Chamber and committees

When you responded to my colleague Emma Harper’s question about the changes that the bill makes in relation to the creation and approving of deer management plans, you mentioned the importance of collaborative working across landholdings. What regard was paid to the very different issues that are experienced in the lowlands of Scotland—the area that I represent—in relation to deer management, where there are a lot of much smaller landholdings and different moving parts? There is perhaps not as much collaboration happening, the number of stalkers is being reduced, and there are no community larders. What thought went into how we ensure that we have robust deer management in the lowlands of Scotland, given that it is a very different situation but one that still needs to be addressed?

So, at this point in time, you are content that it will be an iterative process because of the long lead-in time before we will see the results and that the best way of dealing with that will be through secondary legislation rather than through the bill.

Section 32 seeks to insert in the 1996 act provisions that deal with

“Liability for taking or killing stray farmed deer”.

In particular, it introduces an offence of

“failing to report taking or killing of stray farmed deer”

and a defence of civil liability in that regard. What are the reasons for introducing those provisions regarding stray farmed deer? Is it believed that they will effectively help with the management of stray farmed deer?

Looking at the provisions, it seems that they refer to the liability of the person who has actually taken the farmed deer as opposed to effective management to prevent farmed deer from escaping in the first place.

Last September, the committee took evidence from Fisheries Management Scotland, which pointed out to us that

“poaching for salmon and sea trout is the highest volume wildlife crime in Scotland”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 4 September 2024; c 29.]

It also has one of the highest rates of conviction of any class of wildlife crime.

However, fish poaching also has the lowest fines—under £250 on average—and wild salmon has been classified as an endangered species. There is a real concern that the fines do not act as a disincentive for that illegal activity. FMS has identified that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill could be a means of introducing amendments to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. I would like to flesh that out and to ask whether officials will commit to working with FMS to examine the potential for an amendment to be made to the bill to increase the fines for the most serious of fish poaching offences.

I would also like to explore why there is no legal requirement in the bill to align the targets with the overarching 2030 or 2045 goals, given that the policy memorandum sets out the intention that the targets align with those timeframes. Why is that not in the bill?

I also attended the launch of the hard-hitting report. I thank Shelter for commissioning research that finally gives voice to what those of us on the front line supporting families in temporary accommodation have understood for years: children experience multiple negative impacts to their wellbeing through any period in temporary accommodation, but the impacts are worsened by long periods of poor and unsuitable placements, as well as by multiple moves.

We urgently need more social homes. How can the minister and his ministerial colleagues use this critical report as a lightning rod to galvanise action across the sector to improve experiences now? Children need wraparound, personalised support, safe spaces to play in, and well-lit, fully furnished and safe accommodation near to their school and support network. That should be the rule, not the exception. Everyone who delivers temporary accommodation should be supported to view it through a children’s rights-based lens.

I thank Carol Mochan for bringing this important topic to the chamber for debate, as well as Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems and all the people on the front line for their tireless work in this area.

We know that Scotland has long struggled with alcohol-related harms to the great detriment of our collective wellbeing, and we must not ignore the harmful impact on individuals and their families and on our society. One of the most insidious yet rarely acknowledged or understood consequences of prolonged problematic alcohol use is the damage that it can do to the brain. Some of the most harrowing cases that I encountered when I worked in the area of homelessness involved the people who were affected by that condition. Most of them were in their 40s and 50s, but the youngest person was 20, and what I witnessed trying to support him lives with me 20 years down the line.

Alcohol-related brain damage is a hidden condition that services and folk alike are just not sufficiently aware of. As we have heard, it takes many forms, ranging from cognitive impairments to memory loss and difficulties with decision making and emotional regulation. It affects not just the individual but their loved ones. It can be a significant barrier to not only accessing and maintaining recovery but accessing many other services that people depend on. Despite that, too many people go undiagnosed and untreated, and they are left to struggle on their own.

