Chamber and committees

I have just the one, convener. It is about low-emission vehicles rather than public transport. What can the Scottish Government do within the powers that it has to increase the market share of low-emission vehicles in Scotland, be they electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles?

I congratulate my colleague and friend Emma Harper on securing this vital debate on a subject to which, I am sure, every member in the chamber, and indeed everyone across the country, can relate. Derelict sites blight our communities and have an impact on public health, and they are not representative of the modern, post-industrial Scotland that we are aa bidin in today.

The potential for reusing vacant and derelict sites, known to some as empty brownfield sites, is huge. It is difficult to think of a single major area of Scottish public policy that would not benefit from a concerted national effort to bring those sites back into use. Focusing on those sites as a vehicle for delivery could help to enhance policy co-ordination across civic Scotland by concentrating effort and resources where they are most needed, as a tangible example of the place principle in action.

Transforming Scotland’s legacy sites requires innovation and technical skills across a variety of professional disciplines, from ecologists, demolition teams and architects through to space planners, construction experts and renewable heat engineers. With the right strategic leadership, we could use this opportunity to develop the skills and commercial expertise that Scotland needs in order to shift to a sustainable growth path and deliver a green recovery. By focusing on vacant and derelict land, we can do that in a way that will help direct resources and support to the parts of the country that need it most, thereby ensuring that those who were left behind by the last chapter in Scotland’s economic history are at the forefront of the next.

As a member of the Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am, of course, interested in climate action. As we know, climate action needs to be a collective endeavour, but barely half of those who are living in our most deprived communities—which are the communities with the highest concentrations of vacant and derelict land—see it as an urgent priority. If we really want to make climate action a collective priority, tackling our legacy of vacant and derelict sites is key in getting the climate message through to everyone.

Should I sit down again, Presiding Officer?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for his intervention. I agree that a lot needs to be done and that there is a lot that we could do about what has been foisted on us since the 1980s, but this is not a debate on independence.

Like many across the chamber, I have a constituency—Aberdeen Donside—that has fallen victim to derelict sites. I have been trying to see action on one of those for many years, including during my time as ward councillor. The Logie shops on Manor Drive, near the Haudagain roundabout and just off the newly named Brian Adam Road, have lain empty for well over 20 years. Quite frankly, the site is an eyesore. I have raised the site’s derelict condition with Aberdeen City Council and am pleased that it has agreed to carry out a safety assessment, of which I await the outcome. Before anyone stands up to intervene, I say to members that I contacted Aberdeen City Council both when and after the city had an SNP administration—I take no prisoners with regard to who is in administration. I will be urging the local authority to use the powers outlined by Emma Harper MSP, so that decisive action can be taken on that building once and for all.

The public sector—including Aberdeen City Council—can lead the way in identifying the potential for sites to be transformed into assets that provide real benefit to local communities. It would be great to see a community orchard in that place, which is small but could have huge benefit. Those transformations could include much-needed green space for health and wellbeing, growing spaces, community facilities and housing and business use. I therefore ask the minister for a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with local authorities, as it already does, as much as possible and will provide as much support as it can to see derelict sites addressed in communities across the country.

I again congratulate my colleague Emma Harper on bringing forward this debate. Addressing derelict sites—including across Aberdeen Donside—brings numerous benefits and we must see national action to bring about meaningful change.

I thank—

Yes, of course. Can I get my time back, Presiding Officer?

I have not been here for 15 years. I am a former councillor and have been trying to get derelict sites sorted. I am sure that the minister will be able to speak about the time that he has spent here in Parliament.

When we pause to think about it, we know that many of Scotland’s derelict sites are part of our industrial past.

My question follows on from Gillian Mackay’s. Will the minister outline the resources that are being provided to recruit, train and retain staff within the ADP workforce?

I am not sure how I am going to follow Peter Rabbit; I will not even try to.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for all the work that it has undertaken to get us to where we are today. I will not pretend to be an expert on accountancy, because I only ever got to O grade, but I did pass my O grade in accountancy.

I am delighted to be able to take part in today’s stage 1 debate on the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill. At its core, it is a simple bill. It seeks to simplify the law to allow business to use moveable property—as folk have said, that is property other than land and buildings—to access finance for business investment. The bill will support smaller businesses to raise finance, helping them to maintain income and address rising business costs.

Scottish moveable transactions law is widely considered to be out of date, inflexible and inadequate. Scots law on moveable transactions is a long way behind international standards, which makes some transactions difficult, or even gey near impossible, to execute. In turn, that necessitates the use of cumbersome, complicated and therefore expensive workarounds that take longer and are more expensive for companies in Scotland.

If the bill is not progressed, Scotland will fall even further behind international standards, and individuals and companies will be unable to avail themselves of the means of accessing finance more easily that is proposed in the bill.

Competing jurisdictions—in particular, in England and Wales—already have moveable transactions laws that are more commercially friendly than those in Scotland, including, in particular, the Scots law precedent. There is significant support for the reform and modernisation of Scottish moveable transactions law among those who use it—in particular, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, FSB Scotland and CBI Scotland, which have already added their support for the bill.

The benefits of the bill will be wide ranging. It will incentivise entrepreneurship and support lifelong skills development; remove barriers to participation in the labour market, so that everyone is enabled and empowered to participate in our economic success; embrace the opportunities of new technology, boosting productivity and focusing resources on innovations that have made and will make a difference to our economy and our society; and bolster economic investment in Scotland.

Although it is important to get the bill right for businesses, we must also ensure that consumers are adequately protected as the bill proceeds. I am aware that the minister recently met Citizens Advice Scotland and some of the debt advice agencies, and that he listened carefully to what they had to say about the application of the bill to consumers. That followed the raising of concerns by CAS and others about whether the bill should apply to individual consumers, and about the threshold for the granting of a statutory pledge. I welcome the fact that the minister has committed to raising from £1,000 the monetary threshold under which it will not be possible to grant a statutory pledge—although I heard Paul Sweeney say that the committee has recommended a figure of £3,000.

I was not aware of that, so I thank Paul Sweeney for his intervention.

I also welcome the commitment that a statutory pledge should not be possible in the instance of ordinary household goods. However, I ask the minister to clarify how that commitment will be incorporated into the bill at stage 2. I did not quite hear whether he covered that in his opening speech; I apologise if I missed it.