Chamber and committees

I join colleagues in thanking Ross Greer for bringing this debate to the chamber. During his time holding the finance brief, he has shown the fierce determination that Carol Mochan described and has worked to find ways to use tax as a tool to deliver a much fairer and more equal society. He also acutely understands the housing pressures that are faced in many areas of Scotland, particularly within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which lies in both of our parliamentary regions and is also where I now live.

The debate is about housing but it is also about poverty and inequality. There is a need to use all possible levers, including planning, licensing and taxation, to ensure the health of our communities.

In hotspots across my region, increasing numbers of family homes are being bought up by people from outwith those communities for use as second homes or to rent out as businesses. That is not the 1950s picture that Meghan Gallacher pointed to: we are seeing increasing and intensive ownership of second homes.

Our communities welcome people who come to make their lives in permanent homes, helping to build a better future for all and committing to communities, but we are seeing more second homes artificially inflating the housing market and pricing out locals, particularly families who are taking their first steps in the housing market. Adult children often have to stay in the family home while saving for a deposit or even to move out of their community, away from friends and family, at a stage in life when support networks are incredibly important.

I also see older people struggling. They can become trapped in unsuitable housing because there are few properties available to downsize into and they sometimes end up in precarious tenancies in poorly serviced park homes. There are few options for people in many rural communities.

It is in those hotspots that we can most clearly see the impact of second home ownership. Shops close because of a lack of regular custom, schools have dwindling numbers of young people, leading to their eventual closure, and residents no longer have neighbours.

In Highland Perthshire this week, in a move that I warmly welcome, the council finally agreed to create Scotland’s third short-term lets control area. That is one intervention to address just one part of the problem. There was a remarkable response to that council decision from the chief executive of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, who said that a short-term let delivers

“three times the economic output of a private home.”

That comment speaks volumes about the many people who are struggling right now, including in my community, to find a home in rural Scotland. It also raises serious questions. What is more important, a place to live or wealth generation? Who feels the benefit of that wealth? Does it stay in the community or does it go to a remote owner or to a letting agency? Who will work to clean and service those lets if there is a lack of permanent housing for local people?

There is a balance to be struck between being a place to live and simply a place to visit. Holiday lets help to make tourism happen but, alongside second homes, their proliferation can lead to a tipping point where communities become effectively hollowed out. Members have already pointed to many examples, with Ross Greer saying that many people feel as though they are living in a museum or a theme park and Emma Roddick pointing to the impact on her community. I point to Elie and Earlsferry, an area that has the highest percentage of short-term lets in Fife, with almost one in five houses being let out—a figure that does not even account for private second homes.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. Every community has its own different and complex set of housing issues to deal with, but all the tools in the box are needed to create a better balance of housing, particularly in rural Scotland. We should not be afraid to give communities, councils and national parks the powers that they genuinely need to achieve that.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will issue a formal public apology to members of the Gypsy Traveller community, in light of reports of the harm caused by what was known as the tinker experiment. (S6O-04656)

I welcome the fact that more research is being done, but what the community needs is an apology. The research must lead to an apology, because generations of families have been impacted by actions that were sanctioned by the state.

My constituents have suffered. People who could have thrived have instead been shunned by local communities, racially abused and provided with inadequate, if not inhumane, housing conditions. They have endured decades of physical and mental ill health. What further action can the Scottish Government undertake to make meaningful improvements in the lives of those who have been impacted by this truly shameful period in our history?

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber. We have this debate pretty much every year, and it is really good to be able to reflect on the progress that has been made and to celebrate MCS’s on-going, excellent work.

As we have heard in contributions from all members, Scotland undoubtedly has some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe. It would be remiss of me not to mention West Sands in St Andrews and Silver Sands in Aberdour, in my region. We have thousands of miles of beaches and coasts, which not only are home to nature but keep us active and healthy, and bring pleasure to millions of people. They also tell us the story of our communities and are wonderful places for learning and discovery for people of all ages.

Although our beaches and coasts are also on the front line of climate change, with threats from storms and sea level rises, our shores hold part of the solution as to how we can adapt to climate change, too. I was really delighted to visit Restoration Forth’s seagrass project recently. I see that Ben Macpherson is nodding, as he will recognise that project from this side of the Forth—in particular, the excellent work on oyster bed recovery.

