Seòmar agus comataidhean

In closing the debate for Scottish Labour, and in expressing our support for the principles and intentions of the bill, I encourage Parliament to support Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment, which Jackie Baillie set out and put correctly in the context of the cost of living crisis. I also note the mathematics that went on in the chamber while we did that. I thank Mr Mason for that, and I thank the Greens for clarifying that they will support that reasoned amendment.

As we have all said, the Covid-19 pandemic has had implications that we could never have imagined 22 months ago, when the initial restrictions were introduced. As a result, it requires an unprecedented response, which must be targeted at those who have been hardest hit and those who are most vulnerable, as we continue to move forward from the pandemic. Everybody has recognised that point.

We know how important self-isolation has been during the pandemic. It has served to stop the spread of the virus and to protect the most vulnerable, and, ultimately, it has saved many lives. However, we also know that there are significant downsides from a health perspective, such as the impact that isolation can have on an individual’s mental health, and from an economic viewpoint for the thousands of Scots for whom working from home is simply not an option. The loss of income that comes with self-isolation can be, and has been, devastating for many individuals and their families.

In cases where isolation has been as long as 10 days, for some, that has represented 10 days without pay, followed by real worry and concern about whether they will be able to put food on the table and serious difficulty in paying bills. Those worries have only increased amidst the cost of living crisis.

The pandemic has had impacts that go far beyond public health: it has impacted people’s lives, it has left them out of pocket and it has brought further uncertainty to those who were already struggling to get by. As we have all spoken about in the chamber, the self-isolation compensation payment is absolutely required to assist those individuals. It has been valuable to hear everyone come together on that point.

Indeed, if the Parliament backs Scottish Labour’s amendment, we can not only agree to the bill but make a commitment to delivering a payment that matches the national living wage for those who have lost income due to self-isolation. That will reduce the likelihood of that compensation payment still equating to a loss for those individuals. That is an important point.

However, as was mentioned by my colleague Jackie Baillie and others during the stage 1 debate and again at other stages, it is crucial that those payments are made in a timely fashion and that they get to people’s pockets straight away. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is supporting the extension of provision for Covid-19 self-isolation, as we know only too well the crippling financial impact that not doing so would have on our health boards, which are already under significant pressure due to the demands that have been placed on them by the pandemic.

While our thanks go to all those who are helping with the processing of payments, in many cases, people cannot wait lengthy periods of time to receive them. As has been mentioned, the experience has been mixed. We heard from Paul O’Kane that some local authorities seem to have done better than others in processing the payments. It is important that we get those payments to people as timeously as we can.

That brings me to another concern that was raised at stage 1 regarding public awareness of the compensation fund and its uptake among low-income families and other population groups.

It is important that we get that information out to people—I acknowledge that the Deputy First Minister referred to that point. He also said that significant uptake has continued and that the Government will continue to push the message and ensure that it gets the promotional material out there. We must use targeted social media messaging and other methods to do that. Only by doing so will we make the choice to self-isolate more comfortable for those who might have feared previously that self-isolating would lead to significant financial difficulty.

I reiterate my party’s support for the bill, and I encourage members to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie, which will ensure that the payment does not fall short for individuals, and that, importantly, it meets the national living wage.

It is right that we introduce this separate legislation to help the most impacted during the most unpredictable of times. People should not be punished for following the rules and keeping themselves and others safe.

We will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account in its delivery of the legislation and ensure that it supports those who have suffered financially due to self-isolation, that it increases uptake and that it offers support to those who are processing payments.

I thank all members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that we will pass the bill.

It is very welcome that both the minister and the cabinet secretary have indicated that, in what is a crisis, we should be dealing with things that we can deal with now.

I am interested to know their opinion on the low-income winter heating assistance scheme, which is out for consultation, although it is not pencilled in to start until next winter. Do they agree with me that that is far too late? I would be interested to know about the discussions on that. To what extent are we taking into account the views of the energy suppliers over those of the people who actually need the assistance—and who need it now, as I think we are all agreed?

