Chamber and committees

Do you expect non-residential buildings to be included in the register that you mentioned?

My question relates to councillors as well as officials in councils. Over the past year, I have spoken to councillors from all parties who have expressed concerns about what they think is the code of conduct being used against them by officials. Often, they cannot name those officials when they talk about incidents. However, they have been concerned that simply discussing an issue has been used against them in complaints raised.

What research have you done on that and what conversations have you had about it? I have been acutely aware that that is a real concern for councillors over the past year, and I think that that has led them to feel that they cannot do their job properly.

That is helpful. As the bill progresses, there might be quite a few amendments that seek to ensure that the bill is aligned in that way, so it would be helpful to see how things are being taken forward elsewhere.

One issue that I have raised consistently and about which I am quite concerned is that the bill relates only to residential buildings in Scotland. There are many other buildings that potentially include flammable cladding where people sleep, such as care homes, student accommodation and hospital settings. Why are those buildings not covered by the bill? Why are no provisions made for non-residential buildings that could potentially have unsafe cladding?

Yes. I am happy to, if I have the time.

I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by the member. Those who are tasked with providing support services, especially mental health services, need to do that on a case-by-case basis. In some communities, an additional barrier often arises with regard to interpreters, who need to be funded. That is something that should be considered. Health boards often find it difficult to provide interpretation services.

We need to do more to educate people on where they can find mental health services. That was an important part of the report.

Another concern, which was highlighted by the convener, was around delays in processing information on asylum seekers and safeguarding children. I agree with the points that were raised on that. Some age assessments of asylum seekers can take months or years to process. In the meantime, children are often placed unaccompanied in accommodation with adults, which raises serious safety concerns. We should acknowledge that, and UK ministers should be mindful of that.

It is important that the UK Government and the Scottish Government develop a new policy around age-disputed individuals who are currently being housed in adult accommodation services and what a different model of accommodation would look like. I am not sure that we have the right model for Scottish families and Scottish children in temporary accommodation, so we need to consider a different model.

On human trafficking and modern slavery, we are all aware that asylum seekers and refugees are among the most vulnerable to that abhorrent practice. The committee’s recommendation that we should uphold protections for all victims is one that we obviously agree with. The Scottish Refugee Council has made a number of recommendations in that area, which I think that Parliament should consider within our devolved competence.

I have already noted that support for asylum seekers is a reserved matter. Nevertheless, the suggestions for change that the committee has made are important for both Parliaments to consider. It is essential that we genuinely take into account the needs of asylum seekers in Scotland and how those can be supported.

The report has found that more can be done to protect people in our asylum system in Scotland. It is clear that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should co-ordinate a better network of support, especially when we are working with our 32 different local authorities on hosting people in the asylum system.

That would mean having proper funding for alternative accommodation sites and that the overreliance on hotels and emergency accommodation would have to change. It would also mean making additional resources available to our third sector organisations, which do so much to support asylum seekers and offer so much. Furthermore, it would mean considering how we can reform our public services to meet that challenge.

I reiterate that I welcome the work of the committee and I thank it for its report. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

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?