Chamber and committees

I want to push a bit more on framework bills. They give ministers and the Government increased flexibility, but Parliament loses something in the process. I know that there is always a trade-off between Parliament and Government—I accept that—but as an individual member of the Parliament I worry about my ability to influence the likes of the proposed agriculture bill on behalf of my constituents. If everything is in secondary legislation, the chance to lodge amendments, to have them voted on and to have a transparent debate and process is limited. That changes the nature of the debate and negotiation on a policy. One example is that the committee’s members—or a majority of the members of the committee—had the same view on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. What is your reflection on that, as a parliamentarian?

That process clearly takes something away from my constituents. I do not want to get into the politics of it, but that will be the case for members from other parties, including Scottish National Party MPs in the UK Parliament.

There are parts of the country where people did not put their trust in the Government and, because of the decision to go down the framework bill route, their elected representatives in Parliament do not have the option of lodging amendments to show what the alternatives were, and to see the Parliament vote on them.

Is there still a firm commitment to introduce one bill in year 4 and one in year 5?

That would be great. I appreciate what you say but, given some of the previous issues, we would also appreciate any background that you can provide on the work that the Scottish Government has done, as it is some time since the consultation on the proposal took place. It would be good to hear what has been going on in the background.

Will the member give way?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that you were in the chair when Richard Lochhead suggested that another member should have been in the chamber to participate. I seek your guidance on that, because without knowledge of why a member might choose to participate remotely in a hybrid Parliament that operates in a way that all parties signed up to, that remark was potentially disrespectful. I am concerned that such language might become part of the debate. I do not consider calling out other members on how they choose to participate in the Parliament to be a debating point. I am interested in your views on the matter.

Does Brian Whittle agree that those considerations should form part of the energy consents unit’s application process before giving consent, and should not be tagged on afterwards?

I will try to be briefer than Finlay Carson. Does the minister think that it is fair that communities have to fundraise in order to get professional support to oppose applications and take part in the planning appeals process?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice the frustrations of my constituents tonight, and I thank Alexander Burnett for bringing this much-needed debate to the chamber. The issue speaks to the wider contempt in which rural communities are held by this Government, and more specifically to the lack of voice that they have in the planning system—a system that often feels like a sham that is stacked in favour of the developers.

Too often, we see the views and decisions of local authorities discounted and overturned. Communities and local people say no, yet these projects are still imposed. Objectors are treated like second-class citizens whose views count for less than the views of the Government or of developers. That has certainly been my experience, with developers seeking to block my participation in inquiry sessions, asserting that because I am not a landscape expert, the views that I express on behalf of my constituents do not matter, and developers arguing that community concerns are better lumped together into less formal hearing sessions, if they are recognised at all.

It is a system in which slick out-of-town lawyers and consultants rock up in their top-of-the-range gas-guzzling sports cars and tell rural communities that they do not matter; who claim that, for the sake of progress and the planet, we must see our landscapes destroyed while the devastating impacts on wildlife, peat, watercourses and biodiversity are conveniently downplayed.

All the while, local people are told that they should be grateful for the pittance that they are offered by way of return—a so-called community benefit. It is nothing more than state-condoned bribery, which is used to divide communities and manipulate planning outcomes. It is all the more insulting when it is contrasted with the millions that are banked by the new renewables barons.

On top of that feeling of unfairness, we see a landscape impact methodology that focuses on what are often manipulated viewpoints that overlook what it is like to live and work in the vicinity of these developments, where people intricately know, love and are connected to their landscapes across generations. Linked to that, we also see a very narrow focus on residential amenity, which forgets that the environment around them is exactly why people choose to live in the countryside.

Under the current system, many pockets of outstanding natural beauty are sacrificed because they are too small to merit national protection. Tourism concerns are downplayed, despite developers’ own studies showing a loss of jobs in some areas post-build—and of course, the promised new green jobs just do not materialise.

It gets worse, however, because there is something truly sinister going on below the radar. In this life, it is always easier to turn a blind eye, but I tell the minister that our current planning system is being corrupted by cash payments. This is serious, and is turbo-charging rural depopulation. Some people call it the new clearances, but it can be more accurately described as the disappearances.

Secret deals take place, and non-disclosure agreements signing away people’s rights to object in the planning process in exchange for payment are now commonplace in Scotland. Others sell directly to the developer or those connected with the project in order to reduce the planning requirements. They literally vanish from their homes, and the only trace that they leave is a letter in the hands of the developer, with a vague statement confirming that the wind farm application had nothing to do with their move. Those murky practices are gutting our rural values and pitting neighbour against neighbour.

We cannot blame people for taking the golden ticket, but in this context, it makes those who choose to make a stand in the David-and-Goliath battle, to stand up for their homes and their communities against attempts to manipulate the planning system, all the more impressive. I pay tribute to those of them who have been in the Parliament today.

We need to act, as those practices are not right in Scotland in 2023. Climate concerns, our environment and our people, not who can pay the most, should be at the heart of our consents regime. I say to the minister: it is time to step in and stop the rot—our communities deserve a fair hearing.

I am not a Lothians MSP, but I followed the issue during my time on the Education, Children and Young People Committee and on other occasions that have popped up. It was very interesting to listen to Fiona Hyslop’s contribution, and I must not forget Jeremy Balfour, whom I congratulate on securing the debate. His contribution was also excellent.

With this issue, there is a disconnect for people. I cannot believe that we are here in 2023—some time after the issue came to light—and that families are still facing difficulties in getting the services to work together and deliver for their young people. It speaks to broader pressures that exist in the system that, even when we know that families have been failed, we still cannot get it right for them. That should concern members across the chamber.

I know that the minister is new in post, but I am sure that she will want to help people to move forward, because that is what people want to do. The members who have spoken so far are right—in order to understand the importance of doing that, we have to recognise the grave injustice that has taken place.

For me, the issue is put into clear terms by the stark disparity between average identification time in the Lothians and in other parts of the country, which was highlighted at the time of the report by the National Deaf Children’s Society. People elsewhere in the United Kingdom are identified within 109 days on average, but in the Lothians, the average is 4.5 years. Even if it is a small group of families who wait a very long time for identification, something has gone very badly wrong if there is that difference.

The sad truth is that professional standards were not followed and there were poor management protocols. I think that that level of carelessness is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. I am not confident that everything in audiology is working well now. I think that we see, across the country and not just in the Lothians, audiology services under huge pressure. One of my big concerns is that, because there are no audiology services in the community for adults—obviously, children should be being seen by the NHS—there are a huge number of people on the audiology lists, taking up space in our hospitals for routine things around hearing aids and removing ear wax, while those who need audiology services and that specialist support are waiting far too long. We know that even when families and young people get that diagnosis, they are not getting the support.

It is hard being deaf or hard of hearing in Scotland today. We have not got it right. For all the technological improvements, which I have seen through constituents and with a member of staff whom I had in this Parliament, things are just not there for them. Speech and language waiting lists are far too long. There are problems with getting British Sign Language interpreters and accessing basic services. When people phone up Government or council services, they are told that no one is there who can speak to them, or, if they have capacity, someone else has to speak to them. People have these problems every single day.

The families that are here in the gallery today have been failed. I cannot believe that we are not able to get it right for them, let alone all the other people who have seen their potential diminished. I would just ask the minister to take the calls from across the Parliament very seriously and to do what the Scottish Government can to get things right.