Seòmar agus comataidhean

When the first speaker in this important debate talked, on behalf of the committee, about historical examples, it took me back to last year, when I was in Iceland at the Althing in Thingvellir—an important place in the countryside, between two volcanic plates, where, from 930 AD, the oldest Parliament sat. However, that was not a Parliament with the sense of equality that we now have. The franchise was not as it is; human rights were not as they are; and engagement was not as it is now. Whether we are thinking back to that time in Iceland or about ancient Greece, as I cited earlier, or walking around the old town here in Edinburgh and thinking about the progress that we have made in our country, what a remarkable journey we have been on. How precious that is. Such progress has been made. There is much to be positive about.

I think back to being a child, when this Parliament was begun. It started off with the ethos of being more accessible and engaged with the public, and easier to access and participate in than other examples. There is much to commend in that regard, thanks to the staff of the Parliament who work to create greater engagement, and to the approach that is taken.

The clearest example that I always go back to is from 2 July 2016, which was the day of the first formal opening of Parliament that I took part in as an MSP. I remember very well that the late Queen addressed us from where the Presiding Officer is sitting now, and that, an hour or two later, there were children sitting in that seat. The fact that that happened at the official opening of the Parliament symbolised just how accessible this chamber is—we opened the doors and let the people in.

Much good has been done. The work of the people’s panels that is summarised in the report, and the propositions in the blueprint, speak well to that. I am also thinking of examples of what we as a Parliament have mandated the Government to do. The experience panels of Social Security Scotland have provided invaluable insights in the creation of our new social security system, utilising the powers of the Scotland Act 2016.

Other members have talked about the importance of us going into the community and being accessible, whether that is in the supermarket, doing our surgeries, being out and about attending community events, supporting organisations, or doing wider engagement. That is the work of politics just as much as what happens in here. The Scottish Parliament has a lot to be proud of in that space. The blueprint, and the proposed extra engagement of people’s panels, will help with that.

It is also about communicating in a way that is helpful for creating greater engagement. I have spoken before in the Parliament of what I call the “Leith Walk test”, which is where if you cannot explain something quickly in passing to someone on Leith Walk, your communication is not effective enough. When you are dealing with the complexity of reserved powers, devolved powers and local authority powers, that is sometimes difficult. We can improve things, but we have done some things well. Next time you are the bus stop in Leith—I should maybe upgrade that to tram stop now—ask yourself, “Could I explain the policy that we’re talking about in those terms?”

In many ways, we do participation well here in the Scottish Parliament. However, I will conclude by touching on how we could do it better, which will connect with what a lot of other colleagues have said. Although we have reminders in the chamber architecture of those whom we represent, when I am in here but not speaking, I often turn my head to look behind me, at the public gallery. Covid had a negative effect for us in here, because we did not have people up there enough during the pandemic years, although that was understandable. We maybe did not turn our heads quite as often as we should have.

I look up at the public gallery during FMQs in particular. I have had concerns, since way before I was elected, that although FMQs is the most prominent shop window for our Parliament, it does not show us at our best. It is about the amplification of conflict, which is unnecessary, and the spin game, as another speaker put it. It is about giving more consideration to what is being thought up there, in the press gallery, than to what is being thought up there, in the public gallery. We have to improve that, given the seriousness of the times, as others have articulated. However, no matter how much we are all working hard to do good engagement, if our constituents are seeing only a snapshot of their democracy that shows politicians taking lumps out of each other for party-political gain, that does not show us at our best.

Stephen Kerr makes some important points, but scrutiny is a broad word and can be interpreted in different ways. One of the shop windows to the Parliament, shall we say, that most people see is First Minister’s question time. Do you think that FMQs, as both a place for scrutiny and a mechanism for engagement with our democracy, should change?

As the minister and her colleagues will be aware from First Minister’s question time on 8 May and other correspondence before and since then, there is deep concern in our capital city among many charities and third sector organisations, including in my constituency, over the review of contracts and service level agreements by the integration joint board and the Edinburgh health and social care partnership. The proposed cost savings from the review could lead to a loss of early intervention and prevention services, which we all know are important, particularly given the demographic pressure in the capital.

