Chamber and committees

I am really pleased to speak in the debate, and I thank Ivan McKee for bringing it to the chamber. Before I begin, I declare that I, like Ivan McKee, am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I also remind members that I am a registered nurse, and I fully support the health recommendations to drink no more than 14 units of alcohol each week.

Mr McKee laid out his points very well and affirmed that the Scotch whisky industry is vital for Scotland and for our future economy. It has been 200 years since the Customs and Excise Act 1823 sanctioned the distilling of whisky, so now is a good time to reflect on how the industry plans to take Scotch whisky forward for the next 200 years. For my contribution, I will highlight what I think is a key resource for the next 200 years: women in the whisky industry and marketplace.

Yale University has found that women have more taste buds on their tongues than men do, and current studies suggest that women are far superior to men when it comes to tasting and smelling. I therefore suggest that the industry needs to mak siccar that it appeals and advertises to us lassies who have discovered the amazing variation of smells and flavours that Scotch whisky offers.

I am a relatively new convener of the cross-party group on whisky. I have Gordon MacDonald MSP to thank for asking me to join—it wasnae a hard decision to make. The passion for the history, stories and experiences of Scotland’s national drink have been with me since I lived in California after moving there in 1990. In the 90s, whisky as a product and whisky as an industry were both very male-dominated and male-focused. There were only a handful of women working in the Scotch whisky industry, and almost all the adverts and marketing were directed at an older male consumer. At times, those adverts were downright and blatantly misogynistic, which seemed to send the message to women that “Scotch whisky isnae for you.”

I am thankful that the industry has almost completely stopped that practice, and overtly sexist marketing is rare now. However, the sheer lack of representation of women in marketing and editorial imagery still feeds the insidious idea that Scotch whisky is not meant for women, and I appeal to the industry to change that.

In 2020, a non-profit organisation called OurWhisky Foundation conducted a survey of how the world’s largest whisky brands represented drinkers on social media, and it found that there were

“228% more images of men than women.”

In an effort to tackle that, OurWhisky Foundation has launched a new website called “The Modern Face of Whisky”. It is a free-to-use image library that depicts people of all genders, ages and races, with the intention that the whisky industry will start using more diversity in its adverts and appeal to a wider consumer base, including women and people under the age of 35. Statistics show that Scotch whisky drinkers discover that they like it before the age of 31.

I am very proud to say that, today, there are so many women who are working prominently in the whisky industry that there are far too many for me to mention them all, which is good news. However, I will mention a few trailblazing women in whisky. Susanne Cameron-Nielsen is head of engagement for the Scotch Whisky Association; she is in the cross-party group, and she helps to keep us right with the secretariat duties. Margaret Nicol is the hidden nose behind Dalmore’s success; Dr Rachel Barrie is master blender for the Brown-Forman Corporation group of distilleries; and Cara Laing is the managing director of Douglas Laing & Co. There are too many to mention. There is also Caitlin Heard, who is the team leader at the Borders Distillery in Hawick, in my South Scotland region.

I am sure that the minister will be happy that I am not going to give him any duties this evening, except simply in asking him to acknowledge that there are distilleries in the South Scotland region that produce gin, rum and whisky—including Bladnoch, which is the southernmost distillery in Scotland.

I end by quoting what Annabel Thomas, the founder of the Nc’nean distillery, said last year:

“My dream is that we get to a place where no-one finds it surprising if women drink whisky or, indeed, if women work in the whisky industry.”

Slàinte mhath, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to reiterate the harms caused to both livestock and farmers by livestock worrying. (S6O-03293)

I thank the Government for having supported my member’s bill.

Cammy Wilson is a sheep farmer in the South Scotland region who is doing excellent work to increase awareness of the seriousness of livestock attacks from an animal welfare perspective as well as a health and wellbeing perspective for the farmer. What consideration might the Government give to a national awareness-raising campaign to ensure that the menace of out-of-control dogs and livestock worrying is treated with the utmost seriousness that it deserves to have in the minds of the public?

I will link my question to the Highlands and Islands region, because South Scotland faces similar challenges.

I am pleased to speak in the debate in support of the general principles of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. Previously, I was a substitute member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and had been present for some of the evidence sessions. My colleagues on the committee must be thanked for all their work, including the committee clerks and everyone who came to provide evidence for the bill.

