Seòmar agus comataidhean

How would the use of such support services link with the bill, if it is passed?

The cabinet secretary will have seen the recent headline that said:

“Numbers of Glasgow patients delayed in hospital reaches highest level in decade”.

In South Ayrshire, which is in my South Scotland region, the average daily number of beds that are occupied due to delayed discharge is almost three times greater than that in East Ayrshire. How can there be such a difference between neighbouring local authority areas, which already share a number of services and health boards? I have asked the cabinet secretary this question before: what is the Government doing to help local authorities to share resources and best practice to improve delayed discharge across Ayrshire?

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests: I previously owned property to rent.

I thank Ross Greer for bringing the debate to the chamber. I acknowledge the work that he has done on the impact of second home ownership and his fierce commitment to ensuring that we address the housing needs of people in Scotland. It was appropriate that he raised the fact that it has been a year since a housing emergency was announced.

Second homes are defined as homes that are furnished and lived in for at least 25 days in a 12-month period, but which are not someone’s main residence. My understanding—I am not an expert in this area; as members know, I cover the health brief—is that, as of September 2024, there were just over 21,000 second homes in Scotland. In my view, that represents a housing market failure, because the primary purpose of homes, as Emma Roddick pointed out, is that they are for living in. That failure, which has taken away the opportunity to provide housing for individuals, families and communities, is one that Scottish Labour believes that we need to reverse. We need to bring those homes back into use.

I think that Ross Greer’s motion fairly sets out the challenges of second home ownership. During my time in the Parliament, the sense that I have gained from debates, research papers and constituents—especially those who live in rural areas—is that those challenges are very real.

Of course, when we read the research, we realise that second home ownership is a multifaceted issue—of course it is. Some people say that there are benefits associated with the spend that is connected to second home properties. Some argue that it improves the local economy and keeps resources available for people who live locally. However, it is fair to say that the most compelling evidence to push Parliament to tackle some of the issues comes from local testimony.

As we have heard, there are concerns that a high concentration of second homes causes an increase in house prices and rents and reduces the housing supply for local people. A lack of affordable housing affects not only individuals and communities but local businesses that want to attract workers.

Very importantly, a lack of affordable housing also affects the recruitment of public sector workers. I have strong evidence of that from the Borders area of my South Scotland region. Trade unions have told me that people are not coming to work in the area or are having to travel a long distance, which sometimes involves a journey of an hour or more, to get to their work. That is not sustainable. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has heard compelling evidence on the issue, in oral evidence and on a visit to the islands. The health boards have described the situation as a crisis for service delivery. It is a very important issue.

I have heard from my own constituents that empty second homes cause a lot of frustration in communities, particularly when people find it difficult to rent or purchase a home within their own community. We see that every day. People want to live within their community, near their network and want to bring up their own children near to the place where they grew up. Those personal stories mean that we have to take the issue seriously and take a robust approach to tackling it.

I am about to run out of time, but I reassure Mr Greer that Scottish Labour really wants to look at the issues that he mentioned in his motion. I know that you will have spoken to my colleague Mark Griffin about that. We want to see tax reforms to ensure that we can turn that around in Scotland.

It is ironic to hear the Government praise its work on the botched National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which is now unrecognisable from what was first envisioned, with £30 million wasted in the process. Despite the Scottish Government’s warm words today, in reality, the social care sector has been ignored, underfunded and let down for 18 years by this SNP Government.

The UK Government provided funding to the Scottish Government to assist with national insurance contributions. However, we believe that local government has not received all its funding to date. Will the minister tell the Parliament whether all the moneys that were provided by the UK Government have actually been allocated?

My amendments in the group seek to strengthen the capacity of local authorities to assess rent conditions in their areas.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I think that we share a common purpose with regard to the importance of data. The purpose of amendment 481 is to recognise that tenants are essential to verifying the accuracy of information that is provided by landlords to local authorities. The amendment would require local authorities to share information that is submitted by landlords with the tenants who are registered at the address. That would create a standardised process in which the tenants had the option to report information in their landlord’s submission that they thought might be false or incorrect. Landlords are required by law to inform tenants of any rent changes, so tenants are the only party that is able to verify that information.

