Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to open this important debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As a councillor in North Lanarkshire and an MSP for the Central Scotland region, I have championed the implementation of the Promise since its introduction in 2020, as it set out plans to radically reform how young people are cared for in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives support the recommendations in the reports that have been launched, and we want the Promise that the First Minister made to Scotland’s children to be delivered in full. Nicola Sturgeon described the Promise as

“one of the most important moments”—[Official Report, 5 February 2020; c 31.]

in her time as First Minister. She said that, through her Scottish Government’s commitments, it would be able to achieve and implement the recommendations within a decade.

I remember attending an event in North Lanarkshire Council shortly after I was elected as a councillor—I refer members to my entry in the register of interests in that regard. The event was organised and led by care-experienced young people who illustrated the hardships that can be experienced but also voiced their hopes for this flagship policy.

However, in February, the organisation that is leading the major revamp of Scotland’s care admitted that many lives might have got worse since it was launched. Fiona McFarlane, head of oversight for The Promise Scotland, warned:

“For so many care-experienced children, young people and care-experienced adults, their lives won’t have improved over the last two years and things will have been really ... hard and may even have got worse.”

She added:

“That’s heartbreaking and shameful, and it shouldn’t be the case.

Her words were backed up by the First Minister, who has admitted that progress has stalled, citing Covid as one of the main reasons for that.

Charities such as Who Cares? Scotland saw a huge rise in the number of people seeking support during the pandemic. The helpline that Who Cares? Scotland runs has taken about 500 calls from young people, most of whom had never used the service before. That will only add to the challenge of delivering the Promise, and it highlights how the pandemic has detrimentally impacted our young people and their mental health.

Although MSPs across the chamber understand that Covid has had an impact on delivery in some areas, it is concerning to note that organisations, charities and those who have experienced the care system have criticised the lack of overall progress. When she was interviewed by STV News, Megan Moffatt, who is care experienced, said that the Promise recommendations were not being seen “on the ground” and that

“a whole generation of teenagers who are aging out of care ... have left care and are now struggling alone in a real time of crisis.”

A North Ayrshire councillor has also criticised the implementation of the Promise so far, branding it “a government quango”. He argues that councils do not receive enough funding to implement the recommendations of this vital policy, and that that will ultimately lead to care-experienced young people not receiving the level of care that they deserve. I know that I mention council funding quite frequently, but councils receive inadequate levels of funding to tackle the huge issues that they experience. Again, work in the area has been hindered because of the Government’s inability to fund local government fairly. To make the Promise a success, that needs to change now.

In addition, I would welcome reassurance from the minister that the creation of more layers of bureaucracy through boards will not remove powers from local government. It is important that local councils are responsible for implementing additional measures and policies in their local authority area, if that would be beneficial to care-experienced young people.

Concerns have not just been expressed about council funding and the role of local government. Long-term campaigner Jamie Kinlochan has raised concerns about a lack of progress, and his research has found that there has been no improvement in several key areas, including in the number of people who tragically die shortly after moving out of care. Through a freedom of information request, it was revealed that 24 young people died in 2020, compared with 21 young people the year before. From January 2014 to September 2021, a total of 111 children and young people have died. Those statistics are damning. One death is one death too many, and, as corporate parents, we should be ashamed and horrified by those statistics.

When responding to those tragic figures, Fiona Duncan admitted that the Promise had not been kept for those who died this year and last year. MSPs and councillors have a collective responsibility for care-experienced young people, and we must and can do better.

The prevention of more deaths is only one area that the Government must prioritise. Scottish Government statistics show that, in 2019-20, 43 per cent of the 7,198 young people who were recorded as being eligible for aftercare support were not receiving it—that equates to roughly 3,096 children. Lack of aftercare support affected 16-year-olds the most, with 53 per cent leaving care not receiving any support.

