Chamber and committees

Paul Finch, do you want to comment?

If no one else wants to comment on that, I will go on to digital demand responsive transport.

I opened by talking about rural issues, particularly rural transport. For many rural communities, accessing transport that takes you to work or opportunities for various levels of education or sport is a huge issue. I am keen to discuss the potential of digital demand responsive transport. Although it has been highlighted that it should not be a replacement for wider services, it has had a role to play—for example, people will remember that dial-a-bus services were a feature of our transport network for some time. Can you comment on the potential of such transport to support people, particularly in rural communities, who need extra help to get to the various places that I have mentioned?

I just want to expand on the theme that colleagues have been interrogating.

The 2019 act gives local authorities the provision to run services. We have already had some discussion on that, and I appreciate Paul White’s comment about municipality not necessarily being a panacea. We know that local bus services in Scotland have dropped 38 per cent since 2007, and thousands of routes have been lost. Often those routes connect communities to other services such as rail services, but they also help people in rural communities get to and access work.

We have had a four-year delay in the secondary legislation to enable local authorities to explore and take forward much of this work. In your view, what impact has that delay had? Perhaps I can come to Paul White first of all.

The interesting thing about that is that you have to have access to the technology. Do you see those two things as sitting quite close together? We need to deal with the digital exclusion part as well as making the services available to people.

Mick Hogg, how does digital use affect the rail network and people’s ability to access new services? Is there a concern about people with additional support needs, who may rely on digital but also need human staff there to support them? Do we need to look at both those things?

On the question of how we might sustainably support services to offer additionality in the core services in bus, rail et cetera, Paul Finch mentioned community transport, and a lot of community transport organisations do an excellent job on additionality but struggle with the sustainability of funding. Do these digital demand responsive services and community services need to become much more involved in mainstream funding instead of just being pilot innovations that do not command confidence?

You would acknowledge that a drop of 400 routes is a serious issue for communities across Scotland.

I am very grateful to the committee for hearing me this morning. I am convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on changing places toilets, which was newly established this session, so I have had an opportunity to hear from a number of stakeholders who are interested in the provision of changing places toilets across the country.

I am sure that colleagues will be aware of the great benefits that such facilities bring to communities across Scotland. As well as being fundamentally the right thing to do, the putting in place of such a facility benefits the whole community. Where such facilities are not in place, many families feel that they cannot be spontaneous and cannot enjoy the same access to tourism and leisure activities that others do. Therefore, the provision of changing places toilets benefits the wider economy.

The convener might be aware of the changing places facility in Rouken Glen park in his constituency, which opened only recently. It has increased the number of visits, particularly by families who have disabled children, which shows the impact that the provision of such a facility can have.

In speaking to the petition, I must note the challenge that is faced. A party-political pledge was made in the SNP’s manifesto; it was also a feature of the 2021-22 programme for government that a £10 million fund would be rolled out. Evidently, that has not yet happened. I appreciate what the minister has said about financial constraints and challenges, but I believe that the Government is still committed to rolling out that funding by the end of the parliamentary session. I think that what people want is detail from the Government about its intentions for the fund, how applications might be made to it and what structure the process might take. That would go some way towards making people feel confident that the fund will be put in place.

The petitioner runs a business and is keen, as a business owner, to make a contribution, which she wants to be supplemented by capital funding for the wider community. There are many third sector organisations and people who run their own businesses who are interested in putting in some of their own funds in order to make a changing places toilet a reality, but who require additional funding from the Government.

There is a huge opportunity here. People are concerned that, as we approach the midway point of the parliamentary session, progress does not seem to have been made. Progress has been made in other parts of the UK—a £30 million fund has been distributed in England and is entering its second phase—so Scotland is falling behind in the availability of changing places toilets. That brings us back to the economic argument. People might choose to holiday in other places where there is greater provision.

I simply wish to represent the views of the members of the CPG and ask the committee to give the petition serious consideration and to look, at least, at how such provision might be structured.

Each year, that commitment slips further and further into the parliamentary calendar for delivery.

Today, along with my colleagues, I met campaigners outside Parliament on the issue. Reece, Sandy and Kerry were just some of the people who spoke to me about the huge difference that the removal of non-residential care charges would make for their lives, their wellbeing and their mental health. They told me how disappointed they were not to see that in the programme for government. Therefore, I urge the Government to look again at how we can abolish those charges quickly. We will work constructively with the Government, as campaigners want us to do, to deliver that.

It is clear that the programme for government was billed as a reset moment for Humza Yousaf and a tired SNP Government that has been in power for 16 years but, instead of hitting the reset button, it has been a case of pressing rewind on some announcements and pause on others. The reality is that the people of Scotland, rather than a reset or a rewind, are looking for change. Labour members are ready to rise to that challenge and deliver change.

I move amendment S6M-10343.1, to leave out from “to build” to end and insert:

“, and that no real action has been set out which will reduce child poverty or mitigate the cost of living crisis for thousands of families that are struggling to make ends meet; further notes that the last UK Labour administration lifted 2 million children and pensioners out of poverty, of which 200,000 were children in Scotland, while the last decade of the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration has seen 40,000 more children, and 30,000 more pensioners slide into poverty; notes with concern that almost 9,000 children are languishing in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own because of this SNP administration’s inability to get a handle on the scale of the housing crisis facing Scotland; welcomes the UK Labour Party’s commitment to a new deal for working people within the first 100 days of a UK Labour administration, which will lift children in Scotland out of poverty by delivering a real living wage and improved working conditions, and a fundamental reform of unfair and punitive Universal Credit provisions; condemns the SNP administration’s continued failure to resolve pay disputes with education staff across local authorities in Scotland; regrets that health inequalities are exacerbated by the inertia of this SNP administration; condemns the abandonment of over 820,000 patients stuck on NHS waiting lists for tests and treatment; accepts that this SNP administration has failed to meet its targets for tackling long waits with over 77,000 patients languishing for over a year; is deeply concerned that cancer treatment targets are repeatedly missed; regrets that the mental health crisis continues unabated with almost 2,000 patients waiting for over a year for treatment, and delayed discharge remains shockingly high, costing over £193 million alone in 2022-23; acknowledges that this is largely because of the SNP administration’s failure to fix the growing crisis in social care; calls upon the SNP administration to address this crisis by immediately removing non-residential care charges and set out a workable plan for achieving a £15 an hour minimum wage for hard-working social care workers; recognises that Scotland’s NHS is facing a workforce crisis, with over 7,000 vacancies unfilled, and welcomes the fact that a Scottish Labour administration would transform the NHS to meet the needs of future generations.”