Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Does this legislative consent memorandum on illegal organ donation, procurement and so on mean that our own Scottish legislation—the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006—will need to be amended?

I am sorry for jumping in earlier.

I will not give you a shopping list of things to look at either. However, when we had NHS Highland before the committee, I asked it about the reduction emissions that are due to mileage not being travelled because folk are now holding Teams meetings or using Near Me. Are you planning for remote and rural working? How does that support net zero ambitions?

Yes. I am interested in prevention and early intervention. Public Health Scotland became fully functional in April 2020. What up-front preventative actions need to be taken to support better public health across Scotland?

I have a brief supplementary. Public Health Scotland’s website has loads of virtual learning opportunities for clinicians and for anybody in healthcare and social care. It has modules on health inequalities and human rights, health and wellbeing, tackling poverty, mental health, health at work and the public health workforce. There are loads of learning opportunities that people can log into and look at—they are out there and available now.

Will Audit Scotland look at the uptake of those virtual learning experiences, who is involved in taking them up and whether the Government should be doing more to support Public Health Scotland’s work to ensure that the opportunities in that learning environment are taken up by health boards, local authorities and IJBs?

People are now keener to live in remote or rural areas because they can work from home two or three days a week and travel only one or two days, rather than having to drive every day to the central belt or, in Dumfries and Galloway, from Stranraer to Dumfries. That is what I was thinking about with emissions reductions linked to mileage or unnecessary travel, whether by clinicians or staff who support the work of clinicians.

I have another quick question. If someone whom we thought was on a transplant list for a kidney, for example, showed up looking for anti-rejection medication and seemed to be doing well, we might assume that they had received an organ somewhere else. Does the legislation support better traceability of organ surgery, procurement and so on? Given that anti-rejection medication is part of the treatment following transplant, would that be a trigger for pursuing what might be criminality if someone had received an organ outside Scotland?

What Audit Scotland needs from the Scottish Government is different types of data. Can you say what data is missing, so that the Government can provide you with data that you can analyse.

I have a quick question about data. We need data to show transparency of information and to make sure that we are following the care pathways and so on. Is that data part of the data supply chain that comes from health boards, integration joint boards and our local authorities? Who procures that data? Does the Government provide it for you?

I get feedback that everybody is so busy churning out data that they cannae get on with their job. The same clinicians and care co-ordinators are being asked to provide data rather than doing what they want to do, which is to get people on to waiting lists, into appointments and moving forward so that they are not just waiting to be told when their hip operation will be. The other part of the data process is about people engaging in a care pathway.

Okay.

I responded to the NPF4 consultation, and I appreciate colleagues’ comments in the debate so far. I want to focus on two specific issues that the draft framework will have an impact on: vacant, derelict and abandoned sites, and permitted development rights.

Scotland has almost 11,000 hectares of vacant and derelict sites, which is equivalent to 20,556 football pitches, and, on average, people live within 500m of a derelict site. According to the Scottish Land Commission, if a person lives in an area that scores low on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, they are more likely to live within 250m of a derelict site. Evidence that we heard in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee affirmed that those sites negatively affect a community’s mental health and wellbeing and that people in those communities feel less safe and are likely to use the words “blight” and “eyesore” to describe those places. People take less pride in their home place when they live beside derelict, decaying or dilapidated eyesores, as the Scottish Land Commission has affirmed in its work.

I have sought to engage with communities and support them to see timely action taken to address those sites across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. Those sites include the former Interfloor factory in Dumfries, the George Hotel in Stranraer, the Central Hotel in Annan and the N Peal building in Hawick, which I visited yesterday. However, as the draft framework and the Scottish Land Commission have pointed out, addressing the issues with those buildings currently presents many challenges to communities and local authorities.

I welcome that the part of the draft framework that discusses the spatial principles for Scotland for 2045 states that they will seek to limit urban expansion into greenfield sites and instead will incentivise the reuse of brownfield sites for redevelopment. However, as noted by COSLA, additional financial constraints exist around utilising abandoned sites in that way, and it is often extremely costly for developers and local authorities to address them. For example, the former Maxwelltown high school in Dumfries cost around £250,000 to demolish before the site could be redeveloped.

I would like assurance from the minister that the Government will work with local authorities and developers to ensure that they are accessing vacant and derelict land funds, and that public funding will continue to be made available to redevelop the brownfield sites and eyesore sites that blight our communities.

I have been involved in the community in Eskdalemuir, the Samye Ling Buddhist monastery and the Upper Teviotdale and Borthwick Water community council. They are all concerned about the dynamic and target shooting activity in the area, where high-velocity weapons of up to 50 calibre are being fired. Those powerful weapons, which require skill and accuracy, can shoot ammunition up to two miles and are being used close by the Romans and reivers walkways, the Craikhope Outdoor Centre on the Borders side of the Borders way and the southern upland way. I share the community’s concerns over safety and the reported high decibel level of the shooting.

The shooting activity operates using a legal loophole. In class 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, permitted development rights allow for a temporary use of land for a different purpose from its lawful use for up to 28 days in a calendar year. The only exemptions are for caravan sites or open air markets. I agree with the community that that is wrong and that shooting activity, particularly with such high-powered weapons and ammunition, should be subject to robust major planning that allows local voices to be heard. I would like to see that in the final NPF4.

I thank the minister for his engagement so far on the matter, but I ask him for a commitment that NPF4 will ensure that any proposal for shooting ranges and activities such as shooting be subject to a robust major planning application. Finally, I reiterate my two asks: to focus on tackling vacant, derelict and abandoned sites and to consider closing the shooting activity loophole in permitted development rights.