Chamber and committees

Does Meghan Gallacher agree that anyone who is experiencing complications of inguinal hernia repair or any mesh implant should be looked after by a caring, compassionate, kind and competent multidisciplinary team? We need to consider that issue and move forward on it.

Absolutely. From the conversation that we had in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I picked up that issue directly. We have taken action locally, and the alcohol and drug partnership team is well aware of the issue. It took action, and that issue has been dealt with. I thank Sue Webber for raising that issue.

I am keen to explore whether mandatory education related to stigma will add to Scotland’s work to ensure that people can access the treatment that they need without prejudice and judgment, and I hope that we can make progress. That is really important, based on my experience as a nurse and a nurse educator and on hearing conversations involving people whom I worked with in the past.

Peer navigators and peer support workers are also crucial in supporting people in treatment and in overcoming stigma. Those workers can and do make a difference to people’s lives. The “Changing Lives” report notes that the

“provision of navigator services across Scotland is patchy. Coverage in the central belt is good, but rural areas are less well catered for.”

I know that the minister is very much aware that issues in rural areas must be addressed, and I know that she has engaged with the Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders alcohol and drug partnerships and NHS boards. I welcome that.

The expansion of navigator services nationally, supported by a comprehensive framework, standards and guidance, might help to remove the postcode lottery that many individuals now face in accessing services. Community-based services that link to the hospital navigator service are necessary, and knowledge of local areas is imperative for navigators.

I absolutely welcome and endorse the vital work that We Are With You is conducting. It uses the peer support model. I met the local team at the Buccleuch Street centre in Dumfries just last year. I ask the minister for a commitment that peer support services will be supported and expanded, particularly in rural areas.

In the minister’s statement to Parliament in November, she stated that she wanted to expand the scope of the MAT standards so that they include treatment options for benzodiazepines. I am aware that there is current research regarding a naloxone equivalent for benzodiazepines, and I would be interested to hear an update from the minister on treatment options for benzos. Obviously, that doesnae have to be today—I know that we are meeting soon.

The Westminster war on drugs has been an abject failure. Instead of solving problems, it has made them worse by stigmatising people who use drugs and creating barriers to tackling substance addiction.

The UK Government’s latest white paper—“Swift, Certain, Tough: New Consequences for Drug Possession”—sets out a three-tier framework for adult drug-possession offences. Those proposals are contradictory to the public health approach that is being taken in Scotland, and they could undermine aspects of the national mission if they are implemented here. I know that the Minister for Drugs Policy has written to the UK minister to express opposition to those policies being operated in Scotland. I challenge Conservative members to do all that they can, by making representations to their Westminster colleagues, to ensure that that policy does not impact on our approach in Scotland.

Without reform of the law, efforts to tackle the drugs crisis in Scotland will always be impeded. That cannot happen, so I welcome the steps that are being taken by the minister. I know that it isnae a quick fix; long-term work needs to take place. I know that the minister is working hard to reduce the number of drug deaths in Scotland, and I look forward to my continued engagement with her.

Any life lost as a result of drug harm is a tragedy, and the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to implementing approaches that we know work to save lives and reduce harm. The Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce’s report, “Changing Lives”, contained 20 recommendations and 139 detailed actions for the Scottish Government to consider. The report represented almost three years’ work, with contributions from a broad range of people with expertise in the area, including those with living and lived experience—I know that the minister is focused on listening to examples from those people.

One of the areas that I have a particular interest in is tackling drug-related stigma, which requires action from all levels of government and, indeed, the wider population. The “Changing Lives” report states that “Stigma kills people”. The report focuses a lot on tackling stigma and discrimination. Stigma is not only damaging to individuals’ mental health and sense of self-worth; it discourages people from coming forward to seek the help that they need.

Stigma is particularly harmful in rural areas, in which communities are often very tight knit—Alex Cole-Hamilton has just mentioned that—and in which it can be harder to seek treatment because of the fear of prejudice and discrimination.

Section 3 of the “Changing Lives” report states:

“Primary care settings offer a key environment in which direct care and treatment can be offered to people”

who are affected by harmful drug use. Treatment services that are offered by, for example, GPs, dentists, community nurses, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians can also help to address issues around access to drug treatment services in rural areas and, therefore, reduce stigma.

I picked up the issue of stigma with NHS Education for Scotland and asked whether mandatory education could be created and delivered, perhaps in an online module, for all health and social care staff, including pharmacists and allied health professionals, as opposed to stigma education being provided just for those working in alcohol and drug services.

I do not think that I have time to take an intervention from Mr Briggs. I am sorry.

NPF4 will be powered through significant public and private investment, with cross-Government co-operation. It will identify funding streams through the infrastructure investment plan and the place-based investment programme. It will open up the possibility of local authorities and private investors accessing funding streams, which could allow the transformation of our derelict brownfield sites. That is welcome, but I ask the minister to clearly communicate with local authority and private sector partners regarding what the funding possibilities are and how NPF4 can transform our derelict sites.

