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 16 of 17.
“The number of carers who are identified in our school system is pitifully low, and yet those young people have to face up to enormous experiences. I also want to mention the young carers covenant and to remind colleagues, friends and others that they can sign up to the covenant and commit to go beyond words on a Thursday and take action. The covenant aims to ensure that young carers “Are identified at the earliest opportunity ... Can access and succeed in employment/training opportunities ... Are safe and secure ... Feel that they have choice in their lives ... Can access and benefit from the rights they have ... Are able to thrive in education” and “Have time for themselves”, which relates to the “geezabreak” theme. The covenant also aims to ensure that young carers “Can access support for them and their families ...”
“I have no problem with that. However, it was fascinating that, when I tried to find the original authority for the 30,000 figure—as many young people know, we must reference facts—I found that, interestingly, the Government referred to section 16(4) of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000. I am not sure why the issue relates to corporal punishment and when physical intervention can protect a child. That is an interesting example. That is slightly mirthful, but my serious position is that we need to find the authority for that number of 30,000, because it is clearly far lower than the number in reality. The previous speaker talked about people who do not identify themselves as carers.”
“They do it because of love. They do not choose the situation that they are in but, in most cases—in my experience, certainly—they would not change the situation for anything. It is a very powerful part of their identity and their family’s identity. I echo the point that a number of speakers have raised about the data, and I do so because I have a bizarre ask of the minister. I love finding the small and perhaps insignificant detail, which can be indicative of value. I am sure that the minister can take this on board and find a conclusion to it. The Scottish Government recognises some 30,000 young carers but, as we have heard, it is believed that there are more than 100,000. The authority for the 30,000 figure is the “Embedding Children’s Rights in Scotland: Scottish Position Statement”, which was published on 18 November 2022.”
“It is a privilege to take part in this members’ business debate, and I extend my congratulations to Paul O’Kane for securing it. As other members have done, I welcome all the young people who are here or, as I know from a text that I have just received, are watching online, which is very worrying. I would like to pick up on something that the previous contributor talked about—I thank Jeremy Balfour for giving a very personal insight into the experiences of those being cared for and those around them who are affected by that. The quote that is so often used is that “being a young carer is not a choice; it’s just what we do”. However, I think that it goes beyond that. They do it for the love of the individual whom they care for. That is an incredibly important emotion and article of faith to explain why our young carers do what they do.”
“As she said to members—I think that everyone in Scotland should listen to this—we should see the full potential of what young people with ASN can do, not what they cannot do. 17:38”
“The report notes that “Giving children and young people information was seen as important. They need to know what to do and who to contact if they are worried about their rights not being met.” It goes on to say: “Children and young people also need information about how to complain, how long it would take, what would happen, and what help they could get. It is important for adults to listen to, trust and believe children and young people.” As we have heard from the contributions this evening, those who frequently advocate for young people—adults and the parents themselves—are struggling with that. I thank Alexander Stewart again for bringing the debate to the chamber. I finish by paraphrasing the powerful words of Kayleigh Brown, née Haggo, from this afternoon’s time for reflection contribution.”
“It is interesting to go back to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s “Additional Support for Learning inquiry” report, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 333 states that “the Committee notes the views of the Tribunal that the statutory criteria for CSPs should be relaxed. The Committee agrees with this view and asks the Scottish Government to consider whether the restrictive nature of access to the Tribunal is UNCRC compliant.” In the Scottish Government’s recent publication, “UNCRC Statutory Guidance: Consultation Analysis—Child Friendly Report”, regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—it is a simplified version for children—there is a discussion about “Ensuring children have effective access to justice”.”
“There is a requirement on us to lift them up, be it through outdoor education, an additional adult in the classroom or a small group of friends who will support and give counsel and help to that individual. We are not achieving that, however, and all the contributions that we have heard in the chamber this evening, and in the past, recognise that. One of the most frightening statistics relates to the co-ordinated support plans. The prevalence of such plans has dramatically fallen, from 61 per cent, or 3,128, in 2014, to only 21 per cent, or 1,215, today. The 2004 act states that it is through CSPs that young people—and, indeed, their parents, as we have heard in the eloquent contributions today—can enforce their rights.”
