Chamber and committees

Carol Mochan has been talking about tackling poverty, and supporting people’s salaries is obviously one of way of doing that. Does she agree that one way in which we could tackle poverty would be to fully devolve employment law to this country?

Good morning, everybody, including Karen Lewis and Sharon Wright, who are online. A lot of questions have already been answered, and I was struck by what Sharon said about poverty being the cause of health inequality, universal credit not working and about the removal of the £20 uplift that was provided during Covid. That is 80 quid a month. You used really strong language and words such as “punitive”, “cruel” and “unfair”, and I am sure that even hearing that is demoralising for lots of people. That was just a comment, but I welcome any thoughts on what we need to do to change the situation, such as through a minimum income guarantee or universal basic income, and what we might need to do to progress such ideas, as witnessed in other countries.

I have a local question for Karen. I visited the Hub a couple of weeks ago and witnessed for myself the work that is being done there. Karen should be commended; she certainly helped with my knowledge. I would appreciate further detail on the barriers for people who apply for whatever support they can get.

Thanks—it is a very short question for Karen Lewis. Is the rent deposit guarantee scheme only a Hub Dumfries and Galloway thing, or are there third sector equivalents elsewhere in Scotland that have it as well?

Independence will allow all decisions, in every aspect of Scottish society, to be put in the hands of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. Can the cabinet secretary reaffirm that that will allow this Parliament to reverse the harms that have been created by consecutive UK Governments and to build a fairer and more inclusive Scotland that values human rights as well as the wellbeing of our citizens? Will he also reaffirm that no Government should deny the people of Scotland the right to take that decision?

George Eustice has written to the First Minister about the Scottish Government’s position on the new technologies, and the Scottish Government is considering its position. However, does the minister agree that the UK Government ought to respect the bounds of devolution and recognise that this matter and how to support Scotland’s farmers are matters for the Scottish Government?

In Dumfries and Galloway, patients are means tested for the reimbursement of travel costs, whereas in other parts of the country it is a given that people are supported in that way. I think that an agency could advocate to change that model.

I thank the witnesses who are here in Edinburgh and those who have joined us remotely today, because it is really good to hear their input. I am keen for progress to be made with the petition.

One of the challenges that I and my colleagues Finlay Carson and Colin Smyth have had is that Dumfries and Galloway is part of the south-east cancer network although nowhere in Dumfries and Galloway is in the east of Scotland. It is a challenge to look at that and to engage. The health board says that it is up to the Government and the Government says that it is up to the health board. We do not want to dictate how cancer care is provided, but we need people to have a choice of whether to have their radiotherapy in Edinburgh—which might be better—or Glasgow.

That is just one example. Folk fae Stranraer are not given a choice about making a 260-mile round trip. We are told that they are given a choice but we do not really have evidence of or feedback on that. I am interested in pursuing an advocacy approach, whether we do that through a commissioner or an agency, so that we can look at the challenges in rural health care.

The Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is undertaking an inquiry into health inequalities. Many of the issues that we have been talking about in this meeting are coming to light.

I am hearing from the other petitioners that there are challenges for remote and rural areas, whether we are talking about Caithness, Galloway or the Borders, and it would be great to be able to join up all the work that has been done and see how we can take it forward to address the needs of our people. I will stop there.

Rather than making a statement, I want to ask Dr Gordon Baird a question that might help us to understand why we should consider an agency to advocate for patients. If we were to have members on each health board that were rural, they might then become embedded in the culture of that health board, rather than having a voice with which to advocate. That is why I would support having an independent agency.

Dr Baird, I am interested in pursuing what you said about the rancour or confrontational issues. When I try to represent constituents in Dumfries and Galloway on health issues, it seems to be perceived as confrontational. That is the last thing that we need when we are trying to secure the best healthcare support as we emerge out of the pandemic. How would an agency that can advocate help to reduce the perceived confrontational stance of MSPs or anyone who is not engaging with a whistleblower? How would an agency help to support that?

