Chamber and committees

I support all the amendments in the group, but I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s approach. We need a vehicle to implement our human right to food. Although I welcome the forthcoming human rights bill, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill is the vehicle for implementing the right to food. However, sadly, this morning’s discussion shows that the Government is willing only to pay lip service to that right and is keen to vote down any amendment that will make the right a reality. The bill should be the vehicle for making that right a reality, so I will press amendment 8.

[Inaudible.]—in place where they are not adhered to. Therefore, I press amendment 13.

I will press amendment 13. The cabinet secretary already stated on record that relevant authorities need only to consider the plans, not adhere to them. Therefore, amendment 13 means that they will be adhered to. It seems to me meaningless to have plans that will not be adhered to. That is my reason for pressing the amendment.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for her support and her attention to detail. The Scottish good food commission should, of course, be the Scottish food commission, but it nevertheless gives me an excuse to say that we should all be aspiring to give everyone a good, nutritious diet. If the amendment is agreed to, I undertake to correct the name at stage 3.

I have listened very closely to the cabinet secretary. Initially, in her winding-up, she seemed to say that she would work with Ariane Burgess to reach an agreement on this; latterly, though, she seemed to include the rest of us. Before I decide to press or withdraw amendment 26, it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary that she will indeed work with everybody who seeks to amend the bill at this stage and that it will not be a stitch-up between her and the Greens. [Interruption.]

Given that amendment 26A has been disagreed to and given what I said earlier about having constructive discussions with the cabinet secretary, I will withdraw amendment 26. However, I reserve the right to come back to the matter at stage 3.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 56 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

In February, the cabinet secretary told the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee that

“it is the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill that will put in place the long-term planning that is necessary to make both the practical and cultural changes that we need to make human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 February 2022; c 2.]

I welcome that commitment. The bill has the potential to be world leading in its approach, and amendment 1 seeks to put that aim and purpose in the bill. When we introduce legislation, its central aim should be clear for all to see in the bill. The Scottish Government has committed to enshrine our human rights into Scots law, and I welcome that step. However, without legislation and policies in place, that will simply repeat the rights that we already have.

As part of our ratification of international treaties, we already have the right to food. Despite that, we have a growing problem with hunger and malnutrition, which we must address. If we do not implement that right to food, we will store up problems for the future, such as the cost of poor health, the resurfacing of diseases due to malnutrition and the impact of hunger on our younger generations. It is impossible to learn on an empty stomach, so I welcome moves towards free school meals and policies that address holiday hunger. However, those policies are simply sticking plasters for the problem. To deal with hunger, we need to deal with the root causes and allow every family to be able to feed their children. The inability to do that is inhumane and soul destroying. With this bill, we have the opportunity to put in train policies to deal with that. I urge members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment 1.

Beatrice Wishart wishes to press amendment 26A, and my withdrawing amendment 26 would prevent her from doing so. As a result, I will press the amendment, but I would also welcome discussions with the cabinet secretary on finding a resolution that suits all our purposes.

The crux of the debate is that disastrous decisions were made that have cost the Scottish people hundreds of millions of pounds. The cost to our island communities is immeasurable. We suspect that the decisions were made for political reasons—to further the SNP’s ambitions, rather than to serve our island communities and Scotland’s industry.

It seems to be convenient that the Scottish Government has found proof that it can pin the blame on Derek MacKay, who appears to have made the decision when he was on holiday, without reference to any of his colleagues. It beggars belief. Willie Rennie said that the email raises more questions than it gives answers. Given the Scottish Government’s secrecy, it is convenient that the email came to light just before this debate.

A cursory glance at social media shows that the email states:

“Just finished my call with DFM. He now understands the background and that Mr McKay has cleared the proposal. So the way is clear to award.”

It seems that the Deputy First Minister signed off the award. Frankly, that adds to the stink surrounding this fiasco.

The minister wants us to move on. Unfortunately, our island communities cannot move on—indeed, many cannot move at all. The ferries are not in operation and the Scottish Government appears to be unable to do anything to help.

