Good morning. The first item of business is general question time, which is our shortest question session of the week, so concise questions and responses are appreciated, as always.
Wild Goats (Protection)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with local stakeholders regarding the protection of wild goats in the Scottish Borders. (S6O-04850)
We have not had any engagement with local stakeholders on that issue. It is for Oxygen Conservation Ltd, as the landowner, to consider how any reduction in the wild goat population should be achieved in practice. It has produced a question and answer document that has been circulated to all local residents, and it has published updates in a quarterly newsletter on its website. NatureScot has also provided several members of the community, the Wild Goat Conservation Group, local political representatives, councillors, MSPs and the MP with advice and information on the legal status of feral goats.
Wild goats have roamed Langholm moor for centuries, and more than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition calling for their protection. They are not just part of the landscape; they are a living link to Scotland’s past. However, the Scottish Government’s refusal to grant them protected status has enabled a cull that aimed to reduce a herd of 138 to just 20 during the birthing season. Will the minister commit to meeting me and the Wild Goat Conservation Group and working with us to find a workable solution to safeguard this unique part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Scottish Borders?
I understand the sentiment with which Rachael Hamilton has asked the question. As I said, however, this is an issue for Oxygen Conservation Ltd. It is its land and it is for it to decide what it will do in order to achieve the restoration targets that it has set out.
Student Accommodation
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review planning laws regarding the provision of private purpose-built student accommodation, in light of reported concerns over the concentration of student accommodation in certain localities and objections from local residents. (S6O-04851)
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires planning authorities, when preparing their local development plans, to consider the
“housing needs of ... persons undertaking further and higher education”.
That will inform the allocation of land for development and decisions on individual planning applications. We have no plans to amend that legislation.
Planning authorities can prepare guidance to support their plans. For example, the Glasgow city plan guidance sets out a clear framework for supporting purpose-built student accommodation in appropriate locations and identifying areas of concentration where further development would undermine residential amenity.
Scotland needs good, affordable student accommodation, but the way that planning consents are being granted in Glasgow makes it seem as if they are being handed out as an easy fix for gap sites. We are seeing oversaturation because purpose-built student accommodation is currently favoured by investors due to the ability to charge high rents. Last week, a proposed nine-storey student accommodation block was approved on the site of the former O2 ABC iconic music venue, but that is just one of many student developments that have been heavily objected to by local residents and community groups.
Does the minister share my concerns about the volume of applications for purpose-built student accommodation where there is already saturation? Does he agree that there should be a right to challenge overprovision—a right that does not exist now?
As I indicated, local authorities, including Glasgow City Council, are able to identify areas of concentration where further development would undermine residential amenity. That power already exists. There is also a power for local communities to produce local place plans to feed into local development plans.
We should recognise, as I think Pauline McNeill does, that students who are studying at our colleges and universities are a hugely important part of society. I welcome international students and the making of provision for them, and any PBSA provision obviously takes pressure off the private rented sector, which I think we would all agree is to be welcomed.
We want to support our students and welcome those from abroad, but it is time to signal to purpose-built student accommodation developers that their plans are increasingly unwelcome in communities such as the one that I represent. In my constituency and in Edinburgh as a whole, there is increasing concern about the amount of purpose-built student accommodation that is being built in our capital city, especially when there is an acute housing emergency. In many instances, PBSA extracts money out of Scotland, sometimes into tax havens, and uses up valuable urban land where normal housing should be built instead. Therefore, I urge the Scottish Government to work with the City of Edinburgh Council to restrict future PBSA development, if possible, because it often involves corporate exploitation of students and Scotland’s urban land.
As I have said, we want to provide accommodation for students, and PBSA takes pressure off the private rented sector and other parts of the market. However, as I have indicated, local authorities already have the power to identify areas where they feel that further development would undermine residential amenity and to build that into their local development plans. Planning is, of course, delegated to local authorities in that regard.
Local Road User Charging Schemes
To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to undertake a regulatory check of existing Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 powers to allow local authorities and regional transport partnerships to implement local road user charging schemes. (S6O-04852)
On 12 June, the Scottish Government published, jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the car use reduction policy statement, which includes a commitment to undertake a regulatory check of the existing discretionary powers for local road user charging schemes under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The statement was published jointly by me and Councillor Gail Macgregor, who leads for COSLA on the environment and transport. Sue Webber will be familiar with Councillor Macgregor, as she is a member of her political party.
