Chamber and committees

For too many of my constituents, poor-quality housing remains the norm. Lack of proper insulation can lead to damp and mould, which causes health problems, as well as to higher energy bills and greater emissions. The problem will only get worse as rainfall increases and temporary weather extremes become more common due to climate change.

Will the minister give his assurance that the Government will act swiftly to support those who are living in poor-quality housing and to capture pockets of excellence, such as the work that Loco Home Retrofit co-op is doing in Glasgow, to ensure that we level things up and make such excellence the norm for the nation rather than the exception?

Clearly, the numbers that were cited by the minister are not getting to where they need to be, as I have been contacted by constituents who are deeply worried by the decision by Glasgow’s health and social care partnership not to renew core funding for Flourish House, a mental health recovery community that has been based in the city’s Woodlands district since 1997. Flourish House works on a clubhouse model, giving members a restorative living environment and supporting those whose lives have been severely disrupted, because of their mental illness.

It is appalling that such a successful and well-established place of healing and therapy is now in danger of closure. That is not rational—it is a cost-driven exercise. The care of all who rely on Flourish House will be disrupted, due to the budgetary constraints that are faced by the integration joint boards. Will the minister join me in raising her concern about that cut to a vital service in Glasgow, and work with Flourish House and the health and social care partnership to find a long and lasting future for this well-established and well-regarded service?

The minister mentioned that shipbuilding is competitive, but other countries use their state investment banks to provide credit guarantees, and Spain provides a tax leasing arrangement. That is why we are not winning this business. Will the minister look at those other countries and compete properly on the same basis?

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to any people in Glasgow who are at risk of losing their mental health support due to the reported reductions announced by the integration joint board. (S6O-04592)

The member makes an excellent point about East Kilbride and the fact that the recent investment in the so-called upgrading of the East Kilbride line to Glasgow will not dual track the route, so the frequency of travel cannot be extended to a useful turn-up-and-go timetable, which would allow users to turn up and get the train within a reasonable time.

Liam Kerr made an important point about the low-emission zone in Madrid. Another good example from Madrid is how efficiently it has built its metro system—I think that it is the most cost-efficient system per mile anywhere in the world. Could we do more in Scotland to benchmark excellent infrastructure projects such as the Madrid metro and build more such infrastructure here?

I would be happy to.

Although I sympathise with some elements of the motion, its framing is deeply facile and disingenuous. The reality is that transport in Scotland is a critical issue that affects national life, as it connects people to jobs and economic opportunities. That velocity of movement and connection between people generates growth and prosperity for the communities that we are elected to represent. That is why it is so important. Distilling it down into the idea of some sort of war is not entirely helpful.

I recognise that there are flaws in the delivery of public policy in this area and that there has been a tendency to focus on punitive measures at the expense of proper long-term strategic investment. For example, Glasgow, which I represent, accounts for 20 per cent of Scotland’s economy. The Centre for Cities estimates that the underperformance of the Glasgow economy costs Scotland £7 billion a year, which is largely down to the dysfunctional nature of its public transport system. Although Glasgow’s public transport system performs relatively well at a UK level, it is severely underperforming relative to its European peers. That must be addressed.

The Government has worked with Glasgow City Council on the development of measures such as the connectivity commission, which was established seven years ago but on which no further progress has been made. Other cities around Europe have moved far ahead in investing in metro systems, extending trams and delivering the regulation of buses, such as in the case of Manchester. I worry that the pace of improvement is nowhere near where it needs to be.

There are three main reasons why this is important. First, Glasgow’s economy is underperforming relative to its peers by an amount that is equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Scotland’s gross domestic product. There is a huge prize to be won if we unlock that potential. If we can get Glasgow to a level of competitiveness with European cities of a similar size, such as Munich, we can unlock huge opportunity for this country.

Secondly, Glasgow has the lowest rate of car ownership in the UK. According to the 2011 census, 41 per cent of Glaswegians do not own a car—that is well above Britain’s average of 26 per cent. That makes Glasgow more dependent on the performance of its public transport network and accentuates social inequality in the city, which is already problematic.

That is not helped by the fact that Glasgow has a major motorway running through the heart of the city, which reduces incentives to improve public transport, because it means that the richest and most prosperous people in the city region can enjoy the benefits of private car ownership, which are not accessible to the poorest households.

Thirdly, transport choices have environmental implications, which means that air pollution is a bigger problem in urban centres such as Glasgow than it is in more rural areas. Poor air quality disproportionately affects the poorest people in Glasgow and the poorest neighbourhoods, which border the M8 motorway that runs through the heart of the city.

That is good, but it is a tokenistic measure. In the grand scheme of things, £500,000 is a drop in the ocean. Glasgow needs £500 million or £5 billion—that is the scale of investment that we are talking about. That is the amount of money that we need to bring into Glasgow to build the Clyde metro and to deliver the scale of investment that other European cities enjoy. We need to get real about the issue—we need to go big or go home. The Clyde metro remains a nebulous project, and we are nowhere near fulfilling the true potential of the city.

I do not understand why there is such a negative feedback loop. There is ever greater congestion on our roads, and buses are performing less efficiently because of that rising congestion. We have a doom loop of increasing problems. The biggest capital investment in Glasgow’s transport system is the more than £150 million that is being spent on patching up the 1970s motorway viaduct that runs through Cowcaddens.

The Government’s approach is simply not coherent. It needs to adopt a much better approach in order to unlock the true potential of the city of Glasgow, which can benefit Scotland as a whole.

I thank Mr Mountain for making those points. That issue is an important aspect of future campaigning. We know that a lot of current campaigning takes the form of good-natured and humorous campaigns, which are important—the work that is done by Oddballs underwear and Movember is really useful—but when we look at the HIV stigma campaigns, we can see that a lot of work has been done to change the narrative around that, and send the message that HIV no longer presents the critical health implications that it once did, and that people with HIV can now live relatively normal lives. Perhaps we need to change the narratives around reproductive health for men, which is an aspect that is often not considered when talking about testicular cancer. Mr Mountain’s point on that was really insightful and important.

I know that many people will of course be thinking about Capital Radio DJ Chris Stark, who revealed only last month that he had undergone chemotherapy for testicular cancer. I found his public statement to be very moving and I hope that it will encourage others to seek out treatment, so I thought that I would quote a few lines from it. He said:

“The reason I want to share this is that I feel like an idiot that I didn’t spot this sooner. And although I’m effectively cured and it was caught early, my hope is any bloke reading this will perhaps think to check themselves today. Or go to a doctor if not sure about any possible symptoms.

Caught early, this cancer is so so treatable. It is most common in men aged 18-49.

I also think it’s a tricky subject matter to talk about, but I’m willing to put my now one ball on the line here if it helps make that conversation less tricky for guys.”

He says that, if doing that

“Encourages someone to check themselves”

and

“potentially saves a life”,

it will have been well worth it. I am sure that the entire Parliament commends Mr Stark for his bravery and wishes him a very swift recovery; we look forward to hearing him return to the radio soon.

Fighting the stigma around testicular cancer must be a priority for this session of Parliament, particularly as it affects young men, who often do not interact with primary care until later in life.

I welcome this debate, and I hope that the discussion will go beyond the chamber and will continue long after parliamentary business has ended. If it does, lives will be saved. Therefore, let us all increase those conversations about awareness of testicular cancer and the need for men to check themselves regularly, and fight against the stigma that prevents people asking for help and getting a diagnosis early. We all need to play our part in that discussion, and for that reason I am happy to support the motion this afternoon.