Chamber and committees

I do not want to repeat what you have said, convener, but I will echo it. From the start of training for staff all the way through the system, there seems to be a systemic fault, which is that the system is totally geared towards urban areas and does not focus on rural areas. It is clear that, if we base the structure on a rural area, that works in an urban area. During the Covid-19 pandemic, health boards throughout Scotland started using the NHS Near Me system, which was devised especially to save people in Caithness from travelling long distances.

We need systems to be put in place; there is talk of a commissioner or the like. Someone needs to advocate to ensure that the whole system considers rural areas and that we look after their needs initially, which would translate to urban areas. A root and branch approach is needed.

I am relieved that we have a bill in front of us that is much improved from the one that we were presented with before. As Colin Smyth said, the major improvement is putting in place a food commission that will oversee the drawing up of good food plans. May it also be independent of Government, which will allow the Government to focus its mind on how we implement our human right to food.

The amendments that relate to the food commission were lodged by Ariane Burgess who, bizarrely, voted against similar ones at stage 2. I thank her for having the conscience to change her mind and stance—Sarah Boyack also thanked her for that.

However, credit for the commission being established lies elsewhere. First, it lies with Elaine Smith, and I pay tribute to her work in campaigning to have a commission set up. She wanted to create legislation that the Government refused during the previous parliamentary session. I am sure that she will be delighted that her hard work paid off.

Credit also goes to all the others who fought for a commission: the Scottish Food Coalition, the Co-operative Party, the Trussell Trust and many other organisations and individuals too many to mention, many of them working to bring food to people who cannot afford it. I thank them for their help and advice during the consultation for my proposed bill.

The cabinet secretary gave credit to them, too, and included the UN rapporteur but ignored their pleas to enshrine the rights to food in the bill where it rightly belongs. That is a major omission from the bill and, even at this stage in the process, Ariane Burgess failed to mention it in her speech. Again, we see the Greens abandon their principles—a theme that runs through the process. To be frank, without the right to food enshrined in it, the bill is half baked.

Colin Smyth talked about the fact that the bill could have set targets to eliminate food poverty and has not. Rachael Hamilton, Beatrice Wishart and Brian Whittle expanded on that point and talked about where those targets could have been set. Beatrice Wishart spoke clearly and passionately about the right to food and her hopes that the food commission will deliver where the Government has not. Sarah Boyack talked about how the bill could have gone much further in dealing with food poverty. That was echoed by Monica Lennon in her intervention.

When the commission is set up, a lot will fall at its door to deal with the things that the Government has omitted to do during the passage of the bill. The bill should bring us a step closer to ending hunger in Scotland but it really needs the Government to act. Its unambitious bill does not fill me with confidence that it will do so, but I live in hope. The Government needs to understand that failure to end hunger costs us all. It costs in health inequalities in Scotland, where life expectancy depends on your postcode and can vary by 20 years and where children, who are our future, are failed due to hunger.

I dream of a world that is better than that: one that is free of the need for food banks and where no one faces the inability to feed themselves and their family. The Scottish Government can realise that dream if it really wishes to.

It appears strange to me that the Scottish Government chooses to legislate but refuses to spell out in the bill what the purpose of that legislation is.

A purpose clause would provide clarity on the Government’s vision for implementing the legislation. We believe that a good food nation bill must give effect to our human right to food, and I believe that the cabinet secretary does as well. To quote her:

“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 amendment seeks to put that aim and purpose in the bill.

The legislation has the potential to be world leading in its approach. At stage 2, the Government rejected a similar amendment, commenting that it had no force in law. Amendment 15 clarifies the matter by stating:

“Regard should be had to”

that

“purpose in preparing and implementing good food nation plans.”

The Scottish Government has committed to enshrining our human rights into Scots law, which is a welcome step. I cannot understand why it would refuse to state clearly in the legislation that its purpose is to implement our human right to food. 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 and the cost will be poor health and the resurfacing of diseases due to malnutrition.

Hunger also impacts on younger generations. It is impossible to learn on an empty stomach. I welcome moves towards providing free school meals and policies that address holiday hunger, but those policies are simply sticking plasters on the problem. To deal with hunger, we must deal with its root causes and allow every family to be able to feed their children. The inability to do that is inhumane and soul destroying. With the bill, we have an opportunity to put in train policies that deal with that. I urge members to support amendment 15.