Care-experienced school leavers are also less likely to be in positive destinations nine months after leaving school. Figures for 2019-20 show that 75 per cent of school leavers who had been looked after within the previous year were in positive destinations. By comparison, 90 per cent of school leavers overall were in positive destinations. Those trends cannot continue. Care-experienced young people need the Government to show them that it can implement positive change throughout the care system.

As I said earlier, the Scottish Conservatives support the principles of the Promise, but the Scottish Government must be honest about the level of criticism that it has received from organisations regarding the lack of progress that is being made.

On the amendment that Scottish Labour has lodged, it is right that, when setting targets, the Scottish Government should take a realistic approach, which must be based on measurable outcomes for young people. For that reason, we will support Scottish Labour’s amendment, which would bring in an “annual reporting regime” for the Scottish Parliament and a funding plan. I believe that that would be welcomed by organisations and campaigners.

As the Promise is a commitment that was made by all political parties, the Scottish Conservatives will also support the Scottish Government’s motion, in the name of John Swinney. However, as I have stated, the Scottish Government must be honest about the lack of progress that it has made in implementing the Promise. Covid-19 has undoubtedly played a role in that, but it cannot and should not be used as an excuse for the stalling of this hugely important policy. Therefore, in return, I hope that the Scottish Government will consider voting for both the Conservative and Labour amendments, as that will continue to show cross-party commitment to improving the lives of care-experienced young people.

We can, and we must, do more for our care-experienced young people, and we on the Conservative side of the chamber will continue to hold the Government to account over the delivery of the Promise.

Finally, I add my thanks on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives to everyone who is involved in the care community, especially our young people, for their continued input to improve the sector in Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-03837.2, to insert at end

“; recognises concerns that not enough progress is being made, with stakeholders and campaigners claiming that little has changed in the first two years since its introduction; notes that organisations have witnessed a huge rise in the number of young people seeking support during the COVID-19 pandemic, and calls on the Scottish Government to listen to the concerns of local authorities, NHS boards, third party organisations and charities to ensure that The Promise is delivered in full.”

The minutes of the building standards (fire safety) review panel meeting in January, which were published this week, revealed that the panel has recommended that the BS 8414 tests should be retained. That recommendation contrasts with England and Wales, which have had a regulatory ban on the use of that test for high-rise domestic and institutional buildings for several years. Support for a regulatory ban on BS 8414 was the most popular choice in the Scottish Government’s recent consultation, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish Tenants Organisation and many local councils were among those in favour of a ban. Will the cabinet secretary join England and Wales in properly banning combustible cladding and insulation from high-rise buildings?

I did not realise that it was one or the other. The Scottish Government should be fiscally responsible, but it certainly has not been. We have seen that during the discussions about the ferry fiasco in recent days.—[Interruption.]

The reason that I wish to raise the cuts to local government, and the pressures that they face to deliver for our local communities—[Interruption.]

Councils know their communities. If they were funded properly by the SNP Government, they would be able to implement plans to support areas of high deprivation. Therefore, the Scottish Government must work alongside local government to continue to identify areas that have high rates of household worklessness and to target an action plan at reversing those trends. Councils will not be able to do that unless they receive a fair level of funding. If the Government is serious about eradicating poverty, it must fund local councils properly so that they can provide much-needed support to those who need it most.

Today, we have heard many views about how we can tackle child poverty. One goal that we all have in common is that we want to tackle the root causes of child poverty, so I hope that the Scottish Government listens to the concerns that have been outlined by Opposition members today and that it will implement measures that will support children and families across the whole of Scotland.

I welcome the opportunity to make the closing speech for the Scottish Conservatives. I acknowledge the publication of the tackling child poverty delivery plan for 2022 to 2026, and I reiterate the comments of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that the upcoming plans must set out a clear and measurable course for meeting poverty targets by April 2024.

Although I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement today, the SNP has now been in power for 15 years. During that time, we have witnessed increased levels of child poverty, despite the many devolved powers that this Scottish Government could use to reduce poverty.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a serving councillor on North Lanarkshire Council.

