Chamber and committees

Can Finlay Carson clarify what he means by others striking fear into the hearts of Scottish farmers when it is Scottish farmers who are expressing fears through the NFUS?

I thank Jim Fairlie for bringing a debate to Parliament about this important subject so early on in his time as an MSP.

Crofters in the agriculturally least-favoured parts of Scotland, such as my island constituency, are very aware of the words of the former UK Tory Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Andrea Leadsom, who said:

“It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep and those with the hill farms do the butterflies.”

The UK Government seems to be convinced that ad hoc trade deals with individual countries are an adequate answer to that and an adequate replacement for the European single market, which, as Mr Fairlie rightly pointed out, is a vast free trade area from which the UK chose to remove itself.

I hate to be unoriginal, but Mr Fairlie’s example is the best one of all: the European Union and the European single market, which I just mentioned, were supported by us and inexplicably rejected by Stephen Kerr’s party.

In those circumstances, we want to pursue good trading relationships with other countries, but it is significant that some of the countries that we are talking about pursuing those trade deals with would enjoy tariff-free access when many of the countries with which we were most closely associated in the past would enjoy no such relationship in the future.

Crofters and farmers are entitled to ask what that means for them. What safeguards—if any—will the deals include for domestic agriculture? Concerns have been expressed about the country’s market being swamped by cheap food imports.

On another point, why has the proposed trade and agriculture commission for examining such deals not yet been set up—as I understand it? Are we really saying that countries in Europe that have broadly similar standards on animal welfare, the use of hormones and environmental impacts—not to mention a minimum wage for farm workers, although I am not sure whether the Conservatives are entirely signed up to that—should pay tariffs? Why should those countries pay tariffs while countries that may be unconstrained by any of those factors have tariff-free access to our supermarkets?

The point that I think that the Conservatives have missed in this debate is how agriculture in Scotland could compete in the long term on price in a situation of that kind without severely changing or compromising standards. We might begin with Australia, but what do we do if such a deal is then reached with major food producers such as Brazil, whose environmental and other standards are so unlike our own as to raise even bigger concerns? [Interruption.]

If I may, I will make some progress. We have heard in the debate from the Conservatives that somehow others are planting fears in the minds of farmers. The NFUS put it this way:

“As it stands, this trade deal will cause serious issues to the future of Scottish farming and set a precedent for other trade deals, which would further undermine the sector.”

However, if the Conservatives think that that is bad, they might wish to look at what the Scottish Crofting Federation said:

“We have a very high quality product that simply cannot compete in a market flooded with lower-price meat. That the UK government is even giving consideration to a completely unacceptable deal is despicable.”

I will finish with those words from the Scottish Crofting Federation, given that it has grasped the situation much more clearly and expressed it more eloquently than—I regret to say—our Conservative colleagues have this evening.

Last weekend saw major disruption to haulage—[Inaudible.]—technical issue with MV Hebridean Isles led to a backlog of lorries, many of which contained perishable goods and had to be left behind. Although the return of MV Loch Seaforth to the route should help, the incident raises wider concerns about what will happen when the next CalMac Ferries vessel either goes into dry dock or suffers a similar breakdown to the one that has seen MV Loch Seaforth out of action for seven weeks. Given all that, will the Scottish Government consider the charter of a freight vessel for the Stornoway to Ullapool route?

I think the cabinet secretary for what she said about supporting students’ mental health at what she will acknowledge is a difficult time. How will that support be provided? Will mental health support be provided by schools or will the SQA itself take on part of that role?

I welcome the minister to his new role, and thank him for his reply.

As the minister will appreciate, the entire economy of any island depends on its ferry. In recent weeks, I have been deluged by emails from families who are desperate to visit relatives on the mainland, and whose long-booked tickets have been cancelled; from businesses that can no longer get building materials to the islands or export shellfish; and from tourism businesses that are struggling to cope with the news that all bookings are suspended for a fortnight.

MV Loch Seaforth is CalMac’s largest major vessel, but she is also CalMac’s newest vessel. She should not be experiencing technical issues of such severity. Will there be an investigation into the causes of the faults?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the on-going disruption to lifeline ferry routes served by CalMac. (S6T-00001)

I thank the minister and I appreciate the attention that he is giving to the matter. Although the issues with the MV Loch Seaforth are unprecedented, breakdowns of major vessels on lifeline routes are not, unfortunately. It is now obvious for all to see that CalMac at present does not have enough vessels to run its services with the necessary resilience. What will the Government do in the immediate term to charter additional vessels and to ensure that the next overdue vessel order is placed with a shipyard soon?

took the oath and repeated it in Gaelic.