Chamber and committees

Local authorities have used hotels to discharge their duties as part of the emergency response to Covid. The data on that is held by local authorities rather than by the Scottish Government. However, our statistics on homelessness in Scotland show that, although there was an increase in the number of children in temporary accommodation in 2021-22, the social sector was the most common type of temporary accommodation that was used. In comparison with 2021, 20 local authorities have reduced the number of households that are living in temporary accommodation, and 10 of those have reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation.

The housing secretary has asked an expert group for an action plan to reduce the numbers of people in temporary accommodation and the length of time that is spent there, with a strong focus on households with children.

I will make two points—one particular and the other more general. On the particular point, I appreciate that the member says that he has already written to the cabinet secretary. I will look at the detail of that case myself, particularly if the health board is saying that there is an issue with lack of equipment. If we can take action there, we will certainly give consideration to doing so.

The more general point is one that I made earlier, in response to Anas Sarwar. In these times of significant pressure, we are focusing on reducing the waiting times of those who have been waiting the longest for treatment. That is where we are seeing progress. I appreciate that it is of no comfort to someone who is still waiting, but we have already seen a 24 per cent reduction in the longest waits for in-patient treatment. We will continue to focus on the longest waits, because we know the distress that they can cause.

I will look at the circumstances of the particular case that has been raised and if I can offer more information I will write to the member.

I appreciate Bill Kidd’s raising that issue. It is important to underline that this is not a Scottish dispute. The Scottish Government has maintained constructive discussions with trade unions and we have settled pay negotiations here by embracing the concept of fair work. Despite that, passengers in Scotland are still facing severe disruption as a result of the on-going UK-wide rail dispute between Network Rail, the UK Government and trade unions.

Network Rail employees in Scotland face entering the new year with still no pay rise, and the travelling public face further disruption. Although this is not a matter in which the Scottish Government has any direct locus—unfortunately—yesterday, I joined the STUC in calling for the Secretary of State for Transport to intervene immediately, to avoid further disruption for users, staff and taxpayers and to deliver a fair pay deal for those who work on our railways. I hope that the entire Parliament will get behind that.

Those are serious issues, that have been seriously considered by Parliament, as is right and proper.

We could all point to various polls on the issue. I could point to polls showing very strong support for what the bill will do, including very strong support among women across this country.

However, fundamentally—this is perhaps a point of agreement with Douglas Ross—all of us are elected to this Parliament and we all have a serious responsibility to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions. We will have the stage 3 vote on the bill later this afternoon; at stage 1, the bill was supported by members of every party in the chamber, including members of Douglas Ross’s party. All of us will be accountable for the decisions that we take on the bill, as we are accountable for all the decisions that we take here. That is democracy. I stand by the decisions that I take, and I will be accountable and will set out the reasons for my decisions to people across Scotland on this and every other issue.

Removing the need for medical diagnosis for a trans person who wants to legally change their gender is one of the purposes of the bill, because the need for that is one of the most intrusive, traumatic and dehumanising parts of the current system. As a woman, I know very well what it is like to live, at times, with the fear of potential violence from men. I am a feminist: I will argue for women’s rights and I will do everything that I can to protect women’s rights for as long as I live, but I also think that it is an important part of my responsibility to make life a little bit easier for stigmatised minorities in our country, to make their lives a bit better and to remove some of the trauma that they live with every day. It is important to do that for the tiny minority of trans people in our society, and I will never apologise for trying to spread equality—not reduce it—in our country.

Finally, Presiding Officer—

I come back to the first point in Douglas Ross’s latest question. The reasons for our not accepting Michelle Thomson’s and Russell Findlay’s amendments yesterday were set out at length by Shona Robison. Having carefully considered the amendments, we found that they would not have been compatible with the European convention on human rights, which all our legislation has to be. Accepting them would potentially have compromised the bill, so we sought an alternative way of achieving the same objectives. I have already set that out.

That was a really important question, not only for here and now but for the future of our nature and, indeed, of the planet. It was really good to see the headline target to protect at least 30 per cent of the world’s land and sea by 2030 in the new global framework. We are committed to implementing that in Scotland. I reiterate that we are committed to the expansion and improvement of areas managed for nature and that our 30 by 30 programme will promote ecological restoration and safeguarding at a scale never before seen in Scotland.

Although almost 80 per cent of protected areas are in a favourable or recovering condition and the long-term trend is one of improvement, I agree that we can and must do more. We are committed to working at landscape scale and to taking a collaborative approach to tackling the negative pressures on protected areas. We are currently working with NatureScot to take forward a co-design process with stakeholders to develop a framework by which our 30 by 30 commitment will be delivered.

The Government is investing record amounts, and we are committed to record investment in peatland restoration. I am happy to write to the member with more detail about the timescales and our expectations. We are recognised as setting the pace on some of this, and peatland restoration is one of the key levers or tools that we have at our disposal.

The final thing that I will say is something for all of us, particularly those who are in Government, to reflect on very seriously. Across all those areas, no Government anywhere is yet doing as much as we need to do. It is really important that we continue to challenge ourselves all the time and that we continue to be challenged. I welcome this line of questioning and want to see the maximum possible challenge to the Government to ensure that we are not only setting targets but making the investments and taking the actions to meet them, because there are few more important areas of work for any Government anywhere on the planet right now.

I do not agree with that. The deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce litter, cut emissions and build a more circular economy. Good progress is being made by industry ahead of the scheme’s introduction in August 2023. Indeed, that is reflected in the most recent gateway review, which notes that good progress has been made and that successful delivery of the scheme is now achievable.

I am very aware of business concerns on some outstanding issues. We take those seriously, which is why we have committed to a pragmatic approach to implementation and are taking action to help to make the scheme more efficient and reduce costs. Last week, for example, fees for drinks producers were substantially reduced by the scheme administrator, and we have committed to lay regulations so that only the largest grocery retailers will be obliged initially to provide a take-back service for online and distance sales.

I agree absolutely with the sentiment of that question. If Paul Sweeney has any more information to pass to us about the instances that he was talking about, I would be very keen to look at that. None of us wants any children to be in temporary hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation if we can possibly avoid that—and certainly not lone children in the circumstances that have been narrated. We will look further into that specific point.

More generally, none of us wants hotel accommodation to be used as temporary accommodation unless that is absolutely necessary. I have situations in my constituency where that is an issue, both for homeless people and for communities, but there have been demands on local authorities, particularly during Covid. It should be stressed, though, that most temporary accommodation is in the social sector and, as I said, many local authorities are now seeing a reduction in that.

However, there is much work to do here, which is why we are investing in more affordable housing, investing more in homelessness services and prioritising the housing first model. Those are really important issues, and I know that the housing secretary would be happy to engage further about some of the particulars behind the question.