Today I called for the Scottish Government to reconsider their support for court closures across Scotland, including Cupar Sheriff Court, during Scottish Labour Party Business in Holyrood. Todays debate will be the only opportunity to discuss the closures in Parliament out with the Justice Committee and it was important to highlight the Scottish Government’s decisions to accept all the recommendations from Shaping Scotland’s Court Service without proper scrutiny.
The paper, published this month by the Scottish Court Service, recommends the closure of courts across Scotland, including Cupar Sheriff Court in Fife due to its proximity to Dundee. Other courts affected by the recommendations include Dingwall, Arbroath, Stonehaven and Haddington. Continue reading →
Yesterday in Parliament I called for a ‘sustainable solution’ to be found that will save the Wemyss Caves from the threat of coastal erosion and vandalism during a debate on the caves in the Scottish Parliament. The debate was brought to Parliament to highlight the threats faced by the caves along with congratulating the Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society.
The Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society was founded in 1986 to protect and save as much of the Wemyss Caves and their unique drawings as possible. They aim to draw attention to the Heritage that is being destroyed by, amongst other things, coastal erosion and vandalism. They want to collect and record information on the caves, to preserve them and promote them as a tourist attraction and to encourage others to take an interest.
The Society holds open Sundays where they offer guided tours of the cave and the Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the Problems of Eosion Trust also aim to digitally preserve the markings found in the cave. A copy of my speech can be found below.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate and I congratulate David Torrance on securing this slot. I welcome members of the Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society to the chamber. I hope that they find the debate an interesting and positive contribution to their work.
The society was established in 1986. I recognise its commitment and hard work in highlighting the importance of the caves and campaigning for their preservation. The society does a lot of work to gather and record information on the caves and to encourage others to take an interest. This debate is not its first engagement with Parliament. In 2000 it brought a petition to the Parliament following the loss of the foreshore path to coastal erosion and it received support from the Public Petitions Committee for further efforts to be made to protect the caves.
The Wemyss caves are a group of seven natural caves that lie along the coast immediately to the west of the village of West Wemyss. They are statutorily protected scheduled ancient monuments and are recognised as being of national importance.
The drawings in the Wemyss caves are unique. They depict Pictish symbols, early Christian imagery and Viking representations. They tell the story of the coast and the communities that lived and traded there and of those who smuggled there. The drawings provide important information for our understanding of Pictish imagery and how it represents life as well as death. They expand our knowledge of early drawing and carving techniques. Most importantly, they connect modern generations to history in a way that textbooks just cannot do.
The caves are difficult to access and the society is to be congratulated on the opportunities that it offers people to visit them through guided tours. The knowledge of the guides adds much to the experience of visiting the caves. It is not always easy to see the drawings, so the guides’ expertise adds greatly to the experience.
There is potential for greater public engagement, but there are significant challenges to achieving that. Over the years the caves have been vulnerable to vandalism. A combination of wilful damage and neglect has led to a compromising of the quality of what the caves have to offer. The society recognised that fact when it formed, partly as a response to vandalism and fires being lit in the caves, which led to some of the work being lost for ever.
It is worth recognising that the caves are on private property. Clearly Fife Council and Historic Scotland have key interests in the future of the caves and, given their national importance, surely the Scottish Government also has a role in ensuring their future. However, the caves are on private land as part of the Wemyss estate, so there should be some responsibility and engagement at that level, too.
Although vandalism, natural weathering and inherent geographical instability have all played a part in the deterioration of the caves in their landscape, coastal erosion has been and continues to be the greater challenge. Since 1989 Fife Council and Historic Scotland have invested in coastal defence works, but the challenge of success in this area must not be underestimated. This stretch of coastline is experiencing considerable coastal erosion. The coastline has retreated by at least 30m since 1974, which presents challenges not only to the caves but to many villages and communities along Fife’s coastline. The caves are at the mercy of the elements.
The Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion Trust—otherwise known as SCAPE—has been involved in recording the Pictish carvings in particular. As Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, recently recognised,
“SCAPE has led the field in highlighting the erosion of coastal sites and it is a credit to its members and research that it has found a way to use incredibly accessible mobile technology to improve the national records through the creative use of local expertise.”
