Agriculture and Rural Affairs
The first item of business is the non-Executive business debate on motion S1M-242, in the name of Mr Alex Salmond, on agriculture and rural affairs, and on two amendments to that motion.
Before we begin the debate, I want to make it clear that the rule about summing up at the end has, as I requested, been defined by the Procedures Committee. Members will recall that, in previous non-Executive debates, I said that the spokesman for the Executive should wind up. The Procedures Committee has now carefully considered the matter and decided that, in non- Executive debates, a member of the party that moved the motion should be called to wind up. That was the committee's advice, which I propose to accept—as from today, that will be the practice. The final speaker will come from whichever party has moved the motion.
This morning, many members want to speak. The time allotted to opening speakers is generous: 20 minutes for the mover of the motion and 15 minutes each for the movers of the amendments. I propose to stick rigidly to those times in the interests of the debate.
It is with great pleasure that I move the motion on agriculture and rural affairs. Let us hope that the debate stimulates more interest on the as yet fairly empty Government benches as the morning goes on.
As I said a couple of weeks ago during the short, Government-sponsored debate on agriculture, it is a shame that so little time has so far been allocated to the subject. That is one of the reasons why we lodged today's motion, which refers to some of the severe problems affecting parts of the rural economy and rural society, and seeks more concerted and effective Government action to tackle them.
One of the arguments of those who opposed the setting up of this Parliament was that devolution would lead to the domination of Scotland by the industrial areas of the central belt, to the detriment of the rest of Scotland, particularly rural Scotland. However, it was always the Scottish National party's contention that rural Scotland would be better represented and its needs more sensitively addressed in a Scottish Parliament than they had ever been at Westminster.
Why should we believe that rural Scotland is important? First—but in no particular order—it contains a significant and increasing percentage of our population. Secondly, it makes a vital contribution to tourism, one of our most important industries. Thirdly, through agriculture, horticulture and, of course, their ancillary industries, including whisky and other distilling, it plays a crucial part in our economy. Fourthly, it is an essential leisure resource for those who live in our urban areas—I might say for those who are unfortunate enough to live in our urban areas.
Although rural Scotland has many distinguishing characteristics, we should not let ourselves get caught in the trap that some would lead us into for their own political or campaigning ends, which is to believe that there is a huge gulf between town and country and that the interests of the two groups are essentially different. In fact, the needs of those who live in rural Scotland are essentially the same as those of people living anywhere in Scotland.
People need good services, be it health services, social services or transport; they need adequate housing provision; their industries, just as industries elsewhere, need guidance, assistance and an understanding of their needs. All that must be linked with an understanding that meeting those needs in rural areas may require a different approach and that there will be significant differences even between rural areas—between Galloway and Unst, for example.
Most country people wish to stay and work in the country and many other people move into the country, either to retire or to use it as a base for commuting to an urban area. Both factors bring their own problems and challenges for local authority and Government funding.
It would be wrong to think that, just because the country is attractive, life there is a rural idyll. The same problems exist in the country as in our towns, although they are often concealed by the sparseness of the population. In many country areas, we find high unemployment, a high incidence of homelessness, a serious problem with low wages and sparse public services. I do not want anyone to go away with the impression that those problems started with the current Government or are a result of the current crisis in agriculture—although that has certainly not helped. In many rural areas, although not in all, the endemic problems of poor housing, low wages, high unemployment and poor public services have persisted for decades and have been left largely unsolved by both local government and central Government.
Just as the problems of our rural areas are not unique, so the effects of Government policy do not stop at our urban boundaries; in fact, those policies often impact disproportionately on our rural areas. That is certainly the case today— when many of the policies of the current Government at Westminster have a serious and disproportionate effect on our rural areas. Every MP or MSP who has any contact with rural Scotland cannot fail to pick up the same two messages that come from all parts of society and from all business and industry—about the impact of road fuel prices and about the double-sided coin of high interest rates and the high pound.
The Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator. However, Conservatives have opportunistically dumped that policy as they see the Labour party stealing their clothes. The fuel escalator was, allegedly, introduced to protect the environment. In reality, it is a blunt instrument that serves only to fill Gordon Brown's coffers.
Could you confirm, Mr Morgan, that during the election you removed the fuel escalator from your calculations for an independent Scotland and for the SNP budget? I cannot remember whether that was revealed.
No, we did not take out the fuel escalator. My point is that your party introduced the fuel escalator and you were quite happy to carry on with it—
Order. Members must speak through the chair.
We had no plans to continue with the fuel escalator had we been in power at Westminster, which is the crucial difference.
In light of that comment, what alternative proposal do you have to meet our obligations to reduce emissions under Kyoto—
Before we go any further, can we please leave yous out of this debate, except in the context of Mr Finnie's definition. [Laughter.]
I dare say that we may come on to that definition later.
The scandal about the fuel escalator is that it is not helping us to meet our Kyoto commitments. The polluters in our main cities simply pay the extra duty and carry on polluting, while those who live in rural Scotland, who can least afford it and who contribute least to pollution, have to pay as well.
I give a simple, but typical, example from my constituency. My constituency forms half the local authority area that was shown in a recent survey to have the lowest pay rates of all local authority areas in Great Britain. However, it is near the top—seventh out of the 73 Scottish constituencies—in the car-ownership tables. In other words, people are much less well-off but are more likely to run cars. They do not do that for fun or because they have a distorted sense of priorities; they do it because they have no alternative. Moreover, they have to pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer sweetly for the privilege.
The partnership agreement between the coalition parties, which is referred to in the Executive's amendment, states:
"We recognise, however, the widespread concern about travel costs".
It goes on:
"We recognise that for many people, particularly in rural areas, there is often no alternative to car use".
I could not agree more. However, we need not just recognition of the problem, but action to address it.
The situation would be bad enough if all things were equal, but they are not. The First Minister, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, said as recently as 1 February:
"The oil price is likely to stay at about $10 to $12 a barrel at least in the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 1 February 1999; c 8.]
By August—only seven months later—the price had risen to $18.90. Yesterday, the price of Brent crude stood at $21.35. The foreseeable future is very short indeed. The whole point—apart from the fact that one would not ask the First Minister for advice on oil futures—is that those buying road fuel have to meet not only the steeply rising cost of the basic product, but the increasing tax levy.
Similarly—as if all forms of agriculture did not face enough problems—the impact of the continually high rate of sterling is simply twisting the knife in the industry's wounds. Where export markets have not been lost in the short term— such as has happened in the case of beef because of the BSE crisis—they struggle to survive because they are being priced out of the market. At the same time, domestic sales are being undercut by imports that are made all the cheaper by the exchange rate.
Tourism, the other main industry in our rural areas—into which, ironically, some farmers have wholly or partly diversified—is now suffering precisely the same problem. It takes a very keen foreign visitor to be unaffected by the relatively high cost of a holiday in Scotland and an increasing number of United Kingdom residents find it difficult to resist not just a first but a second holiday abroad in the sun, with cheap currency,
instead of in Scotland.
Currency levels also have an adverse effect on the third of our major rural industries, forestry, in which output is due to peak in the early part of the next century and will remain high. The industry faces problems because its production levels cannot readily be altered to a significant extent in the short term.
On both issues—road fuel taxes and currency levels—our domestic industry in rural areas is being put at a competitive disadvantage by the Government's actions. Scottish people want to hear the voice of the Scottish Parliament; in particular, they want to hear Scottish ministers arguing their case against damaging policies introduced by a Government of the same party. Scottish people want to know that a strong case is being made on their behalf. It would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the liaison role that he claims to perform and for which he seems to be grossly overstaffed, is also making that case.
We had all hoped—perhaps even believed— that, following the most recent developments, the beef crisis was nearing a final solution. First indications from Brussels on Tuesday were that Nick Brown had lain down and invited everyone to walk all over him. Now Commissioner Byrne would have us believe that Tuesday's discussions were
"an intelligent, rational and reasonable approach towards the situation."
What input did the minister have to the discussions and to the decisions that were made? Was he told of the need to clarify the technical detail before the event, as we are being told, or afterwards? Was he told at all? Did he perhaps, like the rest of us, simply hear of it on the radio or television? There is a serious point to be made here, which applies to the beef sector in particular but is also of more general importance—Scotland has a different tale to tell and a different message to sell to our continental partners.
The SNP's Alex Salmond and Mrs Ewing advocated throughout 1996 and 1997 that we should follow the same principles that were applied to the special deal under which the Northern Irish export ban was lifted. Can Mr Morgan tell us how many tonnes of beef are being exported from Northern Ireland as a result of that scheme, and how many firms are engaged in that process?
I suspect that George knows the answer to that question—however, not many tonnes would need to be exported from Northern Ireland to exceed what is being exported from Scotland. The point is that a Scottish voice in Brussels can make the case more effectively than can the Westminster Government, and it can certainly make it more effectively than the previous Government could.
I will carry on—I have let George in once already. I am sure that he knows the facts. If he is called in this debate, he will have a chance to put his points to an audience that is waiting expectantly for them.
I ask our ministers to go to Brussels and to other European capitals to make the case—ministers may not have the clout that they would have if Scotland was an independent member of the European Union, but there is a case to be made and one suspects that there are people in those places who are ready to listen.
I do not have time to deal with every agricultural sector—although all deserve much of our time— but I will mention the pig industry. Most members will be familiar with some of the facts relating to loss of income and the closure of firms in that industry. Unlike the beef industry, the pig industry hardly benefits from any of the European Union's support regimes. It must sink or swim unaided. Until recently, it swam very well. It must now contend with welfare regulations that have been enforced unilaterally by the UK Government and that must be implemented at considerable cost to farmers. It must compete with imports from EU countries that are largely free from such costs.
That industry is also faced with charges for the disposal of offal that were imposed only because of the offal disposal ban relating to BSE and the beef herd. That problem is not of the pig industry's making, but it results in disposal charges that amount to some £5 per pig. The industry has for some time been lobbying for extra state aid to be allowed under European rules to compensate for that.
Pig farmers believe that the Government has not pursued this matter vigorously enough with the Commission. They point to the example of the Belgian farmers who were compensated when there was a dioxin problem in the Belgian herd. The industry believes that the Government has not pushed hard enough in Brussels—that opinion will be compounded by what happened in Brussels on Tuesday.
I will now move away from agriculture—we have so little time to cover such a vast subject. The development and health of the rural economy depends on the infrastructure and availability of services. Many of my colleagues want to develop this topic, but I want to talk specifically about rural post offices—although what I say applies also to many urban post offices.
Most of our rural post offices are barely viable. Recently, a sub-postmistress took—rightly in my
opinion—the Post Office to court in connection with the minimum wage legislation. If that proves to have wider repercussions, the lack of viability will become even more serious. Marginal viability is something that we have always lived with, but there is a problem looming on the horizon—the Government intends to pay benefits by automated bank giro transfer. That will remove many of the post offices' customers and much of their income.
Members must realise that, in many rural areas, the post office is not just a post office; it is the only shop. For a large part of the day, it is one of the few places where local people—particularly older people—can meet socially. Removing those post offices, whether by design or by default, will be another nail in the coffin of some rural communities. Some communities enter a cycle of decline—a cycle in which the main features of a sustainable community disappear.
Liberal Democrat MPs tabled an early-day motion in Westminster in September 1998 to campaign for rural post offices to be given the equipment to process automated benefit payments through the use of swipe cards. That would have helped rural post offices. Will Mr Morgan comment on the fact that no SNP MPs bothered to sign that motion?
If one of those Liberal Democrat MPs had brought that motion to my attention, I would gladly have supported it. That is a cheap point.
We are all keen for rural post offices to survive and prosper. I do not think that the transfer to the automated payments system will be good for the post offices. If the Government is determined to go down that route, to save costs to the social security budget, it must give a commitment to subsidise rural post offices. So far, that commitment has not been given. All that the Government has said is that it will perhaps allow time for the post offices to seek alternative businesses. All members know that, in many rural areas, there is little alternative business to be had. That would be the final nail in the coffin for many of our rural communities.
Electronic commerce is one area in which the rural economy can compete on a level playing field with the urban economy. I ask the Executive to ensure that a strategy is in place whereby the development of e-commerce is regarded as a key building block in the growth of the rural economy.
I conclude by quoting the former Secretary of State for Scotland, from his foreword to the Scottish Office document that was issued a year ago, "Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland". He said that the Government recognised its
"commitment to sustain vibrant local communities in rural and remote areas."
If a straw poll were taken at the moment, in our rural and remote areas, I do not think that the Government would receive a pass mark. Our vibrant rural communities are vital to the health and well-being of the whole Scottish nation; if we are still to have them, they must be one of our main priorities in the months and years to come.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the drastic effects of the agricultural recession which has been exacerbated by successive governments' ineptitude over matters such as BSE, Beef on the Bone, the present difficulties in pig farming and the failure to secure European help for hill farmers; acknowledges that there is now a crisis in rural Scotland and that it is being made worse by the continuing effect of the fuel price escalator, the decline of rural public transport, the shortage of affordable rural housing and the failure to support successfully Scotland's tourist industry, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to devise a real and effective rural strategy which could command the backing not only of the whole Parliament but also of the whole of Scotland.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the motion that has been moved by Alasdair Morgan. With one or two minor exceptions—and I say that constructively—there are many areas on which we find common ground.
It is important that we question Government policies, as, in the past, our rural areas have not received sufficient attention. That is not to say that previous Governments entirely ignored rural areas; it is just that I do not think that they gave them enough attention. It is my view, and the view of the Executive, that that approach must change. As Alasdair Morgan says, Scotland has its own Parliament, and it is right that this body should reflect the balance of Scottish interests. Alasdair did not give a figure, but 89 per cent of Scotland's landmass is designated rural, and almost a third of our fellow Scots live in rural areas. The focus of political debate must change to reflect that.
