Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was not an answer to the question that I put.

The nationalisation of ScotRail enabled a subsidy, in the form of £40 million of public money, to be used to reduce fares at a time when there was a cost of living crisis. For many families, that was induced by the folly of the Liz Truss Government and the effect that it had on their mortgage costs and elsewhere, which came as well as the damage that the pandemic brought to the economy. Reduction of fares also helped with the stimulus of economic recovery.

I have not heard from the Conservatives today about what recurring spend they would cut elsewhere in the revenue budget in order to meet that £40 million. We have not heard that from the Labour Party, either. In fact, for the past two weeks, on all the issues of public finance, we have not heard any detailed proposals from the Labour Party about how it would change spending priorities. There have been only sweeping statements of criticism without serious policy proposals or solutions.

We are in the situation where the Scottish Government, through nationalisation and making the right choices, was able to bring in a subsidy, which made a positive impact during the period when it was in place. We know that the investment that is going into ScotRail is creating an improved service for people every single week, and it is going up more and more. The cabinet secretary set out the savings and methods, including the fact that ScotRail ticket fares are already some of the lowest in the UK, being 20 per cent lower on average than fares in the rest of the UK. We have also heard about flexi passes and all the initiatives that are already in place, and last week the cabinet secretary made an announcement to Parliament about improvement that is to come to the rolling stock.

Public ownership has made a positive impact, this policy has made a positive impact, and I commend the Government for doing it.

First, I pay tribute to Graham Simpson for bringing the debate to the chamber, following the members’ business debate on maintenance of tenement communal property that I brought to the chamber—in which I debated the issue with Graham Simpson—in 2018. There has been much progress since then, including one Opposition debate and one Government debate, as well as this debate. The subject is important, and it is right that we are having more debates about it in the Parliament.

I declare an interest, as someone who lives in one of the approximately 900,000 tenements in Scotland. The issue of tenement maintenance is relevant to a huge number of my constituents, many of whom, like me, live in a tenement.

The casework that I have had on tenement issues during the time—more than eight years—that I have had the privilege of representing the communities of Edinburgh Northern and Leith has been significant. People are really struggling to get repairs done on their properties. Although the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 is better than the legislation that was previously in place, we do not have a suitable legal structure to incentivise and necessitate people to organise and finance the repair and maintenance of their properties

The work that the group of MSPs and expert advisers has done over the past eight years has done a lot of heavy lifting for the Government. I know that we have the Acting Minister for Climate Action in the chamber today, but this issue is fundamentally one for the Minister for Housing and his colleagues, and I hope that this debate will be brought to their attention.

Many of Scotland’s tenements are factored, but we know—again from our casework, and from a news item that was reported by BBC Scotland this week—about the difficulties that people have with factoring in terms of difficulty and value for money. Some factoring is done very well, but not every tenement will necessarily want to sign up to that, for various reasons.

We need ways of ensuring, therefore, that tenements are self-organised, and that people are necessitated to undertake repairs and maintenance and that they have funding available to do so. That is where we are. We are nowhere near the point of considering retrofitting, which needs to be done not only in order to meet our climate obligations, but—importantly—to ensure that our homes are warm and watertight and that quality of life is enhanced. We have to make these changes just to get to the point at which enough repair and maintenance is taking place to ensure public safety and the integrity of people’s properties, and to ensure that our stock is enhanced at a time when we have a housing crisis.

The issue needs more focus from the Parliament as a whole, and from the Government, because it affects all those in urban Scotland, including my constituents. The Scottish Law Commission is doing excellent work, and its consultation is important. We need work to be undertaken on the consideration of sinking funds. Thereafter, as a Parliament and as a political community of representatives and parties, we need a shared position of agreement as we go into the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2026, so that a bill on tenement maintenance is one of the first pieces of legislation that is considered in the next session of Parliament. We need to take the time now to work through the development of the hard law and the human rights considerations that are part of the issue. In the next session of Parliament, we will need to legislate quickly, and implement the changes as soon as possible after that. If we do not do that, we will not get on to even the idea of retrofitting.

The heat in buildings bill that will be introduced as part of the programme for government is worth while and important, but people will not be able to undertake the changes that it will necessitate in tenements unless tenement law is reformed. The practical function and legal operation to enable such retrofit will not be in place. Therefore we need both a new act on tenements and a shared commitment. The debate is an important step forward in achieving those.

Does John Mason agree with a point that Miles Briggs has made on several occasions this year—that, if we are to reform the Tenement (Scotland) Act 2004, perhaps there is also a need to make changes to the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011?

A significant number of the affected buildings are in my constituency, and it is an issue of concern for many of my constituents, which is why I lodged a portfolio question on the matter for tomorrow. In the interim, I ask the minister to provide an update on how provisions in the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, such as the cladding register, can improve the confidence of residents of affected buildings as their buildings are assessed and remediated. Can the minister give a general update on the implementation of the act?

