Chamber and committees

I add my congratulations and thanks to Marie McNair for securing the debate. I must confess that I knew nothing about bile duct cancer. I have learned a lot just from listening to other members. The reason that I am speaking in the debate is that one of my constituents emailed me and asked whether I would briefly tell her story. It is my honour and privilege to do so. She wrote:

“I hadn’t heard of it until it changed the course of my family’s life in 2023. My beloved Mum, Valerie, was diagnosed with it in April 2023, after feeling a pain in her side. I couldn’t begin to put into words how shocked and devastated we were when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer after minimal symptoms and still being at work up until very close to the diagnosis. The worst thing was being told that there was absolutely nothing they could do, despite symptoms only showing a few days before. From here, things escalated at a terrifying pace. Mum passed away just 33 days after her diagnosis aged just 63. I went from everything being fine, to planning a funeral for my Mum at the age of 25 only 33 days later.”

I am sure that everyone would want to pass on their best regards and sympathy to my constituent.

Sadly, my constituent’s story is not unique. It is a story that other people have told me since hearing about the debate. As other members have said, cholangiocarcinoma is very difficult to diagnose and, even when it is diagnosed, it is very difficult to treat. I think that we all agree that it is a cancer on which specialised research needs to be undertaken. We need to find ways of enabling people to receive an earlier diagnosis, and we need to find an effective treatment for dealing with a horrible disease.

As other members have said, bile duct cancer is a cancer that affects more people who are perhaps older, but it is becoming more common in younger people. I fully understand that there are budgetary pressures on every Government and that, in almost every members’ business debate, members will ask the Government to find more money to fund the issue that has been raised, but I genuinely ask, on behalf of my constituent and all those who have gone through the same thing, for money to be found to put into specialised research, so that we can give hope to people who will face the condition in the future.

I understand the point that the member is trying to make, but does he recognise Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point? Whether we are for or against the bill, we are, as a Parliament, being asked to write a blank cheque. As we are often told by the Scottish Government—and by Mr Doris—we have a fixed budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Does Mr Doris acknowledge that some other service, whether it is education, another health service or transport, will be affected if the financial resolution is passed?

What costing has the Scottish Government given to the amendments should they pass at stage 2? Where does the cabinet secretary believe that that money would come from? From which budget would he take the money to pay for such costs?

I know from personal experience, when our first daughter died, how much care and love was given by the maternity unit here, in Edinburgh.

It is clear that there is an on-going issue, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement. Will he commit to coming back to the chamber early next year to give us an update on how things are progressing in Lothian? I am afraid that many of us in the city of Edinburgh are not confident that the changes that he outlined in his statement will be made quickly or efficiently.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar issue. I would have voted no.

I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston and Maggie Chapman for lodging their amendments. I will be supporting them all, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will take them seriously.

At the moment, the bill lacks any thought about rough sleeping, although we have heard from both members about its importance. I walked from my home to Parliament this morning and went out again at lunch time. The number of people I saw who were still sleeping rough, even during the day, is a shocking indictment of Scotland. We have seen those numbers going up and up, particularly in Edinburgh, and there seems to be no coherent Scottish Government policy.

Very few good things came out of Covid, but one positive was the way that the Scottish Government stepped up to deal with rough sleeping, both in this city and in other parts of Scotland. Reports written then said that people got a gold-standard service, and we saw almost everyone being taken off the streets and given a home or a bed for the night. We can do that if there is the political will to do it, but my fear at the moment is that the political will has gone from this Government.

In a couple of weeks’ time in Edinburgh, the winter shelter run by Bethany Christian Trust will open again. That is a welcome service, but it does not run throughout the year, which leaves people still very vulnerable. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept the amendments in this group and that, collectively, we can deal with an issue that affects so many people’s lives.

I start by agreeing with Willie Rennie that we should give a big thank you to all the clerks who have worked so hard on the bill and helped us with it. I also thank third sector organisations, particularly Crisis, for their positive engagement over the past years.

For me, this is a disappointing night—a night of missed opportunities. The bill was an opportunity for us to do something really quite radical and different around housing and homelessness. I fear that after we have passed the bill—as we will do in a few minutes’ time—people will look back and see it as a missed opportunity.

I cannot vote for the bill for two reasons. First, as a representative of Edinburgh and Lothian, I say that rent controls will have a devastating effect on the Edinburgh property market. If we look at the evidence around the world, we know that that will be the case. There will be more homelessness and more people struggling to find accommodation because of that measure.

Secondly, I believe that the work on preventing homelessness represents another missed opportunity. Like Mark Griffin, I hope that history will prove me wrong. I think that the ask and act provisions could have been so much better; we are being asked to jump into darkness. We will not have the benefit of a pilot programme to know whether that will or will not work. Having no data sharing, a lack of money and pressure on local authorities, on the third sector and on the national health service will all work against us.

The bill is a missed opportunity. The Government should go back and rethink it. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.

I welcome all the amendments in this group, and I will support them all. I am pleased that Pam Duncan-Glancy has had positive negotiations with the cabinet secretary.

I will make two brief points. First, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary, in summing up, could confirm that, when we talk about accessible housing, we are not talking only about accessibility for people who have wheelchairs; accessibility applies to people who have hidden disability and other forms of disability as well. Too often, constituents come to me having been told that they can put a ramp in, or that they can do this or that for a wheelchair. That is really important, but others who perhaps have less visible disabilities also need adaptations to be made to their housing. I am therefore interested in ensuring that the cabinet secretary picks up on all forms of disability, both hidden and visible.

Secondly, I welcome the amendments that relate to the question of adapting houses. We must be honest: it is simply the case that not enough money goes into the budget for local authorities to do that work. As we just heard from Meghan Gallacher, there is often a very long waiting list for people who are waiting to have adaptations done. That can affect someone’s mental health as well as their physical disability. If people are unable to do things for themselves that they could do with a little help, that can often lead to mental health issues and to their not being able to use their houses to their full extent. I again ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that, when it comes to adaptation, we do not look only at putting in ramps but make sure that all disabilities are covered.

I hope that the amendments in this group will be accepted by the Parliament if they are moved, because they deal with a massive issue for many disabled people across the whole of our country.

As we have just heard, it has been reported that more than 16,000 housing violations have happened in the past year alone. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that report, which calls its housing emergency declaration a sham, given that breaches of the legal duty to provide for homeless people, including children and pregnant women, have doubled in only one year?

I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. I welcome Megan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, and I put on record that Marie Curie’s work on the issue has achieved cross-party support. It will make a big difference to people’s lives. As a Parliament, we have a good record on helping people who have terminal illness.

I will also speak to Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 283. I remind members that I am a member and an elder of the Church of Scotland. The amendment deals with property, such as a church manse, that is owned by churches or faiths. As many of us are aware, a number of churches have closed or merged with others over the past few years, and, while people are looking for new ministers or pastors, the house remains empty. The churches are looking for a way to allow people to use that house while the church is vacant and then, when a new minister is appointed, for that house to be made available for the church to use for that individual.

We have debated the issue on several occasions, and I am disappointed that the amendment has never been accepted by the Parliament or the Government. We all know that there is a housing shortage, and any house that becomes available for however long a period should be grabbed and used. If this amendment is not passed today, many churches and denominations will simply leave such a property empty, because they know that they will require it in months to come. I hope that the Government and the Parliament will accept amendment 283, and I again thank Meghan Gallacher for lodging it.