That is why the Executive has gone out of its way, in its first few months, to emphasise the rural agenda. For the first time in the UK, there is a rural affairs department and a minister with responsibility for overseeing the whole rural agenda. Alasdair mentioned the partnership document. Yes, we committed ourselves to addressing the problems to which he referred, and we understand that that document must be translated into action. That is not a pledge that I take lightly. We are working, throughout the programme of government, to ensure that the rural dimension is included at every point.
We remain committed to supporting the
progress of the University of the Highlands and Islands and to investigating the creation of a south of Scotland university. We will publish a social inclusion strategy that will not be focused entirely on urban areas, as happened in the past, but will have a rural dimension. We are working closely with enterprise bodies to develop a food strategy that will not only embrace the central Scotland interest in processing, but will bring into play the primary producers who live and work in our remote rural areas.
Since May, we have spent a lot of time seeking different ways in which we can address some of those problems. The SNP motion talks about a crisis in rural areas, but that does not apply all round. We must be careful about using such language. We do not want to play down the problems that people in rural areas face, but nor do we want to diminish the contribution that those people make. We should be proud of the large part of our country outside our congested urban centres that is designated rural. Members who have rural constituencies will know that there are many energetic, imaginative and successful people living and working in rural Scotland. The job of the Executive is to recognise the problems, but also to harness the talents and natural resources that exist in rural areas.
There are things that we want to improve on, but we should not forget that, strangely enough, the population of rural areas has increased over the past eight years. Moreover, unemployment remains below the national average, although we must not underestimate the problems of growing underemployment. We should identify and build on those strengths. As Alasdair said, we have often fallen into the trap of comparing rural and urban areas and of seeing rural areas as different or as something apart. We must look at Scotland as a whole and recognise that many of our mainstream policies also affect rural areas.
I do not know whether people in other parts of the United Kingdom feel that rural areas are not important, but that is certainly not the view in Scotland. Our rural areas should be seen as an integral part of the country and I believe that we should make more of them. In world trading terms, they are a priceless asset on which we should build.
We should not deny the problems, and I want to mention some of the points that Alasdair raised about the primary sector. A month ago, I talked about the difficulties that farmers face and I explained what the Executive was doing to address the situation in the short term and in the medium-to-longer term. There are no easy solutions to some of the problems, but it is nonsense to suggest, as the SNP motion does, that the European Commission is not helping hill farmers. Having seen all the evidence, I do not think that there is any basis for such a claim. We are all bitterly disappointed that the Commission failed to approve a cull ewe scheme, but we should consider the aid package that is available to hill farmers through the common agricultural policy. On top of that, I was able to announce £40 million in additional funding. The hill farmers will be the main beneficiaries of that.
Scottish farmers will also benefit from the new money that they will receive in the next few days to compensate them for the relative weakness of the euro. Sheep farmers were recently given £7.3 million in compensation and, over the next few days, £6.4 million will be paid to beef farmers and £19 million will be paid to the arable sector. That will not solve the industry's problems, but Europe is not abandoning the hill farmers.
Alasdair was right to point out that the pig sector is experiencing extreme problems at the moment. I am concerned that all the work that the Scottish pig industry initiative did on marketing, which for a brief period gave a differential to pigmeat in Scotland, appears to have been swept away so that we are now trading at a commodity price that is deeply damaging to the pig sector in Scotland.
With ministerial colleagues throughout the United Kingdom, I tried to find out whether we would be able to give direct compensation to the pig sector. We are running up against a brick wall in trying to get state aid, but I do not want any member to believe that we are not pressing hard for it. The pig sector is perhaps in a worse situation than are our other livestock sectors because the rules that govern it specify that there should be light regulation. That makes it even more difficult to overcome the already high hurdle of securing state aid.
We are still consulting on how to tackle misleading labelling and I hope that that will assist the sector. Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question, I announced that £5 million is being made available for additional marketing. Scotland will get its share of that and we are discussing with the industry how it will be used.
People feel that successive Administrations have been talking about the need for better labelling for a long time. Progress in the area seems to be excessively slow.
I share that concern. We are tackling the matter in two ways. There are problems with trying to tackle the matter through Europe, because the Commission does not exactly move swiftly. The purpose of the regulatory change that I announced last week is to address the problem that people can legally import produce into this country, process it and then
claim that it is Scottish. That is what it is competent for us to do in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. I take the point that we must go further than that on the labelling issue, but I hope that our initiative will go some way towards dealing with the matter.
In view of the collapsed pig market, we have again asked Europe to reinstate private storage aid. I hope that that discussion will be reopened, because the facts that caused that aid to be withdrawn are now completely different. I have also asked that all Executive ministries in Scotland ensure—as far as they can without interfering with competitive tendering—that pork and pigmeat of the high quality that is manufactured in Scotland is the preferred choice throughout all Government departments. I have made a similar request to our local authorities.
The continuing French ban on UK beef exports is a difficult, serious problem, which has been confused in the press. We must remember that it was all started by the French equivalent of the food standards agency saying that it believed that there was new evidence to suggest that the way in which we were treating BSE was unsatisfactory. That report was, unsurprisingly, endorsed by the French premier, Monsieur Jospin. We are now in a position where a Prime Minister has endorsed his own committee; we must work out how we get out of that.
We are greatly encouraged by the fact that the scientific steering committee delivered a resounding yes to the date-based export scheme. That committee's findings did not, however, ensure that a French Government, which had been hoist by its own petard, was going to give way instantly. I assure members that I was involved in discussions and that I was well aware of the possibility that we might have to discuss giving the French further assurance on technical matters if that meant that we would get out of this logjam.
Could the minister advise us whether the French food standards agency regards it as healthy and acceptable to produce meat using some of the disgusting feeding practices that go on in relation to French produce? If not, why not?
That question is more properly directed at the food standards agency in France. I do not know that I have either the authority or the competence to answer that.
With respect—
What is important is that we deal with the substantial point about getting British beef back into Europe. The substantial point is—I repeat—that no compromises have been contemplated or made. We are seeking to break the logjam and it is the Executive's view—in discussion with UK ministers—that if our giving the French assurances on technical matters enables them to lift the ban instantly, that is a much better and more progressive way of dealing with the problem.
If that does not work and the French remain obdurate, we are in for protracted legal discussions. That will not do Scottish beef one bit of good. We have taken the view that, if we can, we want to solve this problem as quickly as possible. We are wholly supported by Commissioner Byrne, who has indicated that he wishes to see France's further considerations concluded by Thursday. If that happens, we expect that that will lead to an early resolution of the matter.
Time is precious, so I will move on to other issues. The SNP suggests that the Executive has failed to support successfully Scotland's tourism industry. I recognise that industry's importance—it is worth around £2.5 billion annually and supports around 177,000 jobs. The Executive has demonstrated its commitment by promising to launch a new strategy for the industry by January 2000. That strategy was subject to a wide and highly successful consultation exercise during August and September, which was made more valuable by the fact that many of the submissions came from the sharp end of the industry.
I am obliged to the minister for giving way. Does he agree with the remarks made by Tom Buncle, chief executive of the Scottish Tourist Board, at a major tourism conference a week or so ago? He said that the fuel duty escalator was damaging tourism because it increased the costs of transport and that it was especially damaging tourism in the Highlands and Islands.
I had a meeting with Mr Buncle last Wednesday at which that was one of a number of matters that he raised. I will come back to the point on the fuel escalator in a moment.
It will have to be a moment.
The key issue is not just the fuel escalator but accessibility—to shops, to work, to medical services and so on, all of which can cause problems in rural areas. That is why we have added a distinctive rural dimension to our social inclusion partnerships.
We have taken action to help address the distinctive transport needs of rural areas: £14 million over the next three years for rural transport; 350 new or improved public transport services; and funding for 53 community transport schemes across rural Scotland. That remains a priority for
us.
The Executive fully recognises the deep concerns in rural Scotland about high fuel prices. I assure members that my ministerial colleagues are making the extent and nature of that problem very clear to our colleagues down south and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of Scotland's problems and the difficulties in its economy, both broadly and specifically in relation to the tourism industry. I assure members that the interests of Scotland's rural communities are firmly on the agenda in Westminster and in Whitehall.
The SNP motion refers to the shortage of affordable rural housing. That is a matter that we, too, are taking seriously—we are ensuring that 18,000 new and improved homes will be built over the next three years.
Post offices are a reserved matter. However, after the white paper was published, I arranged a meeting with the Post Office Counters Ltd manager for Scotland. While I share concern about the problems that could arise as a result of benefits being paid by automated transfer, I was much encouraged by the commitment that the Post Office showed in that document and in that meeting to introduce technology in every post office, including rural post offices. That will give post offices the opportunity to act as a banking service, which may result in their retaining some of the custom that, as was rightly pointed out, could otherwise be lost. I intend to keep pressing that matter with Post Office Counters Ltd and I am glad that the point was made.
There is no real substance in the SNP motion. The Tory amendment is extraordinary, as all it seeks to do is to absolve the Conservatives of responsibility for the BSE crisis. [MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that the Tories will confine their remarks to that point, as it seems to be the only point that they want to make.
I move amendment S1M-242.2, to leave out from "drastic" to end and insert:
"difficulties being faced by the agriculture industry; endorses the principle contained in the Partnership for Scotland agreement of working to support and enhance rural life and the rural economy; commends the steps already taken by the Scottish Executive to achieve these aims; and supports the Executive in its determination to promote long-term sustainable development, both in the agriculture industry and throughout rural Scotland."
I draw attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which shows that I make my living as a farmer.
I congratulate the SNP on introducing this matter as opposition business. It was a disappointment to members of every party that the time allowed for the previous debate, on the Executive motion, was so short. It was noted throughout the farming community that so little time and interest in their plight was shown by some members.
It gives me great pleasure to address the accusation Ross Finnie has levelled at us. In fact, the amendment was lodged partially for the reason Ross Finnie suggested: we deny responsibility for much of what we are accused of in the SNP motion. Some of what appears in it is not only divisive in political terms, it is divisive in industry terms, in that it singles out certain areas of the rural economy and the farming industry for special attention, while ignoring others that may be in a similar, or perhaps worse, condition. For that reason, we were delighted to take the opportunity to amend the motion—but only partially, because we agree with much of it.
We hope that our amendment has distilled the SNP motion so that it can enjoy the support of every party in the chamber. We commend the amendment to the chamber.
That is a short speech, then [Laughter.]
It is a good one and it will get better.
I agree.
I must move on to the minister's amendment. If we were being accused of avoiding responsibility for what some might think ought to be our responsibility—
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
I would be delighted.
To pursue your line of absolving yourself from any responsibility, do you agree with William Waldegrave, who stated on a television programme the other night that he was ashamed of the Major Government's handling of the BSE crisis? He said that the Major Government turned the BSE crisis into an anti-European crusade to satisfy Eurosceptic back benchers.
Do you agree with that sentiment?
I do not have to agree with anything.
I have been a member of the
Conservative party for approximately 17 years and I have rarely, if ever, agreed with William Waldegrave. [Laughter.]
The minister's amendment is an example of a member of this Parliament trying to absolve himself of some responsibility. We are absolving ourselves in equal measure. The minister's amendment will be viewed in Scotland, particularly rural Scotland, as complacent. It fails to recognise the extent of the crisis that is facing rural Scotland and its primary industries. The tone adopted by the SNP motion reflects, more than does the minister's amendment, the view that is held in rural Scotland: that our rural industries and economy are now at breaking point. We must seriously examine how we address those matters in future.
As an aside, I draw to members' attention an article by Dan Buglass in today's business section of The Scotsman. He says that the farming-related suicide rate in Scotland has almost doubled since last year. That shows the stress and emotional pressure that is being placed on those who work in rural Scotland. The figures show the serious trouble in which the rural economy finds itself. That is why I believe the Executive's amendment is dangerously complacent.
We must address the key points that affect the rural economy. Since Labour came to power two and a half years ago, incomes in rural Scotland have halved—and halved again. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have blamed the farming crisis on everything and everyone apart from themselves. After two and a half years of a Labour Government in Westminster, responsibility must begin to move to the incumbent Government. The Executive here must also carry some responsibility.
Is Mr Johnstone absolving the previous Tory Government of any responsibility for the crisis in agriculture? Is he saying that the crisis began in May 1997?
The situation that rural Scotland finds itself in today has developed over a considerable period of time. The Liberal Democrats have chosen to take the view that the crisis was caused entirely prior to 1997. That is the view that Mr Rumbles has often expressed in the chamber and it is one the Conservatives must put up a defence against.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
No, I will move on quickly with the points that I have to make, as time is limited.
The Scottish Executive and the Labour Government in Westminster have implemented unprecedented regulation and taxation on farming and the farming industry.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
No.
Will Mr Johnstone point—
Mr Finnie, Mr Johnstone has not given way. Please carry on, Mr Johnstone.
The Government has allowed the importation of food that does not match the standards expected of British farmers. It is failing to fight for the interests of our farmers on the international stage. The continuing fiasco of the French and German beef bans is an example of that. The Government is attacking the countryside with an unhelpful barrage of irresponsible policies that include land reform, which could be the one that we find ourselves dealing with most in the next few months.
We must consider the importance of various industries to the rural economy in Scotland. The farming industry employs 69,000 people directly and up to 200,000 jobs are partially dependent on it. Scottish farming has suffered much more from price reductions than its EU competitors. British ex-farm prices have fallen by almost 30 per cent over three years, compared with the EU average of 10 per cent.
