Chamber and committees

I am delighted that the cabinet secretary is coming to Newburgh on the banks of the Tay. It is a beautiful setting, and the only thing missing is a train station. Therefore, I hope that she agrees positively to the recommendation; indeed, the community is behind it. Given that the option has been considered as part of the budget process, will she give special consideration to having a station at Newburgh and be open to making it happen?

It is really interesting that, in trying to amend Labour’s motion, the Government has lodged an add-on amendment. In effect, it is accepting that there has been a breach of the UNCRC. This is quite a moment. The Government is readily accepting that there has been not just one breach but, we assume, numerous breaches.

However, on the back of that, there is no urgent action of the type that I would expect. The minister has just repeated what he is already doing. It is quite an admission for the Government to acknowledge that the UNCRC—the United Nations international convention on children’s rights—has been breached on numerous occasions. I hope that, when the minister sums up the debate, we will hear a little more about the urgent action that is needed, because we have heard about the real consequences.

The report reveals that the issue is about not just numbers, but human lives and the impact on children’s security, health—including mental health—and education. It is about schools and transport. It is not just one child whose life is in limbo; thousands of children are in limbo.

The quote that struck me the most shows that the effect is as much mental as it is physical:

“I’m coming back to a home that no matter how I clean it, it feels dirty”.

You cannot get that out of your head. That feeling must be there 24/7—you must never escape it. Therefore, I hope that the minister responds in a much more significant way than he has done so far.

The minister talked about the standards framework, but Meghan Gallacher is right—the work began two years ago and we are still at the starting line. We do not even know what the baseline is. I have asked the minister about that previously, but he was unable to give me an answer. The Government has not even asked whether we are anywhere near meeting the standards framework. Are we? In relation to temporary accommodation, do we understand what is really going on with social landlords and private landlords across the country? It does not seem that the minister is in a hurry to try to understand that, because work on the framework started two years ago.

We should not forget that half of the children in temporary accommodation in Glasgow are from refugee families. That has not been mentioned in the debate so far. They have to live in limbo for a very long time. We need to consider how we respond to and treat refugees, because, as I have witnessed, they have to live in hotels and other types of accommodation for very long periods.

The root of the problem is the lack of investment. I disagree with Meghan Gallacher on one point. She says that the bill is not driving any kind of investment, but I think that the bill and Government policy probably are driving investment simply by removing many of the damaging policies that the Government introduced in previous years—it has neutered those—and because the Government is considering bringing in exemptions around build-to-rent housing and mid-market rents that were not there before. Therefore, the bill represents progress, but only through the removal of the barriers that the Government had put up in the first place. To some degree—[Interruption.] I am trying to be generous. To some degree there is progress. I am hunting for some credit to give to the minister.

We need to take the opportunity through the bill to ensure that those changes incentivise investment in housing, because we have seen significant detriment in recent years. There has been a 12 per cent decrease in starts for housing in all sectors and a 10 per cent decrease in completions. That is a terrible record, and we need to fix it.

I suppose that it depends on the starting point, but I think that the cabinet secretary had some nerve to begin her speech by saying that progress has been made. There has not been one inch of embarrassment or shame about this whole episode—delayed ferries that are over their budget, painted-on windows, a leaking hull and short cables, with it being cheaper to scrap the ferries and start again. How embarrassing has this whole episode been?

Not one minister has resigned as a result of the series of catastrophes over many years. The people who have been let down are the yard workers, taxpayers and islanders. Even though ministers owned the yard and, before that, their favourite industrialist was brought in to save the yard, no minister has accepted any responsibility.

It was striking that, at the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday, the permanent secretary commented, in passing, that we need to learn the lessons from the past on procurement. What could he have been talking about?

We need cast our minds back only a few years to the BBC documentary that exposed the procurement process for those two infamous ferries. This afternoon, the cabinet secretary refused to say what proportion of the bid related to social benefit, but it is interesting that, in the previous procurement process, the bids were assessed 50 per cent on price and 50 per cent on quality. This time, bids were assessed 65 per cent on quality and 35 per cent on price. Therefore, the percentage of the assessment that was based on price was lowered, and yet Ferguson’s did not win the contract this time. It won it the time before, when the assessment was 50:50 on price and quality.

The previous process involved a 424-page document being provided to Ferguson’s, rather than to any other bidder, and design support being given to the company. It is clear that the previous process was rigged, but that has never been admitted by the Government and still no minister has resigned.

The reality is that the Government is more interested in chasing the headlines than it is in building a proper industrial strategy. Just look at BiFab: the Government wasted £50 million with no benefit whatsoever. The company collapsed, no jobs were saved, and the minister said,

“you win some, you lose some.”

