Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- Edinburgh Waverley Station (Access Arrangements)
- Island Communities (Support)
- Decision Time
General Question Time
Homelessness
To ask the Scottish Government how it calculates the level of homelessness. (S5O-00385)
The Scottish Government collects homelessness data from local authorities. That data collection provides detailed information on homelessness applications by individual households. Information on the number of applications under the homeless persons legislation and the assessment decisions on those applications is published biannually, along with a range of other data, to help to calculate the level of homelessness in Scotland.
Officially, over 750 people slept rough on the streets of Glasgow last year. Local authorities have a statutory duty to house homeless people, but last winter Glasgow City Mission presented to Glasgow City Council 202 rough sleepers who were refused accommodation. Threatened with legal action, the council then found accommodation for 98 per cent of those individuals. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that local authorities meet, without having to be threatened with legal action, their statutory obligation to find accommodation for rough sleepers?
As Ivan McKee has pointed out, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide as a minimum temporary accommodation, advice and assistance to all applicants who are assessed as being homeless. Glasgow City Council has a duty to provide housing and homelessness services in its area; I know that the Scottish Housing Regulator has been working with the council to help to improve delivery of homelessness services in the city.
The Government is working to increase housing supply in Glasgow and across Scotland in order to improve the housing options that are available.
Figures for the number of households that are in temporary homeless accommodation show a 1 per cent increase between March 2015 and March 2016. The March 2016 figure shows that 10,555 households were in temporary accommodation, which represents an increase of almost 2,000 since 2007. I recognise that there will always be a need for temporary accommodation, but how does the minister intend to ensure that it is not used as a long-term solution for homelessness?
There has been a continuing fall in homelessness applications to 34,662 in 2015-16, which is down 1,287 on the previous year. That represents a decrease of 4 per cent. Of those applications, 28,226 households were assessed as being homeless or potentially homeless, which is down 1,589 on the previous year and represents a decrease of 5 per cent.
Our key action in Parliament is to increase housing supply. We intend to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, including 35,000 for social rent, during the current session of Parliament, which will help the situation greatly. As I have said, we have housing options hubs across Scotland, which are working to try to alleviate homelessness throughout the country. I hope that their success continues and that we continue to see decreases, as we have done in the past year.
Police Station Closures
To ask the Scottish Government, in the light of its review of the Police Scotland estate, what impact the potential closure of stations will have on public confidence in the police. (S5O-00386)
The Scottish crime and justice survey suggests that the majority of people feel that the police are doing a good or excellent job in their local area. The Police Scotland estate strategy, which the Scottish Police Authority approved on 24 June 2015, seeks to remodel the police estate to make it fit for the policing needs of the future.
The Scottish Police Authority has made it clear that local police commanders will play a leading role in deciding whether any changes to the police estate are compatible with maintaining an effective local police presence. Engagement will be undertaken by local policing teams to ensure that future decisions are built on local consultation of communities and partners.
In many cases, the approach that is being taken is to seek alternative shared accommodation with partners in the same locality. There are already a number of positive examples of that in locations including Livingston and Baillieston.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The cabinet secretary wishes to decentralise the power to cut police services but not the power to control police services. Shotts police office serves the communities of Shotts, Allanton, Harthill and Salsburgh. When the public counter in Shotts police station was closed in February 2014, a promise was made to the community that, for reasons of public safety, as long as the prison was there, the police office would be there. Will the cabinet secretary remove Shotts police station from the hit list?
Richard Leonard should engage with Police Scotland on that matter. If he does so, he will find that there has been no decision made on any of the police stations that have been mentioned at the present stage of the estates review. Local commanders will consult locally on the best approach.
Police Scotland is considering Shotts police office because the existing facility is too large, and it is currently looking for alternative accommodation in the Shotts area. It intends to continue to have a presence in Shotts, so if moving is not feasible it will try to draw other partners in to share the facility in Shotts itself. If Richard Leonard is keen to make sure that the views of the local community and local elected members are heard in the process, the way to do that is to engage with local commanders through their consultation exercise in order to allow local decisions to be made on the best approach to take.
It is also worth keeping it in mind that the purpose of the estates review is to make sure that the estate is effective and reflects demands on the police service. That is why, in the vast majority of cases, Police Scotland is looking to relocate to shared premises.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with Assistant Chief Constable Andy Cowie who told the Local Government and Communities Committee yesterday that services are delivered by people and not by buildings, that the public want to see officers on the streets and that, following the review,
“Service provision will be enhanced through investment in better located accommodation.”
