Chamber and committees

Can the minister confirm whether the £10 million of funding will be entirely within the 2025-26 budget? Is that what she is saying?

I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is taking the matter so seriously. This is dreadful news for the 217 direct employees of Stewart Milne Group, but there will also be serious concerns for all those connected with the supply chain, including contractors and self-employed tradespeople. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether help will also be made available to people who are not directly employed by Stewart Milne Group but who now face the prospect of losing their livelihoods due to its collapse?

His blatant lack of respect for democratically elected individuals, use of derogatory language and nasty comments about others on social media should have been investigated by the recruitment panel. If that panel is open and transparent, what did its members make of those comments? If they did not take them into account, why not? The committee should be able to question the applicant prior to their appointment so that we can ask those questions in an open and transparent manner.

The sidelining of the Parliament is a disgrace, the leaking to the press is a disgrace, and the proposed appointment is a disgrace. We all deserve better than this.

I move amendment S6M-11733.1, to leave out from “recommendation” to end and insert:

“unanimous recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Professor Deborah Roberts and Craig Mackenzie as Land Commissioners to the Scottish Land Commission; recognises the widespread concerns expressed regarding the recommended appointment of Michael Russell; highlights that Michael Russell’s appointment was not approved unanimously by the Committee because it had not had the opportunity to take evidence from him regarding any potential conflicts of interest that would arise from him having recently been an MSP, president of the Scottish National Party, interim chief executive of the Scottish National Party, and a Scottish Minister; understands that Michael Russell has made a number of inflammatory comments in the past about opposition politicians and parties, as well as about land reform, and therefore questions his ability to be impartial, and approves the appointments of Professor Deborah Roberts and Craig Mackenzie as required by section 10 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, but, in the interests of protecting the reputation of the Scottish Land Commission, does not approve the appointment of Michael Russell until such time as the Committee has undertaken further scrutiny.”

—yet Mike Russell has continuously made disparaging comments in the media about people in public life, describing a well-respected female MP as having a tantrum and an MSP as being arrogant. Those are shocking words from someone who is supposed to build relationships. In other comments, Mr Russell has described political opponents as enemies and Conservative MPs as traitors and hard right. This is the person who will be speaking on behalf of the Scottish Land Commission—a person who has used degrading language towards women in public and who has called people who do not agree with his politics enemies—and yet we are supposed to believe that he will now build relationships and engage with stakeholders. What an absolute joke.

This badly judged appointment will not build bridges but will sow division and be bad for our rural sector. The SNP is politicising the commissioner’s role at a time when the Scottish Land Commission will play a vital role in feeding in to the land reform process. It is the equivalent of the SNP marking its own homework, and it should be resisted. It is a “jobs for the boys” approach, and the fact that the SNP and its Green lapdogs are simply going to vote this through to keep their cabal together as the last gasp before the Christmas recess is simply shocking. The SNP is making bad decisions that will harm the future of our rural sector.

In a week that saw the worst budget for Scottish businesses and for our rural economy, Scotland’s rural community deserves better than this. This Parliament deserves better than this. The appointment simply reeks of nepotism. We all deserve transparency and clarity from the Scottish Government and its ministers. [Interruption.]

It is regrettable that the committee was unable to come to a unanimous decision on the issue. Perhaps the fact that the vote was split along party lines tells us a lot about the situation that we are in. We should make no mistake—this is a political appointment from an increasingly desperate devolved Government.

Let us look at how the appointment was announced. On 1 December, we heard that Mike Russell had stepped down from his role as president of the SNP. The SNP spin machine swung into action, and, a couple of hours later, an SNP press release told us that he was taking up the role of chair of the Scottish Land Commission, no doubt to quell rumours about why he was leaving. That showed no respect for process and no respect for this Parliament. That is what the SNP had decided and there was no thought at all of respect for the other candidates. It was simply a matter of jobs for the boys. [Interruption.]

The job profile calls for someone with integrity and someone who can be an ambassador—[Interruption.]

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the previously ring fenced £33 million of funding allocated to the agriculture sector as a result of the Bew review will be returned to its budget for the portfolio covering agriculture. (S6O-02897)

The National Farmers Union Scotland is rightly furious that the Scottish National Party-Green devolved Government has failed to return £61 million of withdrawn agriculture funds in the draft budget. Today, we heard that only 25 per cent of that funding will be returned, while, at the same time, the Government is cutting other agriculture funds. Can the cabinet secretary explain to Scotland’s farmers and crofters why the SNP is not standing up for rural Scotland? When will our farmers get all of their money back?

I thank Clare Adamson not just for bringing the debate to the chamber but for sharing her personal story. Like her, I had never heard of CRPS before 2010. At that time, my daughter was nine years old. Like Clare Adamson, I have not spoken about this in public before.

My daughter had a sports day. Nothing obvious happened—we did not think that she got injured at all. Perhaps she took a little bit of a tumble, but kids of that age are always taking a tumble. The next day, she woke up with the most severe pain in her lower leg and foot. Her foot was a little bit red. The pain was almost indescribable. We could not even touch her slightly because she would scream in pain.

We were in hospital for tests, MRIs and X-rays, but most of the doctors told us that nothing obvious was wrong. However, as her parents, we knew that something was wrong. We spent days in hospital. Doctors were in touch with colleagues at other hospitals, and it was suggested that she had CRPS.

That was 13 years ago. Not much was known about the condition then, and it sounds as though awareness has not progressed much. There was no support at all. We did a lot of investigation on the internet, as most parents do. Because we were desperate, we reached out to a family in the United States whose daughter had a similar story and who were going through the same as us. We even bought a DVD that came from the States on possible treatments.

For my daughter, CRPS was almost like a nervous condition that was tricking the brain into thinking that something was seriously wrong. However, physically, nothing might have been wrong at all. I am not trying to say that it is all in the head—it is certainly not all in the head. People feel real pain, but the pain felt is almost out of control and not comparable to the original injury.

For my daughter, treatment consisted of two things: medicine—gabapentin, which always sticks in my mind—and a course of intense physiotherapy. I will never forget the physiotherapy. It was almost like we were torturing her. We knew that we had to break the cycle somehow, so we were trying to get her to walk again. She was screaming in pain, and the physiotherapist was almost forcing her to put her foot on the ground, even though that must have been hellish for her. We felt that we had to do something.

A little bit more help is available nowadays. I applaud all the charities that have been mentioned and are helping in relation to CRPS. What my daughter went through was horrendous, but her outcome was a lot better than that of most people with the condition. I hope that, with more awareness, diagnosis can be quicker and easier. As awareness grows, I hope that there will also be better treatments.

I thank Clare Adamson for telling her story. I hope that we can improve the situation for many people for years to come.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I note that the rail budget has been cut by nearly £80 million in cash terms. Can the cabinet secretary explain how a cut to the rail budget will encourage more people on to our railway?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I should have reminded members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that at the start of the current parliamentary session I was a councillor at Aberdeen City Council.