Chamber and committees

PE2004, which was lodged by Line Kikkenborg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of public-private partnerships—PPPs, as they are affectionately known—and to commit to a new model of financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland that has safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. The petitioner argues that public-private partnerships have left Scotland’s public sector with high levels of debt, poor service provision, lack of accountability and unsafe buildings.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government acknowledges that the use of private finance for infrastructure projects is more expensive than conventional public borrowing, and it shares concerns about the flexibility and value for money that historical private finance initiative contracts have offered.

The Scottish Government has stated that, as part of its national infrastructure mission commitment, a new approach to revenue finance, which includes the mutual investment model, has been announced. That follows a decision in 2019 to stop using the non-profit distributing model that was originally adopted in 2010. The Government highlights its view that current borrowing powers are limited and insufficient to deliver the ambitions of the national infrastructure mission, but adds that, should additional powers become available, it will examine all options to ensure that the lowest-cost financing route is utilised.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner offering comment on the Scottish Government’s response, with reference to Audit Scotland’s 2020 report “Privately financed infrastructure investment: The Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) and hub models”. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Government to act on Audit Scotland’s recommendations and to rethink the way in which infrastructure is managed and financed in Scotland.

That is all quite technical but nonetheless important and of considerable financial consequence. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

I am happy to agree with that.

I wonder, too, whether there are any bodies that are representative of home owners rather than factors. When the Scottish Government says that the current regulations require factors to provide home owners with clear information on the dismissal process, I would like to know whether there is anybody who can illustrate that that actually happens. That sounds like one of those vague provisions that I suspect exists in writing but not in practice. That is just from my experience.

I see that there are 13,255 children and young people who are looked after by local authorities. In 2020-21, 534 young people were recorded as entering continuing care, with 7,323 young people being eligible for aftercare. I want to be clear about this. In Jasmin’s experience, where advocacy was available and in place, she regarded the support package that she received as being superb.

There is obviously an appreciation of what the support should be. In Jasmin’s case, that happened. Is it that the resource is not there for everyone to experience the outcome that Jasmin did, or is it that there is, as you have both identified, a lack of understanding and availability of advocacy and a pathway to access the service? If that is the case, I would distil my question down to this: who needs to do what?

So who needs to do what? To whom would you like to say, “You need to change this, so that this happens.”?

That is helpful—thank you. For the benefit of those who might be following our proceedings elsewhere, can you explain the resources and infrastructure of The Promise Scotland?

To which we might come.

We now return to Callum Isted’s petition, PE1896, on providing every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we heard evidence from the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater, and the head of the Scottish Government’s support and wellbeing unit, Laura Meikle. Members will recall that, at that evidence session, the minister reiterated the Scottish Government’s view that it is up to local authorities to decide their budgets and how drinking water is provided, although they are required to ensure that drinking water is made available free of charge and provided in a sustainable way.

We also heard that on-going monitoring of the duties under the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 takes place through nutrition inspections and engagement with catering services and education authorities. However, members raised questions about the availability of detailed evidence from each local authority.

As members might recall, there was an outstanding commitment from the former First Minister to invite young Callum to Bute house, but I am afraid that that commitment cannot be fulfilled, because the building is now covered in building tape and closed for renovations that might take some considerable time to complete. Notwithstanding that unfulfilled promise, do colleagues have any suggestions?

Did you want to come in, Carol?

I am not sure who you are asking.