We need to consider all options for the caves. Coastal erosion presents significant challenges to achieving a long-term or permanent solution, but we need to consider the options for long-term management.
A sustainable solution needs to be found that means that the knowledge that the drawings give us and the insight that they provide into the history of the shoreline and of Scotland can be saved. We should not underestimate the threat of coastal erosion or how difficult and costly coastal protection is, but we can be committed to a future for these important historical depictions.
This week I have spoken about the success and challenges faced by butchers in the current climate during a Scottish Parliament debate on local food. As the granddaughter of a butcher, who worked in the industry since he left school, I understand the skills involved and welcomed the opportunity to have this debate in Parliament.
There are undoubtedly opportunities for local butchers in today’s markets and reports of increased footfalls amongst local butcher shops are encouraging. I also understand that many are now promoting online sales which is vital in today’s marketplace.
There are undoubtedly benefits to shopping locally, a shorter supply chain, higher quality and traceability. However, we can’t hide from the fact that many families across Scotland are facing harsh economic challenges. When faced with the choice of spending £3.24 for a lb of pork sausages at a farmers market or £1.38 at a supermarket many households have to prioritise price before other factors.
The debate was held by Nigel Don MSP who aimed to congratulate farmers’ markets and food purveyors across the country. Nigel Don also hosed a successful Farmers Market in the Scottish Parliament to highlight Scotland’s finest food and drink, promoting the ethos of ‘Buy local, eat Scottish.’
I was delighted to see that the farmers market in Parliament included two Fife companies, St Andrews Farmhouse Cheese Company and Eden Brewery and was delighted to talk to both them and mention them during the debate along with Fife’s fantastic reputation for food and drink.
Last year I held a debate in Parliament highlighting the excellent work of Fife Diet and their Food Manifesto and I called for a wider debate on our relationship with food, particularly on what and how we eat. The recent revelations that have emerged from the horsemeat scandal shows that a wider debate is still essential. It is important that low income families are not excluded from the benefits that come from shopping locally and regardless of what you can afford for food, you still deserve to have confidence in the quality of what you are buying.
Today in the Chamber I opened for Labour during the Committee Debate on the Scottish Government’s draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies (RPP2). RPP2 is the document that lays out what action the Scottish Government will be taking in the years ahead to reach our legally binding emission reduction targets.
Unfortunately we have an early indication that all is not well. The Government’s first emissions target was missed and we have yet to see the greater action needed to get back on track.
Stop Climate Chaos have completed a scenario calculation which shows that only if the EU shifts to 30%, and all policies and proposals were introduced, would Scotland hit all targets. With it looking likely that any change to the EU target won’t be delivered until at least 2016, RPP2 is at risk of being doomed to failure.
Failure to achieve the targets in the early years will only make future targets more difficult to achieve as we will be constantly compensating rather than making progress.
It’s not just concerns over the EU target and the impact that will have – it is also the over reliance on proposals over policies. While proposals have a role to play, the dominance of proposals risks undermining the credibility of the document
Of course there needs to be a degree of flexibility but an over reliance on proposals leads to the plan lacking credibility. As opposed to proposals, policies come along with finance and/or legislation as well as clear timescales. It’s not clear which proposals are expected to become policy.
A copy of my speech is available below and a video will be added once it becomes available:
Thank you Presiding Officer
I welcome the debate this afternoon. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act is a significant piece of legislation – it established Scotland as a good example of Government and Parliamentary action on climate change and it set out ambitious targets which we all agreed to. It was recognised internationally as progressive. In a number of recent debates, we have made clear that the rewards of delivery are not just domestic but also contribute towards Scotland’s effort in delivering climate justice and our international obligations. The collective international effort is not where it needs to be and increasingly there is not only a greater need for leadership but also results. There is a huge responsibility on this Parliament and the Government to deliver.
