Chamber and committees

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting colleagues in COSLA regarding their call for civility in public life. (S6O-04777)

I welcome the work that colleagues and COSLA are undertaking that is aimed at tackling abuse and intimidation of elected members.

The tragic and barbarous murders of Jo Cox MP and David Amess MP as they went about their daily duties shook all of us to the core. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the growing abuse and intimidation of elected representatives is a direct threat to democracy? Many elected representatives are standing down from their roles because they are not prepared to tolerate such abuse—which also actively deters people, especially those from underrepresented groups, from entering politics in the first place. Does the cabinet secretary also agree that the work initiated by COSLA should be supported by all of us to ensure that elected members can conduct their duties free from violence, threats and abuse?

Let me explore a little bit further how, as an organisation, you are able to track, monitor and evaluate quality improvement. We have heard about some of the tools that you already use, such as self-evaluation forms and using complaints themselves as tools. What other tools do you have to track, monitor and evaluate improvement?

It is really good to hear that you have been able to feed in your concerns and that the linkages are robust in relation to what you expect the draft plan to say.

There was also a bit of worry about where your role stopped and the Scottish Food Commission’s role started and how that was going to be managed. Do you feel that there is now a clear division of responsibilities there?

It is helpful for the committee to understand that.

Thinking about the most recent corporate plan, can you identify any improvements in social care that you have been part of and have helped to drive forward?

I have a final question. It has come to our attention that the Care Inspectorate does not seem to be represented on the interim national care service advisory board. What involvement, if any, have you had with the board? What involvement will you have with it going forward?

To what extent has FSS been involved in the development of the draft national good food nation plan? In the evidence that you provided to the committee in 2024, you expressed some concerns about some of the linkages between the actions and the intended outcomes. Are you satisfied that those concerns have been addressed or do some concerns remain?

Are there any barriers to achieving that aspirational vision? Have you identified what is making it difficult for the Care Inspectorate to achieve it?