I would therefore be grateful if the Scottish Government could continue its efforts and use its convening power to help find solutions to ensure that meaningful engagement and partnership take place and that services that are at risk of cancellation are given the reassurance that they require and are able to continue doing their important work.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Similarly, I was unable to connect. I would have voted yes.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Edinburgh integration joint board, NHS Lothian, the City of Edinburgh Council and any other relevant organisations regarding any impact on patients, communities and statutory services of reported reductions to preventative initiatives and services. (S6O-04713)

As the Scottish Government has emphasised, the drivers of the housing emergency are long-standing, complex, interconnected and strongly related to inequality. Although build-to-rent accommodation has a role, it is not a panacea. There are many measures to take, and the cabinet secretary has mentioned some of the measures that the Scottish Government is taking in Edinburgh—where the emergency is most acute—such as the £80 million investment to realise voids and for acquisitions, and the investment in Granton as a strategic site.

How is the Scottish Government working with the City of Edinburgh Council to address the emergency and the severe situation with homelessness and temporary accommodation? Could it perhaps consider keeping the local connections regulations under review in places where there is real pressure, such as here? Can the cabinet secretary say more about the difference that changes to the local housing allowance would make?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with partners to support the port of Leith’s contribution to Scotland’s net zero ambitions. (S6O-04701)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer, and for of all the investment and effort that is going into realising the potential that she set out.

As has been mentioned, the developing green economic activity at the port of Leith will be significant, which is why, in recent weeks, I hosted a round-table event with employers, local educators and the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans, to help to facilitate further collaboration to nurture the workforce that will be required. I will follow up my question with a letter to the Scottish Government. One of the suggestions that was made on the evening was to utilise some of ScotWind’s revenues to help to fund skills development initiatives in the area. Will ministers consider that as part of the budget formation in the months ahead, to prepare the workforce that we will need in the coming years?

I, too, pay tribute to Clare Adamson for lodging her motion and bringing to the chamber a debate on this important issue, and to Stuart McMillan for all the work that he has done over recent years.

I want to speak in the debate not just because the issue affects many of my constituents—as is the case for many constituencies across urban Scotland and beyond—but because it is an area of public policy and concern in our society that we do not talk about enough. There is—quite rightly and understandably—an emphasis, and debate and discussion, on the challenges that we face as a result of addiction to alcohol and illegal drugs, but gambling does not seem to get the same attention. I appreciate that it is slightly different, but for those who are affected, it is just as damaging, and—as the motion sets out, and as other members have articulated—it is a significant concern in our constituencies.

As my colleague said, in approaching how we engage with and assist those who are experiencing gambling addiction, it should be treated as a health issue, from a person-centred perspective. However, we, as a Parliament and as a society, should perhaps spend more time considering how to work collaboratively with our colleagues in the UK Parliament, and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK, on addressing the prevalence of gambling addiction in our society.

All the main streets in my constituency have a bookies. If you go on the internet, gambling is advertised there. All our major sports are now disproportionately dominated by gambling advertising. The Premier League in England has, commendably, committed to try to remove gambling companies as the main shirt sponsor, from next season onwards. Whether that transpires or not, we have still to see, but major football clubs, and indeed leagues, are currently sponsored by those companies.

I appreciate that that is because gambling has a relationship with sport through the process of putting bets on—the whole concept of gambling is, in many cases, related to sport. Nonetheless, we are getting to a situation where that needs serious attention. Most regulation of gambling is reserved, whether it is through the Gambling Commission or hard regulation in law, but we should think about the soft power that the Scottish Government could use.

As a result of a members’ business debate that I led last year, we now have a ministerial round table on Scottish football. Can that do more? What more can the Government do on engaging with public policy on town centre regeneration? Are there planning law considerations that could be utilised? In engaging with the UK Government, what more can be done about gambling online?

To give credit where it is absolutely due, we have an ally in our former colleague, Ruth Davidson, who has done a lot of work on the issue in the House of Lords. The minister may want to engage with her, and with other politicians in the UK Parliament, on how we do more to tackle this very serious and growing issue with regard to the damage that it is causing and its prevalence in our everyday lives.

[Made a request to intervene.]