Sustaining Agriculture
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2209, in the name of Jamie Stone, on sustaining agriculture and sustaining communities. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. It will not be possible to extend the debate, and I will take a view on speaking times when I have seen the number of requests to speak.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that sustaining a viable agricultural sector involves encouraging an increase in employment on Scotland's land and that this would strengthen the contribution of agriculture to the viability of rural communities and contribute to the nutritional health of Scotland.
I thank all members present for staying for the debate.
My argument is based on two facts. First, and deeply unfair, is the fact that some of our farmers are today regarded as subsidy junkies. Recent headlines that have involved a member of the nobility and a member of the royal family have done nothing to help. The second fact is that as we sit in our comfortable chairs watching, for example, Jamie Oliver, we continue to spoon in the Pot Noodles. It is a strange paradox that while telly cooking and telly gardening have never been more popular, many of us treat them as being akin to spectator sports rather than activities for us to become involved in, despite most of us knowing full well that fast food—high in saturated fat, salt and additives—is not doing our health any good.
Those two facts persuade me that it is time for some new thinking. If we want to improve Scotland's nutritional health, increase employment on the land and underpin our rural communities, we will have to do things rather differently.
Take school dinners as an example. If we want more of our children to eat one properly cooked, healthy meal a day we must look again at how we can achieve that and we must be willing to pay for it. Most children have choice. They have the choice of school dinners versus something from the tuck shop versus—the minister will recognise this expression from the Highlands—going down the street. Councils are trying to improve the nutritional quality of school dinners, but anyone who is on the streets of our communities during school dinner hour will see for themselves the scale of the problem and the number of young people who go to the shops and eat things that are not good for them.
Should we consider compulsory school dinners? That approach seems draconian to say the least. We could consider that option, but we should be courageous and consider all the possibilities. We should not shrink from any of them. Perhaps in looking over the edge at the extreme, we may alight on something that is more acceptable. Perhaps if we made school dinners cooler, in the trendy sense, by getting someone like Jamie Oliver to come and do a celeb scoff event in one of our schools we could advance without being extreme.
By spending more money on nutritious food in our schools, in our hospitals, in our Government canteens and here in the Scottish Parliament, we could start to swing the money the other way—from the support of subsidies for our farmers to the demand of public sector customers with the wherewithal to pay for the type of product that they will demand. I believe that we can develop that demand. That would front-load the money in the way that the system currently does for farmers, which would be healthier. In that way, we would link our farmers more directly with the customers for their products and, besides improving food quality, we would offer farmers financial reward from real trade. That would silence the unpleasant talk of subsidy junkies.
My cousin teaches homeless people in Edinburgh how to cook nutritious food. That is great, but we could do with far more people like her. We should teach not only the homeless, but our young, people in our villages and people on our housing estates—anyone who wants to learn—how to cook nutritious food. Celebrity cookery is a hugely popular spectator sport, so why not pay for the aforementioned Jamie Oliver, for instance, to come up to Edinburgh to do a celebrity cooking event for people, not just in schools?
In Barrow-in-Furness in England, households receive free boxes of vegetables, and people are naturally and understandably more likely to turn the neeps and parsnips into good, nourishing soup, rather than throw them away. The scheme works; it helps farmers and it improves public health.
The third theme of my motion is increasing employment on Scotland's land. If we want to make it worth while for someone to buy two acres or 25 acres of land and grow beans or raspberries or to produce eggs, pigs or whatever, by stimulating customer demand we will be moving in the right direction. If we threaten supermarkets with a big stick, they simply say, "Oh, but we are merely responding to our customers' demands." The trick, surely, is the same. Customer demand for quality local agricultural and horticultural products will soon bring the multiples to our farm gates.
Most communities are reasonably near a supermarket, but not many of them are near allotments. Indeed, there are not an awful lot of allotments outside our Scottish cities. Why should not people who live in housing estates in our Scottish villages and towns also have allotments? I do not think that there is any reason at all. When I began my speech, I said that television gardening is big and getting bigger; there, too, Government could go with the flow and improve the nutrition of the nation and increase work on the land, not to mention biodiversity, which is a big issue but one for another debate.
We should offer inducements to our farmers and local authorities that would lead to the sale or long-term let of suitable pieces of arable land adjacent to our towns and villages. Many people would love to be able to grow their own fruit and vegetables, but right now they cannot. Besides the potential for healthy eating, gardening is good for people.