Although I appreciate that that provision would add to the administrative burden that is faced by local authorities, the bill places a duty on them to investigate false information, and the only way to enforce that is with the participation of the tenant. Amendment 481 gives purpose to that duty in the bill.

Amendment 482 recognises that a well-regulated rented sector will be reliant on consistent information. The amendment therefore seeks to place on the Scottish ministers a duty to maintain the minimum categories of information that local authorities must report on, and not to reduce those. Each is essential to understanding rent increases against types of tenure and property. In future, the range of information that is sought might be expanded but it should never be reduced beyond the original categories. The amendment would safeguard consistency so that geographic areas are not evaluated by different criteria.

I have taken note of the minister’s points on those aspects and, like others, I hope that we will be able to discuss them further over the summer.

Amendments 483 to 486 seek to create standardised sets of notices that can be issued by a local authority where a landlord either fails to provide information or provides false information. The intention is to ensure the integrity of data collection by encouraging landlords to fulfil their responsibility to report accurately.

Specifically, amendments 483 and 484 seek to instruct a local authority to initiate proceedings if a landlord does not provide any information when requested. There is also a duty to re-seek missing information and initiate a recurring penalty fine until the information has been submitted. Amendments 485 and 486 would create a similar mandatory requirement for a local authority to initiate First-tier Tribunal proceedings in the circumstances in which information that is provided is suspected to be false.

We can agree on the importance of accurate data, and that is why it is important that some of what the amendments seek to require is included in the final bill. However, I intend to take the cabinet secretary up on her offer and seek further discussion.

I begin by saying thank you to Liam McArthur for continuing the work in the Scottish Parliament on this important reform. Despite it undoubtedly being a topic that many might choose to shy away from, he has allowed it to come back to the chamber today. I know that, along with Liam McArthur, there are organisations and individuals that have been working for many years to change the narrative in order to help people who desperately need their Government to act. I hope that today provides the foundations to achieve that.

To be clear, the bill is a fundamental step towards compassion, liberty and respect for the dignity of the individual. With proper revision and attention to the many details that have been raised by professionals and advocacy groups, we can secure a historic piece of legislation at the end of this process. Doing so would deliver the kind of forward thinking and truly generous use of power that this Parliament was built to secure. Alternatively, we could instead do as the Parliament has so often done in the past: we could be hesitant, leaving the electorate frustrated by their Parliament’s lack of progressive leadership.

The list of countries and states that have already introduced legislation in this area or are in the process of doing so—I include my colleague Kim Leadbeater’s bill at Westminster—is growing every month. As parliamentarians in Scotland, are we simply going to ignore the groundswell of public opinion towards such a reform? I truly hope not.

I believe that we need this legislation and that to once again turn our back on compassion and choice would be a grave mistake, driven by fear. I know that many members believe in the principle behind the bill but are apprehensive about its implementation. How will it work in practice?

I worked in healthcare, and I have worked with clinicians and patients. Every day, clinicians make assessments and patients make decisions about how their treatment will be managed. Sometimes, those decisions are straightforward and, sometimes, they are difficult and complex. Our constituents include clinicians and patients, and they know that healthcare should be compassionate and about choice.

People support the principles of the bill, and it is our job to get the balance right in the bill. In 2024, Dignity in Dying Scotland conducted the largest poll yet on the issue in Scotland. It found that, in every constituency in Scotland, there was a majority in favour of introducing assisted dying legislation.

I believe that the change is inevitable and, in this Parliament, we should put our efforts into ensuring that our constituents have robust legislation, to ensure the safe delivery of that change. We should be in politics to shift power away from the centre and to empower the individuals who have put their trust in us. What right do we have to sit in judgment and tell a person that they must struggle on in pain, powerless?

After all, in practice, forms of assistance already exist in Scotland. Care is often omitted because nothing further can be done. Those are serious and well-considered decisions that are taken by experts in conjunction with patients and their families. There is nothing flippant about them, and they happen every day. Why should that be the case, yet a person who honestly tells us that they wish to be in control of an unwinnable, intolerable struggle is ignored? Worse still, there are Scots who are being forced to travel abroad without their family around them in order to end their lives—isolated from all loved ones in order to die far away from home.

