Tim Eagle
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I do not approach immigration by seeking to divide communities or inflame tensions, as Reform appears to. I seek solutions even when they are difficult or unpopular in parts of this chamber. Victor Currie: Britain is a multiracial country, and people of all backgrounds call this their home.”
“Using thorium, the current stock of nuclear waste could be recycled into new reactors, which presents an opportunity to solve the waste problem once and for all. Does Tim Eagle recognise that we should be at the frontier of those developments and not simply a laggard? Tim Eagle: I absolutely recognise that.”
“We still have no timeline for the Nairn, Elgin or Keith bypasses. When concerns were raised about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we led the opposition. When concerns were raised about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, we fought the fight. When our fishing industry needed a voice, we were there for it.”
“When others were afraid to discuss welfare reform, we were prepared to have that conversation, not because it is easy but because responsible government requires difficult conversations. When Scotland’s ferries descended into chaos, it was us—the Scottish Conservatives—who continued to relentlessly pursue answers.”
“That is the point: there were good, skilled jobs, which allowed young people to stay in the area, so that they could have crofts and families and build houses.”
“I will try to keep to that, Presiding Officer. It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to. My colleague Murdo Fraser talked about the word salad of the motion. I was not quite sure what I should zone in on, but I will start with the title, which is “Scotland Needs Reform”.”
The complete record
Every one of 444 lines we hold for Tim Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“I urge the cabinet secretary and members not to push forward with the lotting conditions.”
“Transfers of land would also be delayed and, perhaps most concerning, the value of land might decline. That means that viable businesses would be fractured and confidence could decline, and there is a very real possibility that interest in investment could also reduce. In recent days, following a letter from two very prominent thinkers on land reform, very real questions have been raised about whether this part of the bill is ultra vires or outwith the competence of Scottish ministers. If their assessment proves correct, we should all be very worried. To ensure the protection, stability and future of our rural economy, I propose removal of the lotting provisions from the bill to ensure that that perceived historical unfairness is not fixed by a damaging policy.”
“Lotting prevents landowners from selling large landholdings in full and, instead, sees such landholdings sold in parts known as lots. Ministers appear to be trying to apply a solution to what they perceive as land inequality, to the detriment of the existing rural economy. The bill makes what I have always maintained is a very dangerous assumption—that, if a landowner is operating at scale, they are creating problems. That is not the case. The realities of land management and farm production have forced people to scale holdings for their survival, and some of Scotland’s most extensive landholdings are, in some areas, also our most vulnerable. Lotting could see landowners deal with further administrative requirements and financial burdens.”
“As currently drafted, the bill allows the landowner to seek compensation from ministers for loss or expense related to a lotting decision where that decision has stated that land may “only be transferred in lots.” My amendment 296 would make that condition clearer by stating that compensation may be claimed in relation to a lotting decision. In the period before a lotting decision is made, the owner might have suffered losses that they would not have had were it not for the delay caused by a lotting decision. The amendment would ensure that, if a lotting decision has caused a landowner loss or expense, they would be eligible for compensation. Having said that, my amendments 2 and 3 seek to delete all the lotting provisions from the bill.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her welcome clarification on amendment 290. In the light of those remarks, I will not move that amendment. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her team for working with me on amendments 189, 190, 192 and 14. Those amendments relate to timescales for decisions following a review. They will require ministers to complete a review of a lotting decision and, if necessary, make a replacement lotting decision within three months of an application for review. Amendment 14 will increase the time that is available to a landowner to make an appeal against a ministerial decision on compensation from 21 to 28 days. I hope that the rest of the chamber can get behind those amendments today.”
“I urge members to recognise the effect that the plans will have on the purely upland sheep farms and to back my amendment 127. My amendments 127A and 121 are drafting amendments.”
“Through my amendment 127, I have tried to find a balance between the greater transparency that the bill is trying to establish through the land management plans and an easing of the burden on this particular category of farmer. Edward Mountain: Will the member accept my abject apology that I failed to talk about his sensible amendments in this group? I will, of course, be supporting them, because they make a lot of sense. Tim Eagle: I am delighted to hear that. I thought that the member was going to tell me how much he admires sheep, as I do. This will be quite unique, but there will be a few cases of hill farms, particularly in the west of Scotland, that are over the 1,000 hectare limit that is likely to be imposed through the bill.”