As a new member of the Criminal Justice Committee and as a constituency MSP, I am pleased to speak in today’s important debate on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

As members across the chamber have remarked in the debate, we are served very well across Scotland by the exceptional dedication and commitment of Scotland’s police officers and all the diverse work that they do to keep communities safe. In Edinburgh Northern and Leith, I am grateful for the weekly collaboration that I engage in with people from Police Scotland to serve constituents on a range of matters. Their professionalism is exceptional.

However, no organisation is perfect—we all know that—so, if things go wrong, the police must be held to account, improvements must be made and lessons learned. Justice in relation to internal complaints must be thorough and robust, and sanction must be used where it is appropriate and right. Some of the hardest cases that I have dealt with as a constituency MSP in terms of complexity and sensitivity are those regarding complaints about the criminal justice system, and I am sure that that is also the experience of colleagues.

As a country that polices by consent, a principle that, as others have said, is central to our justice system, we must have appropriate and strong accountability. New laws, such as the one that we are considering today, must be brought through in due course, through modernisation and to future proof public confidence in standards of police conduct.

The vital safeguards that are set out in the bill will enhance the professional service that is already delivered by officers as they perform their privileged duties to keep us all safe. I will say more about that in a minute but, before I get into the bill’s key proposals, I will touch a bit more on the point about policing as an essential service and a privileged duty. Although I do not want to discuss too much the jurisprudence of the legislation, I note that fair and accountable enforcement is key to the rule of law. If the state is to have a monopoly of violence, and if that is to be for just and benevolent ends, at least in the modern period—as Maggie Chapman highlighted, it was not necessarily the case historically—we must rely on a strong police service to enforce the rule of law and uphold democracy, and that enforcement must be fair and accountable. The bill will enhance that.

The bill will put the pre-existing code of ethics that is currently embedded throughout policing on a statutory footing in a way that will ensure that there is a thorough review process and accountability for its widespread publication. The bill will make the code of ethics legally binding, and I welcome that.

With regard to complaints against the police, the bill, as other members have touched on, aims to simplify the process—I welcome that, as will my constituents—in order to ensure that there are robust mechanisms in place to investigate complaints in a timeous way, and to investigate allegations of misconduct and other issues of concern in relation to the conduct of police officers in Scotland.

The bill also provides greater powers for the PIRC and places on Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority requirements to respond to the PIRC’s recommendations and to provide the commissioner with direct access to relevant information, including on the commencement and conclusion of gross misconduct proceedings, regardless of whether the person leaves the police or continues in the service.

I think that those powers will be warmly welcomed, but I ask the Government to comment on one point in summing up, although this may be for stage 2 or 3. What initiatives will the Government undertake to continue to raise awareness among members of the public of how to lodge a complaint in an appropriate manner if they have concerns about the service that they have received?

Other measures in the bill that are to be welcomed include the introduction of the Scottish advisory and barred lists, and the setting out of a duty of candour to ensure that the police co-operate fully during investigations of allegations against constables.

There is more in the bill, and I look forward to the stage 2 debate. I conclude by quoting an important statement from Lady Angiolini with regard to formalising the delivery of the majority of the recommendations that her review made in 2018. In evidence to the committee, she said:

“I do not think that having a voluntary version is good enough for an organisation that has so much power. It is really important that there is a structure to that.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 May 2024; c 8.]

For those who may question the necessity of this legislation in ensuring that we formalise the recommendations in Lady Angiolini’s review, I think that that statement is worth remembering.

I welcome the debate. I thank Sarah Boyack for lodging her motion and for bringing the debate to the chamber. I note the focus in her remarks and in the briefings that we have received in advance of the debate from many stakeholders, on prioritisation, on the history of action on these matters from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in recent years, and on building a greater wellbeing economy and society here in Scotland. That has included being part of the initial number of countries in the growing wellbeing economy Governments partnership, known as WEGo: New Zealand, Iceland, Finland, Wales, Canada and, of course, Scotland. I remember, during the time when I had the privilege of being Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development for the Scottish Government, speaking with the Finnish Government as it looked to join the group, and it was great to see Finland become part of it thereafter.

In Scotland, we have the national performance framework, which is considered by all areas of government and more widely, and concerns the allocation of resources and how we make progress to build a greater wellbeing economy and society. I think that it should be called the wellbeing performance framework, which would be more accessible. Perhaps, if there is an opportunity for a name change at some point, that might help with the engagement that is happening more widely than the work of the statutory services and stakeholders who are involved every day.