We all accept Scotland’s targets are ambitious but that places all the more emphasis on the need to deliver if the targets are to be credible. We have had early indication that all is not well. The first emissions target was missed – the Minister blamed a cold winter – surely that shouldn’t really be a surprise in Scotland. But we need to move away from these excuses and what we need to see is greater action – cold winters by themselves are not the problem – too many homes and properties with inadequate insulation and inefficient heating, not enough progress on building standards for new homes – we can’t afford missed opportunities if we are to deliver the step changed needed. Also, much of the progress which has been made can be attributed to the economic downturn – there are concerns that not enough is being done now to embed change.
This afternoon we are debating a draft report and the next few weeks provides the Scottish Government with the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised and come back with a more convincing set of policies and proposals.
In this short debate it is impossible to cover the four reports, and the convenors opening comments set out the thrust of each of the reports. While there has been scrutiny by policy area, there is a need for scrutiny of RPP2 as a coherent package of measures – although RACCE is the lead committee, there was no synergies between the reports – I know there was frustration from witness at RACCE that they couldn’t talk about transport policy, though it’s pretty impossible to talk about behavioural change without it. But through the hours of scrutiny, by MSPs, by environment campaigners, local authorities, key stakeholders and partners, there are key messages emerging which the Government must listen to and act on.
Although it is a statutory requirement to report on how the Scottish Government will respond to the missing target – it is open to interpretation whether or not it achieves this. There is rhetoric but it is difficult to identify what specific policies or proposals have changed in response to the missed target. There has been criticism that it is difficult to compare RPP1 and RRP2. There is a lack of transparency over which proposals from RPP1 have become policies, what proposals and policies have been dropped and how many have been delayed. The Economy committee make the point that there needs to be clearer explanation of what steps will be taken to address the failings of RPP1 – if anything there have been comments that there is less detail in RPP2 rather than more.
No one would suggest that meeting our climate change targets would be easy. It needs a combination of Government effort, local authorities, individuals and communities and the reports make good points in these areas. There is an acknowledgment that there are positives in the document – that’s not in doubt. The recognition of the importance of peatlands restoration is a welcome addition to the Government’s priorities. We can point to progress in recycling. As part of behaviour change, our schools and their partners are doing a lot of good work, and as my local primary school heading off to the beach today as part of Eco Week, I don’t imagine they expected to be doing that in the snow, but the unpredictability of our weather at home and abroad is one of the key challenges of climate change.
However the question is whether RPP2 is robust enough to get us where we need to be. Whether the document is credible, ambitious, transparent and capable of delivery? When the document was published, Stop Climate Chaos did a scenario calculation demonstrating that only if the EU shifts to 30%, and all policies and proposals were introduced, would Scotland hit all targets. With it looking likely that any change to the EU target won’t be delivered until at least 2016, RPP2 is at risk of being doomed to failure. Failure to achieve targets in the early years will only make future targets more difficult to achieve – we will be constantly compensating rather than making progress. Stop Climate Chaos chair Tom Ballantine has in recent days described it as
‘Ministers are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the parliament with the current climate plan.’
To be fair to the committees, they have recognised the risk. RACCE’s report states:
‘It is clear from the draft Second Report on Proposals and Polices that there is only one combination of circumstances that will allow Scotland to meet each of its annual targets from 2013 until 2027.’
The committees are consistent in calling for the Scottish Government to be clear about how they will respond to a delay or failure of the EU to set a 30% target – at the weekend a Government spokeswomen is reported as saying it was ‘commonly understood’ that Scottish targets were based on the EU target. That is not the case – it was always recognised that without the 30%, achieving targets would be harder, but they were there to be achieved regardless of the EU target. The challenge for Scotland is to be bold and ambitious in this context – and RPP2 needs to respond to these challenges.
It’s not just concerns over the EU target and the impact that will have – it is also the over reliance on proposals over policies. While proposals have a role to play, the dominance of proposals risks undermining the credibility of the document - RACCE describe it as a failure to ‘strike the appropriate balance between policies and proposals’. RPP2 itself recognises it limitations – as Stop Climate Chaos highlight – low carbon transport policies are classified as proposals rather than policies and RPP2 states
‘…while in most cases they are already being taken forward, they are not being implemented at the intensity required for the abatement figures in the document.’