“The land management plans will impose numerous administrative, time-consuming and potentially costly burdens on farmers, including engaging with communities and providing explanations of legislative adherence and substantial details of ownerships and future plans for the land. The financial memorandum that was published with the bill suggested that a landowner could be faced with a £15,000 bill just for drafting their land management plan, and further costs have been predicted, such as up to £3,600 for mapping their holding. Hill farming is an industry that has a history of being the backbone of livestock production in Scotland. However, it is a fragile industry and it is dependent on support.”
“Farmers and landowners are already actively working to cut emissions and increase their efficiencies, and there has been a 13 per cent reduction in emissions since 1990. With them ready to go further, I do not support the administrative burden that that part of the bill would impose. As one farmer has warned publicly, we must avoid elevating environmental concern to the premier league while relegating food production to the second division. If we maintain such attitudes, the reality will be empty shelves. I fear that this is a step too far. My amendment 127 seeks to simplify the land management plans for hill sheep farmers, who work in an industry that I am quite passionate about.”
“Therefore, forcing landowners to highlight potential sales is not necessary in the context of the land management plans. The bill also currently requires the land management plan to contain information about how the owner is managing the land in a way that contributes to achieving the net zero emissions targets that are set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. There is no doubt that protecting our environment is important, although I accept that we have differences of opinion on how that might best be achieved. However, section A1 of the 2009 act puts requirements on Scottish ministers to set net zero emissions targets; it does not directly put those targets on landowners.”
“Before I debate my amendments at stage 3, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I run a small farm in Moray and have a couple of short limited duration tenancies. The bill currently requires landowners to include in their land management plans details of their long-term vision and objectives for managing the land, including plans for its potential sale. My amendment 241 would remove the need to include any information about the potential sale of land. I do not see how it can be right or reasonable that a landowner has to speculate in plans about future sales, which they will most likely not be ready to discuss. If the bill is passed as drafted, there will already be a right for communities to register an interest in land.”
“I fully support Brian Whittle in his members’ business debate this evening. I hope that the Scottish Government and members from every party that is represented in the chamber will come together and make sure that we truly fund the future of our NHS but also fund our preventative programme to ensure that we do not need our NHS as often. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Eagle. That was an ingenious way of subtly boasting that you are still in your 40s, I think. 17:42”
“I am not an app developer, but I am convinced that, in a digital world, there is more that we can do to deliver for the Scottish population and help people to have healthy and long lives. I have always been a strong supporter of the NHS. I am ultimately very proud of it and I do not want to risk losing it—so it worries me when I hear stories about more people moving to private healthcare—because the NHS is something that is uniquely British. I have some statistics here. Last year, one in eight of the population were admitted to hospital, and there were 1.2 million hospital admissions and 4 million out-patient appointments. We want to have a healthy, thriving NHS where our doctors and nurses feel valued and people know that, in the worst of times, they are going to be looked after.”
“For a long time, and certainly since I became a councillor, I have been deeply concerned that we do not take sport and leisure as seriously as we should. I have seen services in decline across the Highlands and Islands, and particularly in my patch in Moray. Every year, swimming pools have come under threat, as have sports clubs, because they cannot get the funding that they need. We should be 100 per cent behind them. Not only are swimming pools in our coastal communities essential for saving lives, they bring people the ability to maintain a healthy weight and they also support mental health. By being part of a team, we can be stronger as people. Brian Whittle touched on lifestyle support, support for mental health, and early detection and screening, which are all things that we need to do more of.”
“That is why I support Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. It is vital to get people out into the countryside and realising the value of outdoor pursuits, activities and sport. I will be 95 in 50 years’ time—I hope that I am still alive then—which is when the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report says that we will be spending nearly 50 per cent of the Scottish budget on the NHS. That is a worrying figure because there is so much else that we need to do with our Scottish budget. Preventative health—everything that Brian Whittle talks about—is therefore vital, because we need to ensure that we use every penny of that tax money as well as we can for the people of Scotland. In the little time that I have left, I will focus on sport and leisure.”
