Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

The cabinet secretary will appreciate that the population of my constituency is growing rapidly and significantly. In recent years, I have raised the possibility of creating a GP surgery at Ocean Terminal in Leith in order to meet new demand for GP practices in the area. That would likely have a lower cost than building new premises, and Ocean Terminal has recently been a very successful vaccination centre. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary, working with the health and social care partnership, gave that idea further consideration.

It is my understanding that the allocation of the EU structural and investment funding is done on a multi-annual basis. I am conscious that the funding period that was referred to in the statement has included a Brexit referendum, subsequent negotiations and a worldwide pandemic. Therefore, does the Deputy First Minister think that we need to be mindful of the particular context that was faced during that funding period and how that impacted partners and their projects?

Such is the seriousness of the global climate emergency that it can often be overwhelming and demoralising to think about what to do about it. However, if, collectively, we continue to think global and act local, we can make a meaningful difference, as years past have shown.

I am of the firm view that, together, we can make progress on the issue only if we have a positive discussion about it. Yes, we must be realistic, honest and practical, but we must be positive. As a Parliament, we have indicated on several occasions that we all care about the issue and are committed to tackling it. Given that we share the same objective, we need to think about what we can do to work collectively for the benefit of our constituents.

In this Parliament, we hear evidence from experts all the time. Sometimes, it really sticks with you when you hear someone speak at a committee or in another forum. At the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s meeting on 23 April this year, Chris Stark made his last appearance as chair of the Climate Change Committee. That evidence was extremely compelling, and I would like to repeat a number of the things that he said that day.

One of his key points was this:

“The benefits to this country of achieving net zero are immense—not just to the climate but in the form of jobs, to the landscape around us, to trade and to a host of social issues. Those reasons, alongside the climate benefits, are why you should want to pursue net zero.”

He also said:

“The transition is good for the climate, good for the economy and good for people living in this country.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 47, 48.]

For me and my constituency, that applies in a number of different ways, every week and every day. Nova Innovation is developing some of the most remarkable tidal technology in the world and, in doing so, is growing as a business, and it was recently announced that Vestas, a world-leading blade maker, has begun the process of securing planning permission for a site at Leith docks in Edinburgh. During this week of wind energy, it is worth noting that that development will create new jobs and will play a huge part in the remarkable contribution that Scotland can make to wind energy, to the benefit of us and people elsewhere.

Low-emission zones are already making a difference. Clean air day last week was important in reminding us as a society that, in Scotland, there have been 1,700 premature deaths due to pollution, which is the leading cause of preventable ill health in Scotland.

Those are all reasons for achieving net zero and tackling the climate emergency. I go back to the words of Chris Stark, who said:

“I am increasingly of the view that, if we are going to get to net zero by 2045, we probably will not do so by making the arguments solely on a climate basis. For example, it is jobs in Falkirk that should drive the investments to decarbonise Grangemouth, and the fact that that also helps the climate should be a secondary reinforcing concern. Similarly, the fact that we are making homes warmer and reducing energy bills is the reason why we want to make the investment in buildings, and the fact that it helps the climate is a reinforcing aspect.

I am happy for net zero to step into that reinforcing secondary role. We still have to get to net zero—it is very important that we do that—but we have been through quite an odd period, frankly, where the primary reason for a lot of what was being done was net zero alone, and that is a strategy that probably does not have that much longer to run.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 35.]

The benefits of net zero are widespread, so I am very pleased that the Government remains committed to achieving net zero by 2045 and all the benefits that it will bring.

Will the member give way?