Chamber and committees

5.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will investigate the reported increasing number of children being referred to the gender specialist clinic in Glasgow, in light of reports of a similar inquiry planned by the United Kingdom Government. (S6F-01022)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

The cost of a school day per child can, for low-income families, be a tough financial burden to bear. As we have heard throughout the contributions today, the situation has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and the rising cost of living. MSPs need to utilise the powers that we have in this Parliament to introduce policies to help and support those who need it most.

If we look at the Scottish Government’s performance in relation to education standards throughout Scotland, we can see that it has not fulfilled its promise to parents and young people to make education its number 1 priority. The SNP has had 15 years in office to make a difference, but it has failed to make meaningful improvements to the life chances of our young people.

As we all know, a good education and positive destinations for our young people are paramount in tackling poverty. However, disadvantaged children continue to have lower attainment than their peers. The SNP has never fully got to grips with tackling the attainment gap, and it is our young people who continue to suffer, as Pam Gosal and other members highlighted.

Taking numeracy and literacy results as an example, we can see that the gaps in 2020-21 were larger than at any point since comparable data was made available in 2016-17. That shows that standards are slipping, and the Scottish Government must explain why that situation has got worse on its watch.

We are making improvements, but we are not making them quickly enough. That is the problem that we face just now, and what the Scottish Government must get to grips with.

Initially, the Scottish Government set out funding for North Lanarkshire Council and eight other challenge authorities, which Michael Marra mentioned in his contribution, to specifically target those areas in improving attainment and reducing poverty levels. However, that has been scrapped and all local authorities will now have to share the funding. Regrettably, that takes funding away from areas such as North Lanarkshire and shows that the Scottish Government does not have a clear plan to tackle the attainment gap in areas of real need. When combined with the cut to the revised attainment gap funding, that will not help to improve outcomes for our young people or reduce the cost of the school day.

We have heard some interesting contributions this afternoon. During her contribution, the cabinet secretary mentioned the 1,140 hours early learning and childcare programme, which is unanimously supported throughout the Parliament. However, when she was asked about the unfair funding formula that has been created by the Government, which is causing nurseries in the PVI sector to close or reduce their hours, once again, not much of a response was given. The issue needs to be sorted urgently, and I again urge the Scottish Government to take action and review the funding formula for the PVI sector and local authorities to ensure that the 1,140 programme is fair for all.

Oliver Mundell mentioned the desperate state of our schools, and how they struggle to function and provide basic stationery for the classroom. He also mentioned the reduction in teacher numbers, which has undoubtedly impacted our most vulnerable young people.

Michael Marra spoke about the pressures that are faced by the childcare sector, and the SNP’s failed laptop roll-out. Thirty per cent of laptops have been distributed, which is nowhere near good enough, and many of our young people are still without that vital tool to assist them with their schoolwork. That issue was also raised by my colleague Stephen Kerr, who reiterated how important education is in helping our young people to have the best start in life.

Pam Duncan-Glancy and others raised the important role that local authorities play in reducing the cost of the school day for low-income families. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As other councillors in the chamber have mentioned this afternoon, I am also nearly in my final week of being a councillor. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve my local community over the past five years. Like other councillors, I have tried my best to make improvements in the ward area that I represent.

During my time as a councillor, one of the biggest frustrations that I have experienced is the lack of funding that councils receive from the Scottish Government to tackle the cost of the school day for low-income families. At one stage during this year’s budget process, councils had to navigate a real-terms reduction in funding of roughly £264 million. At that time, council leaders branded it “barely survivable”, with many councils having to make cuts in their education budgets to balance the books.

In my view, local authorities are best placed to implement policies that benefit the unique needs of an area. For example, Forgewood in Motherwell has completely different social and economic challenges from Giffnock in Eastwood. However, the SNP’s obsession with centralisation has led to councils being stripped of their ability to make good local policies that benefit the people who live in that local authority area. The Scottish Government should empower our councils to reduce the cost of the school day for low-income families, but as a result of budgets being cut year on year, many services that assist with the cost of the school day have been reduced or scrapped altogether.

I condemn the Scottish Government lavishing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on funding yet another referendum instead of using that money to invest in our schools and other council services, which is what we are debating today.

Breakfast clubs are important for many young people, and it is not only politicians in the chamber who share that view. A recent poll shows that almost all teachers who were surveyed believe that breakfast is important for pupils, and research shows that having breakfast improves school performance. Not having that service for parents, or increasing the cost of school meals, contributes to the financial pressures that many parents face.

The Scottish Government must fund councils properly so that they can provide breakfast clubs, as well as take forward other innovative ideas that help to reduce the cost of the school day for low-income families.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will raise a concern that relates to the Government’s consultation to remove school uniforms for secondary school pupils and the unintended consequences that that could have on families and their expenses.