Scottish farming is in its worst state since the 1930s. Average farm income last year was only £400.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
I will give him this opportunity.
Is the inference to be drawn from the economic facts that Mr Johnstone has given that he is about to disclose that he wants a devaluation of the pound? That seems to be the inference that is to be drawn from his remarks. Has there been a serious change in Conservative policy?
I am delighted that Ross Finnie is thinking so far ahead. The inference that is to be drawn from my comments is that interest rates in the UK are too high. Compared with the European average, a greater burden is placed on the British farmer.
The strength of sterling has placed enormous pressure on farmers in the UK and Scotland. The increase in transport costs, which has been dealt with at great length by the SNP in proposing the motion, is an example of how a tax measure can deliberately hit hardest those who are most distant from the centre of their markets. That has caused enormous damage to Scottish rural industries, including farming, tourism and many others.
The loss of value of our livestock and their by- products has resulted in a collapse in the value of the farming industry's produce. Many of the above costs are a result of differential Government
legislation and regulation in the UK and Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No, not at this point. The strength of sterling is the biggest problem we face, and the artificially high interest rates that I mentioned a moment ago are the primary cause of that. That is why we need to take every opportunity to ensure that the chancellor has our words ringing in his ears when in future he considers his advice to the monetary policy committee.
The Scottish Conservative approach is to give our farmers a chance by introducing comprehensive product labelling to safeguard and reward our farmers' high animal welfare and production standards. In the United Kingdom and in Scotland, there is a desire for quality of production in our farming industry. However, if we impose standards that are higher than those imposed in other parts of the single market, we must give our farmers the opportunity of a genuine premium over their foreign competition. To achieve that, we must be able to differentiate the products that are produced under UK or Scottish conditions from those that are produced to lower standards in other parts of Europe.
For that reason, the issue of labelling is of the highest priority. It is essential that we make whatever progress we can on getting to a stage where country-of-origin labelling for food products in the United Kingdom covers all products that are imported from other European countries. We need to know that when we buy Scottish we are buying something that is produced in Scotland, and that when we buy something labelled as being from another European country we are buying something that was produced to that country's standards.
We need action to root out unfair and illegal subsidies. We need to ensure that other countries that choose to support their industries in their own way are not allowed to continue to give them the unfair advantage that they have at the moment.
Does the member agree that Scottish farmers are the only farmers in Europe who pay for veterinary inspection certificates, which in other European countries are paid for by the state? Would he like the same to apply here?
Very much so.
Alasdair Morgan dealt at length with the difficulties of our pig farmers. I would like to endorse everything he said, although I would also like to draw his attention—
Will the member give way?
Mr Johnstone, you are in your last minute.
I am afraid that I cannot give way; I am coming to a close.
I would also like to draw Alasdair Morgan's attention to the position in which our dairy farmers find themselves. There are many farmers throughout Scotland who have experienced a massive collapse in their income. Over the years, dairy farming has occasionally been subjected to the jibe that it is the one sector of our industry that never seems to hit financial problems. Last week, the Parliament received a representation from dairy farmers, who told us that farms that only three years ago were making a comfortable profit are today losing money.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but no—I am about to finish.
Many smaller farmers, especially in the west of Scotland, will be driven to a point at which they can no longer continue. I want to emphasise the difficulties of the dairy industry not because I am a dairy farmer—I come from a different part of the country that may not experience the same problems—but because we need to consider the plight of small farmers in the west.
Every day, I hear about long-established farming families who can no longer make a profit doing the work they have done for generations. All over Scotland, men and women—some of whom are at or beyond retiring age—are in such a financial predicament that they have no option but to continue working long hours and seven-day weeks because the value of their stock and machinery, traditionally the farmer's pension fund, will no longer cover the cost of a dignified retreat from a lifetime's work. A farmer whose objective is to earn a decent living wage is only trying to achieve the same thing as any working man.
There are different strategies for coping with mounting losses in a farm business. Some farmers run down their capital investment programme, others borrow increasingly from the banks, others—myself included—have found alternative paid employment. Many do all three.
There can be no doubt that time is running out. The people of rural Scotland have high expectations of this Parliament. The Rural Affairs Committee has demonstrated that it is possible for politicians to work together in the interests of rural Scotland without party political problems coming between us.
The amendment, which I am delighted to move, captures the mood of the people in rural Scotland and I commend it to the Parliament.
I move amendment S1M-242.1, to leave out from first "which" to "farmers".
While the Liberal Democrats welcome this second major debate on the crisis in Scottish agriculture, we believe that the motion is not helpful in addressing the problems that are affecting every sector of the industry—although Alasdair Morgan's comments were constructive.
We must not forget the complete ineptitude of the previous Tory Government. I must say that I am amazed at today's Tory amendment.
I remind Liberal Democrat members that the Government set up an inquiry into BSE in December 1997. Such is the complexity of the issues that the report, which was supposed to be made public by December 1998, is now being deferred until the middle of 2000. It was meant to be reporting to the Secretary of State for Scotland and there will not be a—
Come on. I have only a few minutes. Do not make a speech.
Why are the Liberal Democrats rushing to judgment before the inquiry makes the facts known?
I ask Mr McLetchie and other members to keep their interventions brief. Mr Rumbles, I will take into consideration the amount of time that intervention took.
The sooner we get the system of speaking times sorted out, the better. The Conservatives have 20 minutes to speak and we have only four.
The Liberal Democrats joined the Government. They have made their choice.
The Tory Government's mishandling of the BSE crisis helped to cause serious damage to the rural economy. It is wrong of the motion to imply that the Scottish Executive can be compared to the Conservative Government. The Executive partnership between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has established a department of rural affairs that is determined to address the problems in the rural environment in the round.
Ross Finnie is proving to be an excellent Minister for Rural Affairs and he has impressed many observers with his commitment and determination to address the problems. He called for a cull ewe scheme to relieve the crisis faced by Scottish hill farmers. The European Union blocked the move on competitiveness grounds, but that did not stop the Executive using half of the £40 million emergency package for Scottish farmers to assist the areas that need a ewe cull. He has announced the appointment of a business expert to study new marketing opportunities in the sheep farming industry and has confirmed an increase in funding for the initiative. He has announced the postponement of the proposed £7-a-head cattle passport scheme that was due to be implemented this autumn. I hope that that charge never sees the light of day.
While going around farms in my constituency, I have heard that the excessive bureaucracy that farmers face is a major concern. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto committed us to introducing an appeals procedure to deal with disputes over penalties for alleged inaccuracies in official returns and claim forms. That commitment was incorporated into the partnership agreement and I was pleased last month when the Minister for Finance confirmed that money is to be set aside to fund the procedure. That is a success.
The achievements of the partnership's rural policies should be recognised. I was pleased that Jim Walker, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, came to the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference last month and welcomed the constructive dialogue that his union has had with the Executive on all the issues that I have spoken about, among others.
The motion addresses many issues—I do not have time to address them all—but I hope that there will be some acknowledgement of the partnership's commitment to rural public transport. I had intended to list a few examples, but time is running short.
William Hague blames the EU for banning British beef. In fact, the EU countries are the only significant countries to have lifted the ban; most of the world still bans it. William Hague has called for a unilateral ban on French meat. Not only is that opposed by the NFU, it would be illegal, against the advice of scientists, start a tit-for-tat trade war and put at risk Britain's entire £10 billion European export market for food and drink. It would hit Scotland particularly badly and the north-east of Scotland worst of all.
The Tories do not understand that if they have nothing constructive to say, they should say nothing. For the sake of our rural communities, I urge members to reject the Tory amendment and the SNP motion, and to support the Executive's motion.
The important thing about the motion is that it seeks to unite rural and urban Scotland. In fact, it seeks to do what this Parliament is tasked to do. I
do not often quote Liberal Democrats with approval, but I want to quote Tavish Scott, speaking in the debate on the consultative steering group report. He said:
"There is still concern in areas such as Shetland"— the concern is shared throughout Scotland—
"that the Parliament will concentrate on the needs of the central belt, not on those of peripheral, rural and island areas. It is up to the Parliament to demonstrate that that is not the case and that there are ways in which peripheral, rural and island areas can be at the heart of what goes on in here."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol 1, c 387.]
We are all aware that the flow to urban Scotland is a phenomenon that took place in the late 18th century, throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century. Scotland had the fastest rate of industrialisation of any country in Europe in the 19th century. However, that flow has been reversed to some extent during the second half of the 20th century. Indeed, as Alasdair Morgan said, the population of rural Scotland is growing. Rural Scotland accounts for about 89 per cent of the Scottish land mass and about 29 per cent of the population. The population in Scotland's rural areas has been growing at a rate of up to 3 per cent, partly because it is easier to get to those areas; people can commute into towns and cities. In addition, many people desire—or find it necessary—to work and live in rural Scotland.
It is ironic that while the population is increasing, the problems of transport, housing, provision of utilities and education are deepening. I am glad that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee took the issue of rural schools on board yesterday and appointed Jamie Stone as a rapporteur. I hope that the Parliament can begin to make a difference on that issue and many of the other issues in rural Scotland.
There have been pioneers—including from the Labour movement—who have looked at the gulf between rural and urban Scotland and attempted to solve it. Two of my all-time heroes of the 20th century in Scotland are Tom Johnston and Bob Grieve. I worked for Bob Grieve at one stage. Both of them saw the necessity of uniting rural and urban Scotland and put substantial parts of their lives into achieving that aim. Bob Grieve memorably said that he would support an independent Scotland after the problems of Glasgow and the Highlands had been solved—a position similar to that taken by Edwin Muir in his Scottish journey in 1934.
We have to create unity in Scotland. The motion would achieve that. Tragically, that is not being done by the actions of this Government. Nor was it done by the actions of previous Governments. They are also guilty. The fuel price escalator is one example of policies that have deepened the gulf and made it more difficult for people to earn a living in rural Scotland and to have sustainable communities there. The Parliament is failing Scotland unless we see it as one of our primary duties to increase the ability—
Will Mr Russell give way?
No, I have only four minutes and I want to finish this point.
It is vital that we bring together urban and rural Scotland to make a united whole. This motion seeks to do that; it is a tragedy that the actions of the Executive and the previous Tory Government failed to do that. Crucially, they have failed to make a united whole in the agricultural industries. The Tory amendment is quite bizarre. The Tories are the guilty people. One of them—
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry—if Mr McLetchie is guilty, he will get the chance to make a plea in mitigation.
One of the Tories—I am very fond of him—was a minister in the Government that took those decisions.
Will the gentleman give way?
No. The Tories failed rural Scotland in the same way as this Administration is failing rural Scotland.
I am very fond of Mr Finnie, but there is something immensely perverse in putting such a charming accountant from Greenock in charge of the whole of rural Scotland and giving fisheries to a farmer from land-locked Berwickshire. Perhaps they are nervous that sitting behind them is a farmer from Bute whose ambition is to shepherd the Liberal Democrats and, in so doing, to make his way to the front bench.
Will the member give way?
This Administration has to take rural Scotland seriously. It may speak a good game, but it is not playing a good game. The difference between urban and rural Scotland is deepening day by day. There must be action—not the smug satisfaction of the Executive amendment or the Tories' attempt to evade responsibility. Action is what the Parliament is for and what the motion is about. I ask members to support it.
All sides in this debate recognise the central place of agriculture in the rural economy and agree that, if farming is in trouble, that is bad news for the countryside. Most members have recognised that agricultural policy alone is not enough and that
policies in areas such as housing and transport must recognise the particular needs of rural Scotland.
I was pleased that Alasdair Morgan said in his introduction that the essential interests of the country and the town are fundamentally the same—I think that Mike Russell echoed that view. That view is not always held by those who engage in political debate in Scotland. There is sometimes an attempt to pretend that there is an unbridgeable gap between the interests of the town and the country.
The view that there are common interests across Scotland and that agriculture is a key policy, but not the only policy, for rural development is fundamental to the Scottish Executive's programme for government. The Executive's policy is based on the recognition that although farming relates to the market, the sector benefits from very large sums of public money and the direction in which that money is invested has to be for the widest possible economic and environmental benefit. In the long term those interests are served by the policy to which the Executive has signed up.
Does Lewis Macdonald accept that the dairy and pig sectors do not receive any public funding?
I accept that and recognise the particular difficulties that are faced by those sectors. In the long term the solution to those problems is not simply to extend the scope of public subsidy willy-nilly. The emphasis must be shifted from production-based price support subsidies to a wider rural development focus. I believe that that is now happening.
It is inevitable that there will be changes in Scottish agriculture—the National Farmers Union and others recognise that. It is also true that, if farming is left entirely to the market, we will risk losing sectors such as the pig producer sector. We will also risk losing some small producers such as hill farmers, who in some ways are the most important custodians of the countryside. We must not rely simply on market mechanisms, but need active Government involvement in those areas.
I welcome what Ross Finnie said about the support the Executive provides for less favoured areas. I also applaud the commitment in the programme for government to increase spending on agricultural environmental measures and the commitment to introduce a long-term strategy to exploit Scotland's world-class research base in agricultural and biological sciences for the greater benefit of the rural economy.
Much good work is already done in those areas. For example, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute in Aberdeen works closely with the industry to put support for less favoured areas on a less intensive basis. I hope that our research strategy will continue to support such work, which is the way forward for many sectors of Scottish agriculture.
There are no easy or glib answers to the problems of Scottish agriculture. In the context of Agenda 2000, and working closely with the UK Government, the Executive's measures are the right steps to take. They will help us to meet present and future challenges to the agriculture sector in the context of rural development policy as a whole.
