearings system will also have had instances of conflict with the law. The research that the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice has undertaken demonstrates that the risks and needs of children in secure are not dissimilar.

Having said that, there are always exceptions, which is why we need to have contingencies and flexibilities in place. That includes the work in and around secure care plus, which enables us to make arrangements, if necessary, by which we can quickly support and facilitate additional staff or provide other additional intensive measures in a secure environment, or make adaptations to a property. We need to be able to do that.

Where secure care has an advantage over prison care is in its flexibility and the ability to respond to not only individual needs but individual risks that children present. Staff who work in secure accommodation are well acquainted with addressing the needs of an individual child while considering the context of the other children for whom they also have responsibility.

That is my understanding, but I am, of course, conscious that Ms Clark is a lawyer, and so I may want to defer to officials on that.

I would always be candid and say that there is more to be done on that matter.

As far as possible, we want to have parity between systems, notwithstanding the fact that the children’s hearings system is fundamentally about addressing the needs of children, as opposed to punishment.

The bill will increase the obligation on the principal reporter, who will now have a duty, rather than discretion, to inform victims of their right to receive information. That information could relate to the fact that a hearing has taken place or to the outcome of the hearing. For young people who are progressed through the criminal justice system, a victim notification system is currently in place.

I contend that this very specific bill increases the rights and protections for victims, but it is not our only intervention in this area. As, I suspect, Mr Findlay will be aware, we have undertaken other consultations on what else we can do within the broader system to ensure that victims’ needs are met. We have also consulted on initiatives such as a victims commissioner.

We are actively engaged with regard to what we need to do to enhance the rights of victims. As we move forward, there will be other policies and legislation that will help to address the matter.

It is important to highlight that, over and above the financial memorandum, there is a national resources group, because some of these issues need to be unpicked further. I will come on to talk about the cross-border transfer issue separately, but I recognise that there is a need for a clear pathway. Over and above the issues that are detailed in the financial memorandum, we are engaging intensively with stakeholders on this.

My understanding, from work that Scotland Excel has done, is that there is capacity in the system to meet Scotland’s needs. If you remove the cross-border transfers—just for argument’s sake—we have the capacity here in Scotland to meet our needs now and to meet our expected needs in the future, notwithstanding the fact that we could get further information and those expectations could change.

I have also pointed to the beds that we are now funding, which came off the back of a pilot. I think that I mentioned earlier that, in terms of Scottish Government funding, the number of beds in the estate will increase to ensure that we have stability and certainty.