Of course there needs to be a degree of flexibility but an over reliance on proposals leads to the plan lacking credibility. As opposed to proposals, policies come along with finance and/or legislation as well as clear timescales. It’s not clear which proposals are expected to become policy.
In 2009 as the Climate Change Act was passed, there was recognition of the need for ‘early action’. Yet RPP2 backloads activity and there is a lack of evidence of policy action in the earlier years of the intensity needed. Transport, housing and rural land use are the areas identified for additional effort – that is not to say nothing is happening but that the scale of the challenge in these areas are significant, and we have the opportunity to do more about them now.
And while there are calls for a greater commitment in the early years, there were particular concerns raised over the future abatement figures. ‘Wishful thinking’ was used in more than one committee. From 2025, Transport and Rural Land Use in particular identify significant abatement to potentials. The Infrastructure committee state that they are
‘concerned that it is unclear as to how these abatement figures have been calculated.’
There needs to be greater transparency over how projections are arrived at if there is to be confidence in the document.
The Minister cannot deliver on these challenges alone. It needs a Government response; and it needs leadership in Cabinet if the RPP2 is to have the confidence of MSPs and wider Scotland. While there is support for what can be achieved, the purpose of RPP2 is to set out the future path to meet the statutory targets and there are concerns that the report, as it stands, will fail to achieve these. Scotland has a reputation on climate change that it world leading and is worth saving.
This week in Parliament I backed an innovative project which raises awareness of the vital contribution of those who care for adults across the Kingdom living with dementia.
The Dementia Carer Voices Project from the Health and Social Care Alliance harnesses the work of Tommy Whitelaw, a former carer for his late Mum Joan, who has collected hundreds of life stories from people which detail the difficult and different experience of caring for a loved one living with dementia.
These stories demonstrated that carers of people with dementia often feel isolated and that there is insufficient recognition of the range of complex issues about which they are expected to have understanding.
The project aims to empower carers by raising awareness of dementia and the carer journey amongst health and social care professionals, and providing a platform from which carers’ views and experiences can inform future policy and service provision.
Speaking during a debate on Parliament I said:
“Dementia is a condition which impacts on so many families and individuals across Scotland and it is a condition which is only expected to increase.
“The level of demand will impact on health and social cares services and we must ensure we develop services which will respond to these increasing demands.
“The letters that have been collected are powerful and are testimony to the valuable work that carers do, but they are also about human experience. Being a carer is not a job, it is part of being a family and the letters demonstrate that while people do it for the best of reasons, they can’t and shouldn’t have to do it alone.”
Programme Director of the Health and Social Care Alliance, Irene Oldfather, said:
“Discussing and debating the carer experience is to be welcomed as a way of increasing awareness of dementia and the carer journey.
“Carers of people with dementia describe the journey as an emotional roller coaster which is both rewarding and incredibly sad as you lose a little of the person each day. The ALLIANCE welcomes the Parliamentary debate and the commitment of MSPS across the chamber to promoting the carer experience.”
Dementia Carer Voices Project Officer, Tommy Whitelaw, said:
“I would like to thank MSPs for their on-going interest and taking this opportunity to listen to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of carers. It is imperative that we raise awareness of the impact of dementia on families, and the vital role played by carers, so that nobody else in Scotland has to go through the caring journey experiencing the loneliness and isolation that we did.”
Yesterday in Parliament I spoke during a member’s debate brought forward by Jean Urquhart on Crofting.
The debate was also well timed due to the situation around the awarding of shooting rights in Raasay to firstly an absentee company and then back to the Raasay community.
The Minister still has many questions to answer on the issue, specifically on the issue of whether the Estate Charter brought in by the Scottish Executive in 1999 is still adhered to.
Below you can find a video of yesterday’s debate along with a copy of my speech.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): I congratulate Jean Urquhart on bringing the debate to the chamber. Her speech revealed a real understanding of not just the challenges that crofting communities face, but of their resilience and their reason for being. This is an opportune week for the debate, given that we had a debate on food policy this afternoon and will debate CAP reform tomorrow afternoon.
