Chamber and committees

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.

That is helpful. My question is on the draft delivery plan. I note that the onshore wind policy statement specifically looks at 8GW to 12GW of onshore wind being delivered in a much shorter timescale than we had in which to deliver the renewable energy that we now produce. Planning departments will look at renewable energy projects, although they will not necessarily take them forward. There is a huge issue around how we meet the target and what delivery plan the Scottish Government expects local authorities to use. Often, the planning authorities that are involved are large and rural rather than urban. I would be interested in seeing where the discussion goes. It is possibly something that we can take forward around the draft delivery plan. The devil will be in the detail.

Thank you for that. I am not sure whether anyone else wanted to come in on that point.

If not, I will move on to discuss models that are in place to support unaccompanied children and young people and how such models could be developed. Perhaps we could bring in Phil Arnold on this. How is that different, how do services engage directly with young people, and is there a model that the committee could consider?

I have a question about the Scottish crisis fund and about how you think that has made a difference. In the interests of time, I will merge that with my second question. When you look at pressured areas, such as Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, how has that made a difference, and how has it been administered?

Andy Sirel, you touched on the role of the British Red Cross. I will bring you in, and anyone else who wants to comment can put an R in the chat function.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. During the pandemic, COSLA issued framework guidance on supporting people with no recourse to public funds. That guidance is being updated. We have heard evidence, and received written evidence, about inconsistencies in how that is being rolled out across local authorities. Have the witnesses seen that, in their experience?

I will bring in Maggie Lennon first. If anyone else wants to come in, they should put an R in the chat function.

Yes—thanks.

That does not get us away from the fact that I am talking about. Under this SNP-Green Government budget, Edinburgh will receive one of the lowest levels of funding per head, both for our council and for our health board. It does nothing to address the social care crisis in the capital.

For a long time, there has been growing concern about ministers’ plans to destabilise services further, the potential impact of which could undermine fragile local services and accountability, making a difficult situation even worse. As my colleague Liz Smith said, there are serious concerns about the top-down restructuring and redevelopment of social care through a national care service. The total restructuring of social care in Scotland will be hugely destabilising. We must accept that. It will present significant challenges and bring considerable additional costs to our local authorities. Scotland does not need a national care service; it needs SNP and Green ministers to properly fund local care services.

That brings me to the policy to extend free personal care to people under the age of 65, which is something that I campaigned for in the previous session of Parliament. I am passionate that we should see that fully delivered.

I am therefore more than disappointed and concerned about the lack of progress that we have seen on delivering the policy to extend free personal care, and the increasing secrecy around it. The Scottish Government committed to deliver the extension of free personal care—known as Frank’s law—in 2019, but no data has been provided on how it has actually been delivered.

When I spoke to Amanda Kopel, Frank’s wife, this week, she told me that she is concerned that two years and eight months—almost three years—after Frank’s law was initially implemented following the campaign that she fought, there are still no figures on the uptake of the policy. Covid must not be used as an excuse for the discrepancies in the proper implementation of the policy across all our councils. Amanda said:

“I and many thousands of Frank’s law supporters do not want to think that our six-year battle for justice, fairness and equality was all in vain.”

I agree.

In 2019, the Scottish Government promised councils £30 million in the budget to deliver the policy. Despite written questions and freedom of information requests, however, we have not been able to obtain information on how much of that has been provided to councils, or indeed how many people have been given access to the care and support that they need and now have a legal right to receive.

Given the problems that people have experienced in accessing care packages during the pandemic, with many packages being removed from individuals or cut, it is concerning that there are more and more reports that people with complex needs and life-limiting conditions are not getting that vital care. I hope that delivering and protecting free personal care will become one of our main focuses in future budgets, because all parties have supported it. It is vital that care packages and assessments for personal care are fully restored across Scotland.

It is clear that the pre-pandemic pressures on social care services are only going to increase in the post-pandemic environment. As I said, I hope that, in the future, we will all focus on social care services and the crisis across Scotland, but especially here in the capital, whose people I represent in the Parliament. That is why I am disappointed that ministers have not agreed to my proposal that a national recovery group be convened. We desperately need that, and we desperately need national leadership on the issue—something that is lacking from the budget that we are discussing today.

What cuts will the member’s local council face as a result of this budget?

I add my best wishes to those that have already been expressed to the cabinet secretary.

I open by thanking all those who work across our public services for all the hard work that they have put in, especially during the pandemic, to help support our families and communities.

In the limited time that I have, I will concentrate my comments on the social care crisis faced by councils across Scotland and on the delivery of the policy to extend free personal care to people under the age of 65.

Local authorities from across Scotland are warning of the social care crisis that they face. Here in my own area—the city of Edinburgh—that crisis has become acute. It was reported this week that council staff have been asked to volunteer for secondments to help plug the gap in the capital’s social care workforce. I am disappointed that the minister responsible for that issue has left the chamber; I would have liked an intervention from him on that matter.

A report to the Edinburgh integration joint board, which oversees health and social care services in the capital, makes clear that there is a crisis. Between September and December, 83 people across the capital needed arrangements for services that they had not received, and a total of 1,400 hours of care had to be provided by outside agencies. The report noted the extreme distress that that caused many people and their families.

The cabinet secretary did not mention the social care crisis in her speech.