I appreciate that Jamie Stone's motion focuses on nutritional health in sustaining employment and rural communities. Will he also consider plants such as bog myrtle, which is undergoing pharmaceutical trials and is being proved to have superior qualities to tea tree? That could be used as a wonderful benefit in sustaining employment and communities, although it would need some inducements from the Executive.
That is a very fair comment and I certainly take it on board, as will other members.
I am saying some simple things. We could support our farmers by stimulating customer demand and awareness and investing real money in the public sector so that public sector organisations could afford to buy better-quality local farm products. The demand for quality products, combined with the greatly increased dissemination of cookery skills, would help farmers. It would also help to support rural communities and improve Scotland's health.
Let us have more allotments. They could be helpful on all those fronts. I believe that a person's happiness is much connected to working with the land, because there is something deep inside us all. It will take money, but it will also take a different approach and that will have to be considered carefully. My reason for having the debate—and I look forward to hearing other members' speeches—is that I hope we can stimulate some thought and possibly some action. The way that we are going at the moment, we do not seem to be tackling the health problems—or at least not as quickly as we would like—and I am not entirely sure that our rural communities are as safe as we would like, although I am aware that the ministers are making their best efforts.
I shall conclude my remarks at that point. It must seem like a miracle to the chamber that I have not mentioned cheese—at least not until now.
Quite the most alarming thing that I have heard this evening is that Jamie Stone eats Pot Noodles. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on creating this opportunity to debate an important subject.
The importance of the subject was illustrated perfectly at the Cancer Research UK reception last night, because one of the five strands of reducing the incidence of cancer is addressing the issue of diet. The matter may be of particular importance to me because, after researching my family tree, I know that five of my 16 great—or is that great-great?—grandparents died from cancer of the intestine in one form or other. I hope that my genetic inheritance can be offset by some good Scottish scoff, to use Jamie Stone's word.
The subject is important, particularly in my constituency, which is very big in food production. For example, Macrae Foods Ltd, Fisher Foods Ltd, Grampian Country Chickens Ltd and International Fish Canners (Scotland) Ltd are all major employers in Banff and Buchan. The predominance of high-quality food processors reflects the importance of agriculture and fishing not just in my constituency but throughout Scotland. Indeed, about 70,000 people are employed in producing this healthy scoff for the country and perhaps one in 10 Scottish jobs is related to food production.
Of course, supermarkets fight against the drive for quality in Scotland's production industries. We should note that UK supermarkets' margin of profit is about four times greater than that in any other comparable country; in fact, it is more than four times greater than US supermarkets' margin of profit. The supermarkets' control of the market is very subtle; it is driven not by health and healthy eating, but by margin and price. Their manipulations are certainly well documented. For example, they use known-value items—the few items on the shelf for which the general public have an idea of price—to create the impression that things are cheap.
I go to my local butcher, who sells organic beef that is locally grown, slaughtered and hung in the chill store at a lower price than I would pay at Tesco down the road. If more of our communities were to consider the matter, they would discover that option for themselves. I listened with interest to the 20-minute speech that the chief executive of Tesco plc made at the Scottish Agricultural College's centenary dinner, and noted that he did not once use the word "quality". That says a lot about the constraints on the way in which supermarkets deal with food and quality.
I hope that John Scott will speak tonight, because he is a great supporter of farmers markets. I encourage his efforts in that regard and very much support that quality method of delivering affordable local food.
Having received an accusatory look from Tavish Scott when Pot Noodles were mentioned, I should say that I have never eaten one in my life, nor do I intend to.
Presiding Officer, you will not be surprised to hear that I welcome any opportunity to debate agricultural issues in the chamber. Jamie Stone's motion is no exception. I thank him for lodging it, as it contains issues that I deem to be very close to my heart. Indeed, members will not be surprised to learn that I intend to concentrate on the motion's agricultural element, particularly on the need for greater employment on the land.
Although my constituency is as far from Jamie Stone's as it is possible to be while remaining in Scotland, both share a high degree of dependency on agriculture and agricultural products. Before the foot-and-mouth outbreak, 23 per cent of Dumfries and Galloway's gross domestic product derived directly from agriculture. One could argue with considerable justification that that percentage is too high; however, it underlines agriculture's importance to the region and explains my determination vigorously to oppose any attempt to redistribute agricultural support funding from Scottish Executive, UK or European sources. I am sure that other members would like such redistribution to happen, but the importance of that funding to my region is too great for me to support such a move. I have always opposed such redistribution and will always do so.
