Chamber and committees

I am not going to make my comments party political. I do not think that children’s safety is an issue that should be party political. I will present an idea to the minister at the end, because I am one for solutions. He knows that.

North Lanarkshire Council has got itself into a bit of a mess. Part of the reason for that is the way in which it consults, or does not consult, with parents. It is not the only council that does that in a cack-handed manner. Often, decisions are imposed on people—in this case, parents. Councillors are reassured by officers that processes have been followed when perhaps they have not been. I am not going to stand here and blame councillors for taking a decision that takes a council to the legal limit, because I have been in that position myself as a councillor in South Lanarkshire. These are tough decisions to take, and all councils are up against it budget-wise. That is why they end up in the position that they are in.

I said that I was not going to make it party political. I am not going to make it party political. I am describing the challenges that councillors face. However, we end up in a situation where school buses are being withdrawn, which puts some children—not all children—at risk.

I, too, have walked one of the routes. That was from Stepps to Chryston and it was along a busy dual carriageway. Would I walk that route to work? No, I would not. Would a teacher walk that route to work? No, they would not, so why would we expect a child, possibly at the start of their high school journey, to do the same? I do not think that we should.

I suggest that we look at the issue in the round and accept that there is a problem throughout Scotland with the school run. Too many cars are being used to take kids to school, so we need to rethink things. We have council officers, perhaps even Government ministers, in an entrenched position, saying, “Well, that’s the legal limit—that’s all we have to do”. In fact, we should be looking at the whole issue of there being too many cars on the road taking kids to school.

There is perhaps a role for Government here in rethinking the issue and considering whether we can do come up with a different system whereby councils—it could be councils—organise buses. Maybe some parents could be asked to contribute towards that. I know that a lot of parents will not like that, but the issue is that there is a lack of provision in a lot of council areas to get kids to school, so they are put in cars. That adds to congestion, which is also a safety issue.

We need a rethink. If the minister, whom I do not think will not come up with any solutions today, can accept that we need to rethink the matter and end the school run throughout Scotland, we might get something positive out of this.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what recent discussions it has had with NHS Lanarkshire about the replacement Monklands hospital. (S6O-03885)

I thank the minister for that answer, but good progress does not mean money on the table, and that is what is required. A recent NHS Lanarkshire report dubbed Monklands hospital a “risk to life”, highlighting floods, bacterial outbreaks and major heating failures. Colin Lauder, director of planning at NHS Lanarkshire, has said that Monklands

“is not suitable for 21st century medical practice.”

A recent briefing for elected members told us that not replacing Monklands is simply unthinkable.

Will the minister commit to funding Monklands hospital? In the spirit of collaboration, will she agree to host a meeting of interested MSPs from the area to discuss that?

I will press amendment 3. As everybody seems to be happy with that, I will be happy to leave it there.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 2—Replacement of annual and interim targets with budget targets

I hope to make a brief contribution—which, I know, will be popular with members.

Today, we are being asked to pass a bill that would not have been necessary if the Government had done its job. Patrick Harvie called it an embarrassment and “an admission of failure”, and he was right about that. We are being asked to dig the Government out of a legislative hole. As WWF has said,

“The need for this Bill is frustrating but it makes the best of a bad situation—we need to see action from government that will put our climate and nature ambitions back on track.”

We have the bill because the Government failed to meet legally binding climate change targets or to produce a draft climate change plan by the end of this month, despite having promised to have it ready more than a year ago. That is why the bill has been rushed through. The Government was unable to abide by the law, so it has had to change the law.

Members are well aware of the background, so I do not need to go over it, but we have had a series of missed targets. Friends of the Earth Scotland said in its briefing:

“The 2030 target set by the 2019 Climate Change Act was ambitious but completely achievable.”

It went on to say:

“The need to amend the targets now is solely down to Scottish Government inaction”,

and it is right about that. The briefing went on to call for

“urgent and radical action taken now or the 2045 target will not be met.”

Like others, I welcome the constructive approach that the cabinet secretary has taken in working with us and others at stages 2 and 3. I suspect that Douglas Lumsden and I have not been in her office quite as often as Monica Lennon has, but we are superefficient. I have to say that I agree with Douglas Lumsden that the approach was in marked contrast to our experience during the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. This bill is better for that collaboration.

We have had a number of amendments at stages 2 and 3, which I think have improved the bill, but the test will be whether it makes any difference at all to people’s lives. We do not know, because that requires plans and policies that are missing. We need to see the heat in buildings bill and, as others have said, a plan to cut car miles, if that is still the Government’s ambition—if it is not, the Government should just stop pretending that it is. None of this will be easy. Let us hope that there is more collaboration when it comes to doing the hard stuff.

I am happy to support the bill.

I have one, simple, amendment in the group, which takes out one word: “broadly”. The bill reads:

“A statement under subsection (5) must also set out, in broadly indicative terms, the proposals and policies in relation to each of the sectors mentioned in section 35(3)”.

It then goes on a bit.

The wording is the result of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I and other members felt that the phrase “broadly indicative” was rather woolly, so the happy compromise that I reached with the cabinet secretary was to take out the word “broadly”—and, broadly, that is where I will leave it.

I move amendment 3.

That is very useful in setting out where members of the public can interact digitally. I am glad that you mentioned the health service, because I wish that there was some digital inclusion in the health service. Generally, we are a bit behind the curve in Scotland. [Interruption.] Hang on—I have not finished.

You mentioned work with NHS Lanarkshire. One of the frustrations—certainly for me—is the inability to book a medical appointment or interact with a general practitioner online. Many GPs do not offer that service, so I am interested in what you have to say about NHS Lanarkshire. Will you provide more details of that work?

I am really sorry for your loss. How did that facility work for you?

There were some things that they did not use.