Chamber and committees

I have just had a thought that takes me back to the participating physicians. Is there any data on how long these physicians have been practising? In the proposed legislation, doctors whom we would consider as being junior could be making the choice whether to assist somebody at the end of their life. I am thinking, too, about medical practitioners such as nurses, pharmacists and doctors who might feel coerced into providing support when they might want to conscientiously object. Do you have data on that?

Okay—thanks. I will leave it there, convener, as I am conscious of time.

Dr Coelho, I think that you wanted to come in, too.

Good evening to you both, and thank you for being here. I am just going to pick up on issues with regard to the training and education required—and I am speaking not just in terms of training to identify coercion, but training in general. Can you say a little bit about what has been set up in that respect?

One issue that came up last week was that the bill in Scotland just refers to a “registered medical practitioner”, which could mean foundation year 2 doctors all the way through to consultants. Can you tell us about your process in Canada with regard to education and training? That question is for Dr Green first, I suppose, or perhaps Dr Coelho.

I absolutely get what Mr Carson is speaking about regarding many of the things that he mentions. One thing that Scotland has done to address issues around rural GPs is the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme. Everybody forgets to big up ScotGEM, but it has been so successful for Dumfries and Galloway. Of course we have challenges with housing and so on, but today we are supposed to be focusing on the impact of Brexit. That is what we are focusing on today, eight years down the line.

Scotland could do better by making our choices for ourselves. The impact of Brexit on Scotland is disproportionately and negatively huge. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s motion, urging the UK Government to address the “barriers and impacts” caused by Brexit and to make the required changes to policy.

Emma Roddick was correct when she said that Brexit is not just a historic date that has happened, and that is it—“It is done; move on.” The impact is on-going. The cabinet secretary outlined that Scotland is paying a high price for a failing Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. As I said, the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised eight years on from that June 2016 Brexit vote.

Today, however, I will focus my comments specifically on agriculture and the impact of Brexit on Dumfries and Galloway, on our standards and quality of food and drink and on our food security. Scotland’s rural economy is a major source of growth for Scotland. It delivered an economic contribution of more than £39 billion in gross value added, which is 26 per cent of the Scottish total, in 2021 alone.

The rural economy in Scotland is still bearing the brunt of Brexit because of the negative impact of the labour shortages on the food and drink industry. Indeed, in Dumfries and Galloway, I hear daily from farmers and employers in agritourism businesses and those in the food and drink sector about how they cannot recruit staff to keep their businesses floating. One prominent business restricted and reduced its opening hours, including during the peak summer season this summer, because it cannot find the right staff—any staff, I should say.

In Scotland as a whole, food and drink jobs alone equate to approximately 129,000 in 17,000 businesses, many of which are in rural areas with fragile economies, as in Dumfries and Galloway. There is absolutely no doubt that Brexit is a key cause of the struggles that the industry continues to face. Scotland could—here it comes, Presiding Officer—do better with the full powers that any normal independent country has at its disposal.

As I indicated earlier, Scotland is paying a high price for a failed Brexit that we did not vote for. The Brexit vote was eight years ago, and the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised in the years to come. Just this week, the UK Treasury minister, Tulip Siddiq, said that 60 per cent of the impact of Brexit is yet to materialise. That is an astonishing percentage.

Research by the London School of Economics and Political Science centre for economic performance suggests that UK households have paid £7 billion to cover the cost of post-Brexit trade barriers to food imports from the EU. That has pushed up the average household food cost by £250 since December 2019 and has disproportionately impacted on low-income households, who spend a greater proportion of their income on food. The Tory-created cost of living crisis is exactly that—it was created by the Tories. Tory ideological party shenanigans have led to people in Scotland suffering.

Many Scottish food industries are suffering from lower volumes of exports to the EU, including a 59 per cent fall in fruit and vegetable exports and a 29 per cent fall in meat exports in the year ending March 2024, but that is not all. The research and development associated with food and drink and agriculture is also affected, with millions of pounds of EU funding now inaccessible to business.

I will again pick up on the matter of labour shortages, because that really does have an impact on us in Dumfries and Galloway. Migration is possibly the biggest challenge facing Scotland’s economy right now. It is unforgivable that every Westminster party is completely ignoring Scotland’s specific needs. The UK parties are too busy fighting for right-wing voters in England. UK migration policies are actively harming Scotland’s economic growth and prosperity, and a tailored migration system suited to Scotland’s specific circumstances is long overdue. A rural visa pilot scheme would mitigate the effect of labour shortages, it would facilitate routes for workers to come to Scotland and support our public services, and it would help businesses to reach their full potential.

During the general election campaign—

Will the member take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work regarding the social isolation and loneliness strategy, particularly in relation to rural areas ahead of the winter months. (S6O-03894)

I understand what the minister is saying about mental health. Loneliness affects about one in eight people over the age of 65, and Dumfries and Galloway has one of the highest proportions of older people in Scotland, with about 33,000 people within that age bracket, which means that we have about 4,000 older people in the region who are struggling with the negative feelings that result from feeling lonely. Added to that in Dumfries and Galloway is the issue of rurality. Can the minister comment on whether its “A Connected Scotland” policy is likely to be updated with a specific focus on rurality?

I ask Mr Carson to give me one wee second. I knew that he would be on his feet during my speech.

During the general election campaign, Jackie Baillie said that Labour was open to talks, but there has been no progress on the matter so far, despite the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands consistently raising the issue with UK ministers.