Chamber and committees

I grew up on a dairy farm and know that south-west Scotland has 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy herd. Farmers are producing their dairy products—their milk—in the most climate-friendly ways. That is their goal. The last thing that I want to do is vilify food producers, because each farmer will be required to have a whole-farm plan that covers goals on achieving net zero.

I am interested in ammonium nitrate and issues around air quality. A lot of products are helping to support emissions reduction, especially in dairy farming. We have nitrate vulnerable zones, which means that farmers spread slurry at certain times to protect watercourses. Farmers across Scotland are already taking action, and I would rather not offshore our red meat production to somebody who might not produce it with the best welfare or climate change mitigation measures in mind. That said, I recognise that everybody needs to collaborate to achieve emissions reduction, and that we need to do what we can to reduce emissions in food production. Is it fair enough to say that we need to work together?

I go back to air quality. Are we seeing an increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other lung health issues because of wood-burning stoves? We have concerns about that in rural Scotland, because wood-burning stoves might be the only way to heat your house.

I am thinking about—

I have a supplementary question for Dr Taylor, which also picks up on what Roxane Andersen said about Shetland and Orkney and different aspects of the situation there. The Crichton Carbon Centre is a national centre. Is there a perception that the centre’s work is basically just about Dumfries and Galloway, or have we made progress in sharing the fact that it is national?

I want to pick up on what Willie McGhee said about working with farmers instead of buying farmers’ land, evicting them and planting trees. I am interested in the uptake of the sheep and trees scheme and in the diverse conifer options. Promoting diversity in conifer species is good for resilience and disease resistance in relation to climate change.

Good morning. Hanna Wheatley mentioned workforce capacity and Emily Taylor talked about the challenges around peatland restoration. We have heard that workforce capacity has been a barrier to scaling up peatland restoration efforts in the past. Where are we in relation to that now? Does the draft climate change plan give you confidence that there will be enough capacity in the workforce in order to deliver what we need?

I thank Craig Hoy for that intervention, but I do not believe that I am selling people down the river. I have not been part of the votes or the decision making, but the local authority voted to move ahead with the project. I will come to some of those points.

The outcome of the consultations led to a decision that the majority of elected members supported, which was made ahead of recess. Over many years, we have seen a reluctance from the Conservatives to spend public money on protecting the public good. However, I take the view that we elect representatives to take such decisions, and the council has decided to move forward with the scheme.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that HMP Dumfries is the latest prison estate facility to benefit from the funding that Early Years Scotland has received from the Scottish Government in order to bring its groundbreaking family support service to the south. Given the huge importance of maintaining family contact, improving rehabilitation rates and reducing reoffending, does the cabinet secretary agree that such initiatives more than pay for themselves in stopping what can sometimes, unfortunately, be a revolving door of incarceration?

I thank Craig Hoy for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he outlined about the need to implement coastal and inland flood defences—as he said, water has shaped Scotland’s history. In my short time, I will focus my comments on the recent decision that was made by Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding the proposed Whitesands scheme.

People outside the Parliament who watched and listened to Craig Hoy’s speech would be forgiven for thinking that the council suddenly decided last month that it would be a good idea to build a flood protection barrier and came up with some plans on the back of a fag packet, probably inspired by Mr Hoy’s party and its approach to public policy. However, the vote by Dumfries and Galloway Council was the culmination of 15 years of planning, design, hydraulics reports, technical reports, planning applications and many consultations.

I agree that many people in the area, and further afield, are against the flood protection scheme, and there are some who are sceptical but open to persuasion. It will be a big change to the landscape of the town at the Whitesands, and any change on this scale—it is a substantial project with a substantial budget—will inevitably split opinion.

The Whitesands has flooded more than 200 times since the 1820s, and the worst flooding has been witnessed in recent years. The proposal will provide a permanent once-in-75-years flood protection standard. If Mr Hoy had spent some time going through the public record on the Whitesands, he would have found more than a decade of consultations, planning submissions, council committee meetings, charrettes, open meetings, information evenings and so on.

I will not take another intervention.

The £55 million of Scottish Government funding is a huge boost for the local economy. Almost every day, we hear lectures from Conservative members about where our finite spending—which has been made more finite by those colleagues’ economically crackpot austerity agenda over the years—should go. However, we are looking here at transformational major investment in infrastructure in the south-west. To be clear, 80 per cent of that money is from the Government’s flood protection budget, and, if Dumfries does not spend it on flood protection, another scheme will take its place.

Are we seriously suggesting that, after 15 years of consideration, consultation and democratic debate—and, late last year, a democratic decision—we should tell the Scottish Government that Dumfries does not want that investment after all? That economic boost will continue in the longer term. How much good, in reputational terms, does it do for inward investment if the major reason for Dumfries hitting the headlines every year is that the Whitesands is under water?

It would be useful if Mr Hoy had a plan for the local businesses and residents who suffer flooding year after year. Perhaps he could spell out exactly how long he thinks that they should wait and tolerate the disruption in their lives. Should it be one more year, or another five years?

I want to see the maximum amount of public consultation on any big infrastructure project; the days of far-off officials giving an aye or a nay belong in the 1950s. However, after 15 years of public consultation on the Whitesands, I do not think that it is too much to allow decision makers who were elected by the people to make a decision that, although it might not get 100 per cent approval, will transform the lives of the people in the Whitesands in Dumfries. We need to support their future.