I support Alex Johnstone's amendment, but I am truly horrified by the Executive's amendment. How can we commend the steps that the Executive says that it has taken to help Scottish agriculture in rural Scotland? I suppose that it is referring to the so-called new money, the £40 million that it claims to have made available.
I want to show members part of that £40 million. I have in my hand what looks like a cheque book, but is in fact a British calf passport. Farmers use the passports to achieve traceability. The passport would cost our farmers £7, but as part of the new money package for agriculture, we are currently given it free. I am grateful for that until I look at the document that I have in my other hand, which is a Dutch cattle passport. The Dutch cattle passport costs the equivalent of £1.60. Either our system is far more expensive than that of the Dutch, or the value put on our cattle passports is exaggerated, to increase the size of the mythical compensation money.
Incidentally, the Dutch passport has a bar code and is extremely easy to use, whereas ours are bulky and old-fashioned in comparison. If members visit any beef suckler calf sale in the Highlands, they will see the extraordinary sight of farmers carrying huge shopping bags—even suitcases—containing the passports.
We have never had an agricultural crisis like this one. Since Labour came to power, the crisis has developed with incredible speed. Although farm prices have fallen all over the world, in Britain, we have had by far the worst experience. Sheep farmers have had to watch their ewes being sold for a few pence; their lambs have been sold for less than half what they were worth under the previous Administration. I would love to find a farmer who would not be happy to turn his clock back to 1996. Had farmers known what was going to happen to agriculture under the Labour-Liberal Democrat pact, most would have sold their farms and stock. However, there was no warning of the
speed of the collapse.
The Government has heaped masses of extremely costly red-tape rules and bureaucratic paper on to the bonfire that is consuming Scottish agriculture at an alarming rate. As I look at the Government benches, I wonder which guy will be on top of that bonfire tomorrow night. There will not be many fireworks in rural Scotland. To most of us who live there, it seems as if there is a plot to destroy rural life that is far more effective than anything conceived by Guy Fawkes.
Does Mr McGrigor accept that all the costs associated with cattle passports, the regulations and the shamble of paperwork arose from the Conservative Government's handling of the BSE crisis? If anyone is going to find himself at the top of that fire, it is the member.
If Mr Finnie is referring to me, I have no intention of being on top of any fire.
We are looking to the future; surely we shall not spend today discussing the BSE crisis all over again. We want to do something positive for rural Scotland. All I suggested was that we might have a slightly cheaper method of traceability, as farmers in other countries seem to have.
Does Mr McGrigor think that it would be appropriate for the minister to increase the price of cattle passports to £20 or £30, so that he could tell us that he was giving us a much higher level of support?
That is an interesting point. It had not occurred to me, but it is quite true.
You will have to come to a close, Mr McGrigor.
I would like to refer briefly to the agricultural business improvement scheme— something else that is being done to help hill- farming businesses. In February, Lord Sewel said in a statement that, whatever happened, there would be enough money to fulfil all the ABIS plans. He encouraged hill farmers to take up the scheme. One condition is that planning must be done and paid for before the application is accepted, the money being refunded later by the Government. I will tell members what has happened: the applications amount to some £13 million, but there is only £1.2 million in the kitty to pay farmers.
Will you wind up now, Mr McGrigor?
That is not new money. That is old money which has disappeared. I sincerely hope that the Executive will honour Lord Sewel's pledge and its own commitment to the ABIS.
I would also like to ask the Executive about its plans for next year's hill livestock compensatory allowances, now that the European Commission has agreed on a one-year transition period to an area-based scheme. The industry must know in advance, so that it can budget and plan.
On a point of order.
It appears that, although the price of lambs is even lower than last year—
Mr McGrigor, we have a point of order.
On a point of order. With respect, much as I am enjoying what Mr McGrigor is saying, he is into his sixth minute.
Mr McGrigor, you have been asked twice already. Please come to a close on the sentence that you are on.
Certainly. It appears that although the price of lambs is even lower than last year, the sheep annual premium, which is meant to be a safety valve for farmers, will be lower than last year. Can the Executive please explain that?
The Highlands and Islands of Scotland cover a land mass that is larger than either Belgium or Denmark. Despite making Herculean efforts, some of us in that area are unable to forget Margaret Thatcher. She decided on one occasion to canvass in the Highlands and Islands during a political campaign. After the experience, she said that she had visited the whole of the Highlands, and had had a marvellous day. If I may be so bold, she did not have an acutely developed sense of irony. But the point is made that the problems of the Highlands and Islands were not appreciated during those wilderness years; nor are they appreciated in the years of her successor—and, indeed, her new hero—Mr Blair.
The gravest problem facing the Highlands and Islands today is, in my view, the fuel duty escalator. I was pleased to hear that that has been recognised by Ross Finnie. After having made numerous points about the damaging effect of the fuel duty escalator, which is having such a grievous effect on Scotland's economy and jobs, Ross Finnie said that he recognised the deep sense of feeling that exists. I agree with that. I was also pleased to note that Sarah Boyack stated recently that she recognises that public transport is not available in many parts of rural Scotland and that the car is the only way to travel. The car is, of course, a necessity, not a luxury, especially in the Highlands and Islands.
The effect of the fuel duty escalator covers virtually every walk of life, for individuals and
businesses alike. Earlier I mentioned Tom Buncle, who is the chief executive of the Scottish Tourist Board. He spoke out against the escalator. In Inverness, when the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee visited, Iain Robertson of Highlands and Islands Enterprise said that the fuel duty escalator was prejudicing the economy of the Highlands and Islands.
I hope that John Home Robertson, from whom we might hear later, will say whether he accepts Iain Robertson's suggestion that the fuel duty tax that is raised in extreme rural areas in the Highlands and Islands could be paid back and invested in public transport provision. That was a specific proposal, which I am offering the Executive. I see George Lyon nodding, which is unusual for him, so presumably the Liberal Democrats agree, but does the Labour party agree that that idea should be taken forward? I hope that the minister will address that.
My constituent Donald Watt's business was sacrificed by Mr Blair's fuel duty policy, and we lost his jobs in Aviemore. I have spoken to many hauliers throughout the Highlands and Islands who have told me that, if the escalator is applied next spring, their businesses will fold.
I have spoken to many people, including a couple from the Cabrach who are both on low incomes and require two cars to travel to and from work. Those people told me that Mrs Thatcher imposed a poll tax on Scotland and that the poll tax was the same for millionaires and crofters; however, in the Highlands and Islands, we have to pay higher petrol prices than Tony Blair's chums, the Confederation of British Industry bosses. Furthermore, we have to pay higher petrol tax, which means that the fuel duty escalator is simply Labour's Highland poll tax.
Scotland does not want just quango bosses such as Tom Buncle and Iain Robertson, who are constrained from speaking out in public as they are not allowed to hold party political views, to object to the fuel duty escalator; the country wants the Labour party to vote against the policy. We are all fed up with the spectacle of Labour MSPs looking down at their desks when the SNP tells the truth about Scotland. The fuel duty escalator is a ligature that is strangling Scotland's economy, and the Highlands will be the first part of the country to die of asphyxiation.
Although the SNP motion calls for strategic plans for rural areas, no SNP member has offered a long-term vision for the rural economy. A strategy needs analysis and it must be realised that developments take time; they are built step by step over a period of years.
The farming crisis cannot be minimised; it is profound. However, the beef-on-the-bone ban will be lifted relatively soon. Last Saturday, I spoke to a number of crofters who were wondering whether they could access funding and support for horticulture, organic farming and marketing and environmental initiatives. The Executive is addressing all those issues.
As for the tourism industry, I have both the text of Tom Buncle's speech and the SNP's press release about it, and I find that the two documents do not match. Members should quote accurately from speeches. Tom Buncle did not mention the phrase "seriously damaging", as Fergus Ewing alleges. The SNP should not over-egg the pudding as it tends to do.
I have a copy of the speech here.
I am talking about the SNP's press release after the tourism conference.
Highlands fuel prices are a serious matter. Every Highlands MSP is campaigning to get something done about the differential. Furthermore, David Stewart, the MP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, has been in the forefront of that campaign. Fergus Ewing has come very late to the debate. When I asked him on the hustings in Inverness about SNP policy on the differential in fuel prices, he replied that he would monitor the situation. That is wonderful. However, we can all monitor things. The Executive is getting something done by, for example, asking the Office of Fair Trading to examine the matter.
I am not taking any interventions.
The subject must be thoroughly examined, and we think we know what has caused the differential in fuel prices.
As for information and communications technology, it is a pity that Alasdair Morgan was not among the MSPs who attended the University of the Highlands and Islands presentation on Tuesday night. Through ICT and a partnership involving learning centres in all remote Highlands areas and various colleges, the university system is providing higher education in subjects such as tourism, business and environmental studies, which will benefit the Highlands and bring knowledge and confidence to remote rural areas. Those areas have never had people with such expertise and skills before.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. I do not
have time, as I have only a few seconds left.
When one thinks of how much Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has done for the south of Skye, think how much a similar college could do for Islay. The way forward is education and training. The networks are there and the European structural funds and the special funds won by Tony Blair—who, yes, is a great hero of mine—are putting in place systems of education and training and infrastructure that will bring the Highlands into the 21st century.
There are threats and opportunities. I want to draw the Executive's attention to some developments in the crusade for organic farming in Britain, based, in part, on Austria's experience, where 30 per cent of farming has been converted to organic farming.
In Wales, a report has been produced and placed before the Welsh Assembly. At Westminster, there has been an early-day motion on setting organic targets in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Scottish Organic Producers Association and the Soil Association will meet during the coming months to discuss a proposition for a report similar to the Welsh one, to place before the Executive. I want to urge the Executive and the Parliament in advance to give that report their most serious consideration. We hope that it will contain a way for at least 30 per cent of Scotland's farmers to move forward into a growing market and economic prosperity and a way to improve Scotland's environment. Those are the opportunities, but there are also threats.
I draw the attention of the Executive and the Parliament to the fact that my motion on genetically modified crops has slipped off the end of the shelf yet again. I will resubmit it for the third and, I hope, the lucky time. The motion will be reworded to include field trials in the hope of attracting SNP signatures, as I read in yesterday's edition of The Scotsman that the SNP is committed to opposing any extension of field trials in Scotland. I hope that all SNP members will support the motion, at least in that respect.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to contribute; you will note that my speech took less than two minutes.
I intend to speak for a lot longer than two minutes.
The Government has told us a great deal about its interest in rural Scotland. That interest does not appear to be backed up by the attendance of Labour members today, which, frankly, is disgraceful. Mr Finnie is leading from the front, but there are not many of dad's army behind him today.
I would be interested to know how the long-term sustainability of the rural economy, which is mentioned in the Government's amendment, and Mr Finnie's comments about his desire to reward creativity sit with the issue of the agricultural business improvement scheme, which Mr McGrigor raised. Lord Sewel said in February that the costs of the ABIS would be met in full. Farmers, many of whom were down to their lowest reserves, decided to invest in that promise and to trust in what the Government said, even though they had been let down before. Many farmers have gone to great expense, putting in up to £2,000 or £3,000 of their hard-earned resources. Now, despite the Government's promise, we discover that the costs of the scheme are not to be met in full. It is a shambles. It is a crying shame that, on the one occasion that the farmers needed the Government to stand up for them, the Government has let them down again.
There has been a lack of action on the crisis in sheep farming. I understand the problems that the Government has in dealing with Europe, which seem to be endemic to the new Labour project. However, we must expect a more strategic vision than we have had thus far. I do not necessarily dispute that it is useful to have industrial input or think that assistance from an expert is a bad thing, but it raises a question in my mind. Why is Mr Finnie drawing £70,000 for a company car if he does not have the strategic vision to contribute to the debate? I have never heard the minister intervene to give such strategic vision.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The other thing that the farmers want is a reduction in many of the additional costs that they currently face, costs that are not faced by their European counterparts for exactly the same product.
I suggest to the minister that if he really wants to stand up for Scottish farming, it is about levelling that playing field. He talks the talk but is not prepared to deliver when it comes down to it. I want to see issues addressed, such as the costs of veterinary inspections and of having spinal cord removed. They are vital to the farming industry, and I want to hear in the Executive's summation what specific proposals there are for reducing the red tape and for lifting the additional burden that it is imposing.
Because this is an SNP debate, it would be unfair if we did not give a few thoughts on our vision for the Highlands and Islands. There is
something to be positive about. Mr Morgan was right: e-commerce and the challenges of the internet can and should be adopted by the Highlands and Islands with the greatest speed. That is perhaps the one mechanism for overcoming the physical barriers to transport that the Highlands and Islands face.
None the less, although I welcome projects such as the electronic Islay project, on which British Telecommunications is working in partnership with the local community, that does not absolve the Government from all its responsibility. There are still major problems to be faced in the area.
For example, what will be the enterprise structure's reaction to the need for an increase in the scale of companies? If a company decides to enter the world of e-commerce, and needs rapidly to increase the scale and scope of its operation, what support will be given by the enterprise boards? Thus far, in my direct discussions with the enterprise companies, I have not been particularly enthused about the vision—or lack of vision—that they are showing. That support must be given, and should dovetail with the efforts of people in the communities.
The support does not remove some of the remaining additional costs, for example, high ferry prices, which cripple the Highlands and Islands economy, even though, in 1992, the Scottish Office produced its own research showing that a reduction in ferry fares would not only have a massively beneficial economic spin-off for both ends of the various routes, but would mean that more money was made on the specific ferry route.
