Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before we hear from Tom Norris, I want to ask about building warrants, which we have had some discussion about. From the Homes for Scotland perspective, does the current process of building standards verification and issuing of building warrants adequately assess the energy efficiency and general standard of a property? We have heard about the need to address the quality of work to ensure that energy efficiency measures have been adequately fitted. Do you have a view on that?

We have had a helpful written submission from Homes for Scotland, which touches on skills and challenges in local government. Through the inquiry, we have heard quite a lot about the planning workforce in local authorities. I think that, between 2011 and 2020, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in that workforce. However, we have not heard as much about other professions that work in local government. Do you have any comments on the building standards workforce in local government from the RICS or surveying perspective? Is that area presenting challenges?

Good morning. Some interesting points have been made about future proofing, which takes me back to evidence that we heard in May from the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland. Frustration was expressed about the fact that the homes that we are building right now are not fit for purpose. Teresa Bray from the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland said:

“The fact that we are building new homes that will have to be retrofitted is appalling. No one who moves into a new-build home should have to retrofit their home. That should be built into the price.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 17 May 2022; c 28.]

Today, we have heard about some of the challenges in that regard, and good points have been made. How do we navigate between that view and the desire to get things right now? Tom Norris has made points about the need for more joined-up working, and Fionna Kell spoke about the need for a route map.

I have a question about the idea that the homes that we are building today are not fit for purpose. Is that to do with insulation, heating systems or both? What can we do to improve the situation? Perhaps Fionna Kell will respond first.

It is all very challenging. That is helpful. Thank you.

You mentioned NPF4, which is still a live issue for the Parliament—it is under scrutiny—and you touched on the need for better alignment of planning and building standards.

Tom, you talked about the need for a more joined-up approach. Do you want to add to what Fionna Kell said?

Members have enjoyed getting out of the Parliament to see some of the good and innovative practice that exists across Scotland. Do you have anything to add, Niall?

It was disappointing that Ariane Burgess voted against the earlier iteration of the amendment at stage 2, without any questions, following instruction from the SNP cabinet secretary.

It is not the 11th hour. There is a campaign by the STUC that the Scottish Greens signed up to prior to last year’s election, and which you made a flagship commitment on in your manifesto. I absolutely welcomed that: it is a shame that your party has forgotten all about that.

Bear with me, Presiding Officer—I am drowning in paper. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am afraid that I have managed to lose my piece of paper on this, Presiding Officer. However, I know that my amendment 67 is not going to be supported by SNP and Green members. It fits with the amendment that was discussed during an earlier grouping, and it is about trying to embed the rights of children and young people into the bill. I reached out to colleagues as recently as last night, so it is disappointing that the amendment is not going to get support, but I hope that what the cabinet secretary said earlier about the Government’s willingness to work beyond the bill passing is something that we can take at face value.

I am sorry that the cabinet secretary is unwell and unable to join us in the chamber. I hope that she feels better soon.

I will limit my remarks to amendment 64. Labour members will support all the amendments in the group. I know that we are pushed for time today.

The inspiration behind amendment 64 is no secret; it is the Scottish Trades Union Congress’s trailblazing “Food for thought” campaign, which is about making real the rights of all young people to food, education and fun. The campaign is widely supported by MSPs and political parties, all trade unions, anti-poverty charities, and children and young people’s organisations.

Amendment 64 would require the good food nation plan of a relevant authority to set out how it intends to ensure

“(a) the provision of universal free school meals for all children and young people”

and

(b) high uptake”

of meals in ways that are

“inclusive ... and free of stigma”.

It would also require the authority to set out how it intends to ensure

“(c) the fulfilment of children and young people’s right to high-quality, nutritious food”

during holiday periods.

Building on my child poverty amendments 74 and 79, which were agreed to at stage 2, amendment 64 seeks to strengthen section 7 of the bill. As we have heard, section 7 places a requirement on public bodies to produce good food nation plans. Section 7 of the bill, as amended at stage 2, makes it clear that that relates to areas for which public bodies have responsibility. We are not trying to throw in things for which public bodies have no responsibility. In the bill, it is quite clear that there would not be duplication of efforts.

We should all agree that building a good food nation must start with getting things right for all children and young people. Universal provision of free school meals is a crucial policy mechanism that would help to alleviate poverty, mitigate food insecurity and support efforts to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. It would also be critically important in embedding whole-school community approaches to nutrition.

Including universal provision of free school meals in the good food nation plan would build on the Scottish Government’s very welcome commitment to incorporate into Scots law the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Expansion of universal school meals provision would also help to deliver the Scottish Government’s aspirations to significantly reduce child poverty and to close the attainment gap, in addition to its aspiration that Scotland become a good food nation by 2025.

I think that it is strange that the bill is silent on the rights of children and young people to universal provision of free school meals. In advance of the debate, members will have received a letter from Roz Foyer, who is the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The STUC represents more than half a million workers in Scotland, including teachers—some of whom are having to feed schoolchildren out of their own pockets—and the workers who staff our school canteens. It is important that we remember that.

I am grateful to Mairi Gougeon for her time and her willingness to engage on the issues. However, I feel that by not supporting amendment 64 the Scottish Government is missing a trick. We might have good intentions and good policies, but if we do not put them into action we are not helping people who need such help.

Just last week, at First Minister’s question time, we were reminded of the rise in hidden hunger that is happening in our schools right now. Young people have told the Scottish children’s charity Aberlour that their friends who are not eligible for free school meals are going hungry at lunch time, while others are deliberately saving up their lunch money to give it back to their parents. That is just shameful.

It is positive that Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Liberal Democrats are backing amendment 64. When I listen to Scotland’s children and young people, they say that they want all members of the Scottish Parliament to work together to make their rights real. Ross Greer, who is not in the chamber at the moment, might think that it is somehow a disgrace that parties would work together; I think that it is positive that we do so now. I know that today’s vote might not reflect it, but we are now in the position where everybody in Parliament wants to expand universal provision of free school meals beyond nursery and primary schools and into our secondary schools. The issues and challenges do not end at the gates of our primary schools.

It is regrettable that the Government and its coalition partners did not have the foresight to bring such issues within the scope of the bill; it is always more challenging for back benchers and Opposition members to do so. However, I take at face value the good will that the cabinet secretary has expressed. My plea is that if members decide not to support amendment 64, they recognise the existence of cross-cutting issues on food, education and the rights of children and young people, and that every minister in Government redoubles their efforts to ensure that children are not going without food.

We must question whether we are doing all that we can. If we vote against the amendment, we will not be doing all that we can and will have to come back again, tomorrow and the next day to try to do better. That is what children and young people are demanding from each and every one of us. The STUC is saying, with one clear voice, that workers who staff our schools and look after children across Scotland will no longer accept crumbs from the Government’s table. We have to do more. We must start focusing on what we can do instead of what we cannot do.

I welcome the feedback from the cabinet secretary and I fully understand the need for legislation to be well drafted and for it not to have unintended consequences. When I met the cabinet secretary yesterday, I said that some of the objections that I was hearing had parallels to objections to period poverty legislation before the political will for it existed. I ask Green Party members to reflect on that.

This should not be about party politics and who lodges the amendment: we have time to get this right. People should look to their consciences; I know that there are back-bench members who really want to back amendment 64, so it will be a real shame if they are pressured by their party whips to do otherwise.

I am sorry. It is a shame that the Green Party has forgotten all that.

Is Ariane Burgess now saying that the Scottish Green Party’s position has changed? As a party, are they now in favour of means testing? What in the amendment or bill relates to independent schools? Which public body has responsibility for independent schools?