Thank you very much. Good morning everyone and welcome to the 27th meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.  The second item on our agenda today is an evidence session for children, young people and keeping the promise on the Children, Care and Justice Scotland Bill. Alongside the minister today, we have Scottish Government officials, and can I ask you to introduce yourselves, perhaps starting from Mr Rooney? Good morning committee, I'm Brendan Rooney, the bill manager. I'm a professional adviser to the building. Good morning everyone, I'm Jack Oicalbosh and I'm an economist at the Scottish Government. With the Department for Children and Families.  Minister, you've up to three minutes please. Thank you very much. This bill takes forward key measures to help Scotland improve the rights of children and their life outcomes. It's firmly embedded in our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and our commitment to keep the promise. Such aims come with cross-party endorsement from this Parliament. Following stage 1, the committee asked for updated resourcing forecasts on this bill and I agreed to provide it. A number of factors such as the financial memorandum utilising pre-pandemic data out of necessity, further annual 22-23 data sets publishing in the period after stage 1 and UK inflation rising sharply since the financial memorandum was compiled last year, all meant that matters and projected costs had moved on. Those factors are reflected in the updated information provided to the committee. It was prepared by working with key bodies such as COSLA, Social Work, Scotland, SCRA and CHS, all of whom I am aware appeared at committee last week. The projected maximum costs have risen for four key reasons. Moving from projections based on the maximum age of 17 and a half for real world practical illustrative purposes on some matters to all children up to the age of 18 years. That approach acts on a committee stage 1 recommendation. New 22-23 annual data sets becoming available that are less tainted by Covid pandemic impacts, using the higher window of estimates, even with the acknowledged levels of uncertainty and the likelihood that those will not be reached in full, and significant increases in inflation, partly reflecting inflation increasing across the passing years since the referral levels captured in pre-pandemic data now updated, but also affected by UK fiscal policy and Brexit. Our multidisciplinary resource and implementation group has also allowed us to address these matters and has met three times over the summer. Those discussions will continue and deepen in tandem with parliamentary scrutiny. I know that the committee took evidence from victim support organisations last week, and we have been working very closely with them following stage 1, and I met Kate Wallace recently. We have worked closely with those colleagues on the development of positive proposals, and we are considering those as part of our 24-25 budget processes, and we will be able to give more detail at stage 2. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to get into too much detailed discussion today of our post-stage 1 policy development work or to enter into provision-by-provision type commentary, because both are for future bill stages. We will work with partners to consider plans for the commencement and sequencing of any future act. We will do so in a way that acknowledges the capacity of co-regencies that assists them to prepare and work sensibly in the context of other change programmes that are at various stages of maturity. That is in keeping with our approach to any legislation. I look forward to your questions and our discussion today. We are going to move to questions from members. The Scottish Government's updated finances for the bill provided more money for local authorities, specifically for social work. However, we heard last week from Social Work Scotland that there are many social work posts that are vacant, and there is not a systemic plan in place to tackle recruitment and retention. I have also been aware that, in the pool of social work, where someone is talented, they are promoted, and there is quite a gap between those who are coming in and the experienced, who are in the leadership posts in terms of the skills that are on the ground. I was just wondering what the minister is doing to tackle recruitment and retention and also the skills gap between those as they move through the profession. Recruitment and retention is obviously a matter for social work, and that stretches across different policy areas. I would say that there is a host of work going on under way to help with the recruitment and retention issues across social work. In terms of going forward, we are in the process of making a workforce improvement plan, which has been developed to address the acute recruitment and retention challenges facing social work. That includes workforce planning and workforce vacancy data. That should help to address the immediate and longer-term recruitment challenges, including initiatives such as international recruitment, which would also help with that skill base and improving access to social work education, again touching on the issues around skills and progression that you mentioned. That is a live document that is not yet in the public domain, but, as I said, that is work that is progressing. You have said that it is not in the public domain, but when can we expect to have sight of that as a committee, as it is really important? Given some of the evidence that we heard last week about the lag that is required for when the bill goes live to implementation in terms of that. You mentioned one bit of host of work there, and that was related specifically to international recruitment. If there is a host of work, that suggests that there are many threads. What else are we doing to tackle that? Just on your first point in terms of timing, that is not something that sits under my portfolio directly, so that is perhaps something that I could come back to the committee on. I do not have that information to hand right now in terms of the timeline. In terms of other work that is going on, there is a review of pay in the advanced practice framework that remunerates qualifications and experience. It also provides a defined career pathway for social workers, supporting work to address the retention challenges that the convener has mentioned. I have just noticed that the framework will be published next year. Apologies for that. As I said, that does not sit directly under me. That is not work that I am directly involved in. To ensure that we have adequate data to inform workforce planning and resources allocation at a national level, we have also assembled a short-life working group to provide strategic leadership and oversee the delivery of a Scottish Government data project, which is seeking to establish and document a baseline around the demand for services to monitor workforce figures and trends, as I have already alluded to in my previous answer, as well as the project demand and the resources needed to meet it. As I said, the Government is very switched on in terms of recruitment and retention, and we are taking measures to try to improve that landscape. If it is coming next year and it is not under your remit, I suppose that that is indicating the cross-portfolio nature of the legislation that we are sitting here, as well as the impacts elsewhere. Given the pressures that are on the social work services right now, we have also been told that the current demands that they are facing are many leaving the profession. Their experiences on the children's hearing system have identified that one reason why they are leaving is the complexity of the work that they are dealing with and the size of the workload. Is there anything that we are doing there to address that element? The voices of those involved are going to be absolutely key to that going forward. Sorry, you picked up on a couple of points absolutely. That stretches across different portfolios, and there is a range of matters. Much of the work that I am involved in in keeping the promise is not limited to one portfolio. It stretches across a range of different areas of Government. That is something that we are working well together on across Government. As I said, the voices of those who are involved are key to that going forward. We are working collaboratively with stakeholders, including COSLA, Social Work Scotland, Unison and the Scottish Social Services Council, to ensure that the improvement plan is going to be influenced and informed by the voices of social workers themselves and other key stakeholders. The voices are being quite specific in the fact that they are overstretched, and there are serious issues with recruitment, and a short-life working group is not going to help them right now. I was referring to the improvement plan that they will be feeding into that. That comes next year, which will not help them right now. In terms of the recruitment and detention of staff right now, what are we doing? We cannot afford to be bleeding social workers when we have a bill coming where there will be more work, quality work that is required from those individuals to carry out to support our young people. I thought that I was here to answer questions on the issues with the bill going forward, and that would be in the longer term. As I said, I completely appreciate the issues that are under way in terms of recruitment and retention with social work. That is something that my colleagues are working through. I have laid out steps that should help in both the short term and the long term, and I have been very clear that we are listening to the voices of social work and to different key stakeholders in trying to improve matters with that. Can I move to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy, please? Can I ask the minister whether she considers the support of social workers and the social work profession to be key to the implementation of the bill? Absolutely. In that case, the answers that you have just given around the fact that they are not indirectly related to the passage of the bill in front of you do not seem very adequate. In that case, it feels like the answers that you have just given on the record about the importance of making sure that there are enough social workers in place that they get the support that they need to do their job do not seem to be very adequate. I have laid out a range of steps that we are taking to help with the recruitment and retention issues. There are steps under way across Government that we are taking to help with those recruitment and retention issues. In terms of the passage of the bill, we are currently in between stage 1 and stage 2, so there is still time. I believe that there is time to get to the place that we are needed to allow the bill to be successful. If you are asking me about issues that are happening right now, we are talking about a bill that has not even finished its stages through Parliament. Surely, minister, you cannot expect members across the chamber to vote for a piece of legislation that relies on social work so heavily without any reassurance from yourself that the support is going to be in place for social work to be able to