That research has been done. The Executive does not need to do any more of the thinking, but would it please start to implement the reduction in ferry fares that all our island and rural communities want? While the ministers are at it, perhaps they could finally publish the Government's findings on the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route and on the Clyde ferries, an issue that is now becoming a running sore. They should end that saga and ensure that we can finally achieve the regeneration of the Highlands and Islands that is so badly needed.
I do not think that there is any doubt that there are real issues concerning rural communities. The problems are worsened by remoteness, often from essential services. The Government recognises those problems, and is taking active measures to tackle them.
Many of the issues raised in the SNP motion are central to the needs of all Scotland. I took on board Ross Finnie's point that it is perhaps time that we looked across urban and rural aspects and tried to look at need in a more integrated way.
Some of the issues raised in the SNP motion are dependable public transport, affordable housing and the regeneration of communities, right across rural and urban areas. The Executive is working to find realistic solutions to those problems in both rural and urban settings. Only last week, the public transport fund delivered a £26 million boost, with a substantial part of that going to rural areas. It includes the park-and-ride scheme in Aberdeenshire and the new, larger ferry for the Corran ferry service in the Highlands: both try to improve access in rural areas.
I take issue with the suggestion in the motion that the coalition is not working towards an effective rural strategy. The Scottish Executive is setting up plan teams to develop the new rural development programmes for 2000 to 2006. They involve the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and others. It is an inclusive and co-ordinated approach to rural development.
Representing the Stirling constituency, I have a particular interest in rural development. I can tell Mr Hamilton that I am totally committed, as a Labour MSP, to my rural areas, and I attend every debate on rural issues that I can.
Along with West Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute, Stirling Council is involved in the interim committee charged with developing the park plan for the first national park in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, a matter that I wish to deal with during the last few minutes of my speech.
The process of generating the park plan holds potential for developing a policy for effective rural development that will bring great benefit to our area. The development will provide us with the opportunity for integrating economic development with proper protection of natural heritage and it will have sustainability at its heart.
The Loch Lomond and Trossachs interim committee has been established along with four reporting groups, most of which have begun to meet, which are examining the following areas: recreation, access and visitor services; natural and cultural heritage; agriculture, forestry and field sports; and social and economic development. The groups are forums for debate and bring together individuals and organisations with common interests. It will be interesting to see how the groups might mesh across boundaries and how they might bring to the debate some of the issues on rural housing and so on.
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I have only a short time.
The association of community councils is represented as a fifth reporting group and is taking an active part in the discussions. The process should be welcomed, as it is trying to involve local communities in local decisions and is attempting to be transparent and inclusive. The resulting park plan must take account of the existing structure and local plans for Stirling and the other council areas. While that will not be easy, that is one of the aims of the process. The ambition and scale of the project is to be welcomed as it recognises local resources as a valuable investment for that rural community. Empowerment is a key issue.
My particular interest in telecommunications masts has been rewarded, as the interim committee has taken on board article 4 directives to stop permitted developments within the national park area.
However, not everything is running smoothly. An east of Scotland European consortium report says that there are several areas that we need to investigate and that
"further strategic co-ordination of development efforts is required to maintain and establish diversified rural economies".
Wind up, please.
I am winding up.
The report also refers to the fact that flexibility is needed in rural development. As Ross Finnie said, there is a recognition of the need for a greater emphasis on the rural agenda, which is also recognised in the partnership document.
Please come to a close.
The Scottish Executive is making a concerted effort to tackle the problem. I urge members to support the Executive's amendment.
Out of no disrespect to the primacy of strictly agricultural issues in this debate, nevertheless I wish to address some of the other aspects of the motion that have not yet featured heavily.
Rural housing is one such issue. I was once the convener of the Kyle and Carrick District Council's housing committee, which had an important strategy of developing affordable housing in the area. I want to share my experience of a particular difficulty that I encountered in attempting to facilitate a development in the village of Dunure through a housing association, of which I am now a member, and Scottish Homes.
Dunure was a rather difficult village in which to develop housing, but there was a high demand for affordable housing. It is in a scenic location where the National Trust would allow development only in restricted areas because of a conservation order. We found a site that had planning approval and a willing landlord. We did not experience difficulties in persuading landlords to provide sites for affordable housing. Our problem was with Scottish Homes. When it came to developing that particular site, we found that, given its location, the infrastructure costs were well in excess of the guidelines that Scottish Homes operates, even in rural areas.
The result was that that development, which otherwise stacked up, did not take place and the piece of ground lies undeveloped. One day, it will be economical and attractive for a private sector developer to develop on it and the only conceivable site for affordable housing in the village will be lost. How many instances are there in rural Scotland where that degree of financial inflexibility inhibits development and rules out the possibility, in planning terms, of acceptable expansions to rural settlements where affordable housing could be created to meet local need?
Devolution has provided the opportunity to focus on such difficulties and ministers have time to focus on the details. Given that, I like to think that the Executive might be willing to examine the role of Scottish Homes to determine how it allocates its funding and whether there are flexibilities in the Scottish Homes regime that might facilitate a more varied and constructive approach to providing rural housing.
My second point about Scottish Homes is that it is the key player. In almost all parts of Scotland, affordable housing cannot proceed unless a funding mechanism exists and, almost invariably, that funding mechanism means Scottish Homes. When the Government progresses its national housing partnership proposals, I hope that the funding priority for rural housing development that has existed for the past two or three years— indeed, it goes back further than that—is not lost. I do not minimise the importance of new strategies in built and urban areas and of tackling the problems of the major conurbations, but in adopting and embracing those new priorities, it is essential that we should not lose sight of the old priorities. Rural housing must remain an important part of the Executive's policy.
Not much has been said on rural transport, but I will mention it briefly. A report by the director of technical services in Scottish Borders Council crossed my desk recently. He had conducted an
extensive survey of the road network, in particular of minor roads, in his local authority area. In the chamber, we tend to debate only strategic and trunk roads, and members do not always remember that, until a couple of years ago, far more than 50 per cent of roads expenditure in Scotland was in the revenue accounts of local authorities. It was not capital or Government expenditure, but local authority expenditure.
In the past four years, local authority expenditure on road networks has dropped from £480 million in real terms to £340 million in real terms, which represents a 30 per cent decline. Many Scottish councils face a catastrophe whereby roads expenditure—not on new roads or developing the infrastructure, but simply on maintaining the asset safely and assisting local communities—is collapsing. In some cases, councils are close to a state of panic. The Executive, in its reviews of local authority expenditure and transport policy, must not lose sight of the importance to rural communities of maintaining that asset base.
I have overrun, Presiding Officer, for which I apologise; I will conclude on that note.
According to the definition of deprivation in the 1991 census, there are some 46,000 multiply deprived and 2,500 severely deprived households in rural Scotland. Those households comprise elderly, sick and unemployed people, and single- parent, large and low-income families. Rural Scotland is suffering.
Access to services is often regarded as an indicator of disadvantage and there is a strong correlation between the size of a settlement and the provision of a variety of services. Members will not be surprised that agricultural communities generally have the fewest services. Although that has been long recognised, no effective strategy has been developed to deal with the problem. Instead, there has been an expectation that the creation of small, time-limited pots of money such as the rural challenge fund will enable local authorities and their partners to take on the burden of resolving those issues.
I well remember, in the formative years of my rural development work, a family outing to a theatre in Edinburgh which shall remain nameless. We travelled 70 miles from home to see a production and incurred all the attendant costs of travel, food and so on. We enjoyed the performance, but it was not the box office success that had been hoped and the theatre decided to make free tickets available to companies to allocate to their employees. I wrote to the manager and congratulated him on making theatre more accessible, but was advised that the offer applied to firms in Edinburgh only. I tried to tell him that people who had to travel a considerable distance and bear other costs would appreciate the free tickets more, but he refused to make any available outside the city limits. That was a defining moment in my career; thereafter, I embraced rural development enthusiastically.
There has been a lot in the press this week about the threat to rural post offices. It is estimated that as many as 600 of the 1,800 sub-post offices in Scotland could be forced out of business by the Treasury's proposals, which are for a Government cost-cutting exercise that takes no account of the fact that post offices—often with village shops attached—act as the hubs of communities, and are worthy of preservation regardless of the financial costs. The alternatives will force people to travel considerable distances to access services and will put many sub-postmasters out of work.
No account is taken of the fact that more than 250,000 Scottish households have no bank account. The closure of post offices—along with bank branch closures and the disappearance from high streets of utility shops—makes life very difficult for many people from rural communities, whose preferred or only option is to pay bills by cash. Too many rural people are financially excluded and there is a need for free, independent, impartial and confidential money advice to be made available to the vast numbers of people who have multiple debts. Such services are lacking in rural areas and must be organised differently to guarantee confidentiality and access. That is another area in which e-technology can succeed, but it must be much better resourced.
No one admits with comfort that they are poor, and there is, after all, a perception that life in the country is ideal. Tell that to the families of the crofters, farmers and fishermen of Scotland. If central belt communities were to face devastation on this scale, it would be headline news every day and ministers would be falling over themselves to take action.
Housing is often seen as the most important issue related to sustainable development for rural Scotland, which relies heavily on the private rented sector. There is evidence that some landowners favour local need and that they support the local community through their policies of housing allocation. That must be encouraged. Rural Scotland needs more affordable housing for young people, as well as for the elderly. A lack of affordable accommodation leads to depopulation. Addressing that problem adequately is one of the most important factors in the regeneration of rural economies. Homelessness is hidden in rural areas, but it is a problem. The level of rural
homelessness is rising and that has not been addressed by such Government initiatives as the rough sleepers initiative, which is really only appropriate in urban areas.
The SNP calls on the Scottish Executive to devise effective rural strategies that address the issues that have been highlighted today. How the Scottish Executive looks after our most remote and most vulnerable communities will dictate how the people of rural Scotland judge the worth of the Scottish Parliament.
The cereals sector has not been given much coverage in this chamber, so I would like to spend a moment or two talking about arable aid, which is the support mechanism for the cereals sector and which is based on agricultural census data. It is widely recognised that, historically, the census data that define the arable base area are defective in that the base area is understated. That leads to what are called production overshoots, which have, in turn, led to a scaling down of arable aid payments to Scottish farmers—by about 6 per cent this year, I believe. That 6 per cent would be welcome income for farmers.
I have constituents in Berwickshire who have fields over the border in Northumberland. Perhaps my constituent John Home Robertson is in that category. Those farmers receive 6 per cent less for the yields from their Scottish fields that they do for their English fields. I believe that there is a consultation coming soon on that, but I ask ministers to bear in mind that the issue is of considerable importance to some people in Scotland.
Berwickshire is five times more dependent on agriculture than the average Scottish county. Another interesting figure that I heard recently is that, a few years ago, 300 to 400 acres of cereals could sustain a family farm in Berwickshire and at that level the farmer could afford additional labour. The figure has now risen to about 700 acres before an employee can be taken on.
I want to spend a few minutes addressing the pig sector. Those of us who attended the presentation that was given by that industry could hardly fail to be impressed by the case that it made. As has been noted, that industry receives no direct support. I welcome the minister's efforts on currency compensation and I wish him well in his efforts.
Misleading labelling is a problem. I hope that I have heard today that, when a label says that a product is produced in Scotland or the UK, it does not refer to an imported carcase that is cut and packed in Scotland or the UK and then labelled in that manner. We must get rid of that problem, and I am sure that the minister will make efforts to do so. That is important, not only for the consumer but for the producer. That point was firmly made to us by the industry. I was pleased to hear that, henceforth, Government departments will purchase quality Scottish and British pork.
We must try to cut costs for the industry. The minister will recall our recent visit to Allflex, in Hawick. I commend to him the electronic tagging scheme that has been developed in the Scottish Borders. He is studying a deep and bulky consultation document on that, but electronic tagging is a clear way of cutting costs for the farming community. It is also important that we revisit the issue of veterinary inspections. In many EU countries the cost of inspections is met by Governments, out of public health budgets. It is high time for us to revisit that issue. What is good for other European countries must surely be good for Scotland. We must cut the burdens on farmers.
My final point is that we must try to add value to products locally. In the Borders, for instance, much of the produce leaves the region without any value being added to it. If we could introduce a sawmill, in the forestry industry, or an abattoir with some additional form of finishing and processing, in the cattle sector, that would help considerably.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss issues of agriculture and rural affairs. Such issues are of great concern to my constituents, many of whom depend on farming, fishing and tourism to maintain their standard of living. However, although this motion presents the opportunity to raise those matters, it badly lets down the people whom we are trying to represent. The people of Scotland, and of the Highlands and Islands, have a right to expect answers from the Government, but part of political debate is the right to expect the Opposition to come up with alternatives. This motion is not a solution; it is an attack on what the Executive is trying to achieve for rural areas.
The motion mentions "affordable rural housing". In February, the Government announced that an additional £4 million was to be provided for rural areas. In that announcement, the Highlands and Islands were to receive an additional 11 per cent, as part of an additional rural funding. That money was used for excellent schemes such as the rural housing grant scheme, whereby people who are in need can apply for a grant of up to a third of the cost of building or buying a house. That is a real policy to assist rural areas.
Let me pre-empt the SNP, which will no doubt consider the additional funding insufficient. No
doubt it will issue a press release calling for more funding for rural housing. Someone will then call for more funding for the tourism industry, closely followed by someone else calling for money for— well, members can take their pick. Whatever the issue, whatever the area, the SNP will ask for more money, but it will never say where that money is to come from.
Will Rhoda Grant give way? Will she engage in debate?
No, I will not give way.
The Executive, by contrast, is offering practical solutions to some of the existing problems. In September, Sarah Boyack announced that nearly £500,000 was to be allocated to the rural community transport grant scheme, to support the provision of quality public transport in rural areas, in addition to the annual £3.5 million that subsidises bus routes, ferries and rail services. Significant help has also been available for rural petrol stations.
