Chamber and committees

I, too, congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing the debate. I am pleased that the Parliament has the opportunity to recognise the UN international day of persons with disabilities 2021, which falls tomorrow.

As I am the last to speak in the open debate, I can say that all the speeches have been genuinely excellent. A range of issues have been covered and I have scored out things that I was going to say because they have been said, but I will add a few things. After today, the cabinet secretary will be busy speaking to lots of colleagues, because cross-cutting issues have been raised and we need a joined-up approach not just for the Government but for all employers, agencies and others across Scotland.

I declare an interest as the patron of Disability Equality Scotland. I am honoured to hold that voluntary role. I will talk about a couple of things that have not been fully covered.

I want to mention toilets. Every week, Disability Equality Scotland polls its membership, which has increased during the pandemic. Ninety-five per cent of disabled people who responded to the recent survey said that they have changed plans because no suitable toilets are available. If that does not spell out exclusion, I do not know what does.

I pay tribute to former MSP colleague Mary Fee and to Jeremy Balfour for the great work that they did in the previous session to champion changing places toilets. In the previous term, the Government announced more funding, which is welcome. However, from looking at my inbox, I know that people want to see the roll-out of more changing places toilets. That important work must be borne in mind.

I will talk about transport but in a way that is linked to toilets. One of the respondents to the recent Disability Equality Scotland poll said that the lack of suitable accessible toilets on long-distance bus journeys is a real issue in Scotland. They said:

“The worst offenders are long-distance bus operators—toilets on those buses are useless.”

Others said that, in rural areas, a journey to a hospital appointment can take several hours, and not having access to a suitable toilet is a real problem. In some restaurants and pubs, accessible toilets are being used for storage. Cleaning products are kept there, taken out when a disabled person wants to use the toilet, then put back in. That is really offensive. Today’s debate is about dignity and human rights, so we need to do better than that.

Transport and town planning is another issue that is close to my heart, including access to the built and natural environments more widely, and Disability Equality Scotland does important work on access panels. For those who do not know, access panels are groups of disabled volunteers who work together to improve physical access and wider social inclusion in their local communities. During the scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in the previous session, some of us tried to secure statutory recognition of access panels in the planning process. That issue still needs to be considered by the Government. It is about access to inclusive communication and ensuring that discussions with planners and transport providers are fully accessible.

I do not have much time left, but the other “T” that I want to mention is treatment, as well as access to healthcare, particularly for chronic pain patients, who feel that their care has been further deprioritised during the pandemic. We also need to improve treatment for hidden disabilities such as migraines.

In its briefing to members, Inclusion Scotland said:

“Policy and decision makers and service providers already have the best resource possible?to get things right—Scotland’s?disabled people.”

That comment is from disabled people. Today, we have heard that disabled people know what is needed, what works and what does not. It is the responsibility of us all to listen and break down barriers. I hope that both the Government and the Parliament will be ambitious and bold enough to deliver the system change that disabled people require.

I am grateful for that clarification, cabinet secretary. With regard to joining things together, which is a phrase that you used earlier, I was surprised that there is no reference to the national public energy agency in this strategy document, but what you have said is helpful.

I appreciate that the Government’s point of view is that, because the situation has changed, to have a public energy company is no longer the right approach. However, in the spirit of the co-operation agreement, could that be looked at again and could the Parliament have a role in that? Given the challenges that we face, we need to be ambitious and look at how we can get big system change. Will the Government keep an open mind on that?

Is it the case, then, that the Scottish Government cannot, at present, add wet wipes to the list? Secondly, how often will the list of restricted items be reviewed?

Good morning to the minister and officials. I was pleased to hear you say, minister, that you were doing some reading last night about the result of the great British beach clean and the Marine Conservation Society’s involvement in organising that. From that reading, you will know that the second most common item to be found, when it comes to the pollution of our beaches and coastline, is wet wipes that contain plastics. Will you give us an update on whether a ban on wet wipes might be the next step? The Plastic (Wet Wipes) Bill was introduced under the 10-minute rule at Westminster, and the Marine Conservation Society has said that

“Banning single-use plastic wet wipes is such an easy step to take in order to help achieve a circular economy”.

I would like your thoughts on that.

I am not sure whether Ciaran Jenkins of Channel 4 News is aware of the discussion that we are having, but members might want to look at a very lovely Twitter thread that includes a video of the first family of beavers in Scotland to be moved to their new home.

I agree with Mark Ruskell that this is good news, but, like him, I have some questions about how this will be operationalised and the resource and funding requirements. Perhaps we should ask NatureScot and the Scottish Government for a response to the recent court ruling, given that some matters might be open to different interpretation, and from a landowner’s perspective, there might be questions about compensation for putting adaptation measures in place.

I note that 115 beavers—or around a tenth of the population—were shot and killed in Scotland last year. Despite the change in policy, there is still scope for licensing lethal control, and we need to get a better sense of what that will look like.

I agree with the points that my colleagues have made. We should write to both the Government and CalMac. I agree with the deputy convener that the issues raised by the petitioner dating back to May are fairly urgent and that we cannot wait for the Audit Scotland report, which will probably look at a narrower set of issues. It is right that the committee takes further action.

I thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to the Parliament’s attention.

I have some questions about the proposed national public energy agency, although we have partly covered that subject. I was surprised that there is no mention of such an agency in the quite chunky draft strategy. The cabinet secretary said that a consultation started today, but I cannot see it online yet.

For the benefit of the committee, will you tell us how the proposed agency fits in with the strategy and when it might begin? We thought that there would be a public energy company that would have a role in generation, but that did not happen, so we are a bit behind. Can we be confident that the new agency will come along quickly?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to a Scottish Environment Protection Agency investigation uncovering the single largest illegal export of household waste from Scotland, resulting in Saica Natur UK Limited being fined £20,000. (S6F-00501)

I pay tribute to the SEPA officers involved in detecting that serious and, frankly, disgusting environmental crime. What were supposed to be bales of waste paper included used nappies, period products, dog excrement and plastic packaging. Dozens of those containers were intercepted in Antwerp and in transit to China.

I appreciate that the fine is a matter for the courts, but does the First Minister agree that £20,000 is a paltry fine for that filthy crime and that we need more robust punishment in order to deter such crimes? What action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that our regulatory and legal frameworks are fit for purpose and that we can show leadership on environmental justice and fulfil our moral and legal obligations not to export our pollution to other countries?

Thanks, Teresa. Jess, in giving your answer, will you also reflect on your earlier remarks about the public being energised and about public expectations? I am thinking about the legacy of COP26 for people here in Scotland. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.