meet the needs of the bill demands? I do not believe that I have not given any reassurance, as I have said, that there is work under way in terms of the group and the improvement plan. As I say, I am listening to the voices of those who are in the profession and taking steps based on that. That will be published next year. As I say, I believe that that will go away to help to solve those problems. I would not say that we are not in a place that is not ready for it. We are taking action and we will get there. Social Work Scotland and Children's Here in Scotland last week suggested that a 12 to 18 month timescale between the bill receiving royal assent and commencement could help with workforce planning issues. Other stakeholders support that view, too. What consideration are you giving minister to this call? That is still being considered. That will obviously be wholly dependent on the future process of the bill in terms of what happens at stage 2 and ultimately stage 3. That is still under consideration. Is it your intention at stage 2 or stage 3 to commence the pieces of the parts of the legislation that are relevant to those points within that timescale? Is the Government bringing any amendments to that effect? I cannot go into stage 2 amendments at this stage. That would be for stage 2. Okay, thank you. We have a quick supplementary on this theme from Liam Kerr, please. Yes, very quickly, convener, if I may, just on this theme and I declare my interest as a practicing solicitor. Minister, concerns have been raised that the already under resourced legal profession may be required to provide even more with less if and when perhaps this bill comes in. What have you done as minister to research the extra requirements that may be put on the legal profession and the impacts and indeed the profession's ability to provide? As I have already alluded to, there has been a whole host of work going on over the summer, working with key agencies, working with key stakeholders who are going to be involved in both the implementation of this bill and how the bill transpires going forward. I again, that is something that is under consideration and if further support is required, that will be given once the bill commences. Brendan, I'm not sure if you would have anything to add to that. Before you come in, Mr Rooney, the work has been going on over the summer with the agencies, presumably, so could you confirm, minister, that those agencies are the legal profession, perhaps the law society or the faculty? Have the conclusions of that being factored into the financial memorandum that is before this committee? If not, presumably, the minister is asking this committee to approve certain things that we don't have the data on. No, in the updated financial memorandum, there is a specific section on legal aid. Those figures were supplied by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which, as I have said, we have been in, or sorry, officials and there has been discussions on going with that since the beginning of the bill. Those figures have been updated based on the updated financial costs that the committee sought and they have been laid out in the financial memorandum. We have taken consideration of that, the figures have been updated. I hope that that is a vice. Just following up on that, that section was about legal aid, it wasn't about the availability of lawyers. I suppose that's where we were trying to maybe get a little bit of if that's been considered at all. As I say, everything that's been brought up to officials or myself in terms of concerns from stakeholders and from those that we have engaged with is being considered. If that is something that looks as if it is going to be a problem going forward, or a problem with commencement of the bill, that will absolutely be addressed. Before we go to Michelle Thompson, I'm going back to the social work element. The bill is dependent on social work. The questions about the future are really key to this, but it's an additional 215,931 hours of social work that is going to be expected for this bill to be successful. I'm not getting the sense that the size of that is really... There's not much confidence from what I'm hearing today that that is actually going to be possible. I'm concerned. I wonder if there's any more reassurance that you could give us, minister. I'm sorry, convener, to hear your concerns. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to improving the experience of social work and the workforce, ensuring that it is more sustainable in the long term. I've already laid out some of the measures that we've introduced to address the recruitment and retention issues facing the profession. The workforce improvement plan, which has been developed, will be developed as being developed in conjunction with stakeholders and will be published next year and will go a long way to helping to set the bar and set in progress going forward in terms of those numbers that you have alluded to. Also, as I say, in terms of the Advanced Practice Framework, reviewing paid disparities and looking at that progression going forward to try and make that more attractive. I think that that's some very good steps that we're taking in the interim, but of course, because this is such a valued and much-needed profession that impacts on numerous different issues over and above the bill, that will be something that is monitored going forward across the period. First, convener, I have to put on record an error that I made in last week's evidence session. I stated that there had been a 42 per cent uplift in the financial projection figures, and I just want to correct the record and note that it was marginally more than a 50 per cent uplift. Now, I note the statement of the minister, thank you for that, and her explainer of the new numbers. But fundamentally, does she consider acceptable that it's this committee that now has to scrutinise these numbers rather than finance and public administration? Well, as I say, if this is the lead committee for scrutiny, you have obviously requested another session for scrutiny, and I've been happy to come to that. That's really a matter for the committee. I was very clear during stage 1 when I spoke at the committee previously that the figures that we provided in the original financial memo were based on decisions that were taken at the time and based on figures that were available at the time. I appreciate that those have updated it as a large increase, and much of that is based on some of the committee's own recommendations. So, again, I believe that that's why I'm here this morning to help and assist your scrutiny neighbor with that. COSLA told the committee that costs for family support, secure transport costs, additional administration, managerial time required to support the children's hearings process were all excluded from the financial memorandum. Is she able to update us today with estimates for costings for those? So, again, I would just say that the figures were produced in line with different stakeholders, including COSLA. I will hand over to Jack to go through some of the finances in a little more detail. I'm making the point that they've been excluded from the FM, so are you going to be able to give us what the estimated figures are today, which would be in addition to those included in the FM? No, so I won't be able to today give any more information than what was included in the updated financial information. So, in other words, we can anticipate further costings in addition to the 50 per cent update. My question to her, because she correctly highlighted the very challenging fiscal environment we've got, how does she know that the money is going to be available and what meetings has she had thus far with the finance secretary and the deputy first minister? In relation to the bill, I haven't. However, I am working on some very extensive issues. Keeping the promise, for example, is a huge part of my portfolio and something that the Government has committed wholeheartedly to. The bill is in line with keeping the promise. We have to see that the bill progress if we want to keep the promise, so I am confident that the finances that will be required will be there, because that is a key Government issue. However, I cannot comment on this year's budget processes or future budget processes that will be for those involved in the decision making at the time. However, as I say, I am confident that we will have what we need to see the bill through. Has she had the chance to develop a risk assessment setting out the probability of money being available or not, given the very tight fiscal environment that you have outlined? Personally, I think that that would be better done at a later stage in the bill process. As I said, we are still prior to stage 2, and amendments and changes can still happen at stage 2, which could impact on the finances. I think that that would be better taken at a later stage in the bill process. Similar notes, the updated financial information for this bill estimated that the number of additional hearings would go up by 42 per cent on the original financial memorandum. Minister, why was the initial estimate so low? Do you, as the Scottish Government, anticipate any issues arising from what are significantly increased figures? Why should this committee have any confidence that the new figures are correct? I had advised in previous sessions, and I believe that I alluded to it in my speaking note at the beginning, that we had used the lower end of the scale for that. We have now taken that at the highest, so the maximum. We had also used the cut-off for 17.5 in the previous financial memorandum, where we have now taken that up to 18. We have probably overconsidered how many there will be that is the absolute maximalist approach, because, as I said, we have taken that right up to the full age of 18. There are two reasons for that. We have taken the lower end in the first financial memorandum and changed that now, and we are equally moving up to that age 18 to address. Of interest, just as a supplemental, why take the lower approach? Why not come to this committee with data that we can say that that is what we are going to need and that is what we can rely on? By taking the lower end of approach, haven't you instilled a lack of confidence in this committee's ability to scrutinise? That was in the previous financial memorandum. We have changed that now, and we have moved to the higher. We have used all the higher estimates now. I appreciate that that maybe was not ideal at the time. That was not a decision that was made by myself, and that has been altered now. I would hope that that would instill confidence in the committee that we are using that maximalist approach, and that is the max that we would be looking at. We heard from the children's hearing panel people last week that they are embarked on a panel recruitment campaign, but it did not meet their expectations or what they consider to be their needs in terms of new panel members. Does the minister have any thoughts on what impact that failure to recruit might have on the ultimate implementation of the bill, and what is the minister going to do about it? It was disappointing, however. I am still positive. I think that there is more than