Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on using the powers outlined in the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 to prosecute nationals and residents of the United Kingdom residing in Scotland who have committed war crimes. (S6O-04749)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to support transgender people following the recent Supreme Court ruling, in light of reported concerns from transgender people, and their friends, family and allies that it undermines the rights and risks the personal safety of transgender individuals. (S6O-04729)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that sympathetic response.

The real issue here is the fact that the increasing levels of violence and discrimination that trans people face are destroying their dignity. Which toilets people use is an utter red herring. We should focus on the root causes of the real violence and structural oppression that women and trans people face.

How will the Scottish Government engage further with the EHRC consultation on the final guidance to ensure that it does not further infringe on trans people’s dignity and rights, which they have successfully had for decades?

The Galloway national park was a once-in-a-generation opportunity for local communities to deliver investment in tourism, the food economy, nature, transport and housing, while getting more local control over forestry and wind farm developments. All that has been lost because of a failure of the Government—and some local politicians, such as Mr Carson—to show leadership and to counter an aggressive misinformation campaign from landed interests. Communities in Perthshire, meanwhile, showed majority public support for a new Tay forest national park, despite facing a similar aggressive misinformation campaign. Will the Government now re-engage with that bid for Scotland’s third national park, or has it simply given up on the idea altogether?

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?