On 24 February, the First Minister gave a commitment to explore Christine Grahame’s suggestion that local authorities should not investigate their own complaints in cases relating to child protection. Does the First Minister agree that an independent national whistleblowing officer should be established for public bodies, and does she agree that those who cover up child protection issues should be reported to Police Scotland immediately?

I am in my final minute. Presiding Officer, I am happy to give way if I can have the time back.

No, thank you. I would like to make progress. [Interruption.] I have just started my speech. I will take an intervention later on.

The recent “Tackling Child Poverty and Destitution” report, which was written by the Institute of Public Policy Research think tank, estimated that, by 2030, 13 per cent of children will still be living in relative poverty, which is 3 per cent off the SNP’s target of 10 per cent. It is not good enough that the SNP Government could miss its own targets on child poverty; it must do more to tackle the root causes to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, is given the opportunity to succeed.

As highlighted by the cabinet secretary today, this is not the first child poverty delivery plan that the SNP Government has announced. The 2018-2022 delivery plan outlined actions such as boosting employment, expanding social security and tackling the cost of living. Although some actions have been achieved, other programmes such as the fair start Scotland scheme managed to achieve only a 25 per cent success rate.

Alongside education, employment is one of the best routes out of poverty. That view is backed by the Poverty and Inequality Commission, which has urged the SNP to reduce barriers to employment in order to tackle child poverty directly by, for example, increasing funding for the parental employability support fund and introducing a job guarantee for priority families. Those measures would reduce the number of children living in poverty who are in working households.

The SNP has the powers to do more to address in-work poverty. I hope that the tackling child poverty delivery plan will contain successful schemes that will support more people than its predecessor plan.

Many colleagues from all parties have made important points during the debate. Miles Briggs mentioned that more than 7,500 children are living in temporary accommodation. SNP-Green ministers are failing to provide the leadership that is necessary to address the housing crisis and get families and children into safe, secure and affordable homes as a matter of priority.

After 15 years of the SNP Government, we see no plan and no end to children living in temporary accommodation. As Miles Briggs rightly said, by not reaching out to other parties, except the Greens, the Government could have missed opportunities to work collegiately with all the parties.

Pam Duncan-Glancy critiqued the Scottish Government’s plans, and she called for concrete plans and resolutions to tackle the cost of living and child poverty. Again, the Government could have reached out to all parties, and I am left wondering what could have been announced today as part of the delivery plan if that had been the case.

Beatrice Wishart spoke about providing opportunities for our young people and families, and measures that could have been taken to improve their wellbeing. I agree with her criticisms of the Scottish Government’s decision to cut local government funding by £250 million. I will speak more about that later.

A number of SNP members mentioned that, if Scotland separated from the rest of the UK, it would give the Government more powers to tackle child poverty. My colleague Dean Lockhart reminded members that it was the SNP Government that rejected and delayed additional welfare powers that would have given the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to look at alternatives for Scotland, should it have wanted to.

No. I would like to make progress, thank you.

I do not want to turn the debate into a constitutional squabble, but—[Interruption.] There is a but. But how can the SNP Government be serious about independence when it does not use the powers that are available to it? [Interruption.] Today’s debate should have focused on—SNP members have not focused on this entirely—reducing child poverty in Scotland, not on the SNP’s political obsessions.

During his contribution, my colleague Alexander Stewart raised an important issue about childcare provision, which is one of the many ways in which the Government could help children and families to get out of poverty. Delivering 1,140 hours of free childcare provision received cross-party support and, as a councillor, I welcomed that in my local authority area of North Lanarkshire, which has high levels of deprivation. The provision of free childcare gives our young people the best start in life and supports parents so that they can work and provide for their families without that additional childcare cost. It also supports the getting it right for every child model, a principle that is also widely supported.

