Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you.

We seem to have focused on fishing and fish farming today, but a lot more is going on in the marine environment. We hear more about a squeeze on fishing and things such as offshore energy. Should we look at those? I am sorry: I am asking two questions in one.

We have also heard about how complex the consultation is. How do we engage stakeholders? What went really wrong with the HPMA process was that it was top down. It imposed things that people largely did not understand or know enough about. There was a huge lump of policy, and nobody disaggregated it and spoke to people about the impact on them. How do we avoid that? This seems to be just the same: it is a big, top-down exercise that does not involve the people on whom it will impact. I fear that it will get the same reaction, given that there is a huge amount of distrust out there.

I ask people to turn their attention to schedule 1, which sets out an awful lot of the detail. Does it cover all the purposes for which support will be provided as required to replace the CAP and, indeed, provide for a new agricultural policy for us? Does it meet people’s aspirations for the new policy?

I have an even more technical question—sorry about that. Do we need more detail on how the powers in schedule 1 will be used? Also, should there be greater scrutiny of how the new powers—for example, to cap payments—are used?

Nobody has mentioned scrutiny. This is an enabling bill, and a lot of the powers in it relate to where the money is going to come from. Folk might reflect on whether the scrutiny provisions in the bill are enough and write to the committee on that. That issue might not be at the forefront of everybody’s mind, but we need to have adequate scrutiny in the bill over the powers that will shape the policy going forward.

I have a final, small question. We are looking at alignment with the EU CAP. I am picking up that people are broadly supportive of that, but is there any area where that would not be desirable?

I am not asking everyone to read schedule 1, but it basically highlights all the things that could receive support under the bill.

I congratulate Sue Webber on securing the debate.

Hospices are essential to end-of-life care but, unfortunately, they are not available everywhere. First of all, we must ensure that everyone has access to high-quality palliative care, be that in a hospice, at home, in hospital or in another setting. People need to have choice as to where that care can be accessed. As that can depend on someone’s life-limiting condition, people need information both to make an informed decision and to understand what their needs might be, how their care can be delivered to enable them to have a good death and where that care needs to be delivered if they require specialist care. Most people want to die at home, and that should always be the starting point. We have a right to a home birth but we do not have the right to die at home.

There seems to me to be a hierarchy of end-of-life care, with cancer patients tending to get better-quality care than those with age-related illnesses such as dementia and organ failure. It is hard to understand why that is, but it needs to change. We need to ensure that everybody has the same rights and ability to access end-of-life care.

Other members have spoken about hospices struggling financially. That is the case with many charities that depend on NHS funding. Highland hospice, which is an amazing organisation in the Highlands, receives around 25 per cent of its funding through statutory funding and fundraises to meet the other 75 per cent of its costs. In comparison, Roxburgh house in Aberdeen, which provides much of the same care, receives 100 per cent of its funding, because it is an NHS facility. I do not think that any hospice is looking for 100 per cent funding, but there needs to be a narrowing of the funding gap between NHS and independent hospices.

Highland hospice is revolutionising how end-of-life care happens. It runs an end-of-life care together project with NHS Highland, Macmillan Cancer Support, Connecting Carers, Marie Curie, Highland Senior Citizens Network and Scottish Care. All of those organisations working together has enabled the development of the service, which offers a 24/7 helpline for agencies and families looking after someone requiring end-of-life care.

The hospice also provides a palliative care response service. That is being rolled out in Inverness, and the hope is that it will be rolled out more widely. The service provides palliative care at home, and it helps cut costs to the NHS by preventing hospital admissions. It is very important to delivering the service that the final year of life is pre-planned, so that services can be put in place and are ready for when they are required. It is important that all the stops are pulled out to ensure that people have the death that they would wish for and, indeed, that their families are witness to that, as it helps with the grieving process.

I will touch on funding not just for hospices but more widely. In my region, there are many community groups that provide support to older people and people with life-limiting and chronic conditions, but many have not had a funding uplift for decades. Because of underfunding, they cannot continue to provide the services that they do and will fail, and it will mean a loss of community care provided by the voluntary sector as well as more hospital admissions. It is a false economy, because hospitals are not geared up for that kind of care; it costs more and it is not good for the patient or their family. We need to invest in end-of-life care as we do at the start of life—they need to have equal importance.

I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing the debate, which highlights the importance of connectivity, especially in our island communities.

Much has been said about the ferry fiasco in the Western Isles, but there are issues with an ageing fleet in Shetland, too. The council owns the ferry fleet, which is ageing and unreliable, and it needs to be renewed. However, because of funding commitments, that is not something that councils are able to do. Shetland Islands Council has been in talks with the Scottish Government, looking for assistance to renew its ferry fleet. Every time a ferry is renewed, however, there is a need to consider replacing it in the future. Is it better value for money to build tunnels and fixed links? That argument for tunnels and bridges instead of ferries to link communities has been coming from Shetland for decades. It is sad that communities are now crowdfunding to try to make that a reality, at a time when the Government should be listening.

