Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, which sectors should be prioritised for hydrogen use?

I think that most of the other witnesses were nodding at that, but does anyone have another view?

My question is on carbon capture and storage. The new Scottish climate change plan will come on the back of the carbon budget. The previous plan had quite a heavy reliance on CCS and Acorn. Do you think that that will change with the new climate change plan? We are aware of the track 1 and track 2 issues around delays, but has anything else changed in the past couple of years in relation to the prioritisation of CCS and its contribution within the climate change plan?

Would you say that the project willow projects broadly align with what you see as being the priority sectors going forward? Is anything missing there? It is all about hard-to-abate sectors and derivatives. Are those projects aligned to where you think the markets need to go?

Thank you. Hannah, do you want to come in?

I welcome the fact that more research is being done, but what the community needs is an apology. The research must lead to an apology, because generations of families have been impacted by actions that were sanctioned by the state.

My constituents have suffered. People who could have thrived have instead been shunned by local communities, racially abused and provided with inadequate, if not inhumane, housing conditions. They have endured decades of physical and mental ill health. What further action can the Scottish Government undertake to make meaningful improvements in the lives of those who have been impacted by this truly shameful period in our history?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will issue a formal public apology to members of the Gypsy Traveller community, in light of reports of the harm caused by what was known as the tinker experiment. (S6O-04656)

I join colleagues in thanking Ross Greer for bringing this debate to the chamber. During his time holding the finance brief, he has shown the fierce determination that Carol Mochan described and has worked to find ways to use tax as a tool to deliver a much fairer and more equal society. He also acutely understands the housing pressures that are faced in many areas of Scotland, particularly within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which lies in both of our parliamentary regions and is also where I now live.

The debate is about housing but it is also about poverty and inequality. There is a need to use all possible levers, including planning, licensing and taxation, to ensure the health of our communities.

In hotspots across my region, increasing numbers of family homes are being bought up by people from outwith those communities for use as second homes or to rent out as businesses. That is not the 1950s picture that Meghan Gallacher pointed to: we are seeing increasing and intensive ownership of second homes.

Our communities welcome people who come to make their lives in permanent homes, helping to build a better future for all and committing to communities, but we are seeing more second homes artificially inflating the housing market and pricing out locals, particularly families who are taking their first steps in the housing market. Adult children often have to stay in the family home while saving for a deposit or even to move out of their community, away from friends and family, at a stage in life when support networks are incredibly important.

I also see older people struggling. They can become trapped in unsuitable housing because there are few properties available to downsize into and they sometimes end up in precarious tenancies in poorly serviced park homes. There are few options for people in many rural communities.

It is in those hotspots that we can most clearly see the impact of second home ownership. Shops close because of a lack of regular custom, schools have dwindling numbers of young people, leading to their eventual closure, and residents no longer have neighbours.

In Highland Perthshire this week, in a move that I warmly welcome, the council finally agreed to create Scotland’s third short-term lets control area. That is one intervention to address just one part of the problem. There was a remarkable response to that council decision from the chief executive of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, who said that a short-term let delivers

“three times the economic output of a private home.”

That comment speaks volumes about the many people who are struggling right now, including in my community, to find a home in rural Scotland. It also raises serious questions. What is more important, a place to live or wealth generation? Who feels the benefit of that wealth? Does it stay in the community or does it go to a remote owner or to a letting agency? Who will work to clean and service those lets if there is a lack of permanent housing for local people?

There is a balance to be struck between being a place to live and simply a place to visit. Holiday lets help to make tourism happen but, alongside second homes, their proliferation can lead to a tipping point where communities become effectively hollowed out. Members have already pointed to many examples, with Ross Greer saying that many people feel as though they are living in a museum or a theme park and Emma Roddick pointing to the impact on her community. I point to Elie and Earlsferry, an area that has the highest percentage of short-term lets in Fife, with almost one in five houses being let out—a figure that does not even account for private second homes.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. Every community has its own different and complex set of housing issues to deal with, but all the tools in the box are needed to create a better balance of housing, particularly in rural Scotland. We should not be afraid to give communities, councils and national parks the powers that they genuinely need to achieve that.

Tim Eagle has covered a lot of the questions and points about part 2, so I will go back to one of the specific purposes, which is about ensuring consistency or compatibility with other legal regimes. I am interested in your reflections on that, particularly on what is happening in the rest of the UK, the direction of the habitats regulations and their potential weakening to allow economic growth in some areas.

Ailis, in your written submission, you touched on the relationship with the Electricity Act 1989. I am interested to know whether you think that there is a particular concern about the divergence of regimes between what is there under section 36 and 37 powers, which is well understood by industry—the requirements of EIA, the habitats regulations and everything else—and what we have at the moment for other development that is protected by habitats regulations and EIA procedures.

As Bruce Wilson was talking, I was thinking about the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plans that come out of it. I go back to Rea Cris’s point that, unless action is tied to targets, we will not meet the targets. Is the framework around delivery plans addressed enough in the bill? Is the link to action explicit enough in the bill, or is there an assumption that the targets will drive the delivery plans? I am curious about your thinking on that.