Chamber and committees

Sanctioning is one of the very difficult issues about the welfare system—I do not hide from that for a second. However, we must have a system that is fair and that encourages people to interact with it within the rules that everyone is asked to follow. That presents challenges, but I am concerned that we are too keen to look to welfare as the first solution for many people who face difficulties in getting into work. Things can be done now to make a real difference for people.

That is why I am talking about the Usual Place—a model that operates in Dumfries and Galloway that works and is genuinely life saving. Some young people who have accessed it would not be here today if it had not been for that opportunity. They are moving into long-term, sustainable employment and getting one-to-one personalised support. Some of those young people have gone on to set up their own businesses. Something really powerful is happening.

However, we have the DWP on one side and Social Security Scotland on the other, as well as a myriad of Government schemes, and we are told that something that is very precious to people in Dumfries and Galloway does not fit into the silos that we have created for funding and support. I suspect that it is just one of hundreds of similar organisations across Scotland that could do something about the disability employment gap, particularly in rural communities such as the Highlands and Islands and Dumfries and Galloway, in which a significantly higher number of disabled people struggle to find employment.

We can get too focused on some of the political differences that exist in relation to the welfare system and not tackle some of the obvious, immediate and solvable challenges in our education system and in the support that comes after. We can all have bold ambitions, but, if those are not meaningful to the people whom we serve and represent, can we really be happy? Twenty-five years in, has the Scottish Parliament lived up to the promises that we have repeatedly made and that we make again today? Are we going to start delivering for people on the ground?

It is not good enough for things to stagnate or to move backwards. We all need to fight a bit harder to make sure that life gets better for our constituents.

Today, we again see an Scottish National Party-Green Government not just turning its back on rural Scotland but attacking it. We should make no mistake—the bill is another attack that is dressed up in the cloak of so-called animal welfare without the evidence to back it up. Far from protecting the countryside, this SNP-Green Government is overseeing its destruction. In the place of positive measures, all that we get is ban after ban. It is all quite sad.

The bill exposes the new reality once and for all. Rather than listening to those who get their hands and their boots dirty looking after our natural environment, the SNP now takes its direction from extremists. If members do not believe me, they need only look at the Green Party, which has been welcomed into Government with open arms. These are people who claim that they want to save the planet but who champion the wholesale industrialisation of our uplands. They seem wilfully oblivious to the impact that carpeting our uplands with Sitka spruce and wind turbines actually has on nature and the habitats that many of our most vulnerable species rely on. I say to them that, if they truly care about raptor persecution, they might start asking why it is okay for raptors to be taken out by wind turbine blades.

These are people who claim to care about our moorlands but who want to see them diminished and even abandoned, and who see no problem in forcing those who do more for biodiversity than almost anyone else out of their jobs and off the hills. Let us not kid ourselves. That is what the bill risks. The grandstanding of members in this Parliament on countryside issues that they do not understand has real-world consequences, but I guess that, if they never leave the central belt, they would not know that.

The madness goes beyond that. Even though rats are increasingly common in our urban communities in SNP Scotland, concerns about tackling rodent infestations have been ignored. How hard would it have been to agree a rethink on the modest request from pest control representatives for a glue-trap licence for professionals, even as a measure of last resort? A similarly heavy-handed approach and excessive measures are peppered throughout the bill, including vast and unnecessary delegated powers.

However, those are not the only reasons for smelling a rat. It is clear that some really nasty politics are also at play. The countryside and the people living in it are being used as a political football. Increasingly, our way of life is demonised. False divisions are stoked up. Fragile communities have never felt more abandoned and ignored. Twenty-five years into the new Scottish Parliament, life is worse for many who live in rural Scotland. Increasingly, the very viability of their communities comes into question. How can SNP MSPs who represent rural communities go along with that? Do they really want more wildfires, rodent infestations, and foxes wiping out ground-nesting birds? Are gamekeepers and land managers to be endlessly tied up in bureaucracy and dealing with vexatious reports of wrongdoing instead of actually managing the landscapes that they love and care about?

That is what the bill means in reality and what lots of the evidence points to. No doubt, those same colleagues would tell us not to worry, and will justify their support for the bill this evening by saying that it can be amended later. The problem is that we cannot trust this Government or this minister. We have recently seen the reality of how the Government’s legislate-now-license-later approach plays out, following the recent changes brought about by the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. Political considerations are put before the practicalities. Animals are left to suffer. Foxes are out of control ahead of the lambing season. That is just not right, not good enough and not what was promised, so how on earth can any weight be placed on the assurances that we have been given in relation to the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill?

In addition, during stage 1, we saw what listening to stakeholders really means for the minister. Rural stakeholders were marched to the top of the hill, only to be ignored by the minister when she decided to go ahead and ban the use of snares and cable restraints without any licensing scheme for any purpose. That followed what seemed like a genuine request for a detailed proposal on a licensing scheme, but the game was given away by the minister when she rejected that just 24 hours after stakeholders gave evidence to the Parliament on the need for it. That would seem pretty discourteous and somewhat suggestive of predetermined thinking. However, most shockingly, a response to a freedom of information request showed that, before making that decision, the minister did not undertake any detailed consideration of the evidence that was put to the committee.

The bill is just the latest in a long line of betrayals. SNP colleagues will no doubt nod it through at decision time tonight, but we must not allow ourselves to become desensitised to what is happening. Thread by thread, the very fabric of rural Scotland is being unpicked. If we are not careful, it will be lost forever. Our country will be the poorer for it. At some point, we have to say, “No more”. Enough has to be enough.

I cannot support the general principles of such a deeply flawed and unevidenced bill; nor could anyone who claims to stand up for rural Scotland.

Should section 5, for example, be able to be changed only by primary legislation?

Good morning. Thank you for making the time in your schedule to come to the Parliament. I am particularly concerned about a number of the delegated powers in the bill, particularly those in section 5, on the regulatory objectives and principles. The Lord President wrote to the convener of the DPLR Committee setting out some concerns. He said in that letter that his withholding consent would not be a “veto” and flagged up the risk of judicial review.

Will you elaborate on how that might come about?

The minister who is taking forward the bill wrote to the committee on 16 November. In relation to section 5 and some other sections, there was a suggestion that it might be possible to narrow the scope of the changes so that they are possible only at the recommendation of certain bodies.

In terms of more specific detail on what amendments might look like, we heard from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society that there were no amendments in relation to section 5 that would make it acceptable. If there were further amendments to the bill, would that alleviate your concerns?

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to third sector organisations in Dumfriesshire to tackle inequalities and support disabled people and people with additional support needs, including supporting them into the workplace. (S6O-02699)

I highlight the work of the Usual Place, in Dumfries. I have been working with Emma Harper, Colin Smyth and Willie Rennie on a cross-party basis to secure additional Scottish Government support for that organisation’s vital work. It has hit a roadblock as it seems that it fits none of the existing funding options. Will the minister commit to looking at that again, to ensure the viability of the very important work that that organisation does to get young people into long-term employment? The Scottish Government should support that successful work.

I want to ask about the proposed powers for ministers in relation to the guarantee fund in schedule 1, paragraph 6. The Law Society suggested that the consultation requirement should be paired with a requirement to publish the outcome of that consultation. Does the Scottish Government have a view on that?

Can you provide more clarity on how the Lord President’s consent provision would work in practice? What would that look like? How would stakeholders and the Parliament follow that process?