However, the reform of support funding is a very different matter. I will spend a few moments on the opportunities that will open up with the advent of the single farm payment, which replaces the headage-based subsidies that predominated for many years. Many of my farming constituents have bravely pioneered projects that are designed to add value to their own products. In doing so, they have often found themselves at considerable financial disadvantage when they consider the support that they would have received if they had carried on farming in the traditional way.
For example, I highlight to the minister the excellent Cream o' Galloway Dairy Company Ltd venture at Gatehouse of Fleet in my constituency. The venture started by turning the organic milk that was produced on the farm into what I contend is the most delicious ice cream in Scotland and led to the creation of a highly successful visitor centre, which employs many permanent staff and many more temporary staff at the height of the summer season. The venture achieved the greatly increased employment on Scotland's land for which Jamie Stone's motion calls, but it did so despite the considerable cost to the farming business that the proprietor's outside-the-box decisions brought about. I cannot remember the exact figures, but the decision to go organic led to the loss of many thousands of pounds in subsidies, despite the conversion grants that were available at the time. I concede that grants have improved since then.
Under the single farm payment, farmers and other land managers will be free to think outside the box as they attempt to maximise the returns that they receive from the marketplace, as long as they operate within the restrictions of cross-compliance. I suspect that they will have to think outside the box if they are to maximise their returns, because I do not expect the marketplace simply to cough up for any financial deficit that is incurred as a result of the change in support funding.
As Scottish agriculture adapts to the new system in the coming years, we are likely to witness changes and I have considerable faith in the ability of Scotland's agricultural entrepreneurs to maximise their returns. There is enormous scope for adding value at the point of production, which in turn will maximise the employment potential at the point of production, providing the financial contribution to the viability and indeed the vitality of our rural communities to which Jamie Stotion refers—I meant Jamie Stone's motion, but the name "Jamie Stotion" might stick; it has something about it. Farmers are now quite fortunate in that they can make outside-the-box changes while being a little cushioned by the single farm payment. Their brave and innovative forebears, such as the people at Cream o' Galloway, had to make such changes at their own expense and financial loss.
The motion is correct to suggest that such jobs are crucial to the viability of our communities and I commend it to members.
My name is Eleanor and I once ate a Pot Noodle.
Confessions apart, I welcome the debate that Jamie Stone has secured, as much as anything because it reflects a view of agriculture that is different from the conventional one of units that must be extremely large if they are to be efficient and which over the years have employed fewer and fewer people per tonne of produce or acre of ground—whichever way we consider it. Jamie Stone's comments are particularly relevant to the north of Scotland and to other parts of Scotland where we want to keep people working on the land. Greater efficiency through increased output per person is not always the best way forward if we are to sustain rural communities.
I must mention the O-word and talk about organics—I would not be Green if I did not. Consumer demand for organic food is great and is growing faster than is demand in many other sectors, but that demand is still met largely by imported produce. Organic farming employs many more people per acre of ground or per tonne of food produced than non-organic farming does. Robin Harper's proposal for a member's bill on organic food and farming targets and the subsequent Scottish Executive organic action plan helped to stimulate the sector, but we must acknowledge that organics is a sector in which we can increase employment and meet consumer demand and which can grow, produce for the market and be good for the environment and for rural employment, which is extremely important.
Local markets and farmers markets have helped, but it would help if supermarkets could be a bit more flexible in sourcing produce locally rather than using centralised distribution points. Any members who have read some of the books that I am ploughing my way through, such as "Not on the Label", which makes one never want to shop in a supermarket again, will realise that we must change the culture of our supermarkets if we are to continue to shop there. We must get them to take local produce, as they do on the continent, and get them to source organic produce locally.
I say to Jamie Stone that if we are to have a reputation for quality and a thriving organics sector, we must be GM-free in the north.