enough time in hand for both the national convener and children's hearing Scotland to act to improve that recruitment and retention picture. That is both in the short term and over the next important change period. I mean, there was still a substantial amount of people who did come forward, although admittedly not the target that we were looking for. I will be working with children's hearing Scotland to see what actions they are taking going forward and what they will be following up with to ensure that any solutions are being progressed in good time for the progression of the bill. The hearing system working group proposed salary chairs and paid volunteers. What we heard last week from children's hearing Scotland was that there was an inherent fragility in running a statutory service on the goodwill of volunteers. However, there is a counter-view that, if you have salary chairs, if you have paid volunteers, if you like, that could actually reduce the number of people coming forward. What does the minister think would be the impact? Where is he thinking in terms of the proposals? I do not think that I could give an answer today in terms of what I think the impact will be, because the hearing system redesign and those recommendations are being considered at the moment. I have said that I will respond to those by the end of the year. I appreciate that there are conflicting views around what that could do, so I think that that is why something that needs to be considered very carefully. That is what we will do, but I would be very clear that I would hold those quite independently from this bill. This bill has been in the works for a long period of time now. The hearing system redesigned those recommendations, nearly 100 recommendations. They also require time and attention to go through and consider each and how they would impact on each other and other aspects of policy. I can understand the thinking of whether that could help with that in the bill, but I would be very careful about conflating the two. I would keep those as two very separate issues. The hearing system has worked very well for a number of years. It has always risen to challenges in the past, and I believe that we can rise to the challenges in terms of the pregatio of the bill. Michelle Thomson, I will pick up on that. On the proposal for salary chairs and paid volunteers, what costings are included in the updates in the letter that you sent to cover for this? In terms of costings of the salary chairs? Salary chairs and paying volunteers, what estimates are in the updated letter that you sent to cover the costs for that? Apologies. I do not have those figures to hand. I believe that they were being considered along with those recommendations. I do not know whether officials have, Brendan, if you would like to comment. I suppose that there are two quite different and distinct programmes. As Ms Donne says, the hearing system redesign report is out. The Government said that it will respond by the end of the year. All the financial assessments that have been done in light of the bill dating back to the financial memo that was created last year are on the current model, so on the current volunteer model. They are still to be added into the costs, and we do not yet have that. Have we got any sense of what further uplift that will give in the costings, or will we not know until you have done that work? Again, your reference in the salary chairs and paid volunteers is being triggered by this. We do not have a cost for it. We would not have a cost for that just now because, as I say, all those recommendations are being considered and Government will respond prior to the end of the year. In terms of the policy for those or what recommendations out of those would be implemented, it is not likely that they would be implemented straight away. Some of them would require legislation, it is very likely that some of them would require that there will be a promise bill coming to Parliament, and it is very likely that some of those recommendations would require to be encapsulated into that to be taken through. So, again, that is why I am— Under the finances of the promise bill, rather than anything associated with that? Yes, because it is unlikely that they would be able to be implemented prior to—obviously, not for seeing what is happening with the bill—but, if we go stage 2 and stage 3, it would likely be that the bill would be commenced prior to being able to carry out those recommendations. That would be a later date. I want to thank the minister for her commitment for keeping the promise. The committee has heard that reforms envisaged to the children's hearing system, alongside other changes brought about by the promise, will take time and most likely years to fully implement. What challenges does the bill pose to the children's hearing system now, given that we know that we are already struggling to attract enough volunteers? The bill will be critical elements to the bill and the children's hearing system right now. As I have already said to Mr Kerr, I am still positive about the children's hearing system. I think that there is more than enough time in hand, and they have always risen to challenges before. I do not believe that, last week's evidence and the evidence heard by the committee means that the positive material that I have gone through or that children's hearing Scotland gave to the committee at and after stage 1 is redundant, just because of one single disappointing panel recruitment campaign. I believe that they can come back to that. I believe that they can bolster recruitment. There are obviously short-term actions already under way. Children's hearing Scotland is already working with SCRA to minimise the number of abortive or deferred rota hearings. Officials have asked children's hearing Scotland now, in light of that, to develop a range of interventions to improve matters over the coming months. Those will, hopefully, either deliver boosts to panel intake numbers or better retention rates. I will be keeping a very close eye on that, because I appreciate how important it is in terms of the passage of the bill. I have met children's hearing Scotland in the past. I will be meeting them in the future to discuss that and, as I say, keep closely monitoring that. The Scottish Government's response to the stage 1 report from the committee said that it was considering sequencing the bill and related work, such as the recommendations of the hearing system working group. The committee, which was heard last week from Ben Farugia, said that many of the changes proposed by the bill would be more deliverable if the system proposed by the hearing system working group was in place beforehand. The committee also heard from the other members on the panel that the sequencing change would be vital for the success of the bill. What can the minister say about that sequencing change to reassure the stakeholders? I know the evidence that was heard last week from one individual, but I would say that the membership of the redesign group that produced the report did not include the full spectrum of statutory delivery partners nor have the very far-reaching proposals or have around 100 recommendations gone through any form of public consultation. I appreciate that there might be thoughts that aspects of those recommendations could help with the bill. As I have said, it is very important to keep the two things separate. I do not want to go through those recommendations and have a pick and choose effect, and I know that that is not what stakeholders want either. I want to keep them very separate. I want to give those recommendations the attention and consideration that they deserve. As I have said, the final decision that the Government comes to around those will be put forward in a promise bill or, if they do not require a statute, that will be put forward at a later date. I am keen on keeping the bill and the recommendations as separate issues because they were not started in tandem together. I understand your comments there, minister, but, if we remember, we have an on-going secure care redesign project. Managing change is always a big, big issue and a concern to those who are working in the services. That is not about reducing the change, it is about having two big bits of change happening at the same time. I am asking about the sequencing of that, not putting stuff aside and not happening. That is where my question lies. I believe that I have answered your question around sequencing. I have said that I think that the two issues should be quite separate. I am understanding that they are separate, but what I am saying is that the people on the ground are managing two—if you have the change coming in with the working group from the hearings, the change coming in from the secure care redesign and the change coming in from the bill and then you are talking about a promise bill—there is a lot of change happening, could all be happening at the same time. Surely, when you have a stretched workforce, under pressure in terms of delivery, in terms of numbers, we should be doing everything that we can to really consider the whole picture. We hear a lot about holistic change from this Government. Let us take the opportunity to do that now and make sure that we are not putting undue pressure on those delivering such vital services. I appreciate what you are saying. I certainly would not want to put any unnecessary pressure on those services. I do not believe that there is regularly a lot of change. I do not think that that is unique in relation to the case of this bill and the promise and the other things that I have mentioned. My priority is that we are getting it right for the children who are going to be involved. We want to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are no longer placed in young offenders institutions. We are in line with UNCRC and with the promise. In terms of sequencing, I would still be keen to ensure that the bill is progressed at pace and that the other matters that you are referring to, which is very important work as well, will be considered in due course. Throughout the process, we are continuing to work with the key stakeholders and key organisations who are involved in trying to address any issues that might face them in those instances. If we have the 215,931 hours of social work capacity, we have the capacity and the numbers of volunteers in the children's healing system. We have a secure care service that is fit for purpose and is designed around what the outcome of the bill will be. I am really concerned that everything is just out of sequence. We will go back to that. I am not getting the reassurance from you today that change happens across society and lots of organisations. All the elements of change are in the gift of the Scottish Government to decide how and when they take place. Yes, absolutely. I am sorry that you are not getting that confidence from me, but I am very confident that those key organisations and the actions that the Government is taking and the work that is going on under way in relation to children's healing system in Scotland will bolster panel members. As I say, I am confident that we will get there. What commitment can you give me today, and to the children and young