Chamber and committees

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I congratulate Graham Simpson on securing this debate and on the way in which he has made his case. His motion states:

“cost was named by more disabled people than non-disabled people as a reason not to use the train in the 2021 Scottish Household Survey”.

The points that he has made show very clearly why we need to ensure that we have a national policy.

As has been said, whether a visually impaired person and their companion can access fare-discounted rail travel depends on where they live. As charities such as Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans have said, there is a very strong and unarguable case for a national entitlement.

Freedom of information requests by Sight Scotland have revealed that, although most local authorities and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport offer free or discounted rail travel for blind or partially sighted people, only seven offer a discount to companions, and none offers free companion travel. Graham Simpson made that point fully and powerfully. The rules differ depending on where people live.

We believe that 25,000 people in the West Scotland region would be entitled to such travel if it was available in every local authority area—Russell Findlay mentioned that. Thousands of people in West Scotland are directly impacted. As we know, people with disabilities tend to be on lower incomes. Perhaps that explains why cost is often named as the factor that dissuades people from using rail, as Graham Simpson’s motion mentions.

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport covers all of the West Scotland region. In the concessionary scheme, there is some support for companions on buses. A companion can travel free on buses, and they can travel on rail at half of the full fare if they have a national entitlement card. That is one of the better schemes. As has been said, there is no support at all for companions in many places in Scotland.

As we know, cost is only one of the factors that deter people from using rail—particularly people with disabilities, including blind people and people with sight problems. The accessibility of rail remains a significant issue. Earlier this year, ScotRail revealed to me that just a third of stations in the West Scotland region, which I represent, are deemed to be accessible. For example, Kilwinning railway station is considered to be accessible, but until very recently the lifts worked until only 4 o’clock in the afternoon. As a result of representations that my office made, they now work later in the day.

A third of stations are deemed to be accessible, but even that does not necessarily mean that they are fully accessible for everyone who might wish to use them. Only two stations in the West Scotland region are currently earmarked for access for all funding to improve accessibility. Cost is one factor, but it is clear that there are other factors that we as a Parliament and the Scottish Government need to address in order to make rail a real option for many people who are blind or have sight issues.

On a previous occasion, the cabinet secretary undertook to carry out a review of women’s safety on public transport, and I know from discussions with her that that work has been taking place. Many of the issues that women face on public transport are very similar to those that are faced by people with sight issues and other disabilities.

The commitment to carry out a review of women’s safety on public transport was made following a debate on the threatened closures of ticket and booking offices. We know that that is a live issue, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that the Scottish Government is awaiting decisions from down south on what will happen to booking and ticket offices there. However, over many years now, we have seen booking offices close across the UK, which has had a significant and disproportionate impact on visually impaired and blind passengers.

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and to follow four members of the committee that scrutinised the bill in doing so. I congratulate the committee on its work, because it seems from the debate so far and from the Government’s response that the committee has already had a considerable impact on the bill. It is vital that we ensure that the scrutiny continues because, as has been said, the bill deals with complex areas of law, and legislation can often be drafted in ways that have unintended consequences. I therefore very much hope that we will ensure that there is effective consultation and that the Parliament carries out its scrutiny function.

It is clear from the speeches so far that there is a willingness to look at the issues on a cross-party basis. As has been said, many of the issues are technical. However, it is the Parliament’s wish that there are effective ways to ensure that enforcement happens when there are debts but that that is done in a way that protects individuals and consumers. To do that, we need to ensure that the bill is drafted appropriately. I therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government is now considering that issue again.

The committee made clear that it believes that individuals who are

“not acting in a business context should be excluded”

from the bill. From reading the committee’s report, it seems that it heard powerful evidence on that. Mike Dailly from the Govan Law Centre said:

“I would go so far as to say that if the bill, as passed, included consumers in the way that is proposed, there would not only be legal problems but a question about morality would have to be asked.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 4 October 2022; c 20.]

That reinforces the point that it is essential that we get the detail of the bill correct.

Of course, warrant sales were a feature of Scots law for many decades. I suspect that many members who are in the chamber were at demonstrations and other events on that issue and were involved in the discussions that led to the abolishing of the inhumane system of poindings and sale of debtors’ possessions as a routine part of the legal system in Scotland.

My father told me about a book that he was reading about Skye, where his family came from. The book mentioned a baby being poinded, and my granny said, “That was our postman.” There were exceptions to the use of warrant sales to do with things such as tools of trade and so on, but we know from our history that ordinary working people were often put in horrific situations by diligence and the sale of goods under the legislation that we had in this country. I therefore find it surprising that there has been so little public debate about the bill, albeit that I accept that the protections in the bill as drafted are more significant than those that existed before the abolition of warrant sales.

In the bill as presented to us, there is a £1,000 value threshold for assets of individuals or consumers, but I understand that numerous representations were made to the committee that the figure should be increased. The committee, after hearing evidence, concluded that, ideally, individuals who are not acting in a business context would be completely excluded from the bill but, if that does not happen, the threshold should be raised to not less than £3,000. I hope that, as we go forward, those who are working on amendments to the bill take from today’s debate that we want the full exclusion of individuals and consumers, unless they are genuinely acting for business purposes.

I hope that the debate and the comments from my colleague Martin Whitfield and others on sole traders and other people who are acting in a business capacity, are listened to carefully. I urge the Government not to produce proposals in haste, because the consequences for individuals of getting the law in this area wrong are severe.