I agree with ACC Cowie on that. He is leading the estates review for Police Scotland, which is very clear that the review is not about removing police officers from local communities, but is about making sure that a police estate that has evolved over a hundred years reflects the changing nature of the demands on the police service. For example, the vast majority of contact with the police is now through the 101 call system, which reflects the changing nature of people’s engagement with the police service. We need to make sure that we have a police estate that reflects that change while at the same time being able to support police officers in undertaking their roles effectively. As Andy Cowie highlighted, it is not about seeking to remove police officers from local communities; it is about making sure that we have an estate that is effective and reflects the needs of local communities. The decision-making process will be driven by local needs based on the views of local commanders once they have consulted local communities.
European Union Referendum (Impact on Local Government)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact leaving the European Union will have on local government. (S5O-00387)
Local government has the same ambitions as we have for stronger communities, a fairer society and a thriving economy. We will work in partnership with councils to respond to the implications of the EU referendum outcome. The Scottish Government is exploring all options to protect Scotland from a hard Brexit that economists say will cost 80,000 Scottish jobs. Our five key interests are democracy, economic prosperity, social protection, solidarity and influence.
European funding is important to local government: the 2007-13 programmes of the European regional development fund and European social fund awarded £158.3 million to Scotland’s local authorities, which was spent in the years 2007 to 2016.
I thank the minister for that answer. We know that the EU plays an integral part at all levels of government in helping to deliver important projects. Will the minister provide an update on the position with regard to payment of EU structural funds once the UK leaves the EU.
Since the outcome of the referendum, we have urged the UK Government to provide clarity and certainty about those vital European funds. The UK Government guarantees that have been offered to date on European structural funds provide that all contracts that are entered into before the point at which the UK leaves the EU will be guaranteed, even when those payments continue beyond the EU exit point. However, the UK Government has provided absolutely no certainty or clarity on replacement funding arrangements for those schemes once the UK has left the EU.
On 2 November, my colleague Derek Mackay, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, announced that the Scottish Government will pass on in full to Scottish stakeholders the EU funding guarantees that the UK Government has offered. That will protect all spending commitments in schemes that are entered into from now until the point at which the UK leaves the EU. That provides certainty on more than £700 million of EU funding for Scotland.
Autumn Statement (Oil and Gas Sector)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the autumn statement on the oil and gas sector in Scotland. (S5O-00388)
I was bitterly disappointed to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided no substantive measures to support the oil and gas sector—a sentiment that I am sure is shared by the hundreds of thousands of people who are supported by the industry, in particular those in the north-east of Scotland who have been hardest hit during the downturn.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution wrote to the chancellor outlining urgent measures that should be considered for inclusion in the autumn statement. Those proposals focused on increasing activity in late-life assets, protecting critical pieces of infrastructure and increasing exploration. Without greater investment and activity, we risk losing vital capacity and skills that will support production and ensure that we maximise economic recovery from the North Sea. The Scottish Government will continue to do everything within its powers to support the industry and its workforce through these challenging times.
Oil & Gas UK has made specific requests to the UK Government for measures to allow the industry to continue with exploration in these difficult times. What impact could the lack of action in facilitating that exploration have on the future supply of oil and gas and the industry as a whole?
One of the major impacts will be that fewer people will be supporting the infrastructure that is already there, which brings into question the viability of that infrastructure. We may have a situation in which fields are left redundant before the point at which they should be. That is a vitally important consideration. On that particular issue, some months ago I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who assured me that, back in June, the UK Government realised that it had not acted quickly enough on the matter and would now do so. However, we have had no action whatsoever in relation to loan guarantees for those vital pieces of infrastructure.
Above that, the UK Government holds the tools for tax and tax concessions in relation to exploration. The UK Government had a chance yesterday to pay back an industry that has put billions into the UK Treasury and which—according to the Treasury’s own forecast—will put more billions back in, and yet it did nothing. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, will continue to support the oil and gas industry wherever we can.
I share the cabinet secretary’s disappointment at yesterday’s autumn statement. The oil and gas industry is hugely important to the north-east and to the economy of Scotland as a whole.
Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree with Labour’s proposals for a UK offshore investment limited to look at the assets to be supported with public investment? Will he make common cause with us in taking on the UK Government to try to have that proposal agreed?
The Scottish Government has provided a vast range of support measures, such as the transition training fund; the money that we announced this week as part of the Aberdeen city deal for the oil and gas technology centre; and the energy jobs task force. If there were to be further investment—we have asked for that investment to take the form of tax concessions in relation to exploration—the UK Government has the tools to do that. Were it to show any willingness, we would of course look at what we could do in order to support that. However, it is quite evident from the way that things are just now that we are not seeing that support from the UK Government. We will continue to support the industry in the ways that I have described and to look at other ways in which we can provide support.