Urgent action is needed. We must develop national treatment standards and a strategy that ensures that ARBD is identified early and treated comprehensively, and that support is available to those who need it most. This is not just about healthcare; it is about creating a society where no one is left behind, where individuals suffering from ARBD receive the care and support that allows them to rebuild their lives.

First, we need to raise awareness across the healthcare sector. Many healthcare professionals, including GPs, emergency workers and even those working directly with alcohol and drug partnerships are not equipped with the tools to identify alcohol-related brain damage at an early stage. Training for front-line staff must be a priority so that they can recognise the signs of ARBD, refer individuals for appropriate diagnosis and ensure that they are provided with the right support. As we have heard, there can be a partial recovery and a reversal of symptoms. Everybody should be offered the opportunity to realise that recovery if that is possible.

Secondly, we must ensure that diagnosis is not a drawn-out process. Delays in diagnosis can lead to worsening symptoms and, ultimately, to irreversible damage. We need a streamlined pathway for diagnosing ARBD and providing timely intervention. The earlier the intervention, the better the chance of improving quality of life and recovery. That intervention needs to be holistic—physical, mental and social support should all be part of the care plan.

We must ensure that the intervention also includes provision of specialist rehab services. We have heard from members about how important that provision is. Whether specialist rehab services are provided by Penumbra or Simon Community Scotland and its managed alcohol programme, which is helpful in identifying people who have ARBD, we must ensure that they are supported and funded.

Moreover, we must take a whole-community approach. Problematic alcohol use is not an isolated issue—it is interconnected with poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, housing insecurity, mental health challenges and social isolation. Treating ARBD without addressing the wider societal factors will not yield lasting results. It is essential that we work across sectors—health, housing, social services and justice—to provide a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Prevention needs to be a key strand of the work. We must focus on public health strategies to reduce harmful drinking before it leads to brain damage. Prevention must be integrated into our public health campaigns, schools and communities, because we cannot afford to wait for the damage to be done before we act. We heard from Carol Mochan about some of the best-buy deals that we know affect ARBD. We think about minimum unit pricing, but we must also think about availability and marketing.

Finally, we must ensure that people living with alcohol-related brain damage are not stigmatised. Too often, individuals with ARBD are misunderstood, blamed for their condition and excluded from society. That only deepens their isolation and makes it harder for them to access the help that they need. It is time to build a culture of understanding and empathy. We must see people for who they are—not just their condition—and offer them the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Scotland needs a strategy that identifies alcohol-related brain damage early, treats it comprehensively and supports those affected through every step of their recovery journey. We must take a collaborative approach, working across sectors and communities to tackle the issue in a way that reflects our values of fairness, compassion and respect for all. This is not just a healthcare issue—it is a social issue and a human issue. It is the challenge that we must meet with urgency, determination and care.

I will come back on that briefly. I could also speak about this topic all day, given my background as a Scottish Women’s Aid worker.

Do you feel that we are at a point at which we are speaking a lot about the issue but have not quite realised the embedding and mainstreaming of full equalities, including taking a gendered look at the different policy decisions that we make? Will the absence of a human rights bill make that more tricky to achieve? Do you feel that it is the panacea that will help us to get over that hurdle and implement those things on the ground?

I will be brief. We have already touched on human rights budgeting. Does the commission think that there is enough resourcing out there to allow effective human rights budgeting to be done? I am thinking specifically about resourcing for local authorities and about the ways that they directly resource some of our many other delivery agencies. How can we ensure that we achieve human rights budgeting within resource allocations?

My apologies, convener—the technical issues that I experienced at the beginning of the meeting meant that I missed the first few discussion points.

I wish to explore the structural barriers to justice a little bit further and, specifically, how those relate to the quest for human rights budgeting. We could also think about that issue in terms of the mainstreaming of equalities, perhaps with a gendered lens on it—that is, we need to think about gender budgeting as well. I am really aware of the issue of access to justice for those seeking remedy for domestic abuse, specifically in remote and Highlands and Islands areas. Would either Angela O’Hagan or Luis Yanes comment on that, please?