I want us to help. As parliamentarians, we must have the strength to get the bill right. Compassion and fairness are important in life, and it is important that compassion and fairness are also available to those with a terminal illness as they approach their death. I accept that the bill must contain safeguards against coercion and around the worry about lack of services and support for staff. Scrutiny of the bill has allowed concerns to be aired, and Liam McArthur has shown great determination in ensuring that compassion and choice, along with a clear commitment to safeguards, have been addressed as the bill has progressed.

We are legislators. Our decisions today will have profound ramifications for many individuals. If we do not pass the bill, there will be serious consequences for many people who have difficult days and years ahead. We need to give people every choice that is available to them, and we must seek to diminish pain and suffering where we can. That is the humane thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. That is why I will support the bill tonight.

I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber. If we want to meet all the expectations that we have set out in the Parliament over the past four years for the building of homes and infrastructure for roads, railways and cycle lanes, and for decent public services such as hospitals, schools and community centres, we have to acknowledge that we need skills and trades. That includes traditional trades, along with skills in retrofitting. Our joiners, plumbers and roofers—a whole variety of skills—are so important to our future.

In order to meet our climate target—our most important commitment to future generations—we must ensure that there is a skill set in the construction industry. That is why it is important that this debate has been brought to the chamber.

I am pleased to see that the data suggests that young people see a future in the sector. It is important that we ensure that the sector is well regulated and safe, and that it has strong terms and conditions for those who work in it. I have met with trade union colleagues in construction and I know that we have some work to do, but I recognise the on-going work with the trade unions and the construction industry.

During my time in Parliament, I have been fascinated to hear about colleagues’ knowledge in this area, and I have learned a great deal about the sector. Tonight’s debate is such an important one. The work to ensure that there is on-going, good-quality construction work in the future, and to ensure the retrofitting of and continued existence of the buildings that we need, must be done—as other members have said—in tandem with the progression of construction training.

During my time as an MSP, I have had the great pleasure of meeting a number of trades workers from a great variety of trades and backgrounds right across my South Scotland region. I have attended the annual Scottish Traditional Building Forum event in the Parliament grounds, and I will do so again this year.

Young workers in particular recognise that they need the skills to enable us to meet the challenge of reaching net zero and to deliver on the retrofitting of buildings and the building of our infrastructure and community settings, not only now but way into the future. Lots of skills need to be developed.

The consistent message that I have heard from businesses and workers across the sector is that the Scottish Government must set policies to establish clearer training routes, invest in local training and, in particular, drive a desire to save some of the skills that are out there at the moment. We have heard about that from other members today.

I have previously raised in the chamber the challenge that young apprentices face in accessing the local education that will allow us to retain those skills. People seem to find it difficult to find the right provision to enable them to keep up their competencies and qualifications and to become a professional in the sector. If the minister has any information on that, I would really appreciate hearing it. The ability to undertake apprenticeships locally makes a great difference in rural areas such as the one that I represent. That model really helps our young people to take on the roles and jobs that Gordon MacDonald spoke about in his opening speech.

This is an important sector for the Parliament to look at. I thank everybody for their contributions, and I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Recent freedom of information requests from Scottish Labour to health boards have revealed just how bad things are for women on the ground. Thousands are stuck on waiting lists for treatment for gynaecological conditions. Waiting times have dramatically increased, despite Scottish Government manifesto commitments to improve women’s health. A survey found that 90 per cent of women have concerns about accessing comprehensive health screening. Women are feeling very much left behind.

Nothing in the programme for government will improve outcomes for women in the here and now, and progress on women’s health has already been slow. Does the Government intend to deliver on its commitment to improve waiting times for women? When will women start to see a difference on the ground?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work that it is doing to improve women’s health outcomes. (S6O-04622)

Given what the minister said, I will not move amendment 480 but I will seek to bring it back at stage 3 after understanding what the barriers are.

Amendment 480 not moved.