Seòmar agus comataidhean

That will be looked at when the financial memorandum is updated. Based on discussions with the minister, we will have to see how that will play out. It will not simply be the case that all cross-border placements will be removed the next day. We will monitor the on-going situation.

I will bring in Tom McNamara to get into some of the more technical details and talk about some of the facts and figures.

Absolutely. It would be a gradual thing. It is not the case that every child who is in a cross-border placement will be removed in a short period of time; however, the overall aim is to get to a place where our young people and children are being protected and cared for in the areas where they are from, unless there are reasons for them not to be. We absolutely need to make it less encouraging for local authorities in England to want to place children in secure care centres in Scotland, so we can ensure that the capacity is there for children in Scotland who require those places.

Indeed. As far as I am aware, the money would, under the current arrangements, be distributed through the normal budget process. However, as I have said, we would have to monitor that. If it turned out that a lot of young people were needing secure care in one area and not so much somewhere else, that would need to be looked at. As I have said, the secure care centres are having those discussions among themselves, and they can work out those issues, so that type of situation could be addressed.

I can understand that. As I said, my priority would be to ensure that there is capacity and space for children in Scotland who require it. In my meeting with Claire Coutinho, I will encourage changes to the practice in England.

As part of the on-going engagement with the UK Government so far—again, some of that predates my time in office—we continue to emphasise the importance of addressing the lack of capacity in adequate care accommodation in England.

We now have a memorandum of understanding that underpins regular discussions on these issues, and I will be taking them forward now. That commenced in March 2023, and it allows us to pursue the UK Government’s intended course of action, in particular in response to its independent care review. Those discussions are on-going.

I understand Mr Brown’s point about what would happen if there was capacity in Scotland; however, the priority is to ensure that there is capacity in Scotland and, working with the appropriate minister, in England as well.

I understand that that is an issue and it could certainly be looked into as part of updating the financial costs.

That is an important question. I understand the committee’s concerns around that. Obviously, the financial memo was completed well prior to my time in office but, as the member pointed out, it was completed prior to some wider issues, such as inflation. As I said, the financial memo was completed with the contribution of stakeholders and organisations, so it was a good snapshot in time of what the costs were at that point.

As we have rightly said, that will need to be updated, but we are confident that we can fulfil that. The multi-agency meeting on 5 June that I referred to in my opening statement will take forward these discussions with the appropriate stakeholders and organisations. Based on the feedback that we have already received or heard, that will be helpful.

In terms of the longer constraints, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that these change programmes could have and the potential savings to public expenditure. The negative costs to society—both economic and social—of offending and crime are well documented. For example, the Promise “Follow the Money” report estimated that the cumulative cost for physical and emotional harm, lost output and public service costs equated to £3.9 billion. We will need to consider that in terms of the savings that will be made in the longer term.

I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be treated as children within the criminal justice system.

That is another important question. As I have said, like any measure through the children’s hearings system, an MRC can be imposed only if it is better for the child than not having it, when it is necessary and when it meets the child’s welfare needs, which is a paramount consideration. An MRC is intended to be a restriction on a child’s liberty, not a deprivation. As I said, it is the most extreme measure prior to secure care.

In terms of its effectiveness, if a child does not comply with an order, the local authority must notify the children’s reporter to require a review of that order. A children’s hearing will reconsider the child’s whole circumstances in order to consider whether any additional or alternative measures are needed in order to address the child’s behaviour. The scheduling of those hearings are prioritised, given the potential requirement for more restrictive measures to be put into place. As with other elements of a child’s plan, including the risk management plan, monitoring and reviewing the risk, vulnerabilities and potential adverse outcomes are key. A MRC can be reviewed and monitored on an on-going basis.

I am sorry, Mr Doris—I missed the beginning of your question.