Food Security
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1803, in the name of John Scott, on food security.
I declare an interest as a farmer and I refer members to the register of interests for my other farming-related interests.
In considering food security, it is important that we analyse how we have reached the current position of emerging global food shortages before we look at what can be done to address the problem. The second world war is perhaps the best starting point. As we all know, Britain was almost starved out of the war by German U-boats, so "Dig for victory" and rationing became the order of the day. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, huge increases in food production were achieved in Scotland and throughout Europe, as politicians of all countries feared that Europe would have insufficient food to feed its then 350 million population. Milk lakes, butter mountains and wine lakes followed in the mid-1980s, which resulted in common agricultural policy reforms being introduced. Essentially, the reforms reined in food production by encouraging alternative land use policies, particularly environmental enhancement.
From 1988 to 2008, we have had, in an almost biblical way, 20 years of plenty, but the situation has now changed. Once again, the spectre of food shortages has emerged, with world grain prices rising by 60 per cent in the first three months of this year and China buying land in Russia and South America to feed its growing population.
The problems that we are contemplating today have come about for three main reasons. First, oil has—unexpectedly—reached $120 a barrel, largely because of the growing awareness that oil is a finite resource and because of concerns about peak oil. That has encouraged farmers worldwide to grow crops for biofuel production on land that was previously used for food. In Brazil, for example, 90 per cent of new cars can now run on ethanol.
Secondly—and, again, unexpectedly—global warming is taking more and more land out of agricultural production both north and south of the equator. Australia has suffered a seven-year drought and much of southern Europe and north Africa is a virtual desert in terms of food production. Sea levels are beginning to rise, too. Although no one can tell us by how much they will rise, we know that a 1m rise in sea levels—a distinct possibility within the next 100 years—would reduce by a third the land that is available to feed an already hungry world.
The third reason for the problems that we are examining today is population growth and rising standards of living. Man has been the most successful species since the dinosaurs, and the world's population is heading towards 9 billion by 2050. Increased living standards, especially in China, India and Japan, have resulted in those countries moving to western styles of food consumption, based on consumption of meat rather than rice or grain. That has put still more pressure on grain growing, so that animals can be raised for human food consumption.
The perfect storm is emerging, due to rising oil prices, global warming and world population growth. Today, we must acknowledge those facts and start to consider what we in Scotland can do to help to feed a daily more hungry world.
It is self-evident that we must encourage our farmers to do all that they can to grow more food. That will have to be done in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive way, but—to use a metaphor—growing two blades of grass where one grew before will again become important in food protection terms, as now Europe must not only start to feed itself for the first time but feed other, less favoured, parts of the world as well. Europe, the United Kingdom and Scotland are not even self-sufficient in food production at the moment.
Increasing production will require investment in research and development, to increase crop and animal production. Research into enhanced food techniques, some of which could take place in Scotland, will need to be carried out on behalf of developing countries, as they have neither the expertise nor the finance to carry out research to bring into production the huge swathes of potentially fertile land in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa. Land that is serviced by rainfall will become even more precious and water storage and irrigation systems will need to be further developed in Europe. That is the case even here in Britain, especially in England, as predictions suggest that Kent will have little agricultural value in 25 years' time unless irrigation systems are in place by then.
In Scotland, we can all help by wasting less food. At the moment, 40 per cent of food that is put into the supply chain is wasted, lost or thrown out unused, with 30 per cent of our shopping baskets thrown out weekly and 10 per cent of food damaged or lost before it reaches the point of sale. It is vital that we play our part in avoiding food shortages by addressing food wastage in the home and in the catering trade.
"Dig for victory", the slogan that encapsulated our wartime need to maximise food production from our own resources, may again become the order of the day. In our back gardens and allotments, recycling domestic waste and grass cuttings into growing vegetables could again become important, as food price inflation reaches almost 12 per cent. On average, families are paying £750 more this year for their staple diet than they paid last year. Conservatives have long advocated a policy of buy local, eat local where reasonably practical, to increase sustainable and socially responsible food consumption. Greater public procurement of local food and drink must be encouraged, as must greater collaboration in the development of the food supply chain. Agricultural support systems, which were recently agreed until 2013, may have to be revisited before then, as the Scotland rural development programme already looks out of date and is the product of thinking that did not anticipate oil prices of $120 a barrel, peak oil or the consequences of global warming.
The issues to be addressed are now stark. I have given the Conservative party's thoughts on how we might proceed. I hope that others will bring ideas and suggestions to the debate to help to inform the Government on how we in Scotland can best move forward from here. As Annabel Goldie announced yesterday, Scottish Conservatives will work with colleagues in the UK and Europe to produce a report over the summer that will try to chart the way forward. We will also be happy to work with other parties to find the right sustainable solutions. In that spirit of co-operation, we will be happy to accept the amendments that have been lodged by other parties today, to allow the Parliament to speak with one voice on this matter.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses its concern at the potential for global food shortages; notes the recent cost increases in many basic food products here in Scotland, with food price inflation now exceeding 6%; further notes that many developing countries are experiencing growing social unrest as a result of food pressures, and calls on the Scottish Government, Her Majesty's Government, the European Union and other relevant bodies to work closely, and with the appropriate urgency, to seek solutions.
I thank the Conservatives—not something that members will hear me say often—for bringing this important debate to the chamber this morning. John Scott set out his stall well, especially in relation to local food procurement.
In recent months, food security has raced up the political and public agenda here in the UK, but for many people in the world it has been an all too familiar struggle for far too long. There are no easy solutions, but it is key that we ensure that farming across the world is sustainable and able to meet the challenges of the coming decades.
Our amendment focuses on two issues: the reality of climate change and the rush to biofuels. Fluctuation of the temperature of both land and sea and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events will have a pronounced impact on food supply. Here in Scotland, we need to assess how our crops and livestock will cope with those changes and how we can adapt our farming processes to deal with the challenges that we undoubtedly face. New animal diseases are arriving on our shores, and we need robust mechanisms to deal with those. Farming is also a key part of the process of reducing our emissions. How can we use technological change to our advantage? Can we use slurry more effectively? Are there on-farm solutions that reduce emissions and can be supported and developed quickly? The CAP has a role to play in facilitating change, which will be achieved through joint working. Will the Minister for Environment indicate what progress has been made and what steps he and his colleagues will take to facilitate change in the coming months?
In the developing world—in countries such as Malawi—we can see just how extreme weather events are impacting on food security. In 2005, I saw at first hand how devastating drought had been to food production in Malawi. This year, the food supplies of many people have been placed at risk by flooding. Malawi contributes little to our emissions, but her people suffer disproportionately. Both here and in countries such as Malawi, food security is intrinsically linked to poverty. The poor in Scotland suffer most from rising food prices, which force them to limit their food intake and to reduce the variety of foods that they eat. In Malawi, it is the poor who face starvation as their crops—their only source of food—are wiped out. Can members really imagine what it would be like not to know where their next meal was coming from, or whether it would ever come?