I have a similar view to Alex Fergusson on the level of support that should be provided, but perhaps a different view on how that support should be targeted. I would like a lot more support to be provided through the rural development regulation. Historically, Scotland has had the lowest level of rural development funding in Europe. Parts of the rural development regulation, such as article 33, which allows for funding for wider rural development, have not been used in Scotland and payments have not gone directly to farmers. We could do much more under the rural development regulation to ensure that some of the added value of agricultural production in our rural areas is kept in those areas. In that context, I must mention abattoirs. Having local abattoirs would allow us to complete the local production chain. We could have local production and direct distribution to the consumer, with value being added downstream.
I am interested in initiatives for what might be described as non-traditional production over in Skye and Lochalsh, where, as Jamie Stone will be aware, the use of polythene tunnels is being considered. Poly tunnels could revolutionise food production in areas in which the growing of salads and some vegetable products has traditionally been difficult. That might be done organically in Skye and Lochalsh, to supply the local market.
That is a new tradition that is becoming established, but old traditions are being renewed. For example, north-west cattle producers are trying to reverse the ratio of sheep to cattle by getting cattle back on the ground. That would allow cattle to be finished and produced for local markets.
I concur with what Jamie Stone said about allotments. There is perhaps a perception that people in rural areas who live in small towns and villages have gardens. That is not true nowadays, given the size of modern building plots. Food growing could become a popular movement and could be thought of as being quite a trendy thing to do. Gardening programmes are as popular as cookery programmes and, like cookery, gardening tends to be a spectator sport at the moment. In Invergordon, there are moves to have green gyms, where people are encouraged to undertake horticultural activity for their physical health. That idea represents a way forward in that it allows production and health to be joined up in the way that Jamie Stone has in mind.
I welcome the debate and thank Jamie Stone for securing it. I am glad to talk about nutrition and employment as key issues for the future of our countryside.
Agriculture should be at the heart of that future, but we must ensure that it is suitable for each part of the country in which people live. We need to recognise that the public goods that will be drawn from rural development funds in future increasingly will allow people in the poorest parts of the north, the west and the islands to get more value from having units of production that not only produce excellent and ever-improving headage, but deliver the environmental benefits for which those areas are particularly well suited.
In areas of more intensive farming, the problem is that the countryside is much more industrialised. That means that it is difficult to turn some areas into land of any great environmental benefit. The new openness and accountability will allow us to find out the level of subsidy in different parts of the country. The debate on that issue is important for how we view agriculture in the future.
At yesterday's meeting of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development stated that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 would allow us to find out about levels of subsidy. I questioned the minister on the subject and we had quite a debate about it. Some people get very large subsidies; indeed, there might be farmers in Scotland who get £1 million in subsidies. I do not know whether that is the case, but we will be able to find out very soon. If a single farm business is receiving that level of subsidy, surely it would be far better if there were 20 farm businesses with 20 families living on the countryside and maintaining and developing it. One could say, as the minister has done and as others might do, that large farms are viable. However, traceability and quality products that have taste do not necessarily go with large and so-called viable farms.
I am happy that the National Farmers Union of Scotland wants us to support it in the fair trade campaign for milk, but I want something from it in return, which is an agreement to absolute openness and to a debate on how to distribute the cash to best deliver public goods in future. I hope that this debate will be another chance for us to impress on the Scottish Executive the fact that it is essential to address that debate head on. Crofters welcome the forthcoming openness on subsidies. They say that it is high time that people saw how unevenly money is distributed. In addition, we will be able to have a much more open debate about how less-favoured-area money should be spent.
We need to think about farming waves, wind, biogas and biomass. I was glad to see on "Landward" two examples of biogas projects on farms in Ayrshire and Galloway. We need more of that to create income on farms. We also need more land for farming—not the inby land in crofting, but the Forestry Commission's land, which should be opened up for new settlements. We need more people living in the countryside. When we have that, we will have far more demand for quality food that is traceable. Such structural changes will allow more people to have a healthier life and will allow more people to farm our land.
It has always annoyed me intensely when agricultural subsidies are seen as subsidies for farmers, because what is being subsidised is the cost of food. Agricultural subsidies were introduced to give us cheap food, not to featherbed farmers. The very people who point the finger at farmers and complain about subsidies are the people who are being subsidised. It really annoys me. I am glad to have got that off my chest. I thank members for their indulgence.
The effects of the common agricultural policy reforms are not obvious yet, but they open up possibilities for farmers, from vegetables to bog myrtle, as Mary Scanlon mentioned. Seeing how those things develop and how people find niche markets and exploit possibilities that are opening up will be extremely interesting over the next few years.