Despite the pain and suffering that we know has been felt by many who have had surgical transvaginal mesh implants, on 25 January, the Scottish Government signed a deal with mesh providers to provide more mesh surgery for the next 24 months, at a cost of £3.5 million. Given that we know the extent of post-operative problems with mesh, is the First Minister aware of whether any alternatives, such as natural tissue repair, are offered? Given the experiences of mesh campaigners, will she commit to an independent review of all mesh use in Scotland, so that we can better understand the scale of what seems to be an increasing problem?

I thank Ariane Burgess for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Across the UK, we are deeply fortunate to live on a spectacular and unique island furnished with an incredible coastline that, for centuries, has provided us with food, employment and leisure. The environmental wealth that is present across Scotland’s coast is abundant and, without it, our entire culture would be altogether different. I am immensely thankful for that and, from speaking to my constituents, I know that it is perhaps the thing that they love most about the South Scotland region.

However, in order to maintain that environmental wealth, we have to begin to see the coast as a delicate ecosystem with varied needs and challenges, from erosion to the loss of seagrass. We need a thriving coastline to preserve not just the local environment, but the environment of our whole country. That is a weighty responsibility, and I am sure that all of us in the chamber take it very seriously.

Whether it is the work that is mentioned in the motion or the efforts to reintroduce oysters to the Firth of Clyde in my region, every step requires diligent planning and the encouraging of new generations to understand that the coast is a natural resource that we must protect. Part of doing that requires making our coastal communities economically prosperous. That will serve as a strong foundation from which further environmental work can be done. The decline in fishing in so many of Scotland’s coastal communities has broken our economic link with the shore and, with that, poverty has followed.

South Scotland is home to some of our country’s most beautiful and vibrant coastal communities—communities that for many decades were holiday resorts and getaways for families from across Scotland. The way that people travel and take holidays might have changed over time, but for many of those brilliant towns and villages, income from tourism is vital to their continued prosperity. That tourism must be encouraged and incentivised in a sustainable way, and I hope that one of the few advantages of Covid has been that the public has been shown just how wonderful a time they can have at home, on the cliffs and beaches of my region and many others across Scotland.

With that tourism, however, comes increased pollution and, in particular, littering. The South Ayrshire clean-up campaign picked up one million pieces of litter last year alone, with a great deal of it being found in coastal towns, including Ayr, Prestwick and Troon. Much of that litter ends up on beaches and, inevitably, in the sea, where it continues the cycle and is often deposited elsewhere. That is on top of the sewage that is pumped into the sea, creating further ecological problems for wildlife that is often already struggling. Birds and marine life in particular are adversely affected by such build-up and, over time, it leads to loss of habitat, food sources and, inevitably, life.

As Ariane Burgess’s motion details, a key facet of solving the problem is to provide volunteers and organisations with the means to set up community-led nature restoration projects that are both economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Only when that happens will we be able to much more directly tackle pollution and environmental decline. That cannot be entirely top-down, but the private companies that create so much pollution must be held financially responsible. Without that financial support, it is left to well-meaning groups that are reliant on very limited fundraising and the good will of volunteers. The Government and big business must do more.

Our coastline is one of Scotland’s greatest natural assets. It is home to all manner of flora and fauna, and for many people it is also the place that they are from and where they have raised their families. During this parliamentary session, I would like to see a much greater emphasis placed on the key role that such areas play in our nation and, as such, I reiterate my gratitude to Ariane Burgess for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

I am quite new to the subject matter and I want to put on record that I am interested in the way the matter has progressed. Similar to other members, I have been involved in the mesh debate with women in relation to transvaginal mesh. It is important that we use the evidence that we have from other areas.

