Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 17.
“16:27 Maggie Chapman: The cabinet secretary opened this afternoon’s debate with a message of solidarity with disabled people, recognising their worth as human beings, as members of our society and as people with intrinsic value, regardless of their ability to contribute to the economic machinery of our world. That is something with which I whole-heartedly concur. This afternoon, we have the opportunity to speak clearly as a Parliament against proposed reforms that will result in some people—our constituents—being pushed into, or further into, poverty or worse, because, as we have been told by many organisations that are concerned about the issue, those reforms, if implemented as suggested in the green paper, will kill people. I thank all the organisations that have been in touch in recent weeks about the proposed reforms.”
“The long- term impact, particularly in terms of the regional disparities that have occurred across Scotland, has not been monitored or supported. I am conscious of time, so I will just say that the SNP Government must address those criticisms so that it can enhance what is in place and make sure that the impact is positive. We must not only equip young people with the skills that they need to succeed but help to build a more inclusive and skilled workforce. As we move forward with the reforms, let us ensure that our policies respect the value of work, that they are fair and that they protect the most vulnerable—those who are unable to ever work— and let us work together to create a society in which everyone has the opportunity to thrive and in which nobody is left behind. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the closing speeches.”
“Both figures are unacceptable, but the current rate of economic inactivity is more than just a seedling—it is a growing tree of a future catastrophe that Scotland faces. I welcome initiatives such as developing the young workforce, which was the youth employment strategy that aimed to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent by providing tailored support, which target it achieved early. Support through activity agreements, vocational training, modern apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships has led to notable successes, but several aspects of those initiatives can and should be criticised. I look to the Scottish Government to work on those issues. A significant number of employers are unable to take part in employer engagement. The rate of participation has decreased and the quality of vocational education has gone down.”
“The green paper specifically seeks views and opinions on how employers can be assisted to follow the existing legal requirement to make reasonable changes so that disabled people can work, and on how that can be taken forward. Those are important questions that need to be asked to shape the position in the future. A number of members have pointed out that there is a massive challenge coming down the line with regard to those who are economically inactive. In Scotland, 84,000 young people are not in work, education or training. That must be a significant concern. Indeed, the figure now for 16 to 24-year-olds—at 37.6 per cent—is greater than it was in 2008-09, at the time of the economic crash, when it was 30.1 per cent.”
“That is a significant investment that will provide necessary resource to help individuals find and sustain good work. Programmes such as the work and health programme have already shown success in supporting people with disability and health conditions into employment. Well-paid, secure employment is the most sustainable route out of poverty. I commend the UK Labour Administration for its efforts to, for example, increase the national living wage. A full-time worker earning the national living wage will see their annual income rise by more than £1,000, which will provide much-needed financial relief. In addition, the Employment Rights Bill aims to improve workers’ rights by ensuring fair treatment and protection against unfair dismissal. That will benefit millions of workers across the country.”
“The “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper” addresses exactly what it contains in its title. It presents an opportunity to reshape the social security system in a way that supports and encourages people into good work, while reducing the bureaucracy that is faced by those who are already in receipt of social security. It is important to recognise, as others have done, that many of the areas that are addressed in the green paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, will not be affected by the proposed changes. However, the proposals in the green paper aim to create a more supportive environment for all, regardless of the application of devolved powers. I welcome the £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK.”
“People’s lives in Scotland are complex and complicated, and the debate is a missed opportunity to discuss the interactions between waiting on a health waiting list or being unable to get a GP appointment and the challenge that is felt by a young person who is becoming disengaged from school and sees no future in the usual map into adulthood that others follow. The opportunity to discuss transport questions has also been missed. It gives me great pleasure to hear so many MSPs raise local issues in the debate, given the challenges that are faced by people I represent in East Lothian with regard to the number 26 bus service and the fact that a village that has a growing population has lost access to public transport for people to get to work. All those issues sit in a framework of the challenges that people face.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this interesting debate. Before I get into the motion and the amendments, it is important to frame the debate correctly. We are sitting in this devolved Parliament discussing a reserved matter, and we are talking about a consultation paper that is exactly that—a consultation paper that seeks the contribution of the public and other groups in order to seek answers and support the development of the UK Government’s policy. As a number of members have said, this debate is a missed opportunity to discuss a profound issue, which is the reform of social security and how that sits in a jigsaw that the Scottish Government and this Parliament have full responsibility for, including health, education and transport, to mention just three areas that have been discussed.”
