Chamber and committees

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important committee debate. I offer my apologies, because I will need to leave the chamber before the conclusion of this afternoon’s debate.

I, too, thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for publishing its report, which makes 99 recommendations for the Government to consider in order that it can improve the wellbeing of young Scots. It now falls to the Government to consider seriously the recommendations and to make much-needed improvements.

In March, the Scottish Parliament restated its commitment to keeping the Promise and improving outcomes for care-experienced young people. Although that was welcome, the SNP ignored calls from the Conservatives to acknowledge the concerns that had been raised by various charities and third party organisations that work directly with young people in care. I found it upsetting that, during the minister’s opening remarks, not one reference was made to care-experienced young people.

I thank Clare Haughey for her intervention. However, given that the Promise is one of the Government’s flagship policies and a recommendation of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I would have thought that there would be more focus on the matter in the minister’s opening remarks.

On top of that, more concerns have emerged since the SNP’s handling of implementation of the Promise. The concerns outline a lack of progress since the independent peer review that was initially launched in February 2020.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet Fiona McFarlane, who is the head of oversight at the Promise Scotland, to discuss the work that the oversight board is undertaking to ensure that the Promise is rolled out. She has been critical of the level of progress that the Government has made in the past two years, and she admitted that young people’s lives will not have improved but might even, in some instances, have got worse.

A study that was conducted by the Promise Scotland oversight board found that the pledge that had been made by the Government in 2020 was more of a commitment than a true implementation plan. One of the main flaws in the Government’s Promise policy relates to a lack of meaningful data or true understanding of young people in care. For example, the study shows that between 2019 and the first nine months of 2021, 59 young people died, of whom 17 were children in care, seven were in continuing care and 35 were in throughcare and aftercare. One death of a young person in care is one death too many. It is heartbreaking that the data on the lives of those young people has not been properly recorded.

Failure to understand young people not only makes recording data more difficult—it fails to provide authorities with important information that could prevent future deaths. Although MSPs can accept that the Promise has been described as a 10-year transformational change, those problems have existed for years.

No. I am sorry; I have a lot to get through.

The SNP is failing young people in care by not urgently addressing the glaring issues in implementation of the Promise. That must change.

As I have mentioned before, we are corporate parents. It is our responsibility make sure that we are listening to young people who have experienced the care system so that we can ensure that the Promise can get back on track. I would be grateful for the minister’s committing today to ensuring that appropriate data will be recorded about young people in care, which has previously been rejected by the Scottish Government.

Before I move on, I will raise a local issue that was brought to my attention by a campaigner from Who Cares? Scotland. Despite council tax having been abolished for care leavers five years ago, South Lanarkshire Council does not provide any information on reductions for care leavers. The information is not even listed in the “Am I eligible?” section of the forms. Other councils, such as Highland Council, have a whole section on exemptions for care leavers, but no mechanism for people to select that option. The individual whom I interacted with on social media stated:

“Policies don’t matter if they are still inaccessible after 4 years”.

If there is a quotation to take away from today’s debate, that should be it.

There are also good examples of best practice. City of Edinburgh and Stirling councils display a clear page for care leavers and offer a 25 per cent discount on council tax for other household occupants. Aberdeen City Council has gone a step further by extending the offer to care-experienced young people who have been in kinship care and, who might not have met the definition of care leaver.

However, those examples highlight the inconsistency in the support that is being offered by councils to care leavers and care-experienced young people. It should not be a postcode lottery. I hope that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government will work together to ensure that support for the health and wellbeing of care-experienced young Scots improves across all levels of government.

Presiding Officer, I was hoping to cover mental health and the mental ill-health pandemic that is affecting our young people today, but I realise that I am quickly running out of time. I also understand that the issue has been articulated by many other MSPs in the debate.

The issues that I have raised cover just a few of the recommendations that are set out in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report. The report lays bare the failings of the SNP Scottish Government and illustrates the measures that we must take to ensure that young people across Scotland receive the necessary help and support. The only way the Scottish Government can fully focus on the day job is if it drops its obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom.

I welcome the minister’s announcement, but will she acknowledge that the current legislation does not act as a deterrent, which is why we have seen vandalism of war memorials increase in the past decade?

In 2018, Nicola Sturgeon promised to recruit 435 additional graduates in nurseries to close the poverty-related attainment gap. Four years later, that target has not been met. New figures show that a quarter of posts are lying empty and more than 100 nurseries in the most deprived areas are missing a teacher. That is yet another Scottish National Party education failure. Why has that target never been met? Why have children in the most deprived areas been left without a nursery teacher?

I am astounded that the minister believes that the Scottish Government is doing a good job when our nursery sector is facing a staffing crisis. Nursery owners in the private, voluntary and independent sector have warned the Scottish Government that the expansion of free early learning and childcare is under threat. Pay gaps between local authority and private settings of around £1.40 an hour are causing nursery staff to leave the sector. The Scottish Government cannot continue to ignore those serious concerns. What measures will it implement to create equity between local authorities and the PVI sector? How will it address the staffing crisis?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its nursery recruitment targets. (S6T-00781)

That was another education statement, with a lot of words but no direct action. We have commitments from the cabinet secretary today that will create greater levels of bureaucracy, but we have yet to see any meaningful change. Call me cynical, but why has the statement been brought forward to today? Is it just a ploy to deflect attention from the Scottish Government’s desperate attempt to kickstart a new independence referendum campaign?

To ask the Scottish Government how its housing strategy will support local authorities with developing dementia-friendly homes. (S6O-01133)

Approximately 90,000 people are living with dementia in Scotland, with roughly 20,000 people diagnosed each year. Due to Scottish National Party council cuts, care and repair services have been reduced or scrapped in local authority areas including North Lanarkshire Council, while other local authorities provide only a basic level of service to people who are living with dementia.

Given the need for more dementia-friendly homes, does the cabinet secretary agree that care and repair services are essential, so that people can live at home, and independently, for as long as possible? Does she also agree that cutting local authority budgets impacts the most vulnerable in our communities?