I know that Mr Carson has raised that issue in the chamber previously. That is one of the issues that there are concerns about. At the moment, planning remains with the local authority, which means that the community is widely consulted when such decisions are made.

I ask the minister, as some of the respondents to the consultation have done, to ensure that the Scottish Government remains open minded about the structure of any proposed national park. The Government will need to focus on protecting and enhancing the natural environment, while tackling the twin crises of the climate and biodiversity emergencies, and not on determining planning applications or becoming restrictive to local development.

Of course I agree that national parks can bring huge benefit, and wherever a national park is created, it must have the right model, and it must involve and gain the support of the local community.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate about the creation of at least one new national park in Scotland. I will focus on the campaign for a national park in Dumfries and Galloway, the governance and structure of any proposed national park, and the exciting opportunity to create the right national park model.

Currently, there are limited statutory criteria in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 for the selection of national parks. I note that the launch of the consultation to gain ideas on what Scotland’s new national park could encompass has received 102 submissions so far. I encourage members to take a look, as some of the responses and comments are very interesting.

In the designation of a new national park, there is an opportunity to look at what has worked well in relation to the two national parks that we already have. Lessons could be learned to enable us to design a better governance and regulatory system for a new national park in Scotland.

In Galloway, a new national park could provide an opportunity to promote and conserve some of Scotland’s magnificent landscapes, which we are fortunate to have across oor bonnie Galloway. A park could attract visitors and allow the south-west’s fragile rural economy to rebuild from the pandemic and thrive, while helping Scotland to tackle the biodiversity and climate emergency challenges.

However—I have been consistently clear about this—any new national park must not be created simply for the sake of it. The process must be done in co-operation with the communities that it is intended to serve, and it must not create further bureaucratic or restrictive approaches to issues such as planning, new development or the many new ideas that will support addressing biodiversity and climate issues.

The Galloway National Park Association has had conversations with almost 2,000 people at more than 100 meetings and events across Galloway. The findings from those conversations, along with the consultative work, are interesting.

Galloway needs to be on a par with the rest of Scotland in economic terms, and many respondents to the GNPA engagement felt that a national park had the potential to bring economic benefit to the region through increased tourism—that would definitely happen—job creation and international recognition.

Respondents felt that Galloway’s dispersed rural population presented additional challenges, but some, including hotel, bed and breakfast accommodation and outdoor activity providers, saw recognition as a national park as a potential catalyst for business development and expansion. Some also felt that a national park might be vital in providing opportunities for our region’s young people to consider taking up employment opportunities on their doorstep, instead of, as Colin Smyth has mentioned, leaving the region to pursue employment, as many currently do.

However, as Colin Smyth has said—the point is worth reiterating—there are already fantastic resources available across Galloway, such as the UNESCO Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere, 7stanes mountain biking, water sports at the Galloway Activity Centre at Loch Ken, the Galloway forest park, the dark sky park, and the many distilleries, breweries, museums and artistic venues.

Those resources allow people to explore the outdoors. The biosphere—for which I hope to host a reception here in Parliament in September—which is backed up by £1.9 million of Scottish Government funding, is already enhancing our natural environment and educating people on nature and the climate emergency. I have had direct feedback that those resources need to be built on, expanded and funded for the future.

I have been engaging with the NFU Scotland locally and nationally and with constituents who are not necessarily in favour of the proposal for a national park in Galloway or the Borders. One of the key reasons for that is that many are concerned that national park status in the area might create barriers to development in terms of planning and regenerative farming, and that it might present barriers to agricultural diversification or to the development of new income streams.

Through my engagement with the GNPA, I have expressed my concern over the potential bureaucracy that a national park could create when it comes to planning issues, board members’ monetary compensation, local democracy and decision making. For example, I am aware that there has been significant conflict in national parks, where planning decisions are subject to the national park board and not the local authority.

I also know of the challenges that renewable energy investors experience when they seek to bring development to national park areas—investment that could bring much-needed community benefit.