“It is worth revisiting section 1 of the act, because it tells us what additional support needs are. In fact, the statutory definition is perhaps very different from some people’s understanding of what such needs are. The 2004 act states: “A child or young person has additional support needs for the purposes of this Act”— the act that provides them with their rights— “where, for whatever reason, the child or young person is, or is likely to be, unable without the provision of additional support to benefit from school education provided or to be provided for the child or young person.” The emphasis is not on some defect or label that is attached to the child. The 2004 act places an obligation on us to see where a child cannot access education, for whatever reason, and to meet their needs.”
“It is a pleasure to follow Liz Smith’s contribution on the importance of outdoor education—one of the few environments in which there is, ironically, a level playing field on which all young people can learn and work together. I extend my thanks to Alexander Stewart for bringing the debate to the chamber, because the issue is so important and urgent. More than 40.5 per cent of students in Scotland are now identified as having ASN, up from 20.8 per cent in 2014—that is 284,448 pupils in total. That increase should be seen as a sign of progress in recognising the diversity of students’ needs, but the support that those children require has not kept pace with that growth. Mention has been made of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.”
“We, in the Parliament, will be watching, and I hope that the SNP Government is listening. Councils should look forward to support, which they must have, and teachers and support assistants need clarity, but most of all these young people need time, support and resource, or nothing will change for them. 17:25”
“In the Morgan report back in 2020, young people said that they wanted to be involved in the decision-making process. Many young people know what things work for them and what kind of support they need. However, that listening process has not happened as matters have progressed. Individuals should not be defined by their additional support needs, as many of them believe that they currently are. If the Scottish Government truly wants to improve outcomes for young people, it has to start listening to them. In conclusion, the issue must be treated with the gravity that it deserves, and our hard-working teachers and support staff must be empowered to tackle the issue—otherwise, a whole generation of young people risk failing to reach their full potential. We should ensure that they all reach their potential.”
“Actions speak louder than words, and it is quite obvious that, for the SNP Government, this issue is a low priority. I hope that this debate will give the issue the spotlight that it deserves, and provide an opportunity for members across the chamber to talk about their constituencies and regions and highlight what is happening. However, we need more than just a spotlight on the issue—we need action. The SNP Government must listen to every one of Audit Scotland’s recommendations, including on the collection of data, workforce planning and funding levels. Those aspects are vitally important if we are to help and support these individuals. The Government must do much more to slow down, and reverse, the current trend, but that requires support. Most of all, the Scottish Government should listen to the children and young people themselves.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Alexander Stewart: Absolutely. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to Alexander Stewart for taking an intervention while he is making a passionate speech about his powerful motion. Does he agree that it is perhaps disingenuous of the cabinet secretary, in a members’ business debate, to express disgruntlement or to seek accord over a budget vote when the budget was passed in any event? Notwithstanding that, as the member rightly set out, £29 million does not even reach the sides of what is required for ASN. Alexander Stewart: I thank Mr Whitfield for that intervention, and I agree with him on all those aspects. As I said, £29 million across 32 local authorities is a drop in the ocean. In addition, when we dig deeper, it appears that there is no real ASN plan at all.”
“The average age of those who are referred to specialist ARBD services is 55, but there are— shockingly—some reports of individuals as young as 30, and even in their 20s, being diagnosed.”
“I am grateful to Carol Mochan for taking an intervention, and I compliment her on bringing the debate to the chamber. One of the interesting factors regarding ARBD is the complexity in its presentation. Would she agree, however, that it seems to be particularly prevalent in adults aged between about 40 and 55, which means that there is an identifiable group, and training could be given to look out for the condition among those of that age? Carol Mochan: I thank the member for the intervention—I absolutely agree, and I know from my discussions with clinicians that age is a very important factor regarding ARBD, as younger people are presenting and diagnosis can be missed. It is thought that ARBD is present in 1.5 per cent of the general population and among almost 30 per cent of alcohol-dependent individuals.”
“If nuclear power is not part of that solution, the SNP Government will owe a great debt in the future when the lights go out. 16:53”
“Nuclear power is, of course, the only power generation where the cost at the end of production is already factored into the price. The cost of nuclear waste management is well understood and accounts for about 10 per cent of the total costs of generating nuclear power, which ensures its economic feasibility. However, there is no provision in the strike price of wind turbines for what we do at the end of their life after 20 or 30 years. I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I would have liked the opportunity to talk about small modular reactors, which have been raised a number of times today and have a huge potential to benefit Scotland. We require a mix of our energy production if we are to ensure that the bills are kept low and that we have security with regard to what is happening in the world.”
