Chamber and committees

I have just knocked over and spilled a whole glass of water. However, now I can get started.

I thank my colleagues on the committee and everyone who contributed the evidence that helped the committee produce its report.

It is clear that there is broad support across the country and within Parliament for the principles that underlie the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. That is important because, as the cost of living crisis deepens and more people across Scotland are faced with the reality of food insecurity, transformative change within our food system is long overdue.

The food insecurity that so many now face is not only being driven by the current cost of living crisis; it has been allowed to develop because of political choices made in the past decade. Our Governments have chosen not to tackle low pay, insecure work or inadequate social security provision.

The bill gives us an opportunity to transform our food system and to take action to end food poverty in Scotland. It is clear that, in order to do so, it must be strengthened in a number of areas. As we heard from Rachael Hamilton, the idea of using the bill to incorporate the right to food in Scots law was repeatedly raised throughout the committee’s evidence sessions. That has been called for by campaigners such as the Scottish Food Coalition and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union. Those campaigners are rightly concerned that, as it stands, the bill lacks a clear purpose and will do little to bring effect to the right to food, even if that is introduced in future human rights legislation.

The general secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, Sarah Woolley, expressed that concern when she said:

“no ‘Good Food Nation’ Bill in 2022 can be taken seriously without a statutory commitment to deliver a right to food.”

I hope that, ahead of stage 2, the Scottish Government will reflect on the need for the bill to be given a clearer purpose. As Colin Smyth outlined, and as suggested by campaigners, that could be achieved through the introduction of a purpose clause to make it clear that the bill will give effect to the right to food.

The bill also needs high-level objectives that will help to guide implementation and measure the success of the good food nation plans. Earlier, we heard from Karen Adam that people who are living in food poverty do not care about targets; they care about actual outcomes. That might be true, but without the targets we have no way to mandate and measure the change that we need.

As the bill stands, there is no requirement for good food nation plans to have objectives and indicators in relation to the wider food system. That means that there is no mandate to support sustainable agriculture, to improve animal welfare or to enhance pay and conditions in food supply chains, and it means that there are no indicators that could be used to measure the success of good food nation plans. If we are serious about transforming Scotland into a good food nation, which I think we all are, we must take a system-wide approach to food policy that addresses those issues.

We heard earlier from Ariane Burgess about calls from campaigners for a purpose-built cross-cutting Scottish food commission. Like them, I believe that there is a role for a statutory oversight body to monitor the development and implementation of good food nation plans. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, such an independent oversight body could not only provide scrutiny of good food nation plans but contribute to their development through actions such as research support.

The body could also improve accountability by supporting Parliament in its scrutiny of the national good food nation plan and of the Scottish Government’s overall progress towards delivering a good food nation. Back in August, the Scottish Government recognised that there might be a role for such an oversight body to monitor the delivery of good food nation plans, so I hope that it will now think again about including proposals for such a body ahead of stage 2.

Although Labour supports the principles that underpin the bill, we believe that it is clear that it should be strengthened. The bill should be given a clear purpose to give effect to a right to food; it should include high-level objectives and indicators to help with the development of good food nation plans and to measure their success; and it should provide for a statutory independent oversight body. The Scottish Government has a political choice to make. Will it push forward with an empty framework, or will it work with campaigners and across the parties to create a bill that is fit to bring about the transformational system change that our nation needs?

You might be getting some feedback—I can hear a bit of an echo.

I want to comment on the type of fishing that is being restricted. I understand that, when the Government announced its public consultation on the proposals, it confirmed that hand diving for scallops will no longer be prohibited but that creeling will still be prohibited, along with dredging and trawling. Could we seek some clarification from the minister about why those different types of fishing—creeling, dredging and trawling—are being treated in the same way despite the fact that the Scottish Government categorises dredging as severe, whereas creeling is considered low impact?

The Government previously said that it wants to take a precautionary approach, but, because it chose the smaller of two possible boundary areas, I am confused about whether the approach is precautionary. It seems that, within the new, smaller boundary, everything will be prohibited and that, outside the boundary, everything will be allowed. There are different types of fishing, with different impact levels, so I would be grateful if we could seek some clarity from the minister about why those activities have been categorised in the same way.