I was particularly struck by that work on seagrass, which is—or was—found in many sheltered areas and coasts. Not only is seagrass a wonderful nursery for marine life, but it captures 35 times more carbon than the rainforests do. It feels to me that restoring seagrass and working with communities is a great way to address some of the impacts of climate change and to empower people. We need to find those wins for nature and climate that create that sweet spot for community action. Seagrass is a really good example.

Many more coastal projects have been funded through the nature restoration fund, which is creating a real focal point for community empowerment. It would be great to hear the minister reflect on the success of that fund and where it will go in the future. However, what we have learned through the surveys, particularly in the past couple of years, is that our beaches are sadly becoming dirtier, with a rising tide of marine litter. To return to seagrass, 92 per cent of our seagrass across the UK has been destroyed, in part because of litter. This year’s “State of our beaches” report shows an increase in the proportion of litter that is found on our beaches for the second year in a row. We cannot ignore the fact that drinks bottles and cans remain a major part of the beach litter problem.

Changing behaviour and attitudes is one part of the solution. A number of members have mentioned the success of the carrier bag charge, which came in more than a decade ago. As a result, there has been an 80 per cent reduction in bags turning up as marine litter. Clearly, incentives for citizens and consumers work, but it is also important that we do not forget that the polluter should pay and that producers of waste should ultimately take responsibility for it.

In the previous session, the Parliament agreed to the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, putting the responsibility back on to producers to run their own take-back scheme that would work for the public. I remember that, when the DRS was being considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the many years of MCS beach cleans were a central part of the evidence in favour of the DRS scheme, which was originally introduced by Roseanna Cunningham.

It is disappointing that, in this session of Parliament, ostensible lobbying from the glass industry undermined the scheme that had been developed in Scotland. Ultimately, it was blocked by the UK Government. As we move past that period and look to a new UK-wide DRS, although it will arguably be weaker, it is important to acknowledge that, in many ways, the worsening condition of our beaches is happening because vested interests have had some considerable success in slowing environmental regulation.

Members talk about nurdles and microplastics, so there is a role for regulation here. There is a role for making the polluter pay and for driving industry towards innovation to find solutions. Voluntary action can take us only so far. For decades, raising the floor of regulation across Europe was how we delivered environmental progress. That is why maintaining alignment with European Union laws will be important for the health of our coasts, nature and bathing waters. It is also why Environmental Standards Scotland has such an important role in holding Governments and regulators to account post Brexit, so that we can continue that progress.

I am a little disappointed that we will not see the promised water and sewage bill from the Scottish Government in this session. Maybe the minister will have more to say on that. That could have kept up the pressure for improvement.

I believe that communities, from wild swimmers to dog walkers, have a role to play in monitoring the state of our beaches and making a small but important contribution to cleaning up. I join other members in thanking volunteers and celebrating that work. I am already looking forward to joining my next beach clean in Fife.

To ask the Scottish Government what pathways are available to obtain a child ADHD assessment for those who do not have a co-existing mental health disorder that meets the child and adolescent mental health services mental health criteria and who cannot afford a private assessment. (S6O-04620)

I accept the importance of a route to support neurodivergent young people in school that is not dependent on a diagnosis. However, will the minister accept that there are young people who urgently need a diagnosis? I raise the case of Archie from Kinross, whose parents have been knocked back three times by NHS Tayside for a CAMHS referral. They have spent thousands of pounds on a private assessment, and he now has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Archie’s medical professionals believe that he would benefit from trial medication that would come with an ADHD diagnosis, but he would have to wait 10 years to receive a diagnosis in Tayside and he would probably be an adult before getting through the waiting list.

Will the minister acknowledge that there is a need for an urgent diagnostic pathway, particularly to support young people such as Archie and the thousands of people across Scotland who do not have a route to getting a diagnosis?

I need my time on this.