Crofters play a vital role in the rural economy. As the motion highlights, they maintain land in remote areas, contribute to securing population levels in remote communities, support the larger agricultural sector and make a significant contribution to Scotland’s environment.
I want to cover three areas in this short debate. First, the motion identifies CAP subsidy as a means of support for crofting communities. The process of CAP reform is on-going; we need genuine reform, and there will inevitably be winners and losers, but reform provides an opportunity to direct support to where it can achieve greater multiple gains. Crofting, given the contribution that it makes to sustainable communities and Scotland’s environment, has much to be championed.
Crofting agriculture is generally agreed to be uneconomic, but it delivers much more. CAP reform and the move from historic to area payments in Scotland could give us an opportunity to ensure that appropriate support measures are put in place to protect and enhance crofting agriculture. We need to decide what the best use of the funds is to deliver the greatest benefits to vulnerable rural communities by contributing to their vitality and securing them even where the benefits are not easy to measure.
Secondly, I want to refer to Raasay, which Jean Urquhart has lodged another motion about. Although the fact that the lease has been returned to the Raasay community is welcome, it is for only one year and has cost the Government three times what it accepted as a bid for the rights, so questions remain about how the decision was made.
As land reform legislation passed through the Scottish Parliament, the then Scottish Executive introduced the “Estate Charter”, which set out a series of principles that acknowledged the Scottish Government’s role as landowner, and the impact that poor decisions could have on the viability of communities. The recent decision on Raasay shooting rights has highlighted the charter. The Scottish Government has claimed that ministers were not involved in the decision. Even if that were to be accepted, the question remains, why not? This evening’s debate is perhaps not the appropriate parliamentary forum for the unanswered questions to be answered, but there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny of the decision and the status of the charter.
The minister will be aware of growing concerns, which have been raised by other members, about interpretation of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Guidance from the Crofting Commission has informed owner-occupier crofters that they do not have a legal mechanism through which to decroft, and that is creating uncertainty. If the problems are being caused by the 2010 act, steps must be taken to resolve the issue and the Government must provide clarity on how the situation will be resolved.
I thank Jean Urquhart for bringing the debate and for recognising the importance of crofting to the Highlands and Islands.
Yesterday in Parliament I opened for Scottish Labour on the Food Policy debate calling for the Scottish Government to rethink how they award school meals contracts.
The horsemeat scandal has raised many questions that the Scottish Government still need to answer not least around the issue of school meals. We will probably never know how much horsemeat was in the food chain prior to the breakout of the scandal or how long the adulteration of food had been taking place.
Previously the Cabinet Secretary told Parliament that food and drink contracts are awarded with a balance between price and quality. However it has since came out that the national procurement contract for school meals was awarded with price weighted three times as much as quality and we now know that school meals cost as low as £1.68.
It has since been revealed that the Scotland Excel contract for school catering is awarding a weighting of 65 per cent to price compared with 20 per cent to quality. Cost is therefore given more than three times greater weighting than quality. That is not a balance. Was the cabinet secretary aware of the 65:20 ratio weighting when he made the statement to Parliament? Does he agree that it would have been better to have greater clarity for members and parents?
It has also been announced that the average cost of school meals across Scotland is as low as £1.68 in certain areas. For some children their school dinner is their only meal of the day. For that reason it is vital that the lunch they eat is healthy, nutritious and exactly as described.
Previously I have held debates on the Fife Diet manifesto in the hope to start a discussion on our relationship with food; unfortunately it has taken a food crisis to bring us to this point.
Scotland does produce some of the world’s finest food and drink and that industry is a vital part of our economy, that however does not mask the reality that is a rise in food banks, demand for food parcels and one in six children go to bed hungry each night.