“The EHRC is not just another body—that is why it is important that the Supreme Court referred to the fact that the Scottish Government had followed EHRC guidance, and that was the basis on which our case was taken forward.”
“I go back to the cabinet secretary’s response to my colleague Paul O’Kane. In her statement, the cabinet secretary talked about the Scottish Government successfully defending its guidance twice. That seems to have arisen because the Scottish Government followed the EHRC’s advice. Does the cabinet secretary have any concerns about the quality of advice that the Scottish Government is receiving when it is just taking into account another body’s legal advice, and will she look at that? Shirley-Anne Somerville: With the greatest respect to Martin Whitfield, I say that the EHRC is not just another body—it is the arbiter and regulator of issues to do with equality. To be quite frank, I would be astonished if the Scottish Government did something that was not reliant on EHRC guidance.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the reported rising childcare costs on families, particularly those on low and middle incomes, in light of recent research by the Coram Family and Childcare charity. (S6O- 04533)”
“Therefore, while we discuss the impact of the UK Government’s spring statement and the money and investment that it represents, the challenge for the Government here is to consider its impact and what it chooses to do with its resources.”
“Martin Whitfield: I do not have time. In the survey, 48 per cent said that affordable housing is the most important issue for their future. To close, I will pick up one other element from the “Truth About Youth” survey. In that survey, 40 per cent of the young people who responded said that they thought that their childhood was worse than it would have been when their parents were growing up. Only 24 per cent said that they felt that it was better. That is a damning indictment of a Government that has been in power for all or most of the lives of the young people who responded. It is this Scottish Government that is responsible for that, not another Government.”
“Completions are down 7 per cent, new starts are down 9 per cent and the approval of affordable homes is down a staggering 48 per cent from its peak in 2018. I raise that issue because, in the East Lothian constituency, which is part of the South Scotland region, 80 out of every 100,000 people are still living in temporary accommodation, while the Scottish average is 59. There is a housing emergency in Scotland, and the Scottish Government has admitted that. However, the SNP is doing nothing; in fact, last year, it cut the affordable housing budget by 22 per cent. The “Truth About Youth” survey for 2025, which was published today, reached out to young Scottish people and asked them what their number 1 issue was. Their number 1 issue is affordable housing, with 51 per cent bothered by the issue. Shona Robison: Will the member give way?”
“The UK Labour Government is taking bold steps to grow the economy, not least by introducing the most ambitious set of planning reforms in decades to get Britain building, with a target of 1.5 million new homes in England over the next five years. What is the conclusion of the OBR? It says that there will be a real GDP increase of 0.2 per cent by 2029-2030 and 0.4 per cent within the next 10 years. That will add £15.1 billion to our economy and is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecasts. That significant action by the UK Labour Government to build more homes, to tackle homelessness and to grow our economy is endorsed by the independent OBR. That is the difference that a UK Labour Government can make. What about house building in Scotland?”
“The OBR can see that the decisions that this UK Government is taking will lead to economic growth. The increase of £2.2 billion on defence spending in 2025-26 will mean more jobs and more investment right here, in Scotland. In 2023- 24, the Ministry of Defence spent more than £2 billion in Scotland, supporting 25,600 jobs. Current UK defence investment represents a huge boost for Scottish shipbuilding, with the £4.2 billion contract to build five type 26 frigates on the Clyde supporting 1,700 jobs directly and 2,300 jobs in the supply chain. While the SNP sends shipbuilding jobs abroad, the UK Labour Government is investing in people and industry here, in the UK and in Scotland. That is the difference that a UK Labour Government can make for our economy and for our national security. I want to touch on house building.”
