Chamber and committees

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.

All concerns that have been raised with officials or with me by stakeholders and those we have engaged with are being considered. If it looks as though that issue will be a problem in relation to commencing the bill, that will absolutely be addressed.

I have laid out the range of steps that we are taking to help with recruitment and retention issues. Across the Government, we are taking steps to address those issues.

We are currently between stages 1 and 2 of the bill, so there is still time. I believe that there is time to get to where we need to be to allow the bill to be successful. You are asking me about issues that are happening right now, but we are talking about a bill that has not finished its passage through Parliament.

I am disappointed to hear of those young people’s concerns, and I will certainly look into why they have arisen. Such situations are handled by secure care centres currently. Secure care centres already have the ability to deal with children or young people who have committed serious crimes and they know how to manage such situations. They make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, and secure care centres would be expected to manage that appropriately and consider the child or young person’s offence and how it could impact on other children or young people in the secure care centre.

I want to reassure you that we know that this is a serious issue and that we need to get it right. Secure care centres are getting it right at the moment, but, if concerns have been raised by those young people, I will certainly look into them. It is up to the secure care centre to manage the situation appropriately, but perhaps they need more support with that. Equally, it could be something that comes out of the reimagining secure care work in future. As I say, I will certainly ask where those concerns have come from.

As I have just said, I can see the thinking behind that. Again, I would say that that is part of our live considerations.

As I said, this is the lead committee for scrutiny. You requested another session for scrutiny, and I have been happy to come to that. It is really a matter for the committee.

When I spoke at the committee during stage 1, I was very clear that the figures that we provided in the original financial memorandum were based on decisions that were taken and figures that were available at the time. I appreciate that the update contains a large increase, much of which is based on some of the committee’s recommendations. I believe that that is why I am here this morning—to assist with your scrutiny of that.

That was in the previous financial memorandum. We have now changed the approach and have moved to the higher estimates. I appreciate that the approach was not ideal at the time—the decision was not made by me—and it has now been altered. I hope that it instils confidence in the committee that we are now using the maximalist approach and looking at the maximum.

Obviously, recruitment and retention are a matter for social work, and that stretches across different policy areas. A host of work is under way to help with the recruitment and retention issues across social work. We are in the process of making a workforce improvement plan, which is being developed to address the acute recruitment and retention challenges that social work faces. That includes workforce planning and workforce vacancy data, and it should help to address the immediate and longer-term recruitment challenges. It will include initiatives such as international recruitment, which would also help with the skills base, and improving access to social work education, which touches on the issues around skills and progression that you mentioned.

That document is live but is not yet in the public domain. However, as I said, that work is progressing.