I support amendment 16 in the name of Rachael Hamilton. It provides a detailed summation of what the bill should do and none of its points contradict my amendment 15.

I move amendment 15.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will move amendment 21 and speak to it and to amendments 22, 27, 30, 31 and 34.

Amendments 21 and 30 would ensure that regard must be had to the principles that are outlined not only when preparing plans but when implementing them. Amendment 21 refers to section 1A, which places duties on the Scottish ministers, and amendment 30 refers to section 7A, which refers to health boards, local authorities and other specified public authorities.

One of the principles is

“the fact that adequate food is a human right (as part of the right to an adequate standard of living set out in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and essential to the realisation of other human rights”.

Amendments 27 and 34 would strengthen that principle in sections 1A and 7A respectively by adding the phrase

“how the plan can be used to ensure this right is implemented”

to ensure that the plans are used to ensure that the right is implemented in Scotland. As I said, the Government has acknowledged that the bill is a vehicle for ensuring that people have access to their human rights, and therefore it should ensure implementation. Amendments 27 and 34 would do just that.

Amendments 22 and 31 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to have due regard to good food nation plans, which again would strengthen this part of the bill.

We are supportive of the other amendments in the group, although I ask Rachael Hamilton for clarity on her amendments 24 to 26. It is well understood that processed food can be cheap but laden with fat, salt and sugar and therefore detrimental to health. However, some foods, especially plant-based foods, can be highly processed when used as a meat substitute, and it could be argued that those foods are still nutritious and essential for those who have a vegetarian or vegan diet. I would like to support amendments 24 to 26, because I believe that the sentiments are right, but I need reassurance from Rachael Hamilton that they will not have unintended consequences.

I move amendment 21.

I welcome the change of heart by Ariane Burgess and the cabinet secretary, who voted against a food commission at stage 2. Although they have tried to clip the wings of the commission before it gets started, I believe that the calibre of the commissioners will make sure that it works.

I agree that the process of drafting the amendment was a stitch-up—I suspected it and said as much at stage 2. Despite the assurances to the contrary from the cabinet secretary, that is simply what happened.

I put on the record my thanks to campaigners such as the Scottish Food Coalition, the Co-operative Party, Elaine Smith and many others whose sustained campaigning has forced the Government into this very welcome U-turn.

I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate.

The current situation arises wholly from the failure of the Scottish Government to legislate to make the community right to buy possible in the face of a hostile landlord. It has had 15 years to address that and it must introduce a new land reform bill urgently. The battles, particularly in Pairc, showed that, although the 2003 legislation was well intentioned, it was far too complicated in the face of a determined landowner. If there was serious intent to help communities such as Bernera, that would have been fixed long ago.

New legislation must ensure that anyone who owns large areas of land in Scotland must do so in the public interest. If they do not, there must be powers to remove that land from their ownership. Of course, there need to be checks and balances in any system but, at the end of the day, people such as Cyran de la Lanne-Mirrlees should not be put in charge of a cat far less people’s futures and wellbeing. Indeed, there are more powers in Scotland to remove a cat from a bad owner than there are to remove land.

Bernera is a community that is in decline for the same reasons as many others. The key issues are housing and jobs. Both can be addressed only with access to land. It is scandalous that a place that has so long been associated with resisting landlordism is still cursed by the 21st century version of absentee landlordism without Government lifting a finger to stop it.

The Bernera buyout has been mooted for more than a decade, but it can go nowhere because of the intransigence of an individual sitting in Frankfurt. That shames Scotland and the Scottish Government. In the face of similar hostility, other communities do not even bother to try for a buyout.

The case shows us what is wrong with Scottish landowning patterns. While the Scottish Government procrastinates, people suffer. My colleague Mercedes Villalba is consulting on setting a limit for the amount of land that a person could own. That limit would, of course, disinvest Mr de la Lanne-Mirrlees of the majority of the land that he owns in Scotland, which would be beneficial to the people who would no longer be held hostage by his unreasonable and unlawful demands.

Mr de la Lanne-Mirrlees states that he is being advised by Savills to extort huge amounts of money from house sales on the island, but that has no legal bearing on the matter. If that is the case—and I sincerely hope that it is not—it begs the question whether Savills should be practising in Scotland.

