Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to look further at the figures and discussions.

In closing, I turn to the amendments. I have listened to the minister’s case and I assume that she will press her amendment 112, which pre-empts my amendment 214 on the broader direction of travel. I am happy to meet her to discuss my other amendments. In that light, I do not intend to move my amendments.

I had hoped that the amendments would improve the clarity and operation of the system, which tends to be chaotic. The lack of capacity in the English system is part of a function of the chaos that I described at the start of the discussion.

The Promise, as part of what is established in Scotland, is certainly part of the prevailing policy discourse that I am describing.

I move on to finances, which are closely attached to the cross-border issue. In the Finance and Public Administration Committee and this committee, the Parliament has heard evidence that our secure accommodation services are incredibly dependent on cross-border placements to keep the lights on. It is placements from England that allow those services to continue to operate. The Good Shepherd Centre said that Scotland has been turning to England “to ensure sustainability”. St Mary’s Kenmure said:

“Without that income subsidy, no service for Scottish children would exist.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 29 March 2023; c12.]

I thank the minister for her comments on the amendments that are in my name and for setting out her thinking, which I hope to probe a bit further.

My interest was first prompted by the evidence that the committee took when I was a member of it, at the start of last year. There was, in some regards, a rather unfortunate distinction in relation to the level of responsibility that we might take as a Parliament to ensure the best outcomes for some of the most vulnerable young people not just in Scotland but across these islands.

The reality of our secure accommodation system is that many young people from England, in particular, who are in such facilities are at significant risk of harm or of loss of life—either at other people’s or their own hands. Affording those young people opportunities for secure accommodation is an important part of the system that protects life across the UK.

In those respects, as a matter of principle, where those young people were born does not matter to me. I understand that legal restrictions and responsibilities have to be taken on board in the operation of secure care. Some of my amendments address and support that. To be frank, although some of those children live a little further away, the circumstances that they face are equally horrendous.

I start from there—from why we have cross-border placements. It is clear from the evidence that the Parliament has received that the scale is principally a function—a dysfunction—of the English system. England lacks capacity.

The Parliament has heard considerable evidence on that. Katy Nisbet from Clan Childlaw told the Parliament that there is a

“huge underprovision of secure accommodation in England.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 22 March 2023; c 44.]

Kevin Northcott of Rossie Young People’s Trust spoke of

“the demand that exists in the English system.”

The Good Shepherd Centre’s Alison Gough said:

“there has been a dramatic and sustained rise in the number and frequency of referrals from England.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 29 March 2023; c 12, 11.]

Back in May last year, the minister told the committee that England simply does not have enough capacity. The issue is recognised in England. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills reported that there were 50 children waiting for every secure bed in England. The issue is really significant. A clear problem of capacity in England has to be addressed.

As a result, I see a significant problem, particularly given the evidence from Megan Farr of the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who expressed the idea that,

“By making it harder for local authorities to place children in Scotland, our hope would be that that would somewhat force the issue of providing more appropriate places in England.”

Minister, I know that that quotation is not from you or another minister but from the children’s commissioner’s office, but the idea is fanciful that, by making it more difficult to protect the lives of young children who come into Scotland, we will force the Tory Government in England to fix the secure accommodation system in England. I do not see any evidence that that would be the case. Megan Farr went on to say:

“it is not something that Scotland can fix for England’s sake.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 22 March 2023; c 46.]

At the heart of the issue is the fact that those young people are at significant risk today. Our facilities and workers in Scotland are protecting their lives, and we should make that happen. I want to explore that and hear more justification from the minister for her statement that such placements should only ever occur in exceptional circumstances. I am happy to hear that now.

Certainly—I have just given you two quotes from different areas. Both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and this committee have taken such evidence—whether it was in relation to the financial memorandum or this committee’s side of the question. Those things have been raised and I am happy to provide the member with—

I appreciate those points. Working together as two Governments, having a proper collaboration and trying to solve the situation in the round is certainly desirable. If I can, I will come back a little to the rationale for that.