people, that improvements will continue to be made within the children's healing system that is in the interim while we are waiting? I have already alluded to the work that is going on under way in. I have given you two points around the range of interventions that have been asked to be developed by children's healing in Scotland to improve matters. As I have said, I will work closely with children's healing in Scotland, and I will be monitoring that and what those actions will be. Children's healing in Scotland are working with their partners in terms of minimising the numbers of abortive or deferred rotaherin. I am giving you answers in terms of the action that will be taken by children's healing in Scotland and the action that is being taken by the Government in terms of other matters, and I could only report back on those over time. I would like to ask you about victims. I am sure that the committee agrees that it is important that we get it right for all children involved in this, which includes the children who are harmed. We heard from assist last week a case study, which I think is always helpful in bringing us back to who we are trying to help and what we are trying to do. We heard about Chloe, who was 14 years old. The perpetrator or the child who harmed was 16. Her case met the threshold for criminal court conditions. Chloe experienced strangulation, physical abuse and constant emotional abuse. Her partner had threatened to kill himself. He had sent photos and videos of himself self-harming, and he threatened to share intimate images of her. Because the case met the threshold for special bail conditions, assist was able to do extensive safety planning with Chloe around her social media and her routines. They did a lot of advocacy with her school. They continued to work with her, and in doing that work, they are having to manage the persistence of her ex-partner and his friends. I think that we all understand the nature of domestic abuse and that persistence. Even with all that support, Chloe spoke about feeling isolated and degraded all the way through the experience. The contrast case that we were given was of young women who were 14 years old. The boy who caused her harm was going through the children's reporter administration. There are no protective measures in place for the victim there. They receive no information about what is going to happen next or what is being done to address the harm that is caused by the young man. The woman in question feels like the abuse that she has been subjected to is being minimised and not taken seriously. Is there not a real danger that if we do not get the bill right for victims who are often children themselves, that is exactly the message that we will send? That the abuse that they are facing at the hands of young men who are perpetrating domestic abuse or sexual crimes is not being taken seriously? First of all, I am so sorry to hear that account. I have met a number of committee members individually, and I appreciate the strength of feeling in that area. I appreciate that we need to get that right. I think that I have been very clear that there is obviously a fine balance in terms of how we do this. However, I have very carefully considered all the information that I have received at stage 1 and within, as I say, my individual meetings with many of you. I am continuing to work with a range of victim support organisations to explore the balance that is currently struck. For example, I want to ensure that information can be shared with victims where it is needed for their safety. Importantly, we need to make sure that we have the best approach for how that happens. I think that a colleague will come in and ask specifically on the information that I have received. I was going to re-emphasise that extensive engagement has taken place over the summer between officials, groups and myself, such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland and other agencies. I want to assure all members of the committee that active consideration of that is on-going. We have had eight meetings over the summer with those agencies. I have met Victim Support Scotland myself, and I appreciate that support to victims is absolutely key. At this stage, I probably cannot go into too much detail, but I want to assure members that that is something that I am continuing to take great consideration into. I appreciate that answer, minister. I suppose that what the committee might look for is that we have shared our report, and we have had the response. I acknowledge that yourself and your officials have met the organisations that are raising those concerns. We had some of those organisations with us last week. I do not feel that enough progress has been made. It might be helpful for the committee to hear from you that, in answer, there is a fine balance to be struck. We have to hear that all children are important and that all children's safety is important. Although I said that my colleagues will be coming in on information, the right to privacy is not absolute. You do not get the right to privacy if you are going to harm another. We need to be really clear in the language that we are using. I need the young women and their families who might be watching this to know that our Government understands domestic abuse and the harm that it causes and how it is perpetrated, and that we will absolutely take action to make sure that those young women are safe, as well as the other children involved, the children who are causing harm, who are having assistance with their behaviour. Of course. I want to assure Ms Gliar that I absolutely take this with the seriousness and the gravitate that it requires. I understand domestic abuse and the impact that that can have on a victim. Support to victims is key. I do not know if I can go into too much detail around what is being considered in terms of stage 2, because that would be at stage 2, but I can say that one aspect that I am giving careful consideration to is whether a single point of contact to help victims navigate systems and different organisations would help to assist matters. That would not necessarily require a statute. I am aware that this is an area that has attracted a lot of committee attention and will likely continue to do so at stage 2, so that is something that I would again be more minded to follow through at stage 2, but just in terms of trying to give a little bit of assurance that— I can accept if you do not want to talk about specific measures. I think that there is a challenge in us not hearing about specific measures, but we can, as a committee, take that away and act as we might. Can I ask you about funding of multidisciplinary training around this bill? Anyone who understands violence against women and domestic abuse would understand the absolute necessity that a victim be given information and be assisted in safety planning. The examples that we have had do not happen through the hearing system. What multidisciplinary training will the Scottish Government implement? There is a range of training practices already under way, and I am not sure whether that came up in your committee session last week. SCRA confirmed that all children's reporters receive mandatory training by Scottish Women's Aid in relation to domestic abuse. In terms of children's hearing Scotland, there are trauma informed training for children's panel members. That is one of the three mandatory training practices, and that includes coercive control or domestic abuse. There is also the development of a children and young persons centre for justice, the CYCJ training programme, which would become mandatory in relation to the bill, but that would be after royal assent, so that is something that is being developed and worked on in direct relation to this bill. I am just trying to cover the basis of children's hearing Scotland SCRA, and then there are training in place for social work as well, who are engaging with those organisations that I have just mentioned too. I suppose that just finally, convener, if I may, and I do not want to be that, it is more of a comment than a question, but if I can be indulged, the whole hearing system is there to support the child who has caused harm, and it is absolutely right that the understanding of that child's family circumstances are taken into account. However, I suppose that I would just want on record that we need that understanding of what the victim is going through, and at the moment that is not there. Thank you. I have got some supplementaries from both Pam Duncan-Clancy and Michelle Thompson on the lack of protection for victims, so can I come to Pam Duncan-Clancy first, please? Thank you, convener. Following some of the line of questioning of my colleague Ruth Maguire, firstly on assist, is the Government considering any clear pathway to support from organisations like assist for people who are experiencing or who are being victims of domestic violence through the hearing system? I would probably have to pass—I am not entirely sure of the details around that. It is more around the overall picture for victims and witnesses that I have been looking at, so in terms of that specific organisation, I would probably need to pass to Brendan. Obviously, there has been the engagement that Ms Donnes alluded to over the summer. There has been a lot of consideration on going. We have met with victim support organisations, I think, probably more so than any key area on the bill. Some of its non-stature trees, Ms Donnes, are things like a single point of contact proposal that has been put to Government that is undergoing quite careful consideration. I suppose that there is always that consideration with what does post stage 2 of the bill look like and how would the non-stature tree support network interact with what the statutory provision says. I suppose that those things are being taken together and considered as a package. Part of the concern is that there are statutory routes in the criminal justice system, including through things such as special bail or non-harassment orders, that would trigger pathways through organisations like assist when domestic violence or violence against women and girls is a factor. Does the minister therefore consider that at stage 3? I am currently exploring how the courts would be able to protect a victim of domestic abuse by way of non-harassment order and also remit to a children's hearing for disposal if a child accused would benefit from the compulsory measures through the heating system. That is something that is under live consideration. Just a quick follow-up on that. She mentioned the potential for a single point of contact, and I note her comment that she has just made there as well. Has she therefore been able to consider the financial costings of developing the processes that she is suggesting and the delivery of those processes? Is she also going to bring up a cost or are there going to be additional financial figures that we will see coming through in due course? There would be additional financial figures coming through in due course because they are not directly associated with the bill at this stage, and they are not included in those projections. I also noted what she said about her engagement thus far and over the summer recess. I felt