Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what the member is saying but I think that it comes down to what it looks like in practice. We know that councils have vast numbers of people who are stranded, languishing on waiting lists up and down the country. As Jeremy Balfour rightly pointed out, amendment 1052 would mean moving to one waiting list, and that would change the whole structure of the housing list system and how it functions. Would it be the case that people who desperately need help might not be able to get that help because of the new system and what it could look like within the scope of what is being asked in the amendments? That is something that we all have to watch out for.

Again, I am not saying that the issue should not be looked at, but we should look for the unintended consequences that could come from the amendments in this group. I believe that we need to know what it would look like in practice before we progress.

I am looking at a report on the Scottish Government website that says that

“when our children leave the care system, they are too often not ready for adulthood”,

and they become homeless. The whole purpose of these amendments is to try to address the homelessness issues that care-experienced young people face. That is part of the Promise, and it was part of the legislation that was passed in this Parliament and that the Government said that it would fulfil and achieve.

I might be mistaken here, but I have not seen anything directed at the Promise that relates to tackling homelessness for care-experienced people. Will the minister outline how that will be achieved and what the Government has done thus far? We will end up in 2030 not having anything in legislation that tackles the problem.

In relation to the debate yesterday, recommendations were made, but there is a clear disconnect with regard to the implementation of the recommendations on children in temporary accommodation. That is on the back of the 2023 outcomes set by the Scottish Government. We need to look at those specific issues, and it is incumbent on the Government to do so and see whether something can be brought back at stage 3, because it is clear that what the Government is doing just now is not working. The amendments in the group have been lodged, because there is a significant problem with children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland, and we need legislation that will help solve that problem.

As we can see by looking at the petition, a lot of this ground is covered in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It is important to look at the concerns that have been raised, but they could be debated at a future stage. I am sure that we will have such conversations when we approach stage 2 of the bill.

I sympathise with the issues that are raised in the petition. In past years, we have seen a number of leisure and cultural facilities disappear from our communities up and down the country. That relates directly to funding. We should regularly debate the council funding that is being delivered by the Scottish Government and the impact that potential service reductions across the board will have on communities.

I would like the committee to return to the issues that the petition raises and explore them at a future date, because we really need to look at public services, the landscape across the country and which areas have been heavily impacted by the reduction of leisure and cultural facilities. I hope that we will explore the issue in the future, because it is one that I really sympathise with.

My point is similar to those that have already been made. It is an issue to be mindful of with regard to the present scope of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and what we might need to look at as we approach stage 2. It is for individual MSPs to look at the matter further and engage with those who might be impacted.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. In January, cabinet secretary, you told the committee of your intention

“to publish the fiscal framework alongside the local government settlement next month, if we can reach agreement on it with COSLA”.—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 21 January 2025; c 18.]

We have now passed that point. Can you or Councillor Hagmann give us an update on any conversations or progress that has been made?

If I may, convener, I have one final question. I have listened carefully to the responses that have been given this morning about reaching consensus and ensuring that discussions are being had with various political parties. We should remember that there have been periods when the governing party had a majority. Why did the Government not look at council tax reform then? It would not have needed political consensus, and the Government would have been able to move forward with it, if it wanted to.

That is really helpful. I feel as though I am reliving the purchase of the first house that my husband and I bought, because we had all those issues with revaluation of it.

In last week’s session, Professor David Heald suggested that the cost of revaluation in Wales could be used as a starting point for the estimation of costs in Scotland. Given that Scotland has something along the lines of 1.8 times more households than there are in Wales, would a cost of £25 million be a fair estimate? Maybe you would not be able to share that with us just now.

Finally, there is a likelihood that, as a result of this work, there will be an increase in the number of appeals coming through the system. I am talking hypothetically, of course, but how would you manage it if more people were to appeal? Again, do we have the resources to deal with that?