Chamber and committees

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.

Mr Flannigan, on Tuesday I asked you:

“Do you mean that, if the committee had signed off the original FM, we would potentially have been looking at a bill of £3.9 billion?”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 23 January 2024; c 25.]

Your response was yes.

Why did you not have an expert advisory group on the development of this work?

There is an expert advisory group on ending conversion practices, an advisory group on the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill, an advisory group on the age of criminal responsibility and an expert advisory group on heat pumps, but you did not think that an expert advisory group was required on this bill. Given what we have just described, could I suggest that perhaps it was?

I want to ask a little more about the core of the reform agenda. You have already touched on the problems of relationships in IJBs. We asked your officials about that earlier in the week. There is real dysfunction at the core of how money flows between the NHS and local authorities, and there is a lack of strategic ability to address that. How will the reforms that you have put in front of us address that core problem?

I will come back to oversight. What will that shared accountability do to deal with the core problem that two different sets of budgets go into one pot, that there are votes from the NHS and local authorities, and that they cannot decide strategically about what needs to be invested in?