that it was significant that Victim Support Scotland tweeted after our session last week, and I will quote her saying that, rather than having a transformational impact on children's experiences of the criminal justice system, the bill, as it currently stands, could potentially fail both children who harm and children who have been harmed. I just wanted to draw your attention to that tweet because that would suggest to me that there is still further work to go to put Victim Support Scotland at ease. Do you wish to respond to that? I just really wanted to say that I appreciate that. I guess that this is one of the areas of the bill that, as I said when I met many of you individually, it was raised with me. I know that there are real concerns around that and I am very switched on to that and want to ensure. I hope that, from what I have said here today, it is clear that there are still aspects of that that are under consideration, and in terms of that balance to ensure that we get it right, both for a child who might have offended but equally a victim as well, that that balance is struck properly. I am committed to ensuring that we get that right. Willie Rennie, can I bring in yourself now, please? Victim Support Scotland was quite clear last week that they did not think that the discussions with you had been particularly fruitful or that their arguments had gained much traction so far, so I hope that what the minister has just said is reflected going forward so that their concerns are addressed at the heart of the bill, because it is pretty fundamental. I think that all the committee last week was pretty shaken by the evidence that was provided last week. It was really strong and they did not quite say stop the bill, but they were not that far away from it and I think that that is a big concern for us and that is why we have been particularly difficult with you this morning, because we just do not think that you have really got a grasp of the severity of this. This is an important bill, really important bill. We want to deliver on the promise, but so far I have to say that we have not been convinced by what you have told us and I think that there is a lot of work to be done. I mean movement restriction conditions is something that encapsulates all the problems that we have covered this morning from finances, staffing capacity and the rights of victims. It is all wrapped up in this one area. One of the areas is how victims get information about movement restriction conditions to allow them to plan for their own safety. How can we make sure that that information is shared with the victims? That is something that is being considered as part of stage 2 deliberations. I have already alluded to the fact that I want to see information shared with victims striking the right balance and when it is in relation to their safety. If that was something that could help their situation or, as I say, improve their safety, then that is something that I absolutely want to see. I really do not think that I can go into more detail around the who's and the what's, because we have not reached that point of stage 2 amendments. Those are still very live discussions, those are still live considerations. I am not asking you to go into huge detail. I think that I am just asking you to deal with the point that my colleagues have raised already, which is that the rights of victims in the system is fully respected in the same way as those who are at the heart of the children's hearing system. You have not really given us an indication that you are going to shift, and I think that you do need to shift. I think that I have given an indication that I want that there could be shift, because I have already said that I am considering that single point of contact. No, I know that that is not in relation to this. I am just saying that in relation to victims and the issues around victims that you have raised with me, there is definitely room for manoeuvre, and in terms of the other information around sharing information, I have been very clear that that is something that I would like to do. However, there is a balance that needs struck to ensure that we are protecting all children involved, to ensure that we are doing what is right for the victim as well, and to ensure that we get this right. I will bring Shona in to follow up on that a little bit. Before you do that, there was broad agreement about the single point of contact. However, if that single point of contact cannot share the information that is necessary, it is pointless. It needs the principle of sharing and of respecting the victim's rights needs to be at the heart of that, or all the apparatus means nothing. Shona, I do not know whether you can tell us more, but that is the fundamental point here. Sorry, it is not necessarily about telling you more. I would just like to elaborate on some of the points that I have made. I completely appreciate what you are saying in terms of that sharing information to victims, but we need to make sure that it is what is right for the victim, and every single situation is different. I want to see that taken on a case-by-case basis. As I said, whether it would be helpful or in relation to safety to share information to a victim, then I would like to see that. However, it is just how we build that system and how we ensure that we get that right. I will bring Shona in to follow up on that. Minister, you have put that really well. It will be on a case-by-case basis. We have had discussions with victim support Scotland, women's aid, rate prices and a number of agencies, and we are continuing to have those. We have been quite clear that we are looking at scenarios in relation to what information situations need more support, whether that is by practice, communication or legislation. That is all being actively considered. As I think the minister was trying to explain, there is definitely consideration of that. Where we have been in disagreements so far is that we cannot say necessarily that every single case will be the same as in the criminal justice system because we are looking at a situation where it is such a welfare system and we want to understand completely where the gaps are and what we can do to resolve those gaps. We are having an active discussion about that with a number of different partners, but they are very sympathetic, as the minister said, to the movement in this area. Movement restriction conditions are not enforceable, are they? Why can't we make them enforceable? Do you mean that people break in the conditions that are set on them? Again, that is a measure for child welfare. It is not something that is restrictive as secure care. It would be a matter for the children's heeding to look into what is right for the child. If a movement restriction condition has been placed on a child and the child does not follow that or there are issues with that, it would be for the children's heeding system to review that and see what could be put in place for that child going forward. Cozzler, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, told the committee that the costs of those MRCs were unknown because of the bespoke nature that speaks to the point about the finances of the whole bill. Social Work Scotland went on to say that the intensive support needed was not available in some parts of the country and anticipated panels over time will not lean towards setting MRCs due to the lack of confidence that there will be the support. Money, we cannot estimate how much it is going to cost. Even if the money was available, the capacity does not seem to be there, according to Social Work Scotland. Again, I am speaking to the issue about staffing. What are we going to do about both of those areas to give us a better handle? Otherwise, those MRCs will just not be used in large parts of the country. For a start, I would say that I would want all decisions to be made based on what is right for the child, not what resources people think are not available. That should not come into consideration when we are looking at what is right for a child and a child's hearing at the end of the day. In terms of the movement restriction conditions, I understand that there are some issues around the finances and detailing the projections for those who are going forward, especially given the changes that are taking place. I assure the committee that going forward I would be happy to commit to rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the decision-making process around MRCs to ensure that we have a handle on the number that is being used, the cost involved and that the support is in place to go in line with them. Ruth Maguire wanted to come in on something that was said a week earlier. Minister, your official said that there was clarity that measures could not be the same as the criminal justice system in terms of victims. I get some clarity that the child's rights will be the same whatever the specific measures are, and I appreciate that you do not want to go into that, but that a child's victim will have the same rights, whether they are harmed by a 16-year-old or a 21-year-old. The child's rights should be the same regardless and, obviously, depending on how that is, every case is different and it would depend if that was being handled by the criminal courts or whatever. In relation to your exact point, I will maybe bring Shona in just to follow up on her points. I was not intending to mean that children's rights were going to be breached in any way, but what we were saying is that we are looking at, with Victim Support Scotland and the other agencies, about what measures are required for that, but it is not as straight swap from criminal justice necessarily to child welfare. For example, I think that I understand that quite clearly. I just suppose that, as the bill is in front of us, there is a diminishment of children's rights if the child is a victim, but you are working to ensure that that will not be the case. I realise that some of your topics may have been covered, so please take some time to develop what your line of questioning is. Thank you very much, convener, and yes, there has been some overlap, shall we say. It is really good to know, minister, that you have met with Victim Support there. I suppose that I am quite interested. We have heard a bit already as well about issues of restrictions around the information that can be given to the person who has been harmed, who may also be a child, and the significant obstacle to Victim Support being able to access adequate information relating to their case. I wonder if you are able to share any thoughts at this point on the three-tier information sharing system that has been suggested, certainly in particular, since there was the comment earlier on about the fact that information would not always be shared. Around information not always being shared, I would just really want to emphasise that that is not something that would be laid out in statute or anything, but that would be taken on a case by case basis. I would imagine that information would only not be shared if that would impact on the victim. I would like to make that very clear. What that would say to me is that the three-tier suggestion has been ruled out, because the first tier of that would be to share