Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. There is a specific section on legal aid in the updated financial memorandum. The figures were supplied by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, whose officials we have been in contact with. We have had discussions on the matter since the beginning of the bill process. The figures have been updated on the basis of the updated financial costs that the committee sought, and they have been laid out in the financial memorandum. We have considered the matter and the figures have been updated. I hope that that suffices.

In relation to the bill, I have not had those meetings. However, I am working on some very extensive issues. For example, keeping the Promise is a huge part of my portfolio, and the Government has committed whole-heartedly to that. The bill is in line with keeping the Promise, and, given that we have to see it progress if we want to keep the Promise, I am confident that the finances that will be required will be there. After all, this is a key issue for the Government.

I cannot comment on this year’s or future budget processes—that will be for those who are involved in the decision making at the time. As I have said, though, I am confident that we will have what we need to see the bill through.

I think that it would be better to do that later in the bill process. We are still prior to stage 2, and amendments and changes could happen at that stage that might impact on the finances. I therefore think that it would be better to carry out such an assessment later in the bill process.

Thank you very much, convener. The bill takes forward key measures to help Scotland to improve the rights of children and their life outcomes. It is firmly embedded in our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our commitment to keep the Promise. Such aims come with cross-party endorsement from the Parliament.

Following stage 1 of the bill, the committee asked for updated resourcing forecasts, which I agreed to provide. A number of factors, such as the financial memorandum utilising pre-pandemic data out of necessity, further annual 2022-23 data sets being published in the period after stage 1 and United Kingdom inflation rising sharply since the financial memorandum was compiled last year, all meant that matters, and projected costs, had moved on. Those factors are reflected in the updated information that is provided to the committee.

The information was prepared by working with key bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Social Work Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and Children’s Hearings Scotland. I am aware that all those organisation appeared before the committee last week.

The projected maximum costs have risen for four key reasons. First, we have moved from projections that are based on the maximum age of 17 and a half for real-world practical illustrative purposes on some matters to projections based on all children up to 18 years of age. That approach acts on a committee stage 1 recommendation.

Secondly, new 2022-23 annual data sets have become available that are less tainted by Covid pandemic impacts.

Thirdly, we are using the higher window of estimates, even with the acknowledged levels of uncertainty and the likelihood that those will not be reached in full.

Fourthly, the information has been updated to include the significant increases in inflation, partly reflecting inflation increasing across the years since the referral levels captured in pre-pandemic data but also reflecting how it has been affected by UK fiscal policy and Brexit.

Our multidisciplinary resource and implementation group has allowed us to address those matters and met three times over the summer. Those discussions will continue and will deepen in tandem with Parliamentary scrutiny.

I know that the committee took evidence from victim support organisations last week. We have been working closely with them following stage 1, and I met Kate Wallace recently. We have worked closely with those colleagues on the development of positive proposals, and we are considering those as part of our 2024-25 budget processes. We will be able to give more detail of that at stage 2. Therefore, today, it would not be appropriate for me to get into too much detailed discussion of our post-stage 1 policy development work or to enter into provision-by-provision commentary. Both of those aspects are for future bill stages.

We will work with partners to consider plans for the commencement and sequencing of any future act. We will do so in a way that acknowledges the capacity of core agencies, that assists them to prepare and that works sensibly in the context of other change programmes that are at various stages of maturity. That is in keeping with our approach to any legislation.

I look forward to your questions and our discussion today.

On your first point, matters relating to the timing do not sit directly under my portfolio, so I could perhaps come back to the committee on that question. I do not have information on the timeline to hand.

In relation to other work that is going on, there is a review of pay in the advanced practice framework, which remunerates qualifications and experience. It also provides a defined career pathway for social workers, supporting work to address the retention challenges that the convener mentioned. [Interruption.] I have just noticed that the framework will be published next year. I apologise—as I said, I am not directly involved in that work.

To ensure that we have adequate data to inform workforce planning and resources allocation at a national level, we have assembled a short-life working group to provide strategic leadership and oversee the delivery of a Scottish Government data project that is seeking to establish and document a baseline for the demand for services and to monitor workforce figures and trends—as I alluded to in my previous answer—as well as the project demand and the resources that are needed to meet it.

As I said, the Government is very switched on to recruitment and retention issues, and we are taking measures to try to improve that landscape.

The voices of those involved will be key as we move forward. You picked up on a couple of points.

This work stretches across various portfolios, and there are a range of matters. Much of the work that I am involved in in relation to keeping the Promise is not limited to one portfolio; it stretches across a range of Government areas. Across the Government, we are working well together on that.

As I said, the voices of those who are involved will be key as we move forward. We are working collaboratively with stakeholders—including COSLA, Social Work Scotland, Unison and the Scottish Social Services Council—to ensure that the improvement plan will be influenced and informed by the voices of social workers and other key stakeholders.

I am sorry, convener—I thought that I was here to answer questions on the issues with the bill as it progresses, and those relate to the longer term. As I said, I completely appreciate the recruitment and retention issues with social work, and my colleagues are working through those. I have laid out steps that should help in both the short term and the long term, and I have been clear that we are listening to the voices of social workers and other key stakeholders in order to try to improve matters.

I cannot give an answer today on what I think the impact would be, because the hearings system redesign report and its recommendations are being considered at the moment. I have said that I will respond to the recommendations by the end of the year.

I appreciate that there are conflicting views on what having salaried chairs and paid volunteers would lead to, so that needs to be considered very carefully. However, I want to be clear that I hold those issues quite independently from the bill. The bill has been in the works for a long time now, and the hearings system redesign and the recommendations—there are nearly 100 of them—also require time and attention. We have to consider both things, as well as how they will impact on each other and on other aspects of policy. I understand the thinking that the recommendations could help the bill, but I am very careful about conflating the two. I consider them to be two very separate issues.

The hearings system has worked very well for a number of years. It has always risen to challenges in the past and I believe that it can rise to the challenges during the progression of the bill.

I am currently exploring how the courts will be able to protect a victim of domestic abuse by way of a non-harassment order and referral to a children’s hearing, which would be the disposal if an accused child would benefit from the compulsory measures in the hearings system. That is under live consideration.

It is not necessarily about telling you more. I would like Shona to elaborate on some of the points that I have made.

I completely appreciate what you are saying about sharing information with victims, but we need to make sure that it is right for the victim. Every situation is different, and I want the issues to be considered on a case-by-case basis. As I said, when it would be helpful to share information with a victim or when the information related to safety, I would like that to happen. However, it is about how we build the system and ensure that we get it right.

I will bring in Shona Spence to follow up on that.