Chamber and committees

So, although there is nothing to prevent environmental investments, is it possible to have a clarifying amendment to make it clear that maximising financial returns is not the only permissible criterion?

I think that the issue requires further consideration.

Yes, please.

I move us on to section 72, which deals with succession. In policy terms, the definition of spouse or civil partner includes a spouse or civil partner that the deceased person was separated from but where no divorce or dissolution of the partnership had taken place. That means that a spouse or civil partner, in that circumstance, could benefit from section 72 of the bill, on the right to inherit.

The Law Society and various other respondents to the committee’s call for views have said that they would like to see a distinction drawn between spouses or civil partners who were living with the deceased person at the time of their death and those who had previously separated from the deceased person but had not divorced or had the partnership dissolved. What is the commission’s response to that suggestion?

The term “incapable” is defined in section 75 of the bill, and the definition is similar to the one that is used in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. In response to the committee’s call for views, the Law Society noted that the Scottish mental health review has recommended significant changes to capacity law in Scotland, which include removing the term “mental disorder” and moving from a capacity test to one of an ability to make an autonomous decision.

The Law Society suggested to the committee that the bill needs to be future proofed in case any changes to capacity law occur later in relation to the Scottish mental health review. We would be interested to hear your comments on the need for future proofing. If you think that that needs to be done, what are your thoughts on how it could be achieved?

I have no relevant interests to declare, thank you.

Our housing system is broken. Record numbers of children are trapped in temporary accommodation, and the homelessness rate is rising. Not only is that damaging to the health and wellbeing of people who are experiencing those appalling conditions, but the knock-on effects are felt throughout our society, in our schools and workplaces and, of course, on our streets.

We know that education, employment and health outcomes are all linked to our fundamental need for homes that we can thrive in. As Ben Macpherson has said, that basic need is also our right. Because housing is devolved, there is no excuse for this Parliament not to act. The housing emergency that we face is entirely avoidable. What it needs is political will from the Government and the resources to tackle it.

If the member is suggesting a meeting to discuss how we can use public investment to generate wealth for the whole of society, I would be very happy to take that meeting.

In the private sector, tenants are repeatedly faced with landlords who are reluctant to make improvements to the quality of housing, despite continuing to charge excessively high rents. That leaves tenants bearing the costs of rising energy bills and living with damp and mouldy housing and the stress of choosing whether to heat or eat.

However, it is not just tenants who pay. The housing emergency impacts us all, and our cash-strapped local authorities are having to pay the private sector to house people in temporary accommodation for years at a time while they and the Scottish Government provide grants to pay private energy bills to try to prevent people having to leave their homes in the first place. We are looking at the widespread use of public funds to enrich the private sector, every penny of which could be better spent on upgrading and expanding our council housing stock.

As my colleague Mark Griffin has detailed, local authorities would benefit hugely from being able to provide more affordable council housing, and an industrial strategy for housing could see the creation of many well-paid, secure, unionised jobs to build and maintain the homes that we so desperately need.

Therefore, if the First Minister truly aims to deliver a green wellbeing economy that reduces poverty, that must start by ensuring that every person in Scotland has a warm and secure home that they can afford to live in. However, the current pace of retrofitting old housing stock and building new homes is not meeting Government targets or public demand, and local authorities are struggling to provide homelessness support while their resources are stretched so thinly. Therefore, the Government must work with councils, and, crucially, it must provide fair funding to fulfil these ambitions.

That is why Labour welcomes the Scottish Government’s move to increase council tax on second homes. However, the Government has had that power since April 2013, and it has taken a decade to decide to consult on that once again. It cannot be another decade before we actually see the measure implemented.

We are faced with an emergency in housing, the scale of which can be addressed only with a response of the same magnitude. That means a co-ordinated mass roll-out of council house buy-back, retrofitting and building. It is the only way to ensure that public money, which is our money, is spent on what people need most: warm, secure, affordable homes—not subsidised private profits for a select few.

Friends of the Earth Scotland’s report, “On the Move: Investing in public transport to meet carbon targets and create jobs” highlights how, through increased capital investment in public transport, the Scottish Government could create 22,000 jobs directly and 416,000 jobs indirectly. In the Scottish National Party leadership campaign, the now First Minister made it clear in his response to the pledge for rail campaign by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers that his Government would be committed to investment in our railway. Will the minister therefore once and for all rule out cuts to ScotRail ticket offices, which threaten rail jobs and services?

The Scottish Government motion that we have been debating asks us to recognise that

“the draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan sets out a just and fair pathway to maximise the opportunities of that transition”.

However, the consultation for that draft plan has not yet closed and the Scottish Government has already come under sustained criticism for the inadequacy of its plans. As was highlighted by my colleague Richard Leonard in today’s debate, the Government’s own just transition commission is frustrated with the pace and detail of the Scottish Government’s plans. Labour therefore cannot support today’s motion; instead, we urge members across the chamber to support our amendment.

In opening today’s debate, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the importance of avoiding another betrayal of workers of the scale that was seen during Thatcher’s attack on miners, but recent independent analysis of the Scottish Government’s own energy system transition plans raised major concerns about the need for rapid development of domestic jobs to ensure that communities are not devastated by an unjust transition—not least in my constituency, North East Scotland, which has 98 per cent of direct oil and gas jobs.