Another measure that was announced by the Government was the extension of financial assistance for the construction of croft houses for crofters who are tenants, who are single and living with their parents, or who need to live on the crofts for business reasons. That is an important aspect of the crofters building grants and loans scheme and will bring vital support to crofters in my constituency.
Last Thursday, it was announced that help would be given to the Highlands and Islands from the special programme. That should not be ignored when considering what is being done to help those who live in rural areas. A sum of €300 million has been committed to help the Highlands and Islands from 2000 to 2006.
The measures that I have outlined do not sound like the policies of an Executive that is failing to address the problems of rural areas. I cannot deny that there is more to be done and I am sure that the Executive would be the first to admit that. However, the tone of the SNP's motion completely ignores the positive measures that have been introduced. It is simply party political and does not encourage members to engage properly in the debate. The people whom I represent want politicians to address the issues properly, so I appeal to members to avoid repeating the yah-boo politics of Westminster and to work together to address the problems that concern the vast majority of people in rural Scotland.
Members of the Executive are addressing the problems and we should congratulate rather than criticise them. If we are to criticise, we must propose good alternatives.
I am a West of Scotland MSP and people may be wondering why I am at this debate, but I am a human being and I eat, and farming is fundamental to that activity. Members may be interested to know that my practical experience of farming amounts to two days' work some time around 1952. My school pal and I were standing in a field scything thistles with a German prisoner of war who had not yet decided to go home. After that, I decided that farming was not for me.
I have lived for 29 years on the edges of mid- Renfrewshire with fields behind and in front of me, and have seen the changing seasons and the changing patterns of farming. I have not seen a plough laid to any of those fields for at least 10 years. The local farmer's herd went four or five years ago and the fields are now used only for silage or for occasional grazing. The farms about me have been rented out for middle-class horse raising and grazing. A farmer not far from where I live recently sold a third of his fields to pay his debts. The following week, he sold his herd. He will now concentrate on laying turf for gardens. That is not the way ahead. We have a crisis on our hands, and I rather resent the whingeing and moaning tone of the previous speaker.
I shall talk about the dairy industry in a little detail. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's statistics show that, in 1995, the average farm-gate price for milk was 24.47p per litre. In August 1999, the price was 17.7p per litre. A couple of days ago, I spoke on the phone to an old school friend of mine who has farmed all his life not far from where I live. He put his prices at 24p in 1996 and 18p now. That farmer sells 900,000 litres of milk a year, so a penny off his farm-gate price is a considerable sum of money. When one considers the fact that his farm-gate price has gone down from 24p to 18p, one realises that that represents a huge amount of money.
What happens to that milk? The processor takes the milk, heats it, extracts the fat and cream from it, puts back a standardised amount of cream to meet the requirements on the label on the carton, packages it, sells it on to the consumer at about 46p and still has the cream to sell. The consumer does not do well out of that and the farmer certainly does not do well out of that.
Since the demise of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in 1994, a small number of organisations have had a monopoly on milk processing. A recent investigation by the Competition Commission into Milk Marque's monopoly in England and Wales indicated that perhaps such monopolies should be broken up. However, the Labour UK Government refused to take the advice of the Competition Commission on board. The status quo persists in
England and, unless we do something radical here, I imagine that the status quo will persist in this nation too.
The dairy industry is in severe difficulties. Another factor is that the farming industry and dairy products are compensated by, and to a degree subsidised by, the common agricultural policy. Unfortunately, those payments are made in euros, and the high rate of the pound means that that has an adverse effect on the amount of compensation that is available to the farming industry in Scotland.
Farmers are in a no-win situation. The banks say that farmers' borrowing is no greater than it was last year. In reality, farmers are increasingly leaning on their suppliers and not paying up quickly enough. They cannot realise their assets, because no one wants to buy what they have to sell. A year or two ago a bull calf would fetch £150; now it fetches nothing. There is a good deal of consensus here which recognises that this is a dire crisis. Please, Scottish Executive, get a grip on it.
I sympathise with much of what has been said. On Saturday I had surgeries in Acharacle and Strontian on the Ardnamurchan peninsula, and on Monday evening I had a community care meeting in Wick. I sympathise when people talk about rural issues and the time spent travelling to meetings.
I will briefly mention the agricultural business improvement scheme, which was also mentioned by Jamie McGrigor and Duncan Hamilton. The scheme began with £23 million to help farmers to invest in new buildings and to diversify. Although £6 million has been spent on farming, now, at this time of great crisis, there is £1.5 million left in the fund. A delegation of farmers came to see me and the NFU on Friday to ask where the £15 million that has been spent has gone. They asked that I make this point in the chamber.
Will the member give way so that I can clarify that point?
Sorry, George. I have limited time. We have regularly debated homelessness in this chamber. The farmers came to me with a serious problem: this winter they have homeless cows, and no sheds for them.
I welcome the review of tourism. The latest figures show that tourism in the Highlands is 20 per cent down on last year, which is a serious problem. I positively await the new strategy.
A problem that is raised regularly in my surgeries, whether in Ardnamurchan or the Black Isle, is the amount of new build housing in the
Highlands. We all recognise that there is a need for rural housing, but there seems to be no control over the enormous amount of housing that is being built. In the Black Isle alone, 7,500 houses have been built.
I welcome the University of the Highlands and Islands, but it is important to mention that the majority of the colleges in the UHI network are facing serious financial deficits. Inverness College has a deficit of £4 million. Perth College, a leader in the UHI network, is instituting compulsory redundancies. If the UHI is to mean anything, we must support the 14 colleges that make up the network. Otherwise, there is no UHI.
I want to use this opportunity to raise an issue that has rarely been debated. This week we heard about the 1,200 job losses at Daks-Simpson in the central belt. I want to raise the profile of the BARMAC oil fabrication yards at Nigg and Ardersier. As a result of the downturn in the oil market they are to shed 4,000 jobs between now and the end of May next year. Those jobs are not all Highland jobs, but I spoke to BARMAC this morning and found that more than half the jobs are in the Highlands and Islands and many of the remaining 2,000 are based elsewhere in Scotland.
Highland organisations have got together— Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the local enterprise companies network, the job centre I spoke to on Monday, the Benefits Agency. They have experienced the problem before in the Highlands. Perhaps 150 does not seem a large number in the central belt, but 150 men going back to the Western Isles with rarely transferable skills is a serious problem.
I realise that time has run out, but I will quickly say that if social inclusion is to mean anything, it means giving people living on islands the opportunity to visit the mainland. It was brought to my attention last week that a child's fare from Shetland to the mainland was quoted as £56 plus an additional £28—a £10 tax and an £18 passenger handling fee from Aberdeen, or £11.40 from Inverness. I ask the Scottish Executive to look at passenger handling fees and taxes for islanders.
Unusually today, I will be relaxed if members want to go on a little longer.
Can I come back then?
I quote from The Herald's "in brief" column today, headed "Finnie urges rural rethink".
"New ways of thinking and approaches to social, environmental and economic issues are needed to create a
sustainable future for rural Scotland."
I am right with Mr Finnie on that, so I have three things I ask him to think about with reference to the Scottish Borders: trains, abattoirs and meat processing.
The Borders has a population of 106,000 and there are no railway stations. There are 208,000 people in the Highlands and there are 57 railway stations. That says it all. That has a big economic and social impact on communities. At the recent rail seminar it was clear that Railtrack is keen to get into the Borders. I want to know whether the Executive will let us have money for that. A rail link is needed to transport freight, which now travels by inadequate roads, and the topography of the Borders is not suitable for road expansion. We need the reinstatement of a rail link between Edinburgh, Galashiels and Hawick, to carry electronics, farm produce, forestry and people.
The Executive talks about social inclusion. Nearly 30 per cent of families in the Borders do not have motor vehicles and those that do face the rural petrol price hikes that Fergus Ewing referred to. The bus service is expensive and slow. It is essential that rail links are reinstated—Mr Finnie, I wish you were listening—
I am listening to every word.
—to allow social and economic contact between the Borders and the rest of Scotland, the UK and Europe. That would lead to a flow of entrepreneurs into the Borders. It is a beautiful location with committed people but at the moment it is commercially unattractive. It would also lead to an increase in tourism, an issue raised by Alasdair Morgan and others this morning.
I agree with what Euan Robson said earlier on the need for abattoirs and meat processing to add value to the farmers' produce. There is an abattoir in Galashiels that with only a little upgrading would comply with even the tightest European regulations. Meat processing in the Borders would add value to farmers' produce and increase local employment. That would assist the recovery in other ways because, when people are in jobs, they use local painters and decorators and plumbers and so on. It is also the best way to handle the beasts. The welfare of animals is improved by killing and processing them near to the point of production. Importantly, it would permit the labelling "Scottish lamb" or, better still, "Borders lamb", because it would be produced and—this is the key issue—processed in the Borders. That would impact on the marketing and recognised quality of Scottish food.
The minister has used fine words. He has talked the good talk; let him walk the good walk. I will check his report card in a year's time.
Members will be aware that I represent one of the most remote and sparsely populated constituencies in Britain. The population of Caithness and Sutherland has been dropping steadily for some years and the area is facing severe problems.
I will touch on two subjects, the first of which is the agricultural business improvement scheme. Rather than giving my own thoughts, I will quote from two letters from constituents of mine. The first is from people who live in Tongue, in the northwest:
"We submitted our application on 13th August. This application was complete with planning permission, extensive drawings, business plan, percolation tests and letters from Scottish Tourist Board (approx cost £1,200 plus other expenses). As my husband is 60 years old we were hoping that this development would enable him to retire from farming (which would allow a younger person to take over) and we could have gone to live on our croft and have some extra income from the chalets. We were led to believe that this is what the government are encouraging farmers to do."
This is from a crofter from Oldshoremore, Kinlochbervie:
"With the lamb market so depressed, we saw the ABIS scheme as an ideal way of diversifying, by providing a building for holiday letting. We were encouraged by the Department and the local tourist board, who are very enthusiastic. We have spent nearly £7,000 on architects fees, planning permission and so on."
Those quotations show the scale of the problem that some of my constituents face. They have gone into debt, encouraged, unfortunately, by the ABIS. Others have outlined funding problems as well.
It is only civil for me to thank the minister for his correspondence and the talks that we have had. I appreciate that he is boxed in by a lack of funds, but I appeal to him to try to help those disadvantaged cases that I have raised. The people affected live in a marginal part of the country and are facing problems that may be insuperable. Every job that is lost and every crofter who loses out is another threat to remote, special communities.
I will talk briefly about the fuel duty escalator.
You may talk at considerable length, if you wish.
I heard what Fergus Ewing said. I welcome Ross Finnie's remarks and those of Maureen Macmillan. Members will be aware that Tavish Scott, John Farquhar Munro and I took a petition on the subject to the Treasury—it was the first to be taken from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster. It contained 20,000 signatures.
A scheme to vary the rate of VAT would tackle the problem of the fuel duty escalator. There are schemes in other European Union countries—in parts of Italy and France, for example—because, by derogation, it is within the power of national Governments to have such schemes. Members from all parties should encourage the Treasury to examine them.
In terms of revenue, petrol sales in the Highlands represent a drop in the ocean, yet varying the rate of VAT would greatly help communities. I want to go further than Fergus Ewing did—we must try to reduce the tax burden. I heard what he said about using the money raised by the fuel duty escalator in the Highlands to fund public transport, but we should, if we can, reduce the effects of the escalator in other ways.
I have less than one minute left, so I shall educate Conservative members who exhibited their lack of knowledge, and Mr McLetchie, who exhibited some aggression. Randolph Churchill contested Ross and Cromarty in 1936 in a famous by-election. He spoke in Wester Ross about pig subsidies, but clearly did not know what he was talking about. A constituent shouted from the back of the hall, "Mr Churchill, can you tell me how many toes a pig has?" His reply was, "Take off your boot and count."
I call Mr Davidson.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have got the title right—we have all read the missive that was sent out.
Sadly, you did not. The title is Presiding Officer.
I wish that you would accept the title of deputy speaker, which is much simpler.
I welcome the opportunity that the SNP has afforded us to continue to discuss important issues that relate to the rural economy. I was annoyed that our debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy lasted only for an hour. I appreciate the fact that the SNP has used its non- Executive time to enable us to discuss rural issues today. I am also grateful to Jamie Stone for the history lesson. Was that election in 1936 one that he fought?
Over the past few weeks, and again this morning, many members have described the rural economy as being under siege. In north-east Scotland, I hear that day in, day out. Members have mentioned various issues affecting different sectors of the agricultural community.
The rural economy is not just about farming; it is also about access to jobs, which can involve transport for commuting. How do we encourage industry and opportunity into the rural areas when one of the biggest problems that we face is the cost of transport, the costs of fuel and the cost of haulage? Almost everything that moves in the north-east of Scotland and in other rural areas is dependent on road transport and road haulage.
We have heard examples of transport companies going under in other parts of Scotland. Many are going under in the north-east of Scotland, too. Much common sense has been spoken in the chamber today. I was especially taken by parts of Euan Robson's speech as he took a practical, common-sense approach—we should support much of what he said.
I do not understand why, when Mike Rumbles has an opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents, all that he talks about is some weird illusion that this issue is about absolution. Does he absolve himself from his pre-election promise to the electorate that the Liberals would fight to get rid of the ban on beef on the bone? Do Liberal Democrat members absolve themselves on that issue?
