Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary will be aware that a crofting bill was promised in the previous session of Parliament. The problems with crofting were caused by the bill that became the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and we desperately need a bill to put right what was done wrong in that legislation. Will the cabinet secretary either repeal the previous legislation or bring forward a new bill immediately? The current legislation is a dead hand on crofting.

I do not think that I said that Brexit was a good thing—far from it. We need to be able to export, but at the moment we are importing without barriers and not exporting without barriers. We need to sort that out.

We need an all-round policy. Members have talked about the agriculture bill, we have the human right to food, and we have good food nation plans coming up. However, we need a joined-up policy. The Scottish Government does not use its powers to the maximum, and it missed an opportunity to join up food and drink policy and to enshrine the right to food in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. It has also made no progress in dealing with food poverty. Opportunities have been squandered. The Government could have improved the nation’s health and economy.

I move amendment S6M-10406.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises the plan set out by the Labour Party to stabilise the economy after the turmoil of the UK Conservative administration, reset the relationship with Europe, improve trading relationships and use the power of the Scotland Office to promote Scotland’s excellent food and drink around the world; believes that it is unacceptable that so many people living in food poverty in Scotland are those who work in the food industry; considers that more action is needed to address low pay, zero-hours contracts and insecure work in Scotland’s food and drink sector, and therefore welcomes the proposals in the Labour Party’s New Deal for Working People; asserts that food production and a sustainable environment can work hand in hand for the benefit of both, and believes that the right to food should be enshrined in Scots law.”

I move the amendment in my name—that saves me from forgetting later on.

I welcome the debate, because it underlines the importance of the food and drink sector to Scotland. We should have four pillars that underpin our production system. We need food security—60 per cent of our food is home produced; we are importing 40 per cent. The sector also needs to be climate friendly and provide a fair deal for workers. We also need to recognise it as the economic driver that it is.

With regard to food security, it is absolutely unacceptable that we have so many people who are dependent on food banks. The Trussell Trust told us that 259,744 food parcels were delivered in 2022-23, which is a 50 per cent increase from 2017-18. That is a disgrace. The bill that became the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 could have dealt with that. It should have enshrined the human right to food, and it should have empowered the Scottish food commission to implement that right. I am still determined to bring forward a bill that will do that, so that we can be freed from the scourge of food banks and food insecurity.

Food insecurity, food banks and food poverty are a problem for us all. We can see the health issues that arise from the lack of nourishing food. We are seeing obesity rates increase and the return of diseases such as rickets to our communities. That is a cost to us all, and it happens because people cannot afford good, nutritious food.

The Scottish Government talked about a plan to end food banks, but that was last year. We are still waiting for the promised plan—we hope to see it before this winter—so that we can end people’s dependence on the dehumanising process of going to a food bank. I urge all MSPs who see the obscenity in a rich country having families dependent on food banks to join me to bring an end to that.

The war in Ukraine has also shown us how important our national food security is. We need to produce more than 60 per cent of our own food for our national food security, as well as to cut carbon miles and help local economies. We also need to look at local procurement. Labour’s policy is to ensure that 50 per cent of the food that is procured by public bodies should come from local procurement. We need to do that to support our farming industry and our food and drink sector.

With regard to the climate, we have a lot to offer. Our animals are grass fed, which sequesters carbon. However, putting higher standards on our own grass-fed animals in order to cut the number that we produce means importing others from elsewhere, perhaps from places that do not take their responsibilities towards the climate so seriously, so that is actually counterproductive.

We need to look at innovation, because we need to reach net zero, including in our food production, so we need to ensure that we have measures such as carbon recycling, which the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee looked at quite recently.

We also need to ensure that we have the right pipeline jobs, such as local abattoirs that allow us to make use of local produce as close to home as possible. That cuts transport, but we need to ensure that those pipeline jobs are there to support our industry.

