Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government how it will support NHS Tayside to improve its physical infrastructure to help to deliver better health outcomes. (S6O-04813)

Ninewells hospital has served the people of Dundee for more than 50 years, but the difficulty and costs of maintaining the ageing building are growing. That raises the question whether Tayside would be better served by a new hospital. Will the cabinet secretary conduct a review that compares the cost-effectiveness of continued maintenance versus a new facility?

I want to make clear that deposit return schemes can have a positive effect on the recycling rates for those items in the scheme, and a limited effect on overall recycling rates.

The schemes work well and successfully across the globe but not in Scotland, although it is worth while pointing out that Scotland—indeed, the UK—would be the first to introduce such a scheme with advanced kerbside recycling. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is not directly responsible for the scheme as it is now, but we nevertheless have a duty in this place to stand up for Scotland’s interests, and I have several concerns.

The legislation that is before us has a registration application date before 1 August 2027; however, what if the scheme were to be delayed? Scheme materials are exempt from extended producer responsibility for packaging, which means that non-scheme articles will pay. That will be particularly challenging if there is a delay. Local authorities will lose at least £1,500 per tonne on dry mixed recyclates. How will they be compensated? How will kerbside collections be affected? What will be the impact on local authority recycling rates? Will there be job losses?

How will small independent retailers be supported—for example, by accessing reverse vending machines or incentive schemes? I note the exemption. What will that mean for using glass as a packaging product, particularly as we have a glass recycling plant in Scotland? Will Scottish waste-management small and medium-sized enterprises be part of the scheme and be able to bid to access that waste? Will waste that is collected in Scotland be allocated UK wide? That means that Scotland will not have an opportunity to utilise the value of that waste and, for example, set up plastic recycling facilities.

Perhaps the cabinet secretary would raise that with the UK Government. I have been unable to obtain a meeting.

To ask the Scottish Government what the implications and consequences of not achieving net zero by 2045 would be for Scotland, including the economy. (S6O-04798)

The most popular option that was chosen during the recent latte levy consultation was “No thanks”. I recognise that some climate change policies will not always be popular, but can the minister tell the chamber what the estimated reduction in emissions would be as a result of the proposed latte levy?

I concur with that answer. The consequences of not meeting net zero would drive farmers out of business, destroy the rural economy and put our food security at risk. Does the minister agree that it is common sense to meet the target of achieving net zero by 2045 and that it would be utter madness and an act of national self-harm not to attempt to do so?

I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward the debate. It is not the first time that he has done so, and that is to his great credit, because he has been a long-standing and tireless campaigner on behalf of the Fornethy survivors.

The motion makes clear the horrific experiences that these girls suffered at Fornethy—experiences that no child should have to endure. In those circumstances, I can only imagine the trauma of living with that for decades. We can sympathise with them and we can offer them support, but none of us can truly understand what that trauma would be like.

As Colin Smyth pointed out, some of the girls—now women—are here today in the public gallery, and I recognise the courage that it took to be here, as well as the great courage that they have shown over decades in refusing to be silent and in fighting for their voices to be heard.

That said, as the Deputy Presiding Officer has pointed out, there are live court cases, so care must be taken to ensure that discussion is only in the context of the motion that is before us. Therefore, the language that I use and the issues that I raise should be viewed through that prism.

It certainly has not been easy for survivors. In March 2024, the former Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison, pointed to an absence of official records of the girls’ time at Fornethy. I struggle to understand how that is possible. Who is responsible for it? I hope that we all agree that it was not the responsibility of children.

Scotland’s redress scheme is a mechanism to help survivors of abuse, but it has been closed to the survivors of Fornethy, because it does not cover abuse that happened during short-term residential stays. I understand that the scheme was not set up to deal with abuse in short-term care, but, as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has recommended, the Scottish Government should consult on expanding it to include short-term institutions such as Fornethy.

I know that the Scottish Government has previously refused to expand the scheme’s criteria, but I think that the public would find it outrageous that compensation was being declined because, in effect, the victims did not stay in a place of abuse and cruelty for long enough. For me, one instance is one too many and it will have ramifications for the rest of that child’s life. Ms Robison appeared to suggest at committee that restrictions were put in place because expanding the scheme would set a precedent that would lead to many more cases. My view is that all victims of abuse should have access to redress no matter the length of time that they endured it for and regardless of how historical that abuse was.

Sadly, these roadblocks to restitution—whether they are missing records, unanswered questions or a lack of compensation—all help to keep old wounds open. These women should expect our current institutions to allow them access to natural justice in addition to formal legal proceedings.

Let us remember that the girls were sent to Fornethy by the state—Glasgow Corporation, as it was then, and, later, Strathclyde Regional Council. Those institutions had a duty of care, and a long-established legal and, indeed, moral obligation. It is a matter for the courts—as well as, in my view, the redress scheme—to determine the validity of the harrowing, horrific stories of abuse that I have heard.

Let us make sure that the women who are in the public gallery—and all those who could not be here today—know that we are with them, that we will listen to them and that we will speak up for them.

When the Greens were in Government, we saw a massive expansion in incineration capacity, which is used to power heat networks, particularly in Scandinavia. Some might say that it was a case of, “Burn, baby, burn.” What is the Scottish Government’s view on using renewables to power those heat networks, as opposed to burning stuff?

In light of the recent “Ocean Witness” report from Open Seas, how can the Scottish Government accelerate the delivery of the required management measures in order to protect the marine environment and safeguard sustainable fisheries for the future?

As a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I thank all those who participated in the committee’s review of the embedding of deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament. Particular thanks go to the members of the public who took part in the Parliament’s people’s panels and to the clerks who supported the committee in its work and in the production of the report.

It would be worth Parliament’s while to reflect closely on the wider issues that are alluded to throughout the report, notably the issues of the erosion of public trust and a feeling of disenfranchisement in our political processes and institutions.

The first point of the report notes that, when this Parliament was established, one of the founding principles that the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament set out was that

“the Scottish Parliament should be accessible, open, responsive, and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation”.

The second point of the report highlights the warning from the 2017 commission on parliamentary reform, which stated that

“Failing to engage meaningfully with citizens can lead to dissatisfaction with democracy and a lack of trust in the decision takers.”

The stark reality is that, in Scotland, public trust in our politicians is at an all-time low. The “Life in the UK 2024 Scotland” report gave Scotland a democratic wellbeing score of just 39 out of 100. The findings included the fact that 63 per cent of people disagreed that they could influence decisions that affected Scotland. I wonder what percentage that would be for members of the Scottish Parliament.