Tackling climate change is crucial and reducing emissions is paramount, but the consequences for the rest of the world of solutions to those problems must be more thought through than the perverse rush to biofuels has been. I say "perverse" because it is undeniable that biofuels take food out of the mouths of starving people and divert it to be burned in the car engines of the world's richest people. In the words of the United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, that is nothing less than a "crime against humanity". Are we really prepared to sit back and say to the world's starving millions, "We'll burn your food in our cars while your children die around your feet." Next year, the amount of corn used for ethanol in the US is forecast to rise to 114 million tonnes—nearly a third of the projected crop. American cars now burn enough corn to cover all the import needs of 82 nations that are classed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as low-income food-deficit countries. If that is not perverse, I do not know what is.
In many places in the world, food is being priced at the same level of fuel. The fact that increasing quantities of food are being sought by energy markets for biofuels has again pushed up prices for the world's poor. Targets on biofuels were not designed to do that. I welcome Gordon Brown's comments last week in The Scotsman. He said:
"Now we know that bio fuels, intended to promote energy independence and combat climate change, are frequently energy inefficient. We need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment of different production methods and to ensure we are more selective in our support. If the UK review shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU bio fuels targets."
The UK Government has also called on the World Bank to examine the impact of biofuels production on food markets. Those are welcome steps, but we need consistency of approach. I encourage Scottish ministers to play their part in facilitating the change that has been proposed.
Food security is an issue of social justice, both at home and abroad. In the consensual spirit of the debate, I welcome the other amendments that have been lodged. The right to food at a price that people can afford is a basic human right. This debate gives us an opportunity to develop our ideas, but there is no doubt that we will return to the issue in the months ahead. I have pleasure in moving the Labour amendment in my name and urge the chamber to support it at decision time.
I move amendment S3M-1803.1, to insert at end:
"that take account of the growing pressures on agriculture from both climate change and the rush to biofuels".
We are moving from an era of food surplus to one of food shortage. The global population is growing fast. Our farmers and food producers in Scotland are struggling with increases in the price of animal feed, fuel and other raw materials.
The issue is undoubtedly serious and it is commendable that the Scottish Conservatives brought the debate, so it is disappointing that the motion is somewhat banal, to say the least. During the past year, under a minority Administration that is scared to introduce legislation, we have had to debate some fairly inoffensive Government motions. However, for a party that is supposed to be providing opposition and which claims to harbour ambitions of forming a Government, at Westminster if not in Scotland, to lodge a motion that calls on
"the Scottish Government, Her Majesty's Government, the European Union and other relevant bodies … to seek solutions",
without offering an indication of what the solutions might be, is hugely disappointing.
Mike Rumbles did not listen to my speech.
I am talking about the motion in John Scott's name.
It is no wonder that the Government is not interested in opposing the motion. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats lodged an amendment that adds beef and suggests practical ways forward, to add to the warm words in the Conservative motion.
Where are the Liberals?
The minister should look behind him—where are the Scottish National Party members?
It is clear that the best way to ensure food security in Scotland is by recognising the role that our primary food producers can play in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply. We all know that Scottish produce is of the highest quality, but there can be no doubt that there has been a change in eating habits in recent years and we have become used to having whatever we want at any time of year, regardless of where it has been imported from.
Progress has been made on the issue in recent years and I am sure that most of us make a point of buying Scotch beef, for example. However, at a time when our pig industry is facing its toughest challenges, how many of us check the bacon and pork products that we purchase at the supermarket to ensure that they are Scottish and not German, Dutch or Danish imports? In that context, why has the Scottish Government failed to apply to the EU, as the French have done, for assistance for our pig industry after it incurred losses as a result of the foot-and-mouth debacle? That failure to act is simply a disgrace.
We can all do our bit by buying Scottish produce, but the Scottish Government has a role to play. Our amendment calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the development of local supply chains through public procurement. The Scottish ministers could and should be taking action—I am sure that members remember the word "action"—to encourage public sector bodies to take the lead by purchasing local, seasonal food. Instead, ministers have carried out yet another exhaustive round of discussions. Scotland has some of the best food in the world, so ministers need to make sure that more of it ends up on Scottish plates. However, if that is to happen, ministers need to give a lead and take action.
There is nothing in the Conservative motion with which anyone could disagree, but we desperately need specifics, which is what the Liberal Democrat amendment provides.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, unfortunately.
Reducing the regulatory burden on our farmers would help. Do members remember the SNP's commitment to take away a regulation every time it imposed a new one? I hope that the minister is listening. Every month, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee creaks under the weight of the new regulatory burdens that the current Administration imposes on our farmers but, despite their promises, ministers—in particular the Minister for Environment—have failed to tell us that even one regulation has been removed. Ministers have not done what they promised to do.
By taking steps to ensure that Scotland's primary food producers are recognised and assisted, we can guarantee food security for Scotland, which will assist efforts to prevent global food shortages. The first steps towards achieving that must be taken by the Scottish Government. I therefore urge the Parliament to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which makes clear to the Scottish Government exactly what we expect it to do.
I move amendment S3M-1803.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the role of Scotland's primary producers in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply; and further calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the development of local supply chains through public procurement, address the imbalance in power between the big supermarkets and our food producers, reduce the regulatory burden on farmers, and ensure that our primary producers operate on a level playing field with foreign competitors."
I refer members to my entry in the register of members' interests. I am a member of the Soil Association.
I thank John Scott for bringing the debate and I thank Karen Gillon for a sensible speech from the Labour benches. As for Mike Rumbles, who's like him?
It should come as no surprise that the Greens' amendment acknowledges the growing pressure from peak oil—a concept that some people still find difficult to comprehend. The head of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, Dr Colin Campbell, who is a former vice-president of several major oil companies, including BP and Shell, said that the concept of peak oil is quite straightforward and is easy for any beer drinker to understand. He said:
"The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."
Scotland's oil supplies from the North Sea peaked in 1999 and the global supply is expected to peak at some point during the next few years. Estimates vary, but the French Government's conservative view is that global oil output will start to decline in five years' time. In the meantime, our society's thirst for oil continues—we keep using the stuff like there's no tomorrow. Government's responsibility is to prepare for the age after oil: to build an independence from oil and not to rely on independence built on oil.
Environmentalists and geologists have been sounding the alarm on peak oil for some time, but there is growing consensus among economists and capitalists that the global production of crude oil will soon reach a maximum rate, or peak, and then decline. Despite warnings from geologists and bankers, no Government of any party has made serious preparations for a life after oil.