With regard to fishing, we need to ensure that we are fishing sustainably. We need to use our powers over our seas to ensure that we have selective gear. We need to cut bycatch and, where there is bycatch, it needs to be landed and used, because we cannot afford the waste. We need to ensure that policies such as highly protected marine areas, which have targeted the most sustainable fisheries, are not going to come forward again.

We also need to look at the people who produce our food and drink. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union talked about many of its members depending on food banks. It is surely wrong that people who bake and produce our food are themselves having to go to food banks to eat.

Insecure working is also an issue. We need a new deal for working people that bans zero-hours contracts, outlaws fire and rehire and gives people security at work by giving them full rights from day 1. That is how we deal with our labour shortage. If we make jobs more attractive and ensure that they are better paid, we will get the workers to carry them out.

We must also remind ourselves how important food and drink are to the economy, amounting to £8.1 billion in exports. As many of us know, Scotch whisky is responsible for much of that. I am very lucky to represent the Highlands and Islands, which covers many—and certainly the best—whisky-producing parts of Scotland. We also have quality food products such as Orkney cheese, Shetland lamb and Stornoway black pudding, to name but a few, that are protected because they are so important. The sector employs 48,000 people and indirectly supports another 300,000 jobs. It is of critical importance to our country.

I am disappointed that the debate seems to have come down to the question of Brexit or not Brexit. Of course, Brexit brought issues and problems, but we need to find ways through them. The Scottish Government cannot simply blame Brexit for its own shortcomings. We need to give consideration to gene editing as well and see what benefits it could bring for food production.

I am in my final minute, I think.

Will the cabinet secretary empower the Scottish food commission to bring a right to food into reality? We have a right to food now—it is a human right—but actually, when we look around, we see so many of our citizens not being able to access food. Will she charge the food commission with making the right a reality for people?

Before I turn to the content of the debate, I want to raise an issue that I had hoped would be raised—land reform. Land reform offers very clear opportunities to Scotland.

In his programme for government statement, the First Minister talked about “bold and radical” land reform, but he lacks a vision for that. Just 0.027 per cent of Scotland’s population own 67 per cent of Scotland’s land. That shows how much power and wealth are held in so few hands.

In his 1998 McEwen lecture, Donald Dewar said that land reform was not a one-off event, and the Jimmy Reid Foundation’s paper on land reform by Calum MacLeod illustrated that. As well as looking at the history, it pushed for a radical approach to land reform.

The Scottish Government has said that it will introduce a public interest test for when land changes hands, but the 3,000 hectare trigger is timid and it means that virtually no land holdings in Scotland will ever face a public interest test.

The community right to buy is unworkable—there are far too many hurdles—and it needs to be updated. That could create huge opportunities for our communities. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 sought to put urban communities on the same footing as rural communities, but there will not be a public interest test in that context. It is really important that that happens, because our towns and city centres are absolutely blighted and they need to have the same powers in their communities.

Peter Peacock and Mike Russell, both previous cabinet secretaries, joined forces this summer in calling for a radical approach and backing Mercedes Villalba’s plan to implement a public interest test on the sale of land over 500 hectares. That has been backed by other organisations such as Community Land Scotland and the Jimmy Reid Foundation, both of which are offering support for such policies and solutions to our land ownership issues.

—to be headquartered in Scotland, and we will stay true to Donald Dewar’s vision of bringing greater diversity to land ownership.

Briefly.

We are consulting on that. It must be very clear that there will be a public interest test. If it was in the public interest for larger parcels of land to change hands, of course that would take place, but if it was not in the public interest, as is very often the case, we would look to ensure that that did not happen, because it can be a dead hand on both rural and urban communities.

I turn to the wider debate and echo the points made by my colleague Daniel Johnson. He welcomed the pay rise for care workers but was very clear that this has come three years too late. Had workers received that pay rise three years ago, they would be far better paid now. Another part of the First Minister’s statement that slightly confused me was that he spoke about that pay rise being for directly paid care workers. We want to see all care workers receiving £12 an hour and to see that being increased to £15 an hour. That is absolutely affordable. We are wasting huge amounts of money on agency workers and lining the pockets of agencies that charge twice as much as care workers would receive anywhere else.