Alasdair Allan and Donald Cameron mentioned the breakdown of the Lord of the Isles. There is no capacity in the fleet to allow for the necessary repairs without disruption. That is simply not good enough.

We still have no answer on how the shortfall of capacity to Uist will be made up when Uig harbour is being adapted to fit the new ferry—if it ever arrives. That answer is now urgently required, so I hope that the minister will intervene to ensure that capacity is retained throughout the period.

We need openness and transparency about what went wrong. Neil Bibby said that past employees of Ferguson’s need to be released from their non-disclosure agreements so that we can find out what happened—both during the letting of the contract and thereafter. My colleagues Neil Bibby and Katy Clark said that that information should be released not only to Audit Scotland, but to Parliament and, indeed, the public, because we are talking about their money and their ferries. They deserve to know what went wrong.

The Scottish Government always seeks to shift the blame—to Ferguson’s, to CalMac, to CMAL and now to Derek Mackay—but the blame sits squarely with it. It needs to make good its mismanagement and stop letting our island communities down.

The Scottish Government has also let Ferguson’s down. Instead of protecting jobs, it has put them at risk and is now procuring ferries from Turkey. My heart goes out to the people who work at Ferguson’s.

If the Scottish Government had nothing to hide, it would release workers from the gagging clauses, so that we could see what went wrong and where. Failure to do so means that mistakes will continue to be made—a point that was made by Katy Clark.

We are not talking about a failure of the public sector to provide lifeline services; this is a failure of the Government. The public sector should run lifeline services—the services should not be run for the profit of multinationals, but must be run for the communities that depend on them.

We need full disclosure. Voting for the Labour amendment will provide that.

Thank you, convener. I have a question for clarification. Prospect has worked well on the matter and I am pleased that we are where we are and are making progress. We talked about replicating the Sumburgh service. Peter Henderson, the petitioner, had some concerns about what might happen in Sumburgh with radar being centralised to Inverness. Does that have staffing implications and do you see issues with it?

I still have a huge number of concerns about rural healthcare. I am concerned that the nature of the proposed centre of excellence is still being defined and considered, and we are a long way from it becoming a reality. Meanwhile, in my region, fast-track midwifery training has been removed from the University of the Highlands and Islands even though we know that there is a huge lack of staff.

Maternity care is a big issue in the Highlands and Islands. The maternity unit in Caithness was downgraded to a midwife-led unit and the same thing has happened at Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin, although they are quite different places. Caithness patients go to Raigmore hospital in Inverness and there is agreement that, at some point in the future, Moray births will go to Inverness too, at least for a period. However, Raigmore hospital does not have enough staff for the births that it has, let alone taking on more. We need to have people in the communities.

The submission from the community in Caithness talks about the distances that people have to travel. I am taking part in a Caithness group that is looking at the cost of living, the impact of price rises and especially fuel costs. It was put to me that people are getting 15p per mile—with the first £10 top-sliced off—for travel to Raigmore. I wrote to NHS Highland on that topic and it has increased the rate by a couple of pence per mile in recognition of fuel costs, which are worse in rural areas. However, that presupposes that the person has a car and can afford to put fuel in it. It takes no account of rural deprivation.

One of the submissions to the committee makes the point that people think that living in rural areas is a lifestyle choice—someone moves to a rural area and it is lovely, and if they are going to do that, they have to accept that they are not going to have an accident and emergency department around every corner. Everyone knows that. However, we are talking about people who have been born and brought up in deprived communities in rural areas being expected to travel hundreds of miles to access healthcare. On top of that, with the Covid situation, there are restrictions on access to hospitals, even during childbirth.

In Inverness, in the height of summer, even budget hotels cost about £400 for a room. That means that people on limited incomes cannot be with their loved ones in hospital. It has huge implications for families and for people accessing healthcare for themselves, and there is a cost attached to that. We need to do better.

I urge the committee to keep the petition open and push for people in rural areas to get the health services that they need. How we supply them should be a case in point, rather than people just receiving the crumbs from the edge of the table. Access to health services should not depend on people’s wealth.