The consequences of peak oil and of our failure to prepare for it are wide ranging. One of the biggest impacts will be on our food production and distribution. Food security and energy security are inextricably linked. On food commodities, the United States investment bank Goldman Sachs warned this year of rising energy costs and the centrality of agriculture in the equation. The rush to biofuels, which Karen Gillon talked about and which is mentioned in the Labour amendment, is a reaction to peak oil that risks aggravating food shortages as well as accelerating climate change.
Scotland's food industry is overreliant on oil. Our only viable future is a low-carbon one, which means that we must rethink and relocalise our lives. We must think about how we produce and consume our food. Driving miles to the supermarket to buy food that has been transported from around the world on oil-based transport will have to be rethought. Farming that relies heavily on fertilisers and mechanical processes will have to be rethought. Overpacking our food and carrying it home in plastic bags will have to end. Modern agriculture has been described as
"the use of land to convert oil into food".
One way or another, that will have to change.
No more bananas.
If we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change and peak oil, we must now gear up our economies to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.
I am not sounding the death knell for the quality or enjoyment of our lives—despite mutterings from the Conservative benches. Indeed, what I am talking about is quite the reverse. It is about grasping the opportunity and acknowledging how much innovative work needs to be done.
Communities throughout Scotland are putting the Government to shame. Transition towns are emerging throughout Scotland to face up to the reality of peak oil and what that means. The challenge for us all is to respond by making Scotland the world's first transition nation, to embrace the benefits and to avoid the appalling consequences of the current approach. Economics as if there is no tomorrow risks fulfilling that prophecy.
I move amendment S3M-1803.1.1, to insert at end:
", as well as the peak in oil production."
I am standing in for Richard Lochhead. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in offering congratulations to Richard and Fiona on the arrival of their son, Fraser, who was born on Monday. [Applause.]
The Government congratulates John Scott on bringing the motion to the chamber, which we will support at decision time. We will also support the amendments, even the Liberal Democrat amendment, despite the very hard work that Mike Rumbles put into trying to stop members voting for it.
We welcome the debate, which is an important debate on an important subject. At the outset, I will quote the great Hamish Henderson, who, in "The Freedom Come All Ye", said:
"So come all ye at hame wi' Freedom
Never heed whit the hoodies croak for doom
In yer hoose a' the bairns o' Adam
Can find breid, barley-bree an painted room".
In the Scots mind, the connection is made between freedom and food, and between our domestic concern for food and our international concerns. I will explore that in what I say today. Scots are citizens of the world. We care deeply about what happens elsewhere and it is absolutely right that we should discuss how to respond to the emerging global food crisis—how we should do that at home and what we can contribute internationally. First and foremost, supporting and developing our food production capacity is in our national interest. It helps to build a sustainable economy; we must put our intellect, entrepreneurial skills and great experience to good use to cultivate better and more environmentally friendly ways of producing food for domestic and international consumption.
I am conscious that no one in the chamber has seriously experienced hunger or famine. However, we should never take food for granted. That is why the Scottish Government is developing the nation's first ever strategic food policy to ensure that we have a fully joined-up, consistent and coherent approach to food production and consumption. We set out that vision for food in Scotland in the national food discussion paper, "Choosing the Right Ingredients: The Future for Food in Scotland". As we say in the paper, food should make the nation healthier, wealthier and smarter, with production making communities stronger and consumption respecting the local and global environment.
The discussion period on the paper lasted from January until last Friday. The paper got a very strong response and we have a lot of interesting material to consider. It is a pity that Mike Rumbles chose to belittle that in what he said today. There was an amazing level of engagement and we will carry that forward as we develop the policy. We are reflecting carefully on what we have heard—which is what Governments should do—but we are also concerned to take action—
Ha!
It is distressing to hear Mr Rumbles laugh at the concept of Government action. Of course, he is the member of a party that was in government for eight years and did nothing. Fortunately, we have learned that lesson.
We need to look at both domestic and international concerns. As John Scott said, the context has changed since last year. Food security is now firmly on the agenda. If anyone doubts that, the fact that annual food price inflation was 6.6 per cent in January 2008, compared with a rate of 4.1 per cent for all items, should give them cause for concern.
In that context, it is important that the Government should help people by ensuring that they retain as much of their own money in their own pockets. We are doing that, for example, by freezing the unfair council tax, reducing prescription charges and doing much else. Of course, the current increase in food prices is due to a range of factors including higher consumption and low stock levels, adverse weather effects, climate change and rising energy costs. However, if people are to respond to shortages, they need to have the resources to meet them. Higher market prices present signals to farmers to increase production and to consumers to switch to less expensive substitutes and to think about growing more of their own food. I am pleased to say that, on Sunday, I was planting potatoes and onions in my garden. I hope that others are doing the same.
Increased wealth and growing populations in developing nations have led to increasing global demand, including for food. Climate change is impacting on crops and will continue to do so. We have to take concrete steps to help those in the poorest countries. There are a number of things that we are doing, but we have to do more to improve trade, help developing countries to increase agricultural production, provide appropriate technology and research, consider the appropriateness of biofuels—there is now a debate on that—and provide the necessary financial support.
Above all, we have to work together. Let the whole chamber send out that message today, despite the divisiveness of one member—I hope that his is the last divisive contribution. Let us put our heads together and work out how to solve this problem at home and abroad.
I welcome the debate. I hope that the idea of food security for this country can be translated on to a global scale, as our food security cannot be premised on insecurity for people across the globe. How we achieve that has to be part of the national food policy conversation. I will dwell on some of these issues in my speech, given that they fit into the subject matter of the Conservatives' motion. I agree that, at the outset, we are looking for action at the Scottish, British and European levels, but we have to go on to challenge the World Trade Organization. We have to ask about the right of people to have a fair deal for their produce rather than free trade in food.
If we are debating national food policy—as the minister said, there has been an enormous response to the paper—we must ask, as NFU Scotland did, "What is on your plate?" The answer to that, above all, will determine whether we are doing as much as possible to feed ourselves in this country, both in terms of both quantity and quality. In that respect, I am glad that the Government is supporting more local food production and, in particular, the public procurement of more locally sourced food. That lead will encourage more people to grow more food locally and to have it bought in a secure market.
The Government has held a supermarket summit that allowed discussion with the large combines on the issue of local food sourcing. We saw an example of that in the Parliament last week. Fundamentally, we have to tackle the issue of labelling and the way in which supermarkets display their goods. Although Scottish meat may be well labelled as such on supermarket shelves, it is laid out next to the Brazilian stuff. If people are poor and on a tight budget, they will always go for the cheaper product. That cannot be allowed to be the basis on which a Scottish food policy is built. Our engagement with the supermarkets has to include dealing with the issue of labelling. We have to have the statutory controls to ensure that labelling requirements enjoy the kind of backing that will make the supermarkets come to heel.
