Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app stopped working after I voted and I wanted to check that I had voted.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support off-gas-grid households during the cost of living crisis. (S6O-01695)

People who live off the gas grid can access air-source heat pumps only through Government schemes for boiler replacement. The cost of retrofitting installation makes that unaffordable for the average household, and far less so for those that are in fuel poverty. Will the Scottish Government reconsider funding BioLPG boilers under the Home Energy Scotland grants for those properties, which will help in reaching net zero while ensuring that those households have adequate heating systems?

Health inequalities are a symptom of an unequal society rather than a cause—a point that many members have made during the debate. There are inequalities in our health service, but those are because of the underlying societal issues.

I live in Inverness, and from my home I can walk 15 minutes in one direction and then 15 minutes in the other direction and, sadly, the difference in life expectancy between those two communities—which are separated by a 30-minute walk—is almost two decades. Those in the wealthy area live nearly 20 years longer than those in the less affluent community. Those people were born in the same hospital and educated by the same council, and they live in the same city; the only difference is their access to wealth.

People with a reasonable income can live in warm homes, enjoy nutritious food and focus on the education of their children as well as their own opportunities. People who do not have a reasonable income live in cold, damp homes and eat a poor diet, and the education of their children is secondary to their survival. They have no opportunities, and they are therefore more liable to become unwell and to suffer harms that damage their mental and physical health. Therefore, they have a shorter life expectancy. It is absolutely unfair that those people also have poorer health services.

General practitioners who work in our most deprived areas tell of the challenges that they face while working in those communities. Lack of money and opportunity also diminishes people’s expectations of their health services. They do not expect to be able to access services, and they often cannot afford to access services due to the cost and availability of transport. That lack of expectation of a reasonable outcome can cause mental health issues and lead to self-medication and addiction.

Drugs and alcohol also shorten lives. Women are more likely to earn less due to the gender pay gap and have greater caring responsibilities. Therefore, in order to deal with health inequalities, we need to deal with societal inequalities, which are the root cause. It is often easy to see those divides in cities by identifying postcodes where low incomes and poor health outcomes are prevalent, but it is much more difficult to do that in rural communities where the wealthy live side by side with the poor.

The Highlands and Islands Enterprise report “A minimum Income for Remote Rural Scotland” points out that a minimum income for a reasonable standard of living is between a tenth and a third more in rural areas than it is in urban areas. The report tells us:

“The additional costs come from a range of sources. In particular, the costs of travelling, heating one’s home and paying for goods and their delivery are much higher for many residents of the areas under review, especially those in the remotest areas.”

Therefore, interventions that target geographical areas do not work for the rural poor and the Scottish Government passes the buck to the UK Government. Its policies have, of course, made the situation worse, but the Scottish Government continues to ignore its own responsibilities.

With regard to heating, the Scottish Government now insists that all new heating boilers that are off the gas grid and funded under Government schemes should be heat pumps. In order to use a heat pump, people need to invest tens of thousands of pounds in the insulation of their home—which is money that people simply do not have. I spoke to someone who had recently had a heat pump fitted in an old house. They said that putting on the heating was pointless because it was hugely expensive and did not provide any warmth at all. The Scottish Government needs to take responsibility for that and design its policies accordingly, because it is now responsible for people freezing in their own homes. It is also responsible for potential interventions that could lift people out of poverty.

The Scottish Labour Party proposed improvements to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill that would have enshrined the right to food in the act, but that was voted down. We also tried to make the Scottish Food Commission responsible for realising that right, but—again—that was voted down. The Scottish Government is directly responsible for that.

We all aspire to live in a country where those basic human rights are met, and it is to our shame that they are not. So, I welcome the committee’s report and I hope that it pushes the Scottish Government to act to make Scotland a fairer country. If it does that, it will begin to tackle health inequalities.

This debate is an annual occurrence in which the Scottish Government sets out its approach to the annual negotiations. It must have key principles in mind when it approaches the negotiations, principles that are highlighted in the Scottish Labour amendment. Fish are a finite resource, but they are not confined by borders. As a result, all states must approach negotiations in the clear knowledge that they must nurture and manage this finite resource for ourselves and for future generations. We must make that a key principle for those fishing in Scottish waters and use our influence to extend that principle as far as we can internationally. To do that, we must fish at sustainable levels and be guided by the science.

To have buy-in to such decisions, fishers must be involved in gathering the information that is required to inform the science, and they must have their knowledge and experience recognised. Too often, our approach has been top down, rather than collaborative. How often have we heard fishers say that there is a lot of a certain species available while the scientists are saying the opposite? Both cannot be right. Therefore, there needs to be much more collaborative work. Scientists need to see what fishers see—and vice versa. Only then can we build the trust and collaboration that are required to build a sustainable fishery. Indeed, it is in everyone’s interests to have such a fishery—for the industry, for our coastal communities and for us all.

