Chamber and committees

Not everyone at school wants to pursue an academic route, and many would thrive in vocational or technical education. Despite discussing that issue for decades, however, we have never really cracked it. I believe that the way that we measure success in schools is part of the reason for that, and I think that we should change the Insight programme. Can the minister set out what he is planning to do, so that we can finally crack the issue and get vocational education to the level that it deserves to be at?

Staff in private and voluntary nurseries receive a far lower wage than equivalent workers in council nurseries, even though they do exactly the same job. I supported a former First Minister when he promised to close that funding gap. Why is that not in the budget?

I thank everyone who has been involved with the bill, particularly the bill team. Members of that team have an extraordinary and encyclopaedic knowledge—and what some people might call an unhealthy understanding—of the welfare and social security system. However, I am grateful for that encyclopaedic knowledge. I thank the committee, the ministers and all the spokespeople for their engagement as I have tried to keep pace with the bill’s various aspects.

We are debating this bill because of the Smith powers, which were agreed after the independence referendum in 2014, at which point we were determined to see a sizeable welfare system devolved to the Scottish Parliament—the non-universal credit items, as I described the system at the time. However, the system has evolved quite significantly since then, broadly with a degree of consensus that has been helpful. We were determined that there would be a degree of consensus such as the founders of the national health service sought to achieve after the war. When setting up a new institution, we want as broad a consensus as possible across the political parties, so that the institution endures over a period of time.

Nevertheless, there have been some challenges, including with regard to waiting times, as the minister knows. I understand the explanation that there is a more sympathetic, understanding and participative approach to collecting information and data, so that applications can be processed in the least stressful way possible. Nevertheless, there is an impact on individuals’ finances if they do not get their money or if they do not get it quickly and on time. Therefore, I hope that there will be a relentless pursuit of driving down waiting times as the legislative process continues.

The new benefits are welcome, particularly for those who have been incredibly frustrated at the pace of progress towards keeping the promise. There is anger among people whose expectations were incredibly high that the Government would keep the promise at pace. That simply has not happened. Therefore, I am pleased to see that these two potential new benefits are now possible, and I hope that they advance as quickly as possible with the participation of those who could be in receipt of them. The tidying-up measures are helpful and should be taken regularly to ensure that the system is as efficient as possible.

On the winter fuel payment, there is a wish for the Labour Government to amend its proposals for the United Kingdom, so that the measures that will be taken here, which were debated last week and this week, will become unnecessary. I still appeal to the Labour Government to do that, but it is sensible for the Scottish Government to implement some kind of measures, particularly because of the colder climate north of the border. I am pleased that that is happening.

As for Jeremy Balfour’s plea for a debate about universalism, I recall when Johann Lamont triggered that debate and it was met with howls of derision from some in the chamber. It is important to have that debate, but it is not just a case of whether provision is universal. There are other measures to determine whether it would be appropriate to have universalism, including in relation to the efficiency of the system. Is it worth trying to means test any system? There is also the matter of impact, as it is incredibly important to consider climate issues, too. I hope that we will continue to have that debate as we progress.

We will support the bill at stage 3 this evening.

Liberal Democrats have opposed the cuts to the winter fuel payment, so we welcome the statement and the change in direction as a step in the right direction, especially given Scotland’s colder climate.

Opposition members are often challenged by Government ministers about where the money should come from for particular policies. That is a fair question to ask. For the sake of clarity, will the cabinet secretary say where the money came from to properly fund this policy?

No, I have only four minutes.

The situation is replicated in the private sector, despite the fact that demand for MMR is consistently high, far outstripping supply. We need greater clarity on the scope and nature of the suggested exemptions for MMR and the build-to-rent sector.

We are sceptical about rent controls as a whole, but the Government’s plan to limit rent increases to the consumer prices index plus 1 per cent might be sufficient to give investors the confidence that they need. It would stop large rent rises, while allowing for modest increases to ensure that repairs and upgrades are done. However, we want to look at controls in between tenancies and the impact that that might have on essential investments and upgrades that often take place when there is a change in tenancy. It is all about ensuring that we stand for tenants, improve the supply of available properties for tenancies, and ensure that there is good quality accommodation.

I support the other measures in the bill on homelessness and domestic abuse.

I have great sympathy with the case studies that Maggie Chapman has highlighted, but the truth is that the most effective way to bring down rents is to increase supply to match demand—and there is growing demand, in our cities in particular. That is what is driving up rents, and the failure to increase supply has resulted in crisis.

I hope that the bill marks a turning point in the approach of the Government. For too long, the message was that private companies and landlords in the housing sector were the problem, rather than a partner. The cold, hard reality has now struck: the evidence is clear that investors are just walking away. The Chartered Institute of Housing tells us there is a growing body of evidence that private landlords are leaving the market. Some 72 per cent of local authorities responding to the CIH’s PRS research stated that the sector was shrinking in their area, and 52 per cent were concerned about increasing homeless presentations from the private rented sector. That is a clear example of the Government’s policy damaging the very people that it was aiming to protect. That is why we need to listen to the evidence provided by companies such as Rettie & Co, which said last year that £3.2 billion of potential investment was “at risk”, and the regulatory uncertainty has reduced the appetite to invest in Scotland. All that is in the middle of a housing emergency, which is the last time that we need that kind of hesitancy.

People who are desperate for a home will not forgive us or thank us if we fail to create the right conditions to build more homes of good quality more quickly. There is no way that housing associations, councils and Government can tackle the housing emergency on their own. We need a longer-term strategy, with partnership at the heart of it.

The minister hinted in a previous statement that he is looking to exclude mid-market rents and build to rent. I welcome that, as it is a step in the right direction. However, he needs to be clearer, and that needs to be specified in the bill. We cannot wait for yet another consultation. We need to have that in primary legislation, rather than in regulation, so that the investors that I was talking about know that there is longer-term certainty.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations reports that, if MMR were to fall under the PRS rent controls, that would make developing new homes unviable, due to the structure of funding and the need for lengthy business plans. It says that there has already been a significant slowdown in the development of MMR homes, with the starts of new homes in the category of “other affordable rent homes” at their lowest level for 10 years. I remind everyone that that is in the middle of a housing emergency.

The disability groups have heard all that previously and are not impressed. In fact, they were raging at the meeting that I was at—indeed, they were so angry with the minister’s and the Government’s actions that they swore. The Scottish National Party MSPs who groaned away when the question was raised should have been at that meeting, because they would have understood how angry those groups are. What new thing will the minister bring today to repair the relationship with that sector? Unless she brings something new, those groups will not believe her ever again.

At the heart of it, we need to ensure that we drive investment back into the sector so that we can deal with the housing emergency.

The minister has said clearly that the £620 million allocation in the UK budget is inadequate, so I assume that that means that the Scottish Government is committed to spending every penny of that agricultural funding allocation on agriculture every year.

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the impact on agriculture in Scotland, what its response is to the removal of ring-fenced agricultural support funding for devolved nations by the United Kingdom Government. (S6O-04005)