“I thank Brian Whittle for bringing the debate to the chamber. I should first register an interest: my wife is a GP up in Moray. I think that I was probably in the Parliament no more than about five minutes before I had my first conversation with Brian Whittle about the preventative health agenda—he is a true champion on this subject—and it is something that I am deeply proud of. That is partly because I know a lot of doctors and I know the stresses that the NHS can come under, although I do not want this debate to be about negativity; I want it to be about what we can do. It is also partly because of my time as chair of Moray Council’s children and young people’s services committee, which made me aware of just how important sport and leisure and healthy eating are for our children—and, in fact, for all of us.”
“I voted against the legislation because I think that the tax burden is already too high, with VAT at 20 per cent—who knows what it is going to be in November—and because the proposed tax is unworkable.”
“Fergus Ewing has eloquently echoed my view that this issue is one of deep concern to businesses across Scotland. Does he acknowledge that the Conservative group wrote to the minister last week on the exact point that Mr Ewing has just made, which is that we need an emergency or expedited bill to come before the Parliament, so that we can correct the defects that the SNP has created? Fergus Ewing: Yes, I think that that is fair. There is, broadly speaking, an agreement that this is something that needs to be done. I am pleased that Mr Eagle has made a point that I omitted to make, which is that we are talking about something that is not simply a technical defect but one that could have serious adverse consequences.”
“I have never denied it, and nor has the Government—we absolutely accept that that is an issue. The member referred to the strategic wildlife and land management forum. He is not in the room, because we do not want grandstanding, but in that forum we have intense discussions and hear polarised opinions in order to find solutions to the issues that we face. We have managed to do that with common ground and deer management, and we are now in the position where we can get people in the room to look at practical solutions and find ways to make things work better. Such forums do not need the kind of political grandstanding that we are seeing from Conservative members on my left.”
“An elderly man came to the Co-op every day for his newspaper. In June, a seagull attacked him. He fell and broke his hip. He does not leave the house now. When I hear stories like that, I cannot understand why no action is being taken. However, the minister has form on this, because the previous group that he set up to look at protected species—the strategic wildlife and land management forum, which was announced to great fanfare at the Royal Highland Show in 2024—has achieved nothing. Why, then, should I have any confidence that the minister’s seagull summits will actually do anything? Jim Fairlie: There is a serious point regarding the issue that Tim Eagle has raised. There are, absolutely, circumstances in which gulls are causing harm to people. That has never been denied.”
“The common theme in most of the answers today is, “We’re talking, we’re talking, we’re talking”, but we do not see any action. Fishermen are facing the problem of spatial squeeze right now, every single day, and they need some action. When is the Government going to act and put something in place, rather than just talking? Jim Fairlie: As usual, I will respond to Mr Eagle by saying that the talking will continue, because that is how we get resolutions, and that is what will happen. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 8.”
“Amendment 352 disagreed to. Before section 51A The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 26 is on taxes and local government finance. Amendment 353, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 354, 355, 245 to 247, 356 to 358, 248 to 251, 359, 252 to 254, 114, 113, 360 to 365, 376, 377 and 386. I point out that, if amendment 231 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 359 due to pre-emption.”
“Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 47, Against 61, Abstentions 0.”
“On amendment 352, I am afraid that I do not accept the Government’s response that a review is required. The report from the University of Stirling noted that there is consistent evidence of the case for change. The need for consistency and equity has been recommended 14 times since 2000, while the need for a strategic approach has been recommended 21 times and the need for partnership approaches 19 times. The time for review really is over, and it is now time to take action on adaptation. On that basis, I will be pressing amendment 352. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please confirm that you seek to withdraw amendment 351. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I seek to withdraw it. Amendment 351, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 352 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 352 be agreed to. Are we agreed?”
“Màiri McAllan: I note that Ms Gallacher has confirmed that she will not be pressing her probing amendment. I conclude my remarks by reiterating my commitment to beginning work on the review later this year and to having an accessible homes standard within two years. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 351. Pam Duncan-Glancy: On the basis of the commitments that the cabinet secretary has given and in light of the drafting concerns she explained—because I would not want the amendment to apply only at the point when a house is purchased rather than when it is built—I will not press amendment 351. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to take action in that area and particularly to work with disabled people, their organisations and others within two years.”
“Under the current law, adaptations can be simply for the purpose of improving access, but her amendment 369 would mean that works had to be done to allow “safe, convenient, and unassisted access” throughout, which would be a slight step back. I know that that is not what she intended. Meghan Gallacher: Amendment 369 was a probing amendment so that we could talk about definitions and the need for clarity surrounding definitions of accessible housing. It is really important for the Scottish Government to take that away following our debate this evening. I am glad that there will be a review, but the cabinet secretary must look at the definitions used by the 32 local authorities, because they are inconsistent at the moment, creating a lot of uncertainty for disabled families up and down the country.”
