Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, thank Alasdair Allan for bringing the debate to the chamber and Epilepsy Scotland for publishing the report and providing a briefing ahead of this evening’s debate. I welcome representatives of Epilepsy Scotland to the gallery.

It is right that we debate this matter. The report shows the level of agreement among people from across Scotland who live with epilepsy that having the condition leads to detrimental impacts on mental health. They raise an important point. When reading some of the additional points that were made by those who participated in the survey, I found comments that suggest that even the strongest people can still be suffering inside.

The challenges that come with epilepsy are faced not just by the individual but by the whole family. Although there is a recognition that epilepsy is much more than a seizure, the constant fear of having seizures can be very challenging for individuals and their families.

The fact that 85 per cent of people feel that epilepsy impacts their mental health in a small or significant way should be a concern for us all, as members across the chamber have said. I am confident that the minister recognises the seriousness of the issue and will look to improve specific areas that the Scottish Government can work on to address it.

As we heard, one in three people with epilepsy say that they have depression, almost half have anxiety and a quarter have both. Each figure represents an individual with a family and a life. Those figures are quite stark, and they highlight the debilitating nature of the condition, which affects the mental health and wellbeing of individuals and their families and causes them to suffer.

At this juncture, it would be remiss of me not to remind members that there have been calls to increase mental health spending to 10 per cent of the national health service budget and that commitments have been made. We accept that there are budgetary pressures, but it has been evident for some time that the crisis in mental health and wellbeing will be the next significant challenge to face our population. Clearly, those impacts are already being felt across the country, especially, as has been highlighted, among groups of people with particular conditions, one of which is epilepsy. Not meeting those targets would be a major failing on the part of this Government. The request to reprioritise funding allocation is well intentioned, but it is urgent, so we ask the minister to make that point.

I note with interest the very apt and reasonable recommendations in Epilepsy Scotland’s report. I think that everybody has mentioned that all those recommendations are very reasonable. As we have heard, the calls include asking the Government to increase the number of mental health-trained professionals, including counsellors, who are available to people living with epilepsy; to increase the level of understanding of epilepsy among those working in mental health services; to increase the number of in-person support groups for people living with epilepsy and their families across Scotland; and to have collaborative working between mental health and epilepsy charities to develop key policies in that area. Those asks are timely and, in my view, reasonable, and I hope that they will be reflected in the minister’s comments.

I am pleased that we have been able to have this debate. Much of the data from the report is concerning and the situation is critical. As my colleague David Torrance mentioned, it is important that we have an opportunity to discuss it. People living with epilepsy have spoken loudly and clearly, based on their lived experience. It is our responsibility as legislators to take that seriously, bring it to the Parliament and ask the Government to act.

Not at the moment, thank you.

Why not use the time to produce a real recovery plan for the NHS that will have an immediate impact on staff morale, pay and patient capacity or to fix lifeline services for Scotland’s constantly underappreciated island communities? What about the ferries?

Not at the moment, thank you.

Why do we not address the crisis in local government funding in Scotland, which has meant that many of our towns and villages are without key services? SNP members will have that in their inboxes. They will know it to be true.

Perhaps, most importantly of all, we could maximise assistance to families across Scotland who are struggling with the surging cost of living, which is rapidly eating up their pay packets.

Any one of those matters is of much more immediate importance than a sitting Government acting like a debating society.

I think we can all agree that giving greater focus to reintegrating people into society when they are released from prison is a worthwhile and essential cause. Reforming how we utilise remand is key to that, and I am supportive of all efforts to do so, provided that they effectively achieve that aim.

Sadly, on balance, I do not believe that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill achieves that aim. I say that because, at times, it has been difficult to ascertain what the Government is seeking to do with the bill. My colleague Pauline McNeill articulated how clouded some of the Government’s explanations have been during the bill’s progress through Parliament.

In particular, Scottish Labour would like to see more evidence that the Scottish Government is committed to, and is able to financially resource, the shift towards alternatives to custody. The Government seems to miss the point that much of what we all hope to achieve needs the resources to achieve best practice, rather than additional layers of bureaucracy.

We really cannot say with any clarity what the intended purpose of the bill is, what effects it might have or how it will be delivered. To put it simply, the bill does not seem ready. There is important work to do and I do not doubt the good intentions. I say that genuinely. The cabinet secretary was clearly engaged yesterday. She was very considered and took individuals’ responses seriously. I was impressed by how much she engaged with parliamentarians from across the chamber during our stage 3 discussions, and I thank her for that.

I was not involved in the committee stages of the bill process, but the papers that I have read suggest that we require far more research detailing why Scotland has so many people on remand and what the specific causes of that are. Some of that may be due to the case backlog caused by Covid, but the number of people on remand was stubbornly high even before then. The Criminal Justice Committee has sought to shed light on those issues, but it appears that the Government has decided to push ahead with the bill regardless. It is clear that the committee wished for a better understanding of how the provisions in the bill will bring about change.