I support the overall sentiment of the petition: it is a perfectly reasonable request that a review is held and that guidelines around the surgical use of mesh are established. The petitioners have brought evidence to the minister and the committee has gone over other evidence. It is incumbent on us to ensure that reasonable requests are respected; it seems reasonable for the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee to take action and at least further scrutinise what can be done to support the petition.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I hope to keep an eye on what is happening around mesh for those people.

Some councils, including the Scottish National Party-led Glasgow City Council, have stated that it will cost billions of pounds to bring housing in line with expectations. It appears that the Scottish Government wants councils to get the private sector to help foot the bill, but in smaller and more rural council areas, where massive industry and service sectors are less prevalent, how is that possible?

In South Ayrshire, retrofitting plans alone could cost as much as £575 million. I ask again: what will the Scottish Government do, actively, to help to ease the burden, beyond the low level of support that has been offered?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, where I have registered that I own property for rent.

Tackling the homelessness crisis, which has been severe and persistent, must be an absolute priority in this parliamentary session. Homelessness is one of the biggest challenges that our country faces today, and we must tackle it with purpose to protect those who are at risk of experiencing homelessness in the future.

To give context to the seriousness of the situation that we face, I note that, as has been mentioned previously, Shelter Scotland’s reports highlight that, between April 2020 and March 2021, a household in Scotland became homeless every 19 minutes. In that same timeframe, 11,804 children were in households that were assessed as homeless, and more and more people are finding themselves with nowhere to stay as the numbers rise again today.

Those figures are devastating, and we must make policy interventions to address them. However, they cannot just be treated as numbers on a sheet. They represent a traumatic experience for individuals and families that has left them without a permanent home, and they must act as a prompt for MSPs across the chamber to seriously consider the issue of homelessness and what we can do to address it. The fact that around one in 12 Scots has experienced homelessness is disgraceful and is the result of a lack of serious action over many years.

However, not acting is no longer an option—we have no choice now but to be radical in our response, with transformative policies to eradicate homelessness. Policies that are linked to early intervention and prevention play a significant role in this.

As Scottish Labour fully supports early prevention methods to tackle homelessness, it welcomes the consultation as an initial step, albeit with questions over the delivery of its commitments and how they will be financed.

Transformative change is long overdue. We have known for long enough that homelessness is preventable; that cases in our recent history could have been avoided; that more families could have had better lives; and that more children could have had greater opportunities. We have to get this right for those reasons among so many more.

The consultation allows us to go further, to be bolder and to make the changes that we need to see. However, it is critical that the financial decision making of the Scottish Government does not put at risk the implementation of any of the prevention of homelessness objectives that are set out.

I must raise concerns at this stage. I hope that I can be forgiven for having little confidence in the Government’s ability to take appropriate preventative measures to reduce and eventually eradicate homelessness. Scotland’s councils have seen their budgets stretched to their very limits by the SNP Government. Cut after cut and year after year, the SNP has shown total disregard for local authorities that are desperate for investment to deliver more council housing and prevent homelessness.

I hope that the Government can make huge commitments to local authorities, which desperately need it.

A clear difference exists between what the SNP promises to deliver and what it actually delivers. The Scottish Government must commit to ensuring that adequate and appropriate funding will be offered to our councils. That commitment cannot be more empty words from the SNP. The Government has to back up its words with actions and we will hold it to account in doing so.

Where there is the political will to address issues, steps can be taken to address them. However, investment, political will, support and resources are needed—all from the Government, which must support local authorities. The Scottish Government must match their words with actions. People need, expect, and deserve better, and the Scottish Government must act now to deliver.

To ask the Scottish Government what additional financial assistance it plans to provide to help local authorities meet their net zero targets. (S6O-00706)

Everything seems to have been put in place—quite rightly—to make things work as smoothly as they can. However, if there was a suggestion that any of the Governments wished to dispute anything or withdraw from the agreement, how would that work? How would the Scottish Government bring that to us, as parliamentarians?