Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on linking food and climate change, and I congratulate Foysol Choudhury on securing it. It is clear that the aims of the Paris agreement and the COP26 Glasgow declaration cannot be reached without addressing food systems.

Farmers are at the front line of climate change. They experience the effects of extreme and unpredictable weather. They can be—and are—a huge part of the solution to tackle the climate emergency and support food security.

Producing food and drink sustainably means rearing, growing and processing them in a way that helps preserve and protect the environment for future generations. During the Parliament’s festival of politics this year, I chaired an event called “Will vegans really save the planet?”, which explored sustainable food production and the role of our diet in tackling the climate emergency. It highlighted a University of Oxford report that concluded that the food system is globally responsible for a third of all greenhouse gases, and it also explored whether reducing the amount of meat and dairy consumed helped to reduce agriculture’s environmental impact.

One of the conclusions from the event was that a vegan diet and the use of meat substitutes can involve intensive water use, can lead to a high number of air miles as a result of flying certain products such as avocados across the globe and can significantly contribute to deforestation. A key message for consumers was that procuring food sustainably means buying it from producers who minimise their impact on the environment—for example, by reducing their carbon emissions—and support the longevity of the industry. That is why it is so important to support schemes such as Scotland Loves Local and shop local, and local farmers markets such as those in Moffat, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Wigtown and the newly established market in Stranraer. I thank all those who support such initiatives. It was also clear from the event that a vegan diet is not the sole solution to tackling the climate emergency and that supporting our agriculture businesses to be sustainable is crucial, too.

I welcome the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government to support our agricultural sector’s transition to net zero. I am also aware that it is moving forward with a successor to the common agriculture policy that will guide farming, food production and land use for the future, and I would welcome comments or an update from the minister on timescales in that respect. I also want to mention the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which Foysol Choudhury referred to, which proposes local and sustainable food production, and the formation of the agricultural sustainability working group, led by the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, both of which are welcome steps in tackling the global climate emergency.

I briefly want to highlight local action by constituents: Chris Nicholson, chair of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association; Colin Ferguson, the Dumfries and Galloway chair of the NFUS; Machars beef and sheep farmers Kenny Adams and William Moses; and film-makers Willeke Van Rijn and Julia Farrington. The group have created an informative short film to coincide with COP26 called “Talking With Farmers: Farming and Climate Change in the Machars”, which can be found on YouTube. It highlights the importance of supporting and engaging with farmers to tackle the climate emergency, and it provides insight into and some solutions for the custodians of our land. I encourage members to watch it and commend all involved in making it, and I look forward to engaging with them to learn how we promote food sustainability and tackle the climate and biodiversity emergencies.

I was struck by William Moses’s statement in the film that

“If we look after our soil, it will look after us.”

I want to add to that comment by saying that we need to do that to ensure that we in Scotland can sustainably produce and provide what is recognised across the world as world-class food produced to the some of the best welfare standards, and to support an approach that helps to achieve the sustainable development goals.

In the development of the refreshed Scottish attainment challenge, what steps has the Scottish Government taken to tackle the poverty related-attainment gap in rural areas?

Does Brian Whittle agree that it takes around 136 litres of water to make 1 litre of almond milk?

In addition to citizens assemblies, can the minister outline how the Scottish Government is creating space for genuine public involvement in decision making?

Skills planning that meets the current and future needs of Scotland’s rural economy is a vital part of the suite of measures that is needed to develop a highly skilled workforce and deliver sustainable economic growth. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the “Skills Action Plan for Rural Scotland: 2019-2021” is working to support rural skills across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders?

I am coming to the A75 at the end of my speech, so Mr Carson will hear what I have to say about it.

Mr Gove went on to say:

“The UK Ministry will then formalise agreements with each of the Scottish local authorities, including the arrangements for information sharing, monitoring and ... evaluation”.