“Section 73 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 requires assistance to be provided in cases where the property is the only or main residence of a disabled person. We accept that, but further assistance may also be provided in certain circumstances, at the discretion of the local authority. As I have mentioned, we have committed to undertaking a review of current housing adaptations, and I will ensure those issues are raised as part of that work. I cannot support Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 369. I understand her intent and am sure that the issue is inadvertent and not what she intended, but I fear that amendment 369 might be a step back.”
“I whole-heartedly back what Mr Stewart says about the complexity of the existing landscape and about the need to bring partners together to understand what must be done. I am happy to commit to Parliament that the review will begin later this year and that I will engage with members on it. While we are discussing adaptations, it is worth noting that we are continuing to support registered social landlords to appropriately adapt their properties. The budget for that programme for 2025-26 has more than doubled, to £20.9 million, which reflects our commitment to support social landlords to deliver the necessary adaptations. I will address a couple of other amendments. Rachael Hamilton is not here, but her amendment 368 was spoken to and it dealt with provision to support disabled people who require adaptations.”
“I will commit to undertaking a review of the current housing adaptation system, which will be able to make recommendations and build on some of the work that she has spoken about on how we best improve and streamline the system and better target resources. A lot of resources are being spent on adaptation, but we need to work on that if those resources are not being spent well. Kevin Stewart: I welcome what the cabinet secretary said about a review, because the system is sometimes cluttered, with local authorities, health and social care partnerships and the national health service all overseeing a fragmented system. Would the cabinet secretary agree to that review bringing together all partners in order to get it right for people across Scotland? Màiri McAllan: Absolutely.”
“That was the conclusion of the report from the University of Stirling, which is why I lodged amendment 352. The report highlighted various different ways in which the law should be improved in this space, which includes the improvements that I am trying to make with amendment 352. On that basis, will the cabinet secretary reconsider and support the amendment? Màiri McAllan: I take on board everything that Pam Duncan-Glancy puts to me. The principle behind my inability to accept the amendment does not change, which is that I do not want to confuse the legal landscape. However, I will absolutely take on board what Pam Duncan-Glancy tells me about the workability of the existing law.”
“I am fully supportive of the principle of amendment 352, and I am clear that disabled people must be supported to live safely and independently in their own homes, regardless of their housing circumstances. However, this is another case in which a law already exists for the purpose. I am therefore not agreeable to layering further law atop what already exists, but I want to work with members to make the existing law work better. If it is the case— Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point? Màiri McAllan: I will in a moment—I will just finish the point. If it is the case that the law as it stands does not work, I will be interested to work out how we can change that. Pam Duncan-Glancy: It is the case that the current legislation is not working.”
“That will help to ensure that any new building standards and guidance are meaningful and proportionate, with the aim of ensuring that all new homes are accessible and adaptable to current and future needs or lifelong, changing needs. Following consultation with the sector, including disabled persons, I would want provision to be in place within two years, which reflects the discussion that we had. I am happy to put that on the record today, and I will be keen to engage with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that point. Equally, regarding Mr Balfour’s question, I confirm to him that I will make sure that, when we talk about the needs of disabled individuals, that will include the full spectrum of requirements. He need not be concerned that any hidden disabilities would be missed.”
“We discussed that and she understood it, and she spoke to some of the detail of that in her speech. However, we worked together on an alternative manuscript amendment, which I would have backed whole-heartedly had it been accepted. Despite that, I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that I remain committed to introducing a Scottish accessible homes standard through building standards and guidance that will address the accessibility, adaptability and usability of Scotland’s new homes. I would want that to be developed in consultation with the building sector as well as other stakeholders. Crucially, and most of all, that includes those with lived experience.”
“I again ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that, when it comes to adaptation, we do not look only at putting in ramps but make sure that all disabilities are covered. I hope that the amendments in this group will be accepted by the Parliament if they are moved, because they deal with a massive issue for many disabled people across the whole of our country. Màiri McAllan: On amendment 351 from Pam Duncan-Glancy, I absolutely support the intention of ensuring the accessibility and adaptability of Scotland’s homes. I also recognise the urgency of such work. I am pleased to have heard cross-party support today for a commitment to introduce a Scottish accessible homes standard. Unfortunately, as Ms Duncan-Glancy narrated, significant drafting errors in her amendment meant that I could not support it.”