I am now a permanent committee member, and I was able to attend a consultation event that was held in Parliament in February, which almost 40 farmers, crofters, land managers and representatives from the rural community and development organisations attended. The purpose of the event was to engage directly on the ground with the agricultural and rural practitioners to hear their views about future agricultural policy.

As has been mentioned, this is a framework bill, which will provide measures that the Scottish ministers will use to develop the support that farming and rural communities need so that they can adapt flexibly to new opportunities and challenges and prosper in a changing world. That means that the bill must allow for a flexible model of support to be delivered. The bill replaces the common agricultural policy legislation that was retained after the UK’s exit from the EU. As the bill progresses, I will explore the area of food security and food resilience.

Section 1 covers the four overarching objectives of the future agricultural policy. Those are sustainable and regenerative agriculture, the production of high-quality food, which I will come back to, on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation and enabling rural communities to thrive. Enabling rural communities to thrive is important to me and is one of the items that came up at the February consultation event. Another item that we needed to consider from that event was depopulation. A lot of issues were raised at that event in Parliament.

Any action that we take to address depopulation and enable repopulation is extremely important. I know that many members across the chamber raise questions about retaining our young people or encouraging them to return following university education and raise questions about attracting people to choose to move to and settle in our rural communities, including in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. We hear about the same issues of recruitment, retention and the need for rural housing in the current inquiry of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which I am a member of. In that inquiry, we are focusing on healthcare in remote and rural areas. The same issues are reflected in different portfolios, so it is welcome that the Government has launched a depopulation action plan. I recognise the work that the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, Emma Roddick, has done on that, and I thank her for her visit to Dumfries last year to hear directly from young people.

On objective 2, which is the production of high-quality food, the stage 1 report recommends that

“the Scottish Government ... explore amending the number, theme or wording of the objectives, in line with the evidence provided.

An example of that could be found in relation to food resilience and sustainable farm businesses. I would be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary in her closing speech on whether amendments to the objectives that would strengthen the language to do with food security and resilience could be considered, given the impact on farm production of the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that people living in Scotland are still experiencing.

Supporting our local producers, whether they are small enterprises or small-scale market gardeners, who produce and provide food that serves local communities and uses short supply chains, needs to be considered. I know that our farmers, crofters and producers who raise the best welfare-bred animals in Scotland—

We need to look at the wide range of what is happening in food production across Scotland. As we move forward, I will certainly be engaging to hear everyone’s feedback, and I thank the member for that intervention.

I know that members will cover other aspects of the stage 1 report and the inquiry, including the creation, monitoring and evaluation of the rural support plan, so I will not go into too much detail about that, except to say that stakeholders, including industry bodies and land managers, wanted early input into the plan. Quality Meat Scotland argued for embedding co-design principles into the plan.

To relate that back to the creation of the framework legislation, co-design will be very important. I know that the cabinet secretary acknowledged the importance of co-design when I asked her about it during her recent appearance at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.

This is my final point, Presiding Officer. This issue has been raised directly with me by NFU Scotland, as well as in its press release today. The committee noted in its stage 1 report a lack of certainty about future funding for agriculture and rural support from the UK Government, and the committee believes that it is important for Parliament to have oversight of the minister’s strategic priorities.

Rhoda Grant mentioned market gardening. There are some really good producers that produce a lot of local produce for delivery in a very small area. Does she agree that we need to think about how we support smaller producers such as market gardeners?

No, I am in my last 10 seconds. In fact, I probably have no seconds left, so my apologies.

The committee believes that it is important for the Parliament to have oversight of the minister’s strategic priorities, budget priorities and the consequential impact on the support schemes. There should be democratic oversight and an appropriate level of scrutiny.

I realise that time is short. I agree with the general principles of the bill and, although there is a lot more that we could have discussed today, I will support the bill at decision time.

I think that it is from there.

I want to return to the issue of the targeting of minimum unit pricing. I know that some people have said that it is a flagship policy and a silver bullet—you referred to that view earlier—but I am keen to clarify how we support the most vulnerable people in society. The north-east of England branch of the Association of Directors of Public Health sent us a letter, in which it said:

“we need similarly proactive and enlightened public health policies to reduce alcohol harm and protect the most vulnerable in our communities.”

So, the public health experts in the north-east of England support the action that has been taken in Scotland, because their region has similar levels of alcohol harm to that which we see in Scotland. Can you say more about how minimum unit pricing is designed to target a specific group and is not just a silver bullet for everybody?