The technical note for lead authorities in Great Britain also refers to spot checks on those bodies by the UK Government, and to a requirement for

“reports to be sent by them to the UK Secretary of State”,

who is now Michael Gove. That regulatory role will become a function of the increasing army of civil servants who are based across the road in Queen Elizabeth house—the UK Government’s hub in Edinburgh—which is now home to 3,000 UK civil servants, who cost the Scottish taxpayer £250 million.

The UK Government plans to form direct relationships with Scottish local authorities, public and voluntary sector agencies and communities. Those areas of policy are all devolved to this Parliament, so if that is not an attack on devolution, I do not know what is.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and rural businesses regarding action to improve and enhance rural skills development. (S6O-00392)

I am sorry—I am no taking any mair.

I turn to the next assault on devolution—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, much of which is concerned with ensuring that goods and services that are produced in one part of the UK can be sold without restriction in all other parts. The act creates the means for a race to the bottom when it comes to consumer and environmental protections. It prevents the Scottish Parliament from effectively legislating in a range of areas, including laws that cover the food that people put on their tables, which in Scotland is currently produced to high EU animal welfare and food safety standards. Those standards will be undermined by Scotland having to accept the lower standards that a UK Government sets in its desperate pursuit of harmful trade deals.

Members are aware that, since my election, I have campaigned on that very issue. I have learnt a lot from Leicester farmer Joseph Stanley, and have warned of the risks that the trade deals pose to Scottish agriculture. Products that are brought in will include chemicals the use of which is currently not allowed in Scotland—hormones and antibiotics such as carbadox, cloxacillin and ractopamine, which is intended to make pigs leaner. All those chemicals are currently used in meat production in Australia, America and Brazil—countries with which the UK is entering into trade deals.

The internal market act does not just threaten future areas of policy. The Scottish Government has already pointed out that, had the act been in place in 2018, the Scottish Parliament would not have been able to pass its world-leading legislation on minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is in fact doubtful that even Scottish licensing rules, which prohibit alcohol promotion through discounts, would be allowed under the act.

UK Government ministers claim that no specific powers have been removed from Holyrood, but that claim misses the point. Section 50 of the act gives Westminster the power to make financial provision in a range of devolved areas, such as health, education and transport. The priorities for capital spending in those areas are set in Scotland and funding is allocated from a block grant from Westminster. The new powers allow Westminster to set the priorities, which takes power away from this Parliament and the Scottish Government.

Through those new powers, the UK Government has stated that it will invest in the A75—the main road from Gretna to Stranraer in my region of South Scotland. Concerned constituents have raised with me that the UK Government is only interested in investing in the A75 so that it can create a direct express route to transport nuclear radioactive waste from the proposed new nuclear power stations to dump in Beaufort’s Dyke in the North Channel of the Irish Sea.

I have written to the UK Government and asked for its commitment that Beaufort’s Dyke will not be reopened as a dump site for nuclear and radioactive waste as it was used previously. I ask the minister to join me in that call.

I call on the UK Government to stop its attack on the Scottish Parliament and encourage the Scottish Government to continue to do everything it can to protect this place.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to highlight the blatant attack on the Scottish Parliament’s powers by the Westminster Government that is under way. As the motion states, the UK’s shared prosperity fund is nothing other than an assault on the Scottish devolution settlement and the Scotland Act, which is fundamental to our Parliament.

As the Westminster Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove—described by his own colleagues as scheming, unscrupulous and dangerous—is now in charge of spending around £4.6 billion a year on the UK’s shared prosperity fund.

That fund includes the UK community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and the bizarrely named levelling up fund. That funding comes from Scotland’s former contribution to the EU structural funds, which, prior to Brexit, came back through the Scottish Government. That power was devolved, but the UK Government in Westminster has grabbed back that process.

Mr Gove has made clear his commitment to undermine this Parliament. He stated that his department would establish direct relationships with

“councils, voluntary and community sector organisations and local education providers such as universities.”

I can take a really quick one, because I am sure that I can read Mr Carson’s mind at this point.