We must invest in the research and development of selective gear. As most of our fisheries are mixed, we need to find ways of allowing the fishing of plentiful stocks while avoiding bycatch of scarce species. Every time I have spoken in this annual debate, I have talked about bycatch and how we must ensure that it is landed and used under a regime that does not encourage its pursuit. Such a regime does not need to be complicated, but it needs to ensure that there is no waste.

Economically, fishing is crucial to our coastal communities. There is an opportunity to increase the jobs that the sector currently provides by adding value at the quayside. Too often, we see lorries lined up at the quay to whisk fish straight to markets abroad, and we miss that opportunity to add value locally. There are conflicting issues to address here, because in many coastal communities we lack the workforce to do that sort of work. Boat owners tell us about challenges in recruiting crew locally, and they struggle to recruit from abroad due to immigration restrictions. The fact is that many ports are in some of the most picturesque areas of Scotland—in other words, areas where young people are being forced out, because they cannot get housing.

The fishing industry does not pay its workforce in a way that fits with the requirements of banks and building societies. It can be very lucrative, but it does not pay weekly or monthly salaries, and the pay itself depends on weather and catch. People can make a good living at sea, but we need to ensure that they can use their earnings to buy themselves a home; otherwise, we will lose them. Lack of housing for young people leads to depopulation and a dependence on foreign crew, and it means that communities miss out on the economic benefit that processing work can bring to their area. Small communities that have a degree of fish processing can support more jobs on land, as they do at sea.

In its briefing for the debate, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust makes the point that inshore fishing must never be overlooked. The trust asks how the Scottish Government will integrate inshore fisheries into regional marine planning, which is something that we are still waiting for. Inshore fisheries are the linchpin of the economy in many small coastal communities. They land locally, and they process locally, and that part of the industry must be recognised, assisted and developed.

In order to capitalise on fishing, we must ensure that all Scottish boats land at Scottish ports. Tony Mackay’s report on fisheries states:

“Scottish vessels landed £393 million (70%) of their fish in Scotland in 2021. The other landings were in Norway ... (20%), Denmark ... (4%), Rest of UK ... (4%), Ireland ... (1%) and in other countries ... (1%).”

What that highlights is that Scotland lost out on almost a third of Scottish boat landings. While non-Scottish boats also land here, they make up only about 3 per cent of total landings when we remove the rest of the UK.

Fisheries management is the responsibility of Scottish ministers; it is their responsibility to ensure that Scotland reaps the full benefits of the industry. In the fisheries debates in which I have spoken over the past decade, I have continued to raise and press the same points over and over again—investment in gear, listening to fishers and scientists and putting sustainability at the heart of negotiations—but the Government seems incapable of fulfilling those core purposes. I hope that it will listen now and make progress. If it does, our young people will find careers in a successful industry and our coastal communities will flourish.

Yes.

Tapadh leibh, Oifigear Riaghlaidh. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I want to focus my remarks mainly on Gaelic. I start by saying that I am slightly concerned about having a language bill that tries to cover both Gaelic and Scots in one piece of legislation. While there is a huge amount to do on Gaelic, Scots lags even further behind with regard to official recognition.

I would prefer it if the Scottish Government looked to Wales and the Welsh language as a guide as to how to proceed on Gaelic, rather than measuring progress on it against the progress that has been made on Scots, which we have heard about. That is not about putting a greater value on either language; it is simply a case of recognising that they have very different needs and ways in which they will need to be protected and promoted.

I know that there will be many people who will criticise us and ask why we are speaking about languages that have fewer and fewer speakers.

If Emma Harper knows more than I do about how the legislative process will proceed, I am glad to have the reassurance that both languages will be looked at separately, depending on their needs.

I know that there will be many people who will criticise us and ask why we are speaking about languages. They might ask why we are doing so during a cost of living crisis and whether it would not be better to spend money elsewhere.

I want to address that head on. First, our language holds our history and culture. The rich have museums and art galleries stuffed full of their history and culture, which have been recorded at great length. The history of the common people is held in songs, poems and stories that have been handed down through the generations, which are held in the language in which they were spoken.

Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Scotland and, indeed, into England. It has died back to the west Highlands and Islands. Sadly, the history of the lowlands that was held in Gaelic has already been lost. Let us avoid that happening to the west Highlands and Islands. In those areas, and indeed other areas of Scotland, many people depend on the language for their livelihood, whether through teaching, broadcasting or promotion. Without Gaelic, there would not be a media industry in our islands. Many of our English-medium broadcasters started their careers in Gaelic broadcasting, and that goes for many of the support staff as well. Such careers would be unknown in those parts, were it not for Gaelic.

In such areas, good careers and well-paid jobs can be hard to find, so Gaelic finds itself acting as an economic bastion against depopulation of young people. Therefore, the promotion of Gaelic is part of the solution in tackling the cost of living crisis and not a choice against which it should be measured.

There are also arguments and debates around how we protect and promote Gaelic. That is healthy. We cannot leave the protection and promotion of Gaelic solely to Bòrd na Gàidhlig; everyone has a role to play. It is also right that the work of the bòrd is scrutinised. The University of the Highlands and Islands publication “The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community” caused a stir but highlighted the need to protect Gaelic-speaking communities in order to protect the language.