Below you can find a video of yesterday’s debate along with a copy of my speech moving our motion.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): In September I was pleased to bring to the Parliament a members’ business debate on the Fife diet manifesto. I hoped to start or encourage discussion about our relationship with food, how we eat and how we grow and trade food. The need for such discussion has, if anything, intensified in the wake of recent food scandals, and it is unfortunate that it has needed a crisis to bring us to this point.
I doubt that any member disagrees with the cabinet secretary when he says that Scotland produces some of the world’s finest food and that our food and drink industry is a vital part of the Scottish economy. However, although we recognise the contribution of our farming sector and our fishermen and although we welcome initiatives that promote the best of what Scotland has to offer, the stark reality is that food banks are on the rise, the demand for food parcels has doubled and, according to Save the Children, one in six children goes to bed hungry every night.
In the debate in September, members discussed a food sector that is dominated by a few companies. In recent weeks, we have seen how such companies influence the food chain. The horsemeat scandal magnified the issue, implicating large companies that many people considered to be reputable, safe and trustworthy, such as Findus, Birds Eye, Tesco and Asda.
It is right that we challenge supermarkets about their supply chains and that we identify the need for more European Union action on labelling. However, the Scottish Government has responsibility for regulation and implementation in Scotland, and recent events force us to ask whether our system is robust enough to be able to restore consumers’ confidence and trust. The restoration of trust would benefit industry as well as consumers.
We await final results from DNA testing and, given the weekly reports of a new company or product being implicated in relation to food fraud, it seems that we have not yet resolved the problem. It is important that we ask the hard questions. We can acknowledge the strong approach to traceability in Scottish farming and the positives of our food sector, but we cannot be complacent.
Since the cabinet secretary’s statement on the horsemeat scandal, we have learned that two large catering companies, Brakes and Sodexo, which supply the public sector, have been supplying adulterated meat products. Questions about who supplied the companies with those products remain unanswered. Has the cabinet secretary been told who supplied the meat? If so, will he inform Parliament and consumers? If we are to aim for a transparent food chain and full traceability, we need to know where the processed meat originated. If we are to restore consumer confidence, we must ensure that all information is available and that there is full traceability to where the horsemeat originated.
In his statement to the Parliament, the cabinet secretary told us that food and drink contracts are awarded with regard to a balance between price and quality. We were told that quality is vital in the awarding of a contract and that the lowest price will not necessarily win the contract.
It has since been revealed that the Scotland Excel contract for school catering is awarding a weighting of 65 per cent to price compared with 20 per cent to quality. Cost is therefore given more than three times greater weighting than quality. That is not a balance. Was the cabinet secretary aware of the 65:20 ratio weighting when he made the statement to Parliament? Does he agree that it would have been better to have greater clarity for members and parents?
Recently, it was announced that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment would join the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in hosting a school meals summit. We now know that the average cost for a school meal is as low as £1.68. Although we can point towards local authorities such as East Ayrshire Council and its focus on local food sourcing, it is evident that local authorities have been encouraged towards national procurement contracts as a means to deliver best value.
Parents and carers should be able to send their children to school in confidence that the lunch that they eat is healthy, nutritious and exactly as described. For some children across Scotland, the school dinner is their only meal of the day. Transparency, traceability and quality must be higher on the agenda. We look forward to hearing more from the cabinet secretary on the outcomes of the recent summit.
We will probably never know how much horsemeat was in the food chain prior to the breakout of the scandal or how long the adulteration of food had been taking place. It has been clear throughout that the complexity of the supply chains and the relationships between companies have been difficult for people to understand. If the Food Safety Authority of Ireland had not found traces of horsemeat DNA in beefburgers on 15 January, there is every chance that the recall of contaminated products would not be taking place.
The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes that there are 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland. Through the close working of the USPCA and the Scottish SPCA, we know that Scottish ports have been used in the transportation of maltreated horses with fake passports. Was the cabinet secretary aware of the conviction and subsequent fine of a horse trader from Northern Ireland in November 2012 at Stranraer sheriff court for transporting maltreated horses with no or fake passports? In the current circumstances, that recent conviction is concerning. Did any information sharing take place on that conviction? Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we can perhaps now recognise that there is a greater need for agencies to share information. Sometimes the connections are not easy to identify.