Given the cabinet secretary’s points about the importance of the UK Government changing its position from the one that it announced yesterday in the autumn statement, will he seek an early meeting with either the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the relevant UK Government minister to press the points on action that many of us on all sides of the chamber want to see in relation to decommissioning and the late-life asset transfer that is so important for the future of the industry?
Yes. We will seek a meeting of that type for me or the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution that will centre on those points. Tavish Scott has raised previously the issue of having the right tax regime to encourage exploration and the full exploitation of remaining fields. Those are the main asks, but the one that we have asked for before, which the UK Government admitted that it had not taken action on sufficiently quickly, is about the industry’s ask for loan guarantees for infrastructure. That will form the centrepiece of what we ask for. We will continue that dialogue and I am happy that we will have the support of the Liberal Democrats in doing so.
Private Car Parks (Regulation)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met industry and consumer stakeholders to discuss the regulation of private car parks. (S5O-00389)
I most recently met citizens advice bureaux to discuss private parking practices last month. Transport Scotland met representatives of the parking industry, Citizens Advice Scotland and Trading Standards Scotland on 31 August to discuss how we can deliver improvements to private parking practices across Scotland. A further meeting with the industry and consumer stakeholders is scheduled to take place next week.
On Monday, I was contacted by a 90-year-old lady from Comrie who had been hit with a £100 penalty notice from the inappropriately named company Smart Parking. When she parked in the Kinnoull Street car park in Perth, she keyed her number plate into the ticket machine but inadvertently entered a capital O instead of a zero—and she got a £100 fine. Such a case is all too typical of the hundreds of live constituency cases that I have regarding this one car park. Does the minister agree that such actions by the company are an utter disgrace and, given that he has the powers to act on the matter because it is devolved and under the competence of the Scottish Parliament, will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can work together to try to clean up practices in this industry?
Of course I will agree to meet the member. I have written to him on the issue and we have had an exchange of parliamentary questions on it. He probably knows the process, but I reiterate that a working group is looking at the matter. He knows that there are some complexities, depending on which route we choose to take—whether it is keeper liability, charters or education—and that the working group is examining those issues. We are also keen to hear the United Kingdom Government’s approach to the matter, so a meeting is taking place today between my officials and UK Government officials.
Once next week’s meeting with the industry and consumer stakeholders has taken place, I will ensure that the member is informed about it by Transport Scotland officials and informed by me on the back of that. However, I am happy to take on the issue, which I know has affected the member’s constituents on many occasions.
Welfare Reform (United Nations Report)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the recent United Nations report on the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people in the United Kingdom. (S5O-00390)
The UN report, which was published at the beginning of November, concludes that there is reliable evidence that the UK Government’s treatment of disabled people has led to “grave or systematic violations” of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The evidence that that rests on is drawn from a variety of policies that the UK Government has pursued, including abolishing the independent living fund, the introduction of the bedroom tax, the work capability assessment and changes to the personal independence payment.
The Scottish Government has been consistent in its opposition to those policies and we agree with the UN’s conclusions and are pleased that the UN report acknowledged the very different approach that we are taking. However, and perhaps more important, I am pleased that the UN in its conclusions gives disabled people the recognition that they deserve for the considerable suffering that they have endured for many years. It is indeed a great pity that the UK Government continues to refuse to see and hear the real damage that it is doing to our fellow citizens.
As the minister stated, the UN report states that there is evidence that the UK Government welfare reforms have led to “grave or systematic violations” of the rights of persons with disabilities. Which violation of the UN code does the minister think is worse: imposing the bedroom tax on poor people or taking away the independent living fund for disabled people?
I think that the member knows that I cannot possibly choose between two such appalling policies that have negatively impacted on so many disabled people. Last night, I had the privilege of attending the Disability Agenda Scotland reception, hosted by my colleague Neil Bibby, on the report “Equal? Still not, why not?” That organisation has pointed out, as we found in our social security consultation, the severe mental distress that is caused to individuals and the real damage that is done to them as a result of the UK Government’s policies and how it is pursuing them. In addition to the policies that Ms McKelvie mentioned, I am particularly disappointed by the UK Government’s continued refusal to step back from its cuts to employment support allowance, given that it trumpets so loudly to us about the benefit of helping people into work. That is a real disappointment and I hope that the UK Government will reconsider that policy.
Before we come to First Minister’s questions, members may wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Mr Torbjörn Sohlström, ambassador of Sweden to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]