The NFU wants a European model of agriculture to continue after 2013. In the debate on the national food policy, we should define what that model will be. As I have hinted, the kind of food security that we want, with more local production, has to take account of the ways in which we produce our food. I will therefore have to focus on biofuels. We have heard the arguments on this displacement crop. As Oxfam has pointed out in its report "Bio-fuelling Poverty", once people lose their land to the biofuel producers, they lose their livelihood. Oxfam says:
"Many end up in slums in search of work, others will fall into migratory labour patterns, while some will be forced to take jobs on the very plantations which displaced them and where labour standards can be horrific."
That is the downside of biofuels. Scotland's biofuel capacity from oil-seed rape could instead produce cattle cake; it could become a local source of animal feed and the like. We have to build that into the policy. I ask members to ensure that, when we come together, we base our efforts on
"Maintaining the diversity of the animals bred and plants grown."
The principle that
"For both historic and economic reasons we must preserve the biodiversity of the land"
should be at the root of any food policy. It should be applied not only in this country but across the world.
Like others, I welcome the debate and the fact that John Scott chose to promote this subject. I congratulate him on his thoughtful speech. As Karen Gillon said, the issue is racing up the political agenda. It is good that the Parliament is addressing it in the comparatively early days of the debate on the subject in Scotland.
We tend to take our food for granted. We go to the supermarket or shop and it is there on the shelves, waiting for us to purchase it. When we run out of food, we return to the supermarket and—lo and behold—as if by magic, the shelves have been restocked. As a society, we understand very little about how food gets on to the shelves or where it comes from. It is a scary thought indeed that, one day, we could go to the supermarket or shop and find that there is not enough food on the shelves or that the food on display is above the price that most of us can reasonably afford.
More than any other generation, this generation is far removed from an understanding of how food is produced. Nowadays, virtually no one is self-sufficient in food; no locality in this country, or in Europe, is self-sufficient in food. In part, today's debate is about ensuring that when we go to supermarkets and shops in future there will be food at prices that we can afford and that food will be locally available wherever we happen to live. It is about highlighting the potential risks to the cosy existence that we take for granted; it is not about advocating that we all go for "The Good Life" style of living, although moving in that direction might not be a bad thing.
It is important to take policy initiatives that will help to combat the big changes that are taking place in the world. As Karen Gillon said, the developing world understands that far better than we do. It has always faced food shortages. I do not want to repeat the good points that Karen Gillon made, but around the world we are seeing massive changes and massive challenges to all that we have previously taken for granted. There are food riots not only in undeveloped countries but in comparatively developed countries. There are riots because of shortages, but also because of the price of certain commodities. There is also an increase in the number of failing harvests around the world. John Scott rightly said that the big drought in Australia is having an impact worldwide. Climate change is contributing to the problem and grain and cereal production is falling, so shortages are emerging, which is leading to price rises around the globe.
Other members have referred to some of the changes in world agriculture. Rob Gibson mentioned that, in large part, biofuels are driving the big series of changes that are taking place. More land is being used for crops for fuel rather than for food. Potentially, biofuel crops reach a higher price than food crops, because the rise in oil prices means that the price for crops for biofuels is also rising. If farmers get a better price for that than for food crops, that is what they will grow. Therefore, more people are moving out of food production, the problem is compounded and we are in a cycle of difficulty. It is a complex international policy issue, but our domestic policy needs to take it into account. Not so long ago, we had land in set-aside because of the surpluses in Europe. We thought that we could build on that land, but we must rethink that policy.
We set targets for biofuels and I am glad to say that Gordon Brown is talking about rethinking that, as we must keep people in food production. Notwithstanding the fact that I did not agree with the tone in which Mike Rumbles presented the case, the pig industry is a classic example of a Scottish industry that is suffering because of world trends. I hope that we can do more about that.
That all points in the direction of us doing much more locally to produce food, which plays into the Government's strategy on local food—I wish it well in that and I hope that it goes further than it has so far planned to do. We must think about how we produce locally more effectively in Scotland. We must also think about how we engage people to address household poverty and food poverty, and how we encourage people to cook more in their own homes, think more about local food and search for the answers to the profound questions that face our whole world society.
In the five years that I have been a member of this Parliament, awareness of the issues that we must face up to in order to achieve a sustainable future for the world in which we live has grown rapidly.
We have begun to accept the need to tackle the effects of climate change, we are beginning to realise that fossil fuels are a finite resource and we are waking up to the fact that although the absolute level of food production around the globe is still rising, the world's population is increasing faster, which is leading to real concern about food security. We now have a global problem that can be overcome only by co-operation among Governments and other relevant bodies, as John Scott's motion proposes.
In four minutes it is impossible to deal with all the complexities surrounding food security, so I intend to focus on our local situation. We must face up to the fact that food is becoming more expensive and that we are significantly less self-sufficient than we were a decade ago. Coupled with that, we are constantly reminded that the health of our nation is being compromised by an increasing incidence of obesity, with the resultant problems of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, which now affect people in younger age groups.
I am old enough to remember the rationing of food just after the second world war. There was little or no imported food, vegetables were locally grown and available only in season and there was little choice in the shops. Mangoes and pineapples were virtually unheard of, I was married by the time I ate an avocado and grapes and bananas were almost luxury items.
I was fortunate, because my father was a keen gardener with an allotment, so we had a variety of home-grown vegetables that were unknown to many of my contemporaries. Overall, we had a healthy, if basic, diet and we had few problems with obesity.
By the 1970s, we had got used to a wide choice of cheap imported food, with fruit and vegetables available all year round. Since then, home cooking has increasingly been replaced by ready-prepared meals, which are available in abundance in the supermarkets, are convenient and are relatively cheap, but that situation cannot continue indefinitely. In recent years, our dairy industry has taken a huge knock and, as has been said, the pig industry is now having major problems because of the high cost of feed. If Mr Rumbles were in the chamber, I would say to him that I look for the Scottish label on pork.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If no member of a party that has an amendment is in the chamber, does the amendment fall?
No. That is not a point of order.
I note that no representative of the Liberal Democrats is in the chamber.
l attended a meeting yesterday with Scottish road hauliers. They are facing such serious problems because of high fuel prices that a number of them no longer transport livestock or milk. That puts further strain on our agricultural industry and carries the threat of scarcity and high prices for consumers.
As a nation, we are currently wasteful of food. No longer do we see the clean plates expected of my generation when we were young; food is now picked at and thrown away. We could save enormous amounts of money if we bought only the food that we intend to eat, and if we put more effort into preparing food, we might be less likely to throw it out.