“Surely that must be taken into account when considering what forms of generation to invest in. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to deal with the question of nuclear waste, which has arisen in a number of contributions. To put it into some context, there are two parts to the waste. There is the high-level, highly contaminated waste, which amounts to about 3 per cent and is approximately the size of a dishwasher tablet for every person in the UK. We could talk about the 15 million radioactive material packages that are transported annually worldwide, but have never resulted in one harmful incident. That is thanks to the robust packaging and strict safety standards that the industry adheres to at every level, and to the cost of the nuclear waste management.”
“When we talk about nuclear power, we are talking about those real livelihoods, real people and real communities. Last December, EDF announced that it would extend to 2030 the lifespan of Torness. That was the right decision because it protects jobs, keeps bills lower and avoids shutting down a major source of clean energy. However, what happens after 2030? Fergus Ewing: Can Martin Whitfield answer the question about the costs of decommissioning nuclear stations? Although the work is welcome at Dounreay, I understand—at least from the internet—that it was announced last month that the clean-up operation will continue until the 2070s, which is 40 years later than the previous date. The cost of the programme, which was previously £2.9 billion, will now be £7.9 billion.”
“What is at stake here are jobs, investment and energy security. Torness nuclear power station, in the south of Scotland constituency of East Lothian, has been the cornerstone of Scotland’s energy supply for more than 35 years, producing clean, reliable electricity for millions of homes and generating more than 1,200MW of power. More importantly, it provides strong union-supported jobs with a good employer. Torness employs 700 people on site, and nearly 2,000 further jobs are supported through the supply chain. That means that 700 families rely on the wages of 700 workers whose expertise is keeping Scotland’s lights on. Each worker has a gross value added of more than £102,000, while the average gross value added for workers in Scotland is just £53,000. Torness has contributed more than £16 billion to the UK.”
“That is the same SNP that told us that we could run the country on wind and wishful thinking, and that importing gas from Norway was somehow better than using all the tools at our disposal to secure our own energy future. It is the same SNP—and the same Green party—that would rather see Scotland rely on imported nuclear energy from England and France than for us to generate it ourselves. We have had contributions from Douglas Lumsden and Graham Simpson, and I thank them for referring to the strike price, which is £172 per megawatt hour for tidal stream and £139 per megawatt hour for floating offshore. More importantly, they referred to the fact that both those sources of energy can provide, at the most, 60 per cent reliability, whereas nuclear power can provide 90 per cent. That is important, because it is about how we keep the lights on.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests with regard to community wind power. I begin by thanking the SNP for finally bringing to the chamber a debate on nuclear energy. It has taken a long time. Time and again, the subject has been raised in the chamber, and we have argued for a serious discussion about Scotland’s energy future and about how we are going to keep the lights on, industry running and bills down. Yet, despite the grandstanding that we hear from the SNP and Green members on energy policy, it has been a long time since they have actually given Parliament the chance to debate nuclear power in Government time. I welcome the debate—better late than never. As the motion sets out, and as we have heard, nuclear power is apparently too dangerous and expensive, and Scotland does not need it.”
“Is it also now the case that the SNP Scottish Government would not consider any new fission technologies? Gillian Martin: Our position is clear. Given the current technologies, that is our position. We cannot say what will happen in the future and we cannot say what would happen with regard to the waste that is associated with nuclear power generation. It is that particular issue, as well as the cost of it, that causes our opposition. I want to make it clear to Martin Whitfield that we are looking at the matter in the context of the technologies that exist just now.”
“We need to remember that, under the Scotland Act 1988, in essence, the chamber was set up so that there would be a Government of minorities, and that it would take from the strength and wisdom of people across Scotland in order to work together. That is a skill that needs to be practised, attuned and constantly revisited. Jackson Carlaw made a point about having the ability to walk the corridors and talk to people. I feel that that is unduly lacking in Parliament now, for whatever reason. Having taken an intervention from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, it would be interesting to be invited to consider that and to see where, across the Parliament, we can find agreement on the important things, such as the issues that Alex Rowley raised—the NHS, housing and education.”
