Chamber and committees

Setting up a food security task force means looking at the issues superficially and obsessing about things that are outwith the Scottish Government’s control rather than focusing closer to home, where good-quality agricultural land is being planted up with trees every day, and rather than promoting Scottish goods when it comes to procurement within the Scottish public sector, as my colleague Brian Whittle suggested earlier.

The cabinet secretary thinks that we need a plan when we have had years—16 years, in fact—in which the Scottish Government could have been doing far more to stand up for Scottish farmers and for the Scottish supply chain. It could have been doing something about the lack of abattoirs in parts of rural Scotland, doing something about our shortage of butchers or doing something to make farmers feel valued. It is simply not good enough.

Does the member accept that, when that funding arrives, every penny of it should be ring fenced for farmers? Alternatively, does he agree with the Scottish Government that it should be spread out to cover all sorts of other purposes?

The cabinet secretary should start by speaking to hill farmers in my constituency, who are under huge pressure as a result of forestry—which I will come on to—and who have seen deals with the Greens push the Scottish Government further than it should have gone when it comes to things such as predator management. There are plenty of examples of the Greens pushing the Scottish Government about.

However, the Greens are not to blame for everything. The First Minister’s time in office coincides almost exactly with the seven years of stalling, delays and disinterest that have led us to today. We can only hope—and, maybe for some, pray—that the new First Minister is ready to work with rural Scotland instead of serving Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater.

The delay and dither have been costly and unnecessary. All the while, the job of our farmers has continued to get harder. No longer is it only the elements that they battle; they now fight for the space simply to exist. In my Dumfriesshire constituency, viable and good-quality agricultural land and units have been carpeted in Sitka spruce, with a blind eye turned to bad environmental practice.

Although, in the past, I might have been able to say that everyone in the Scottish Government understood that people cannot eat trees, after the Bute house agreement, I cannot quite be so sure. It is laughable that the people who tell us that traditional upland farming is bad for the environment are the same people who say that trees should take its place. It is those same people who advocate moving away from red meat and tell us that we would be better eating avocados jetted in from the other side of the globe.

I have not made a great deal of progress through my speech; most of what I have said has been in response to SNP members who, instead of channelling their energies into challenging the cabinet secretary on what she is going to do for farmers, seem to be more excited about what I have to say.

There are big opportunities for Scotland’s farmers around the world, but it seems that the SNP is the only party in the UK to rubbish the opportunities that trade brings and to talk Scotland down. There were some advantages for Scottish farmers in the trade deals—for example, a reduction in tariffs on whisky, which supports a lot of jobs in farming and agriculture.

As the Scottish Government sets out its future plans, my plea is that ministers think more carefully about the priorities and ensure that farmers are not forced off their land to make way for wind turbines and trees as a result of imbalances in financial support and incentives. We need a level playing field—one that recognises the importance of food security. We must also remember that farming needs people, and that means ensuring that our rural communities are well-served and vibrant places.

I do not have time to cover all of what I could say during today’s debate, but the SNP Government has gutted rural health services, rural schools and rural policing, and it has failed to offer any solutions to rural depopulation, so to hear members tell us that all of the labour shortage problems and all of the challenges that farmers have in finding a workforce come from Brexit is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

The tone of today’s debate has been worrying. The proposed route map, rather than leading to fewer barriers in the future, means that our farmers will be asked to jump through more hoops. I worry that, in order to access support, farmers will be asked to spend huge sums of money on consultants and will spend less time looking after their land and doing the things that they already know work when it comes to protecting the environment. They have been short changed, and this debate shows it.

Does the member not think that, after 16 years of her party being in government in Scotland, we might have had a hope of growing some of our own talent that could fill skills shortages in rural communities instead of seeing people flocking to the cities?

That is very generous—thank you, Presiding Officer.

Scotland’s farmers are the beating heart of not just our rural economy but our way of life. They are central to food security and provide the one energy source that we cannot live without. They are the champions of our natural landscape and the true custodians of our environment.

The good news is that Scotland’s farmers are up for the challenge. The question that today’s debate poses is whether the Scottish Government is really behind them. Be in no doubt: our farmers will find a way to survive—to manage and overcome the challenges that they face—but that should not be enough for us. In a country with as many opportunities as, and the agricultural potential of, Scotland, we should be looking for our farmers to thrive.

Although the route map is a starting point, we cannot ignore the fact that the SNP Government has been really slow in getting the journey started, leaving farmers to second-guess which direction they should set off in.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have been inundated by constituents who were not able to see a dentist during the Covid period and have now found that their NHS dentist has gone private. Those dentists have not left or stopped practising, but they see patients only if they pay. Does the Deputy First Minister recognise the health inequalities that that perpetuates? Will he use his cross-governmental role in co-ordinating the Covid response to see what more can be done in the time that he has left in post?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its Covid recovery strategy is supporting the tackling of health inequalities, including in relation to accessing key services such as dentistry. (S6O-01968)

Those commitments count for nothing in places where there is no NHS dental provision. I am really worried about young people and, in particular, pregnant women in parts of my constituency who cannot access an NHS dentist. The advice from the health board is that they should try to find a private dentist. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is wrong, and will she approach NHS Dumfries and Galloway and ask it to think again?