Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am offended by the language that Finlay Carson just used and I ask him to withdraw his comment about the “economics of the madhouse”. The language is stigmatising and should not be used in the chamber.

Some colleagues might find it unusual for the MSP for Rutherglen to be speaking in a debate on rural and farming issues. However, although my constituency is mostly urban and suburban, and despite its proximity to a major city, it contains some rural areas, including working farms. My constituency is based in South Lanarkshire, and, of course, the pastures covering much of Lanarkshire help to produce some of the country’s best beef, venison, lamb, dairy and cured meats.

The area remains a major force in Scotland’s food and drink industry. Many small businesses in my constituency, including butchers, farm shops, cafes and hospitality venues, pride themselves on sourcing quality local produce and, as a result, are much valued in our communities. For example, Greenhall farm shop and cafe in Blantyre is a popular venue that opened the first Scottish Wagyu beef shop back in 2016 and offers home-reared beef, eggs and other products directly from the farm.

The food production chain is complex and intersects with many other industries, such as the hospitality industry. Many people in my constituency and across Scotland depend on it for their livelihood. Regardless of where people live in Scotland, Scotland’s farmers produce much of the food and drink that ends up on their dinner tables, so matters concerning the sustainability of the rural economy should concern us all. We know that Scotland’s farmers have already suffered massively and are continuing to suffer the effects of Brexit. Brexit has had severe consequences for the industry, caused by a loss of access to the single market, higher supply chain costs and the loss of common agricultural policy funding.

That is the context in which the UK chancellor set the UK budget. She had an opportunity to recognise those losses and take cognisance of the loss of certainty about long-term and sustainable funding that Brexit caused, and to show support for Scotland’s rural economy. The chancellor did not do any of that. Before the UK general election, there was a clear and united voice across Scotland that farming needed multiyear ring-fenced funding, which would have ensured the certainty that was there before we left the EU, but instead the Labour Government has left us with an inadequate settlement within the UK.

Scottish farmers need and deserve our support, not further uncertainty over funding cuts. Rural Scotland should not and cannot continue to suffer as a result of the decisions that have been made by the UK Government. It is exactly the constraints of devolution that are the problem. I am sure that we will hear from some members on Opposition benches about agriculture being devolved, but the Labour Government’s budget has completely overhauled the way in which post-EU agricultural funding is delivered to the devolved Governments. Previous ring fencing for agriculture and marine activity has been removed and funding has been baselined into the Scottish block funding, the overall size of which is subject to changes in public spending in England. That means that a decline in support for agriculture in England will have a damaging knock-on effect on the Scottish block grant.

The removal of ring fencing and the application of the Barnett formula to the funding was always a threat that hung in the air when Brexit happened, and now a Labour UK Government has gone ahead and done it. For all the reasons that we understand, Scotland’s farmers and crofters face challenges that are not found elsewhere in the UK. Our landscape is unique and our agricultural interests, capabilities and demands are different. As a result, Scotland traditionally and quite logically sought a bigger-than-population share of agricultural funding while we were still in the EU. In effect, we could now see a huge cut in funding for this crucial part of the economy, but it is hidden in plain sight by being rolled into the block grant.

For a UK Government that is so keen to be seen to be promoting economic growth across the UK, that is a very confusing message. Investment in rural communities and industries has long been understood to be a crucial strategy for stimulating national growth, and strengthening rural economies creates a more balanced and resilient economy overall. Long-term funding was a certainty during our EU membership, and that has been stripped away. The announcements that were made by the UK Government were for one year only, so, however much the Scottish Government would like to deliver a multiyear settlement, it has financial information for only one year.

That all leads to one conclusion: either the chancellor understands very little about Scotland’s rural economy, our island and rural communities, our food production chain and the many livelihoods dependent on it, and has made no effort to find out; or she knows but simply does not care, and her priorities lie elsewhere. The fact that she chose not to work with the Scottish Government on the matter or consult farmers, crofters and other stakeholders before the budget certainly paints a damning picture of how the UK Government views Scotland’s rural economy.

Unlike independent countries in the EU, Scotland’s rural economy does not have funding certainty. It is now reliant on annual allocations from the UK Government, which has failed to consult properly and could arbitrarily cut or change support from one year to the next. The situation is unsustainable. The UK Government must urgently reconsider and engage directly with Scotland’s rural communities to prevent a crisis in the sector.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I apologise to Finlay Carson for accusing him of using offensive language; it was Colin Smyth who used it. Perhaps he would like to apologise.

