Chamber and committees

It is an important topic and I, too, would be interested to hear directly from the cabinet secretary. That would allow us to move things along a bit quicker than letter writing seems to have done in this instance. It would be helpful to hear from her.

This is a very important topic. We know that women are at increased risk of violence through pregnancy and early maternity, so I certainly wish to take more evidence. We have some helpful stuff in our papers, but I would like us to invite the petitioner and some other stakeholders in to give us evidence.

Forgive me, I do not want to disagree with you, convener, but did we not agree to ask the planning minister in for PE1864? Would it not be the—

I am interested to know how the SQA assesses demand and whether it consulted with the deaf community on that. Perhaps we should write to stakeholders such as Deaf Action, the National Deaf Children’s Society Scotland and the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition.

Housing is important. Good-quality and affordable homes, as well as being good for health, support valuable local jobs. They are a good example of creating a wellbeing economy.

We all agree that the best way to end homelessness is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Scotland already has a strong framework of housing rights for those who are recognised as homeless or are threatened with homelessness. Under Scots law, a person should be treated as homeless even if they have accommodation, if it would not be reasonable for them to continue to stay in it.

If someone is legally homeless, they are entitled to stay in temporary accommodation while the local authority checks their eligibility for a permanent home. Local authorities have a pre-existing legal duty to help people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. That legal duty includes the need to provide information and advice on homelessness and its prevention, and to offer temporary or permanent accommodation.

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 established the right to review homelessness decisions and introduced the duty on registered social landlords to assist local authorities in rehousing homeless people. Anyone who finds themselves homeless through no fault of their own must be entitled to settled accommodation in a local authority or housing association tenancy, or in a private rental, not in bed and breakfasts or hotels for more than seven days.

The new proposals under the duties to prevent homelessness build on the strong housing rights that already exist in Scotland for people who become homeless.

Homelessness is often a traumatic and unsettling experience that can have a profound impact on the lives of those involved, including children. It is right that early action should be a shared public responsibility and that we give people who face homelessness more choice and control over where they live. A lack of choice can compound the distress that is already being felt by the person who is experiencing homelessness. I strongly agree that those who face homelessness should have an appropriate degree of choice in where they live and have access to the same accommodation options as other members of the public do. That point was made very well by my colleague Elena Whitham, who expanded on the benefits of getting it right the first time.

In relation to choice, it is only fair to acknowledge that, in my constituency, demand for social housing far outweighs availability. Thousands of people and families are on waiting lists, and they find their choices severely limited and the situation in which they find themselves limiting.

As we are discussing housing, I take the opportunity to mention, again, the importance of rent affordability. When wages are not going up, year-on-year rent increases are putting additional pressure on families at a time when household budgets are already stretched. Rent is the single largest cost for many families, so getting the affordability bit of affordable housing right is crucial and can make a real difference in preventing poverty and improving people’s lives.

Therefore, the investment that the Scottish Government is making in preventing homelessness and in building affordable homes is very welcome. By building more affordable homes, we provide warm and safe places for people to live. By intervening at an earlier stage and encouraging services to work together to respond to people’s needs, we can ensure that fewer people and families have to rebuild their lives and be affected by homelessness.

Emergency restrictions and protections were legislated for quickly when required during the pandemic. They were necessary and will have saved and protected lives. However, some people may feel that such provisions should only ever be temporary and be used only to deal with emergencies.

Although Scottish ministers have already removed many of the temporary measures that supported our country’s response to the pandemic, what assurance can the First Minister give that the measures that are being kept are those that have delivered clear benefits and, therefore, merit being extended in the long term?

As restrictions and protections are eased and we begin to adapt to living with Covid-19, this will be an anxious time for some of my constituents, especially those in higher risk groups. Can the First Minister outline how the distance aware scheme might help to provide confidence and support to people who are worried about mixing with others?

I thank Jamie Greene for taking an intervention, as I know that we are short of time. I am interested in hearing his reflections on whether rising global tensions reinforce the case for getting rid of nuclear weapons and perhaps make that more urgent.

I thank Bill Kidd for securing this important debate on the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force on 22 January 2021. I acknowledge Bill’s long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, peace and justice. I will not call him a veteran campaigner—the last time I did that, he did not like it very much—but I will say that his perseverance is inspiring.

The TPNW entered into force on 22 January 2021 and, so far, 59 states have fully ratified it and are now bound by its provisions. Countries that have signed up to the treaty must never

“Develop, test, produce ... acquire ... stockpile ... transfer ... use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons”.

They are also forbidden to host another country’s nuclear weapons on their territory or to assist or encourage anyone else to engage in any of those prohibited activities.

I have to ask why anyone—or any state—would wish to use these abhorrent weapons, which are the most inhumane instruments of destruction ever created and weapons that, when they are deployed, incinerate human life. Close to 250,000 civilians met that unimaginable end in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses.

To date, the UK has continued to insist that it will not sign the treaty nor be an observer at the first meeting of the state parties to the treaty, in March. The UK has also—shockingly—decided to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons, in clear breach of its obligations under the NPT. The TPNW, with its emphasis on prohibition and elimination, could rectify that deficit.

Safety and security are about more than the absence of violence and war. They are about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential, in which no one is left behind and in which we help to nurture and support those who need it. The challenges and sacrifices that we have endured over the past couple of years have highlighted that point more than ever—they have highlighted what is important. As we build back from Covid, recovery must include the end of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral. However, it is not just immoral but economically illiterate to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction when that money could be invested in a recovery that actually benefits our citizens.

Paragraph 4 of article 4 of the treaty has a clear relevance for Scotland. It states that

“each State Party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction or control that are owned, possessed or controlled by another State shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons, as soon as possible”.

When the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, endorsed the Scottish Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s covenant to support the TPNW’s entering into force, she said:

“While the Scottish Government is unable to become a party to the treaty, as First Minister I strongly support the principles of the treaty and the work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. An independent Scotland would be a keen signatory and I hope the day we can do that is not far off.”

As Bill Kidd pointed out, the majority of parliamentarians in Scotland have signed the ICAN parliamentary pledge, and our First Minister has spoken in support of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the only way to guarantee an end to nuclear weapons in Scotland is for us to regain our independence as a nation, and I look forward to the day when we do that.

Having seen the details of risk assessments, does the minister personally feel that there is ever an acceptable level of risk in having those weapons travelling on our roads and through our major cities at any time, but perhaps especially when we are in a pandemic and our emergency services are already stretched?