Chamber and committees

This is the first opportunity that I have had to address Parliament since I stood down as leader of my party, and I want to thank all those who have sent me kind wishes in the past few weeks. Perhaps the old adage that you are never more popular than when you are dead is true.

Today we have a wide-ranging debate covering food and drink fortnight, the pandemic, Brexit, food poverty, farm support and climate change. It just shows how important the food and drink sector is to our economy, our way of life and the future of the planet.

We will vote for the Labour amendment, because it quite rightly includes a significant reference to food poverty in a food-rich nation. We will also vote for the coalition Government’s motion, because there is not very much there to disagree with. We will, however, vote against the Conservative amendment, because it bizarrely excludes any reference to the disruption that Brexit has caused. I know that many Conservative members supported Brexit, but to completely ignore it is rather naive and does not address its real challenges and consequences.

Scotland’s food and drink sector is world class. In my constituency alone, we have langoustine, porridge oats, whisky, and barley for producing that whisky, berries and, the most important product of all, broccoli, which is produced all across north-east Fife. Those products are an important part of our economy and are big employers in north-east Fife. However, the sector is under considerable and immediate pressure from the double impacts of Brexit and the pandemic. Costs of labour and materials are going through the roof at the moment and there are massive shortages on both fronts. That is affecting the primary producers and the supply chain. The whole production system has been disrupted, which is having massive consequences for the sector.

We are seeing that in the shortage of drivers, pickers and processors—right down to the hospitality sector. There is a massive problem with labour shortages at the moment, which is why I support the call that the NFUS made today for a 12-month Covid recovery visa and for a review of the seasonal workers scheme. That has just worked this year; it has just got the sector by, but there is deep anxiety about future years. We are already seeing the sector making decisions about future investment. We cannot afford to have a loss of confidence at such a critical time when we are already facing pressure because of Brexit and the pandemic.

In the Northern Isles, there are significant problems with the supply chains, the ferries and freight. We need to focus on the coalition Government’s responsibilities as well as pointing out its mistakes.

There are also medium-term pressures. There is deep frustration in the agricultural sector about the dithering that has gone on for some years now. By 2032, there has to be a 31 per cent cut in agricultural emissions. That is only 11 years away. The Government has started the process and, to be fair to the new cabinet secretary, she has just started in her new role. However, we will probably be a couple of years into those 11 years before we finally see a policy. The NFUS has quite rightly talked about the inertia that is being created by the current system. There is a pressure towards the status quo and a lack of change, but we will need to make significant changes if we are going to meet that 31 per cent target in 11 years’ time. The coalition Government needs to move on from the snail’s pace at which it is operating.

The future policy group was set up three years ago and we still have not heard a word from it. The results from the farmer-led groups were published last week, but there is a new consultation on the back of that work. Next year, we are going to have another consultation on the back of the firm proposals. I presume that there will be a report on the back of that consultation, and we might actually see a bill on the back of that.

WWF is absolutely right when it says that the longer it takes for the new policy to be developed, the harder it will be for farmers to meet that 31 per cent target by 2032, which is only 11 years away.

Does the minister understand the farming community’s frustration that we still do not have a future farm policy in place? It will be the driver for our cuts to agricultural emissions, but it does not look as though we will have a policy in place for another two years. Do we not need a bit more urgency?

It is hardly a quick deal. It has taken at least three years to produce even one recommendation from a group that was established in the previous session of Parliament.

Of course we need to consult the farmers, but if we endlessly consult and make no decisions, it does not help the farmers a jot. Mr Fairlie will know from his discussions with the farmers that they are frustrated about the lack of decision making. We need to move on, because they have a massive job to do to meet the 31 per cent emissions reduction target by 2032, which is only 11 years away. There are massive tensions involved in protecting biodiversity and addressing climate change while ensuring that Scottish food production is robust and sustainable. [Interruption.]

I need to conclude soon.

There are tensions between forestry and productive land, between biodiversity and energy crops, and between domestic production and offshoring. Decisions on all those things are difficult, but delaying them will not make them any easier.

I wish the cabinet secretary well in dealing with those massive challenges. Where we can, we will support her and work together to meet them, but she needs to start making decisions.

