Chamber and committees

I look forward to lodging amendments to link rent controls to a tenancy, because there are huge issues around the investment in and upgrades to out-of-date housing stock that we need to see. There are net zero ambitions that we want to reach and I cannot for the life of me see how linking rent increases to the tenancy will ever see that investment realised. I hope that that is something that we can address.

The bill is fairly substantive, but members have only five, six or seven minutes to speak about it, so we will not be able to get into the weeds of a lot of the details that we need to discuss today. However, as I said, if we are to support the bill at stage 3, significant amendments need to be lodged to ensure that the bill ends the housing emergency and does not just manage the system.

One thing that I find confusing is that this is a housing bill that does not build one single house. It appears to have confused the First Minister today, too. In response to Meghan Gallacher at First Minister’s question time, he said that the Government is trying to take steps to improve the availability of rented accommodation and that that will be part of the housing bill that Parliament is considering this afternoon. However, there is clearly a disconnect in Government, because the bill does nothing to increase the supply of housing. I absolutely agree with the First Minister that it should—

I am sorry, Mr Mason, but I do not have time.

In contrast, my colleagues in the UK Government have instigated a step change in housing policy since the election in July.

You talked about being concerned about some of the long waiting times for complaints to be considered and the potential impact that waiting has on reducing the trust and satisfaction of members of the public. Are you aware of any research looking at how the ombudsman’s performance and the time taken to look at complaints impact on public trust in the complaints system as a whole?

I want to come back to the point that Fiona Collie flagged, as did Adam Stachura in Age Scotland’s submission, about the barriers to accessing public services that are experienced by groups such as black and minority ethnic carers, young carers, people with sensory impairments and people whose first language is not English. I will come to Adam Stachura and Fiona Collie to talk about what those barriers are and what more can be done by the ombudsman to provide access to her services.

Previously, the ombudsman has spoken to the committee about a change in legislation to give the SPSO its own-initiative investigatory powers, which would allow it to investigate public services without a member of the public necessarily making a complaint first. It is similar to what happens in Wales and Northern Ireland. What are your views on that expansion of powers? Would that be a good thing, or would there be a risk that adding something else to the remit could lead to the ombudsman’s being spread too thinly?

Finally, you have said that performance indicators appear to be rather limited and narrow in scope and that there are few or no indicators for quality and customer satisfaction. What is your view on how the SPSO or any potential external reviewer would go about measuring and monitoring those areas? Do you have any recommendations for further performance indicators?

I will not ask them all in one go, you will be glad to know.

I want to ask about neutrality, or perceived neutrality. We have received some submissions from people who are frustrated because they perceive the relationships between the ombudsman and public bodies as being too close. Do you feel that the SPSO is adequately independent from the public bodies that it is assessing complaints about? Are you concerned that people appear to doubt the neutrality of the ombudsman?

To ask the Scottish Government what early discussion it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the detail of the financial settlement that it has received from the United Kingdom Government’s budget. (S6O-03987)

The key point for Scotland—this point was made by Ash Regan—is that, because there will likely be a disproportionate impact on the Scottish budget from increases in employer national insurance, given that Scotland has a larger proportion of public sector employment, there is a conversation to be had with the Treasury about the liabilities that the Scottish public sector might have. The UK Government has stated clearly that it is more than happy to take an active part in those discussions. I suggest that it is more important that the Scottish Government, instead of grandstanding in the chamber, takes the opportunities to negotiate and properly discuss—as it clearly wants to—the detail with the UK Government, to fulfil its commitment to mitigate the impact on public services in Scotland.

Christine Grahame: [Made a request to intervene.]

I have taken an intervention from an SNP member on the front bench.

Clearly, there are facts that need to be set straight. In the time that I have available, I will attempt to do so—without any further interventions, which seem to muddy a very clear picture that the UK Government has set out on the compensation for public services in Scotland to mitigate the change to national insurance.

The UK Government is giving Scotland a record financial deal. It could have a real, positive impact on public services in Scotland, but the SNP must get used to using money better. The billions of pounds in extra cash that are delivered cannot simply be used to cover up the cracks of this Government’s buy-now, pay-later policies.

Labour has delivered real change in the UK with a budget that asks those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share towards our NHS, our schools and our communities. Labour has opened the door to a better, fairer way of funding those services. Now, in Scotland, it is for the SNP Government to make sure that the choices that Rachel Reeves has made also deliver real change for Scotland, as opposed to complaining about how the money that it asked for has been raised and then spending it badly.