At the inaugural meeting of the cross-party group on food, we had a presentation from the person who organises school meals in Aberdeenshire. He outlined how it is possible within European Union rules on food procurement to procure local supplies if one is careful about the specification, for example by specifying varieties or degrees of freshness. Doing so is well within the rules and means that one is more likely than not to get local suppliers supplying local fresh produce for school meals. That could be replicated in all public procurement. Hospitals are big consumers with local hinterlands that could be exploited.
It is important that we do more in schools on food and cookery—not just on nutrition, but on preparing real food. It is astonishing how many people have never tasted a home-cooked meal prepared from fresh produce. The perception is that it is difficult, time consuming and labour intensive, but it need not be. If we can get that message across to kids and let them taste what good, freshly prepared food tastes like, they are far less likely to be satisfied with a Pot Noodle. That important element needs to be addressed.
I return to the sustainability of agriculture and local communities. Agriculture is not the be all and end all of the rural economy, but it is pretty well the foundation of it. That was evident during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, when we saw just how far the effects of the crisis in farming spread through the community. Rural depopulation and the fact that farming does not employ as many people as it used to are important factors. Regenerating our rural communities and getting people back into the countryside might be possible by exploring different ways of farming the land—various new possibilities are opening up—and also simply by encouraging people to live in the countryside.
We should think of the number of people that farms used to sustain. In the old bothy ballads, there was the aal fermer, the grieve, the first horse, the second horse, the orra loon and the kitchie deem. In the old days, a farm would support 10 or 15 people, where there might now just be one, with a lot of contracting out. There is no way that we could go back to those days, but having that number of people living in the countryside meant that local shops were viable, schools were full and churches were sustained.
Broadband is so important, because it enables a wide variety of work to be done away from the urban centres—work that is probably far more highly paid than more traditional rural jobs. It also has an intangible benefit in that it involves putting highly paid professional people into the countryside. They tend to be far more demanding, which, in the right context, is a good thing. Housing supply is crucial—businesses cannot expand if there are not people there and they cannot bring in skilled people if there are no houses.
The age profile of our farming communities is a worry. However, I hope that the new tenancy arrangements will make it easier for new entrants to get into farming.
Finally—I know that I have been going through this at a gallop—there is the possibility of diversification into green tourism. The fact that we have new access legislation, with a change in people's perception of access to the countryside—even if actual access has not, in fact, changed—will help to boost such diversification. We are living in exciting times, with new prospects opening up in front of us, and I hope that they all roll.
I declare an interest as a farmer, as the chairman of the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets and as a council member of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on securing the debate, which has raised important points about how policy and rural businesses can address the challenges of population change and employment in rural communities. Strong rural economies need employment and population growth to sustain them, as Nora Radcliffe pointed out. For farming to be prosperous, it must constantly seek to improve efficiency. However, that can have negative implications for employment opportunities and for the attractiveness of a region for inward migration.
There is obviously a source of tension in that but, from my background and experience in agriculture, I suggest that there are a number of ways in which that tension can be addressed. Rural businesses can be innovative—witness the success of farmers markets in recent years. Farmers markets identified a need and recognised an opportunity. There are now about 60 farmers markets operating regularly in Scotland. In meeting that need, farmers markets not only bring fresh food to the consumer, contributing to the nutritional health of Scotland, but have created new employment in rural areas in the local processing and distribution of food.
One feature of farmers markets is that most of them are organised on a co-operative basis and are developed with the help of the specialist co-operative development organisation, the SAOS. Agricultural co-operatives play an important and often underestimated role in creating rural prosperity. They are particularly important for rural employment and training.
Labour and machinery rings help to make the most efficient use of labour in local economies. Such co-operative businesses sustain jobs by matching the demand for labour with the supply. The rings also build capacity in rural areas by improving training opportunities and the skills base of the labour force, which helps to unlock the potential resource in the rural economy. I give an illustration of the role that co-operatives play: one machinery ring has reported that it handled more than 14,500 requests for labour in 2004, delivering an average of 274 workers per working day. Such businesses are present throughout most of the Scottish rural economy. The newest one, which has been developed by the SAOS, is the Argyll and islands business ring. It is located in a sparsely populated area, where it helps to meet the employment and population challenges.