Mr Rumbles is trying to intervene again and Mr Lyon has the podium in front of him, so he is obviously preparing to launch into a tirade yet again. Absolution should perhaps start at home for the Liberal Democrat members.
When I was a councillor for a rural area, one of the issues that came out clearly was that in all sectors of society there were problems of isolation—I am also thinking of isolation from services, including from youth services. I am concerned that isolation can turn into loneliness, which can lead to various forms of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse.
Those problems are difficult to address because many rural people are private people. The problems exist, none the less. When I was a member of Stirling Council, I found it difficult to get across the message to the council that urban solutions could not be applied everywhere. Councils use urban poverty indicators, which do not properly address the issues in rural areas. I want a commitment from the Executive that it will review, with councils, the problem of a lack of distinct rural poverty indicators.
The fact that someone uses a car should not be held against them. It may be the only way in which they can take up a job opportunity, go for medical attention or get training. I used to have a trainee on the farm; the only way in which he could get further training to improve his lot was for me to put him in a motor car and drive him there.
We must examine all those issues. This is not just about farming; it is about opportunities, social inclusion and people's access to recreation. I ask the Executive to please consider setting up meaningful rural poverty indicators.
Last week, I received a phone call from a constituent who wanted to follow up on a matter that he and his colleagues had been pressing for some time. The call was from a member of the young farmers clubs of Scotland, who, with his colleagues, had made a plea in the press to be heard. In many ways, those young people are the future of our rural economy and I hope that the minister—I know that he has had meetings with them—will listen to what they say. They are being pragmatic and realistic about the future; they have a breadth of experience and seek opportunity within a thriving Scottish rural community.
As we have had an anecdote from Ross and Cromarty, I will cite a remark by the Liberal member who was my sponsor, the late Alasdair Mackenzie—a most endearing man, whom everybody loved. On the possibility that members from Scotland would continue to go down to London after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, he once said: "What will they be doing down there? Just loafing about." I have always thought that that summed up what my party regards as the strangeness of having both a First Minister, in Mr Dewar, and a Secretary of State for Scotland, in Dr Reid, who has 120 new civil servants. In a letter, I asked Dr Reid to explain what they would all be doing, but I have not yet received an answer.
This debate has been most satisfactory, as many members have spoken with great experience of their own areas. I do not need to rehearse their well-argued cases. I am sorry that Jamie Stone has left the chamber, because I agreed with the points that he and Mary Scanlon made about the cost of fares and the failure of the ABIS. I would like to quote from a letter that Lord Sewel wrote to Jim Wallace on 18 February. He said:
"I can assure you and your constituents, however, that sufficient resources will remain applied to the ABIS to ensure that all outstanding commitments can be met, as well as accommodating any upsurge in applications which may emerge".
That is clear language. I do not think that anyone can argue that that is not the promise that was made. However, that promise is not being kept, with disastrous consequences. Like Jamie Stone, I could provide examples to illustrate that.
I would like to say something about crofting. I represented the Highlands and Islands for 24 years in the European Parliament and have been to every one of the islands that I represented, except Papa Stour; I was not able to get there because of the weather. I know the islands pretty intimately. When I recently visited Shetland, the head of the crofting association there expressed to me a serious view that the Shetland crofters were beginning to develop. They felt that there was a plot to do away with crofting and the privileges attached to it under the legislation that was introduced so long ago by the Liberals.
That is a real fear. Very often, European legislation is enforced with no attempt at reasonableness. I refer to the hot subject of sheep counts. The law was made for sheep that were nicely in a field, with a fence around them. The legislators did not seem to understand that our sheep heft to the hill. Generations of sheep insist on particular bits of hill, and it disturbs them a great deal if someone insists on bringing them away down slithery slopes to the count, which often takes place at a day's notice. If we on this bench were in the common grazing, I would have to bring my sheep slithering down the hill. Some of them might get killed on the way down, so that by the time I reached the bottom I might not have the number of sheep that I needed to qualify.
I could not get the Scottish Office to realise that it could have obtained a derogation. All the arguments about how well the UK looks after Scottish interests in negotiations with Europe fade into utter nonsense when we consider matters such as the sheep count. I could not persuade the Scottish Office to take any action in a case where seven sheep slithered down a hill and were lost. Do members know how I eventually managed to get someone to intervene? It was not by raising the issue of cruelty to crofters. The minute that I pointed out the cruelty to the animals, everyone became sympathetic. The problem has still to be addressed. I must say that the regulations are not enforced unfairly in many parts of the Highlands and Islands, but in Shetland there are serious grievances.
Dr Ewing makes a valid point. However, does she accept that now, under the Scottish Executive, and following a most unfortunate case in south Harris, which was drawn to my attention, the rural affairs department no longer requires the kind of practice to which she has drawn our attention? In remote crofting areas, we are calling for counts only at a time when the people involved—who include the postmaster and others—are available to conduct them? Does she accept that that is a substantial improvement on the previous situation?
It is an improvement, but the problem is that a lot of discretion is left to the enforcers in different parts of Scotland. I conducted a survey in
every common grazing in my area to get the measure of the situation. There are some hard cases.
The common-grazing system of crofting is remarkable. For hundreds of years, crofters have voluntarily adopted a system of having only a sensible number of animals on a piece of land. I told Mr Fischler from the Commission about it and he said that such a programme might have saved the hill farmers of Greece who were lost during the rule of the colonels. We have a system that could be an example to Europe, yet crofters feel that they are under pressure.
I do not know how I am doing for time.
I would be grateful if you came to a conclusion.
I have another point. There are two RAF bases in Morayshire, where I am happy to live. They get beef supplied from Argentina and— sometimes—Nigeria. No one would suggest that those countries' farmers are enforcing rules in the way that our farmers are. The RAF does not want to use Argentine beef; it wants to use Scottish beef. Surely this Parliament can do something about that.
I call John Farquhar Munro, to be followed by George Lyon. I know that the selection of speakers is a bit unbalanced.
We have had an extensive debate on the issues that affect rural Scotland. Mr Davidson made a good point when he suggested that the rural economy has many facets. We hear about the problems in tourism, dairy farming, the pig industry and so on. Each problem is dependent on every other one. The failure of one section of the rural economy has an adverse affect on other sections.
Winnie Ewing made a point about crofting communities. In crofting communities, it is accepted that every croft is just a piece of land that is surrounded by legislation. When I go around my constituency, people bombard me with stories of how they have been inundated with forms to fill in. People are asked to fill in forms that use terminology such as "hectares", which is an alien word to them. They are asked to supply grid references, a concept that they do not understand. They put the forms behind the clock on the mantelpiece and leave them for another time. If they make even a simple mistake when they finally fill in the form, the inspectors come round to examine their records. Small mistakes have resulted in horrendous problems such as the loss of subsidy, which is the only income that some crofters have and, until now, there has been no right of appeal. I am glad to hear from the minister that the issue will be examined.
Jamie McGrigor spoke about cattle passports and suggested that farmers and crofters might have to take their paperwork to the mart in a carrier bag or a case. One of my colleagues in the Highlands had a better solution: he was going to cross his cattle with a kangaroo so that they would all have pouches for keeping the paperwork in.
My main plea is for a right of appeal. We hear about the problems in the sheep industry. A farmer from Easter Ross told me on the phone last week that, in September last year, he had taken 26 cattle to the mart. The documentation and ear tags had been correct and everything was in order. Some months later, an inspector came to check the farmer's records. He found that one calf out of the 26 had been sold in the mart eight hours too soon—it would have qualified at midnight, but the farmer sold it at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Because of that, he lost the subsidy on his 26 stock. That is quite ridiculous.
The rural affairs department should look at the situation and tell those people who have been penalised by the loss of their subsidies that a new system will be developed. Until that system is in place, there should be an amnesty for the people who have been penalised—in my view, inappropriately.
The fuel duty escalator—and the other problems that have been created for rural Scotland—has been mentioned. There is another anomaly in my constituency—the high cost of the Skye bridge tolls. The crofters and farmers, together with much of the local community—and with the support of many in the political parties—are campaigning strongly, asking the Scottish Executive and the Skye bridge toll company to reintroduce for agricultural movement across the bridge the concession that Caledonian MacBrayne had in the past.
welcome this debate; rural affairs is an important subject to which the Parliament should devote as much time as possible, as there is a real crisis out there. The crisis is deep and has been prolonged for the past two to three years.
I am not going to launch—as David Davidson suggested—into a tirade against the Conservative party, but I think—
Oh, go on.
Okay, then.
Some of the statements that Alex Johnstone made were rather disingenuous to say the least. It is beyond belief: 18 years of Tory rule wiped from the face of history; gone for ever. Let us face it, it is a matter of record that a Tory Government introduced the unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethers for the pig industry and deregulated the milk industry, flinging producers to the vagaries of the market and the big companies such as Wiseman Milk Services and Unigate Dairies. It was the Tory Government that refused to access agri-monetary compensation in 1996-97 when the exchange rate moved against the industry and that introduced the massive burden of regulation that we face as a direct result of its failure to implement its own regulations over the period 1988 to 1996. It was caught out, the whistle was blown and Mr Dorrell was forced to stand up in the House of Commons and admit that there was a serious problem.
I trust that the Presiding Officer will be generous enough to allow Mr Lyon time to carry on the story through the lost years of Labour government in Scotland, before this Parliament, when Labour, too, refused to take up agrimoney. Will Mr Lyon tell the chamber how much money Scotland's farmers were denied by that? Will he attack Labour for it?
I thank Mr Davidson for that—he wants to write my speech for me now.
We all remember the short-lived beef war fought by John Major. What a successful campaign that was. I am sorry to say that those events did happen. It is as well that we record them in the Parliament today. I think that the Conservatives should accept that some responsibility belongs to the Tory Administration.
As David Davidson rightly says, in 1997 the Labour Government continued the same policies on agri-monetary compensation. We now have a quite different scenario. At long last—I have long experience of agriculture ministers—we have a minister who is part of the solution rather than the problem. We have a minister who is addressing fundamental issues such as help for co-ops, to try to rebuild the co-operative movement in Scotland so that it can stand up to the major milk processors.
I look forward to an announcement on Monday about the establishment of a Scottish marketing body that will build on the strength of the Scottish brand, which undoubtedly exists.
We have heard about the problems that affect timber, tourism and fishing as well as agriculture. The fuel duty escalator is causing some damage, but the fundamental problem is the exchange rate. There has been a revaluation of 30 per cent since 1996, which has resulted in a 30 per cent drop in the prices that the industries receive.
The only fundamental long-term cure for many of our primary industries is for the three political parties to promote the positive arguments for joining the euro. We should not lose that debate by default by refusing to take on the narrow, English-based, Tory, Euro-sceptic view on the matter.
This has been a difficult debate to time and balance for reasons that the business managers might like to address. Closing speeches will now have to be trimmed by one minute each to, respectively, seven, seven and nine minutes.
For that reason, I will not be able to take any interventions—unless I am in a good mood. I will see how I get on with time.
It is a crying shame that the SNP, which is so keen to embrace the ideal of the new politics when it suits it, has ruined a perfectly good motion by inserting a section that embodies the old nitpicking, negative, "let us have a go at every Government since the Act of Union" attitude for which we know and love that party so well.
Will the member give way?
Oh, go on.
Surely Alex Fergusson does not describe the BSE crisis and responsibility for it as nit-picking?
Certainly not. I am describing the SNP as nit-picking.
Conservative members would have supported the motion had it not contained the sadly vindictive and sniping section that our amendment would remove. That is not to excuse or absolve anyone, but to enter this debate in a forward-looking and positive fashion in the belief that the debate will benefit from moving forward.
I do not want to give the impression that the SNP has a monopoly on misuse of the phraseology of the new politics; the Executive parties are just as guilty. Who can ever forget John McAllion pointing at the Opposition parties and stating in no uncertain terms that, "Youse"—a term that is becoming rather common—"lot must shut up and listen"?
I have shut up and listened to the Executive amendment. Apart from its final sentiment—a determination
"to promote long-term sustainable development . . . throughout rural Scotland",
with which I am sure we all heartily agree—it is made of nothing but fine words and flannel. It is expressed in a way that smacks of complacency and self-congratulation and it will be of little comfort to people in rural Scotland who are increasingly of the opinion that the Executive has little or nothing for them.
I am happy to sum up on the amendment that stands in my name. I should, perhaps, declare a vested interest to the chamber, as for the next three weeks at least I will still have an active interest in farming. At the end of this month, I will hand over the business to a tenant.
I will feel a great sadness severing an interest that has given me a reasonable living and a great deal of pleasure for some 28 years, although my primary sentiment is one of relief—relief that I have successfully escaped from an industry that does not allow the same luxury to many others.
Last week, I sold my last 21 ewes. At five years old, they were fit sheep, although—not unusually at that age—they were missing some teeth. Usually, they would have realised a price of £10 to £15 per head; I received a bid of £1.40 for each ewe. After deductions, I received a cheque for £4.20—with the haulage bill still to come. I was lucky—at least I got a bid. Many others are having to shoot and bury stock that they have nurtured and tended all their lives. Those are horrendous acts, which some members will have seen vividly portrayed on television last week.
Recently—as we have heard—the Parliament has had representations from the pig and dairy sectors. I commend the representatives of those sectors for their initiative in visiting the Parliament. As Euan Robson said, the members who took the trouble to attend the briefings could not but fail to be moved by the spectacle of grown men almost reduced to tears as they described the nightmare that their businesses have become.
Why should we bother about another industry in huge financial difficulties? I will explain. Four years ago, Scottish agriculture had a gross income of almost £600 million. Given the generally accepted multiplier of 2.5, that income was worth £2,100 million to the rural economy of Scotland. This year—although official figures have yet to be released—the gross income is generally expected to be well below £100 million and possibly as low as £75 million; that gives an input to the rural economy of a mere £350 million.
