Chamber and committees

I am sorry, but I am really short of time.

What does that say about us as a society? We are a rich country, but we are seeing the return of diseases and conditions that are related to malnutrition and an increase in obesity. We all know that processed food is cheaper than good-quality food: compare the price of pie, beans and chips with that of a roast dinner. Processed food is loaded with unhealthy fats and sugar, but it is affordable to people who are on low incomes, and that stores up problems for the future.

My colleague Elaine Smith consulted on a proposed right to food bill, which won support in Parliament. Because the Government parties wanted to kick the proposal into the long grass, I, similarly, had to consult—so I have.

My wish is that the right to food and a commission to oversee its implementation will be included in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. In that way, it would have maximum effect. The Scottish Government could then stand proud of world-leading legislation. I urge it to include those things. If it does, it will have my party’s support. If it does not, I will introduce a bill, and the Government will have to look the hungry people in Scotland in the eye when it votes that bill down. The Government will need to explain, from its position of privilege, why it cannot afford our citizens the basic human right to food.

I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on that and ensure that all our citizens can exercise their right to food, and that we can all enjoy Scotland’s wonderful produce.

I have a lot to cover. I am sorry.

The idea of a commission is not new; we have several commissions and committees that oversee, advise on and report on progress in other areas, including climate change and poverty. As Colin Smyth said, the Scottish Food Coalition argued for a commission at committee. It asked for a body like the Scottish Land Commission that would advise Government and other public bodies on drawing up their food plans. That body would also assess those plans and their implementation and would report to Parliament on the progress that is being made towards Scotland becoming a good food nation. Many others, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission, have argued for such an independent body.

Enshrining the right to food in a human rights bill will not change anything, because it is a right that we already have, but many people cannot exercise it. The challenge is to give people access to that right and to make it a reality. We face a cost of living crisis that is only going to get worse, but the Government is missing an opportunity to make a real difference to people’s lives. This is not just about hunger and how it dehumanises people; it is also about the personal cost to people and the cost to society. Dealing with health inequalities that are caused by malnutrition costs us all dear: prevention must be the better way.

The issue is more complex than being simply financial, although affordability plays a huge part. We know that supermarkets are not normally situated in deprived communities. People who live in deprived communities are often left to depend on more expensive smaller shops, and people on limited incomes cannot afford a large food shop to be delivered to their door.

The matter is also about the inability to access food. An older person might have had their driving licence revoked, or might not be physically fit enough to go shopping. Older people are also less likely to book a shopping delivery online. There has been an increase in the number of older people being admitted to hospital underweight and malnourished.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

We are rightly proud of Scottish produce, but our food system has huge disconnects; long food chains often leave producers distant from their customers and it is often middlemen who reap the profit. I will focus on the human right to food and why it should be at the heart of the bill.

The Co-operative Party tells us that 81 per cent of Scots support the right to food being enshrined in Scots law. It is a Government’s first responsibility to ensure that its citizens’ needs are met, and the most basic of those needs is food. We cannot be a good food nation when so many people go hungry and are malnourished.

Too often, the people who produce our food are among those who do not have access to it. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union surveyed its members last year and found that 40 per cent of respondents had gone hungry at some point during the pandemic because they could not afford food. Those are people who go out to work to provide our food, but their pay is not sufficient for them to buy it. They are not alone; that is commonplace throughout our food industry. Food prices are subject to rampant inflation, with the price of some staples having increased by as much as 45 per cent in the past year. The war in Ukraine is unlikely to make that situation any better.

It is time for the Scottish Government to get a grip. Plans and fancy words do not feed people: we need action. The right to food should be at the heart of the bill, and with it should be a body that is charged with delivering that right, because it cannot be delivered by the free market.

It is concerning that the consultation appears to suggest that only marketable bycatch will be landed. That will do nothing to prevent the waste of dead fish being dumped back into the sea, and it could also encourage catching of marketable fish for which there is no quota. I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that all bycatch is landed and that uses such as farmed-fish food are developed for otherwise unmarketable fish in order to cut waste. Will she also take steps to ensure that lucrative species for which there is no quota are not targeted, which would put stocks in danger?

The theme of international women’s day this year is “break the bias”. The very foundation of discrimination against women is a negative bias, whether in the workplace or the home, in design, in wider society or even in the health service. I will touch on some of the issues.

In a letter I received recently from the Lord Advocate, she told me that, at the end of March 2020, 2,978 summary trials were scheduled that involved domestic abuse-related offences. However, at the end of September 2021, 6,889 summary trials were scheduled that involved domestic abuse-related offences—an increase of 131 per cent. That is shocking. Just when we think that we have moved forward in dealing with violence against women, we appear to fall back even further.

