Chamber and committees

We see the toll on people who are homeless or desperate for a new house. They live with it all day, every day, all night and all year round. They are drained, anxious and unwell. They are arguing in the family and they are desperate for a change. We members do not know what that is like, because we are living in a different world from the one that they are living in.

That needs to come home in the priorities of this Government, because the Government knows that it has made a mistake. It has made a mistake over a number of years, and that is why it is changing its policy now. We might debate whether the policy changes are right, but the fact that the Government is changing policy now is an indication that it had got it wrong. In many local authorities, including the housing minister’s, there is a stark housing emergency. It is stark across the country, and, as we have talked about, 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation, so their lives are in limbo.

When it was clear that a housing crisis was coming, what was most depressing was that the Government cut the affordable housing supply programme by a large degree. The Government says that it was somebody else’s fault, but its budget decisions led to that situation and made the emergency even worse.

To give the Government credit, I think that it is taking steps in the right direction. The changes to the planning system that were announced yesterday were an improvement, because they will remove the infrastructure levy, increase the capacity and expertise in planning departments, and create a best practice hub in the centre. Those measures might lead to some pragmatic improvements. I still have concerns about access to land supply in areas that are viable, however, and I hope that the minister will look at that issue.

The changes that were announced yesterday were a step in the right direction. I remain sceptical about rent control as a whole, but the previous week’s rent control decisions on CPI plus 1 per cent and, crucially, excluding mid-market rent and build to rent were a good signal to investors that they should look to invest in the sector. It is about restoring confidence in the industry, because its confidence was at rock bottom.

I attended the Homes for Scotland conference just a few weeks ago, and the house builders were desperate to build new homes. We cannot do it without those people. We might not like them, but we cannot do it without them, because they build houses. We are not going to do it all through the Government, councils or housing associations; we need the builders to make it work. Therefore, we need to build confidence in those people, and the steps that the Government has taken are a move in the right direction.

I urge the minister to consider the language around energy performance, which we have discussed previously. Specifically, the use of the term “Passivhaus” strikes fear into the hearts of some people, who believe that a specific standard is being required when, in fact, we should be aiming for a high energy efficiency standard overall. We need houses to be built at volume and quickly, to a really good standard, but specifying “Passivhaus” would be a mistake.

It has been specified as “Passivhaus”. It is in the language, so we need to have clarity about exactly what the Government means. We should be aiming for a high efficiency standard rather than a specific technique or specification.

Do we redraft the bill? Do we start again? We have the amendment process coming, and we will support the Conservative motion and the Labour amendment today. I believe that we should be getting the Government to go further than it has gone just now, to make sure that we end the housing emergency, because I have had enough of it.

I support putting the guidance on a statutory footing, but is this whole debate not the result of a failure of the rest of the system? The fact that we are focused on the last resort means that the other resorts are not effective. We have significant problems with behaviour and violence in schools causing distress, and there is a failure to support those with additional support needs. Should we not be redoubling our focus on resolving those issues, so that we can reduce the use of restraint to the greatest possible extent?

The minister knows that change is essential, following the housing conference that he and I spoke at recently. It seems sensible to progress a more pragmatic way of making the current policy work more effectively, but I am concerned about the availability of usable development land, which is clearly a problem in certain parts of the country. Is the minister prepared to look again at the policy to ensure that sufficient land is available?

Of course, we in the Liberal Democrats recommit ourselves to the Promise, which is why we will support the Government’s motion this afternoon. However, we will also support the two amendments. We are particularly drawn to Roz McCall’s amendment, which details some of the challenges that we face.

There is no doubt that progress has been made. Who Cares? Scotland tells us that the situation is “encouraging”, particularly with regard to

“the rights of brothers and sisters, work to re-shape the youth justice system and ... challenging stigma.”

However, there is a disconnect. When I, along with others, met care-experienced young people earlier this year, they were seething at the slow pace of change—indeed, I was quite taken aback at the degree of frustration that they felt. They left me in no doubt that they were losing faith in the Promise.

It is the responsibility of those of us in this Parliament to raise the issues that are being raised today. Doing so is not an attack on the Promise or the system; it is about providing robust scrutiny and challenge to make the change, so that those young people do not still feel frustrated the next time that we meet them.

Children First says:

“we are still a long way from Keeping the Promise.”

In fact, it believes that the wider problems have become so severe that it has declared a childhood emergency. Last year, the Promise oversight board said that it did

“not believe that delivering the original aims of Plan 21-24 is realistic”

by the end of the plan period. Kezia Dugdale, a former member of the Scottish Parliament and a member of the board, said, in a personal capacity:

“the experience of too many children and families is of a fractured, bureaucratic, unfeeling care system that operates only in a crisis.”

That is certainly my anecdotal experience from my casework in my constituency. We see evidence of constantly changing social workers and a system that does not respond to pleas for help and responds only in a crisis. That pattern is repeated on numerous occasions.

Who Cares? Scotland, which brought those care-experienced people to the Parliament, has produced an excellent and grounded piece of evidence on the lack of progress on “Plan 21-24”. As we have heard already, there should be a presumption of brothers and sisters staying together, but the report showed that one in four siblings are still separated. That is an improvement on the three out of four who were separated at the start of this process in 2017, but seven councils did not know how many were separated. How could they not know? We are talking about one of their main responsibilities, and they admitted that they did not know.

The Promise made a commitment to end school exclusions for care-experienced children. However, 23 local authorities said that they continued to formally and informally exclude care-experienced pupils. One has ended the practice, and three will do so soon, but five did not even answer the question, which was asked by the main organisation that lobbies on behalf of care-experienced young people.

