Chamber and committees

It is difficult to see what the bill will do to provide housing for people in rural areas. The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report on economic, social and cultural rights in the Highlands and Islands paints a bleak picture, and it talks about homelessness and its impact on depopulation. It calls the rural and islands housing action plan a “positive development”, but, sadly, we all know that the plan does more to benefit commuter towns than rural villages, due to the way in which the Scottish Government categorises areas that are eligible for rural housing funding, and nothing in the bill changes that.

The report states that people are left roofless because of the lack of affordable housing in rural areas and the fact that private rents are out of local people’s reach. If they are lucky enough to qualify for affordable housing, they find that none is available locally. If they are homeless and turn down a housing offer because it is too many miles away from where they need to be, they are no longer deemed to be homeless. That is the case even if they cannot access their job or their family from the house that they have been offered.

People often live in precarious substandard housing and depend on the good will of family and friends for the roof over their heads. The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report states that the lack of affordable housing is

“the single biggest issue contributing to depopulation”,

with many people

“living in caravans ... camping pods and sofa surfing”.

The bill does nothing to address that. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to change the categorisation of rural areas in the bill to ensure that rural housing is never again built in urban areas.

Private rentals are really hard to come by in rural areas, and employers are now building homes for their own workforces. While they need to do that to attract workers, that brings us right back to tied housing, with people unable to change their job without facing losing their home. It also makes it more difficult for people to challenge their housing conditions if their employer is also their housing provider.

That is the crisis point that we have reached, but nothing in the bill addresses any of that. Sadly, we have also learned that Rural Housing Scotland is closing its doors due to lack of funding, and that is happening at a time when rural areas need more advocacy rather than less.

The bill sets out a requirement for all social landlords to develop and implement a domestic abuse policy, which is very welcome. Social landlords are well placed to spot signs of abuse such as control of finances. They are also able to assist abused people to remain at home while securing the property by fitting things such as panic alarms and other adaptations to keep them safe. We all know that those who flee domestic abuse in rural areas are often forced to move far away from home, which disrupts education for young people and support systems for the survivor. Much more has to be done to allow people who are subjected to domestic abuse to leave abusive relationships without the rest of their lives being turned upside down.

I hope that the bill will be significantly amended as it proceeds through its parliamentary stages, so that it can make a real difference to the lives of the people we serve.

Inverness is the only city in Scotland not to be joined to the rest of Scotland by dual carriageway, and that is unacceptable. The cabinet secretary knows that the people of Nairn have been crying out for their bypass for decades, with the town totally gridlocked at peak times. Those promises to them have been broken.

The people of Nairn need to understand today when they can expect their bypass and dual carriageway to Inverness to be built. If the cabinet secretary delays providing that timeframe until the infrastructure investment plan is published, they will have to wait a whole year for an update, and that is simply not acceptable.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Highlands and Islands” makes desperate reading. It states that “urgent action is needed” to ensure access to healthcare and

“to eradicate rooflessness and hunger”

in the region, yet the Scottish Government has shelved its proposed human rights bill. Will the First Minister work with me to progress my member’s bill to enshrine the right to food in Scots law, in a bid to start addressing the report’s findings?

The land management plans that are proposed in the bill have the potential to create more opportunities for communities and to tackle local problems. What steps can a community take if an agreed plan changes or is not implemented without consultation with it first?

I thank Richard Leonard for securing this debate on a cause that he is passionate about: seeking to bring a wider understanding of what happened to the miners and their communities, and of the impact that that continues to have.

I fundamentally disagree with Stephen Kerr. A worker is entitled to withhold their labour until such time as they receive the terms and conditions that they believe are fair. That includes fighting for their job. Anything other than that is slavery, and is certainly not a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I am proud that the United Kingdom Labour Government will bring forward the new deal for working people and that it has introduced the Employment Rights Bill. An important part of that legislation is that it should give unions better access to workplaces, enabling them to recruit and organise workers more effectively in industries that are resistant to unionisation.

The debate teaches us a lesson on why that is important. The Thatcher Government wanted to make an example of miners, regardless of the cost to those workers, their families, their communities and, indeed, the whole country. Worse, Mrs Thatcher used the police to break that strike. Governments make laws, but the police and the justice services must uphold the law without the interference of politicians—including Prime Ministers. Richard Leonard’s call for a public inquiry into the policing of the strike is therefore as important today as it was 40 years ago. A democracy must have separation of powers; therefore, the use of police to break a strike for political purposes calls our very democracy into question. The only way in which we will ensure that that never happens again is to shine a light on what happened at the time. The police service must uphold the rule of law, work for its communities and never be used as a political pawn.

The other issue is the lasting impact on mining communities, which were set against each other and saw families torn apart and miners starved back to work. The strike was only able to continue for as long as it did because of support from wider communities, the trade union movement and others who sustained striking miners and their families.

Although most of Scotland’s coal mines were in the central belt, the strike also had a significant long-term impact on rural Scotland. Mine closures targeted and influenced the trade unions, altering labour dynamics in both industrial and rural contexts. The rural economy declined as ancillary industries such as transport, equipment and related services suffered, so the younger generation left in search of jobs in urban centres, exacerbating population decline and community fragmentation.

It is clear that the closure of the mines devastated many communities, which are still suffering. That provides lessons for us all today. We must move away from hydrocarbon fuels that harm our environment and planet and must do so for the good of the whole population and the whole world. However, that will impact on people working in those industries and on their livelihoods and families. Lessons must be learned and we must ensure that a just transition leaves no person or community behind. That is challenging, but we can achieve it if we learn the lessons of the past.

Thank you.

That evidence was really interesting. Both of you spoke about a compulsory sale or compulsory purchase test. Would that help to deal with some of your concerns about late registration and the community right to buy?

Thank you—I appreciate that. Would anything else make late registrations easier? I appreciate that some communities do not want to register until they see land changing hands. Could something be done that would simplify that process and make it easier?

Could I ask one final question, convener?

You both spoke about whether buyers would take on land management plans. We also talked about community purchases, which must have sustainable development at their core. Do you believe that private buyers are being held to different rules and regulations? Would their having to sign up to sustainable development and a land management plan before they purchased land make things more equal, or would that be too unwieldy?