The other day I heard the encouraging comment from a garden centre that more people—particularly young people—are buying vegetable seeds and seedlings rather than flowers. There is also a large and increasing demand for allotments, with councils being pressed to make many more sites available, and the farming industry is making efforts to bring children into the countryside to show them where their food comes from. Increasing efforts are also under way to encourage the recycling and composting of food waste. Farmers have an opportunity to get back to their main interest, which is growing food. They will need Government help with reduced regulation, better food labelling and the achievement of realistic prices at the farm gate, but the potential is there. We must also give people incentives to minimise waste, in the interests of both food security and combating climate change.
Now that food prices are increasing and there is a growing awareness of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, the time is right to promote home-grown food and home cooking and to encourage the already increasing interest in high-quality Scottish produce. That will not solve the global problem, but it would be a small step forward, and it would help our people to become healthier and, indeed, greener.
I fully support John Scott's motion and I hope that the rest of the chamber will too.
At the first Rural Affairs and Environment Committee away day last summer, we discussed, among other matters, the possibility of a food policy inquiry. At the time, it was felt that there was little urgency and that we should get on with more pressing matters. Mike Rumbles was involved in those discussions and I do not recall him arguing differently at the time—he has clearly developed a degree of hindsight. That fact makes his contribution to the debate even more inappropriate—we have all had to learn about this subject. Fast forward to March 2008 and the UK Government's new chief scientific adviser warned us that a food crisis will take hold before climate change. We seem to be in a whole new world of trouble.
There has been no escaping the recent news stories linked to problems with the food supply. Governments are now threatened, which in turn threatens regional and global stability. Hardship is being experienced in much of the developed world, and even on our own doorstep people are beginning to remark on the frequency with which food prices are rising and the effect that that has on the choices that they make.
The issue poses a huge challenge to us all. If the escalating cost of rice has forced a number of countries to limit their exports of that grain, we know that in the near future we, too, will all be paying a great deal more if rice is what we want to eat. I take on board the points made by Robin Harper about that.
We need to address many key issues; I will flag up three of them. The first is biofuels, which a number of members have mentioned. Last year's next best thing is rapidly turning into this year's nightmare as we contemplate the wholesale switch from food production to fuel production to reduce our reliance on oil—a switch that has led directly to food shortages and higher food prices. To paraphrase one commentator, who has been quoted already, we are now taking out of the mouths of babies in order to keep our cars on the road. There is no finger of blame here: everyone bought into the biofuel idea. We all thought that it was a great idea, but we had not thought through the consequences of an unregulated market and we now know better. We will have to address the problem before even more tracts of good land are put to that use. What do they say about the road to hell? It is time to rethink the targets and what we consider to be a good biofuel and what we do not.
The second topic I will discuss is land use. At a Rural Affairs and Environment Committee-run event on housing last year, I listened to people who knew something about the history of the planning system and understood clearly for the first time that much of it was drawn up in the aftermath of world war two, when food rationing was still in force and there was a strong desire to ensure that agricultural land stayed in agricultural use. It became a mantra that one of the obstacles to house building was that we could not get more land rezoned for housing. However, here we are potentially facing some of the same food security issues that had to be addressed post war, so who now would argue too strongly for removing land from food production? Instead, we should think about increasing domestic food production and how that knocks on to building the number of houses that we need in Scotland. It also has implications for the future of flood management, as we have discussed in the committee.
My third point is about food sufficiency, which Peter Peacock touched on. We will never be self-sufficient in bananas in Scotland, but can we be self-sufficient in some basic foodstuffs? As boring as that might be to contemplate, there may now be an argument for Government establishing levels of food sufficiency and working towards achieving them if that goal has not already been achieved.
It seems appropriate to raise the fact that Perth, in my constituency, is Scotland's first cittaslow town, and is now being joined by Linlithgow. All MSPs should encourage that movement in their own towns and villages, and I hope that they will.
It is probably worth going through some of the reasons for the food price increases that are affecting people around the world, not only in Scotland. The first is increased demand for food, which arises partly from population pressures but also due to changing patterns of expectation. Affluence in places such as China is leading to increased demand for meat and dairy products, which in turn affects grain supplies, because grain is used to feed animals that it was not previously used to feed.
We have climate-change pressures. John Scott mentioned the drought in Australia, which has had a particular effect in that part of the world. However, in many parts of Africa and Latin America, soil erosion and deforestation are affecting the fertility of land, which has an important impact on the amount of food that is produced.
So far, members have not mentioned the amount of speculation that is taking place in commodities. In the past, the financial markets speculated in other things, whether financial products or other types of commodities, such as metals. There is now greatly increased speculation in food, which is driving up prices.
Increased energy costs are a factor. They affect not only farmers but food distributors. The costs of transportation, as well as the costs of production, are increasing.
Finally, there is the drive to biofuels, which has a perverse impact on food security. It is paradoxical that the drive towards biofuels is generated by another security fear: the fear of fuel insecurity. There is a direct substitution. Karen Gillon referred to the huge proportion of US corn and maize that is now being used for biofuels. The bread-basket that fed the world in the hungry years of the 1930s and 1940s is now being used to provide fuel for cars and, in the process, is driving up emissions and exacerbating the pressures that lead to climate change. That is also happening in Britain: wheat that would have been exported from Britain is now being converted for use in biofuels.
Countries such as Brazil and Indonesia—huge countries with massive populations and a significant proportion of the world's forest—are engaged in massive deforestation, which is also associated with increased use of biofuels such as ethanol. There, and in places such as South Africa—countries where there is a food shortage—crops are being planted specifically for biofuels. The expansion of sugar cane production and the planting of jatropha—a tree that grows in poor soil and arid conditions—in southern Africa will substitute for food production.
The food supply is being undermined and it is right that we reconsider the current target for biofuels. The Department for Transport is reviewing the renewable transport fuels obligation, which is currently at 5 per cent and which the European Community wants to double to 10 per cent by 2020. I am not against biofuels in principle; the issue is their sustainability. We need to find a sensible approach to developing biofuels production, where that is appropriate and sustainable, and food production. We need to consider the indirect impacts of a drive towards biofuels on food availability as well as fuel availability.
We are faced with two perils: food insecurity and fuel insecurity. We need to ensure that we have a balanced approach to both.
I welcome the debate and congratulate John Scott on securing it.
One question can make even the most seasoned politician squirm in their seat. It is the moment at the end of an interview when the journalist, with a glimmer in his or her eye, leans over and cheekily asks, "One last question: how much is a pint of milk?" Every member present is perfectly aware not only that the average price of milk is around 40p a pint in our local supermarkets, but that it has gone up by around 31 per cent. As we all know, a broad range of wider macroeconomic and social consequences is attached to that rise.
I would prefer that we were back in the days when whether one knew the price of milk was a frivolous journalistic question rather than the serious question that it is now. Now, especially for people on lower incomes, the question is foremost in people's minds locally and around the world.