A national debate started because of the horsemeat scandal, but that has grown into a much wider examination of food standards. Waitrose withdrew a product that was contaminated with pork at its Shettleston plant, which is a major concern for halal customers. There have also been more recent reports that banned mechanically separated meat is being used in the UK to count towards meat content. Only last weekend, questions were raised about the reliability and accuracy of meat dish labelling in restaurants.
Although many of the cases are about mislabelling, there are also public health concerns. George Fairgrieve, the food safety adviser at the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, recently said:
“A worrying impact of the reduction in the number of inspections being carried out is that the opportunity for fraudulent activity increases and law-abiding traders are disadvantaged …. There are other vital areas of public health that must also be considered, for example preventing or dealing with outbreaks of E-coli O157 and Legionella.”
The latest revelations show once again that it is the average customer who is being let down.
The FSA Scotland’s consultation launch last week was welcome. We must take that as an opportunity to review what is working and what needs to be improved.
Rob Gibson (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP): Does the member agree that cuts in the FSA—the cuts emanated from the previous Labour Government in London and the coalition Government has made further cuts—have made it more difficult for testing to take place, and that that affects people as much in Scotland as it does in the rest of the UK?
Claire Baker: Since 2008, under the Scottish National Party’s watch, we have seen a reduction in the number of meat inspectors and environmental health officers. Under the Scottish Government, cuts have been passed down to local authorities. We see the pressures that they face and, if we work in a light-touch regulatory system, those are seen as easy areas to make reductions.
Last week my colleague, Dr Simpson, asked questions about the FSA’s funding. Although commitments were given on the stability of FSA funding, the new body will have additional responsibilities that will need to be fully supported.
To go back to Rob Gibson’s comments, the debate should give us the opportunity to ask whether we have things right and to recognise where there are mistakes in the current system. Regardless of where those mistakes emanate from, the debate gives us a chance to ask whether we have the regulatory system right and whether we are delivering the best interests of the consumer.
A recent Unison Scotland report raises concerns about the drop in food sampling by a third, the reduction of meat inspectors by 50 per cent and the drop in the number of environmental health officers in local authorities. Some 56 per cent of environmental health officers say that their teams have had major cuts. A further 10 per cent describe cuts as severe and one member said:
“We have not submitted any samples for food in ten months!”
The issue is not only the reduction in staff numbers but the way in which the system operates. Random testing, unannounced visits and a system for whistleblowing are needed if we are to have integrity in the system.
A combination of lighter-touch regulation and financial pressures has resulted in fewer checks and balances. Professor Andrew Watterson of the University of Stirling described the risks:
“Declines in meat inspector numbers and local authority food safety officers, along with reduced food sampling, must contribute to a weakening of public health standards and the possibility of criminal abuses in the food system.”
Of course, I recognise the FSA’s work in recent weeks and the additional inspections that have been carried out. However, those are all after the event and I imagine that, even if there had been any problems, the premises would have got their houses in order for preannounced visits. Given what we now know, we need a robust assessment of whether the system provides us with confidence.
Food is a complex issue. The Parliament has been bold in other areas of public health, but our food policy is defined primarily by export levels and quality products. Those are both positive outcomes, but our food policy must work for everyone in Scotland. It is important for our economy, our health and addressing inequalities.
The Government motion does not address the challenges that we face in relation to food, the growing inequality around food and the crisis that has engulfed the sector throughout Europe. Those are the matters that the Parliament needs to address.
I move amendment S4M-05892.3, to leave out from “welcomes” to “policy and” and insert:
“supports the promotion of local produce and sourcing while recognising the need for affordability, particularly as the demand on food banks rises; notes the recent food scandal, including the adulteration of products with horsemeat, which has affected products sold throughout Scotland and, in learning lessons from this, believes that a robust regulatory regime is necessary to ensure the highest standard of food labelling and food safety to restore consumer confidence and trust; expresses concern that a school in Scotland was supplied with adulterated food through a national procurement contract; calls on the Scottish Government to outline what action it will take following the school meals summit; highlights the recent members’ survey by Unison that raises concerns over staff cuts, reductions in food sampling and the future of the meat inspection service and calls on the Scottish Government to outline its response to this; recognises the progress that has been made through the national food and drink policy but believes that there is no room for complacency as it”.
