Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, we can dispute that.

I put it on record that I was a supporter of Galloway park lite. I followed in the footsteps of the late, well-respected former Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Fergusson, who saw the opportunities that a national park-lite process could bring to Galloway, which is seeing depopulation, an ageing population, one of the lowest wage economies in the country and houses being unaffordable, even though the house prices are currently the lowest around.

However, my question is whether we are getting the process right. My support of the national park was somewhat dented by the Greens. The whole process has been tainted by the influence that the Green Party has had and the timetable that it brought in. We already know that, by the very nature of Galloway, any national park there would have to be hugely different to elsewhere. We have a bigger population, intensive agriculture, a population that is dispersed across the region, commercial forestry and renewables. Galloway national park would be quite unlike any of the other existing national parks—not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. It would therefore have to be fundamentally different.

I have already called for an extension to the consultation, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the process needs to be done properly rather than only to a timetable. I am sure that you gentlemen want a national park to deliver all the things that Galloway needs. The current timetable might lead to only 12 weeks of consultation and a designation sometime before 2026. That is, if we do designate a national park, and designation may not be the solution, as other policy interventions could deliver the benefits without it. Therefore, why are you not suggesting that we do the review of current national parks and ensure that the two processes are run concurrently, so that we could potentially change the priorities of a national park to include more biodiversity and climate change, rather than what it should be about—in my view—which is sustainable economic development? Why can we not have a process that delivers something that Galloway really needs, rather than sticking to a timetable that is far too short?

Thank you, convener. I am a proud Gallovidian, from the nicest and most beautiful constituency in Scotland—

It is important to put it on record that the manifesto commitments made by some parties were based on what was there previously, not on what the Bute house agreement ultimately delivered, which was a national park based on biodiversity and climate change as priorities. I can tell you that that was certainly not the manifesto commitment made by the Scottish Conservatives, which was about sustainable economic development. Therefore, we have to be very careful to ensure that we recognise manifesto commitments for what they were and the fact that things changed when the Greens entered into the Bute house agreement.

I am a bit like Mr Whittle. I do not want to repeat a lot of what was said, but let me begin with the late Alex Salmond, who, in November 2011, 13 years ago, spoke at the opening of the new ports at Cairnryan, and talked about the three Rs of Scottish Government support for the region, which were roads, rail and regeneration. The then First Minister even announced the creation of a Scottish Government task force to work with local councils and other partners to explore the potential for the future of Stranraer. Sadly, that all fizzled out, like many other promises.

The First Minister, John Swinney, pledged to improve journey times on the road back in 2016. He has been followed by a succession of transport ministers. Humza Yousaf, Jenny Gilruth, Michael Matheson, Kevin Stewart, Màiri McAllan, Graeme Day and the current transport secretary, Fiona Hyslop, have all pledged action to upgrade this key artery between the UK and Europe. Eight years since petition PE1610, to upgrade the A75, was first lodged, we are still waiting for action.

The route was recognised in Sir Peter Hendy’s union connectivity review as one of the most financially beneficial roads in the UK, carrying billions of pounds-worth of goods every year. Talks are now, thankfully, finally being held between the respective Governments in the UK and Scotland. I hope that today we will find out whether the UK Labour Government is continuing with the commitment to fund studies on the A75 and to follow that up with funding to develop upgrades.

The chronic failure to invest in the A75 is shown tragically in the number of human lives that we have lost, and the safety record of the road is quite appalling. Brian Whittle touched on closures on the A77. To give you some examples, between January and September this year, the A75 was closed on nine occasions due to serious road traffic accidents. In the same date range, the road was closed, with diversions in place, on 11 occasions as a result of roadworks or storm damage. Those diversions resulted in hundreds of miles of detours on roads that are not fit to carry the traffic. Even scheduled closures are now overnight. They have to be overnight closures or full closures of the road because the trunk road is not wide enough to allow upgrades to be made to the surface and traffic to safely pass by, so it is a bit of a double whammy.

It is clear that we need to stop talking about this and get action to upgrade the A75, which has been identified as one of the most important roads in the whole of the UK. That needs to be done as a matter of urgency.

Thank you, minister.

I have a question. You said that when the Scottish and UK Governments issued a joint consultation on removal of the derogation, 70 per cent of all respondents across the UK and 84 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed with the proposals. However, that suggests that there was still a significant number of people who did not agree. Can you give us an idea of the general position of the stakeholders who did not agree with the derogation?

This is from the consumer side of things. In order to avoid public confusion about the effects of the regulations, the public and the media will, according to the policy note, be informed of the introduction of orders. How are you going to do that in practice? Are you going to have a television campaign in Scotland or just in certain areas? What you have said is that, if there is a housing order for Dumfries and Galloway, there will not be a media campaign in Dumfries and Galloway alone, so we are potentially talking about the whole of Scotland. How in practice will the Government inform the public and media of housing orders going beyond the 16 week-period that people are aware of?

As there are no more questions, we move to agenda item 4, which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-14816.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you.

That takes us neatly to a question from Emma Harper.

Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.