The Scottish Government will now establish a working group that will include membership from regional transport partnerships and local authorities, including those that have sought progress on such a regulatory check to ensure that the secondary legislation from 2001 remains fit for purpose, because any road user charging scheme could be implemented only if councils wanted to use those powers from 2001. The work of that group will inform a timeline for the check.
I remind the cabinet secretary that Gail Macgregor was speaking on behalf of COSLA, not on behalf of the Conservative Party.
After being forced to scrap its 2030 car use target, the Scottish National Party now plans to continue its war on motorists by charging them for using our pothole-ridden roads. To reduce car use, we should be providing efficient and affordable public transport alternatives, but, under SNP control, ScotRail is deterring passengers by cutting services and packing commuters like sardines into carriages. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Scottish Government needs to focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage Scots to leave their cars at home?
I was not forced to change the target of a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030. I said that it was unachievable and not wanted. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee has said that Scotland needs to reduce its car use only by 6 per cent by 2035, although some parts of Scotland might want to go further, and we might need to go further as part of our climate change plan.
To achieve the necessary shift, we have a big focus on looking at how we provide our public transport services. Under public ownership, ScotRail is one of the top-performing rail service providers in the United Kingdom. ScotRail now carries more passengers and provides more services at greater frequency than it did before it came under public ownership.
I agree that we need to have accessible and affordable public transport for people to use, but if we are serious about tackling climate change—I do not think that the Conservative Party is any more—we must take steps to protect our environment, to protect people in terms of their car use and encourage them to use electric vehicles, and to invest in our public transport system.
Planning Appeals Process (Reform)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has plans to reform the planning appeals process. (S6O-04853)
The Scottish Government has no current plans to reform the planning appeals process, which it considers to be robust, fair and efficient.
I thank the minister for that brief answer. He will know that concerns have been expressed in the Parliament about the planning appeals system, which allows one unelected official to overturn decisions that have been taken by elected councillors. A development at Woodhall and Faskine in North Lanarkshire was recently rejected, quite rightly, by North Lanarkshire councillors on the detailed advice of planners. The applicant in that case could appeal and the decision could be overturned by one person—a Scottish Government reporter. Does the minister accept that that is fundamentally wrong? Will he agree to review the system?
No. I cannot comment on any individual cases, but the right to appeal is a long-standing and important feature of the planning system. All appeals are determined on their merits and on the same legal basis as a planning application, in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If an application goes to appeal, parties that have made representations on it are given the opportunity to confirm their objection or support. That is a well-established part of our system, and I do not want to take steps to change it.
“Housing to 2040” (Adaptations System)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the aim under action 20 of the “Housing to 2040” strategy to streamline and accelerate the adaptations system. (S6O-04854)
The Government is committed to ensuring that older and disabled people in Scotland have choice, dignity and freedom to access suitable homes to enable them to participate as the full and equal citizens that they are. Adaptations play a vital role in that, which is why we have more than doubled our registered social landlords adaptations programme budget to £20.9 million for this financial year. My officials have begun engaging with stakeholders and are working on setting the scope and timescales for the piece of work to which Mr Beattie refers. I will be glad to update him when that is finalised.
The gaps in legislation have left a number of my constituents in dire circumstances. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the review will be completed by the end of this parliamentary session and whether she plans to meet stakeholders, particularly in the park homes sector?
The exact timescales for the review are still to be agreed. I mentioned that my officials have been meeting a number of stakeholders as the work develops. However, I hear the urgency that Mr Beattie is applying to the issue, and I will bear that in mind as we progress.
We are committed to ensuring that park home residents have appropriate rights and protections. I encourage anyone who requires an adaptation, including those living in park homes, to engage with their local authority, and I urge all local authorities to ensure that they are providing support under existing provisions.
NHS Forth Valley (Bus Links)
Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being here at the start of general question time.
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Forth Valley regarding access to health services for communities that rely on local bus links. (S6O-04855)
The Scottish Government meets NHS Forth Valley regularly to discuss health services. We expect national health service boards to consider the needs of their communities, including ensuring access to healthcare. When an NHS board is subsidising a bus service, as it is in this case, I would expect it to work closely with the operator and the local authority to ensure that the service continues to meet the on-going needs of the community.