I appreciate the points that Sarah Boyack made about specific legislation and the support for that idea from different stakeholders, including Aileen McLeod, who was a member of this Parliament and of the European Parliament. She has argued that everyone should have the opportunity to live a good and dignified life, both now and in the future, and that we need to think about how we get clarity in a situation with competing goals. That has been on my mind over recent months and years, and it is particularly pertinent in this 25th year of devolution. Here in Scotland and elsewhere in other democracies, we are facing a challenge in the mixture of our political culture and the demands that are facing all societies—including ours—in relation to public sector service delivery, economic competitiveness, climate change and greater global insecurity. The question of how to react to that multi-challenge in a reasonable and considered way that is deliverable for the people we serve is really difficult.

I am open minded about the possibility of legislating, whether through a member’s bill or in the next parliamentary session. However, as is the case in a number of other areas where we have legislated, we need to focus more passionately and more determinedly on the political culture and the delivery of legislation. If we do not change the political culture and set goals that we all agree on rather than seeing everything as a political opportunity, we will not make progress on the really big issues, whether in Scotland or at an international level.

Sarah Boyack talked about sticking-plaster politics. All parties have been engaged in sticking-plaster politics or in calling for such politics. There was a lot of sticking-plaster politics in the reaction to the programme for government yesterday—sweeping statements and criticism, rather than firm ideas for improvement.

I take the point. There is also the point about commissioners that was made earlier. More importantly, we can take recommendations from commissioners, have strategies from Government and have law and policy, but our political culture needs to change if we are to address long-term challenges. That is a big challenge for all of us in the Parliament in the 25th year since its reconvening.

Mr Whitfield makes an important point. Does he agree that we have a collective responsibility not only to hear, register and act on young people’s fears but to work together to give young people in our country and elsewhere a sense that the future can be better and ensure that we take forward policies that will achieve that?

I thank my colleague Bob Doris for bringing this important debate on the misuse of off-road vehicles to Parliament. As others have emphasised, this is a very serious issue in many of our communities, including the one that I have the privilege of representing. It is a growing challenge and issue and, as has just been emphasised, it is one that we need to get on top of.

As other colleagues have emphasised, those who partake in the misuse of off-road vehicles are a small minority in our communities—it is often young people and often minors—and we must make sure that that point is made. However, it is a minority that is causing a lot of difficulty. Others have talked about their work on these matters for some time.

When I was elected in 2016, there was a trend in my constituency in which a minority was stealing motorbikes from across the city, driving them around the city dangerously and antisocially and then coming to my constituency, continuing in that behaviour and burning them out. Police Scotland, along with other partners, reacted to that. Through operation Soteria and significant youth work interventions, a difference was made and trends were changed. The issue did not go away but it was no longer the everyday concern and nuisance that it had been for a number of years.

Unfortunately, since the pandemic and particularly this summer, there has been a rise in such casework in my constituency, primarily in the Leith area. A new trend is emerging—partly, as is documented, influenced by social media—of quad bikes, off-road bikes and e-bikes known as Sur-Ron bikes after one of the companies that make them being driven dangerously along footpaths and on main pedestrian arteries, such as pavements. That is causing real difficulty.

The small minority of people who are engaging in that behaviour are often involved in crime as well, whether theft, snatching phones—again, a trend that is worryingly growing—or violence. Some of that behaviour is considered to be linked to organised crime, which makes sense, so we have a multitude of competing elements to the challenge.

As others have said, it is difficult for the police to address that behaviour, given the fact that many of those involved are minors, often do not wear helmets and are in public areas where, if the police were to pursue them, it could create more danger for the people who are around. We need a collective, innovative and creative response. I support calls for a working group, for greater focus on whether and what new regulation would make a difference and for engagement with the UK Government and local authorities to come to solutions. From what I have observed and read, the problem is much bigger in some cities in England. We do not want to get to that point in Scotland, so let us get ahead of the situation and try to put intervention and collaboration in place to make a difference.

Another point that is perhaps worth considering, but perhaps even more sensitive, is that a lot of the minority of young people involved in the behaviour wear face coverings that, by any logical conclusion, are not required. We might have had a bad summer, but I do not think balaclava wearing was necessary in Scotland at this time of year.

Those are very serious, overlapping issues. Previously, when there was an increase in motorbike crime in my constituency, a young man died falling off a bike. Also, a young child was hit by a motorbike and, thankfully, recovered fully. Let us not have any more tragedies.

I offer my condolences to the relatives who are in the public gallery and I thank the Government in advance for taking action on the matter.

In continuously working to protect, promote and enhance community cohesion and inclusion, would the First Minister wish to further emphasise our shared admiration for the important contribution that local organisations and individuals across Scotland make to proactively, positively, tenaciously and regularly bring people together as fellow citizens and human beings, through various initiatives, communications and events, and work to support new Scots in our communities? I am talking about remarkable organisations here in the capital, such as the Multi-Cultural Family Base, the Edinburgh Interfaith Association, Building Bridges and The Welcoming.