Research by Energy Action Scotland shows that nearly 40 per cent of households will no longer be able to afford to heat their homes adequately due to rising energy prices. However, the Scottish Government has rowed back on its promise to create a publicly owned energy company, despite the outline business case showing that it would have produced annual savings for customers.

I seek clarity from the First Minister. Does she believe, as I do, that essential resources such as energy must be available to everyone on the basis of need, not ability to pay?

Previously, the Scottish Government promised to deliver 130,000 green jobs by 2020. However, just a sixth of that number have been delivered. Latest figures reveal that the number of green jobs is falling, with the loss of nearly 3,000 since 2014. Will the Scottish Government support Labour’s call for the £700 million from the ScotWind licensing, and all annual income, to be ring fenced for investment in the creation of green jobs?

The time for a green industrial revolution is now.

The debate has rightly focused on the further action that is needed to tackle the climate emergency following COP26 as we look ahead to COP27 later this year. My colleague Colin Smyth pointed out that we need to reduce emissions in sectors of the economy, such as domestic transport, where they remain stubbornly high.

Tess White spoke about concerns about the pace of the transition away from fossil fuels. We, in the Labour Party, believe that we need investment in both the production and the distribution of renewable energy through the creation of an asset-owning, publicly owned energy company.

We have heard from Paul McLennan that we need members of the Scottish Parliament who take action and do not just grumble. We also need ministers who act and who will not crumble under pressure from industry lobbying. That means working with trade unions that represent workers in carbon-intensive sectors to create well-paid, secure, green jobs.

I represent offshore oil and gas workers in the north-east, so I understand the importance of delivering those well-paid and secure green jobs as part of a worker-led transition. Those workers are left in a position that sees their transferable skills go unrecognised. At great personal expense, they are often asked to duplicate skills and qualifications that they already have.

The sector’s major training bodies have failed to agree common standards, which has led to the development of rival standards, training modules and qualifications. That market failure cannot continue to go unchallenged by the Government at the expense of workers, which is why I have been working with Friends of the Earth Scotland and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—to push the Scottish Government to commit to supporting an offshore training passport, at least in principle.

The First Minister welcomed the idea of an offshore training passport as a constructive proposal when I first raised it with her back in September, yet, despite repeated questioning and correspondence, ministers have refused to commit to supporting an offshore training passport, even in principle. They have continued to avoid responsibility to address the issue of skills transferability in the offshore energy sector, suggesting that it is an issue to be resolved by industry.

However, that position completely ignores the current market failure, which is preventing oil and gas workers from transitioning into greener jobs. When I asked the Scottish Government whether it had engaged with the UK Government and other international parties on the issue of skills transferability at COP26, I was told that no specific conversations on the issue had taken place. I cannot think of a better time than COP26 to have tried to make progress on an issue so vital to delivering a just transition.

In the wake of COP26, SNP MPs at Westminster were given the opportunity to vote in favour of action on skills transferability for oil and gas workers, but they abstained. The Scottish Government’s warm words on the need for a just transition are not matched by any practical actions.

I was due to meet the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity last week to discuss that issue. It was not an easy meeting to secure, yet it was postponed with just a day’s notice. The postponement was apparently due to the minister’s awaiting a significant update and wanting to share substantial progress. The minister is here today. Would she like to share any of that progress with us?

Okay. I will be happy to hear from the minister at another time.

I would also like, finally, to get a commitment to support for an offshore training passport, at least in principle, because in the wake of COP26 and as we head towards COP27, we have an opportunity to demonstrate Scotland’s climate justice, underpinned by social and economic justice—

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making towards the establishment of a peace institute by the end of 2022, as set out in its 2021-22 programme for government. (S6O-00844)

The Scottish Government has committed to establishing a peace institute, with a focus on human rights, by the end of this year. Amnesty International recently published a report into Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians. It includes a

“call on states to immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer”

of arms to Israel. Given the human rights abuses that Palestinians face, will the Scottish Government’s peace institute have the scope to review the almost £10 million given by Scottish Enterprise in grants to arms companies that sell weapons to Israel?

The tragedy has highlighted the need for a safe and resilient railway, but there are plans to cut thousands of safety-critical jobs at Network Rail. Earlier today, the First Minister failed to give a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies when ScotRail enters public ownership. Will the minister take action to ensure that those Network Rail cuts are scrapped and give a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies at ScotRail?