Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a final question. Earlier on, Victim Support Scotland talked about children who have been harmed by other children having no right to any information whatsoever. There seems to be a complete vacuum of information for them. Your members represent or assist families on both sides of cases. Should the bill address that and, if so, what should it do? Should there be a lot more transparency around children’s hearings? What should be done?

This might be a fairly obvious question. What is the current provision of secure accommodation in Scotland? Is it just St Mary’s or are there a number of facilities?

The written evidence said that authorities elsewhere in the UK are willing to pay more than the set rate in Scotland.

I wanted to establish where we are just now in the background because we are talking about legislation.

Is there anything that you could see this bill doing that would help to address the issues of immunity from prosecution, for example?

Could the bill do anything about immunity from prosecution in such tragic cases?

We frequently hear from the police that high numbers of children abscond from such facilities. Is that a particular problem?

That is interesting—thank you.

I have a couple of questions for Alison Bavidge, one of which is an extension of what Professor Johnstone said a moment ago about exploitation of young people. The proposal suggests that anyone aged 16-plus who is in police custody can nominate an adult other than their parent to be notified of their situation. Has any consideration been given to the risk that vulnerable children in that situation could be contacting people who are exploiting them, whether through organised crime or something else?

On a similar theme, the Auditor General said last year that data on drugs and alcohol is not good enough and that there is a lack of transparency. Have improvements been made in that respect?

The pilot scheme for heroin-assisted treatment has cost in the region of £4 million, which I understand includes start-up costs. Those who favour the rehabilitation route accept that it is not an either/or between rehabilitation and harm reduction, but they point out that it costs in the region of 17 times more to treat someone with that particular programme than it costs for typical public sector rehabilitation. How do you respond to their concerns?

Just so that I understand, do you mean that the quarterly spending on every project is now published, or is that the plan?