Seòmar agus comataidhean

The First Minister will be aware that a large number of Ukrainian families fleeing the war have been resettled in North Lanarkshire, with many being housed in refurbished tower blocks in Coatbridge in my constituency. As they are my constituents, my thoughts are very much with them at this unsettling time, and I have written to them this week to remind them that they can contact me in my office at any time.

Can the First Minister outline what on-going support is in place to ensure that those families, and the thousands like them across the country, continue to be supported in our communities and feel the strength of our unwavering solidarity at this most difficult time?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support school pupils with dyslexia. (S6O-04376)

I recently joined the cross-party group on dyslexia, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that it does. I have also had some positive discussions with Paul McNeill, who is an ambassador for Dyslexia Scotland, about the need for further supports for children in schools. On that note, will the cabinet secretary consider convening or being part of a round-table discussion including Dyslexia Scotland, Education Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and any other relevant stakeholders to agree on a framework solution to support dyslexic children better in our education system?

I thank all the members across the Parliament who supported my motion, which has allowed it to be discussed in the chamber this evening. The topic of the debate concerns a region in North Lanarkshire that covers about one third of my constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston. The several small towns and villages in the area, which include Stepps, Muirhead, Chryston, Auchinloch, Moodiesburn, Mollinsburn, Glenboig and Gartcosh, are collectively referred to as the northern corridor. The northern corridor community forum is an organisation of people in the area who share their time, skills, expertise and knowledge in an ethos of mutual support among all community organisations across the region.

Last year, the northern corridor community forum compiled a report, which sought to investigate and analyse data related to housing, education, infrastructure, amenities and transport, and how the various areas may be facing pressures in the face of rapid population growth across the corridor. This evening, I will comment on the conclusions of the report and on the sentiments of the constituents who live along the northern corridor.

To some, this debate might seem parochial, but it is the duty of every MSP to represent their constituents and ensure that their voices are heard here in their Parliament. The issues that the NCCF raises are similar issues to those on which colleagues across Scotland might receive correspondence if they represent a constituency or region that has experienced rapid population growth.

Ultimately, the report concludes that communities across the northern corridor have been and will continue to be overwhelmed by a series of negative impacts that arise from overdevelopment and associated population increases. I wish to express on the record that the report was keen to stress that the NCCF is not averse to increased housing development in the area. However, it has consistently raised its concerns over the sustainability of increased housing development and the effect that it will have on the communities, which I am sure we can all relate to.

To examine some of the concerns of the NCCF, we can scrutinise census data from 2021. It was reported that the total population of the collection of villages that make up the northern corridor was just short of 30,000 people. That makes the corridor home to more people than those reported to be living in places such as Bellshill, Kilsyth or Shotts, and it gives a population comparable with that of Wishaw or even Motherwell. However, by the very nature of being a collection of villages, unlike the previously mentioned towns, the corridor does not have a physical town centre, which means that there is a lack of town models, action plans or strategies for the northern corridor as a whole.

For members of the forum and other residents in the area, there is a feeling that their areas often fall through the cracks. On paper, their homes are part of a network of villages, and the amenities and infrastructure reflect that. The reality is that the region is now one of the fastest-growing areas in the central belt, and planning must consider the corridor as a single entity, instead of a patchwork of rural villages.

It is that point that perhaps causes the most frustration in the communities. I will not list each individual infrastructural and facility-based complaint that the forum has raised over the years; for residents, there is the draining experience of having to contact a myriad of bodies each time they feel that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. For example, one accessible train station may be acceptable for a small network of villages, but not for a rapidly growing region of urban sprawl. The number of crossing points and roads around villages may be adequate for lower populations, but a lack of crossing points has made the corridor more hazardous for pupils and other pedestrians in the area during congested times around school hours. The number of buses that serve the area would be sufficient for a rural region, but the services are currently very much lacking for a region with nearly 30,000 people.

Those are three transport-related issues and, in order for anything to change, they would require lengthy discussions with separate bodies. They are all issues that I have advocated for on behalf of my constituents—and that is not even touching on the amount of similarly intricate cases that I have taken regarding the provision of health, education and leisure centres and facilities. It is second nature to address those issues in established towns, but not so much for areas that, on paper, appear to be a handful of villages.

Late last year, we learned that Scotland’s population is rising at the highest rate since the 1940s. Higher populations will require more infrastructure, more facilities and more thoughtful planning. Although the motion concerns one specific area of one specific local authority, it is important for members from all constituencies and regions to engage in the processes to ensure that their views are heard about the direction in which they would like their communities to go. The points that I have touched on today are issues that I am sure other members have dealt with in their regions, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from my colleagues across the chamber.

I know that residents in the northern corridor will be keenly interested to hear how the Scottish Government will take on board the report and give reassurances to the communities that their views will be listened to when future planning decisions are made. Steps such as introducing provisions for pre-development community asset and infrastructure audits when an area is identified as being able to accommodate large-scale urban growth would encourage sustainable growth with minimal effects on existing communities. Likewise, introducing protections for areas that are considered by their communities to be high-value scenic assets and to be at risk from the merging of communities would safeguard areas that are prized by their residents and would ensure that they are not lost. Ways could be sought to give community boards more powers to raise their concerns. Those boards have specialised local knowledge of their communities, and their views should certainly be valued when decisions are being made.