As we have heard, put simply, the global market is failing and prices are soaring. For example, the average world price of rice has gone up by 217 per cent. That is one thing for those of us who enjoy curry dishes—as at least one or two of the members present do—but it is quite another for the more than 500 million people in India and China who, despite their countries' economic growth, according to the United Nations still live on the equivalent of $1 a day.
We have gone over the causes already: the effect of high oil prices on fertility and transportation; droughts and poor harvests that may or may not be related to climate change; the growing middle classes in some parts of the world spending money on larger and richer diets, particularly in China, where there is a growing demand for meat products, which, of course, consumes other basic products; and the poor implementation of biofuel expansion, which draws on land that was previously used for farming. It is a sobering fact—to add to the other facts—that the amount of maize needed to fill one tank of petrol is the same as the average African eats in a year.
There are lessons from history that many Governments so far have not learned. The famines of the 1980s and the debt crisis that began then—which, despite the fantastic efforts of the make poverty history movement, still plagues most of the developing world—all stem from a first great wave of movement in agriculture away from growing food towards growing cash crops such as cotton or coffee. The idea was that those luxuries would raise more money, which would allow the farmers to buy food with room to spare. Of course, the price of coffee went down and the price of grain went up; and the poor stayed poor and hungry.
I am glad that the Parliament is discussing the matter. It is as weighty and immediate as it is domestic and global. I am pleased to see that we have been remarkably consensual—in fact, almost unanimous—in the face of it. We must also look beyond the causes and determine what can be done. Anyone who has seen the television pictures of the situation in Haiti, where starvation is now a real prospect for many people who, although poor, until now largely were able to buy the food that they needed to sustain themselves, knows that we all have a responsibility to consider it.
Even here in Scotland, we must think about the plight of a pensioner in Alloa who squints at the shelves to find something that she can afford. The situation exists in our local communities, so we must think of solutions, which is not easy. I agree with the Conservatives that we require Government action at all levels, including in Europe, which I am pleased to see mentioned in the Tory motion. Such action must include influencing a system that has been governed and failed by a free market.
John Scott presented a compelling picture of what he eloquently described as the coming of a perfect storm, and he asked for ideas. Where necessary, we should allow Government intervention. We should increase aid to developing countries to allow them to improve their infrastructure and production. In my view, we should oppose the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization when they make unreasonable demands for poorer countries to cut their subsidies while saying that the richer ones may continue with their own. We should not allow the problems of growing first-generation biofuels to make us abandon all renewable and alternative fuels. In my view, climate change is likely to cause more shortages. If it does not, the ever-increasing price of oil definitely will, as we heard from Robin Harper.
We must support local producers, as I recently did in my constituency, in conjunction with the Alloa & Hillfoots Advertiser, when we highlighted local suppliers to the local population. People are willing to support local retailers, but it helps to make them aware of where the local suppliers are.
There are public concerns about the role of supermarkets, and I am delighted that the First Minister recently met representatives of supermarkets operating in Scotland to discuss the various issues.
There are some ideas about what we can do, and I am delighted to support the motion.
There has been a wide welcome for the debate that the Conservatives have chosen today. It comes at a stage when we can all identify a number of issues on which there is broad consensus. However, that consensus is not complete and there are areas where we diverge. John Scott described humanity as the most successful species on the planet, and he highlighted population growth. The issue is sensitive, but it is unavoidably linked to food production and consumption and environmental impacts such as climate change, as well as the energy issues that we raise in our amendment.
John Scott is a long-standing advocate of many things that we, too, are keen on, such as farmers markets and changes to procurement practices. However, the consensus breaks down at a certain point. The call for renewed determination about
"growing two blades of grass where one grew before"
gives me cause for concern. The pursuit of intensive production methods and the changing of our food chain into an industrial process form part of the problem. We should not risk repeating the mistakes of previous generations in response to the problems that they have left us with.
Karen Gillon properly identified the important links between our plates, shopping baskets and consumption and the impacts on some of the poorest people in both developing and developed countries around the world. She acknowledged the problems with the current policy on biofuels, both in her amendment and in her speech. It is clear that, unless the policy is dropped, the impact will be most severe on the poorest people in the world.
The Oxfam briefing, as well as my motion of last month, outlined many of the problems with biofuels. If we are agreed that the policy is ill thought out and must change, what is the alternative? It was designed to increase fuel supply and energy security, but our best opportunity to achieve that now lies where it always did: in reducing consumption and reducing waste. In both of those, our approach to food is crucial.
In speaking to the Green amendment, Robin Harper outlined clearly the growing concern over peak oil production and its connection with the food security debate. He also mentioned the dominance of supermarkets, a subject that the Greens brought to the chamber in the previous session. Our concerns were dismissed at the time, but they are now widely shared—but, sadly, not by the Competition Commission, which responds to supermarkets' dominance by calling for an easing of planning restrictions to allow even more of them to open. As someone who was also brought up on the produce of a local allotment, I hope that Nanette Milne will encourage her party at Westminster to object to the Competition Commission's recommendations.
For me, Mike Rumbles's contribution was the only disappointing one. He seemed to imply that the only thing that Opposition parties ought to do is to attack others, rather than open up new space for debate. I do not agree.
Will the member take an intervention?
In a moment.
You have one minute left, Mr Harvie.
I do not agree with other parties 100 per cent of the time, and I agree with Mike Rumbles significantly less frequently than that, but I certainly welcome the debate. It allows different solutions to come forward, and we should be open to it and welcome it with a constructive tone.
May I allow a brief intervention?
Very briefly please, Mr Rumbles.
The member missed the point that I was making. I was calling on the Government to take some action. It has been in power now for a year.
I come now to the Government. Michael Russell began by welcoming the cabinet secretary's recent contribution to population growth. I hope that he enjoys fatherhood, of course, and I wish him well. I also wish that, when he returns to the office, he devotes the same commitment and enthusiasm to taking the Government's food policy to another level. The Government's discussion paper does what John Scott's speech did, in a sense: it opens up space for debate and it mentions many positive things that we would all support, although it fails to articulate the transformational approach that, from listening to Rob Gibson's speech, I think many SNP members would welcome. We need a more radical approach. We need a transformation of our food culture as well as of the economic activity that supports it.
We have recently seen how fragile our economy is, with a fortnight of concern caused by a two-day walk-out at an oil refinery. There was some panic buying, and who in the chamber will deny that they filled up their tank, just in case? Farmers in my constituency were unable to get red diesel for four days, despite the First Minister saying that there was an abundant supply. Scotland is overreliant on oil.
As with fragility with fuel, so it is with food. The two are, of course, connected. Biofuels are not a black-and-white issue. Local biofuel policies are positive; the real problem has arisen with the international trade in biofuels and the international pressure on many developing countries. The UN World Food Programme's executive director, Josette Sheeran, refers to a "silent tsunami", with high global food prices threatening to plunge more than 100 million people into hunger.