The three code blacks that were issued by our hospitals in the past week mean that long-awaited operations have been cancelled, general practitioner appointments have been called off, pharmacies have been closed and waste has not been collected. Social care has been impacted, too. That has, in large part, happened because thousands of key workers are self-isolating, even though they have tested negative. I support the calls from the royal colleges for a test-and-release system that would allow those people to return to work. Is that being considered? If so, when could it be in place? The situation is urgent.

For probably the last time as Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, I ask the First Minister what she has to say to the thousands of adults with special needs and their families? They have been without services since the pandemic started and are desperate for support and respite. When can they expect full services to return?

To ask the Scottish Government whether funding allocations earmarked for new and existing teaching posts will be made permanent, to enable local authorities to award a greater number of permanent contracts. (S6O-00064)

The cabinet secretary completely dodged my question. I was asking whether she is prepared to make the funding permanent so that the teaching posts can be made permanent. If the funding is temporary, it is a no-brainer that we will get temporary posts. Will the cabinet secretary change the policy and allow local authorities to make the teaching posts permanent?

As we have already heard, the teaching profession is utterly depressed, and it has been treated poorly by this Government. Will the Government change its ways?

The cabinet secretary will be aware that people are outside Parliament today lobbying for the travel industry. They cannot understand why, when they have in effect been shut down for months by the restrictions, they have received very little financial support in return. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the level of restrictions should match the level of financial support that the Government makes available?

Every week, families of adults who have special needs ask me when their day services will reopen. Every week, I ask the First Minister the same question and, every week, nothing changes. Last weekend, those families witnessed thousands of football fans travelling hundreds of miles to gather on the streets of London against the Government’s advice. The families were surprised that there were few words of criticism, especially from the First Minister. Can the First Minister understand how angry they feel? They feel that they have been left behind, as do others. All they want is fairness and their services to be reopened. Will the First Minister agree to that today?

Next month will mark six years since the tragic deaths of Lamara Bell and John Yuill by the side of the M9 motorway. Presiding Officer, you will recall the circumstances. Despite calls to the police, it was days before the they responded, and despite numerous promises to hold a fatal accident inquiry, the families are still left without answers.

The tragedy of the deaths of Lamara Bell and John Yuill has been compounded by the snail’s pace of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That is no way to treat anyone. They are not alone; there is a long list of delays. Warm words are wholly inadequate. Reform is long overdue and that must be led by the new Lord Advocate.

Scotland has the worst drug deaths rate in the United Kingdom, Europe and the developed world. The rate in Scotland is four times that in England. In March, Parliament backed our motion to divert people gripped by drugs into treatment and to cease prosecution and imprisonment. We need a new approach from the Crown Office, which would be another huge responsibility for the new Lord Advocate.

I thank the outgoing Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for their personal service and commitment to the country, which have been remarkable. It is worth remembering that the problems that the Crown Office faces on fatal accident inquiries, drugs and other longstanding issues reach back to well before the current incumbent was in post. The Lord Advocate is appointed by and acts within the policy framework of the Scottish Government, so ministers cannot shrug their shoulders, as they, too, bear a heavy responsibility for the lack of reform in the Crown Office.

There is one specific reform for the First Minister: the role of Lord Advocate needs to be split to end the apparent conflicts of interest. It is no longer appropriate for the Lord Advocate to act as both a prosecutor and a politician sitting round the Cabinet table. The issue is not new but, in the latter days of the previous parliamentary session, the conflict of interest between those duties fell into sharp focus. Even the impression of a conflict undermines the integrity of the role. Separate positions, with an independent director of prosecutions to run the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, could bring focus to the task of recovery in justice and a healthy separation of powers.

I support confirmation hearings for the top roles in our public bodies. Confirmation hearings would enable MSPs to question the new postholder and debate the challenging issues that they would face—many of which have already been mentioned—as well as their suitability for the position. We should have had such hearings this afternoon for the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, rather than the rushed process that we are engaged in. It might even have been helpful for the nominees to face such a hearing. However, that is not open to us today.

We are fortunate to have such respected and talented nominees in Dorothy Bain and Ruth Charteris, who are widely respected in the legal profession and beyond. I thank them for their contributions so far, I wish them well and I look forward to working with them in partnership over the next years.

When businesses, especially tourism businesses, are crying out for support, they will find it baffling that millions of pounds of business support is stuck in Government accounts. The minister cutely dodged Daniel Johnson’s question on how the funds have been allocated. Can he tell me how much of the underspend has been allocated to tourism businesses, especially those that depend on international visitors?