information on the children's hearing process, processing and decision making with all victims. That has now been ruled out. I would not say that anything has been ruled out. No, I am aware of that proposal from Victim Support Scotland, and that has been raised and discussed in the meetings, the engagement over the past couple of months. I certainly would not say that anything has been ruled out. What I am saying is that I would want to ensure that any decisions that are taken are what is right for the victim. There is very much a case of re-traumatisation around certain issues and instances that have happened. Everybody is different, every situation is different. I am just really wanting to emphasise that I want to try 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 a range of different issues around stage 2, but that would have to be something that I would have to go into at stage 2. It was mentioned last week that, in different countries, there are different systems, and that some of those systems are very good at the balance of the rights of, say, perhaps when we have two children involved, of both those children against each other, and they mentioned a system in Croatia. I was just wondering if there had been what exploration of different systems in different places and what was effective in what worked well and what would work in Scotland? I might bring officials in on that, because a lot of that probably predates my time in post as well, but what I would say is that I am very favourable towards looking at international examples. We do that across a range of different policy areas. There are things that other countries get very right, and if there are aspects of that that we could follow, that is certainly something that I would be open to considering. However, in terms of the work that has actually gone on in regard of that, I will perhaps pass over to Brendan. Obviously, the children's hearing system, as it stands, is quite unique to Scotland, so some international examples might not be directly transferable into the Scottish system. However, the consultation on raising the age for Feral goes back to 2020, so there has been very wide consultation and assessment looking across different options and evidence assessment discussion with stakeholders on a range of these. I appreciate the fact that the children's hearing system is very unique to Scotland, but I do not think that that means that we cannot look at internationally how people are getting the balance right and actually look at applying that despite that fact. No, completely. I think that one of the other elements of the bill that tries to strike this balance is the remittable framework that we have, so there will obviously still be children that go down the criminal justice system route. I know that the committee has heard about Lord Advocate's guidelines and the decision making framework that will support whether or not a child went through the criminal justice system or to a hearing, and the different levers that are available to the justice system to the hearing system. In some instances where the justice route would be more appropriate, we have tried to maximise the intersection between the justice system and the hearing system. The considerations that the minister is talking about in non-harassment orders are probably another furtherance of that kind of approach, whereby the court measure can still be imposed by the court, but do the support and expertise of the panel could also come in? I guess just to follow up on that, I just want to reiterate my point. If there are instances or things that are going on in other countries that the committee thinks are instances of good practice, obviously you have raised one with me this morning, but I am more than open to suggestions or you are pointing that out to me in order that we can look into that, because I am always open to considering anything that might improve things. I really appreciate that minister, because I think that it is important that we do look at that. I am going to go a little bit over what has been said already here. As a committee, what we are looking for is really concrete reassurances from you about child victims' right to their physical and psychological recovery under article 39 of the UNCRC that that will be a key priority for you. Also, for you to acknowledge that information sharing can be really critical to the victim's ability to recover following a crime and also that it can really help alleviate the significant anxieties around them being involved with the justice system and also that you fully accept that information can be a really powerful enabler for victim safety planning and for their mental health and wellbeing. So really, we want to know that all of the above will be a key priority for you going forward and that you will continue to work with all their organisations, including the ones that we have mentioned today, victim support, Women's Aid Scotland and also Reap Crisis Scotland. Absolutely. Given what I have already laid out in terms of the committee, I hope that I have reassured the committee that this is something that I think is a very, very important aspect of the bill and I appreciate the feeling from a range, if not all, of the committee members around this subject. I am absolutely committed to a person-centred trauma-informed approach to this and I really do share the committee's and witnesses' desire to ensure a consistent and quality approach to the information and the support from the early stages right through that process. As I have said, there are matters being considered in terms of both statute and legislative measures going forward for stage 2 and also something that I should have mentioned. We are also looking into the, there is obviously a current and offer to victims in terms of information. It has got quite low take-up rates and I believe that the committee has already heard that in evidence. I have asked, and I believe that Scrat are now looking into reasons for that low uptake rate. That is, as I say, work that is going on at the moment, but obviously looking to strike the right balance and get this right for all the children involved going forward. I would like to reassure the committee of that. I hope that I have reassured you for that. Thanks, minister. I think that it was really important to get those strong commitments on the record there. I suppose that you are just picking up on what you have said very briefly about the 13 to 14 per cent of victims who do actually take up that offer of information as well. That was something that we asked about quite a while ago and last week we heard from the children's reporter that they expected looking at this to take around 12 to 18 months because they have lost a third of their researchers as well. I wonder if it might be possible to urge them to take a quicker and more focused look at that information and have a discussion among people chairing panels and so on, just to try to get some initial indications of why that might be the case, because they did not have any understanding of that at all. That would be really helpful if you were able to do that. Pam Duncan-Clancy, you have got a supplementary on that theme. I think that it was Brendan Rooney who mentioned the role of the Lord Advocate. Last week the children's reporter said that with the rise in age there could of course be some more serious offences coming to the panel. Victims, as my colleague Ruth Maguire has already highlighted, will want to know that justice is being done in those circumstances. The reporter said last week that I imagine that there will be consideration about this, which system is the appropriate one to deal with the circumstances that are presented there. Is there on-going consideration about this and what are the conversations that are happening around this area? I am sorry, I am not quite clear on the member's question on going consideration around whether or not something will be dual-reported through the children's hearing and reporting system or whether it would be referred to the criminal justice system, given the more serious numbers. The rise in age could also mean that there will be more serious offences. That would not be something that I could say. That would be purely a matter for the Lord Advocate to take that decision. Obviously, there are increased numbers, and that is in respect of the bill from the Government. However, in terms of how that decision would be taken, I would not be able to foresee that or comment on that. That would purely be a matter for the Lord Advocate to consider. Bill Kidd, now over to yourself. Thank you very much, convener. Just in terms of the practicalities of elements of the bill, the supervision of guidance post-18 and aftercare for those leaving secure care, the practicalities, as I say, of implementation by local authority partners is something of an issue, because last week, as has been mentioned, we had members of COSLA here. Ben Ferugia and Gillian Gibson of COSLA both highlighted the difficulty of costing aftercare support. Ben Ferugia said that local authorities will find a way to fund aftercare packages because it is a statutory duty on them, and sometimes that is leading to an overspend, which means that savings and cuts would have to be found elsewhere. Gillian Gibson of COSLA said that the bill will expand aftercare support to more 16 and 17-year-olds, as has been mentioned already. There is no way to know what support needs those young people will have and, therefore, the costings that will fall. Any ideas, please? Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Kidd, for that question. I appreciate that that was a concern raised in the evidence last week. The bill affords looked after children's status to all children who are sentenced or remanded to secure accommodation if they do not already have such status, and those children, as you have alluded to, may choose to take up an offer of aftercare support. However, what I would be keen to point out is that the vast majority of children in this scenario will already have looked after children's status and entitlements. In relation to the bill, the financial info states that the numbers and the costs that are individualised with reference to each young person's package of support cannot necessarily be quantified, but, for illustrative purposes, the document gives figures from Social Work Scotland estimating the cost of around £200,000 per year for social workers to support around their two children per year. However, as I have said, it is difficult to quantify because of those numbers and because that status would likely have children's status. However, as with many other aspects of the bill, it is something that I am happy to monitor going forward in terms of that cost. It is very helpful, because I was also going to ask how the Scottish Government will monitor the spending on aftercare costs. It is very important, as you say, on the basis that that could have effects on other local authority budget areas. Is the Scottish Government taking that into account? Absolutely, yes. As Mr Kidd has advised, provision of continuing care is a local authority duty. However, I understand that there are concerns around that being absorbed into existing costs. We are