“Why not change those rules instead of punishing disabled people? Martin Whitfield: I point to what happened less than 24 months ago, when we saw a Prime Minister suddenly decide to change their fiscal rules and throw them out of the window. We saw a sudden drop in confidence in the United Kingdom among markets around the world and investors in this country. To risk such economic instability at this time is an utterly reckless proposition. While we are in the midst of these global challenges, the UK Government is taking long- term decisions to grow our economy. As we have heard, the OBR recognised that last week, and it is upgrading its growth forecast for next year and, indeed, for every year thereafter, with a cumulative growth forecast that is now higher than was expected at the time of the budget.”
“The UK Government is working hard to secure a deal with the US, but, in the meantime, there is no doubt that the volatility in the global markets will impact our economy. The chancellor is grappling with these changed and uncertain circumstances, and, in this increasingly unstable and unpredictable world, increasing defence spending was the right choice for our national security. Anyone who argues against that fails to understand the genuine severity of the global moment. Kevin Stewart: Will the member give way? Martin Whitfield: If it is short, Mr Stewart. Kevin Stewart: I agree with Mr Whitfield. Nobody can argue that the world has not changed, but why can the Chancellor of the Exchequer not change her fiscal rules in the light of the changes that have been taking place across the globe?”
“It is a pleasure, as always, to follow Liz Smith and to respond to the challenge that she has put to members today. Perhaps a debate in a more traditional format might assist us in understanding that better. The UK chancellor is absolutely right to point to the global challenges that all the major economies are facing. The world has changed. To dismiss that is to deny the reality that we are seeing with the conflict in the middle east, the war in Ukraine, volatile energy prices and despots and dictators seeking to disrupt and divide. Just today, we see markets and economies the world over holding their breath as they wait for President Trump’s announcement at 9 o’clock—our time—this evening. Kevin Stewart: Will Mr Whitfield give way? Martin Whitfield: If Kevin Stewart does not mind, I would like to get started first.”
“Any strategy that would prevent stage 2 from even starting or that would formally prevent members from lodging amendments to try to improve the bill because of the need for the sort of resolution that—with the exception of what happened at decision time last night—normally passes with unanimity across the chamber, is a disappointing strategy for a Scottish Government that represents Scotland. 17:07”
“I wish that I did not have to do this, but I will spend the final part of my speech taking up Ross Greer’s comment about brinkmanship. Nothing further can happen with this bill without a financial resolution. Under rule 9.12 of standing orders, the only entity that can bring that financial resolution is the Scottish Government, which has, for the past eight months, talked about reaching out, seeking consensus and working with other parties and whose First Minister has stood up on a significant number of occasions—which I have welcomed— and said that this is a Parliament where the Scottish Government no longer has a majority.”
“However, all who have had the benefit of experiencing residential outdoor education think back to that moment when the teacher looked like an idiot because they could not do something, or to the moment when they were able to do something that no one else in the class could do. People remember when they celebrated eating a deeply overbaked and burnt bit of sugar as they sat round a fire, watching the sparkles going up into the evening and doing something that the curriculum for excellence asks our youngest children to do, which is to look up to the sky in amazement and perhaps, for the first time, to see stars without light pollution. Those are the experiences that live with young people for the whole of their lives, and the stories that we have heard today from members show that some of them stick very hard.”
“Willie Rennie talked about the lack of evidence that progress has been made on outdoor education. In his closing speech, Ross Greer highlighted—albeit that it was not a deliberate attempt on his part—the need for a mix of outdoor education and the residential outdoor education that we are talking about today. That is important. I very much welcomed some important and significant contributions to the debate but will selfishly pick on the one by my colleague Carol Mochan, because of something that she said that resonated with me, as someone who should declare an interest as a former teacher. Residential outdoor education is frequently a key milestone in a child’s journey through school. They do not remember the maths lesson and rarely remember the poetry one, though they might sometimes remember a visitor or a trip to the pantomime.”
“Today, we have an opportunity to empower our schools and young people to take a different approach—an approach that suits them and allows them to show their true selves to their teachers, and which also allows the teachers, as observers, to make assessments of young people without having to be directly part of the learning process. Such observation is invaluable. I still whole-heartedly agree with the principles of the curriculum for excellence, and I will continue to drag support for it out of Oliver Mundell, but if the curriculum for excellence is to work—if it is to be based on experiences and to create better adults as a result of their journey through childhood—we need to remember that, as Bill Kidd said, residential outdoor education ticks a human rights box as well.”