“When listening to contributions, it is interesting that the phrases “Scottish Government” and “the will of the Scottish Parliament” are interchanged so frequently when assurance is needed that the whole Parliament has agreed to something, rather than its having been the will of the Scottish Government. It is interesting to revisit Jackson Carlaw’s contribution, who has the privilege of being able to look back at the 2007 to 2011 Government. I hope that his speech was in no way heralding any intention to depart the Parliament on his own terms. The Scottish Government is a minority Government. It has tried to reach out to other parties and on some occasions it has achieved that, but not with the certainty, strength or clarity of previous Scottish Governments.”
“He has said that “The Government is committed to working closely with the Devolved Governments to deliver effective outcomes for people across the UK”, and that “we recognise that the operation of the UK Internal Market Act can be improved, including more certainty and clarity”. That is where the other part of the debate sits. Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I apologise to Christine Grahame. I need to make progress. I want to deal with the other element of the debate, which is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am more than happy to give way to the Minister for Parliamentary Business. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Whitfield said that “this is an act that needs to be fixed.” On 3 October 2023, he voted for repeal of the internal market act. Does he still believe that the act should be repealed? Martin Whitfield: I believe that the internal market act should be fixed; it absolutely needs to be—[Interruption.] There we have the lap of derision, from those who are paying attention. It is right to say that the UK Labour manifesto spoke, as has been raised today, about strengthening the Sewel convention “by setting out a new memorandum of understanding”, because the Governments need to work together. I will, again, quote a Scottish MP—Douglas Alexander MP—who sits at the heart of the UK Government.”
“Martin Whitfield: Much in the same way as the Scottish Government decided to bring this debate to the chamber before the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has published its report on its on-going inquiry— Kate Forbes: Is it a U-turn? Martin Whitfield: Well, it is an indication of another debate—a debate in which, aside from one reference, members have not discussed the importance of the Windsor framework and the requirement to act in good faith in protecting the UK internal market. Was there a change? Yes, and—in response to Christine Grahame’s assertions, quotes and references—this is an act that needs to be fixed. The vehicle for fixing the act is under way: it is being brought forward. Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way?”
“This debate, rather than being, as it was heralded, about protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament, might in fact have been an invitation to come back and talk about independence, although I know that the Scottish Government’s front-bench members have been silent on that point— Kate Forbes: Will the member give way? Martin Whitfield: I am happy to take a short intervention. Kate Forbes: There is one central point in today’s debate, which is that Labour voted to repeal the IMA in October 2023, but now Labour in government has explicitly ruled that out. Is that a U-turn, or is it not?”
“This debate has been almost three debates in one, two of which were interesting. I have to say at the outset that Scottish Labour welcomes not only the new UK Labour Government—which no one would be surprised at—but its commitment to resetting the relationship with the devolved Governments, and it has wasted no time in demonstrating that. It is fascinating that we have statements and questions in which the Scottish Government talks about, and talks up, the close working relationship that exists between the new UK Government and the Scottish Government, but then, following the Scottish Government’s chosen debate yesterday—although I could not possibly criticise it for wanting to level criticism at other Governments—we have today’s debate.”
“Issues in relation to restraint in different settings came up regularly during the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, and the matter is being monitored and worked on.”
“I am aware of the on-going pressures and I monitor them pretty much on a daily basis. The member will be aware that secure accommodation demand is complex and volatile and that capacity can be extremely tight. Of course, decisions on the placement of children in secure accommodation and the appropriate continuation of placements remain with the relevant decision makers, but I assure the member that every appropriate action is being taken to increase capacity in both the short and long term and that those actions go over and above what I laid out in my statement at the beginning of January, because this is an extremely important matter. I am more than happy to discuss that with the member if he would like that, and to update him, going forward. Work is under way on restraint.”
“On 8 January, when the minister was asked in the chamber about the lack of secure accommodation in Scotland, she responded: “As I have said, however, there are regular conversations between the Government, partners and heads of secure care to ensure that a situation such as that does not happen.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; c. 29] There were no independent secure centre vacancies in Scotland on Tuesday and there are none today. What is the Government going to do about that problem, which is not a hypothetical problem but one that those centres face currently? Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Martin Whitfield for the important points that he raises. On secure accommodation policy, I am very disappointed that we are in the place that we are in, and I am sure that the member is aware of that.”
