Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Good Shepherd Centre said in evidence to the committee that, at points, the Scottish need for secure care has dropped dramatically

“in the face of English Authorities desperate to find a secure care placement which can meet the needs of their young person.”

However, it also said that Scotland has been turning to England “to ensure sustainability”. Should the committee be concerned about that?

Are there any other comments from the panellists?

We had evidence on that point last week. One panel member said:

“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.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 22 March 2023; c 46.]

In terms of the dynamic of the bill, do you see that change happening in England if we make it more difficult for such placements to happen in Scotland?

In its written evidence, St Mary’s Kenmure refers to cross-border placements subsidising the bed rate for young people in Scotland by

“cross border authorities who are willing to pay more than the Scotland Excel rate”.

It is projected that the bill will result in a potential increase in referrals into secure care. Do we have capacity in the secure care system to meet those referrals? I put that question to Kevin Northcott.

But that is not ending cross-border placements, which was your original position.

Earlier, I touched on a point about the financial sustainability of cross-border placements. The bill seeks to further regulate those placements. Do the provisions go far enough in terms of ensuring the welfare of those vulnerable children?

Thanks, Meg. Kate, would you like to come in?

The basis of your desire to end cross-border placements is about maintaining the right to a family life—is that correct?

Convener, I think that, if witnesses are able to share any information on that last-bed issue, it would be useful.