The reason for my approach to the Lord Advocate was to push for an increase in virtual trials in which domestic abuse is involved. I understand that the virtual trials national project board presented its report to the cabinet secretary in January, and I wonder when we can expect a response to that report. Virtual trials are especially necessary in rural areas, where public transport is limited and the abuser and their ex-partner often use the same public transport to reach court, which is often some distance away. That is intimidating and can lead to a reluctance to give evidence.

In a report in 2019, Scottish Women’s Aid stated that

“the Scottish Government needed to pay more attention to the experiences of women who live in rural and remote areas”.

The report made a series of recommendations, including about ensuring

“that the safety of women and children is paramount when planning and promoting participation.”

Women in the Highlands and Islands are particularly vulnerable due to close-knit communities, geographical isolation and distance from services. That is why I pushed for the roll-out of domestic abuse courts throughout Scotland. I am now asking that they be virtual.

Another aspect of violence against women is commercial sexual exploitation. For decades, we have been aware of the damage that commercial sexual exploitation causes, yet it takes place unchecked—indeed, it is growing throughout Scotland. We hear of men offering to be sugar daddies in return for sex, to fund young women through university. We hear of men offering accommodation in return for sex. That is all exploitation and violence against women. Way back in 2009, a Public Health Scotland report on commercial sexual exploitation stated:

“The key risk factor for being abused through commercial sexual exploitation is being female.”

Nothing has changed since then.

The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation carried out an inquiry into websites that are used to sell sex. It was clear to us that those websites were not only profiting from sexual exploitation and trafficking but were encouraging it. They offered account managers to those who placed a large number of adverts. They offered deals that involved changing where a woman was based, with promotions such as “on tour”, which is trafficking by any other name.

The same Public Health Scotland report in 2009 talked about prostitution, pornography and other involvement in the sex industry, and it found

“that the exploitation of women through these forms of ‘entertainment’ legitimises negative attitudes towards women and is inextricably linked to gender inequality and sexual violence.”

Nonetheless, we know that many young people get their sex education from that same pornography, hence the changing attitudes that have led to an increase in sexual violence.

I will touch quickly on health services and their bias against women. Let us take, for example, maternity services throughout my region. Communities in both Caithness and Moray have campaigns to reinstate local maternity services. If men gave birth, would they be expected to travel 100 miles in an ambulance, in labour? I really do not think so.

Beatrice Wishart talked about harrowing experiences of endometriosis and the length of time that women wait for a diagnosis of the condition. Women have been told that it is all in their heads. They have been ignored and belittled and have had their health concerns ignored. Engender’s briefing tells us that

“For many women pain, especially that associated with gynaecology, is normalised or dismissed in interactions with healthcare professionals.”

We often hear that women experience heart attacks differently from men and that they are less likely to ask for help and are therefore more likely to die. I look forward to hearing more about the Scottish Government’s commitment to establish an institute for women’s health, as was promised in its 2021 manifesto.

I also look forward to the day when, in an international women’s day debate, I can stand here and simply celebrate women and our equality. However, I sometimes lose heart.

Last year, this Parliament protected many groups of people from hate crime. Labour members believe that women should have been protected, too. That stance is borne out today by Baroness Kennedy’s report, which tells us that women and girls should be protected from hate crime. A year has already passed and women and girls still have to wait for new legislation to get that protection. Again, women are being left behind. How much longer will women have to wait to be equal in every respect?

To ask the Scottish Government what cross-Government strategies have been identified, as part of its work on Covid-19 recovery, to support any communities and businesses in the Highlands and Islands that have not received any or substantial help throughout the pandemic. (S6O-00791)

I welcome that flexibility, but the cabinet secretary will be aware that the funding that was made available during the first lockdown left many businesses behind. Despite the time that elapsed, the same funding was issued subsequently. That was extremely frustrating for businesses that received no funding on either occasion, some of which are close to going under. Will the cabinet secretary consider ways in which he can help businesses that have missed out on substantial funding over the piece to start up again, to survive and to go forward in order to help the economy in the Highlands and Islands to recover?

I congratulate Alasdair Allan on bringing the debate to the chamber and thank him for sharing his own experience. I pay tribute to the work of Epilepsy Scotland in raising awareness of epilepsy. I worked closely with the charity in the past, campaigning to raise awareness and to help people better understand the impact of epilepsy and how it manifests itself. This debate will also do that.