“I, too, thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. She will be aware that the report clearly states that “the journey is behind schedule” and that we are “not halfway towards” keeping the Promise. I know that the minister is aware of that. I have two specific questions. The first comes from the letter from The Promise Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission: when will the Government publish the statutory framework on restraint and seclusion? The second question is on a more worrying issue, from an imminent danger point of view.”
“Three members pointed to the importance of independence as a solution, but the reality is that this Scottish Government is in the position of having the largest amount of funding that has ever been made available to a Scottish Government and that the choices that it makes about that are its alone. 17:22”
“There have been contributions from across the chamber regarding what the effect of that will be. The truth is that an economic black hole had to be filled in order to maintain confidence in the UK economy as a whole, and that has been done. Challenging decisions must be taken. Clare Adamson: Will the member accept an intervention? Martin Whitfield: My apologies: I am into my final minute and want to refer to a couple of other contributions. It is foolish and incorrect to ignore the reality of the decision making or the reality that Scotland has two Governments and that the largest ever block grant—except for during Covid—has been provided to the SNP Government here. The question comes down to the choices that we make. The devolved Government here, in Scotland, has chosen the size of its civic sector and earnings.”
“It would be foolish—almost naive—and unexpected of me not to agree about the challenges and choices of the SNP Government. Similarly, I intervened on a Conservative back bencher, Sandesh Gulhane, to invite him to be retrospective about the decisions that the previous Conservative Government had made. It would still be beneficial to see some honesty about those decisions. If to govern is to make choices, those choices must be made. During the minister’s opening speech, Daniel Johnson intervened to ask what we should put up. Should that be personal tax or national insurance? Should it be VAT? That question went unanswered by the minister. A number of speakers pointed to the UK Labour manifesto and alleged a breach of promise. The promise was about taxes on working people.”
“It is not a gift; it is an investment in Scotland by a UK Government that believes in devolution and believes that Scotland has two Governments: the Scottish Government here and the UK Government at Westminster. Craig Hoy: [Made a request to intervene.] Kevin Stewart: Will Martin Whitfield give way? Martin Whitfield: I will give way to Mr Hoy, if he is swift. Craig Hoy: Mr Whitfield is right that the Government needs to choose, but is it not true that, since Labour came to office, it has made the same choices and the same mistakes as the SNP? They have both agreed to public sector pay increases that are way above inflation without working out how to pay for them. Martin Whitfield: Mr Hoy talks about the mistakes of the SNP Government.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the intervention, although I am slightly disappointed by its tone. When we look at the cost of borrowing on the international markets, we can see the reality of what Governments representing their countries need to pay for borrowing. That cost has never been as stark—at least in current memory—as it was over the period when Liz Truss took over the Conservative Government at Westminster. As I have said, governing is about choices, and the UK Government has chosen to provide, from the common wealth of the United Kingdom, nearly £4.9 billion to boost Scotland’s finances, taking our block grant to £47.7 billion for 2025-26. That is a commitment to Scotland’s people, to a devolved Scottish Government and to Scotland’s future.”
“There has been mention of the famous letter saying “there is no money left”, but the in-year financial catastrophe that the UK Government faced was enormous. There were assurances and promises to make payments but with no budget identified to do that and, without choices and decisions that others would look at and assess the viability of, there was a very serious risk of returning to the catastrophe that we had during the days of Liz Truss, when people would lose mortgage offers before they had had a chance to consider them. Ash Regan: I have listened to Labour members’ speeches all afternoon. Are they labouring under the apprehension, as Margaret Thatcher was, that the economy of a country is the same as a household budget? Perhaps I should send them an economics textbook so that they can brush up on economics.”
“I am conscious of time, but it is a great pleasure to follow Gillian Mackay—even if it is on a Tuesday rather than a Monday. Perhaps it has been a long week for us all. I will start with John Mason’s speech, short as it was. He talked about the need to raise tax, the options of VAT, a production tax on whisky and, indeed, a replacement for the council tax. I start there because this is a debate about a UK Government decision and about the decisions that Governments have to make to match their outgoings to assist the society and communities that vote them in. It is the UK Government’s chancellor whose choices are being questioned, but, as Pierre Mendès France said, to govern is to choose and, to do that, we need to look at the reality that the Labour UK Government faced when it went through the doors.”