It was the heat of the poll tax campaign that brought to public attention a practice that had existed in Scotland literally for centuries, and it was the use of poll tax debt and its recovery by warrant sales that brought it to the fore in Scottish political debate. Because it is the poor who are subject to those forms of action and their voices are often not heard in the debate, I hope that, as we go forward, the scrutiny that takes place and the consultation that we need will not just involve the business community and the legal profession but will fully include advice agencies, consumer rights organisations and people who are undertaking advice work in working-class and deprived communities for the people who are likely to bear the brunt of this legislation.

The minister correctly pointed out that accessibility remains a reserved function. However, the fund that I mentioned seeks representations from the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland in relation to where money should be spent. As I said, there are only two bids in relation to West Scotland. Why are there not more representations in relation to upgrading and dealing with what is clearly a major problem?

As the cabinet secretary knows, the modelling that has been carried out by Police Scotland on how it could implement the proposed justice cuts suggests a reduction of 4,400 in police officer numbers. At a meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee, the cabinet secretary indicated that he would not allow such cuts on his watch. Will he confirm that? Will he also confirm that those cuts will not be passed on to civilian support police staff, as has happened in the past? That will also have a significant impact on the service.

We are in the midst of an emergency. It may well be too late now to keep 1.5 alive, but that means that, now more than ever, we need unprecedented and co-ordinated action from Governments. Last year, the IPCC said that,

“Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors”,

it would be impossible to contain average global temperature rises to 1.5° above pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, there is no sign that those deep emissions reductions are taking place. Scotland has, of course, repeatedly failed to meet our own annual targets.

The commitment at COP27 to give formal recognition to the fact of loss and damage as a result of the climate emergency and to establish a fund under the UN framework convention on climate change is a positive step, if overdue. It is widely accepted that those most acutely affected by the impacts of the climate emergency have contributed the least to creating that emergency. I welcome the Scottish Government’s pledge of £2 million for loss and damage through the climate justice fund. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the ministers accept that the amount that has been committed is not a true reflection of the climate damage created by Scotland’s past—or indeed present—emissions and that the sum is mainly symbolic. I have no doubt that they also accept that this must be only the start of a sustained and focused long-term commitment to ensuring that Governments, including the UK and Scottish Governments, deliver for climate-vulnerable countries by ensuring that commitments on adaption and loss and damage are honoured.

Between 1988 and 2015, an estimated 100 companies producing fossil fuels—excluding agricultural methane—were responsible for 71 per cent of all global emissions. Those companies are overwhelmingly based in the so-called global north. Those injustices only compound the long history of colonisation and oppression that many climate-vulnerable countries have suffered. Foysol Choudhury spoke knowledgeably about that from his own experience and his involvement in the cross-party group on Bangladesh.

Although the Government is right to express disappointment in its motion in relation to lack of action, it is also appropriate, here in the Scottish Parliament, to talk about the Scottish Government’s own lack of action on the issue.

The Scottish Government’s own energy strategy noted that there are significant opportunities in the North Sea, with up to 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining. I take on board that the issue is whether those barrels of oil are burned. However, in October, when I asked the cabinet secretary to take a clear public stance against the proposed Rosebank oilfield development, his response was that the Scottish Government’s opposition to Rosebank was conditional, and that Rosebank should be subjected to a rigorous climate compatibility checkpoint to ensure that it is consistent with emissions reductions targets. That simply is not good enough. We need to address fossil fuel production and deliver local renewables production, particularly municipal and community production. At a Scottish level, we also need to look at initiatives such as a publicly owned energy company, as proposed by Colin Smyth and noted in the Scottish Labour amendment.

I have got very limited time, so will not be able to give the cabinet secretary a full response. The cabinet secretary is very well aware of the scale of the challenge and that we cannot continue to extract oil and gas in the way that we have been doing.

The International Energy Agency has repeatedly stated that rejecting any new oil or gas developments is a bare minimum requirement if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by 2050. I hope that the Scottish Government accepts that we are going in the wrong direction. A Friends of the Earth report last year found that North Sea oil production has increased 15 per cent since the climate emergency was declared.

We need to take radical action. People and planet demand more urgent action. Unfortunately, I have not been able to respond fully to the cabinet secretary due to lack of time, and I am now over time. I hope that, in the debates that take place in the Scottish Parliament, we agree on more radical action for the future.

The two richest families in Scotland have more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent of the country. The Scottish Government often says that it has a fixed budget, but has the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to consider the Scottish Trades Union Congress report that was published this week, “Options for increasing taxes in Scotland to fund investment in public services”, which outlines short-term measures that could be taken to raise more than £1 billion for public services, and longer-term measures that could be taken to raise many more billions of pounds?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to tackle cancer inequalities. (S6T-01004)

I would be grateful to take the cabinet secretary up on his offer. As he knows, academics and public health experts argue that it is impossible to tackle health inequalities without addressing wealth and income disparity. Public Health Scotland argues that a reasonable income, sufficient welfare provision and what it calls an active labour market policy are essential for healthy living.

Will the Scottish Government be willing to carry out research to analyse whether those policies are being enacted, or whether an attempt is being made to enact them, particularly in deprived communities?

This week, Cancer Research UK reported that, each year, around 4,900 extra cancer cases are linked to deprivation in Scotland. What proposals will the Scottish Government lay out in its upcoming cancer strategy that specifically address that challenge?