Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 95 goes a little bit further than Ross Greer’s amendment 66, in that it stipulates action that needs to be taken by the Government, rather than simply requiring a review. The matter has been debated for a considerable period, and it is now time to make a decision on it. The institution tells me that it is ready, and other specialist institutions have been granted degree-awarding status already, including the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. That is why we want to go further and recommend action rather than simply a review.

I have one final question. I know that others are keen to come in.

There are claims that this money is simply being used to patch up budget holes elsewhere. Can you guarantee that that is not happening?

If you had your time again, or if exactly the same circumstances happened again, would you commission a fully independent report rather than an internal one that was externally verified? Would you do it differently?

Fiona, I have a problem. Claire Burns’s description matches what I witness in my constituency case work. Just as she has described, I have come across several examples of families and individuals in crisis and social workers who are on their knees and cannot cope. The question has been put to you and you have spoken in high-level, vague terms about substantial progress and fantastic work, all while there is a fire in the basement. I have a problem with that. Are you really speaking as clearly as you should be about the crisis in the system?

Okay.

There is not a long-term commitment to the funding; it is limited. Does that mean that you still have the same problem of people not wanting to take up a position because the money is not there for the long term?

No, I understand.

It is additional to the reduced service, but not additional to what was there before.

I get all that, but that does not explain the variation.

But we then get a briefing that says that there has been “fantastic work” and “substantial progress”.