Good morning to you, cabinet secretary, and to your officials. I put on record a declaration of interest, as I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Thank you for the update that you provided in your letter to the committee about the stigma action plan and the on-going work to address and challenge stigma. Can you give us a bit more detail about that work, and perhaps set out some of the timescales for implementing the plan?

You will be aware that the three committees commissioned a people’s panel, which met last month, and some panel members were interested in the role that the media play in reinforcing stereotypes. I am interested, therefore, in hearing what other work, alongside the stigma action plan, is being carried out on that particular issue, which might in itself be a barrier to people accessing treatment and help.

I thank my colleague Ruth Maguire, whose motion brings this important issue to Parliament for debate today, and Jackie Dunbar for opening the debate. I welcome the opportunity to mark the day of the imprisoned writer, which is organised every year by the organisation PEN International. Since the day’s introduction, PEN has marked the date by calling for the release of imprisoned writers, advocating for better protection for journalists and fighting for justice for writers who have lost their liberty or their life. Across the world, writers, readers and free speech advocates are coming together to recognise those who are jailed for their work and to call for their release. Since its inception, 100 years ago, PEN International has worked tirelessly to draw attention to violations of writers’ rights and to support those who have been repressed and their families. The organisation believes that there are more incarcerated writers in the world today than at any time since world war two.

Every year, countless writers are harassed, persecuted, detained, or even killed for practising their profession. Others continue to work in the face of threats, intimidation or intrusive surveillance from state authorities. In a world marred by conflict and repression, where the threat of misinformation and disinformation is rife, it is more important than ever to appreciate and value the work of writers, who make extreme personal sacrifices to preserve and report the truth.

Last month, I joined several of my colleagues, including Ruth Maguire, who secured this debate, in becoming a godparent of political prisoners in Belarus. My godchild, Zhanna Volkava, is currently serving three years in prison for charges including insulting the President. My colleagues and I signed up to the project with the shared hope that it would bring further international attention to the human rights situation and the suppression of freedom of expression in Belarus, and that it would raise awareness of and support for other political prisoners, many of whom are journalists and writers.

The Belarusian chapter of PEN International operates from a base in Poland, after it was outlawed by the Belarusian Government in 2021, and it continues to monitor and support writers in the country who have faced persecution and imprisonment. I would like to take a moment to recognise just a few of those writers by name.

Ihar Karnei is a journalist, essayist and author of texts about cultural and historical heritage in Belarus. In July last year, Ihar was arrested at home and held in a pre-trial detention centre. This March, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for working with a so-called extremist formation. That formation was the Belarusian Association of Journalists, which is widely and internationally recognised as a human rights organisation.

Katsiaryna Andreeva is a journalist and co-author of a documentary book that was banned by Belarusian authorities. In 2020, she was detained after reporting on a memorial for the artist Raman Bandarenka, who is widely believed to have been killed by security forces. While in detention in 2022, she was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on charges of state treason, which Amnesty International has called bogus. Her husband, journalist and co-author of the banned book, Ihar Ilyash, was arrested on 22 October last year. Last week, it became known that he is currently being held in a pre-trial detention centre on unknown charges, and there are deep concerns for his safety and wellbeing.

Ihar, Katsiaryna and Ihar have been imprisoned for exercising rights that many of us take for granted: to speak our mind, to attend peaceful demonstrations, to write and publish, and to speak truth to power. PEN Belarus continues to advocate for them and their families, and for all imprisoned writers and other political prisoners in Belarus, as other PEN chapters do for others across the world.

I welcome the opportunity to commend PEN’s work, as well as the work of other organisations that call for the protection of all writers who are at risk or under threat, and to celebrate the power and the courage of the written word across the world.

Can the cabinet secretary outline to Parliament the criteria for the use of the Government car service by ministers and cabinet secretaries?

Will the cabinet secretary set out what support the Scottish Government has already put in place for ASL?

Following on from Mr Sweeney’s questions, I note that, under the bill as introduced, the two doctors that sign off capacity could be two foundation year 2 doctors. In your opinion, would they have the level of training and expertise to be able to do that?

I thank our witnesses for their attendance; you have been very helpful to the committee in our on-going scrutiny of the bill. Please feel free to leave while the committee’s work continues.