³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Absolutely. I have already referred to the visits that I have been on. Fantastic work is going on across our local authorities, who are best placed to understand what is needed in their areas. As I have already mentioned, the Promise covers many different aspects and policy areas. Local authorities have been very good at understanding what is needed in their areas and taking action accordingly. I have seen a lot of positive work on my visits, and our aim is to expand that work across the country. Obviously, capacity issues might affect that approach.

I appreciate that there has been an increase in the demand for, and the complexity of, the work that social work staff undertake and that currently there are recruitment and retention challenges there. Although local authorities are responsible for planning their workforces and ensuring that they have appropriate staff levels, we understand the issues that the sector faces, including that increase in demand. A number of actions are therefore being taken to improve matters.

A joint working group with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been established to address the issues immediately affecting the workforce. Members will be aware of the proposals for a national care service and, within that, the establishment of a national social work agency that would support and invest in the profession. However, I appreciate that that will not help immediately; it is a longer-term approach.

We have set up that joint working group with COSLA. We also have a national approach to workforce planning, which we hope will help to achieve the optimal future workforce capacity. A short-life working group has been created to oversee the development of that work and to produce up-to-date data on social work vacancies and demand for services there. I hope that that will allow us to facilitate planning and resource allocation at national level to meet the expected increase in demand. A workforce improvement plan has also been developed to address acute recruitment and retention challenges, and it will include workforce planning and workforce vacancy data.

Throughout all those initiatives, we are working collaboratively with COSLA, social work departments and the various agencies involved in the sector, which is hugely valued and around which the Government has created its aims and priorities. We are absolutely switched on to those and are trying to improve matters.

In my previous answer, I made the distinction between continuing care and aftercare. That can certainly be considered. There might be difficulties with somebody being placed in their place of care past the age of 21, because they are getting into adulthood at that point. That certainly would be considered, but the focus at the moment is on providing aftercare and continuing support throughout the lives of care-experienced people.

I completely appreciate that. I have already talked about the discrepancies that the member has mentioned, and it is good that the petition is highlighting those and the need for further support. Again, it is not clear whether that would have to be done through a legislative route. If that is the case then, as the member has mentioned, that would happen at a later date. However, there could be opportunities to improve guidance on and change the structures around the issue prior to that. Again, that will be defined by the work that I have already mentioned on the consultation and on listening to stakeholders.

We are taking actions at the moment. We are updating guidance to simplify language and improve the practice in continuing and aftercare services and provision. We are working closely with stakeholders, including young people with lived experience, providers and the workforce, to better understand the barriers and what might need to be done to remove them. The moving on change programme that I have referred to is actively seeking and facilitating opportunities to further take on board the views of people with experience of care. As much as I understand that you want us to move quickly, we need to get it right. We need to ensure that there is capacity and that it works for our children and young people.

I believe that that might answer your question, but I will bring in my officials in case there is anything that I have not touched on.

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.