“The curriculum for excellence is a national responsibility, and we have had interesting discussions about whether the costs of meeting a national responsibility, through the bill, can be met. If we were to turn round and say that the Government would not pay for the laptops, the desks or the chairs in schools, there would rightly be an outcry. The benefit of residential outdoor education has always been accepted by members across the Parliament. More importantly, its importance is understood across academia and the teaching profession, and, perhaps most importantly, it is understood by our young people themselves. Residential outdoor education allows for the fulfilment of an aspect of the curriculum for excellence that we greatly struggle to fulfil within the confines of the classroom.”
“As others have done, I extend my condolences and thoughts to Keith Brown and to the family and friends of Christina McKelvie. As the First Minister rightly said, she was “a force of nature”. It is a genuine pleasure to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. In Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill—I compliment her on introducing it—we see an opportunity to move education in Scotland forward. We see an opportunity to bring back to the centre of our education principles those principles on which the curriculum for excellence was founded. If nothing else, this debate has moved Oliver Mundell’s thinking on the curriculum for excellence, and I absolutely and whole- heartedly welcome that.”
“I have pointed out to ministers that quite a high percentage of pupil equity funding— which I have supported and believe to have been generous—is used by headteachers to fund a variety of residential experiences. I consider that that reflects the recognition by schools of the importance of residentials. I also flag up the Scottish Parliament information centre’s statistics on PEF, which show that, in 2020-21, there was an underspend of £43.4 million, with that money being carried over. In 2023-24, £30 million of pupil equity funding was reprofiled into the local government attainment grant and used for public sector pay increases, as was intimated to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. The minister might want to comment on that later.”
“There is also inequity of provision between the independent school sector, in which residential outdoor education is embedded in the curriculum, and too many state schools, in which, despite very willing intent among many teachers, there is very little provision. That is simply not fair, especially given that the John Muir award has been paused for some months. I turn to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s very helpful report and to the challenges that members want to have addressed. I will develop my ideas further in my closing speech. First, on funding and the need to find a commitment of £40 million, I am told that there is no money. Of course, that is a matter of priority within the Scottish Government’s spending commitments.”
“That’s because we see our pupils grow in such different ways and especially in confidence, resilience and independence and all of that helps so much when we get back to school.” Secondly, the current set-up is not delivering well enough when it comes to residential opportunities. Despite the moves that were made to improve matters when the Scottish Government’s vision for outdoor learning was produced in 2010, and the excellent job that has been done by some schools, significant gaps remain. There is considerable inequity across provision—most especially for pupils with special needs—and wide variation in resource provision across different local authorities.”
“Will Liz Smith articulate why the bill proposes opportunities—which are perhaps needed in Scotland even more than they are in other areas of the United Kingdom, given the curriculum for excellence and skills development—that are unavailable within the confines of a classroom? Liz Smith: Absolutely. Martin Whitfield has made a very good point. I will come to the curriculum for excellence a little later. It is about what not just young people but their teachers are saying, no matter the social background of their primary school pupils. Alex Stark, the headteacher of Tinto primary school, said: “We strongly believe that at least one residential experience should be the right of every child.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: For clarity, under the Scotland Excel contract, there are 78 beds, but not all of those are being used at the moment due to the issues with St Mary’s Kenmure. I have been very clear that St Mary’s is working to recruit staff and to restore its capacity—I hope that that will happen as soon as possible. The member provided a figure of 84 beds. The number of children who are going to secure care has decreased in the past number of years. I am nervous about overcapacity, but I appreciate that we have to have places for children who require to go to secure care. There is a fine balance between the provision that we need and overprovision.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. The minister indicated that 78 beds were available across Scotland—that is according to Scottish Government data that was published for 2022-23. However, the data that was published in February this year for 2023-24 confirms that the number of beds is actually 71. I wonder whether the minister could consider the position and clarify the record in writing. According to the public website, there are 67 beds and, as the minister indicated in her statement, there is one available bed. As she said, that is due to the situation at St Mary’s Kenmure. When the Edinburgh secure services provision closed in 2023, we had 84 beds. Is 84 beds too much provision? We have hit full capacity on whatever figure the minister would like to dictate is available.”