Diversification can also offer new job opportunities. The recent consultation and debate on a green jobs strategy highlighted the opportunities that exist in rural areas to develop renewable energy sources. Interestingly, overseas experience suggests that in many areas, such as biomass, opportunities are more likely to be exploited if the farms involved organise as a co-operative, in order to ensure that they can guarantee quality, quantity and consistency of supply.
Moreover, co-operatives such as Tarff Valley Ltd, ANM Group Ltd and Highland Grain (Marketing) Ltd are businesses in their own right. Managing those businesses generates high-quality employment in rural areas throughout Scotland. In fact, there are about 80 agricultural co-operatives, whose throughput amounts to £1.3 billion per year. Although they employ only 2,500 people directly, their role clearly supports rural employment more generally.
The minister and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department actively support co-operative development in agriculture in the rural economy through SEERAD's partnership with the SAOS. Therefore, they acknowledge the contribution made by co-operatives to a dynamic and successful rural economy. Today, parliamentarians, too, should note the important role that co-operatives play and recognise that the wider development of co-operatives throughout the rural economy would go a long way towards addressing the challenges that Jamie Stone's motion identifies.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on his ingeniously broad interpretation of the wording of the motion, which is itself extremely broad. The kernel of the motion is a concern with how we can increase employment in the agriculture sector in rural Scotland, with particular regard to farmers who produce food.
The crofting counties have not specifically been mentioned. The recent change—as from 1 January—in the scheme that provides assistance for young people in crofting counties has created a new barrier. Young crofters can no longer obtain loans, only grants, as part of the scheme. The minister will be aware that the average cost of building a house in the crofting areas is now £80,000. However, if crofters can get a grant of only £11,500 in a low-priority area, they cannot readily get a building society or bank loan, because, unless the land is decrofted, there is no security of tenure. That is a real problem. The scheme has just been introduced, so I do not expect the minister to announce this afternoon that it will be reformed—not even if my arguments are particularly persuasive, which I believe they are. However, I hope that there will be an early review of how the scheme performs, perhaps even before the impending election.
The previous session's Rural Development Committee did a lot of good work on the broad area that the motion addresses. It pointed to barriers that must be removed if diversification is to be made less difficult. Planning law is key, as it restricts the development of farm steadings in many areas. In my area, a great many farmers have turned to tourism development. They have had assistance from the agricultural business development scheme and a few—it was only a few, contrary to Lord Sewel's promise—had assistance from its predecessor, the agricultural business improvement scheme. In my area, tourism development has been a modest success. I hope that that will be replicated throughout Scotland, because such development offers greater opportunity.
What can the Executive do? It is plain that, in the public procurement of food, a lot more can be done. I was interested to hear Nora Radcliffe's description of the talk from the gentleman from Aberdeen, as my impression of the public procurement of food is less positive than hers. It arises from a meeting that I had with the food tsar, Gillian Kynoch, in which I sought to advocate the benefits of venison as a food—it is more nutritional than any other meat. I do not wish to be unkind to the lady who is the food tsar, but I am not sure in which century the bureaucratic procedures that she outlined to me will permit venison to find its way on to the plates of schoolchildren or workers in any public sector organisation with a canteen for which there is public procurement. There is plainly a problem and it is up to the minister to sort it out.
Dairy farmers are on their uppers in a great many places, because they sell at below cost. Why on earth cannot schoolchildren have access to milk in their schools? An answer that I received just this afternoon to an oral question that was not reached in question time said that the evidence for the nutritional value of milk was equivocal. Equivocal? The minister should ask the National Osteoporosis Society whether drinking milk is good or bad. If young children drink milk—as they should—that will do much more than anything else of which I can think to develop healthy bones, so that when those children enter the latter part of their lives they do not suffer from the horrible, crippling disease of osteoporosis, which is a scourge for many of our senior citizens of both sexes.
I thank Jamie Stone for the opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate. If we wanted an example of diversity in relation to agriculture, this evening's debate has probably provided it.
The Executive recognises that agriculture remains central to the prosperity of rural areas. As "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" makes clear, we want prosperous and sustainable agriculture that produces good food for the consumer and which meets high standards of environmental stewardship. The key challenge is to establish conditions that allow farmers and crofters as business people to take decisions that achieve those objectives. Agricultural production needs to be smart about the marketplace and it needs to be sustainable. That approach must guide decisions as we move forward under the new common agricultural policy reform scheme and it must drive our objectives for land management contracts. A major component of those will be to provide incentives to allow producers to respond and to develop their businesses in ways that deliver public policy objectives and meet their own economic interests.
