Chamber and committees

I start, as others have done, by putting on record our concerns and thoughts at the reported death of an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to discuss the findings of the report. I thank the members and the clerks of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their work, and all the organisations and individuals who have been involved. The report is helpful and constructive.

As the minister has done, I also take the opportunity to thank organisations across Scotland—mostly, in the third sector—that provide support for people in Scotland. We must always acknowledge their work in our communities.

Those who have been forced to leave their homes due to persecution should be allowed to seek asylum in the UK. However, that can be done only if they enter the country through a safe and legal route.

Throughout our history, Scotland has made itself home to people from all over the world. Historically, people from the Indian subcontinent, Ireland, Poland and many more have made their homes here. More recently, that group has included Syrians and Ukrainians who have fled illegal wars.

The committee report illustrates the significant challenges that are faced by both the UK and Scottish Governments in providing services, especially as our public services are overstretched and fail to meet current needs and demands.

For those who do not have available accommodation and cannot meet their own essential living costs, the Home Office can provide financial support and housing under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As things stand, more than 5,500 people in Scotland receive such support.

Immigration and asylum are reserved matters. It is therefore the responsibility of UK ministers and the UK Government to address many of the concerns that are highlighted in the report. I note that the committee has written to the Home Office on that. I accept the concerns of stakeholders about the slow rate of processing asylum applications and taking decisions. That is unacceptable.

However, perhaps the most critical section of the committee report highlights the pressures that local authorities in Scotland are under in supporting and assisting people. I acknowledge and highlight the emergency response that many councils across Scotland, including the City of Edinburgh Council in my region, have undertaken to support people and put in place resettlement schemes. Most of us who represent Edinburgh and Glasgow will also be acutely aware of the housing pressures that our communities face. That is why, recently, both the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council have declared housing emergencies.

I am particularly interested in the position that the committee has taken in relation to housing—specifically, the use of hotels and guest houses for housing asylum seekers. As a Parliament, we have not taken a position on housing children in temporary accommodation, but we should look at that across portfolios. Members will know that I have consistently raised the issue of the number of Scottish children and families living in temporary accommodation and the lack of support services that are provided.

As I have said, the committee heard specific concerns about the use of hotels and the inspection regime around them. The committee agreed with the evidence that hotels and other forms of institutional accommodation are inappropriate and should be used only as a temporary measure where necessary. There is learning for all our housing policies in that. The committee also noted a significant negative impact that that form of housing has on the mental health and wellbeing of families and individuals. The report makes it clear that ministers have to be up front about the housing challenges that Scotland faces.

The report highlights evidence that mental health issues are widespread among people fleeing conflicts abroad and that those issues are often exacerbated as a result of those people living in unsuitable and destabilising accommodation. The report warns that by housing people in that way we risk seeing a significant negative impact on the mental health and wellbeing of not only individuals but the wider family unit.

I very much agree with Dr Koruth’s points about mental health. It is crucial that we understand that many people who come to Scotland have a vastly different understanding of mental health issues from how we see them in this country. We should help people to realise that they can seek support for mental wellbeing. That should always be advertised, and people should know that they can speak out.

Absolutely. All of us have probably been invited to visit our local hospices and have seen not only the amazing work that they do at the most difficult time but the roots that they have in our communities.

I very much welcomed the work that the Government undertook with Children’s Hospices Across Scotland in the previous session of Parliament. I lobbied ministers to bring the parity in funding for children’s and adult hospices that we, as a country, expected to have. I very much welcomed the agreement that they signed to provide about £30 million over a five-year period—which has now come to an end—to fund services for children with life-limiting conditions and the support services that their families need. I am sorry to say that, in reality, that has not been delivered. Indeed, the Government agreement to provide 50 per cent of costs amounted to only about 30 per cent of funding.

Adult services in Scotland are in a more difficult position today, with the average hospice receiving about 25 per cent of costs for the provision of statutory services. We need things to change. One of the issues—I know that this has been raised in previous debates—is that the integration of health and social care and the creation of integration joint boards have led to a postcode lottery when it comes to funding our hospice sector. That urgently needs to change, too.

