Chamber and committees

With just a year to go until dissolution and my own eyes fixed on the exit, I rise to speak in the debate with a slightly different mindset. I look back at the years spent in the chamber and question—not in a way that is disrespectful to colleagues—how much of what we have done has actually delivered a meaningful step change in the future lives of Scotland’s young people. What have we actually done to shift the dial? What will people reel off in future as the key successes of this parliamentary session?

When I hear the minister talk about affordability, I find it very frustrating, because I have lost track of how many times I have heard the First Minister say that we cannot just will the ends—we have to will the means. When we say that the provision is unaffordable and unworkable, when we fish around trying to find all the problems and none of the solutions, what are we telling young people?

Processing planning applications takes up significant resources, especially for smaller rural authorities. Despite those commitments on planning and development, net expenditure by local authorities was more than 30 per cent lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2013-14. We do not have to look very far to find damaging delays that are holding back growth, particularly in the rural economy. What work is the minister doing to review the work of local authorities and ensure that there is consistency across Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support local authorities with managing planning applications (S6O-04490)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the mental health of police officers and ensure that they have access to the appropriate specialist services. (S6O-04450)

I understand that this potentially strays into operational matters, but I am worried about the signal that is being sent out when serving officers are telling me that the wellbeing team is being diluted and that specialist roles are being removed. Does the Government at least recognise the anxiety that that will cause hard-working officers, who are facing very challenging situations in their front-line roles and are struggling to access dedicated, experienced and suitably qualified support at work?

One of my concerns is that a lot of this sits with environmental health. There are good individuals working in that area, but they do not necessarily have the necessary experience, knowledge and housing expertise. Will the minister look at that when he contacts local authorities?

I pay tribute to my colleague Murdo Fraser for securing this important debate and for shining a light on an often undervalued and overlooked part of Scotland’s housing landscape.

The Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations does a great job, but it is working without resource and on an entirely voluntary basis to make the case on behalf of thousands of residents. Given my constituency experience over the past eight and a half years, I was keen to speak in this debate and give voice to the legitimate concerns of local residents of park homes, who are often left without a voice or adequate mechanisms to address the unfairness and discrimination that they face. Their concerns are such that I do not want to give a number of specific examples today, because people are in such fear of the relationship that they have with park home owners and the control that they have over their home. That sort of thing would not be acceptable in any other part of the housing landscape.

Although overregulation concerns me in many other sectors, the situation here is quite the opposite. Too often, the park home sector feels like the wild west, where the normal rules do not apply. I know that some diligent site owners are doing the right thing, but too many operate to an unacceptable standard. They have identified it as a weak area in housing policy, where they can exploit vulnerable people, who are often older and disabled, and use them as a cash cow.

I am deeply troubled by the charges that are, as Colin Beattie mentioned, imposed for electricity usage, the lack of transparency around how those costs are calculated and the inability of residents to control them. How can it be right that households that are among some of the most vulnerable—many of whom have, as Murdo Fraser has said, moved specifically to try to make their homes more affordable—are totally excluded from the consumer protections that the rest of us enjoy?

Equally, I have seen a number of issues with, for example, water pressure on sites, on which there is no oversight. There are also the well-known and well-rehearsed issues of exploitative rates for changing ownership and excessive and inflated site fees. Too often, park home owners feel as though they are being treated like second-class citizens, and they are not, as other members have mentioned, given the full facts before signing on the dotted line.

However, it is not only site owners who give rise to concern. As has been referenced, local authorities are not doing their bit and too often take a hands-off approach when it comes to their statutory and other duties in relation to such sites. In my experience, they often opt for the path of least resistance rather than stand up for local residents, adopting a tick-box approach to site licensing and showing little interest when it comes to ensuring that site designs are fit for purpose. How can it be right that roads and planning officials have such limited powers to root out bad practice in that space? How can sizeable residential developments be allowed to be built and operated without proper roads, drainage and lighting?

We then come to another area of bad practice that has already been referenced—the misselling of homes on non-residential sites. I first became aware of the scale of the issue during the Covid pandemic, when many non-residential sites were asked to close, in line with regulations. My inbox was flooded with emails from people who had been asked to move out of what they considered to be their main residence to go to other homes that did not exist. Thankfully, the Scottish Government stepped in in that instance, but, given the prevalence of the practice, I think that there needs to be a more serious rethink. Local authorities should not be, on the one hand, collecting council tax, registering people to vote and providing other services to such individuals while, on the other, claiming not to know about them.

I urge the minister to back Murdo Fraser’s motion and get behind the cross-party efforts to ensure that park home owners are treated with fairness and given the same rights as other home owners.

Does Mark Ruskell agree that it is wrong that individual residents, rather than park owners, are often more likely to face local authority enforcement action?

I recognise the First Minister’s personal commitment to the project. Will he go one better and come to Dumfries to meet the young people and their families who are at the heart of the project and see at first hand how life-changing it is? Perhaps he will bring his famed deal-making skills and try to pull together a positive future plan for the organisation.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve NHS services in Dumfries and Galloway. (S6O-04300)