Chamber and committees

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.

Elinor, you said that some work can be done now, such as tackling stigma, rather than waiting for a bill. I have a meeting with Angela Constance next week to talk about education for all healthcare personnel, not just folk who work in alcohol and drugs, to tackle stigma. As Kira McDiarmid said, it is not only folk who work in mental health who need mental health training. Therefore, the work on tackling stigma will be moving forward now, but the bill has a section about training. Would that provision therefore be welcome, as it would embed that training in the bill, so that whoever takes the training forward would be responsible for ensuring that everybody gets the education that is required?

Thank you.

I have a quick question for Dr Manji, and for other witnesses if they have thought about the issue. As care boards are established, what will happen with integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships and the movement and flow of people? How would that be perceived, and how would that be implemented in practice?

The word “sufficient” is used in the bill—it mentions “sufficient breaks”. We need to consider how looking after a parent, grandparent or sibling interferes with the education of a young person. I am interested to hear your thoughts on what we need to do in order to take a relationship-centred approach to determining what “sufficient” is. There has to be an agreement with the person who is providing the care about what works for them. Henry Simmons said that people dinnae want a lot; they just want what is sufficient for them. Is more guidance on or a definition of “sufficient” needed in order to make the provisions in the bill work for unpaid carers?

I have no problems with minor technical amendments to the units and the forms of nutrients in various pieces of legislation. I just want to highlight the issue of pesticide residues. Any time that that kind of language is flagged, it reminds me of work that I did previously, when I was a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, on food safety, food standards, imports, trade, trade deals and things like that.

Without going into detail about the US Food and Drug Administration’s “Food Defect Levels Handbook” on approved defects, I basically just want to state that I am happy with proceeding with the instrument, because the information that we have on pesticide residues refers to widening the definition, or

“expanding on the potential sources, to include veterinary and biocides.”

On further reading of the information, I am satisfied that it is okay to proceed with the instrument.