“I am therefore interested in ensuring that the cabinet secretary picks up on all forms of disability, both hidden and visible. 18:30 Secondly, I welcome the amendments that relate to the question of adapting houses. We must be honest: it is simply the case that not enough money goes into the budget for local authorities to do that work. As we just heard from Meghan Gallacher, there is often a very long waiting list for people who are waiting to have adaptations done. That can affect someone’s mental health as well as their physical disability. If people are unable to do things for themselves that they could do with a little help, that can often lead to mental health issues and to their not being able to use their houses to their full extent.”
“Jeremy Balfour: I welcome all the amendments in this group, and I will support them all. I am pleased that Pam Duncan-Glancy has had positive negotiations with the cabinet secretary. I will make two brief points. First, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary, in summing up, could confirm that, when we talk about accessible housing, we are not talking only about accessibility for people who have wheelchairs; accessibility applies to people who have hidden disability and other forms of disability as well. Too often, constituents come to me having been told that they can put a ramp in, or that they can do this or that for a wheelchair. That is really important, but others who perhaps have less visible disabilities also need adaptations to be made to their housing.”
“The reason that we are debating the issue this evening is that that has not happened. Too many people are waiting for adaptations. I have learned from discussions with MND Scotland that, in some circumstances, people who live with motor neurone disease are having to wait for up to a year for adaptations to their home. Those who know well the outcomes of MND with regard to people’s ability to live within their means throughout the rest of their lives will understand that they need adaptations to be made as quickly as possible. They cannot afford to wait years for adaptations to be made. That is why I believe that it is imperative for the Scottish Government to strengthen the definition of “accessible housing” to ensure that councils fulfil their duty to provide suitable homes for people with additional housing needs.”
“My amendment 369 is a probing amendment. Through discussions with stakeholders, particularly MND Scotland, I have learned that local authorities do not have a clear definition of “accessible housing”. My concerns relate to people with accessible needs being allocated a house through social waiting lists only to find that the property is completely unsuitable for their needs. For example, one local authority defines an accessible home as a property that has up to four steps for access. If someone is wheelchair bound, that property will not be accessible to them without adaptations being made to it. That is why I welcome the amendments that Pam Duncan- Glancy has lodged. The report that she rightly referenced should offer more clarity in relation to definitions and accessibility, but that needs to be directed by the Government.”
“The proposed change is important, because the current system does not reflect the reality of modern family life. Many disabled adults split their time across more than one home, perhaps between parents who are now separated, or between their own home and that of a carer with whom they sometimes stay. Without provision for adaptations in both residences, their independence, safety and dignity are compromised. In summary, amendment 368 seeks to ensure that our housing system will be fairer, more inclusive and better aligned with the needs of disabled people and their families. I will be pleased to move amendment 368. Meghan Gallacher: I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in this group, if they are moved, given the importance of the issues that they raise.”
“As the report says, “The challenge is no longer knowing what to do, but when we will act.” With that, I say that the time is now, and I hope that the Government will agree. I move amendment 351. Murdo Fraser: I am speaking to amendment 368 on behalf of Rachael Hamilton, who cannot be here in the chamber this afternoon. Amendment 368 seeks to close a gap in the current law that restricts adaptations such as stairlifts and accessible bathing facilities to a disabled person’s main residence. The amendment would apply only to cases of unpaid care provided by family members, to avoid ambiguity around issues of paid care or voluntary arrangements. It would extend rights to cover cases in which a disabled person spends significant time in another household for the purpose of receiving care and support from a family member.”
“One of my constituents has recently contacted me to say that he has had to find resources for a stair climber, because outdated advice that has been given in the existing regime suggests that some changes cannot be made to common areas because of the risk to other tenants. In this case, the risk of other tenants not being able to move their furniture up and down the stairs if a stairlift is in place is considered greater than the risk to my constituent’s wife, who has dementia, and to him when he has to pull her up four storeys in a stair climber. Such examples demonstrate the need for clarity and direction from the Government. That is what my amendment 352 seeks to achieve, and I hope that it can garner cross-party support from members this evening. The need is growing and the cost of inaction will mount.”
