Chamber and committees

A few of the witnesses have touched on the question that I was going to ask about solutions. During the meeting, I have been looking at the homelessness statistics. What stands out to me, as an Edinburgh MSP, is the fact that the number of households in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh is more than twice the national rate. We know that there are different circumstances and challenges in different parts of the country, whether they be urban or rural communities. Are those issues and the allocation of resources being taken into account in Government policy, including in the proposals for the housing bill? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also needs to be part of the conversation. What other options and models should be available to take such issues into account?

I am an MSP for the Lothian region.

I have a question about the elephant in the room. We are all talking about the proposed housing bill but we have legislation that our councils are not following through. The Parliament, the Government and the committee will spend most of the rest of this session of the Parliament considering a housing bill and bringing everything into one piece of legislation. Given the emergency that we are facing, would it not be better to examine what has gone wrong with all the legislation that we have passed in the past 25 years and focus on getting that right for different communities? Is a housing bill—which you will invest all your energies in—the right thing at this point or should we ensure that the legislation that we have performs?

The cabinet secretary and her predecessor said that no one would lose out because of Scottish National Party changes to our social security payments, but we know that that is not true. The winter heating payment has left many people in the Highlands and Aberdeenshire out of pocket. Will the cabinet secretary undertake a review of that policy so that people who live in Aviemore, Braemar and Aboyne do not continue to lose out at the hands of the SNP-Green Government?

I listened to what the minister had to say about this group of amendments. I am keen for the bill not to be a missed opportunity for us to strengthen a statutory framework. Last week demonstrated the need for some of that, with the Care Inspectorate raising serious and significant concerns about the safety of students at Hillside school in Aberdour, in Fife.

Those issues need to be addressed, but I am happy to work with the minister at stage 3 to see whether the Government can accept that a stronger framework is needed, not just for this bill but for other bills that the Government is committed to bringing forward for people with disabilities.

I am happy not to move the amendments if the minister is willing to take that work forward.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Amendment 110 moved—[Natalie Don].

Good morning to members, the minister and her officials. I, too, have been working with the “Hope instead of handcuffs” campaign over a number of years on how the issue can be looked at and how the bill could create a framework, such as, I think, we all want.

I very much welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 212. I also note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland commented on amendment 163 in relation to elements of the strengthening of data collection. Amendment 212 would achieve what I wanted, so I am happy not to move amendments 162 and 163, but I hope that the minister might, in summing up, look at comments that organisations have made about strengthening data collection.

I start by paying tribute to and thanking a number of people who have helped to shape my amendments: Beth Morrison and her son, Calum, who have been working towards Calum’s law; Daniel Johnson, my Lothian colleague, who is working on a bill that is related to the issue; and a number of organisations, very much including those that sent the letter that all committee members received on 23 November. It was from the Promise Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and it was on how we can develop a statutory framework on restraint and seclusion. My amendments in the group look to secure that for secure accommodation.

Amendments 155 and 156 look to ensure that we have consistency in training regulations. It has been noted that the councils that are responsible for delivering training have different systems and that different commissioners are provided for that. That needs to be tightened up.

Amendments 155 to 161 not only provide duties to record and report restraint within secure accommodation, but look towards restraint being used as a last resort.

I hope that the minister considers that the amendments reflect what the Scottish Government and members of the committee want to see at stage 2. If not, I will be happy to work on the amendments at stage 3.

I note that, at stage 1, the minister commented that it would make sense to look at ensuring consistency in the reporting of incidents of restraint. I also note the calls from a number of organisations for the Government to develop statutory guidance and for there to be reporting specifically in relation to persons with disabilities. Does the minister feel that that information is being properly reported by anyone other than the Care Inspectorate?

I definitely think that that should be looked at.

A number of issues have been touched on that both Governments can look to take forward collectively—Willie Rennie made a characteristically measured contribution. However, today, we have lacked a vision for our social security system.

On that point, 150,000 of our fellow Scots who have never been able to get into work—that is 6.8 per cent of our working-age population—need additional support to achieve that. One of my key questions is whether cuts to employability schemes in Scotland over recent years have hampered that happening.

Changes to carers allowance have been touched on. The extension of payments towards six months for people who have been bereaved is something on which I think there is cross-party consensus.

We have seen a negative impact on rural households from changes to the winter heating payment. Maggie Chapman, who represents North East Scotland, did not want to mention the fact that, under the SNP-Green Government, her constituents are facing an unfair and cruel cut to the winter support that they receive. The Scottish Government should look at that again, because many people in rural Scotland are losing out because of the SNP-Green Government.

Bob Doris highlighted Marie Curie Scotland’s briefing and the call for more targeted support for those who are terminally ill and their families and carers. I hope that we can look at that issue in future debates. I agree with Marie Curie Scotland that we need to see more support.

Last week, I chaired a round-table meeting with Kidney Care UK, at which I was pleased to hear from the minister responsible for palliative care about work that is progressing to deliver a national home-dialysis energy reimbursement scheme. That is really welcome, but, although kidney patients are an important group of patients, they are few in number. I hope that we will see more cross-party support for patients who run NHS medical equipment in their homes. The former First Minister said that providing such support would be a priority, but we have not quite seen it happen.

I do not have any more flexibility.

The UK Government has also raised the minimum wage from £11.44, which will result in an increase of more than £2,000 a year for many households. Let us not forget that the state pension will increase by an average of more than £900 this year, benefiting more than 1 million pensioners in Scotland.

Taken as a whole, both Governments can and should be working together to deliver the welfare system that we want. As I have outlined, the UK Government has made many welcome changes to support people during the cost of living crisis.

Across the parties in this Parliament, we need to take seriously the future financial sustainability of our welfare system in Scotland. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are responsible for that, and it is important that, in future debates, we consider how the system will be fully funded. That is why I am happy to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Jeremy Balfour.