We do know, as others have said, that Scotland has the highest remand rates in Europe, which cannot be allowed to continue. Will the bill decrease the number of people on remand? Unfortunately, we do not know. I believe that the only way that we could have said that with any clarity would have been if the data suggested by the Criminal Justice Committee had been pursued by the Scottish Government, but the Government did not seem to support efforts to do that.

We know from the testimony given to the committee that organisations representing victims, victims’ families and victims themselves do not have confidence in the bill, nor do many judges and criminal justice organisations. In fact, I have rarely seen a bill reach this stage following so much criticism from expert groups. I urge the Government to think far more carefully about victims’ experiences and concerns and to consider how the bill, in its final form, can be sustained in the long term if it passes into law. Those voices must be heard.

Judges will be required to register their reasons for refusing bail. It would be useful to have that data, but it is unclear why that cannot be done without the legislation. My colleague Pauline McNeill explained that much better than I can, because I am not heavily involved in that particular field, but the legal profession seems to be saying that there is much that can be done without having to put legislation in place. That is my understanding.

I thank my comrade Mercedes Villalba for bringing this debate to the chamber. I know that it is an area of keen interest for the member, and I think that, in her opening remarks, she made an excellent case for change, as others have done. I hope that the Scottish Government will support her efforts.

For me, the final part of the motion is the simplest to understand, as perhaps the member sitting opposite will agree. It is also one of the most important parts. After all,

“Scotland’s land”

should

“be owned by ... managed for the benefit of”

and belong to

“Scotland’s communities.”

The deconcentration of land ownership and redistribution of it to our communities will put people, not profit, at the centre of land ownership.

As has been mentioned and as we know only too well, 98 per cent of Scotland’s land mass is rural, and it is a matter of concern that community land ownership accounts for only around 3 per cent of the total land area. In my South Scotland region, there are vast rural areas, and it is important that, in our efforts to deconcentrate ownership, we deliver for people and our communities. In a country where young people are not inclined to move to urban areas by default, they should be able to start a career locally, in traditional or different sectors, and make their mark in their own home town without feeling that they have to move away. This is about more than land ownership; it is about equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. It is about equality and fairness, and it is something that we in this Parliament ought to recognise.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the figures that are outlined in today’s motion and which have been quoted by others. In 2013, 50 per cent of all Scotland’s privately owned rural land was owned by just 432 landowners. We cannot accept that the outcome from such a situation will benefit our communities—it is not acceptable or sustainable. I therefore hope that the minister will be supportive of the proposal in the motion; indeed, I note that some of the comments from the Government so far have indicated that it would support moves in this direction.

I note with interest that, in its own community wealth building consultation paper, the Scottish Government has made improved community access to and ownership of land and property one of the five pillars in its efforts to make community wealth building in Scotland a success. I, of course, agree with that, and in that respect, I look to the strong Labour councils in Preston and North Ayrshire, where community wealth building has been a success. At every turn, I see investment and trust being placed in our communities and the skills that we know that we have on our doorstep, and I see action being taken that matches the population’s own ambitions. That is why it is important for land to be owned by its people and communities.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s co-operation thus far, but we are far from the finish line. Communities need more investment, and the requirement for legislation that deconcentrates land ownership to the benefit of our population has never been greater, so we need some urgency around that.

I once again thank my colleague Mercedes Villalba for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank other members who have spoken in support. It is a consultation, and my friend has been so open in asking for all contributions, so I ask members to please contribute to the consultation process so that we can get this right for our populations and our communities.

We know the challenges faced by our rural communities around fuel poverty, transport links and young people’s understanding of where they see themselves. There are opportunities here for rural areas in particular, so I ask members to support the members’ bill or at least participate in the consultation. I thank members for coming to the chamber.

No bother.

I support the position of my colleague Pauline McNeill, but, on balance, I am unable to support the bill.

I am interested in the response times that you were talking about and the confidence that the public should have in the newer model that you have. Have you undertaken any evaluation of how those response times are working for patients and their families?

As I am sure that you well know, the public hugely values the service, but there are definite problems in the system, particularly around ambulances being available for people. What key things do you recommend that the committee could ask for or speak to the Scottish Government about with regard to the delays that people have, particularly in life-threatening situations?

Thanks very much.

Good morning. I have quite a specific question about the route through the mental health hub, which constituents have raised with us. When someone who is already known to mental health services phones NHS 24 and is looking to be directed onwards, is that a smooth flow through, or do people have to go through a number of assessments before being linked into the service where they are already known?