Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate what you are saying, and I certainly would not want to put any unnecessary pressure on those services. There is regularly a lot of change. I do not think that that is unique in relation to the bill, the Promise and the other things that I have mentioned. In terms of this bill, my priority is that we are getting it right for the children who will be involved. We want to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are no longer placed in young offenders institutions. That is in line with the UNCRC and the Promise.

On the sequencing, I am still keen to ensure that the bill is progressed at pace and that the other important matters that you refer to are considered in due course. As I have said throughout the process, we continue to work with the key stakeholders and organisations that are involved, to address any issues that they might face.

No, I know that that is not in relation to that issue. I am just saying that, in relation to victims and the issues around victims that you have raised with me, there is definitely room for manoeuvre.

On the sharing of information, I have made it very clear that I would like to do that. However, a balance needs to be struck to ensure that we protect all the children involved, to ensure that we are doing what is right for the victim and, in essence, to ensure that we get it right.

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

I am sorry to hear your concerns, convener. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to improving the experience of social work and the workforce and to ensuring that social work is more sustainable in the long term.

I have already laid out some of the measures that we have introduced to address the acute recruitment and retention issues that the profession is facing. The workforce improvement plan is being developed in conjunction with stakeholders and it will be published next year. It will go a long way in helping to set the bar and to set out progress on the numbers that you alluded to. With the advanced practice framework, we are reviewing pay disparities and looking at progression to try to make the profession more attractive. We are, therefore, taking very good steps in the interim. However, because it is such a valued and much-needed profession that impacts on numerous different issues over and above the bill, it will be monitored going forward across the period.

I do not believe that I have not given any reassurances. I said that work is under way in the group and on the improvement plan. As I said, we are listening to the voices of people in the profession and taking steps on that basis. The plan will be published next year, and I believe that that will go a long way to helping to solve those problems.

I would not say that we are not ready for it. We are taking action and we will get there.

That is still being considered. It will be wholly dependent on the future progress of the bill and what happens at stage 2 and, ultimately, at stage 3.

I know the evidence that was heard last week from one individual, but the membership of the redesign group that produced the report did not include the full spectrum of statutory delivery partners, nor did its far-reaching proposals or the around 100 recommendations go through any form of public consultation. Therefore, although I appreciate that some might think that aspects of those recommendations could help with the bill, it is, as I have said, important to keep the two things separate.

I do not want to go through those recommendations and pick and choose, and I know that that is not what stakeholders want either. I want to keep those things separate. I want to give the recommendations the attention and consideration that they deserve, and any final decision that the Government comes to on them will be put forward in a Promise bill or, if they do not require to be in statute, they will be put forward at a later date.

As I say, I am keen on keeping the bill and the working group’s recommendations separate because they were not started in tandem.

It is a measure for child welfare; it is not as restrictive as secure care. The issue will be for the children’s hearings system to look into—again, on a case-by-case basis—in considering what is right for the child. If a movement restriction condition has been placed on a child and the child does not follow that or if there are issues with that, it will be for the children’s hearings system to review the matter and see what can be put in place for the child.

For a start, I would want all decisions to be made on the basis of what is right for the child, not what resources people think are available. That should not come into consideration when we are looking at what is right for a child in a children’s hearing.

On movement restriction conditions, I understand that there are some issues around the finances and the detail of the projections for those going forward, especially given the changes that are taking place. To try to reassure the committee, I can say that I am happy to commit to rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the decision-making process around MRCs to ensure that we have a handle on the number that are being used, the cost involved and the support that is in place to go with them.

I will pass that question over to Brendan Rooney.

Again, Mr Rennie, that is being considered as part of the stage 2 deliberations. I have alluded to the fact that I want to see information shared with victims—striking the right balance—when it relates to their safety. If the sharing of information could help victims’ situations or improve their safety, I would absolutely want to see that. I do not think that I can go into more detail about the whos and the whats, because we have not reached the point of stage 2 amendments. These are still live discussions and considerations.