Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce barriers and to support housing providers to accelerate the delivery of affordable homes across Scotland. (S7O-00318)

I recently met Angus Housing Association and Caledonia Housing Association, as well as Scotia Homes in Brechin, which is delivering affordable homes locally with Scottish Government support, and they all told me that differing planning requirements across different local authority areas are causing delays, increasing costs and making it harder to get much-needed homes built.

What action can the cabinet secretary and her ministers take to ensure that planning departments do not get in the way of achieving the Government’s housing targets?

Can the cabinet secretary provide details of the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with employees and trade union representatives to ensure that their voices inform the Scottish Government’s next steps?

When we talk about climate shocks, it is easy to think of individual events in isolation, such as a wildfire in the Cairngorms, flooding in Brechin, coastal erosion in Montrose or water scarcity affecting communities across the north-east.

However those challenges are connected and are becoming more frequent and severe as our climate changes, as has already been illustrated by colleagues. The recent wildfire in the Cairngorms highlighted the scale of the challenge and the strength of the response. Emergency services, conservation organisations, gamekeepers, farmers, land managers and volunteers work together in difficult circumstances, and they deserve our sincere thanks.

Across Angus North and Mearns, we have seen at first hand the impacts of extreme weather. Storm Babet devastated Brechin and, three years on, the community is still living with the consequences. Just last week, difficult decisions were made on the demolition of 154 homes and on how best to protect the town from future flooding. Montrose continues to face the growing threat of coastal erosion, while changing weather patterns are creating new pressures on water resources and land management.

That is why resilience must be about more than responding when emergencies happen; it must be about preparation, adaptation and prevention. We need to recognise that healthy peatlands, wetlands and woodlands are not simply environmental assets. Restored peatlands are less susceptible to fire and, alongside wetlands and woodlands, help to build the resilience of our landscapes by reducing risks of wildfire, drought and flooding. Investing in nature restoration is not only good for biodiversity; it is also a practical way to protect communities from the growing impacts of climate change. Like Mark Ruskell, I support the proposal for a Scottish landscape resilience summit, because there is much to be gained from a more holistic approach that brings together wildfire prevention, nature restoration and long-term climate resilience.

Prevention and restoration are fundamentally linked. As Scottish Land & Estates has highlighted, we need a coherent plan for managing wildfire risk and responding when fires occur. However if the summit is to proceed, it must not become a talking shop. The challenge is too urgent for that. Any summit must lead to practical action and long-term collaboration, and we must continue to focus on wildfire prevention.

In a previous debate, I highlighted the risks that disposable barbecues can present during periods of warm and dry weather. Part of becoming more resilient must involve reducing avoidable ignition risks wherever possible. Although I would like a complete ban on their sale, I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s recent commitment to raise with the UK Government the case for further consideration of a more permanent approach to restricting disposable barbecues, at least during periods of heightened wildfire risk. However a complete ban would give more clarity to the public.

Community resilience is equally important. Time and again, whether during floods, wildfires or severe storms, residents, farmers, land managers and volunteers have stepped forward to support one another. In Brechin, the Crickety served as a vital community hub for people whose lives had been turned upside down by storm Babet, and the communities of Stonehaven and around Aberdeenshire and Angus stepped up in the aftermath of storm Arwen in 2021, during the 10 days of blackouts that we experienced.

We need to work more closely with communities and make better use of their knowledge and expertise because, when climate shocks hit, it is local people who will always be the first on the scene and the first to respond, as they did in Nethy Bridge this summer.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to review and deliver the wildfires strategic action plan, but I urge ministers to complete that work and implement any necessary changes before next summer.

The lesson is clear: resilience cannot be built after disaster strikes. Whether through restoring peatlands, empowering communities or reducing wildfire risks, prevention must become as much of a priority as the response. If we are serious about protecting our communities, resilience must be our first line of defence.

As has been acknowledged, local authorities are mandated to deliver library provision. However, they are mandated only to provide one library per local authority. Can the Scottish Government look at mandating a higher number of libraries in local authorities, based on population and geographical spread?

