I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which is key to the Parliament setting out its vision for care services in the coming years. I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Sandesh Gulhane.

As others have done, I put on the record my thanks to all the hard-working staff in the care sector in my region and across Scotland. Those individuals have faced immense pressures over the past two years, yet they have gone above and beyond to provide services to those who require them.

The debate concerning how our social care system should be delivered is rightly being viewed with fresh eyes as the country continues to learn the lessons of the past two years. However, although this is a good time to be debating the issues, it is also clear that many of the questions predated the pandemic entirely. The case for meaningful investment in and reform of our care system has long been clear, but how far such reform should go and how quickly it should be delivered is far less clear.

Unfortunately, the sector is facing the prospect of significant centralisation. Change may be needed, but now is not the time to overhaul care services in the way that has been proposed. Our amendment mentions the importance of services being tailored to meet local needs. Sure enough, one thing that was clear to me throughout my 18 years in local government was why care services are most effectively delivered at a local level. It is no accident that good-quality care has always been associated with highly localised delivery of care, and any changes to that must be scrutinised very carefully.

For 15 years, I worked as a senior support worker for Ark Housing, which gave me a first-hand insight into the processes and procedures in the sector and the difficulties that face both the sector and the service users.

We are clear that care services are best delivered at a local level, but it is equally clear that their effective delivery depends on them being properly funded. This is not the time to rerun debates about local government funding, but the erosion in real terms of funding that local government has endured over the past decade is part of the reason for some of the problems that the care service has to deal with daily. As colleagues have said, there are many challenges, and providers need financial security—they continue to provide support services, but reforms are required.

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting farmers to utilise new technological advances. (S6O-01104)

I, too, thank Fiona Hyslop for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is poignant and right that we are debating the issue this afternoon.

As we have heard, Tuesday 3 March 1818 was a poignant day in the history of Scotland’s canals, as the first pickaxe was struck to mark the beginning of the construction of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Union canal. It was a monumental project at the time—a contour canal designed by the engineer Hugh Baird and supported by the great Thomas Telford.

The new canal was to navigate from Edinburgh, through the lands of Lord Buchan, eventually joining with the Forth and Clyde canal at Falkirk and opening in 1822. Routing the initial plans from Edinburgh, it followed the contour line of the land and traversed through Ratho and Broxburn. Then, just after Linlithgow, the construction met with a hurdle—the basin surrounding the river Avon that crossed the path of the new canal’s route.

Hugh Baird consulted Thomas Telford on his plans to overcome that hurdle, which led to a hugely innovative design that resulted in the construction of a 12-arch ad—I cannot even say it—aqueduct, which, at the time, was the second-largest in Britain and the largest in Scotland.

An amazing achievement came more than 30 years after the Forth and Clyde canal was initially opened when Baird decided to join it with the canal from central Edinburgh at Falkirk. Thirty miles of lock-free level towpath was constructed, along with river crossings, with the canal finally dropping down to a single flight of 11 locks to the top of the Forth and Clyde canal’s 16-lock flight.

Canals bring truly fantastic engineering to the fore. As we have heard, the linking of the two canals was a magnificent idea. We have heard how the Falkirk wheel, which opened 20 years ago this month as part of the millennium link project, came about. It was the largest engineering project to have been undertaken by British Waterways in Scotland, which resulted in £78 million being spent on the Forth and Clyde and Union canals. It succeeded in linking the west and the east coast of Scotland with navigable waterways for the first time since the 1960s. Funded by the Millennium Commission, the millennium link has been invaluable in kick-starting public interest in such attractions and their microeconomies.

Lockdowns and the entire pandemic brought many acute difficulties to the fore, not least the isolation, loneliness and poor mental health that many people have experienced, all of which can be dealt with through the availability of resources such as the Union canal. Society needs to have such attractions close at hand, because they provide communities with the opportunity for joy.

The canal has generated interest among many visitors and organisations. As has been said, walkers, cyclists and boating enthusiasts have all taken part in celebrating its anniversary. In turn, many others are learning about our famous canal infrastructure, which, it is poignant to note, was once the envy of the world and was unquestionably fundamental.

The volunteers and partner organisations that have participated in the anniversary celebrations and supported the canal down the generations all need to be congratulated on their work and commended for what they have done. Along with British Waterways Scotland, Scottish Canals, the Scottish Waterways Trust and the lowland canals volunteer group have all played their part. It is thanks to them that we can enjoy the Union canal and participate in the celebrations that we are debating today, and I hope that we can continue to enjoy the canal for many years to come.

This Monday, innovation funding was removed from the Scottish Government’s environment, agriculture and food strategic research programme. Can the minister explain why that happened, and can she reassure farmers and the agri-food industry that the Scottish Government is still committed to supporting innovation in new farming methods and technology?

It is important that we take evidence from Natalie Don. Obviously, she is carrying out a consultation, and it would be useful to get an update on how she is progressing with the member’s bill. It would also be advantageous for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to request that it considers a memorial to individuals who were convicted as witches under the 1563 act.

Mr Lyon, communities were very fearful and anxious about the whole process, and they still are. There is no question but that they feel that there might be loss, reduction or diminution of services that they expect.

Can you give assurances to the communities that are served by HIAL airports that there will not be a reduction or diminution of services or aviation safety resulting from roll-out of the new air traffic control system and procedures? As I said, people are still very fearful about what is planned and what will happen.

Supporting those services and ensuring that communities have them is the crux of the matter. What lessons have you learned from the whole fiasco, which has had communities and MSPs up in arms? What have you learned from dealing with that over the past five years, and how can you put lessons that you might have learned into practice in order to ensure that there will be practical action for communities who are still anxious about what might come out of the process?

I am delighted that a number of local authorities responded, although it was only a small number of the total number of local authorities. However, they captured some of the relevant areas, and there is no doubt that the pandemic and its impact is one of those. I suggest that we refer the petition to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, in the context of its wider consideration of local government finances and the post-pandemic recovery.

I very much concur with that. As the convener indicated, it is a difficult situation, but it exists and we need more clarity on it. What has been suggested would give some of that clarity at this stage, so that the committee can then consider what gaps there may be in the process and ensure that there is an opportunity to look at what has happened in England and Wales with reference to some of the issues, because that is very relevant to the petitioner and the issues that she was trying to raise.

Vic, do you want to add anything to that?