“It is time to stop penalising the very people who are trying to make Scotland a better and healthier place. Labour may embellish its CVs, but the truth is clear: Labour does not care. In common with the tired and floundering SNP Government, Labour is not working for the people of Scotland. 16:29”
“Both the SNP and Labour Governments are making decisions that will hurt Scottish taxpayers, consumers and workers, and we are already seeing the impact on economic growth. So, what can we do? We cannot sit back and accept the dismantling of our healthcare services, the reduction of support for vulnerable people and the closure of charities that produce life-saving services. We must stand up for a Scotland where businesses thrive, where healthcare providers can afford to do their jobs and where services that support the most vulnerable among us are protected. The Scottish Conservatives propose a commonsense solution: tax cuts that will help to grow Scotland’s economy, create jobs and provide much-needed relief to workers and businesses.”
“I make this intervention with a lot of faith, trust and respect for the member and his contributions in the past. Does he not remember when people had mortgage offers withdrawn? Does he not remember when mortgages went through the roof because of choices made by his Government—the previous UK Government? Sandesh Gulhane: Perhaps the member should look at the decisions made by his Labour Government, which are putting health and the third sector at great risk. Perhaps the member should think about the fact that, when the Conservative Government came to power, there was a note saying “there is no money left”—and we halved the deficit. If it were not for Covid, we would be in a much better position than we are now.”
“The career services collaborative, with co-chairs, will report to ministers and deliver to a vision that ministers will set. It is quite a simple and straightforward vision. I am looking for the component parts of the career services collaborative to all take responsibility for the delivery of careers advice. SDS delivers in schools—that is its responsibility, although it has a degree of wider responsibility— but we need to see careers advice delivered through the developing the young workforce programme, and in our colleges and universities. The challenge that will be set for all the participating members is to take forward that responsibility, delivering to a clear and agreed message.”
“I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer the minister to his comments about careers advice. In his statement, he talked of a “refocused SDS” having a “vital role” in careers advice. In response to one of the questions, he said that SDS will “play a part”. However, in another part of the statement that dealt with the career services collaborative, he talked about announcing shortly new arrangements for that. The CSC exists in part as a mechanism for the Scottish Government and other policy makers to consult and engage with careers services. Going forward, who will have responsibility for giving expert, tailored careers advice to our young people at school? Graeme Dey: The role of SDS, as the national career service, will continue. Its role in the career services collaborative will change.”
“There is a deadly serious point at the heart of Mr Whitfield’s question, which is that I can take the action that he wants me to take on housing only if the Parliament approves the budget. We all— every one of us—are committed, as a Parliament, to the Promise. Therefore, we have to take the necessary steps to make it happen, and we can take those steps only if we have the financial investment to do so. I leave the point with Mr Whitfield to reflect on over the week-long recess that lies ahead that, if he wants to turn his rhetoric into reality, he should support the Government’s budget at stage 3 and ensure that the investment is made in housing. If he does not do that, it is just empty rhetoric from the Labour Party. Rosebank and Jackdaw Oil Fields 5.”
“The First Minister: I accept the importance of the point that Mr Whitfield puts to me. The Government is taking steps to reduce the number of children who are living in temporary accommodation. Indeed, in the statistics to which Mr Whitfield refers, across 20 local authority areas, councils have reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation. However, it is not enough. That is why the Government has committed £768 million to invest in housing in Scotland in the forthcoming financial year. Increasingly, more of those resources are being applied to tackle void properties, for example, to make sure that those properties are available for families to occupy. In many local authority areas, that change in priority is already delivering better outcomes in which families have long-term accommodation.”
“The Promise oversight board’s report said that we are halfway between when we made the Promise and when we must keep it. However, we are not halfway to delivering on the Promise. One particular area of concern is the absence of a stable home, which, as the report highlights, “increases the pressures on families and increases the likelihood of children in those families being taken into care.” This week, a devastating report revealed that the number of children in temporary accommodation is at a record high. We, in this country, are in a dire situation in regard to that. What action is the Scottish Government going to take in relation to the number of children in temporary accommodation, which is a breach of the Promise and also a breach of children’s human right to accommodation?”