obviously all in extremely difficult financial circumstances just now, but, as I think I have answered your second question, that will absolutely be something that I would be happy to monitor going forward. I am just thinking about a thread in my head there that is not quite formulated, but I am going to move over to Ruth Maguire, please. Minister, when we began scrutinising the bill, we had a letter on behalf of a mother of a child who had been murdered asking that we not reference the child by name. We have taken evidence about the impact of reporting on the families of victims, particularly where they have lost their life, and how that can be re-traumatising and the impact that it may have on siblings in particular if, whenever something similar happens, their loved one's name is brought up and details of what happened to them are in the press. I understand from evidence last week that there is not a huge amount of headway—that is my quoting—that has been made on addressing that. Can you share your reflections on the matter with the committee and give us a flavour of where your thinking is on it? This is an extremely sensitive matter. It is difficult because, in relation to protecting the identity of deceased victims, there are competing wishes. I think that there are absolutely times where people would want that anonymity, but I also think that there are times that people might want to raise the profile or raise awareness of certain things. Again, I know that I keep coming back to it, but I guess that it is about striking that balance. However, I would say that this is certainly considered at the moment. Considerations are absolutely live ahead of stage 2, although I would note that the matter was not consulted on when the bill was introduced and given the strength of feeling around that. What I have said about those competing thoughts is a little difficult for me. Considerations are live ahead of stage 2, and I will be examining carefully how to best proceed with that. I suppose that, in those situations in which there will be competing wishes and balances, it is maybe helpful to go to the principle of it in terms of what we can do to make sure that families are not retraumatised. If the Government is not going to consider amendments, is there any additional action or things that can happen in terms of reducing that retraumatisation from media coverage? That is certainly something that we will look at in advance of stage 2, depending on those stage 2 deliberations. Kate Wallace had international evidence to provide around how that has been handled in other areas, so I would be certainly very interested in looking into that further. Considerations are on-going with that. She told us last week that a number of children who are in secure accommodation on welfare grounds have expressed real concern about the proposed changes for 16 and 17-year-olds. That is to go into secure accommodation, as opposed to the young offenders institution. Their concerns are absolutely about their own safety, and we share those concerns. She went on, and it may replicate some of the problems that we have had in young offenders institutions if the situation is not well managed. What can you tell us to convince us that the situation is going to be well managed? I am disappointed to hear the concerns from those young people, and that is certainly something that I will look into in terms of why those have arisen. Obviously, that is something that is currently handled by secure care centres. They already have the ability to deal with children or young people who have committed serious crimes and how to manage that. I would say that that is down to a case-by-case basis. Secure care centres would be expected to manage it appropriately in terms of looking at the child or young person who has, if it is an offence, about that offence and how that could impact on other children or young people in the secure care centre. I want to reassure you that that is something that is really serious and needs to be to get right. I would have said that secure care centres are getting this right at the moment, but, as I say, if concerns have been raised from those young people, that is certainly something that I will look into. It would be up to the secure care centre to manage that appropriately, but perhaps it needs more support with that. That could equally be something that comes out of the reimagining secure care work in the future, but, in terms of those concerns now, I will certainly ask for where those have come from. Marsha Scott made an awful lot of the young women who are in the secure units on welfare grounds. There is a gender issue here, and the vulnerability, therefore, is even more significant in those cases. I think that Marsha makes a really important point. I take the assurances that you have given us this morning, and I will wait to hear more about that at a later stage. We have a supplementary on the theme from Stephanie Callaghan. Just around the same issue, you have recognised the importance for secure care of actually grouping children together appropriately, because there can be some children there who have committed very serious crimes and can have manipulative tendencies along with children who are very vulnerable. I think that there is a bit of a concern there around the increase in numbers, and it has been possible that they will need different infrastructure changes to ensure the safety of all those children in their care, and to know that that is going forward and that you will be looking at and taking into consideration. As I said, it would be for secure care centres to manage that. If there were concerns around children interacting with other children or young people in a negative way, then, as I say, that is something that should certainly be highlighted and managed within that estate. However, it is absolutely live to the concerns that have been raised. As I have said, there is work under way in reimagining secure care work going forward, so I would wait to see the outcome of that as well. I am assuming that putting young people who are choosing the most appropriate secure care provider for a particular young person and their circumstances would be part of that as well? Absolutely. As I have said, it is a case-by-case basis, but when I say that I want to get it right for all children and young people, that absolutely includes those who have committed perhaps committed in the fence, but equally for those other children and young people who are present in the centre. It is really about how that is managed within the centre. I have the confidence that there is a lot of experience in that regard. I appreciate what you are saying about increased numbers. It is not huge numbers of children that we are dealing with, but I appreciate that it is a higher age. However, secure care centres are absolutely equipped to deal with situations like that at the moment, so I have the confidence in them. As I have said numerous times today, I am always happy to listen to concerns in areas where we think that we are not getting it right and look at how we can. Ruth Maguire on this. I hear what you are saying about behaviours that need to be managed by secure care. I would reflect the committee's concern that we do not bake into law a situation that exacerbates harm or inequality. The example that Willie Rennie gave about young women being in on welfare grounds and putting in male children who have caused sexual harm should not be something that is to be managed by a centre. We have to be really careful that we are not legislating to exacerbate that sort of scenario. Can I come in on that as well? The evidence that we heard from the secure settings that we visited was that they were not equipped to deal with it, which is quite contrary to the comment that you made in response to Stephanie Callaghan's question. I wonder if you could reflect on that with both of the comments from the Vice Committee on myself. I said in a previous answer that I would look into the issues that Mr Rennie has raised around the concerns that are raised by young people. I have confidence in our secure care centres. As I say, I cannot comment on those specifically, but I will look into them. What we really need to be clear about is that secure care is not a prison, and putting children and young people into these centres where, if they have become in conflict with the law or are being deprived of their liberty, it is happening at an age that the moves in this bill are to move towards it happening for all children and young people under the age of 18, at age and stage appropriate, 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 offend or make the same offences again. I appreciate that there are concerns around what we or secure centres would place those children or young people who have committed those offences. As I say, that is something that has been managed for a number of years. The only thing that the bill changes is the age limit. I think that it would be for the secure care centre to manage, look at it on a case-by-case basis, in terms of how it would impact on the child who has committed the offence, but equally on the children or young people in and around that secure care centre and ensure that that is managed appropriately. It will be something that is monitored going forward, or I am happy to monitor going forward. I am happy to discuss, obviously. I have met secure care centres in the past to understand how the process works. I am equally happy to look into concerns that are being raised about the process at this moment in time. I hope that that provides some reassurance. However, as I say, I will monitor any further concerns and I will continue to look into it. Minister, I apologise. I am going to have to come back in on this. I accept everything that you are saying, but I suppose that the question is, can we really imagine a situation where a victim of sexual abuse of domestic violence, who is in a secure unit for welfare grounds, is in a therapeutic environment for recovery if she is in there with perpetrators of those crimes? They are crimes and are harms, if we want to call them harms. I gave you the example of Chloe there. She was 14, the boy who harmed her was 16. Is it right that she would be in the same place if she needed to be there for welfare grounds? As I say, if that is something that is deemed appropriate for both the children, that is the decision that we make. However, I... Can you imagine that being appropriate for a child? We talk in quite high-level stuff a lot of the time, but there is a concrete example of a 14-year-old who has been harmed by a 16-year-old. Can you imagine it ever being appropriate therapeutically for them to be securely locked up in the same premises? I cannot forgive me, but that is why I am pressing you on this. I find it difficult. I have tried to reassure the committee that it would be looked at in the best interests of all the children and young people involved. Equally, for those very serious offences, it would be a matter for the Lord Advocate in terms of where that was dealt with and how that would be the outcome of that. I hear the concerns that are being raised and I will certainly take them forward in terms of further considerations on the bill. Thank