Dalzell steelworks was, in effect, mothballed—that has been the case for months. There has been no benefit, and the money involved represents considerable exposure for the Government. The Trump tariffs pose a considerable threat to the Lochaber smelter, and we have seen none of the 2,000 jobs that were promised. And now Ferguson’s. All that because the Government has been more fixated on chasing the headlines than on building a proper industrial strategy. The Government should be ashamed.

I supported the budget this year, and we worked with the Government because we were building in more support for the northern isles, but the rest of the strategy is an embarrassment. I wish that the Government would be honest about that, because, as the permanent secretary said only yesterday, we need to learn the lessons from the past. This Government seems to be completely incapable of doing so.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a director of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation Scotland—MOJO. Following the quashing of the conviction of Andrew Malkinson in England, there has been extensive criticism of the performance of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in England, and the chair of that commission has resigned.

The referral rate in Scotland is similar to that in England at roughly 4 per cent, and people who are involved in appeals believe that the Scottish system is not working. I am aware of a case in which the commission acknowledged someone’s innocence but still refused to refer to appeal. How has the justice secretary assured herself about the performance of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. (S6O-04456)

I pay tribute to Carers Trust for bringing so many young people to the Parliament today. It makes a difference; this is not just a series of speeches. We take the issues away with us and such debates have an impact on the policies that we develop for our parties and on the scrutiny through which we hold the Government to account.

I pay tribute to Paul O’Kane for leading the debate and, in advance of the minister’s final contribution, I give credit to her for the work that she has done in the area. I hope that it encourages her to give an even more positive response in her conclusion.

I have a memory of going to the Broomlee centre, when the Scottish young carers festival was held there. There was face painting, and Christine Grahame, who had come along with me that day, decided that, of all the things to give me, she would paint a black eye on my face, which I carried for the rest of the day. I am sure that that reflected a more permanent physical feature that she would like to put on my face—nevertheless, it was a joyful day and we had great fun.

There are two sides to the personal impact on young people. Jeremy Balfour made the point that young carers grow up quickly and talked about the skills that they gather, the empathy that they develop, the resilience that they have and the multitasking ability that they develop. Those things are a huge upside to what is a very challenging set of circumstances, and they will see the young people well for the rest of their lives, for future job opportunities and for education.

Young carers are under a lot of pressure: I cannot imagine the pressures of growing up, which itself is difficult, but with that extra responsibility. As Martin Whitfield rightly says, young carers do it for the sake of love. Nevertheless, it is quite a sacrifice to make, which is why the Government needs to take extra steps to ensure that we provide the infrastructure and make support available to them. That is why I support all the measures that have been set out today, including on breaks.

We also need to develop understanding across all public services—not just the education system, but every part of our public services. In fact, all of us need to fully understand what it means to be a carer and what we can do to help. We need to have that understanding, as well as making services and extra support available.

My final remark is that this matter is quite personal to the Liberal Democrats. Many will have seen the story about Ed Davey, my party leader, caring for his young son, John, who has been disabled from birth. It is a moving story, and it clearly involves deep feelings. Ed Davey has made it a personal mission to try to change the system on behalf of all carers, whether they are older or young carers. My colleague in North East Fife, Wendy Chamberlain, managed to deliver the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which entitles workers to leave from work to look after their loved ones.

Those are two small measures, but they are important steps that we all need to engage in to make life a little bit better for those who care for those we love.

There is clearly an issue, because the Shelter report was so stark. Does the minister understand what the baseline is? How many properties and how many local authorities are already meeting the standard? If we do not understand what the baseline is, how will we know whether progress has been made?

I hope that the First Minister will provide more financial support for Dundee. However, irrespective of whatever short-term support for institutions might be available, I ask him to look again at the substance of Jamie Greene’s question. There needs to be cross-party discussion about a long-term financial model. Right now, the student profile is changing, there are global pressures and there are also longer-term financial pressures. I plead with the First Minister to have cross-party discussion so that our universities can have a strong future.

I have received this letter from a resident in Edinburgh. It is from the Scottish Government, and it says:

“due to issues encountered during the procurement process, the completion and drafting of the refreshed SBA has encountered a delay, as the supplier selected has not been able to deliver as set out in our initial programme. Unfortunately this means that we require further advice to address the issues encountered and to progress with the SBA process.”

Will the minister set out how many properties are affected by that delay and when the issues will be resolved?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the implementation of its temporary accommodation standards framework, in light of reports that children are living in properties affected by mould, vermin and overcrowding. (S6O-04434)