I am not sure who else wants to come in. Should teachers be informed of children’s status? Should “YC” or “KC” appear next to someone’s name in the register, to indicate that they are a young carer or are in kinship care? That would flag it up to teachers—especially in secondary school settings, where young people move around and see a different teacher in each class—so that they would understand and could sometimes cut them some slack. That point is always put to me when I speak to young carers, so I wanted to include that potential model in my question.

Thank you for that very powerful testimony, Micheleine.

Does anyone else want to come in on that point?

Thank you for that—

Good morning. Thank you for joining us.

I want to follow up on Marie McNair’s questions. Why has progress not been made on the issue? There is frustration about that in Parliament. The Education and Skills Committee made numerous recommendations on the subject, but those do not seem to have been implemented. Is it the case that a recommended allowance has not been implemented in Scotland purely because of the financial situation in which councils have found themselves?

For example, I was looking at COSLA’s submission to the committee, which states that, from the start of the work on a national allowance, delivery

“would not be possible within the current level of ... funding”,

and that the Scottish Government, having cut council funding, would have to fully fund the allowance in order for it to be possible.

I will bring Laura Caven in to comment on why we have not seen that standard being delivered, because it is now years since it was expected.

That is a very useful question/point, which we can perhaps take away and pursue.

Specifically, the committee wants to focus attention on the potential model to change the situation and get it right. As Micheleine Kane has outlined, local authorities all have different things going on, and it will often come down to the key people in a council who are driving services to change and respond. What would you like to see that model look like—especially for informal kinship carers—and how do you think that it would best be developed? Micheleine Kane touched upon legislation. A national rate has also been highlighted, with the suggestion that that change should really have been put in place already.

I am sorry—I wittered on a bit there. The question was around what you think we should suggest to help change this. That is the key point that we want to get into.

Thank you—that is helpful and informative. Finally, I want to ask—

I want to raise the issue of further support for kinship families, which overlaps with much of the conversation that we have had. I am thinking specifically of how we can improve referral pathways and signposting. We have already touched on what happens when young people are in education. Should we be looking for a better model so that all the professionals who are involved—especially teachers—are aware of the needs of children in kinship care and of young carers in the classroom setting?

CELCIS’s survey highlighted the root of the situation when it identified that many children in kinship care have experienced trauma and that children in kinship care are less likely to receive mental health support than children in foster care. What is your view on that? How do we improve that model? I am thinking of the classroom setting in particular. Although we are not the education committee, there is an opportunity to take on board some of the work in that area.

I realise that that was a long question. Maybe we can hear from Vivien Thomson first, as she has touched on the issue.

Good morning. I thank the minister and his officials for joining us.

I want to carry on with Mark Griffin’s and Paul McLennan’s line of questioning and ask specifically about Homes for Scotland’s concerns about the likelihood, as it stands, of NPF4 reducing the number of homes that will be delivered. Obviously, that will exacerbate the housing crisis if it happens. I have listened to what you and your officials have said about local plans moving to a 10-year timescale, but I wonder whether you can give more detail on the mechanism for introducing additional land. What will that look like? We have been talking about open and transparent processes, but how is that sort of thing being put into NPF4? After all, that issue will be important to a lot of communities.

That is helpful. One of the key things that I have picked up during the committee’s work on planning is that it needs to be accompanied by a 10-year capital investment plan across the public sector. That will be challenging for the national health service and education services, in particular. The minister will be aware of conversations that we have had in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee about how a lot of new-build development can destabilise general practice surgeries. Therefore, we need to see that complementary capital investment.

My other question is about renewables. We have received some evidence expressing concern that NPF4, as it is currently drafted, could lead to delays in renewable energy developments. The minister said that he uses the word “minimum” in terms of numbers expected around housing. Is it the same for targets around renewables? Is it your opinion that we need to see a presumption in favour of renewables in NPF4? Again, the language will be key. Local authorities will be delivering not necessarily targets but the minimums that we expect.