Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I heard your remarks to the cabinet secretary. I wonder whether you would care to give us an opinion from the chair as to the appropriateness of Rachael Hamilton making the accusation that the Government is “stealing” money from farmers. That word rather jars with me, and I would be grateful for your opinion on whether it constitutes appropriate language to be utilised.

That takes me back to my point about the Conservatives not knowing which way they are standing—whether they are up or down or inside out or whatever. Earlier, Edward Mountain bemoaned the fact that the Scottish Government had provided funding certainty for as long as it has provided it. Edward Mountain wanted the new regime in 2024, and now Finlay Carson is demanding that we carry on as we are to 2026. Really, the Conservatives are a shambolic bunch when it comes to any issue.

It is vital to note that, also in its briefing for today’s debate, NFU Scotland makes the plea, echoing the contents of the committee’s report, that the Scottish Government does not take the approach of passing on the Barnett consequentials of the funding settlement for agriculture in England. In my experience, organisations in Scotland normally clamour for a Barnett consequentials approach to be taken. Why is NFU Scotland not doing so? The answer is simple: it is because the UK Government is butchering financial support for agriculture in England. NFU Scotland can spot the obvious fact that that might have massive ramifications for the financial support that is available for agriculture in Scotland.

I cannot see an incoming Labour Government in the UK taking any sort of different stance. Here we can see one very visible example of the reckless damage that is being done by Brexit. There is a direct financial challenge for Scottish agriculture due to the folly of Brexit and the highly damaging decisions of the UK Conservative Government in the aftermath of Brexit.

The global issues that are now having an effect on food security create an imperative for us to strengthen our approach to maximising our food production here at home. I appeal to the Government, as it wrestles with these key questions, to act in its planning system to preserve as much prime agricultural land as possible for the utilisation of prime agricultural purposes and to place less emphasis on providing planning consent for solar farms that take a significant amount of prime agricultural land out of production and put the money into the hands of some already very wealthy farmers.

The bill that is before us creates opportunities to address the implications of climate change, which now poses a real and present threat to us all but which is manifesting itself acutely in rural Scotland. The Parliament does not need me to explain the detail of the generally wet, stormy and atrocious series of weather incidents that we have experienced since October, but I will say that I have lost count of the number of my constituents who are active in farming whose volume of land has been eroded because of significant flood damage as a consequence of climate change. That will affect the livelihoods of some of the farmers whom I represent who are unable to actively cultivate land because their land has, quite simply, disappeared.

That is the real and present threat of climate change in our society. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity and the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, who have engaged with me on those questions.

In making the judgment that she has just talked about, does the cabinet secretary believe that it is important that, in the tax debate, people are mindful of the significant benefits that arise to people in Scotland as a consequence of living here, such as access to elements of the social contract, including the much more significant early learning and childcare offer, the fact that people do not have to pay tuition fees and the fact that, comparatively, council tax is significantly lower in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom? The kind of crude analysis that Murdo Fraser has just put to the cabinet secretary is as valid as his call was for us to follow the economics of Liz Truss.

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. I have sat and listened to them for years saying—Edward Mountain even made this point a moment ago—that the Government has been talking to too many people for too long. Now, apparently, according to Rachael Hamilton, we have not been talking to enough people for enough time. The Conservatives need to make up their mind and to stop being obstructive to everything, because that is all that they do in any debate in this Parliament.

I would imagine that there are some people—indeed, perhaps even members on the Conservative benches—who voted for Brexit, who previously bemoaned the intricacies and complexities of the common agricultural policy and who are now beginning to regret the loss of some of the inherent stability and certainty that that policy brought to agriculture in Scotland. There was long-term financial stability that enabled effective forward planning. In its briefing for the debate, NFU Scotland bemoans the absence of financial certainty beyond the end of the current United Kingdom Parliament. That is a valid worry, and it does not help long-term planning. However, it is a problem that emanates from Whitehall and not from St Andrew’s house.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect to the app, but I would have voted no.

On the topic of permanent memorials, one of my constituents, who actually approached me 27 years ago in one of my first constituency cases, was affected by the contaminated blood scandal, and he is keen to establish some form of memorial in the Parliament to recognise those who lost their lives in that scandal. As the United Kingdom inquiry is expected to report shortly, will the SPCB consider whether the Parliament might be a suitable venue for a memorial to those who lost their lives in the contaminated blood scandal?

I am interested in the substance of the point that Mr Briggs and Meghan Gallacher are advancing in the debate. They are, in essence, saying that the design of the delivery of 1,140 hours around the country is inflexible because of the provision that is made on the ground.

I represent an area that, until 2022, had a Conservative-led council. That Conservative-led council introduced the childcare arrangements that are in place, which I am sure that Roz McCall is disassociating herself from, despite the fact that she was part of the administration that set them up.

Does Miles Briggs not accept that the flexibility that he seeks is contained in the powers of local authorities to design the childcare provision in their locality and that, if they choose to design it in the fashion in which it has been designed in my locality, where there is very little provision outwith the local authority, it is councils that take those decisions? Would the Conservatives take that power away from councils to effect the solution that Meghan Gallacher has her head in her hands about just now?

I am grateful to Karen Adam for taking an intervention on this important topic.

Last night, in Perth College, I took part in a question time on young carers action week. A point that was put to me was about the importance of the education system understanding the circumstances of young carers, and of ensuring that its approach reflects and takes account of the additional demands that Karen Adam is so powerfully putting on the record this afternoon. Does Karen Adam agree that it is important that our education system understands the particular needs of the young carers who are part of our education system?

Will the minister give way?

Will Miles Briggs give way?