Several speakers pertinently mentioned CAP reform, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance our strategic objectives and gives us in Scotland more opportunities to make decisions than we have had for a generation. We have decided fully to decouple subsidy from production at the earliest possible date. We have also based future payments on a straightforward historical reference period. Those decisions were taken after extensive consultation and have been widely welcomed. They provide some certainty for farmers and crofters and give them the opportunity to improve market returns by producing food that meets market requirements.
Several members highlighted the relevance of food production in Scotland to improving diet, which is a key aspect of health improvement policy. As Stewart Stevenson said, that relates to cancer as well as to some of the more obvious obesity-related ailments that arise from bad diet. We recognise the enormous potential for local food producers to ensure food access and to overcome health inequalities, which is why local nutrition plans form part of joint local authority and national health service health improvements plans. Increasingly, community planning for health improvement is building in sustainable access to fresh food.
Several members referred to local initiatives: local community food initiatives are adopting a range of innovative approaches, which include community-assisted agriculture that involves local growing projects, such as the type on which Jamie Stone is keen. Scotland has about 500 community food initiatives, many of which have support from local authorities, local NHS services or both.
We recognise that the Government has a direct role in such matters, especially in relation to procurement. School meals have been mentioned. Several councils—including Aberdeenshire Council, which Nora Radcliffe mentioned, Highland Council and East Ayrshire Council—are engaging effectively with their local food producers to supply that important market.
The question of uptake of school dinners has puzzled those who are responsible for young people's nutrition for a long time. Jamie Stone was right to highlight that issue, which is not new. I agree with him that making school dinners cool is likely to be much more effective than making them compulsory.
I also agree with him that celebrity chefs have a role to play. In fact, celebrity chefs regularly appear at the Royal Highland Show, which is Scottish agriculture's foremost flagship event each year. Ross Finnie has occasionally been happy to help with demonstrating good preparation and consumption of food. I am sure that Jamie Stone will be pleased to hear that colleagues are taking such matters seriously and that they support the kind of initiative he outlined.
We want to encourage local food producers to bid for more of the public sector contracts to which members have referred, and we have published new guidance on public sector procurement as part of our sustainable development agenda. If the motion is about any one thing, it is about sustainable development and how we relate production to consumption, sustainability and the best interests of individual citizens. In that public sector procurement agenda, we must of course acknowledge legislation that is designed to ensure fair competition, but we have also made it clear that it is possible to set procurement criteria that can help local businesses to compete in delivery frequency, freshness, seasonal availability, organic production—which has been mentioned—or simply in considerations of taste. There are a number of ways in which that matter can be taken forward.
As John Scott said, farmers markets are an increasingly important outlet for local produce. He said that we have supported that development through the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, of which he is a leading member. I am delighted to say that the policy has broad support that will continue, because we recognise the important contribution that such markets can make to increasing access for consumers to local produce and in increasing opportunities for local producers to understand what the market requires.
Jamie Stone.
The minister has given way without my saying anything.
On cookery classes, the Scottish Executive supports Fairshare in Edinburgh, which delivers to some of the most needy people in society. Will the Scottish Executive continue to roll out such projects? We could do with more classes and more people out there teaching quality cooking of quality Scottish products. If the minister does not have an answer today, will he at least consult his colleagues?
Good work is being done to educate children about the food that they eat, which is a key aspect of our health improvement project. The work that is being done by us and the Royal Highland Education Trust, for example, to train farmers and give access to children to such information is valuable.
In closing, I want briefly to mention two other matters. Allotments have been mentioned; I am happy to say that the power already exists under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 for local authorities to acquire land for creation of allotments. Members might want to take that into account.
I should also mention that many initiatives that we are progressing to bring benefits to farmers and crofters and in healthy eating depend on the quality of scientific research. I am therefore pleased to mention that my department will publish a new research strategy tomorrow for the environment, biology and agriculture, which will cover the next five years. That research will underpin much that will be done in the areas that we have discussed.
We are committed to working with the industry to create economically viable and environmentally sustainable businesses, and we will continue our work to improve the nation's diet and health. We will continue to work towards a more sustainable and healthier Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:54.