you, minister. We are going to start hopping about a bit because we have some supplementaries from members to sweep up, given that we have a bit more time. I am going to Pam Duncan-Glansley. Do you have a specific question about legal representation at MRCs? I have moved to you for that. Obviously, the minister will be aware that automatic legal representation is available where the recommendation is that the young person be deprived of their liberty and legal aid can be sought in those cases. We also know—and clang child law has provided evidence to the committee on this—that there are other sanctions that can be used on offence grounds that impact hugely on a young person's life and that could appear in disclosures going forward. Do you believe that having a right to legal representation and an automatic right to legal representation for all young people on offence grounds at the panel is important? I can absolutely understand the thinking around that and I would say that that is something that has been considered going forward. Thank you minister. When you say that something has been considered, are you considering potential amendments in that space? I consider them, yes. Thank you. For some hearings that are there on welfare grounds, some information that is considered perhaps other relevant information to use the legal term can come to light. It could be conversations with police that did not necessarily lead to arrest or charge, but nonetheless those conversations can come to light. They can appear on enhanced disclosures going forward for children and young people. Does the minister think that young people should have access to legal representation of a duty solicitor for those situations, too? Absolutely. As I have just said, I can absolutely see the thinking behind that. So again, I would say that that is part of our life considerations going forward. Thank you. Liam Kerr, over to yourself now, please. Thank you, convener. Very briefly before a substantive question, just based on what Ruth Maguire was saying, whether or not, minister, it's appropriate, have you checked and had formal advice on the legal position on the balance of rights and any prejudice to the rights of the victim? I would probably have to bring in an official in terms of the legal status, but what I would say is that under, in line with keeping the promise and in line with the United Nations incorporation of the rights of the child, we need to ensure that we are balancing the rights of all children equally. I appreciate the question from Ms Maguire that it would seem that there are concerns around whether that is happening in relation to victims, but in terms of... Sorry, Mr Kerr. Have you taken the legal advice? Yes or no? I'll pass over to Brendan. I mean, all the provisions in the bill have been through legal assessment internally in government, yes.  The bill's enabling that for all children, but at the moment there are 16 and 17 year olds who go through the hearing system on offence grounds if they're already on compulsory measures. And likewise, as we're talking about secure care, there are already children who are 16 and 17, who are insecure care, you know, and being managed and risk being managed. So we're talking about enabling this for more children rather than creating a situation which is wholly new. Michelle, I'll be supplementary on that. It triggered something new when you said that the rights would be the same for people going through this process, children. In other words, we're focusing on victims at the moment as it would be going through the criminal process. So my question is, have you tested that legally and have you taken legal advice on that? Because I can just sense a test case emerging where theoretically they have the same rights but have you cross-matched rights going through a criminal justice against rights of this process specifically for the victims? I would probably bring Brendan in again for that story. I mean, just to reiterate that all provisions in the bill, as with any legislation, go through legal assessment in government as part of the normal process. I mean, there's a full children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment and other impact assessments published with the bill that give an articulation of the balance of rights around how the bill has been framed. I mean, if you haven't, I suppose my question is to look at that from a victim-centred thing comparing and contrasting, because to say that the rights will absolutely be upheld and be exactly the same from a legal process. I mean, I don't know the answer either, but I'm asking that question and it may be a slightly different angle. So I'll leave it. It brings definitely Callahan in on that questioning. Thanks very much, convener. I'm trying to be helpful here. I think what we're getting at is that the bill itself is constructed and is around us making sure that we treat those young people who are getting involved with the criminal justice system at the moment that we're actually looking at getting them involved instead with the children's hearing system, but this bill is about those young people who are perpetrating these acts. It does not include as such the victims, so I suppose that that's the reason why we're saying has there been legal advice taken around the impact of victim-on-victims when that's not actually necessarily part of the bill itself. I would be quite happy if that's something that you want to take away and have a further look at. I'm not trying to put you in the spot and make life difficult, thanks. We can certainly come back with a more detailed answer if that's something that the committee would like. Back again to Liam Kerr. Thank you very much. There are some cross-border issues to this bill, minister. For example, around the regulatory regimes pertaining to cross-border placements. There's been increased funding in the new financial memorandum that should lead to fewer cross-border placements. What impact does that have on the legal aspects of cross-border issues, if any? Before presenting this financial memorandum to the committee, what meetings have taken place between yourself and your counterpart in the UK Government on that point? I have been due to meet my counterpart in the UK Government on this bill twice. The first time it had to be delayed because it fell at the same time as the stage 1 debate for this bill, which could not be foreseen. The second time it 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 minister for control over ALC. That was something that, 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. That is something that I have been trying to get into meeting with the UK Government with since taking post. I raised the matter with him and our officials are now working together to come to a date that we can sit down and discuss this matter. One of the things that I want to highlight the most is that I believe that, while cross-border placements can sometimes be essential for some children, I want to ensure that the decisions that are being made around cross-border placements are taken into account what is right for the child. It should only be what is right for the child. Do you know when that meeting might take place? It seems to me that we have got an issue or potential change to the situation across-border. However, as yet, there has been no meeting, so prior to this committee considering the new financial memorandum, the meeting that will discuss this has not taken place. Do you know when it will? No, but I have stressed that I want it to happen as quickly as possible. I would have been in a position to meet if there had not been a reshuffle, so I am more than open to having this meeting as soon as possible, and that is something that I reiterated to my counterpart just last week. I thank the minister and her officials for their time this morning, and this concludes the public part of our proceedings. The committee will now move into private session to consider the final item.


We can also apply integration by parts, even if we don't know what the function is, as long as we know some information about it. Since the integral of u dv is equal to uv minus the integral of v du, then if we know the values of u and v at the endpoints, and the value of one of the integrals, we can find the other. So for example, suppose I know that f of 0 and f of 10, and the value of some integral, let's find the integral of xf prime of x. So we'll set up our integration by parts. We'll choose a u and a dv. That means we need something to differentiate and something to anti-differentiate. And let's try u equals x and dv equals f prime of x. So we'll differentiate and anti-differentiate. And so the integral of xf prime of x, well that's uv minus the integral of v du. And so we need to evaluate xf of x at 10 and at 0. And we need to know the value of the integral of f of x over the interval 0 to 10. But how can we possibly find that when we don't know what f of x is? If only there was some way of knowing the value of this integral. What can we do? What can we do? Oh wait, right here. And we need the value of f of 10 and f of 0, well it's being multiplied by 0 so we really don't care. But the values are going to be... So for more complicated problems suppose we have this information about the integral and certain values at the end points. So again we need something to differentiate and something to anti-differentiate. So let's pick these. Differentiating and anti-differentiating. And the problem here is we don't know anything about this anti-derivative of f of x. So let's choose u and dv in the other way and find the derivative and the anti-derivative. And so integration by part says that this integral is uv minus the integral of v du. We can evaluate the first function at 5 and at 0. The integral can be cleaned up a little bit and we know the value of the integral. And the important thing to remember is that all of our rules of differentiation and integration still apply. So suppose I have a ton of information. Since we know something when the integrand includes the derivative of f of x we choose u to be f of x so we can differentiate it and dv to be the rest of it. Which will anti-differentiate. Applying integration by parts and evaluating. We need to evaluate this mass at 3 and at negative 1. Now for this mass well we know something about the integral of f prime xf prime and x squared f prime. If only there was some way we could break this integral apart. Oh wait the integral of a sum is the sum of the integrals and so we could rewrite this. And the constant multiplier rule allows us to rewrite this further. And we know the values of these integrals and so we compute the value of the integral we want.


The review discusses how acidic thermochemical pretreatment of lignocellulose feedstocks is typically followed by an enzymatic hydrolysis step, but substances formed during the pretreatment can inhibit both enzymatic hydrolysis and microbial fermentation. The review focuses on identifying inhibitors from lignocellulose feedstocks and suggests methods to alleviate inhibition problems, such as chemical in-situ detoxification and improving the performance of bio-catalysts. This article was authored by Johnson Leafj, Alrex and Bjorn, and Nylvabrant Nylzolov.