Chamber and committees

I congratulate Stuart McMillan MSP on securing the debate. I know that he has done a lot of work to get Peel Ports to abandon its proposal, because the decision, if taken forward, will negatively affect boaters along the River Clyde, including those in Clydebank, which is part of my constituency.

The plan to introduce a conservation fee—I mean “conservancy”; I cannot say the word—for leisure craft in the Clydeport area has caused real concern among my constituents as well as for British Marine and British Marine Scotland, which have been working to represent members’ interests in opposing it. Indeed, responses from a recent British Marine Scotland members survey suggest overwhelming opposition to the proposal.

As Stuart McMillan has rightly put it, the move will affect not just boaters in Scotland, but people sailing from other parts of the UK or even Europe to enjoy the Clyde, and there are massive concerns that the fee will put them off. Although I realise that it is not possible for the Scottish Government to dictate the business decisions that are made by a harbour authority on how to manage a harbour, I am nevertheless grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for taking into consideration the concerns of vessel owners across Scotland and writing to Peel Ports on the issue.

The decision, if introduced, could damage Scotland’s marine tourism industry and the economies of coastal communities that rely on the sector. Indeed, Stuart McMillan’s petition, which has attracted more than 4,630 signatures so far, captures people’s feelings on this issue. It is concerning that, despite its being invited twice to outline its plans to the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, Peel Ports has declined to participate. As such, the CPG unanimously agreed on 27 November 2024 that members’ position was that the plans should be abandoned. Unfortunately, the failure of Peel Ports to attend and be held accountable only adds to the boating community’s frustration and the feeling that the decision is being put upon them without their input.

However, I understand from correspondence with the cabinet secretary that Peel Ports has assured her that a wider consultation process with all relevant stakeholders is proposed to take place in the coming months, with an outcome on that consultation expected later this year. I hope that as many people as possible are able to take part in that, and I will put it on my socials and encourage my constituents to respond to it, too.

Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the decision will put boaters off sailing on Clydeport’s waters. Stuart McMillan has also expressed another worthwhile concern, which is that a conservation fee—I cannot say the word; it is just not happening tonight—will result in a progressive increase in charges. In my opinion, such a decision places another financial burden on people at a time when they are already facing higher costs. As British Marine has made clear, it will restrict freedoms to sail in Scottish waters, harm marine tourism and impact on small coastal communities.

Alongside the fact that the fee could deter boaters and harm small coastal communities, the rationale behind it remains questionable, with no clear provision of services or facilities in return. As has been mentioned, it also unfairly targets small leisure craft rather than larger vessels.

It is not that boaters are unwilling to pay for their pastime; as the chief executive of RYA Scotland has stated, sailors have always expected to pay for harbour berthing and mooring fees. This is about the imposition of a fee with no clear provision of services or facilities across a huge part of the recreational boating community.

The recreational boating sector contributes significantly to our coastal communities, and we cannot burden it with unjustifiable fees. It is quite clear that this is a wrong decision, and I join my colleagues in calling for it to be abandoned immediately.

The SNP Scottish Government is committed to every child having the right to grow up in a safe and comfortable home. In its report, Shelter Scotland states:

“The Scottish Government has taken bold steps to adopt a human rights approach to ending adverse childhood experiences. Their decision to enshrine the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots Law promised a Scotland where ‘every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and social needs and support their development.’”

That ensures that children’s voices are not just heard but listened to.

However, I accept that too many children live in temporary accommodation. The Scottish Government recognises that, which is why it is taking the decisive action that is needed to address the housing emergency, get families out of temporary accommodation and eradicate child poverty in Scotland.

In Scotland, we invest more per person to tackle homelessness and keep people in their homes than any other United Kingdom nation. We are delivering a further 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 and are set to invest £768 million in the affordable housing supply programme in 2025-26, so that everybody in Scotland can have the safe, warm and affordable home that they deserve.

Despite dealing with a challenging financial context, Scotland continues to make steady progress in how it tackles homelessness. To reduce the use of temporary accommodation, we are taking action, such as the £83 million national acquisition programme, which delivered almost 1,500 social and affordable homes over 2023-24. We will go further by investing an extra £80 million in acquisitions between 2024 and 2026. All that will play a strong role in keeping children in secure and safe homes.

However, we all have a part to play in this, and that includes the UK Government. Mr Griffin is a really decent guy, but I am sure that, like me, he is still shell-shocked by his party’s inhumane attack on disabled people yesterday, when it announced benefits cuts. Those will have a dreadful impact on many people’s financial security and, consequently, on their housing situation. That disgusting decision penalises those who are most vulnerable.

Anas Sarwar has bizarrely claimed that that is “not austerity”. If it is not austerity, what is it? Clearly, that is austerity. Independent analysis by Crisis has shown that austerity-driven policies, such as the two-child limit, are undoubtedly driving up homelessness across the country. That contrasts with the SNP’s commitments to ending the two-child policy, and this year it will provide around £97 million in discretionary housing payments to mitigate the bedroom tax and the benefit cap.

In the face of Westminster austerity, the SNP has delivered an average of 7,750 affordable homes across Scotland each year. Prior to that, at a time of plenty, when it was last in office, the Labour-led Scottish Executive built just six council houses. Since 2007, more than 135,000 affordable and social homes have been completed under SNP Governments. That is, proportionately, 45 per cent more affordable homes than have been built in England and 70 per cent more than in Wales.

Despite the Labour Party promising change, it is delivering more of the same. In contrast, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is expected to fall, which is a direct result of the SNP’s progressive policies that put children first. The consequential impact of Labour’s cuts on support to disabled people that were announced yesterday will put much more pressure on the Scottish Government. However, only the SNP will take the housing emergency seriously. As part of that, we recognise that that includes the rights of children to have a safe and secure home, and we need to work together on the matter.

What impact have you had on the Scottish Government’s reform of the specific duties? You have talked a bit about recommendations and so on, but is there anything else that you want to tell the committee in that respect?

Thank you, minister. I will leave it there.

No. I am asking how the delay in reform has impacted your ability to meet the duties.

Many thanks for that. That is me, convener.

Good morning. Over the past few weeks, I have focused on the impact on local government organisations, including local authorities, of the delay to reform. The feedback was that that mostly impacts them, although some have just being getting on with it. I welcomed your reference to the guidance being published in December. There has been chat about delay—for example, the pandemic was mentioned. What other factors caused the delay?

I welcome that commitment, but do you anticipate any further delay?

Good morning, and thank you for your time.

Over the past few weeks, I have focused on reform of the public sector equality duty. Organisations such as local authorities have expressed mixed views on how the delay in such reform has impacted their ability to meet their duties. How has it impacted you?

Do you have any indication of timescales for introducing the new duties, or any detail in that respect? If not, that is okay—the minister is coming in later, so I will press her on the issue. Do you have any inside information?