Given that agricultural borrowings now total much more than £1 billion, in business terms it is time for Scottish agriculture to call in the receivers. Scottish agriculture's input to the rural economy has been cut by one eighth of its input in 1995-96. That is why in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, where in 1997-98 agriculture contributed 23 per cent of the region's gross domestic product, words such as depression, despair and collapse are by no means too strong, as the minister suggested earlier.
My colleagues have touched on other issues, such as the fuel escalator, affordable housing, rural transport and tourism, so there is no need for me to elaborate; I commend their words to the chamber. We also share concerns about e- commerce, post offices, organic aid and other opportunities that have been mentioned in today's debate.
I would like to finish by repeating what I have said before. I mean this in the spirit of the new politics—if such a thing still exists. There was, and is, a deeply held scepticism in many sectors of rural Scotland that the Parliament will do nothing for them. Thus far, neither Executive policy nor Labour's attendance at today's debate—at times there have been as few as five members—has done anything to alleviate that scepticism.
I ask the Executive to think beyond fine phrases and to address the real issues facing rural Scotland. The Executive must consider how it can best encourage the use of the primary products of rural Scotland—meat, milk, timber and tourism—to create jobs in the areas where they are produced. Christine Grahame and Euan Robson also touched on that topic.
The Executive must consider how best to encourage the branding, labelling and marketing of Scottish products to enhance the end prices of those high-quality products. Furthermore, it must consider how to promote our country at home and abroad. I acknowledge that a start has been made, although there is an enormous amount still to be done. The Executive must also protect our producers by giving them a much called for level playing field to combat unfair competition and over-regulation.
If the Executive can see past the smokescreen of its own verbosity and begin to deliver on those fronts, it will be worthy of support and will receive it. Until then, I encourage the proposers of the motion to accept our positive, forward-looking and practical amendment, which I heartily commend to the whole chamber.
I will not go into the private grief of Mr Fergusson's broken-faced ewes.
Many of today's speeches have been very positive. I agree with many of Mike Russell's opening remarks: there is a case for trying to bring the rural and urban parts of Scotland together. Because there has been a lack of political focus for so long, one way of doing that has been,
paradoxically, to create a separate rural affairs department and ministry. The Executive has done that with the purpose of doing one thing and one thing alone: not to set rural Scotland apart, but to ensure that, at the heart of Government, this question is constantly asked—what is the rural dimension in all of the mainstream policies that we pursue?
In his helpful speech, I am not sure why Mike Russell wanted to question that a chartered accountant had any helpful contribution to make.
I will take Mr Lochhead's point in a moment.
I want to say to Mike that the sooner we recognise that the agriculture sector, the food sector and the tourism sector are all businesses, the better. If we are to inject more money back into the rural economy, as has been suggested, we have to do far more to deal with some of the problems.
I would like to pick up on some of Duncan Hamilton's points. One of the sad features of the agriculture business is that in far too many cases—though not in every case—the primary producer is in one place, the abattoir in another, the processor in another and the consumer somewhere else. Unless we can bring them together, the chances of bringing added value back into the rural economy are almost zero.
The minister mentioned accountants. Does the recent financial statement allocate more or less money over the next three years to rural affairs in Scotland than was allocated in the last three years of the previous Tory Government?
As each policy that is presented to this Parliament has a rural dimension, the amount of spending on rural areas will be increased.
The Executive's vision is to bring the people I mentioned closer together. I was asked for a strategic view and why I needed to bring in Andrew Dewar-Durie. I will tell members. In an industry that produces four times as much sheepmeat as we consume, we have to have strategies that go way beyond those that currently exist. As we are taking a forward view, and not simply adopting the sticking-plaster approach of the past, it seemed valuable to bring into the debate someone with immense international experience in the industry who could give an overview of how to move forward.
I have made it clear that the Executive has members of the National Farmers
Union of Scotland on the committees that are examining red tape and trying to help the sector. I am in no doubt that the Executive is not at all complacent. We know that every sector of the industry faces problems. The solution is not to look only at the previous subsidy regimes. The new common agricultural policy regime does nothing more than provide a financial underbelly. I hope that that will help, but to make progress we must consider all the sectors as businesses. We must consider Scottish food as a business and promote it as a business. Agriculture comes into that.
I am very happy to concur with the minister's view that they are businesses. How are any businesses in Scotland helped by the fuel duty escalator?
I will come on to that point, because it has been made often.
First, I want to pick up on Christine Grahame's point about abattoirs. The difficulty is that, at the moment, we have an excess of abattoir capacity in Scotland.
Christine Grahame pointed out that, in parts of Scotland, we could do with other abattoirs to deal with particular processes. Her other point was that, by having an abattoir, we would automatically get value, but that is not the case. At the moment, even where we have abattoirs, far too much of livestock product is put into primary products and shipped elsewhere to be processed—the added value therefore ends up in Birmingham or further south. My plan is to do the reverse. We want not only abattoirs, but processing capacity, in Scotland so the value added can come back up the chain and our primary producers get the advantage of it.
The agricultural business improvement scheme has been mentioned. Even Mr Morgan was gracious enough to say that I did not have to take responsibility for the decisions of previous Administrations. Although £23 million was allocated to ABIS over the five-year programme, losses have been incurred because of the euro situation. We have spent more than £17 million and have £1.2 million left. We now find ourselves in an incredible position. Whereas the annual average uptake of applications was between 2 million and 3 million, in the past year we have received 15 million.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am really running out of time.
To those people who have expended money on planning permissions as part of their applications, I can undertake only to consider applications as sympathetically as possible, but the sums simply do not add up.
The Executive wants to recognise the prime importance of our primary producers and make that part of a wider food strategy. We also want to recognise the crucial importance in rural areas of education, social inclusion, health and housing. Although I concur with Murray Tosh's important points about housing and agree that we need to examine the relevant regulations, we have committed a substantial amount of money to partnerships.
We have a new strategy for tourism, which is a major issue. I have made it clear that I share concerns about the threat to post offices because of new arrangements for benefit payments. However, if we can hold the Post Office to its written commitment to invest in technology for every post office, including rural post offices, we can prevent a potential disaster.
As for the fuel duty escalator, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been made well aware of the Scottish Executive's concerns about fuel costs. Those representations have placed matters affecting rural communities firmly on the agenda.
The Executive has a rural affairs ministry and a rural development committee with powers to look across the spectrum of Government business and to take a positive view. On that basis, I commend the amendment in my name.
First, I congratulate the Procedures Committee and the Presiding Officer on agreeing to allow members who move non-Executive motions to wind up their own debates. That is a very positive and welcome development.
There have been some excellent speeches in this debate, and one or two reasonable contributions from the Labour party. We would have preferred more speeches from Labour MSPs, but of course they were not in the chamber to make them.
One of the reasons rural affairs and concerns have been quite high on the Scottish Parliament's agenda since its inception is the fact that the Parliament has so many regional members. Indeed, seven out of the eight regions represented have rural concerns.
As we have heard, rural Scotland is not homogeneous. Each area has different concerns that require different solutions. In one area, ferry prices might be the main issue; lack of amenities might be the main issue in another; and unemployment and housing, which Murray Tosh mentioned, might be the major problems in others. That is why it is important for solutions that tackle rural disadvantage to emerge from a bottom-up, not a top-down, process. Each local community will know best how to tackle disadvantage. We need to speak to and to work in partnership with communities.
In Aberdeen yesterday, many delegates at a conference on rural development were concerned about access to policy making and to the Scottish Parliament. They were concerned that the Parliament would make policy without taking their concerns on board. The Parliament must reflect the whole of Scotland, including rural Scotland.
One useful signal that we could send out for starters would be for our committees to meet outside Edinburgh as often as possible. We must not allow that to be prevented by penny-pinching by the Executive. Proper resources should be made available so that our committees can take on board local concerns. The dispersal of civil service jobs would also send out an excellent signal from the Parliament and the Executive. Civil service jobs should be dispersed to our smaller communities. With advances in information technology, that should not be a problem and we look forward to it happening.
When we talk about local solutions to local problems, we must recognise the role of local authorities. There is no point in denying local authorities the cash to provide the front-line services that make many smaller rural communities viable. It is important that we work in partnership with local authorities to initiate joint action to develop infrastructure—roads, telecommunications and housing. Many members have mentioned the lack of infrastructure and the threat to the existing infrastructure in rural communities.
Local authorities are also responsible for the provision of services. The lack of rural policing in many areas of Scotland must be tackled, as must the issue of post offices. It is imperative that there is joint action to ensure that rural banking services are available too. The Executive and the Parliament have a role to play in working with local communities and local authorities to achieve those aims.
We must ensure a good quality of life in rural Scotland. That means providing amenities. Many towns in Scotland with a population of 13,000 or 14,000 do not have cinema or a sports centre. In a rich country such as Scotland, that is unacceptable.
We must not forget our young people. How on earth can our smaller communities be viable without young people living and working in them? If we do not provide amenities, is it any wonder that young people cannot wait to move to the larger towns and cities? We blame young people for hanging around street corners, but we do not
give them the facilities to allow them to go elsewhere. The Executive could, perhaps, start by initiating an audit of youth facilities in Scotland, particularly in rural communities where such facilities are a major issue. We must also have an audit of services to address issues such as the growing drugs problem.
Partnership is important not only to overcome the threats to rural Scotland that have been mentioned today, but to harness the many opportunities to develop our rural economy. We must work together to develop not only the traditional industries such as farming, fishing and forestry, but the many new industries, such as renewable energy, for which Scotland has huge potential.
Denmark, a country equivalent in size to Scotland, employs many thousands more people in renewable energy in rural communities than we do. Duncan Hamilton mentioned the advantages of information and communications technology and its potential for building the rural economy. We must exploit that potential to the full. New sectors are also developing in aquaculture, which offer tremendous opportunities. However, there are problems, such as the lack of a Government freshwater fisheries strategy. That is no use. The freshwater fisheries sector has tremendous potential for tourism, as well as other economic benefits. Organic farming, which Robin Harper mentioned, must also be developed for the benefit of our rural economy.
I have already said that it is important that the Parliament is seen to represent the whole of Scotland. At yesterday's conference, one senior council official expressed concern that every time there is a factory closure within a few miles of Edinburgh or the central belt, the Executive seems rather more motivated to do something about it— to pull out all the stops—than when there is a closure or a threat to jobs in the periphery of Scotland. That rang a bell with me.
Many rural businesses employ only a handful of people and unemployment often affects only one or two people at a time. Does the member agree that it is a disgrace that those figures are not added up and that there is a failure to realise the size of the unemployment crisis in rural Scotland?
The member's point is well made. I certainly agree with him.
There is currently a threat hanging over hundreds of jobs at RAF Buchan in Boddam outside Peterhead. The people there, the local council and others involved in the campaign, have no clue what the Executive is doing to help them. All there has been is one sentence in The Press and Journal from Jim Wallace, saying that the
Executive will make a case on their behalf.
To illustrate the problem, I asked the Executive a written question:
"To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken to make the case for the retention of RAF Buchan, to whom the case was put and when it was made."
The reply from the Executive was:
"The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the Ministry of Defence on a wide range of issues including the consultation on the future of RAF Buchan."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 October 1999; Vol 3, p 12.]
So no one knows what is happening there.
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
No, he is in his last minute.
I will give way very briefly if that is okay, Presiding Officer.
I wondered whether Richard would, in his summing up, reflect the fact that, some moments ago, interest rates were raised by a quarter of a per cent. Surely that will be enormously damaging for rural Scotland and we should condemn it in this debate. [Applause.]
Well, what can I say? I wholeheartedly agree.
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
I am sorry; I have taken enough interventions and I do not have long left.
The title of yesterday's conference in Aberdeen was "The Scottish Parliament and Rural Policy: What Room for Manoeuvre?" We have just heard from London that interest rates have gone up. There is plenty of room for manoeuvre by the Scottish Executive here in the Scottish Parliament.
In the recent agriculture debate, Andrew Welsh asked what action the Executive was taking on the beef ban and whether any meetings were planned with the French Government. The Minister for Rural Affairs replied:
"Personally, I have had no such meetings. However, I have added the Scottish Executive's needs to the memos that are currently being circulated through our UK representative and through our ambassadorial team".— [Official Report, 7 October 1999; Vol 2, c 1194.]
Penning a name to the bottom of a memo is not exactly the representation that our rural industries are looking for from the first Minister for Rural Affairs in the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years.
The Scottish Executive should be leading
European negotiations in appropriate circumstances as a matter of course—as opposed to as and when it gets permission from the UK Government in London. There are plenty of things that we should be doing. The Minister for Rural Affairs should be flying down to London and making representations about the impact of the interest rate rise and fuel duty on our rural economy.
The SNP does not underestimate the task before the Scottish Parliament. It is enormous, and it will require fresh thinking. We have to take on board the concerns of local communities and of the experts in the Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and the rest. We need fresh thinking to take rural Scotland forwards.
In the annual report of the Macaulay institute, Jeff Maxwell says:
"National and local government, their agencies, voluntary bodies, land owners and local communities will all have to find new ways of interacting and finding a common purpose. This is no mean challenge and one that, in Scotland, is likely to continue for some time to exercise the minds of those who have been recently elected to the new Parliament".
The SNP's choice of motion for today illustrates that those challenges are exercising the minds of SNP members. We invite the other parties in the Parliament to join us in finding the long-term solutions by supporting our motion, so that we can make the phrase "rural disadvantage" redundant.