Chamber and committees

As this is the first time that I have spoken on the bill, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I own a private rented property in Edinburgh, from which I get some rental income, although that is not particularly relevant to this group of amendments. I am also a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising.

The cabinet secretary referred to the background in relation to park homes. In February, I hosted a members’ business debate on that issue, which I know is of interest to a wide range of members. Indeed, in a previous parliamentary session, Colin Beattie MSP chaired a cross-party group on park homes that identified some of the issues.

Park homes are a popular and growing segment of housing, in particular for retirees and people who are looking to downsize. However, it is clear that the legislative framework around park homes is not fit for purpose. We have too many examples, which I, and others, highlighted in the members’ business debate, of park home residents being at the mercy of unscrupulous owners of park home developments. Much more needs to be done to improve the legislative framework.

As the cabinet secretary said, I have had good engagement with the Minister for Housing on the issue. I am not seeking for my amendments to provide a comprehensive package of reform—that will take a lot longer—but to deal with some of the more egregious issues that have arisen that could be resolved a lot more quickly.

As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 21 deals with adaptations. Park home residents, many of whom might be elderly or disabled, are not eligible—or, in many cases, they are being told that they are not eligible—for grants for adaptations to put in such things as ramps for wheelchairs, wet rooms or to make other changes to their property that would normally be funded through local authority grants if they were living in what is deemed to be a permanent home. However, even though park homes might be permanent residences, because they do not meet the definition of a permanent structure, councils are telling people who live in them that they are not eligible for assistance.

I understand what the cabinet secretary said about the rights of councils; the issue is that, although that might be what the Government says, it is not what some councils are telling us. In fact, I can cite a very recent example. A segment on STV News at the beginning of this month highlighted concerns in the Perth and Kinross area around park homes, in response to which Perth and Kinross Council issued a statement that it was very sympathetic to the demand for the installation of ramps or wet rooms as adaptations; however, and this is a direct quote:

“under the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 grants can only be awarded to permanent structures so, unfortunately, even when residents have permission to stay in a park home all year round they are not eligible for this funding. We appreciate how frustrating this situation is for homeowners but there is no scope for us to award discretionary grants under current legislation.”

The Government might be saying that local authorities can give that money, but that is not what local authorities are saying, so we have a problem.

My amendment 21 is not intended to be prescriptive in its form. It simply requires ministers to bring forward regulations that would require assistance to be offered to people living in park homes or similar properties in the same fashion as would be offered to someone living in a more permanent structure. It strikes me as a very reasonable amendment, given what the cabinet secretary has said.

I might be minded not to move it, if we could get some reassurance before stage 3 that local authorities are doing what the Government is telling them to do. Does the cabinet secretary want to intervene?

Good morning, minister. I want to ask you about how Grangemouth fits into the wider issue of energy security for the UK. Incidentally, I entirely agree with your comments on nuclear energy, which I think would be a useful part of the mix in Scotland.

We in the UK are now a net importer of oil and gas. Your Government has decided that it will not grant licences for new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as my colleague just mentioned. Can you explain the logic in our importing oil and gas at a higher carbon cost, when that means that we will be exporting the economic benefit and the jobs to other countries?

Thanks for that answer.

Do you agree that there is no contradiction in trying to encourage a transition to renewable energy at the same time as taking the maximum advantage of the resources that we have? We will require oil and gas for decades to come, so we will just have to import more if we do not produce it at home.

Your Government is not granting consent to Rosebank and Jackdaw, which could make a major contribution to oil and gas and support jobs in the north-east economy. Harbour Energy in Aberdeen has just announced a cut of 250 jobs. Today, The Scotsman newspaper is reporting an open letter from 2,500 energy workers, business leaders and others in the north-east in which they call for an end to the windfall tax.

Do you not accept that your Government’s current approach is devastating the north-east economy, as those business leaders and others claim?

What is your message, therefore, to the 2,500 people from the north-east of Scotland who have just signed the open letter that was reported in the media today? The letter states that you need to rethink your approach to the windfall tax and to the grant of new licences, because it is “devastating” for the north-east economy. Are you telling them that they just need to suck it up?

When we spoke to the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, he suggested increasing the frequency of his budget meetings with the SPCB and aligning them with the budget bid cycle. Do you have any views on that? How would that impact on capacity?

That was interesting. We are all conscious that the Parliament unanimously agreed to a motion from the Finance and Public Administration Committee last year that there should be a moratorium on new SPCB-supported bodies, pending the work that that committee is doing. Notwithstanding that, members’ bills are progressing.

Sorry—I missed that one.

We have taken evidence on the existing criteria for creating new SPCB-supported bodies. The Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends that the criteria be strengthened and formalised. Do you have any views on how that might be done? Who in the Parliament should be responsible for assessing new proposals against the criteria?

Is that a helpful exchange?

Thank you.

I want to ask about the framework for establishing new public bodies. There is a draft ministerial control framework, which the Scottish Government has been using for the past two years, that sets out criteria to be applied should a new public body be created. Part of the framework specifies engagement with the SPCB at an early stage to discuss any proposed SPCB-supported bodies and potential impacts on the SPCB budget.

I have two questions, which I will ask together to save time. Have you had any interactions with the Scottish Government on proposed new bodies? To what extent are you able to feed in views on the SPCB’s capacity to provide effective governance?