Chamber and committees

Thank you for being here. One of the reasons behind the petition that the committee has been asked to look at, or certainly something that is relevant to it, is the “Report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing in Scotland”, which was produced by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. It says:

“a dog bred for racing in Scotland currently has poorer welfare than the average of other dogs in the population.”

Will you respond to that? What do you think of it?

One of the things that we are interested in, following the evidence that we have heard previously, is what the future of this pastime looks like. The only places in the world where greyhound racing is still legal are—please keep me right—the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, three or four states in the US, Mexico and Vietnam. As we have talked about, there is now only one place in Scotland where it happens. We heard in previous evidence that the attendance at Thornton has been declining. I do not know whether that is true or whether you can offer any insight into that. Is there a decline in the number of people who are involved in this activity?

The bill sets out that people who are interested in or affected by the making of muirburn will be consulted when the muirburn code is being prepared or reviewed. In practice, that would probably also include when it is being revised but, for the avoidance of doubt, my amendment 94 seeks to set that out clearly in the bill.

Amendment 73 would clarify the consultation requirements in relation to preparing, reviewing or revising the code of practice. It seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers or NatureScot consult people whom they consider are

“likely to be interested in or affected by the management of land to which a section 16AA licence relates”,

whereas, currently, the requirement is to consult

“any other person they consider appropriate.”

The purpose of the code of practice is to provide guidance about managing land to which a section 16AA licence relates, so it is fair to have a requirement that the people who have to use the code should have a hand in developing it. I understand that that is already the case, to an extent. NatureScot is already taking a collaborative approach to developing the code of practice, and a working group has been established to that end. Amendment 73 would simply make sure that that collaborative approach continues.

The requirement for muirburn practitioners to be trained was widely discussed and widely supported at stages 1 and 2. There was near-universal agreement from stakeholders that, due to the risks and the potential for widespread damage when muirburn is not done correctly, anyone involved should be trained. Notwithstanding Mr Mountain’s stated scepticism about all forms of training in general, I understand that it was anticipated that being suitably trained would always be a requirement for the muirburn licence.

My amendment 21 sets out that expectation in the bill by making training a condition of every muirburn licence. I believe that it is reasonable to set out that condition, so that muirburn licence holders understand what is expected of them. That would make it easier, in turn, to comply with the legislation.

Does the member also accept that taking responsibility means not committing ourselves to Tory spending plans for two years?

Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to members that, due to a pressing meeting, I will not be able to stay in the chamber until the end of the debate.

The issue of cladding on multistorey buildings might not strike people as being relevant to a constituency such as mine, where buildings more than three storeys in height are practically non-existent and even those with three storeys are in a small minority. However, as happens elsewhere, people in my constituency have families in the cities, so some of them are affected by the cladding issue, often financially.

I begin by outlining one such case, in anonymised form, which I hope will serve to illustrate the predicament that many families across Scotland have faced since the appalling tragedy at Grenfell. I believe that it points to a clear need for new legislation on the subject, such as the bill that we are debating, and that it makes the case for finding all possible new ways to expedite assistance, given the time that many people have already waited.

My constituent bought a small flat in a multistorey block in Glasgow, completing her purchase only a few weeks before the Grenfell disaster, in May 2017. Her intention was to use the flat as a home for her son, who was at university in the city, and that was how the flat was used initially. However, by the time that her son had completed his course, the legislation had changed, making the building impossible to let out and difficult to sell. That was because, under the new cladding legislation, the top two floors of the building above my constituent’s flat were found to have what had, by then, been identified as an unacceptable type of cladding, which had most likely been installed when the building had been converted from offices to flats. Although my constituent’s flat was not clad in that material, the whole building was, understandably, deemed to be affected until such time as the problem upstairs could be rectified by its owners—which it never was. My constituent realised that if she wanted to resell her flat, realistically that could now be done only by offering it to a cash buyer, as no lender would mortgage the property while the issue of the cladding on the floors above remained unresolved. The limited market that is available for a sale of that kind means that she is now looking at making a loss of £30,000 on the property, which would represent a major financial blow to her.

I have little doubt that other members will have constituents in similar situations. Indeed, we have already heard members alluding to some such examples during the debate. Therefore we clearly need legislation that will speed up the process of putting such situations right, which I believe the bill will do, to some extent, by addressing the present barriers to assessment and remediation work.

As other members have pointed out, aside from the safety issue, dangerous cladding has had serious consequences for many people. In addition to the sense of insecurity in one’s own home that the situation creates, it sometimes has crippling financial consequences. In response to such problems, the bill will create a cladding assurance register and a responsible developers scheme, while facilitating potential costs and sanctions if developers fail to comply.

As its programme for government laid out, the Scottish Government has introduced the bill with a further aim in mind: to create a new power to undertake urgent measures to remediate unsafe cladding that presents a risk to life. I would welcome anything that could achieve that end.

The Scottish Government is already seeking to identify and address unsafe cladding on buildings across Scotland, but I think that everyone would acknowledge the need to speed up that process. The Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill will accelerate that work and provide further reassurance and safeguards for owners and residents. The responsible developers scheme that the bill will create will also give some recognition to developers who are doing the right thing by working to remediate their buildings.

The Government has acknowledged the need to do more on communication, and I welcome the measures in the bill that seek to achieve that.

I hope that the bill, which was introduced at pace and is now undergoing extensive parliamentary scrutiny, will make a positive contribution to fixing a problem that all acknowledge has gone on for too long.

The problems are, of course, by no means unique to Scotland. In Wales, the Government there currently faces calls to release the remediation data on buildings with cladding that would allow for action.

The Scottish Government would not, I think, claim that the bill will solve every problem that is faced by every family who has been waiting for action on their property. However, I believe that the proposed legislation is a major contribution to breaking the logjam that has been creating such stress for so many people, including my own constituents and a great number more.

The tragedy at Grenfell was of such an order that it stands entirely on its own, but we all now have a duty to work together to find solutions to ensure that buildings in Scotland are safer to live in. We must also find ways of alleviating the unforeseen financial problems that so many families still face.

My constituents have welcomed the summer timetable redeployment decisions that were announced yesterday for the period while the MV Caledonian Isles undergoes extensive repairs. However, CalMac is still exploring another alternative, namely the use of the MV Isle of Lewis on the Uig triangle, taking it away from the Castlebay to Oban route. Will the cabinet secretary assure my constituents that any vessel to be deployed on the latter route in such a scenario is more likely to be reliably suitable for such an exposed route than the MV Isle of Arran, which was being considered for the route by CalMac as recently as last week?

To ask the Scottish Government what factors are assessed when determining vessel deployment decisions for Western Isles ferry routes. (S6O-03172)

Can the First Minister say whether the Scottish Government will give consideration to replicating pilots such as the one that has been undertaken at Creag Meagaidh on areas of publicly owned land in the crofting counties to allow crofters to—subject to their receiving the proper training—take in-season deer for their own consumption or, potentially, sell it on, thereby incentivising their participation in what is a vital strand of nature restoration?