Uniforms are an integral and sensible part of school life. They give pupils a sense of dignity, foster discipline and, most important, they promote equality throughout the school setting. If we had to remove uniforms from our schools, parents who are struggling financially might not be able to dress their children in expensive fashionable or designer clothing. I am concerned that that could lead to bullying or young people being made to feel inferior to their peers. SNP members have raised that as a concern, saying that dress-down days can be difficult for families to afford. Ross Greer and others commented on specific items being required for school uniforms. They are right to say that that issue needs to be looked at.

Although I understand that, after undertaking the largest survey of school uniforms in the UK, the Schoolwear Association has found that the average cost of compulsory uniform and sportswear items is about £101.19 per pupil. However, the cost of an average fashionable or designer outfit would be significantly higher than that.

Sorry—I am about to conclude.

We have clothing grants available for families who need additional support. However, as I mentioned earlier, if councils were funded properly, they could make the choice to increase the clothing grant to assist with the cost of the school day for low-income families.

It is disappointing that the SNP has turned up today to give itself a pat on the back for some of the measures that it has introduced without taking any responsibility for the significant improvements that it must still make in reducing the cost of the school day for low-income families.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the funding formula that is currently used by our councils is unfair for the private, voluntary and independent sector? Does she agree that something must be done to sort that?

National planning framework 4 has formed a large part of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s work over the past few months, and I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. As many members have outlined, NPF4 sets out where development and infrastructure are required throughout the whole of Scotland. There are merits in undertaking that piece of work, and I believe that the intentions are genuine. However, as with every piece of legislation, NPF4 does not come without its challenges. That was certainly my experience as a committee member who participated in formal evidence sessions on the framework, alongside stakeholder events outwith the committee structure. At times, I was rather frustrated with the process.

Although I support some of the ambitions that are set out in NPF4, I do not believe that the Scottish Government has understood the scale of the work that is involved in implementing the document. Key stakeholders certainly expressed that view during the committee’s evidence sessions—many stated, for example, that the framework lacks clarity. Dr Caroline Brown, professor of infrastructure at Heriot-Watt University, raised concerns about clarity in the NPF4 document. She explained that

“elements of NPF4 ... need to be fleshed out ... to provide clarity ... particularly in a system that is struggling for resources.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 25 January 2022; c 30.]

In my short contribution, I will raise the point about lack of resource, which many members have mentioned. I declare an interest as I am, until 5 May, a serving councillor on North Lanarkshire Council. Councils will need to be better funded if NPF4 is to be a success. As we know, council funding has been cut over the past decade, which has had a considerable impact on planning decisions, among other service areas, in local authorities. As we know, local authorities are best placed to implement planning decisions in their communities. However, they have been starved of the ambition to make changes due to a lack of fair funding.

NPF4 could allow for greater flexibility in local government planning policy, which I believe would lead to better decisions that would improve our diverse and unique communities throughout Scotland. Last week, I visited Baron’s Haugh in Motherwell in my region with the local RSPB Scotland team. It is fantastic for an urbanised area to have such a beautiful nature reserve on its doorstep. Some of the many issues that we discussed during our walk around the reserve included increasing the resilience of biodiversity, helping to tackle climate change, directing investment towards nature and creating better spaces in which people and nature can cohabit. That left me wondering why plans relating to the creation of a nature network were not included in NPF4 and whether that area should be explored further in the final draft.

Four minutes is not a long time in which to reflect on weeks of evidence and the content of the NPF4 document, but I will mention one other area before I draw my remarks to a close. That is the issue of 20-minute neighbourhoods, which was one of the many issues on which I focused when asking questions in committee. More work is needed to define the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood and what that would mean for our rural areas in particular. Those areas lack transport infrastructure, which would need to be significantly improved to enable the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood even to be considered. I feel that the idea is intended more for urban areas, but we cannot cut off our rural areas, which are in desperate need of investment. I believe that that idea needs to be expanded, and I would be grateful if the minister could reflect on and outline how rural parts of Scotland could implement 20-minute neighbourhoods, particularly in relation to building local circular economies.

NPF4 has its merits, but we need more clarity over its deliverability. My worry is that NPF4 will overpromise and underdeliver for communities that need development and infrastructure. My other concern is that, due to the lack of clarity in the current document, it will be open to interpretation and there will be no way to record and monitor progress. Will we be able to find out whether any lessons have been learned from previous national frameworks, and how will success be monitored as we move forward?

I would like to see a national planning framework that gives our local authorities more autonomy to make the best possible decisions for their area.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will introduce the same proposals as the United Kingdom Government that will remove unsafe cladding from all medium or high-rise buildings. (S6O-00936)

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?