Chamber and committees

The Treasure Cave building on English Street, which Colin Smyth mentioned, was the only one in relation to which I received a response from the owner. From that, we were able to engage with and seek support from the local authority so that it could proceed with the demolition of the building. Getting engagement from the owner of that site was an interesting challenge, but something has now been done.

Thanks for that intervention. Ah am no a cooncillor—so I am laying out what I see from the research that I have done for the past year, so that we can help to inform and educate, and to have people understand that there are actions that can be taken. I would like to proceed. Thank you.

The local authorities can do things such as issue a wasteland notice to the property owner—I have said that. If the responsible person refuses, the local authority can carry out the work itself, through the Town and Country (Planning) (Scotland) Act 1997. Also, under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous buildings notice. The local authority or community can, under the Land Reform Act 2003, make a compulsory purchase of a building or land, to take action on it.

With regard to owners, I have written to the owners of many derelict sites, and I have had a single response, which is kind of disappointing. The Land Commission has recommended that we improve how we identify owners of vacant and derelict sites, such as through a public register, which I would support.

I also support the introduction of compulsory sale orders, as has been recommended by the Scottish Land Commission. I would welcome an update from the Government on progress towards bringing forward legislation to enable CSOs.

I therefore ask the minister how we can better enable local authorities—for example, through national planning framework 4—to use current legislation to transform our vacant, abandoned and derelict sites. I also ask the minister how communication with the owners of derelict sites can be improved.

One of the other common misconceptions that I would like to highlight in dealing with derelict buildings is historic-building listing. People perceive that no action can be taken on some derelict buildings due to their listed status at grade B or C for historical or cultural reasons. That is my experience with the former factory in Dumfries, which is a grade B listed site of historical architectural significance.

However, local authorities have the ability to seek removal of, or change to, a site’s current listed status. In effect, they can de-list a property. That process is governed by Historic Environment Scotland, and it is an option that can take only eight weeks if there is a strong case to back up the change to the listed building’s status. Local authorities, developers and communities must become more aware of that option so that action is taken on derelict sites.

The issue of derelict sites and buildings is complex, and I would need more time to explain, and give specific examples of, the work that I have done over the past year, including work on contaminated land with assistance from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I have also been working with Heathhall community council in Dumfries to petition Dumfries and Galloway Council to act on the total eyesore that is the Interfloor factory site—and that is just the start.

The issue of transforming Scotland’s vacant, abandoned and derelict land is central to health and wellbeing and to community empowerment, and it is vital that we pay attention to it. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.

I thank my committee colleague for taking an intervention. People who gave evidence to us said that the universal credit uplift should be reinstated—that is one of the things that came out in the report. If the member is saying that we should do more to help people in Scotland, that is one of the things that could help. I am interested in knowing why the Conservative members did not support the report’s recommendation on that uplift.

I thank everybody who was involved in the inquiry. I am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The health inequalities inquiry, as we have heard, has involved numerous parliamentary committees and it has shown us one crucial factor—that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to tackle the root causes of poverty and associated poor health. However, it has one hand tied behind its back in not having control over the relevant reserved powers.

Tory policies at Westminster are having negative and long-lasting consequences that directly impact on the health of low-income households here in Scotland—that is clear and it is based on evidence. Game-changing policies such as the £25 per week Scottish child payment can only do so much when the Tories continue to inflict harm on the most vulnerable people in our society—namely, those who rely on the state safety net. That safety net is being systematically dismantled by the Westminster Government.

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.

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.

Although the framework bill is pretty short, section 38, which covers three pages, is dedicated to rights to breaks for carers. We have had feedback from various people who have raised questions about what constitutes a break, whether it is a break for everybody and whether it is a break to get out or disengage completely. I am interested in hearing views on what the bill says about breaks for carers—in particular, unpaid carers—and whether it is sufficient to achieve what is required.