There have been a number of reasons for the high price rises, but the connection with energy policies is clear. With their higher economic growth and increased purchasing and use of energy, the two biggest nations on earth have a disproportionate effect on global processes and food prices. Already, China has decided that her priority is to feed herself. Further exports of fertiliser have effectively been blocked by the imposition of an export tariff of between 100 and 135 per cent—effective this week. Not surprisingly, that caused the nitrogen price to rocket by a further $100 overnight.
Feed prices now fluctuate as oil prices do, with a futures industry in wheat and grain that the industry and the consumer structure are ill equipped to accommodate. Oil price fluctuations affect a small number of very large organisations, and the consumer sees the effects on the forecourt. Small farming units—tenant farmers in my constituency and elsewhere—are operating in an already perilous cash-flow situation and cannot absorb such fluctuations. The issue is not theoretical. Feeding wheat was £96 a tonne a year ago; this week, the price stands at £155 a tonne. Milling wheat was £101 a tonne a year ago; this week, it costs £183 a tonne. This time last year, oil-seed rape, which Rob Gibson mentioned, cost £160 a tonne; this week, it costs £326 a tonne.
Last week, Josette Sheeran told the UK Parliament:
"The response calls for large-scale, high-level action by the global community, focused on emergency and longer-term solutions."
Scotland's response will affect our own policy choices and consumer demand here.
One of the largest employers in my constituency is Glenrath Farms. The company has grown from a small operation to become one of the leading egg producers in the UK. That highly professional company is faced with having to adapt to the new 2012 deadline for changes to hen cages, and it needs to expand. Inevitably, that means new planning applications and investment in enriched cages and free-range sheds. In response to consumer demand for more free-range eggs, some retailers such as Marks and Spencer now market all their egg produce as exclusively free range. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of egg producers will leave the business before 2012, as a result of not only the high costs of the business but the change in consumer demand.
The Scottish Government has a role to play, and the requirement for a robust food policy is urgent. If the policy is robust, it will get a fair wind from the Parliament, but it must be short on words and firm on action. That is why our amendment asks for the Government to be more robust, with local procurement targets and genuine understanding on its part. As Rob Gibson said, we need action on labelling and marketing support. A campaign on local procurement is being led jointly by the Conservatives and, in the south of Scotland, my colleague Jim Hume, and moves on local procurement and the consensus around that must be backed up by Government, perhaps through legislation.
We cannot isolate ourselves from global considerations, nor can we alone solve the global crisis, but we can play our part. That is the people's expectation of our Parliament and Government. We need action, both locally and in playing our part in the world.
This has been an excellent debate, with knowledgeable and insightful contributions from across the political spectrum. I congratulate John Scott on the motion, which was excellent. I hope that my congratulations do not damage his political career, but I liked the stress on the international aspects of the issue.
We have all seen the images of this global problem. Keith Brown was quite right to talk about the incident in Haiti, in which four people were killed in food riots. In Italy, mothers have marched against the increase in the price of pasta and, in Bolivia, there have been violent protests against the doubling of food prices. The World Bank has forecast that 100 million people are facing starvation. What has caused the crisis? Many members have speculated about that, suggesting reasons such as climate change, dietary change in China, global overpopulation, biofuels and even the credit crisis, which has brought about speculation in commodities futures following the collapse of the financial derivatives market.
Do we now need, as the World Bank and the United Nations have said, a new deal for food? A recent Economist editorial said:
"Agriculture is now in limbo. The world of cheap food has gone. With luck and good policy, there will be a new equilibrium."
What can be done on the international stage? A number of members, such as Rob Gibson and Peter Peacock, have come up with innovative suggestions. However, it is clear that we need to refinance the World Food Programme, which is the world's largest distributor of food aid—the barrier between hungry people, such as those families in the developing world who exist on a dollar a day, and starvation. The purchasing power of the World Food Programme has been slashed because of the rising cost of grain. To distribute the same amount of food this year as was distributed last year would cost an extra $700 million. Oxfam has argued that we need to act earlier. For example, in 2004 and 2005, early warnings alerted the world's donors that Niger needed aid in order to avert famine, but delays and inaction caused the death of thousands of children.
As many have said today, we need to reassess the mandatory biofuel targets and highlight more responsible and sustainable policies. We must be careful about taking agricultural land out of production.
John Scott gave a good speech. Like others, I liked his analogy about the perfect storm and his encouragement of farmers to grow more food in sustainable ways and consumers to waste less food. I particularly liked his quote about digging for victory, which was relevant—clearly, he has been watching his Winston Churchill tapes again over the weekend.
Karen Gillon spoke well about the need for farming across the world to be done sustainably. The stress on climate change is important.
I do not have time to touch on a number of speakers' comments, but I thought that Mike Russell gave a well-made speech. His promotion—albeit temporary—is well deserved. I am sure that, like me, he will be supporting Labour's plans to extend paternity leave in the United Kingdom.
At the end of 2006, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published an interesting report on food security. It said that the real issues extend beyond the UK, beyond agriculture and beyond food, and that food security cannot be the object of a single policy, but needs to be supported by a range of cross-cutting strategies, such as strengthening energy security, developing international research and development and looking into the impact of climate change on global food potential.
Food security is an international issue. The developed world can play a key leadership role in refinancing the World Food Programme and advocating fair trade and aid, and can light a candle to snuff out the darkness of hunger, malnutrition and death in the developing world.
I congratulate John Scott on bringing this debate to the chamber. Indeed, I congratulate every speaker, with two exceptions, for contributing positively and enthusiastically.
I did not agree with everything that I heard, and the Government will not support every proposal that was put forward. However, Patrick Harvie was absolutely right to say that it is important in such debates to air ideas, show the depth of experience that exists across the chamber and focus on real and important issues.
Alas, the two exceptions were Liberal Democrat speakers, who were the only Liberal Democrats present during the debate. Indeed, at one stage—as I pointed out in a point of order—no Liberal Democrat was present. Would that that had continued. If it had, we would have had a better debate.
I note that in the public gallery is my friend, Norman Leask, the former chair of the Crofting Foundation. He lives in Shetland, and we have had long conversations about why people continue to support the Liberal Democrats. I find it amazing, too. To be fair, he makes the strong point that the Liberal Democrats contributed an enormous amount to the Highlands and Islands, particularly in relation to the establishment of the present crofting system. It is sad to see that they have fallen so far, and that the diet of opposition does not agree with them in any way. We have heard endless sour grapes and not a single positive idea. During the consultation period on "Choosing the right ingredients: The future of food in Scotland", Mr Rumbles did not submit any ideas at all. That is a tragedy—
Will the member give way?
I will not take an intervention from Mr Rumbles, who was not present during any of the back-bench speeches—I want to put that on record. That was very unfortunate.