“organisations.” Such a scheme is recommended in the recent “What’s next for adaptations?” report, which was led by the University of Stirling’s intersectional stigma of place-based ageing project. The report notes that “delays and inequalities in access” to adaptations are widespread across Scotland, and that “the consequences are serious: more falls, avoidable hospital admissions and missed opportunities for prevention.” More than that, living in a home that is not adapted has a profound impact on a person’s life. The Government knows about the case for change in this area. The need is growing, and the cost of inaction will mount.”
“Innovative work is happening but, too often, help arrives only after a fall, injury or hospital stay, and access to adapted housing varies depending on where a person lives, the tenure and what funding is available. That is why I lodged amendment 352. It would require the Scottish ministers to create, by regulations, a “scheme to provide adaptations”. The scheme would apply irrespective of tenure and would “integrate adaptations into planned repair, maintenance, and upgrade programmes”. It would “include a mechanism for evaluating the adaptations made” to inform “future strategy and resource allocation”, and it would “ensure that the evaluation ... involves engagement with relevant ...”
“It is time that action on the issue is taken, and I am pleased that we should receive commitments to that effect this evening. I lodged amendment 352 because we know that not everyone lives in a new home. Indeed, the majority of older and disabled people live in general needs housing that was never designed to meet changing needs. That situation puts increasing pressure on Scotland’s housing, health and social care systems. Housing adaptations are a vital part of the solution. They are often the difference between staying at home and being forced into crisis. However, despite decades of research and recommendations, Scotland’s adaptation system remains fragmented, reactive and underresourced.”
“In a spirit of collaboration—I thank the cabinet secretary for her collaboration after those anomalies were pointed out—I am pleased that it is the Government’s intention to set out this evening in Parliament the action that will be taken to deliver what the revised amendment would have delivered, and to review the building standards within two years of the bill receiving royal assent. That is welcome news, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary confirming that when she speaks on this group. Accessible and adaptable homes enable people to thrive at every stage of their life. They reduce pressure on health and social care systems, empower older and disabled people to live with autonomy, and support working families by removing daily barriers to wellbeing.”
“First, the amendment’s use of the Building Safety Act 2022 definition of “new build home” would mean that the standards would apply only at the point of ownership and not during construction, which is clearly not my intention. Secondly, the amendment lacks a link to an enforcement mechanism, such as the Scottish building standards system. Since the cabinet secretary drew those points to my attention, we have worked together closely to develop a manuscript amendment that would have addressed those issues and provided an amendment that the cabinet secretary and Parliament could have supported and that would have delivered the intention that I set out in amendment 351. However, the manuscript amendment was not accepted, so I am not able to move it.”
“Disabled people and their representative organisations were actively consulted during the development of the housing to 2040 strategy, and they now—rightly—want to see change. More importantly, they need to see change. We cannot continue indefinitely without clarity on standards for new builds—standards that will ensure that we do not build more inaccessible homes but, instead, get it right for our population. The people who need accessible homes deserve such action. That is why I lodged amendment 351. Since I lodged it, the cabinet secretary has reached out to confirm that she supports its intention and the urgency that it pushes for, but that she is unable to support it because of two technical issues.”
“At stage 2, the Government said that it could not support a similarly drafted amendment, because it would be premature to do that in advance of consideration of responses to its consultation, which was carried out in 2023. However, for the 30,000 people across the country who are on waiting lists because they are disabled and need accessible housing, and who are stuck in their own homes, that action is not premature—it is far too late. In Glasgow alone, there are currently nearly 5,000 people on the waiting list for a ground-floor property or accessible accommodation. As there are more than 60 housing associations in Glasgow, I suspect that that number will be higher.”
“Amendment 244 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 25 is on accessibility of housing. Amendment 351, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 352, 368 and 369. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Amendment 351 would require the Scottish ministers, no later than two years after the proposed new section comes into force, to publish an accessible homes standard. The Government said in “Housing to 2040” that it would develop and publish a new accessible homes standard for all new homes. The standard has not yet been updated, and it has not been updated in more than 20 years. The Government said that the standard would be implemented through changes to building standards, but it has delayed the introduction of that.”
“For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 38, Against 70, Abstentions 0.”