Chamber and committees

I am continuing with my evidence; I will run out of time if I take another intervention.

The United Nations poverty envoy, Olivier De Schutter, has warned that another wave of austerity might violate UK human rights obligations and increase hunger and malnutrition. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said:

“The country is facing a humanitarian crisis. Many people could face the awful choice between skipping meals to heat their homes and having to live in cold, damp and very unpleasant conditions.”

Since Matthew Taylor stated that, we have seen the reality of eating versus heating. It is not a choice any more, because folk are not heating their homes and they are missing meals—families are omitting their meals.

Gillian Martin mentioned that the inquiry shaped the committee’s many recommendations in employment, education, housing, social security, public services and health—many portfolios are covered. Fundamentally, the recommendations call for urgent co-ordinated action across all levels of government in the UK to tackle health inequalities in Scotland.

The committee was particularly concerned that the rising cost of living will have a more negative impact on those groups that are already experiencing health inequalities, including those living in poverty and those with a disability.

One of the key findings is that there is no overarching, national strategy for tackling health inequalities in Scotland, but the evidence submitted to our inquiry showed many instances where the design and delivery of public services may exacerbate inequalities rather than reduce them.

It is clear from our report that many causes of health inequalities lie with policies made at Westminster, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to accept the majority of the committee’s recommendations, and we will work together to tackle health inequalities in Scotland.

I fed into the national planning framework draft strategy on tackling vacant and abandoned land and buildings. Does the member agree that we need to continue to consider those issues and make sure that powers are created to tackle problem eyesore sites?

I am pleased to open this members’ business debate, and I thank the members who have signed my motion, which allows us to debate Scotland’s vacant and derelict sites. I thought that the motion would attract support from all parties because it is relevant to most communities in Scotland, as one third of the population lives within 500m of a derelict site. Therefore, I am a wee bit hingin-luggit that no Conservatives supported it. However, I see that there are three Conservative members in the chamber, so if they give speeches, perhaps they could explain why they did not sign the motion.

I want to thank the Scottish Land Commission for all that it does to facilitate change in the situation with regard to Scotland’s vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, and to bring about practical solutions for the public sector. A paper by the Scottish Land Commission provides real examples of areas where work has been done, under the headings, “Places to live”, “Places to power”, “Places to grow”, “Places to play”, “Places to connect”, “Places to learn”, “Places to renew”, “Places to work” and “Places to imagine”. In particular, I thank the Scottish Land Commission’s chair, Andrew Thin, and its head of policy, Shona Glenn, for meeting me and for their continued engagement with my office.

As I said, almost one third of the Scottish population currently lives within 500m of a derelict site, which is a legacy of Scotland’s industrial past. In the most deprived communities in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, that figure increases to 55 per cent. Fixing urban dereliction could play a major role in addressing health inequalities and improving wellbeing, but the benefits do not stop there. Tackling urban dereliction could also help us to solve some of society’s biggest challenges. The benefits of addressing derelict land are obvious, yet we still see heels being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change that is needed.

The Scottish Land Commission has said that, for far too long, the issue of repairing, renewing and renovating brownfield derelict sites has been dumped on the “too difficult” pile. We need to change the narrative and recognise the massive opportunity that presents itself to us.

Understanding and assessing the impacts of blight on people who live near derelict land provides a powerful evidence base to help communities and decision makers to act. In addition to the obvious impacts of derelict sites, including the visual disturbance and embarrassment that is experienced by people who live next to them, there is also substantial evidence about the negative health implications of dereliction.

In 2016, the findings from joint research by the Scottish Land Commission, the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, the University of Glasgow and other partners were brought together in a report that, for the first time, identified the major causes of Scotland’s excess mortality. It is interesting that the point that I am coming to follows the debate on health inequalities that we had earlier this afternoon.

One of the factors that was identified was an adverse physical environment that is caused by living in and around dereliction. The study found that living close to or next to such areas leads to poor mental health, feelings of being unsafe, anxiety and persistent low mood.

Across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, we have many derelict sites—the George hotel in Stranraer, the former rubber and Interfloor factory in Dumfries, the Central hotel in Annan, the Mercury hotel in Moffat, and the N Peal and Glenmac buildings in Hawick.

In my engagement to try to get action, I have had responses from site owners and local authorities. However, The local authorities’ response is that they do not have the powers to deal with derelict sites. I checked that, and the Scottish Parliament information centre has confirmed that local authorities have available to them several options for action on derelict sites.

The member is still trying to intervene from a sedentary position. The bottom line is that we dinnae have control of the budget. We need the finance to deliver what we need in order to tackle poverty and address health inequalities.

The committee’s report shows that successive UK Conservative Governments, particularly in the 1980s and from 2010 onwards, insisted on austerity agendas and slashed welfare payments and public services. It is important to state that austerity is

“difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure.”

It is caused by policy choices.

I have only five minutes.

The report reflects that the austerity agenda has caused continued and immense damage to the health of the poorest and most vulnerable. Austerity has been an economic failure and a health failure. During our inquiry, we heard how experts from the Glasgow Centre of Population Health showed that nearly 20,000 excess deaths in Scotland were likely to have been caused by UK Government economic policy. Tory austerity policies have likely caused more deaths in Scotland than Covid-19. [Interruption.]

Here is the evidence that members might want tae listen tae. Dr David Walsh from the Glasgow Centre of Population Health said:

“we must remember that these are more than just statistics: they represent hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been cut short, and hundreds of thousands of families who have had to deal with the grief and aftermath of those deaths.”

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I will be happy to give way, as there is a lot of interest in the subject, if there is time, because I have a lot to cover.

Will the member take an intervention?

On the subject of integrated services, you have highlighted gaps such as, for example, the lack of onward care, which leads to people being held in secure facilities instead of moving on. Do you envisage the national care service bill addressing the issues that you have highlighted in order to ensure a seamless approach? In our evidence-taking sessions, we have heard about the importance of the third and independent sectors in supporting people who have mental health needs but who do not necessarily need an acute stay in a mental health hospital. Do you think that the national care service bill should be able to support a seamless transition?

I have just one more question.