I will now address the serious points that were made by serious politicians.
Biofuels have been a constant and extremely serious issue in the debate. The Gallagher review into the indirect impacts of biofuels will report at the end of June. Food security is the prime issue, and I know that many of the non-governmental organisations acting in the area have made submissions to that review.
Currently, biofuels make up only 2.5 per cent of the mixture of fuels at the pumps in this country. There is a prospect of what are called second-generation biofuels, which can be made from the chemical processing of both agricultural and forestry waste. They are currently being researched, and are some 15 to 20 years off. However, it might well be that the prospects for those sustainable biofuels are being adversely affected by the genuine worries that exist about the cultivation of crops for fuel. We should keep our eye on the fact that using waste material to produce biofuels might provide some answers for us. We must be cautious about how we address that issue.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry, but I said that I would not take any interventions from Liberal Democrats in my summing-up speech, and I continue to say that.
John Scott made the point that there needs to be flexibility in the Scottish rural development programme. I can guarantee that there will be that flexibility. It is a flexible programme that can react to market changes.
I would like the minister to address the issue of flexibility with regard to regulations. Clearly, we need a level playing field for the farming industry, and we need to take our environmental obligations seriously. Does the minister have some fresh thoughts on that issue?
I have some very fresh thoughts on that, because the issue of regulation is something that concerns me and all my colleagues at all times. We have to distinguish between the regulations that come to us largely from the EU and are transposed into Scots law, and the regulations that we make. We want to ensure that we do not add to that regulatory burden and that we continue to simplify. Of course, there will always be regulations. Interestingly, the things that the Liberal Democrat amendment calls for would require regulation. We bear the issue in mind constantly, and I assure Sarah Boyack that we will continue to do so.
"Choosing the right ingredients: The future of food in Scotland" represents a genuine consultation on the national food policy. The document seeks information and takes a consensual approach to the issue. It is fascinating that the issue has become even more important since the document was published at the start of the year. The issue is an ever-changing one, but I hope that our final policy will reflect the concerns that we have heard in this chamber.
Page 11 of the document, which is concerned with the actions of the Government, shows that there are too many such actions to list. Those actions are a precursor of a food policy that will not only embrace national and international issues but take account of all the constructive comments that we have heard in this vitally important debate.
I again congratulate John Scott on securing this debate, and note the degree of experience that he brings to this issue.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the cittaslow movement. It is individual actions—people working together in ways that are exemplified in that movement—that will make all the difference. I have visited Perth, and look forward to Linlithgow being one of the cittaslow towns. As long as people are prepared to work together, think together and act together, we will get through the difficulties.
It is my great pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Conservatives. I am sure that all of us on the Conservative benches would want to send our congratulations and best wishes to the cabinet secretary on his new arrival. I have to say that, even in the era of SNP-Tory co-operation, we did not expect him to go so far as to give his son the excellent Christian name of Fraser, but that is nonetheless welcome. On that note, I say to David Stewart that, having recently had the benefit of two weeks of paternity leave, I am not sure that I would necessarily rush to extend that period.
This has been an excellent and well-informed debate on all sides. It was largely consensual, with the usual exception of Mr Rumbles, who never disappoints with his ability to get the tone of the debate completely wrong. Having upset the whole chamber, he disappeared for almost the entire duration of the debate, no doubt to issue a press release about how he was entirely right and everybody else was wrong.
Throughout the debate, we heard pretty grim statistics on food from members of all parties. World grain stocks are at a 35-year low. We have only 52 days' supply of grain in the world. The price of food has been rising for the past two years, which reverses a 30-year downward trend. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicts a 55 per cent growth in demand for food between 1998 and 2030. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has warned that food prices could increase by between 20 and 50 per cent during the next decade. Here in Scotland, it is estimated that food inflation will push up the average family's food bill by £750 this year alone. The UK's self-sufficiency has dropped from 72 per cent in 1996 to 60 per cent.
I am sure that all members agree that those statistics make grim reading. Behind the statistics, some of the poorest people in the world are unable to pay for food, real lives are being lost, and there is the possibility of new famines in developing countries.
As the debate showed, the causes of rising food prices are varied and complex. As John Scott and others said, countries such as India and China are changing to western-style diets, which is creating a massive increase in demand for meat products. I suspect that even the First Minister's frequent visits to curry houses cannot balance out the changing diets of the people of India. Further factors that are driving price rises in food include the loss of land due to climate change and the growth in demand for biofuels, as well as rising oil prices and rapid increases in the global population.
Our motion mentions solutions. What can be done? We are, of course, a devolved Parliament, but it is possible for us to lead the debate and underline to the UK Government and the EU the urgency of the matter. Here in Scotland, we can take action and set an example to other countries on what can be done to try to stop the emerging food shortage. For a long time, it was Government policy to reduce food production at home, but today's new circumstances need a new approach. The Conservatives believe that the Government must respond to the issue by encouraging our farmers to increase production once again to meet growing local and worldwide demand.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not. If Mr Rumbles had bothered to stay for the debate, I might have been more sympathetic and taken an intervention.
The Government must be on the side of the farmers. It must stop forcing red tape on them and start cutting it instead. I have had many conversations with farmers in Angus and Perthshire, and many of them tell me about the pressures that are placed on them and their struggle to keep their businesses viable and worth while under the burden of bureaucracy.
On that point, I welcome the news that, just the other day, the Competition Commission recommended that the supermarkets should have an independent ombudsman to oversee relationships between retailers and suppliers. Scottish farmers have been understandably reluctant to produce more food while they are not getting a fair price. They will produce more food if they receive a fair price for it. Our supermarkets have been using their excessive power in the marketplace for too long, and that has dissuaded our farmers from increasing production. I hope that the new ombudsman will police the supermarkets and ensure that there is fairer trade between supermarkets and farmers. I call for the ombudsman to be set up as soon as possible.
We must encourage more Scottish consumers to buy local produce. I am wearing a badge for the Conservatives' buy local, eat local campaign, which I encourage members to support. I opened a newspaper this morning and saw the headline
"Grow your own vegetables, says MSP".
It refers, of course, to my colleague John Scott. However, we need to be a little bit careful in encouraging self-help. I recall that a previous Conservative politician, Edwina Currie, got into trouble for urging pensioners to wear woolly hats and socks in bed in order to cut down their heating bills. I know that the mental image that is conjured up when I use the words "Edwina Currie" and "bed" in the same sentence will upset the stomachs of many members, but there is a serious point to be made. As Nanette Milne said, we need to grow more of our own food, and I hope that members will lead by example.
I hope that the debate will kick-start a wider debate in Scotland and encourage the Government to take action. I hope that, at decision time, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Liberal Democrats, the Parliament will unite to support the motion and amendments. The issue must be taken seriously.