Disability discrimination is rife, especially in the workplace, and people with epilepsy suffer from that. As with all types of discrimination, it is caused by ignorance and fear of the unknown. Raising awareness is therefore a valuable step in counteracting that.

People with epilepsy can have seizures that cause them to pass out. Colleagues and employers would, of course, need to know how to deal with that, should it happen. However, many people have their condition controlled so that seizures happen while they are sleeping or are unidentifiable to others. That is a benefit, but there are also pitfalls, as those having very mild seizures can become disorientated or cannot engage with others while they are having one. At worst, that can mean that they might walk into the path of danger, so it is important to recognise the signs and intervene.

In a work situation, it may appear that a colleague is ignoring others. Misunderstanding of the condition could lead to a negative response from colleagues or members of the public. Other barriers to employment include issues such as not being allowed to drive or use machinery, which can curtail opportunities. What stuck me as counterintuitive about what Alasdair Allan said—a point that was also included in Epilepsy Scotland’s briefing—is that people with epilepsy are often underemployed and are more likely to be employed in low-skilled manual work, although there is nothing in their condition to stop them for taking highly skilled jobs.

Epilepsy is a condition for which assistance dogs can be very helpful, warning a person when a seizure is about to take place and allowing them to get themselves into a safe place.

People with epilepsy also often find themselves in the back of an ambulance on their way to hospital after having a seizure, when what they would prefer is to be in a quiet place with time to recover. For some, that does not take long; others may need to sleep for a period. Being taken to hospital can add another layer of disruption to their lives. Hence, raising awareness of the condition is important. If we were better able to recognise epileptic seizures, we would be better able to assist people who are having them, keep them safe, and allow them to control what happens once the seizure passes.

I urge the Scottish Government to strengthen services, employ more specialist nurses, and provide staff training in order to encourage the employment of people with epilepsy. We as parliamentarians have a role to play in creating greater awareness and understanding, thereby allowing people to live life free from discrimination.

The benefit of EU structural and social funds was a game changer in the Highlands and Islands. Communities were inspired to grow and develop, and the funding was used to build bridges, causeways, roads and factories. Communities were linked and given the tools to lead them to prosperity. In the Highlands and Islands, there was scarcely a road built in the 1990s and early 2000s that did not have an EU flag beside it. The funding made a huge change and, for once, shone a light on some of the most marginalised communities in the country.

Sadly, when the SNP Government came to power, it quickly took control of the fund from local organisations, and the impact decreased markedly. Its obsession with centralisation diluted the impact.

Following Brexit, those funds are now being removed altogether, and the replacement that is being offered by the UK Government is absolutely blind to peripherality.

Although we have sparse populations and poor transport links in the Highlands and Islands, not one of our council areas attracts level 1 funding. Although areas of extreme poverty exist in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, where people depend on ferries and flights to get to the rest of the country, those regions find themselves in level 3 alongside areas such as Buckinghamshire and Cambridge. That is senseless.

I wrote to Michael Gove to try to get him to understand the situation, telling him that rural poverty and deprivation do not show up easily in the indicators that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government use, which are largely postcode based.

In rural areas, the poor live side by side with the very rich, so the real disadvantage that those communities face is hidden. In the Highlands, that disadvantage is further hidden due to the success of some parts of Inverness. Despite that success, a decade’s difference in life expectancy exists there depending on which direction I walk in from my house for 15 minutes. People who live within walking distance of each other can have markedly different life chances.

Outside Inverness, throughout the Highlands and Islands, disadvantage manifests itself through depopulation. Although many areas are extremely fragile because our young people are forced out to seek employment and housing, the whole region is termed level 2 or 3.

I believe that the UK Government has a real opportunity to make a difference by using the levelling up fund in a way that would demonstrate an understanding of remote rural communities. Our area provides opportunities for the rest of the country. We are the lungs of the country with our wide-open spaces, and we are set to become the generator of energy, too, yet we struggle for survival.

The funding provides an opportunity to level up our society, but unfortunately it looks like it is there to provide sweeteners for parts of the country that voted Conservative for the first time—an attempt to buy their loyalty while doing down our most peripheral regions.

I appeal to both our Governments to recognise the needs of rural communities and find a better way to reflect their needs. If they do not, those communities are likely to disappear. Those communities are best able to understand their own needs, but they need to be empowered and be given the funds to allow them to build up and repopulate. Those areas will grow and flourish if we recognise their needs. This is not a time for political opportunism; it is a time for action.