I very much welcome the constructive meetings that I have had to date with the minister on the issues. It is really important that they are taking place on a cross-party basis. However, there needs to be—as has been raised by other members—real action. First, we need to put hospices on an even keel to address the deficits that they face. As has been mentioned, the NHS agenda for change pay settlements have placed an additional £16 million cost on the hospice sector. The sector needs urgent support to ensure that it can retain staff. We do not want a staffing crisis to be the next problem that the sector faces.

As Stuart McMillan outlined, it is critical that we have an equal partnership and a new funding framework. I think that all of us here will agree on that, but of importance is how the Government makes that a reality in order to deliver a minimum of 50 per cent of the costs of delivering core hospice services. I believe that arrangements used to be set out via a chief executive’s letter, but the sector is crying out for a framework. I hope that the minister can take that on board as the key ask from the debate.

We must have a dynamic funding mechanism to support future needs. We know from all the briefings what that will look like. Our NHS will not be able to meet that demand, so our hospice sector has to be ready to do so.

The founding principle of our NHS was to provide a health service from the cradle to the grave. Without the hospice sector, we will not have that. For people who access palliative care and their families, that would be not only a tragedy but completely unacceptable. We know that many hospices are already using their reserves to fund core services. That is not sustainable.

I hope that the minister will take from today’s debate the pressing need for a new deal for our hospice sector. Cross-party support exists for that, and we can work together to ensure that we deliver for people when they really need it.

I thank my friend and colleague Sue Webber for securing this important members’ business debate, and I put on record my thanks to the organisations that have provided helpful briefings ahead of today’s debate. I also thank those organisations for the services that they provide across Scotland and, perhaps more importantly, the love and support that they give to families at the most difficult time that anyone can imagine.

From the age of seven, I have known and valued the contribution that hospices make to people when they and their families need them. I say that because the final memories that I have of my mum are of seeing her in the hospice and leaving her to go on a charitable fun run. I remember the kindness and care that the staff showed not only to me but to my family members following her death. Throughout the time that my mum and family needed hospice services, they were there for us. That is why I make no apology for the fact that, throughout the time that I have been lucky enough to serve in this Parliament, I have advocated for our hospices across Scotland, because we need to make sure that they succeed. We have already heard some important speeches about why that is the case.

Marie Curie’s briefing for the debate starkly outlines the fact that, in the years to come, 60,000 people a year across Scotland will need hospice services in a community setting. The country needs to start planning for and funding that 20 per cent increase.

That is helpful. Those of us who watch certain television programmes will understand that expected timescales can slip. Having that flexibility in the guidelines is therefore really important. The City of Edinburgh Council told Edinburgh MSPs recently that it takes up to eight months to bring a council-owned property back into use. That is the period of works that it expects. It is therefore important that the guidance provides that flexibility.

It does. I did not want to pick over all of Professor Gill’s comments, but I thought that they contained some interesting pointers, as you have said. He expressed a specific concern about the new responsibilities that SPSO has had since 2014, saying:

“we should be asking whether such roles will help or hinder the ombudsman institution in fulfilling its constitutional role”.

Have you considered the points raised in those comments, given your new responsibilities?

That was helpful. Thank you.

You have already touched on my question, which is on a review of the regulatory framework. What were the results of the review of communications with stakeholders, and what changes are you looking to make in that regard?

Thanks for that. The policy’s intended impact is quite clear. The Government has said that the policy’s aim is to bring more homes into the full-time, long-term letting domain. However, I do not see any numbers from Wales to suggest that the policy actually delivered that there. It is perhaps more a tax to raise revenue for councils. The Government estimates that potentially £35 million will be raised. Is your reading of this that the lack of statistics on how many additional new homes and long-term lets the policy will provide means that it is just another revenue stream for councils?

Has the Government considered other available mechanisms—for example, conditional grants or leasing schemes—that could be used to incentivise second home owners to use their homes differently? Was that part of the consultation?

A grace period is important, but why is there not a formal process beyond that? You suggested that councils that are trying to bring empty homes back into use will have to have discussions with developers and individuals, but it will create a postcode lottery if each council has a different process and a different ruling. We are trying to encourage councils to bring empty properties back into use—we have heard that there are 47,000 such properties—but it will be open to councils to decide whether six months is to be taken as a cut-off point. If properties are to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, who will do that work?