“One such additional pressure that has arisen is a £45 million ask as a result of Labour’s employer national insurance hike. I am happy to engage constructively but, collectively, we all have to recognise the pressures that are on the sector, wherever they have come from.”
“I take the minister back to Willie Rennie’s second question, which was about whether the funding model is broken. It is important for Scotland— including the university sector and others—to recognise whether the Government feels that we are in a position in which the model is broken and needs to be fixed. The minister talked about what, who and by when, and he mentioned the RSE conference at the end of May, but does the Scottish Government accept that the current model is broken? Graeme Dey: I do not accept that the current model is broken, but I accept that it is under severe pressure, largely because of circumstances that are outwith our control. I say very gently and with respect to Mr Whitfield that it is incumbent on us all not to add to the pressures that the sector is already facing.”
“In a previous response, I talked about the record levels of spending that are going from central Government to local government—there was £1 billion in the past financial year, which was supplemented by £29 million of investment. To go back to Mr McArthur’s point in relation to the Audit Scotland report, it is hugely important that the Government has granularity in the detail of the extra funding that we are protecting at national level and important that that is going to those who need it most at local level. Through the education assurance board, which I mentioned in my response to Evelyn Tweed, we will continue to have those discussions with”
“The Government rightly supports the presumption of mainstreaming. When we get education right for pupils with ASN, we get it right for the vast majority of pupils. When did the Government last specifically evaluate the additional cost of mainstreaming? Given the increase in the number of ASN-identified pupils, does current funding match that evaluation? Jenny Gilruth: That is quite a wide-ranging question. I am keen to come back to the member in relation to the increase in additional support needs in recent years. Some of that shift has been as a result of the Government broadening out definitions, which we think was a welcome move at the time. Undoubtedly, that has led to an increase. It has also been driven by more diagnosis, which is hugely important. The member talks about resourcing.”
“I wonder whether he recalls that, in 2012, when he was leader of East Lothian Council, he said: “We are proud of what we have achieved.” He continued: “But we recognise that we’re only as good as our last achievement.” I ask the minister, what was the last achievement relating to children in temporary accommodation that he is proud of? 16:42”
“On top of that, the oversight board for the Promise reminds us in its recent report that children of families in temporary accommodation are more likely to be taken into care. When we fail on housing, we fail on so much. The right to a home is fundamental to the Promise being kept. Scotland’s children deserve more than just words. They deserve a Government that takes action to address the crisis and ensures that every child has access to a safe, stable and supportive home environment. I welcome the fact that the minister will close the debate.”
“They should not have to suffer the trauma of inadequate housing that impacts on their health, education and wellbeing. The Scottish Government has a responsibility to uphold those rights. Its failure to do so is not just a policy failure but a failure to meet the moral and legal obligations to protect children here. The consequences of the breach of children’s rights are profound. Children suffer from sleep deprivation, poor nutrition, respiratory illness and mental health challenges. They fall behind in their education, struggle to maintain friendships and live in fear for their future. They are the effects of not only poor housing; they are the direct result of the failure to prioritise children’s rights in policy and in practice.”
“Article 27.1 states that parties—that is, Governments—recognise “the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.” The article makes it clear that, unequivocally, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, under the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, to ensure that those rights to adequate standards of living are upheld. I welcome the fact that, as Willie Rennie pointed out, in its amendment to the motion, the Scottish Government accepts its responsibility and, indeed, the breach of the UNCRC rights. Children have a right to live in safe, stable and secure environments. They have a right to attend school without fear of being displaced or living in unhealthy conditions.”
“Such conditions actively harm children’s physical and mental health, their development, their education and their life chances. It is not only a housing crisis, but a moral failure. We are a country that prides itself on our values of fairness and human rights, yet children here are growing up isolated from their peers, placed far from their schools and subjected to environments filled with fear and anxiety. Those are not just bad conditions; they violate the rights outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which this Parliament enshrined into law.”