An issue that is raised with me time and again is the need for jobs and homes in the Gaelic heartlands, in order to keep our young people there and to keep Gaelic-speaking communities together. Too often, our homes go to the highest bidder. Those highest bidders are often people from parts of the country and, indeed, the world who are more affluent than our local population, and who do not speak Gaelic or feel the need to learn it. That needs to change. We need to make sure that we have a local housing market that allows local people to stay. We also need to provide them with meaningful careers.

When we welcome people into our communities, we must also encourage them to learn the language and to play their part in keeping it alive. I know that many do that, and native speakers need to encourage them. It is a strange sensation to hear someone speak in Gaelic and believe that they are local, only to discover that their accent in English is very different and reveals a very different heritage.

While we protect the vernacular community and promote Gaelic speaking there, we also need to create more new Gaelic speakers. We need education, and we need to strengthen a child’s right to learn Gaelic. We need to ensure that Gaelic-medium education starts at pre-school level and follows on through the whole education system.

Last week, Jim Hunter called for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to have university status in its own right. Of course, the UHI is a university, and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig forms part of it and provides Gaelic degree courses. However, I think that Jim Hunter is looking for a university that allows students to study other academic courses through the medium of Gaelic, which is necessary for students who have spent their whole lives learning through that medium.

That is not easy. We have a shortage of Gaelic teachers, and it is a struggle to provide for the teaching of Gaelic as a language in English-medium schools. We should have Gaelic as a compulsory subject for every child in Scotland if we want to keep up with Wales and its promotion of Welsh. In order to do that, we need to increase the number of Gaelic speakers, and thereby teachers. Our ambition should not be limited by the imagination of Government. If we are to protect and grow the number of Gaelic speakers, we need to take that action. It might not be universally popular, but it is about choices. We are at a crossroads, and continuing as we are will lead to the future decline of our languages. We must take positive action to promote both Gaelic and Scots if we are not to lose them altogether.

I thank Alexander Burnett for bringing the debate to the chamber. The “Together for the One in Six” report from the Neurological Alliance of Scotland has highlighted a number of worrying issues, and I will draw on two examples from my constituency to give a bit of context.

The first example relates to essential tremor. I have raised the issue of making magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound—that will be the last time that I say that in the debate—available on the NHS in Scotland for essential tremor patients. The issue was raised by my constituent Mary Ramsay in her petition to the Parliament. We have the equipment and the skills available in Scotland, yet we are referring—and paying for—patients to be treated south of the border because MRGFUS is available on the NHS in England.

Despite the long waiting lists in Scotland for deep brain stimulation, the Scottish Government refused to support the roll-out of MRGFUS on the NHS, although it is a less invasive and considerably less expensive procedure, which is available in Dundee. I hope that, next March at the drop-in event in the Parliament, the cabinet secretary will meet those who deliver MRGFUS treatment.

I turn to the provision of MS specialist nursing. Clinical standards were launched in 2009 to set out the level of care that people with MS should expect. The MS Society Scotland estimates that around 15,750 people in Scotland are living with MS, and the prevalence of MS in the Western Isles is among the highest in the world.

In 2011 in Parliament, I raised the issue of an MS specialist nurse for the Western Isles and, subsequently, an MS specialist nurse post was created in the Western Isles, in line with every mainland health board in Scotland. However, NHS Western Isles has now chosen to cut its specialist MS nurse post, along with its specialist epilepsy nurse, and replace them with a more generalist advanced neurology nurse. That was done without consultation with local people or national stakeholders, including the MS Society Scotland, which had provided pump-prime funding for the post initially.

The case load for that one generalist advanced neurology nurse has increased significantly—right now, it is estimated that that nurse supports 1,000 patients. The recommended case load for one nurse who is treating just MS patients is around 315, and that is with additional support that is not available in the Western Isles. Even under the NHS Western Isles proposal to have two full-time general neurology nurses, the case load is still far too high. I am concerned that the decision, which was made without consultation with patients, will be copied throughout Scotland, placing standards of care and accessibility of treatment at risk.

Let me be clear: the decision is one that does not save money; rather, it increases the cost and burden on the NHS. In a cost of living crisis, surely we should be supporting more localised delivery of specialist services. MS specialist nurses play a vital role in helping those who live with MS to access important rehabilitation, treatment and disease-modifying therapies that are shown to reduce the progression of their MS. Removing and reducing access to that vital care is putting patients at risk.

The evaluation project, generating evidence in MS services—GEMSS—suggests that on average, each MS specialist nurse saved £77,400 per year. I ask the Government to live up to its promises and ensure that MS nurse posts are retained.

Commercial sexual exploitation is recognised by the Scottish Government as violence against women, and it has been for many years. Although we have legislation on almost every other aspect of violence against women, which is very welcome, we have had no legislation to combat the harm that commercial sexual exploitation causes. When will the Scottish Government introduce such legislation?