However, as I have said in the chamber previously, there are deep-rooted issues with the delivery of 1,140 hours. I once again call on the Scottish Government to listen to the private and voluntary industry, which has warned that the current funding model will force nurseries to close or reduce their hours. If the Government does not act now, a crisis could emerge in our nursery sector that could leave its flagship policy in ruins.

I am conscious of time, but I want to stay on the subject of education. The SNP Government must do more to close the attainment gap and provide our young people with the tools to succeed. As other members have mentioned, Audit Scotland’s “Improving outcomes for young people through school education” report outlines that the attainment gap remains wide and that improvements are needed to close it more quickly. If the SNP continues with its abysmal record on education, closing the attainment gap will be unachievable, and the Government’s failure will leave many young people in poverty.

For my final point, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as I am a serving councillor in North Lanarkshire, because I want to talk about the cuts to local government funding and the pressures that local authorities face to deliver for communities, especially those that are in the greatest need of support. Tackling child poverty is a key part of the work of our councils, and it is made difficult when the Scottish Government chooses to cut the budget year on year.

As we have already heard from voices around the chamber, there is consensus among MSPs on banning conversion practices in Scotland. Should a ban on conversion therapy be voted through, Scotland would follow 13 other countries worldwide that have already banned the practice, including Brazil, Norway, Switzerland and several regions of Spain.

I share the view of many MSPs that conversion therapy—or, as it is sometimes referred to, “gay cure therapy”—is wrong and has no place in modern-day society. Therefore, it is upsetting to learn that, as Fulton MacGregor highlighted, as recently as 2018, the national LGBT survey found that around 5 per cent of LGBT respondents had been offered conversion therapy

“to ‘cure’ them of being LGBT”.

Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is not an illness. People within the LGBT community have nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, they should be able to love who they want and be comfortable in their own skin.

In preparation for the debate, I read statements from conversion therapy survivors such as Justin Beck, who realised that he was attracted to men and turned to his place of worship for guidance. He put himself forward for conversion therapy and was left emotionally traumatised by the experience, which he described as “enforced repression”. Justin is, of course, only one example of many individuals who have been subjected to conversion therapy. We must continue to listen to people who have endured such practices to ensure that the Parliament finally implements the ban.

The persecution of LGBT people has a horrific and dark history, and we must continue to consider and debate ways to help and support members of that community. One way to do that would be to consign conversion therapy to the history books during this session of Parliament.

In October 2021, the UK Government announced that it would consult on proposals to implement a legislative ban on conversion therapy across England and Wales. The proposed bill would criminalise talking conversion therapy, thus preventing any non-consensual attempt to convince or coerce a gay person to be straight or vice versa. My understanding is that the Scottish Government has taken a different approach to banning conversion therapy, as is its right as a devolved Administration. Discussions have taken place between the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure consistency in the approach to that important issue.

It is also welcome that, after hearing robust evidence from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, the Government has set up an advisory group to investigate how to implement the ban in Scotland. I acknowledge the minister’s comments on religious freedoms and the concerns that religious groups have raised. It is a delicate situation, and I hope that the advisory group will continue to consider and engage with all views on conversion therapy as we move forward.

As my colleague Alexander Stewart rightly highlighted, it now falls on the Scottish Government to ensure that progress is made to prevent yet more LGBT people facing the humiliating and mentally traumatising practice of conversion therapy. However, as the group will not meet until the end of the month, we still need reassurance from the Scottish Government—the minister has given some of that already—that the matter will be treated with the urgency, care and respect that it deserves, especially as this issue was first raised with the Scottish Parliament in 2020 through a petition that secured more than 5,000 signatures. We are now two years down the road. Survivors and campaigners will be eager to see the ban put in place as soon as possible.

There is overwhelming support across the Parliament and throughout our communities to end conversion therapy practices. Therefore, I join calls from across the chamber to introduce the bill as quickly as possible and to ban conversion therapy in Scotland.