First, I take issue with the assumption about proximity. Part of the prevailing policy discourse is that children should always be placed as close as possible to their local authority area and their local community. We hear that underlying assumption in the discourse from the minister and the children’s commissioner. However, the committee heard evidence in March last year from Claire Lunday of St Mary’s Kenmure secure care centre, for instance, about the need for and desirability of a lack of proximity for

“A number of young people ... from London boroughs ... who have been involved in child criminal exploitation”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 29 March 2023; c 25.]

In other words, greater distance would help young people.

That is part of what I am trying to probe with the minister—her understanding that a child should be placed outside their local authority only in exceptional circumstances and the reasoning for that. If I can, I am certainly happy to have that conversation.

The committee heard evidence from the children’s commissioner about the lack of compatibility in the legal situation, which perhaps involves a further barrier around deprivation of liberty orders, and we have heard issues around that.

I am probing whether that is part of the issue. In conversations with people who work in the policy area, I have certainly heard the idea that, the closer someone is placed to the community that they are from, the more desirable that is. The committee heard fairly significant evidence on that basis.

Perhaps we might draw the line about what any exceptional circumstances might be. The ability to cut ties from criminal exploitation is really important when that would benefit the young person.

On the cross-border issue, as we call it, in some circumstances and given certain geographies, there is more secure accommodation available on the Scottish side of the border that is in greater proximity to communities in the north of England than there are similar facilities elsewhere in England. The idea that proximity should be judged on the basis of the legal artifice of the division of a non-existent hard border is nonsense to me. For someone who is in Carlisle or Newcastle, for example, a facility in Glasgow is more available than a facility in the south of England is. That talks to the idea of proximity and the ability to return to a community and have links to family and others in the area. That is as good a reason to have young people in those facilities in Scotland as there could be.

I would appreciate any reflections on those issues, including the minister’s approach to the underlying discourse about proximity, its desirability and the idea that a child should be placed outside their local authority only in exceptional circumstances.

I have had reassurances about the competence of amendment 217, but I take seriously the comments from the minister and her officials. It is partly on that basis that I will not seek to move the amendment at the moment. I will explore the issue in the conversations that have been offered with the minister.

Essentially, the amendment is about the two-way operation of the process and ensuring that the rights and the responsibilities that we afford young people are best supported in both directions. It is absolutely right that we have those conversations to see how we can best provide that support. The suite of amendments after the pre-emption seeks to add provisions to achieve the best operation of the system.

I will now come to my example, which refers to amendment 216. Last week, the minister talked about leaning on the local placing authority in England to ensure that it had a principal responsibility. A member of staff from a secure accommodation centre told me that, on the day of departure of a young person who is leaving their term of care at a secure centre, the staff are frequently in negotiation with the local authority about where that person will go. It could be a “Can you drop him off in Leeds?” type of situation.

There is a huge capacity issue, and it is only right and proper, when we take young people into our care in Scotland, that we put in place as comprehensive a structure as possible, in agreement with the placing authority, to determine how the young person’s needs can best be met. If we can put in place some form of framework to support that from the outset, when the placements are contracted with the placing authority, that can only be to the young person’s benefit, and it would avoid some chaotic situations, particularly at the termination of the placement.

That is the spirit of my proposals. I am happy to investigate the issue further in discussion with the minister and officials. I wish to be as supportive as I can be in an attempt to add capacity on the basis of my original intent. I note that cross-border placements will be part of the system for a long time to come and that they continue to be necessary at the moment to keep the lights on in Scotland. To be frank, they are necessary for young people across the UK, to ensure their safety and to protect their lives.

That is a significant workforce, which could be addressing these concerns and helping you to deal with issues.

You said earlier that the change in the delivery timetable, which the convener questioned you about, was to reflect the challenges of a fiscal environment in which we must demonstrate value for money. When did it become apparent to you that we were in a situation in which there are fiscal challenges?

Perhaps it helps. The issue is that, on Tuesday, you just introduced that figure into the public debate by saying that it was one that you had previously had but then rejected.