“It is a pleasure to follow Graham Simpson in this very important debate. The voices of Scotland’s children need to be heard. The report “In Their Own Words: Children’s Experiences in Temporary Accommodation”, commissioned by Shelter Scotland—for which I thank Shelter—puts those words not just in front of the Parliament but in front of the people of Scotland. It reports that more than 10,000 children are living—or, rather, enduring life—in temporary accommodation. As we have just heard, they are forced to live for upwards of a year in such conditions, with mould-invested rooms, beds soaked with urine and space shared with vermin being just some of the harrowing conditions that have been reported. That is not just an issue of poor housing; it is a fundamental breach of human rights.”
“That is why I was very pleased to lodge an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that, in a way that is similar to Awaab’s law in England— we have been working with the Government in England on this—will require social landlords to investigate and address issues in a timely manner, especially when tenants’ health is affected. We are committed to implementing a similar provision to Awaab’s law for private tenants after engagement with the private rented sector.”
“I note that the UNCRC also requires that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. On Awaab’s law, the tragic death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale in 2020 highlighted the issue of damp and mould in housing. The quality of housing has improved over a number of years due to the actions of this Government. We know that most social landlords in Scotland keep their properties in a good state of repair and tackle issues promptly. The Scottish house condition survey shows that more than 90 per cent of homes have no damp or condensation. However, we know that damp and mould still occur and that waiting for repairs brings physical and mental health risks. I do not think that anybody wants tenants in Scotland to live in those conditions.”
“On the Housing (Scotland) Bill, Mark Griffin has lodged amendments at stage 2, and I will be happy to engage with him tomorrow at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and beyond. Every child deserves a safe and warm place to call home. That is a fundamental human right. Mr Whitfield mentioned the UNCRC, and I know that he follows issues related to it very closely. Section 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 makes it unlawful for public authorities in Scotland to act in a manner that is incompatible with the UNCRC requirements when carrying out certain functions. That is really important, and I know that that is what some of Mark Griffin’s amendments relate to. Again, I am willing to discuss that matter with Mr Whitfield.”
“The action that we are taking now is making a difference by bringing homes forward more quickly. For example, in my constituency, between September 2023 and September 2024, there was a 33 per cent reduction in the number of children living in temporary accommodation. We know that housing and homelessness pressures are not uniform across Scotland. In response to that, we have provided funding of £80 million over this year and next, 80 per cent of which has been targeted at five local authorities that have the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures. To date, that has supported local authorities to bring 1,000 homes back into use through acquisitions and to reduce the number of empty homes. That is the action that we are taking, and we are seeing the outcomes of that coming through.”
“A public consultation is required before the framework can be implemented, and I am pleased to say that we will begin the consultation later this year. The Government is focused on driving down the number of households, especially those with children, that are living in temporary accommodation. Our latest statistics show that 12 local authorities reduced the number of households that are living in temporary accommodation in 2023-24, and that 20 local authorities have reduced the number of children who are living in temporary accommodation. With regard to actions that have been taken, I note that there has been a 40 per cent reduction in Edinburgh in the voids that Mark Griffin mentioned, a 23 per cent reduction in Fife, a 25 per cent reduction in West Lothian and a 20 per cent reduction in South Lanarkshire.”
“The Scottish Government is clear that temporary accommodation provided should be of a consistently high standard and that the households who live in that accommodation should receive good-quality services that meet their needs. That is why, in 2023, the Scottish Government published the temporary accommodation standards framework, which sets out physical, location, service and management standards to ensure that temporary accommodation is of good quality and is safe and affordable. We will need to discuss the framework with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other stakeholders, but all local authorities should ensure that the temporary accommodation that they provide to accommodate homeless households meets the standards in that framework.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Paul McLennan: I will come back to the member once I am further into my speech, if that is all right. That is why our response to the housing emergency is focused on working with local authorities and partners to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, particularly larger family homes. That will enable households to move into settled homes more quickly, which will reduce the uncertainty and instability of temporary accommodation. Martin Whitfield: Is the Scottish Government saying that temporary accommodation complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’s rules on the human rights of children? Paul McLennan: I will come to that later in my speech. We also know that harm can be caused by the condition of some temporary accommodation.”
“Have good physical and mental health” and “Live free from poverty”. Those ideals are important to everyone in Scotland. Showing support for that covenant for our young carers is a heroic first step forward that we can carry on into action beyond words here on a Thursday. 13:11”