Chamber and committees

I speak as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I thank the many organisations for the helpful briefings that they provided.

It was a welcome opportunity for the committee to take evidence from environmental and legal professionals and from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. As has been mentioned, the Aarhus convention is a UN treaty that requires states to provide access to justice to allow challenges in court of breaches of environmental law. The convention consists of three pillars: access to environmental information for any citizen, the right to public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters. Progress has been made, but we all recognise that much more needs to be done to ensure that Scotland and the rest of the UK are compliant with the convention.

The minister noted that the Aarhus convention compliance committee previously welcomed Scotland’s significant progress in 2018, and that work is on-going to strengthen compliance in the areas of concern that the ACCC identified in its most recent decision. One point of concern relates to whether the Scottish Government will repeal regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002, in particular because the joint interest test that is specified under the regulation makes it difficult to obtain legal aid for environmental cases, given that such cases usually impact more than one person. However, as recognised by Denise Swanson, Scottish Government head of civil courts and inquiries, regulation 15

“is a necessary control mechanism for the proper and consistent use of the legal aid fund. Repealing it in its entirety could well have consequences across other elements of legal aid provision.”

It was acknowledged that

“There is a problem to do with the juxtaposition of how the legal aid system, including regulation 15, operates at the moment, and how we meet the needs of environmental issues and environmental actions.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 12 November 2024; c 25, 26.]

However, there needs to be greater discussion about the correct way forward.

The Scottish Government recognises that reform is needed, and it is welcome to note that action has already been taken to address some of the concerns that were noted in the report.

Although we rightly acknowledge today that more can be done, it is important to speak about the significant steps that the Scottish Government has taken in relation to climate change, nature restoration and reaching net zero. In the 2025-26 budget, it is investing more than £90 million to protect, maintain and increase woodlands and peatlands. Additionally, by deploying capital funding of £150 million to continue to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland, we support jobs and push closer towards our net zero goals.

The Scottish Government is also building on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 by delivering £39.6 million to help Scotland’s transition to a circular economy, reduce waste and promote sustainable consumption. That includes funding for the banning of single-use vapes and funding for Zero Waste Scotland.

That is maybe something that the minister can cover later; I do not have that figure to hand. I am sorry about that—the member is laughing, but I do not have it.

The environmental challenges that we face are urgent—there is no denying that. That was made very clear to me this week, when the Kilpatrick hills in my constituency saw a second wildfire in two weeks, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service issued its third wildfire warning this year due to dry weather.

The damage that such fires can cause is significant, and they can harm wildlife, impact farms and pose a risk to the public. Those issues are, naturally, very worrying, so we must push for more action and ensure that we have strong legal protections and frameworks.

This is an extremely important matter, and we must work together to ensure that all levers are available to protect our environment.

Community link workers in my constituency provide a vital service to the most deprived communities. However, the Labour-led West Dunbartonshire Council has cut that service despite the council receiving the highest per-head-of-population settlement of any mainland local authority. The decision has, rightly, been criticised by many, including the GMB trade union. Will the cabinet secretary join me in condemning these Labour cuts and call for them to be reversed?

Good morning. Going back to the comments from Maggie Chapman, I totally agree that it is of paramount importance that disabled people are at the heart of shaping policies. We need to make sure that that happens if we are to bring about the change that is required.

Jan, can you talk us through what the response has been from the Scottish Government to the recommendations?

That is certainly something that we will take back when we approach the Scottish Government. It is really important that we move on this as quickly as possible.

Convener, I do not have any more questions. What I was going to cover has already been covered, so I hand back to you in the interests of time.

I congratulate Maggie Chapman on securing this important debate. I also take the opportunity to thank Homeless Network Scotland and Heriot-Watt University for their briefings, and the Scottish Refugee Council for everything that it does.

In the 21st century, no one should be living in destitution, but the Home Office hostile environment continues to result in destitution thriving. The no recourse to public funds system needlessly prevents people from accessing welfare support, which results in there being no safety net should they face difficulty. It leaves people homeless, hungry and at risk of exploitation, and those people might have already fled horrific situations.

The Labour Government promised change, but, instead, people continue to be denied basic rights. New research from I-SPHERE has found that the average income of those who are impacted is exceptionally low, at just £40 per week. I-SPHERE also found that, of those who were surveyed,

“A third reported no income at all in the last month”.

It found that

“Hunger and skipping meals were the norm”

and that the use of charities for essentials such as food, toiletries and clothing was exceptionally high.

To put that in perspective, I want to tell members about Kunal’s story. Kunal arrived in the UK at the age of 26 as a student, fleeing homophobic persecution. He claimed asylum without success and was evicted from his accommodation. Kunal was forced to sleep rough, he was attacked and threatened with a knife, and he went hungry and took exploitative cash-in-hand work just to eat.

A turning point came when Kunal contacted the Scottish Refugee Council, which helped him to secure support to submit a fresh application. He was granted Home Office accommodation, but he was afraid of being declined again. Kunal knows that returning to his country of origin is too dangerous, but, then again, he says, “I’m not safe here.”

That is one of many heartbreaking stories, and it is a matter of justice, compassion and humanity that no one should be put in that situation. I am therefore grateful for, and welcome, the positive steps that the Scottish Government and COSLA have taken to reduce destitution. The “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, which was developed by the Scottish Government and COSLA in 2021, aims to ensure that people living in communities across Scotland do not experience destitution associated with their immigration status. A crucial part of that is the fair way Scotland partnership, which has been a lifeline for so many. I thank everybody who is involved in it for everything that they do.

I also welcome the Scottish Government’s and COSLA’s current review of the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, the aim of which is to identify a refreshed delivery plan. As Homeless Network Scotland stated in its briefing,

“there is no credible evidence that hostile environment policies, including NRPF, have achieved the aims set out by the UK Government.”

A change to that UK Government policy could remedy the situation overnight. Furthermore, as an independent country, we could finally have control over our own immigration policy and be able to introduce a system that values and respects people.

I was interested to read in the report about possible actions that could be taken now to tackle destitution. One example is widening access to universal services and welfare benefits for people with no recourse to public funds. I am keen to hear the minister outline the Scottish Government’s position on those recommendations.

Destitution is the result of injustice and of policies that entrench hardship. Therefore, it is up to us to call out such policies and push for action. We must stand with those who face destitution and ensure that no one is left behind.

Is the minister able to provide an update on the work to establish a comprehensive cladding assurance register for Scotland, as set out in the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024?

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?