On H100, Brian Whittle and Maurice Golden pointed to what the real driving interest is behind that particular home heating project: it is quite clear that SGN manages a gas grid and wants to continue to put fossil fuel into that gas grid. It wants to blend hydrogen in, but 80 per cent of what will be flowing through that gas grid in future will be fossil fuel gas, which will make us more and not less dependent on fossil fuel heating. Of course, we cannot put carbon capture and storage on millions of domestic boilers in people’s homes, so there is a danger that we would lock in emissions if we went down the route of blending hydrogen into the gas grid.

I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate. I would characterise much of it as being about the laws of physics versus magic solutions. I certainly thank Daniel Johnson and Patrick Harvie for reminding us of some of the laws of physics and chemistry in relation to hydrogen and for setting out some of hydrogen’s advantages as an energy vector, as well as some of its limitations. We need to start the debate by understanding the facts on what hydrogen can and cannot do.

The cabinet secretary said early in the debate that the Government’s focus is on the hard-to-abate sectors. As Greens, we very much see a role for green hydrogen, in particular, in the hard-to-abate sectors such as fertiliser production, heavy shipping, aviation, cement production and, potentially, steel. Willie Rennie talked about the need for us to build up the domestic demand for hydrogen in Scotland. However, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, that can come only through an industrial strategy and just transition planning, for example, at the cement factory at Dunbar, at Grangemouth and at Mossmorran. We need to start with the role of hydrogen in our domestic industrial sector and then build up supply chains and understanding around that.

The cabinet secretary moved on quite quickly to talk about the role of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors, which is where the Greens disagree with the Government. It makes no sense to invest in hydrogen in uncompetitive uses such as domestic heating, trains and buses in our cities, which are grossly inefficient uses of hydrogen.

The cabinet secretary talked about the 100 pilot projects around Scotland in which the Government has invested, and a number of Scottish National Party members have spoken about the pilots in their constituencies. How many of those pilot projects are focused on the hard-to-abate sectors, and how many of them are experimenting with uses of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors for which we already know the answers?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the H100 project in Leven as a domestic application of hydrogen for heating and there being a need to prove the concept for that. However, we have already proven the concept of hydrogen heating many times over. Globally, 54 independent studies have been done that have picked up on hydrogen heating projects. The studies have all reported, and not a single one of them—across Europe or around the whole world—has recommended the widespread use of hydrogen heating. That is partly because each of those studies has shown an increase in energy costs as a result of hydrogen heating. On average, the studies show an 86 per cent increase in costs for householders.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con) rose—

Brian Whittle rose—

I want to make some progress.

Graham Simpson talked about people out there wanting a wonderful heating system whereby the only thing that is produced at the end of the day is water. That is absolutely fine, but it cannot come at the expense of fuel poverty. If Mr Simpson genuinely wants pensioners and hard-working families to pay astronomically high energy bills because of a hydrogen heating solution, I think that that is wrong and would drive people into fuel poverty. That is exactly why the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended against the widespread adoption of hydrogen for home heating.

I would like to make progress.

A number of members have spoken about the role of blue hydrogen in the mix as part of the transition. I recognise Kevin Stewart’s enthusiasm for CCS, and a part of me really hopes that CCS works and is effective and efficient, but there are still major concerns about CCS and whether it is deployable at scale. It is not just the Greens who are saying that. Several years ago, the UK Climate Change Committee advised the Scottish Government to develop a plan B in case the Acorn project does not match the expectations that Kevin Stewart set out earlier. It is not a dead cert that CCS will be available, will be cost effective and will work.

Several members have mentioned potential applications for hydrogen in the transport sector. I can absolutely see its being used for heavy transport and shipping, but not for lighter forms of transport such as coaches, buses, cars or heavy goods vehicles. It was interesting to hear Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden getting so excited about potentially having hydrogen refilling points every 124 miles. To be honest, that filled me with range anxiety, given that I can charge my own EV at home, overnight, for 8p per kilowatt hour. Why would we move towards a hydrogen transport system that would create so much range anxiety?

A strong hydrogen economy in Scotland is in the offing, but it must be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. That is where we should put in the research and the just transition planning. It is also where we should put in the science and the effort from Government and industry working together, rather than wasting time on applying hydrogen to areas that will be not cost effective and will end up driving up bills for hard-pressed families around the country.