Restraint is supposed to end, but there is concern from Who Cares? Scotland that there is an attempt to redefine restraint as “safe holding”. Daniel Johnson’s proposed bill on restraint could clarify that area. In fact, clarification is important, especially as, alarmingly, three councils did not know how many incidents of restraint there had been and nine did not even respond. There was also a lack of knowledge of practice in non-council facilities.

Out of the 29 local authorities that responded to Who Cares? Scotland, 13 said that they did not currently provide independent advocacy services for care-experienced people at all stages of their lives, services that they are supposed to provide. Moreover, on kinship and foster carers and their being paid at the same rate, 10 councils confirmed that they paid the same, while two responded that they did not.

From the 28 local authorities that responded, 75 to 108 children and young people have experienced a breakdown of their adoption since the publication of “The Promise”. However, two councils did not even record that those breakdowns were happening. How can we understand how the system works if we do not record the data necessary to scrutinise it?

Trauma-informed training is very important; nine councils provide it, but 11 councils do not know whether they do. There is a commitment to valuing staff, but, as we heard from Roz McCall, absence rates in one particular council were going up at a shocking rate—from 65 to 78 to 83 per cent. That was just one council, but I know from my local authority in Fife that there are significant problems, and it is a sure sign of a system under considerable strain. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, we found that that was certainly the case. I also note that, of the 32 local authorities, 10 did not provide any trauma-informed training to corporate parents, pupils or families.

A thematic review from the Care Inspectorate published yesterday found that, although

“the rights of care experienced young people are being upheld as they move on from being in care ... The experience of moving on from care, envisaged by the Scottish Care Leavers Covenant ... has yet to be achieved for all young people. Variable approaches to keeping in touch also means that not all ... have equity of access to all the necessary information during the stages of transition.”

The Care Inspectorate also found that

“Access to suitable housing was the most significant challenge”.

Indeed, we know that those who have had care experience have a particular problem with accessing housing.

Children First says:

“too many are ... struggling to find help when they need it.”

The whole family wellbeing fund was slow to get off the ground and be spent. We need it to be more transparent, and we need to get it out the door, so that we can invest in families and make sure that they stay together.

There is much more that I could say, but I hope that the minister understands that scrutiny is essential if we are to deliver the Promise by the end of the period.

It is bewildering that the cabinet secretary tells us that it is about flow through the hospital, including social care, when we have £13 million-worth of social care cuts in Fife, which were agreed to by NHS Fife. That is having a direct impact on social care packages and respite, and it has a direct impact on discharge from hospital. Why on earth is he telling us that it is about the flow through the hospital when he is imposing such cuts?

It is not especially clear, but it looks as though the Government is moving to exclude mid-market rents from the rent controls. I see that the minister is nodding in agreement that that is the intention. That would make sense, because it would secure extra investment in the sector while treating mid-market rents on the same basis as social housing. For clarity, is that what the minister is planning? If so, by when will that be done?

The First Minister will understand the deep anxieties that are felt by Professor Eljamel’s ex-patients, especially as some of his constituents are in that position. There is deep anxiety among them about the circumstances with the police asking for help from Craig White. Will the First Minister explore what can possibly be done to restore the confidence of those ex-patients in the process and to ensure that they see that the process is above board?

The Scottish Government is working on a misunderstanding. The education secretary seems to think that local authorities, including SNP-run Glasgow City Council, are hellbent on destroying Scottish education. Why on earth does she think that? If the Westminster Government were treating the Scottish Government as she is treating local authorities, there would be an outcry.

Where is the Verity house agreement? Where is the historic concordat where local authorities are supposed to be working in partnership with central Government, when we are now regularly issuing threats because, somehow, local authorities cannot be trusted with our education system?

The cabinet secretary has really destroyed the relationship with local authorities and schools. The people who are paying the price are teachers, because there is complete incoherence in the Scottish Government’s position. There are promises about, and difficulties in, recruiting 3,500 extra teachers, partly to cut teacher contact time by 90 minutes and—it has been in the commentary—about making sure that there are more permanent places and cutting temporary contracts. However, none of that has been done.

I understand the cabinet secretary’s problem, but to think that local authorities are the problem in the relationship, rather than the funding that she is providing to local authorities, is a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Ross Greer is bang on about that point; he highlighted the fact that the money does not have the same value as it used to have. Inflation and pay deals have gone through the roof, which has affected the money in a way that John Swinney said in May was an issue. Indeed, he said that we

“live in the real world”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2024; c 13.]

The education secretary is not living in the real world, and she is expecting local authorities to live not in the real world but in her world, where she is able to regularly issue threats about funding. Her position is illogical.

There is also a problem with what is happening to the pipeline of teachers. We know that there has not been the recruitment of an extra 3,500 teachers, yet the pipeline continues from initial teacher education. Teachers are coming into the primary education world in particular thinking that there will be a job for them, but the Scottish Government has not provided the funding that is necessary for them to be employed.

The education secretary is not living in the real world, but these teachers are expected to live in the real world without a job or an opportunity or without a permanent contract for years on end. I think that the education secretary knows that I am right about this; she knows that she has an incoherent position, where she is expecting local authorities to live within an incredibly tight financial budget but deliver the promises that were made in her party’s manifesto back in 2021. She is incoherent and she needs to sort this out—otherwise schools, teachers and local authorities will continue to suffer.

I do not know what kind of crazy logic leads to the conclusion that cutting £145.5 million from local authority budgets will protect teacher numbers. Local authorities will have to respond to that if their funds are cut even further. How do they balance the books? The Scottish Government knows that local authorities are under tight financial constraints, so there will have to be a reaction.