I will turn briefly to permitted development. I welcome the fact that NPF4 will address a legal loophole that has caused numerous issues in my region. Shooting activity, including shooting using high-velocity weapons of up to 50 calibre, is currently allowed to take place without planning permission because permitted development rights are used. Permitted development rights for class 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 allow the temporary use of land for a different purpose for up to 28 days in a calendar year, other than as a caravan site or an open-air market. The 28-day rule has been capitalised on for a range of shooting activities. I thank the minister for listening to me on that matter and for the commitment in NPF4 that permitted development will be reformed. I look forward to seeing progress on that.

NPF4 marks a turning point in Scotland’s planning system and a boost to our just transition journey. It is time to get NPF4 in place and begin implementation.

The member said that planning is completely devolved, but VAT isnae, and it is an inhibitor for developing sites. Will the member reflect on that?

I am sorry, but I think that my time is up.

I am pleased that we are having this debate on national planning framework 4, which clearly focuses on empowering communities to make change, and I support the motion.

The revised draft NPF4 lays out sustainable policies to guide Scotland’s net zero planning approach for the next decade. I have been actively involved in NPF4 in two specific areas, which I will focus on in my speech: vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, especially in our rural towns, and permitted development rights. The minister has been very supportive of my position on both of those matters.

I will turn first to vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, which is an issue that I brought to Parliament’s attention just before the recess. The legacy of Scotland’s industrial past means that almost a third of the Scottish population currently live within 500m of a derelict site. There are 11,000 hectares of derelict land, which is equivalent to 9,000 football pitches. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee took evidence on the fact—research shows this—that living near an eyesore or a blighted or derelict site affects the mental health of a community, so the benefits of addressing derelict sites are obvious. The Scottish Land Commission says that heels are being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change that is needed. It also says that the task of addressing derelict sites has been dumped on the “too difficult” pile. It is interesting that the commission believes that the issue is seen as being too big, too complex and too expensive to fix. That simply isnae true. We need to stop telling ourselves that it cannot be done, and we need to recognise that transforming derelict sites is a massive opportunity.

Paul Sweeney makes a great point. I will come on to issues around owners.

Many proposals in NPF4 make reference to policies that will address derelict sites, such as incentivising brownfield regeneration, including for derelict sites, which will allow brownfield sites to be transformed into housing, community spaces or whatever the community chooses. I can give two examples of regeneration: the Clyde gateway project, which the minister visited recently, and Cunninghame Housing Association’s transformation of the vacant primary school in Lockerbie into a community hub. I would be happy to facilitate a visit by the minister there, too.

The revised NPF4 makes it clear that Scotland will not compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. We have many derelict sites in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Scottish Borders, such as the George hotel and the east pier in Stranraer, the Interfloor/Gates factory in Dumfries, the Central hotel in Annan, the Mercury hotel in Moffat and the N Peal and Glenmac buildings in Hawick, as well as many others. In trying to address those sites, I have faced numerous challenges with the owners and local authorities. Councils respond to me by saying that they have limited powers, and it is hard even to elicit a response from registered owners. One of the challenges is in figuring out what we can do about that.

I want to highlight what local authorities can do, and then I will show how that is enhanced by NPF4. Local authorities can issue a waste land notice that requires an owner or a responsible person to take specific action on a site. If the responsible person refuses, the local authority can carry out the work itself and claim back the cost from the owner under the Town and Country (Planning) (Scotland) Act 1997. Under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous buildings notice. Additionally, the local authority or community can make a compulsory purchase of a building or land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Those are not unsubstantial powers, and the Government is committed to introducing compulsory sale orders in the future.

Miles Briggs rose—

Investment has been made in infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland. I never said that that was impossible.

I lodged an amendment to the motion today, not because I disagree with Mr Carson but because I believe that the motion would benefit from more detail. While Mr Carson’s motion rightly cites the need to improve the A75 and points to recent road accidents, including the most recent one in the village of Crocketford, it does not acknowledge the commitments that the Scottish Government has made for the A75 in STPR2. The motion also doesnae call for timescales for the improvements to be carried out. STPR2 includes many important recommendations for the A75 and A77 improvements that many, including the A75 and A77 action groups, have been calling for, for many years.

Ah am no disagreein wi the Opposition here. I also get a lot in my mailbag about these things, so I think that we need to work together to look at how we can lobby for improvements to those roads.

We know that STPR2 has considered

“improving junctions and enhancing overtaking opportunities”.

Looking at the time, I do not think that I will.

We need to consider widening carriageways and realignment to alleviate pinch points and so on.

The STPR2 includes bypassing the villages of Springholm and Crocketford, as well as improving Cuckoo Bridge roundabout in Dumfries, which is a wee bit further east than Mr Carson’s constituency. It is worth mentioning that Springholm and Crocketford are the only two villages in the UK through which a major European route goes directly, so the recommendations for bypasses for the villages are extremely important.

Instead of focusing on negativity about the time that those recommendations have taken to come forward, I want to focus on their implementation, although I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer.

I know that transport is devolved, and in the absence of borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, funding from the UK Government could further enhance the commitments that have been made in STPR2. I would therefore be grateful for an update from the minister on the timescales for investment in the A75 and A77.