Agents who represent such estates must take some responsibility for the abuses that are being perpetrated. In the case of Bernera, a 26-year-old student in Frankfurt hides behind a legal firm in Stornoway that seems powerless to extract any communication from him, leaving people in dreadful circumstances and the community in dismay. The agents for such landowners need to consider whether they are representing the interests of the community by continuing to represent them and provide them with a shield of virtual anonymity.

The lack of progress by the Scottish National Party on land reform is a disgrace and the work that was done in the early years of Holyrood has never been built on or advanced. That is the hidden scandal. Bernera symbolises the fact that that is the bigger issue.

I am obviously very disappointed in the response from the Government and, indeed, from the Greens. Their manifesto stated that the bill should include the right to food—how quickly they have ditched their principles for a sniff of power. It is a disgrace.

Stakeholders have called for the right to food to be included, but the Scottish Government is not listening. The right to food should be enshrined in the bill, but the Government has shown itself to be absolutely disinterested in taking steps to deal with hunger and starvation that is evident here and now in Scotland. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary stated clearly that having “regard to” principles would not bind ministers. Therefore, the excuses that she has given not to support amendment 15 are spurious at best.

I urge members to look to their conscience and vote for amendment 15.

I intend to press amendment 21, and I am happy to support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments, given the assurances that she provided. I share her concerns about the very late amendments from the Greens. They accuse other members, such as Monica Lennon, of lodging late amendments, but they do so themselves.

I am disappointed that the minister has rejected my amendments, as I believe that they would strengthen the bill. The bill is incredibly timid, and it is quite sad that the Government will not accept amendments that would make it much better. That is highlighted by the minister’s rejection of amendments from me and Monica Lennon that would enhance people’s existing human right to food.

I do, and I have written repeatedly to the cabinet secretary to ask him to visit and speak to people in the Caithness community. I understand that he is going to do that, which is extremely welcome.

As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, there is the same situation in Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin, which is part of NHS Grampian. Again, the plan is to reroute complex cases to Raigmore hospital in Inverness. However, this time, clinicians, management and the community know that that cannot happen without additional staffing and investment at Raigmore. Despite that, it appears to be a fait accompli.

We read in the news at the weekend about two cases—one in Moray and one in the south of Scotland—in which babies were born by the roadside. Those births were deemed to be too complex to be supported in the local community midwife-led unit, yet it is somehow safer for those babies to be born by the roadside without any support. I really do not believe that.

The risk to mothers and babies that is created by that system is enormous, especially in the winter months, and it puts added pressure on paramedics, which is also unacceptable. I beg the cabinet secretary to take that risk on board, because it should not take a death to prove it.

We need to act. We need to train more staff in all disciplines but, crucially, in maternity care, obstetrics and paediatrics. In the Highlands and Islands, we have our wonderful, world-renowned university—a new university that is at the cutting edge of delivering education and research differently. It used to run a fast-track midwifery course, which was open to nurses, was held close to home and allowed them to enhance their training in midwifery. The course was building steadily and would have provided the maternity workforce of the future, albeit that it was drawing from the already stretched nursing workforce. However, as so often happens, the course was centralised in Edinburgh Napier University.

In my opening remarks, I alluded to the difficulty that that creates. People are reluctant to uproot their families to further their careers. Therefore, to grow our workforce, we need to provide training close to home. Evidence from NHS Education for Scotland highlighted that midwives are more likely to remain in the area where they were trained. I am sure that the same goes for other disciplines.

The current situation also adds costs to our health boards. Employing locum or bank staff is much more expensive than employing a full-time member of staff. The use of locums also creates issues for patients, because there is very little continuity for them.

There are also issues in how we train our professionals. We focus on team working within specialities. In rural areas, we need generalists who are able to turn their hand to treating a number of conditions, and they need to be able to work with very little support. We currently recognise a depth of knowledge through career progression and salary, but those with a breadth of knowledge find their skills unrecognised, both professionally and financially.

Although I have based my points on maternity services, the same is true in other disciplines. Mental health services in Caithness are at breaking point, with tragic consequences. General practitioners are handing back their practices to health boards, and we have some of the longest waiting lists in Scotland. The situation is untenable.

I urge the cabinet secretary to act. Any further delays will lead to loss of life.