Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that this is the fourth time that I have asked you this question, Deputy First Minister.

The Federation of Small Businesses has also made representations on this area. The evidence that we have been hearing is that this is a budget for growth, but this seems to be a key ask, and it is for a reasonably small amount of money relative to the global budget. Indeed, given that the issue cuts across a variety of different stakeholders on the economic side, I just feel that the move could do with being justified a little bit more robustly.

You have not lodged any amendments today but, since you made the budget announcement, the circumstances for universities have changed quite significantly. The medium-sized institutions in Scotland are particularly affected, with some running in-year deficits of up to £15 million. That could have significant impacts on their own budgets. Have you had discussions with the sector about how you could flex or assist in any way?

To be fair, that is not what I was suggesting; I was suggesting that the circumstances have materially changed. That will affect employment for people in those institutions and it will affect their financial stability. I am asking whether you have had conversations with them about how robust the sector is. That is a pretty reasonable question to ask.

Last time you were here, I asked about the £28.5 million cut to universities’ teaching budgets. I postulated that dividing that by the amount of money that is allocated per head student would result in 3,900 student placement cuts for Scottish students. You said that you did not recognise that figure at that point, but the question is whether you are going to instruct the Scottish Funding Council—as ministers do—to cut the number of places or to cut the amount that is available per student. Are you any further forward in making that instruction to the Scottish Funding Council?

Councillor Steven Heddle said:

“Despite the Verity House Agreement rhetoric about working together on shared priorities it is the same outcome at Budget time for Local Government in reality.”

He does not really agree with you that there is a big range of other areas. The budget is the core issue right now, and councillors do not feel that they are being treated fairly or being given the truth by ministers.

You did not lay it out previously.

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.