Although the report’s recommendations are specific in their nature, it all boils down to ensuring that residents of communities are given the opportunity to have a meaningful say in how their communities are developed. We all know that further development is necessary in light of an increasing Scottish population, but we must find a way to address the concerns of many people in rural areas that development will be imposed on smaller communities with little to no consultation. The Scottish Government and local authorities need to address that sentiment in future planning. I will be interested to hear the minister’s response to some of those concerns, either in summing up or in writing at a later date.

The work and diligence of the members of the forum have already resulted in petitions being taken through the Parliament, correspondence with ministers, round tables, meetings with the planning improvement champion, motions recognising forum members’ civic leadership, and now a debate here in the Holyrood chamber. It is fair to say that they have engaged with nearly every civic lever available to them, in the Parliament and beyond.

I again thank members of the NCCF for compiling the report, which has given a voice to people in the northern corridor who care about their neighbourhoods. The motion was lodged to recognise and commend the steady commitment that forum members have made to their community for as long as I have been an MSP, which is coming up for nine years now. The forum has far too many members for me to mention all their names, but they include Isobel Kelly, Alice Morton, Cathy McGinty and Brandon Williams.

I reiterate the need to ensure that planners take rural communities into account, especially when such communities experience rapid and unprecedented population growth in what are mostly urban areas.

I agree with Meghan Gallacher’s point. Does she agree that the issue is that green-belt sites are more attractive to developers than brownfield sites are? Do we need to do more in that space so that builders want to build on brownfield sites?

No young person should have to endure what the brave young people who featured in the Skye house documentary underwent. I commend them for coming forward.

Will the minister outline how those young people are currently being supported in the aftermath of the incidents, and how NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will be fully equipped to ensure that such incidents never occur again?

Today’s debate examines the difficult issue of prison populations, the justice system and ensuring that the Scottish public are kept safe from harm. If we look at the current environment, we see that rising prison populations are causing issues for Governments across the whole UK. Here in Scotland, the prison population often exceeded 8,300 last year, and projections indicate that the numbers will continue to rise, potentially to record levels. It has been made clear to me and my colleagues at meetings of the Criminal Justice Committee that those numbers are unsustainable without intervention.

Further instability will put the effective functioning of our Prison Service at risk, including the ability to rehabilitate offenders, so it is critical that we explore a range of actions to ensure that the system operates safely and effectively for staff and prisoners alike. The announcement of an independent review of sentencing and penal policy is a step towards ensuring that the risk does not become a reality.

It might be inferred that larger prison populations indicate that Scotland is becoming more dangerous but, as we have heard, recorded crime has continued to trend downward over the past two decades. There are numerous reasons for the increasing prison population, including increased sentencing lengths, more convictions for historical offences and increasingly complex situations regarding separating groups of prisoners from one another—all issues that we hear about regularly in the Criminal Justice Committee. In exploring the topic, we have previously heard evidence that those who are released from short custodial sentences are reconvicted at a rate that is almost twice that of those who are sentenced to a community payback order. Such statistics remind us that, although appropriate in many cases, short prison sentences are often not the best way to reduce reoffending.

So far, the Scottish Government has taken a range of actions to address rising prison populations. They include extending the presumption against short-term sentences, introducing electronically monitored bail and enabling that time served to be taken into account at sentencing, and strengthening alternatives to remand. Those steps are mitigatory, so it is necessary for further in-depth research to take place on imprisonment and community-based sentences. Therefore, as I have said, I whole-heartedly welcome an externally-led review of sentencing and penal policy.

As with so many issues, addressing the topic will cost money. The Scottish Government has increased the justice allocation in the budget for the second year running. If my colleagues across parties support the budget, they will be supporting an investment of almost £4.2 billion in justice, which is an increase of nearly £400 million. That is my call to the other parties in considering supporting the budget.

The cabinet secretary will not be surprised to hear—in fact, she mentioned it herself—that if we want to change radically the balance between community rehabilitation and custody, we need to fund that. I welcome the continued investment in criminal justice social work services. We cannot change the balance overnight, but we need to change it gradually over a set period. There should be increased investment year on year until that balance is achieved.

I have four minutes, and we have been asked to co-operate. I am sorry, Mr Kerr.

I am fully aware that the funding increases are being made at the same time as the Labour UK Government is changing employer national insurance contributions, which, unless the UK Government commits to a full funding of the potential shortfalls, could cost the justice portfolio millions. Those shortfalls will affect not only major public bodies but third sector partners in areas such as community justice and victim support. I call again on Labour colleagues in this Parliament to ask the UK Government to rethink that policy and approach.

With increasing prison populations, Scotland is facing a potential crisis. An independent review of sentencing and penal policy will be an invaluable resource for exploring ways in which we can address the issue, while ensuring that victims and the public at large across Scotland are protected from harm. Recent reviews in the rest of the UK have shown similar trends, which require radical interventions. The Scottish Government’s increased justice allocation in the proposed budget underlines the SNP’s commitment to keeping Scotland safe.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to support people with long Covid. (S6O-04329)

I know that the minister is aware of my constituent Tracy McMullen and the healthcare support provided to her son Jonathan, who is suffering from long Covid. I thank the minister for her recent response to my letter, but I am advised by Mrs McMullen that there have been no major improvements in Jonathan’s case and that persistent symptoms continue to significantly affect both him and his family. The £4.5 million that is contained in the draft budget for specialist support for long Covid is very welcome, but can the minister outline how she thinks that it can be used by health boards to bring tangible benefits to Jonathan and others who are in his situation?