Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have received reports that the money is being used to backfill for reductions in expenditure that have been made elsewhere. What has happened? Where has that money been repurposed from? How is that service being provided? Is there evidence that the money is being used to backfill in areas that have been cut?

The issue is not that we are not making progress; it is that we are going backwards.

Louise, I had direct experience through constituency casework of Who Cares? Scotland, which did a brilliant job. What you did was exceptional.

You probably heard the earlier interaction about the 10 per cent increase in homelessness. Do you have direct examples in relation to that? What needs to be done to fix that? I do not know who would like to go first.

As someone who seems incapable of persuading other people to my point of view, I have an interest in this area.

I return to the issue of knowledge. Some are very vocal and strident about the role of knowledge. I really want to understand where we are with that in practice. What is the scale of the problem? I understand the future threat, but where are we now? Is deviation from knowledge a real problem, and what do we need to do to fix it?

Thank you for your excellent answers.

I am interested in the panel members’ views on yesterday’s statement, particularly on the qualifications decision. I think there was a frustration among us because we thought that we were going to get some kind of move forward, but we are getting a new debate in the new year. Perhaps Professor Humes could go first.

I encourage the others to comment on what the cabinet secretary said about the reasons for the move. She talked about issues around behaviour post-Covid and the challenge of the poverty-related attainment gap. Basically, she said, “We have enough on our plate just now and we need to consider whether we should move forward when all those other things are going on.” Is there any merit in that argument, Dr Brown?

Dr Marsha Scott, from Scottish Women’s Aid, made the important point that an awful lot of the young women who are in secure units are there on welfare grounds. There is a gender issue here, and the vulnerability is even more significant in those cases.

I take the assurances that you have given us this morning, and we will wait to hear more about that at a later stage. Thank you.

Victim Support Scotland made it quite clear last week that it does not think that its discussions with you have been particularly fruitful or that its arguments have gained much traction so far. I hope that what the minister has just said is reflected going forward, so that Victim Support Scotland’s concerns are addressed at the heart of the bill, because that is a fundamental concern.

I think that the whole committee was pretty shaken by the really strong evidence that was provided last week. Witnesses did not quite say, “Stop the bill,” but they were not far away from it. That is a big concern for us, which is why we are being particularly difficult with you this morning. We just do not think that you have really got a grasp of the severity of the situation. This is a really important bill and we want to deliver on the Promise, but I have to say that, so far, we have not been convinced by what you have told us and there is an awful lot of work to be done.

Movement restriction conditions encapsulate all the problems that we have covered this morning. From finances to staffing capacity and the rights of victims, it is all wrapped up in that one area. One issue is how victims get information about movement restriction conditions to allow them to plan for their own safety. How can we make sure that that information is shared with victims?

Yes.