Beatrice Wishart spoke about the Corran ferry and the length of time that it was off in the summer, which created a huge detour for communities, preventing people from crossing what is a very narrow strait and getting to Fort William much quicker. I totally agree that a fixed link should be considered there. Beatrice Wishart also talked about the benefits to communities of fixed links. We should consider how the Western Isles used European funding to build bridges and causeways: Harris and Scalpay were joined together; so were Berneray and North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist, South Uist and Eriskay, and Barra and Vatersay.

We saw an economic benefit as a result of that, and there was also a social benefit because people had much easier access to services. The links between Eriskay and Barra and between Berneray and Harris obviously need to be looked at for the future. Those islands are still served by ageing ferries but it would benefit them to have fixed links as well.

More controversial is having fixed links from island groups to the mainland. People are perhaps not so keen on that because they lose the benefits of island life. We look to Skye very often and we can see the huge economic benefit to Skye of having a bridge. However, people now see that its economy is overheating, with a lack of houses for young people and the like.

Therefore, we have to be careful and plan with local communities, listening to what they want and how we can fulfil their ambitions. Government must listen to those communities and make a strategic plan that fulfils their wishes and ambitions. Everyone knows that that cannot be done overnight but it will never be done if we do not start making a plan. Therefore, I urge the Government to look at the issue and start on a strategic plan immediately.

Before I begin my speech, I will take a moment to put on record our sadness at the passing of Alistair Darling. He was a public servant who served his country and his constituents, and he will be missed by all of us. I offer our condolences to Margaret, Calum, Anna and the rest of his family. [Applause.]

I also take this opportunity to thank the clerks to the committee, who helped to produce the report, and everyone who provided the evidence that is included in the report. We, in the Scottish Labour Party, support the general principles of the bill, which draws from the Werritty report on grouse moor management. I know that the issue was passionately followed by Claudia Beamish, who was a member of the Scottish Parliament and instrumental in pushing for the Werritty review to be set up. Ms Beamish was pleased to see the report come to fruition and, I am sure, will be glad that the bill has been introduced.

The grouse moor management group was set up due to concerns about raptor persecution. As other members have said, persecution is on-going and must be investigated. However, we must also put on record that that appalling practice is carried out by a minority. Those responsible have been warned time and again that action would be taken if they did not change their behaviour. Their behaviour has not changed, and we are therefore forced to legislate in this area. At the same time, though, we need to be careful to balance legislation against jobs and consider rural economies that are dependent on grouse moors for their livelihoods.

I want to mention the handling of the bill. It was difficult to scrutinise a bill that came in different stages, with decisions being made after the bill had been published and when the committee was gathering evidence. It is not good practice for a Government to introduce a bill and then start amending it mid-stage 1.

I accept that, but those stakeholders have been calling for those pieces of legislation for a lot longer than since the bill came to fruition.

The bill will ensure that grouse moors will be licensed. I appreciate the minister indicating that she agrees with the committee that those licences should be for longer than one year. Given that the licences can be suspended, there is no need to have one-year licences. We took evidence from organisations and stakeholders who talked about three-year or five-year licences or possibly even longer ones, if there were the right checks and balances in place to ensure that they were reviewed reasonably often. The licences could be suspended if there is bad practice and raptor persecution happening or any other illegal activity.

We have to bear in mind that the management of grouse moors has positive environmental and natural impacts, too. Members have talked about curlews, golden plovers and other bird species that flourish in moors that are managed for grouse. They enjoy the same habitats, which adds to their numbers. We need to be careful that we do not throw away the good with the bad.

I will turn to muirburn, on which the science and knowledge need to be improved. Professor Werritty said:

“the science base underpinning a lot of moorland management is incredibly fragmented, contested and incomplete”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 14 June 2023; c 17.]

We heard about wildfires in evidence. Indeed, at that time, we saw what was happening in Cannich, where there was a major wildfire. Wildfires are worse when there is a large fuel load. When we were taking evidence, it was suggested that muirburn could be an essential part of moorland management. If we do not deal with the fuel load, we will have more wildfires that will have a greater environmental impact. Obviously, burning on degraded peat causes carbon release, but we also saw that, with burning on good-quality wet peat, the peat itself remains largely unscathed. Licensing will help to share that best practice, but the code of conduct and changes need to adapt with the science. We must have conservation and the restoration of the natural environment at the heart of licensing while enjoying the land management benefits that muirburn brings.

Many stakeholders talked about peat depth and how it could be measured. We cannot measure in detail every inch of the land on which we carry out muirburn, so we must ensure that there is a workable solution to how land is termed—whether it is peatland or moorland.

There were concerns about expertise. It was hoped that licensing of muirburn would ensure that practitioners were trained, but it became clear during the Cannich fire that there is a huge amount of expertise held by gamekeepers. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service made it clear that it could not have brought the fire under control without the help of neighbouring gamekeepers. We need to ensure that that expertise is protected and disseminated to all those who practise muirburn.

There was discussion about the muirburn season and how it needs to be adapted to keep up with climate change because of the earlier nesting of birds. All those regulations need to be kept in check but, more importantly, they need to follow the science.

Presiding Officer, you indicated that you would give me some time back.