Yes, I am coming to the end, Presiding Officer.

I commend Mark Ruskell’s contribution, especially on nature-based solutions and mitigation, as well as David Barratt’s, Heather Anderson’s and Laura Mitchell’s—and some of what Finlay Carson said.

This is a really important debate for my constituents in Angus North and Mearns. Flooding and coastal erosion are not abstract risks or distant possibilities for them; they are already affecting homes, businesses, public services and local infrastructure, and have shaped how communities plan for the future, how families feel about the security of their homes and how local economies recover after extreme weather.

In October 2023, storm Babet devastated Brechin, as the South Esk river breached its banks and inundated the River Street area. Families were forced from their homes, businesses were damaged and lives were turned upside down. For many residents, recovery has not been quick or simple; it has involved uncertainty, disruption and difficult decisions about what comes next.

Today—three years later—Angus Council considered the future of flood-damaged properties in a special meeting. It is vital that the future of the community, not simply cost, is prioritised. I am very glad that the council has voted unanimously for a flood scheme uplift, demolition of uninhabitable houses and a new open space. As I said, it has taken three years for it to get to that point. The situation in Brechin shows why long-term transition planning for communities at greatest risk is so important, and why that planning must be done with residents, not to them.

Montrose faces a different but equally serious threat from coastal erosion along its dune system. Rising sea levels and more intense storms could create new flood pathways and place low-lying areas of the town at risk. The dunes are not only a landscape feature; they are a natural defence for the town. If they are weakened or breached, as has been predicted, the consequences for homes, businesses, transport links and community life will be profound—it is not too dramatic to say that Montrose would no longer exist as we know it. That is why I welcome the £440,000 of Scottish Government support from the coastal change adaptation fund for work at Montrose links, including nature-based solutions such as dune restoration and beach nourishment. Those measures matter because they work with the natural environment instead of against it.

However, short-term action must sit alongside practical long-term strategies that give coastal communities confidence that their future is being taken seriously. Elsewhere in Montrose, surface water flooding has long affected areas such as Borrowfield. Scottish Water’s investment to upgrade the wastewater network is therefore a welcome step for residents who have experienced repeated sewer flooding—that work is now under way. It is a reminder that flood resilience is about not only rivers and coasts but the everyday infrastructure underneath our streets, which must be able to cope with heavier rainfall and more frequent extreme weather.

Further north, Stonehaven’s flood protection scheme has helped to address repeated flooding from the Carron Water and now protects 370 homes, two public utilities, countless businesses, a school and an emergency service site. I thank the Scottish Government for the substantial contribution that it made to the cost of that scheme—that is the type of investment that could make a real difference to communities that have lived with repeated flood risk. However, those communities still have coastal overtopping and surface water risks, which shows that flood protection schemes must sit alongside wider investment in drainage, sewer infrastructure, natural flood management and community resilience.

Taken together, Brechin, Montrose and Stonehaven show why the national flood resilience strategy’s three pillars—supporting people, creating resilient places and improving the processes that underpin flood resilience—matter. Supporting people means recognising the emotional, financial and practical impact of flooding; creating resilient places means investing before disaster strikes; and improving processes means ensuring that communities, public bodies and decision makers can act quickly and effectively. The pillars also show the scale of the challenge that climate change presents.

In some areas, we will need stronger defences and greater resilience; in others, we might face difficult decisions about where development can safely take place and how communities will adapt to changing environmental conditions. Those decisions must be honest, evidence-based and rooted in fairness, so that the burden does not fall most heavily on those least able to carry it. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest a further £15 million in flood resilience measures, targeted at the communities that need support the most, as well as the additional £14 million allocated to the coastal change adaptation fund to help local authorities, including Angus Council and Aberdeenshire Council, respond to rising sea levels and coastal erosion.

It is vital that communities across my constituency can benefit from that support, and that funding is directed to practical measures that make a visible difference on the ground. That work will succeed only through partnership between the Scottish Government, Scottish Water, SEPA, local authorities and communities.