When the decision was made to site the new Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert, NHS Forth Valley gave a clear and binding commitment that accessible public transport would be maintained for all communities. I know because I was there. That commitment was critical in securing public support at the time.
Successive health secretaries have recognised and reinforced the expectation that that commitment must be upheld. However, many of my constituents in Clackmannanshire are deeply concerned about the recent removal of key stops on the H1 and H2 bus routes, which are lifeline services for elderly, disabled and carless patients, who rely on them to attend essential appointments.
Will the minister join me in making it clear to NHS Forth Valley that it is obliged to sustain the original commitment? Will she personally instruct the board, as previous health ministers have done, to take urgent steps to ensure that no vulnerable patient is left without a reliable route to care?
The Scottish Government knows that transport plays an important role in supporting patients’ health journeys. Removing transport barriers and other barriers will help to ensure that patients across Scotland can access the right care in the right place and at the right time. I would be happy to write to NHS Forth Valley in that regard.
Together with local groups, Clackmannanshire Council has voiced strong opposition to the proposed route changes and has emphasised the importance of maintaining a reliable bus service to Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert. The concerns are serious, and the proposals could have a negative impact on elderly and disabled people who rely on the existing bus routes. What additional support is the Scottish Government considering? What is it doing to ensure that NHS Forth Valley assists vulnerable individuals?
I agree that having good, reliable transport to health services helps everyone. That is why, as I indicated in my response to Mr Brown, I will write to NHS Forth Valley to underline the importance of its investing in transport in the Forth Valley royal hospital area.
Neurodevelopment of Children Born Prematurely (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what health policies it has in place to support the neurodevelopment of children born prematurely through their early years and adolescence. (S6O-04856)
In Scotland, babies who have been in neonatal care receive a developmental assessment at two years of corrected age, as part of a routine follow-up. Such assessment is crucial to identifying any developmental delays or potential problems early. The assessment typically happens at a face-to-face appointment and is usually conducted by a multidisciplinary team.
In the national neurodevelopmental specification, the Scottish Government has set out standards for services to support children and young people who have neurodevelopmental profiles with support needs. The specification aims to ensure that children and families receive the support and access to services that meet their needs at the earliest opportunity, based on the getting it right for every child approach.
We know that children who are born prematurely have a higher risk of being neurodivergent. What cross-Government work takes place, particularly between the health and education areas, to support them? In each Scottish primary school class, up to three children will have been born prematurely. Will the Scottish Government commit to providing guidance for public service providers who work with children on becoming prem aware, spotting the signs of neurodevelopmental delay early and helping to ensure that appropriate support is in place for those children?
I thank Mark Griffin for his work in that area. I had the pleasure of meeting Sarah Brown and Professor James Boardman to learn about the work of the Theirworld Edinburgh birth cohort research project. That is a 25-year study, which is now in its seventh year, that follows the progress of babies who have received neonatal care, and its findings support our work across health, social care and education.
I am happy to come back to Mr Griffin on the detail of his question. In the meantime, as I indicated in my first answer, from my perspective, our approach should be a collaborative one that involves multidisciplinary teams.
ADHD and Autism Assessments (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to meet the demand for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. (S6O-04857)
The Scottish Government has allocated £3.1 billion to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in this financial year. Along with local partners, national health service boards are responsible for prioritising funding to ensure that their local neurodivergent populations receive the support that they need, at the right time and in the right place. To progress that approach, we have commissioned the national autism implementation team to support local health partners and NHS boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to develop, enhance and redesign existing local adult neurodevelopmental services to meet local needs. We are also working closely with health boards and local authorities to implement the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people.
I am aware of a child in my constituency who has been waiting for three years and eight months for an ADHD assessment, which is extremely concerning. By the time my constituent gets an assessment, they will be 17 and likely to be at the point of leaving school. What more can be done to support children who face excessive waiting times for such assessments?
I thank Marie McNair for raising that important issue. I recognise that there has been a significant increase in the number of children and families who are seeking support and diagnosis for neurodivergence issues. That is creating challenges for a range of our services. However, support, including in schools, should be put in place to meet a child’s needs, rather than their having to depend on receiving a formal diagnosis. Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, local authorities have duties to identify and provide for the additional needs of their pupils. An additional support need can arise for any reason, and a diagnosis of ADHD is not required before support is put in place.