Jim Fairlie talked about the importance of childcare, a point that has been echoed by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. We agree that that is hugely important, but how is it going to be delivered? People in rural areas already have the right to childcare but cannot access any childcare, which means that rural areas lose out on childcare, on homes and on jobs.

I turn to the issue of jobs and skills, as raised by Daniel Johnson, and to the importance of skilling young people to be able to take up the jobs that are available. That applies not only to young people: we need to upskill older people as well. If we are to have a just transition, we must ensure that everyone is skilled to take up the jobs at hand. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the importance of education in raising people out of poverty and about the opportunities that we are missing. There have been promises about free school meals, class sizes and the Erasmus programme, all of which our people are missing out on.

Scottish Labour is committed to the creation of GB Energy, which will deal with our energy supply and issues such as those in the supply chain that Willie Rennie talked about. We are missing out on ScotWind and the development of green hydrogen, as Brian Whittle said.

The SNP’s programme for government is one of contracting, not expanding, ambition, as we can see when we look at plans for the A9 and A96. Even Ivan McKee highlighted that lack of delivery. Scottish Labour has a vision to transform Scotland and will grasp every opportunity to do so. We will pay care workers the fair rate for the job, tackle climate change and create a public energy company—

Thank you for giving me the chance to speak to the petitions. I cannot stress enough how vital the links in question are to the west Highlands. They link the Highland Council area to the Western Isles. They are seen as links to Uig on Skye and to Uist, so they are incredibly important.

You referred to what the then Minister for Transport said about the STPR and how the A890 did not wholly meet the criteria for inclusion in the trunk road network. I do not understand that, because local communities use it to access healthcare and education, and it is also used for tourism, farming, aquaculture and renewables. It is a freight link to the Western Isles and it is on the north coast 500; as we all know, that has been incredibly successful in encouraging tourists into the area but it has put huge pressure on the road. I believe that the A890 is of national significance because of that.

You mentioned the submissions from Lochcarron community council and the Plockton and district community council, which highlight how important the A890 is to the area. If the road is closed, the detour involves going from the west coast to the east coast and back. That is a detour of 140 miles. A child from Lochcarron who goes to Plockton high school will have to double back, adding 280 miles to their daily commute to high school, which is totally unacceptable. That happens often, often for long periods of time. Therefore, I do not understand the then minister’s reluctance to adopt the A890 as a trunk road. We should also think about the extra carbon that is emitted when the freight that uses that route has to travel an additional 280 miles, which is certainly not good for the planet.

Highland Council has made it clear that it is keen to do something about the situation, but it simply does not have the money. Last year, it spent more than £700,000 trying to deal with the rock falls. This year, it expects to spend £1.5 million on that. The council has not been able to make any progress on the options appraisal that it carried out.

I believe that the roads in question meet the criteria for a national strategic link and that the Government should therefore consider making them trunk roads. Given that we are two transport ministers on from when the most recent response was received, I suggest that the committee should write to the current transport minister to ask her to consider the petitions. I think that the A890 is of national significance and is significant in the context of the Scottish Government’s duty to ensure that children are educated. The issue of children not being able to get to school because of rock falls was an issue when I was at school; it has been going on for some time. At some point, there will be a horrendous accident, because the road is dangerous—people who use it take their life in their hands. The current situation is simply not good enough.

The local people do not care who is responsible. It is clear that Highland Council does not have the money to do the work that is necessary because of the cuts in local government finance. People need to have safe roads. If the Scottish Government is not willing to adopt the A890 as a trunk road, it should seek to make capital available to make it safe or to reroute it along a safer route.

I know that the committee will be tempted to close the petition because it has had a response from the Scottish Government, but I ask it to write to the Scottish Government again, given the national significance of the route and its importance to education, to ask it to change its mind, or to at least consider how it could assist.