Chamber and committees

That is a point that Social Work Scotland made. I reiterate that Social Work Scotland was involved in the initial discussions. As I said, that is something that is on-going. If Social Work Scotland has now raised those concerns, they will be looked at and discussed as we move forward. I appreciate those concerns.

Cross-border placements should really only be used in exceptional circumstances and I know that other committees have heard powerful evidence about what those circumstances are. The issue with cross-border placements is the fact that England simply does not have enough capacity, and that should not impact on children in Scotland if there is no place in secure care for them.

There will need to be a gradual change with the costs, but I have already mentioned the last-bed pilot and the increase to 16 beds, which will ensure capacity for Scottish children while reducing the capacity for cross-border placements from England. I emphasise that we are cognisant of the fact that cross-border placements will still be required to happen in exceptional circumstances, but only when it is absolutely essential for the child’s welfare.

Yes. At the moment, the costs for secure care are significantly higher than the cost for young offenders institutions. For the exact detail on that, I will pass over to my official, Brendan Rooney.

Yes, absolutely. That is why I am saying that we really do not want those placements to happen unless they are absolutely essential or for exceptional circumstances. We do not want to remove a young person from everything that they know and from resources and support networks that could be around them. In essence, then, the answer to your question is yes.

As far as I am aware, that would take place through the usual budget process. However, if such a specific situation were to become an issue, it could be monitored. In addition, the secure care centres in Scotland are discussing how they can manage such issues. I am confident, therefore, that that could be managed.

I am sorry, but I cannot necessarily give an answer as to why those bodies feel that they could not engage. They were involved in the group that was set up to establish the financial memorandum and have been engaged in the continued discussions. You said that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had raised concerns. Is that correct?

I apologise if I have given the impression that I think that more information will be coming forward. What I meant is that the information that we have gathered from stakeholders thus far, and the evidence that we have heard in committees, will ultimately feed into that process, whereby stakeholders and organisations can come together with Government to discuss those issues and present new costs.

It is not that I believe that there will be any new information. The new memorandum will be based on the discussions and the work of the working group that has already been going on thus far, which will feed into it.

Not just now, but the funding would be for the full financial year, so that would not be an issue for secure care centres at the moment.

As I said, we are working with local government on that, and examples of where we could have done things differently in the bill have already come up. For example, when we created the financial memorandum, we used the lower number for the projected number of hearings, but we now accept that the higher figure should have been used. That will be updated in any updated financial forecast.

With regard to your wider point about reassurances, I am using that example to show you that we are taking cognisance of decisions that have already been made and where things can be improved, and that we are working with local government to ensure that this runs the way we want it to.