Chamber and committees

I believe that we have it right. I have been open about various aspects of the financial memorandum that might need to be reconsidered and updated to reflect updated positions. I am more than happy to do that, and I will be transparent with the committee on that.

I will bring in Iona Colvin in a moment to speak to the raft of measures that were taken to support the workforce. Ms McCall and I have discussed that regularly, and I am aware of the pressures that the social work workforce is under. I was speaking to Social Work Scotland about that just last week. The social work workforce is fundamental to the delivery of our aims in the bill, which is why we are progressing more support for social workers and establishing the national social work agency.

We are seeing some positive movement. Ms McCall will be aware that we ran a national recruitment campaign on fostering, which she also mentioned. A number of measures were taken to support foster carers, and that support will be enhanced when the full response to the fostering care consultation is released. However, there has been an increase in foster household applications and a rise in the proportion of households that are approved. That increase is bucking the trend, and it is positive. I know that it does not go the whole way towards fixing the issues, but to buck that trend after a series of years of decreases is extremely positive.

We have similar good news on social work applications for the graduate apprenticeship scheme—Iona Colvin can correct me if I said that incorrectly. People want to get into fostering, people want to get into social work and people want to support children and families. From the Government side, we still have moves to make to support them further in doing that, but the data that I have received on applications shows that we are moving in the right direction, which is positive.

Iona, will you give a brief summary of the ways in which we are working to support the social work workforce?

This goes back to the problem that Mr Ross highlighted. We continue to have problems because a decision was taken to limit the Scottish Government’s ability to enact the UNCRC to its fullest extent. I appreciate that these problems are in different areas, but there is a Government approach to combating the problem as a whole. At the moment, we are having to take a more piecemeal approach in relation to the different portfolio areas. I have been clear with the committee and I have heard the concerns. I am awaiting further legal advice to see what approach would be best ahead of stage 2.

I will ensure that I discuss that with COSLA and with—

Convener, I am not saying that I will now look into that. I heard COSLA’s representations, and I will ask my official to speak to some of the engagement that has been undertaken with COSLA in the lead-up to the bill’s introduction. I would like to discuss the issue further with COSLA, because I am not sure whether its comments relate to specific provisions or areas. For example, my officials engaged with COSLA on advocacy—I have evidence of that. Therefore, I would really like to discuss the issue further, either with COSLA or with its children and young people’s spokesperson, to understand exactly what it is referring to.

Again, I am sorry that Sheriff Mackie felt that way in his evidence to the committee. I have had very good engagement with him throughout the bill process. I have worked closely with him in relation to the findings in his report and how we could possibly implement them. I am sure that we will come back to the issue of the redesign of children’s hearings, but we have tried to keep the ethos of that report in the bill’s provisions as much as possible. As I said, I do not know the specific number of times that we engaged, but Sheriff Mackie engaged frequently with me and my officials in the lead-up to the introduction of the bill. However, again, I could not go through specific provisions and the scope of the bill with Sheriff Mackie.

I absolutely understand that. As I have said, I am awaiting further legal advice, and I can only apologise that we do not have a fuller position for the committee.

I believe that I have, but Mr Ross will have to remind me of what is included in that—

I have said that I will look into these concerns further. I think that it is clear that we are enhancing, improving and widening access to aftercare. As I said, these provisions have been welcomed—

I—

That is the case, Mr Mason—you are absolutely correct. There is a level of complexity here. For a start, work is under way to consider the question that you have just posed to me. Obviously, the consultation on the issue has closed, and I do not think that I can necessarily define what “excessive profits” are at the moment.

As I have said, there is a complexity here, because we know that there could be an element of reinvestment, whether it be in the estate, a centre or whatever. Again, it probably comes back to what I was talking about with regard to regulations. Giving ourselves more time to develop this area further is, I think, very appropriate, because we want to get it right. I know that many people have the right aims at heart when it comes to delivering support for our children and young people, but the whole idea and aim of the bill have come directly from children and young people themselves, who said in the independent care review—and, indeed, have said repeatedly afterwards—that people should not be profiting from their care.

I know that that does not answer your question directly, Mr Mason, but I recognise that there is a level of complexity here, which is currently being considered.