Chamber and committees

Is it the Government’s position that work should always be left until the final deadline? It is possible to bring things forward ahead of time.

I am afraid that I do not have time.

I commend my comrade Katy Clark for introducing Labour’s motion on protecting Scotland’s fire service. Our motion recognises the Fire Brigades Union’s cuts leave scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by this Scottish Government. As a result of those cuts, call handling times have increased, response times have increased and the risk to lives has increased. Unbelievably, the Scottish Government’s response to that has been to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s latest plans to close 13 stations, permanently withdraw 10 firefighting appliances and no doubt further cut firefighter numbers.

I am proud that Scottish Labour has used our debate time today to highlight this issue. However, is it not pitiful that the Scottish Government has not brought forward the issue in Government time? Instead, the SNP has tabled a wrecking amendment that rewrites our motion and removes any recognition of the damage that its cuts have caused, the danger that further station closures could cause and the responsibility that it has as the governing party to protect our public services. I will not vote for the SNP’s amendment, just as I do not support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s disastrous proposals to downgrade or even close Balmossie fire station in Dundee. I am not the only one who is opposed to it. The council is opposed to it, the firefighters are opposed to it and, most important, the people of the area are opposed to it, because it is dangerous and because it creates an unacceptable risk to people and communities. As one constituent wrote to me,

“We do not elect ministers to be silent functionaries; we elect them to be strong voices, especially when critical public safety issues are on the line.”

I am proud to stand with local firefighters, and I urge all members to join us and vote down the SNP amendment tonight and support Labour’s motion in full.

Thanks to the campaigning efforts of the local community, the sale of Kinloch castle on the Isle of Rum by NatureScot will be subject to a public interest test that will be applied to potential buyers. The Scottish Government’s Kinloch castle study found that the most important aspects of a sale were long-term contribution to the community, as well as to nature, sustainability, culture and the local economy.

Given that study and the tenacity of the people of Rum, does it not make sense to include in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill a public interest test for the buyers in land transactions?

Invasive non-native species are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss in Scotland, including through the spread of invasive tree seed to adjoining land such as peatland. Research from the Royal Society of Edinburgh into public subsidies for tree planting and forestry shows that large, dense stands of non-native conifers, such as Sitka spruce, are having an adverse effect on biodiversity. What consideration has the cabinet secretary given to the recommendations in the RSE report to discontinue subsidies for commercial non-native conifer planting?

We have brought in legislation to create boundaries—buffer zones—around clinics to prevent people who are accessing services from being harassed. What consideration has the Government given to establishing some kind of boundaries around residential dwellings to prevent people from being harassed in their homes?

I thought that I heard the cabinet secretary say that the circumstances under which the emergency rent freeze came into force no longer apply, but that came into force because of the cost of living crisis. Is the cabinet secretary saying that the cost of living crisis has now passed?

Why does the member feel that the cost of improving, and increasing the value of, a privately held asset should fall on tenants?

We have just heard from the cabinet secretary that Forestry and Land Scotland purchased Glen Prosen for the purposes of nature recovery, climate resilience and public health and wellbeing activities, which are clearly in the public interest. When I consulted on my proposed land ownership and public interest bill, I found widespread support for a public interest test on transfers of large landholdings. Will the cabinet secretary support the inclusion of a public interest test in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill ahead of stage 3?

New infrastructure such as data centres requires land, but land ownership in Scotland continues to be concentrated in the hands of anonymous corporate investors such as Gresham House, which, according to research by Andy Wightman, is now the second-largest private landowner in the country. It is clear that, without a presumed limit on land ownership, remote corporate entities such as Gresham House will continue to monopolise Scotland’s natural resources, including energy. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland’s natural resources—which are, after all, public goods—must, at the very least, be used in the public interest?