Chamber and committees

Absolutely. It is a priority for us to get this right, because we want it to be implemented appropriately. As I have said, the financial memorandum was a snapshot in time. The committee evidence and scrutiny will feed into it and will help to direct and input to the conversations that will take place on the finances that are needed. We will also continue to press the UK Government for additional funding for joint priorities, and we would welcome support from across the Parliament, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities in that respect. I assure the committee that this is absolutely a priority for us, and we are well tuned into it.

As far as I am aware, it will take heed of inflation. I will pass over to one of my officials to clarify that.

It comes back to what I have been saying. COSLA was involved in the discussions that led to the creation of the financial memorandum. However, I understand that it has now raised specific concerns about the funding. COSLA will be feeding into the 5 June working group and we will be engaging with COSLA and working through the matter in discussion with it. Those reassurances will come as discussions go forward.

I would not say that it is not accurate. I would say that, as I mentioned, it was an accurate snapshot of the issues and the finance that would be required at that moment.

The financial memorandum was not based on the engagement with stakeholders but they contributed to it to a high degree. Wider issues, such as the cost of living and inflation, have impacted on it. They could not have been factored in when it was created. As with any legislation, we need to set out the financial considerations for the bill at the time.

I do not necessarily want to say what I think should be in the new financial memorandum; that will be something for the working group to discuss, based on the evidence that we have heard so far and the issues that have arisen with the first financial memorandum.

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

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

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

That will—

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

Yes, absolutely, it could.

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

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