The rural economy and its associated industries are some of Scotland’s most important and make up a vast amount of my constituency. Therefore, how will the rural support plan ensure that the SNP Government continues to develop and articulate the future of Scottish agriculture, in close consultation and collaboration with the industry during the period of the plan and beyond?

Under the United Kingdom Labour Party, annual average petrol costs are £230 higher and heating bills are set to be £1,000 more than it promised, yet new Prime Minister Andy Burnham still plans to hike fuel duty and has cut household heating bills by a paltry £4 a month. In rural communities such as mine, a car is not a choice but a requirement. What action will the First Minister take to support rural Scotland with sky-high fuel costs?

I am going to focus more on the aspect of protecting children and families, as I speak not only as a member of this Parliament but as a divorced mother of four who has lived through the reality of family breakdown.

When my family separated, our priority was simple: stability for our children. At the time, we were living in the Netherlands, where separation is approached largely through mediation rather than adversarial litigation. We practised shared parenting through an arrangement known as nesting, where the children remain in the family home while the parents move between residences. It was not easy, and it will not be right for every family, but it gave our children continuity, routine and security. Most importantly, it allowed both of us parents to remain actively involved in their lives and took maintenance payments out of the question.

The experience taught me that shared parenting should never be about adult entitlement. The starting point must always be with the child—their welfare, their voice, their safety and their right to stable family relationships—because family separation can be profoundly unsettling for the children. They may be adapting to new routines, moving between homes and trying to navigate significant change while maintaining important relationships. However, shared parenting cannot simply be a slogan. It must be practical, flexible, safe and tailored to the individual needs of each child.

Where it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from those meaningful relationships with both parents. Children benefit when parents remain involved in everyday life and when adults communicate respectfully without placing children in the middle of any conflict.

The rights of the child must remain central to every decision, and children should be listened to, supported to understand what is happening and given opportunities to express their views. They should never be asked to choose between parents or carry the burdens of adult disagreements.

Safety must also be non-negotiable, because shared parenting is clearly not appropriate when there is violence, abuse, coercive control, neglect or genuine fear. A child’s right to maintain relationships can never override their right to protection from harm. However, when safety is assured, we should not allow conflict or outdated assumptions to damage important relationships not only with parents but with grandparents, siblings and other trusted adults who provide continuity, reassurance and love.

That is why mediation, parenting plans, counselling, child contact centres and early interventions matter. They help families resolve conflict and keep the focus where it belongs: on the child. However, we must also recognise that disputes following separation are often about more than just contact arrangements. They are frequently about money, as is the focus of the debate.

Child maintenance helps to meet a child’s everyday needs, and both parents remain responsible for those costs, as has been articulated well by Steven Bonnar, Clare Haughey and Carol Mochan. Unfortunately, too many families find that the current child maintenance service does not meet expectations. Too many receiving parents struggle to secure payments to which their children are entitled, and too many paying parents report errors, delays and poor administration.

When the system fails, it is always the children who pay the price. Whatever side of the system they are on, families deserve better, and children should not bear the consequences of failures in a UK-reserved system. Therefore, I support the motion whole-heartedly.

In Scotland, family law, child welfare and decisions about contact and residence are largely devolved, but statutory child maintenance remains reserved. That division creates too much complexity for families, and I believe that there is a strong case for devolving child maintenance to the Scottish Parliament, so that support for children can be considered alongside the wider family justice system. I call on ministers to work towards that.

Ultimately, Scotland must hold two truths together—that children are entitled to safety, stability and protection from adult conflict and that, whenever it is safe and practical, they should be supported to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents and the wider family members who matter to them.

If we are serious about making Scotland the best place in the world in which to grow up, we must ask one simple question whenever families separate: not which adult wins, but what this child needs to feel safe, loved, heard and able to thrive. That is the foundation of shared parenting done well and children’s rights in practice, and it is the standard to which Scotland should aspire.

18:05