���˿���

That is a very useful question/point, which we can perhaps take away and pursue.

Specifically, the committee wants to focus attention on the potential model to change the situation and get it right. As Micheleine Kane has outlined, local authorities all have different things going on, and it will often come down to the key people in a council who are driving services to change and respond. What would you like to see that model look like—especially for informal kinship carers—and how do you think that it would best be developed? Micheleine Kane touched upon legislation. A national rate has also been highlighted, with the suggestion that that change should really have been put in place already.

I am sorry—I wittered on a bit there. The question was around what you think we should suggest to help change this. That is the key point that we want to get into.

Thank you—that is helpful and informative. Finally, I want to ask—

I want to raise the issue of further support for kinship families, which overlaps with much of the conversation that we have had. I am thinking specifically of how we can improve referral pathways and signposting. We have already touched on what happens when young people are in education. Should we be looking for a better model so that all the professionals who are involved—especially teachers—are aware of the needs of children in kinship care and of young carers in the classroom setting?

CELCIS’s survey highlighted the root of the situation when it identified that many children in kinship care have experienced trauma and that children in kinship care are less likely to receive mental health support than children in foster care. What is your view on that? How do we improve that model? I am thinking of the classroom setting in particular. Although we are not the education committee, there is an opportunity to take on board some of the work in that area.

I realise that that was a long question. Maybe we can hear from Vivien Thomson first, as she has touched on the issue.

Good morning. I thank the minister and his officials for joining us.

I want to carry on with Mark Griffin’s and Paul McLennan’s line of questioning and ask specifically about Homes for Scotland’s concerns about the likelihood, as it stands, of NPF4 reducing the number of homes that will be delivered. Obviously, that will exacerbate the housing crisis if it happens. I have listened to what you and your officials have said about local plans moving to a 10-year timescale, but I wonder whether you can give more detail on the mechanism for introducing additional land. What will that look like? We have been talking about open and transparent processes, but how is that sort of thing being put into NPF4? After all, that issue will be important to a lot of communities.

That is helpful. One of the key things that I have picked up during the committee’s work on planning is that it needs to be accompanied by a 10-year capital investment plan across the public sector. That will be challenging for the national health service and education services, in particular. The minister will be aware of conversations that we have had in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee about how a lot of new-build development can destabilise general practice surgeries. Therefore, we need to see that complementary capital investment.

My other question is about renewables. We have received some evidence expressing concern that NPF4, as it is currently drafted, could lead to delays in renewable energy developments. The minister said that he uses the word “minimum” in terms of numbers expected around housing. Is it the same for targets around renewables? Is it your opinion that we need to see a presumption in favour of renewables in NPF4? Again, the language will be key. Local authorities will be delivering not necessarily targets but the minimums that we expect.

That is helpful. My question is on the draft delivery plan. I note that the onshore wind policy statement specifically looks at 8GW to 12GW of onshore wind being delivered in a much shorter timescale than we had in which to deliver the renewable energy that we now produce. Planning departments will look at renewable energy projects, although they will not necessarily take them forward. There is a huge issue around how we meet the target and what delivery plan the Scottish Government expects local authorities to use. Often, the planning authorities that are involved are large and rural rather than urban. I would be interested in seeing where the discussion goes. It is possibly something that we can take forward around the draft delivery plan. The devil will be in the detail.

Thank you for that. I am not sure whether anyone else wanted to come in on that point.

If not, I will move on to discuss models that are in place to support unaccompanied children and young people and how such models could be developed. Perhaps we could bring in Phil Arnold on this. How is that different, how do services engage directly with young people, and is there a model that the committee could consider?

I have a question about the Scottish crisis fund and about how you think that has made a difference. In the interests of time, I will merge that with my second question. When you look at pressured areas, such as Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, how has that made a difference, and how has it been administered?

Andy Sirel, you touched on the role of the British Red Cross. I will bring you in, and anyone else who wants to comment can put an R in the chat function.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. During the pandemic, COSLA issued framework guidance on supporting people with no recourse to public funds. That guidance is being updated. We have heard evidence, and received written evidence, about inconsistencies in how that is being rolled out across local authorities. Have the witnesses seen that, in their experience?

I will bring in Maggie Lennon first. If anyone else wants to come in, they should put an R in the chat function.