Last week in Parliament I also closed the stage 1 debate of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill for Scottish Labour.
Aquaculture production and salmon and freshwater fisheries are worth an estimated £650m to Scotland and the importance of this piece of legislation can be seen with the consultation drawing over 1,000 responses. The responses show that opinions are divided on the issue raised within the consultation.
The Government has since produced a bill and alongside that a documents outlining what issue from the consultation it wasn’t taken forward till a later date – these issues coincidently seem to be the matters that cause the greatest dispute.
There is a need for both the aquaculture and the wild fisheries sector to coexist and as this bill moves forward it is important that there is trust and transparency as we work towards a balance.
The bill was agreed in principle and now moves on to stage 2 where amendments can be made from all parties.
Many issues were raised throughout the debate, from sea lice to illegal cockle fishing and commercially damaging species and it is important that as we move into stage 2 that we produce an aquaculture and fisheries sector that is fit for the 21st centuary.
You can find below a video of the second half of the debate including my closing speech and a full transcript of my speech from the Official Report.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): This has been a wide-ranging debate with many interesting speeches.
I wish the minister all the best in taking forward his first piece of Government legislation. He might get through this afternoon quite comfortably, but stage 2 might be a bit bumpier.
I thank members of the committee for the time that they took to prepare the stage 1 report. They not only considered the proposals in the bill but took the time to consider the broader issues and discuss issues that are outwith the bill’s scope. I know that that involved more than taking evidence in cosy committee rooms. The committee also travelled to salmon rivers, wild fishery hatcheries, coastal netting stations, fish farms and processing plants—we have heard about some of those experiences this afternoon—all in the deepest, darkest Scottish winter. I am sure that that is the kind of team building that companies cannot pay for these days.
The breadth of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon perhaps demonstrated the bill’s limitations. The committee has stressed the need for the legislation to be fit for purpose for many years to come. There are exceptions—the area is complex—but, having introduced legislation as a first step, the Government needs to be careful that subsequent reviews and discussions do not weaken the bill. For example, in her opening speech, Claudia Beamish spoke about the importance of how the bill connects to the marine plan.
In the pre-legislative consultation document that explored the possible content of the bill, the Scottish Government said:
“aquaculture production and salmon and freshwater fisheries are estimated to be worth over £650m … to Scotland … It is important that both sectors—and their interactions—are managed effectively, as part of the wider marine and freshwater environment and to maximise their combined contribution to our aim of sustainable economic growth in Scotland.”
The bill aims to address those issues.
The consultation generated more than 1,000 responses. There is no denying that opinions were strongly divided. It would certainly be difficult to make easy progress on some of the issues that were raised.
However, the Government’s solution to that was to produce a bill that was accompanied by a further document outlining where future action was planned for the matters that were not addressed in the bill—which, coincidentally, also seemed to be the matters that caused the greatest dispute.
Unlike James Isbister, who caught a 6ft ling this week, the Government seems to have cast a line, got plenty of bite but failed to land the big fish.
Although the bill seeks to improve the regulatory framework, it has increasingly been seen as the start of a process, with much work being left to the refreshed ministerial group on aquaculture and a forthcoming review of wild fisheries management.
The committee talks about the need for a
“coherent wild fisheries management structure”.
It is a point well made. The minister must be mindful of the need for continuity and coherence.
Many members referred to the tensions between stakeholders and to the sometimes contradictory evidence that was received—a point that was strongly emphasised in the stage 1 report.
Scotland has a growing aquaculture sector. The Scottish Government recognises its importance to the economy. Scottish farmed salmon is viewed as a high-value, high-quality product throughout the world. It is Scotland’s top food export and is marketed in more than 65 countries, with particular growth in the far east. It employs more than 6,000 people often in rural areas, and there is a target of increasing the production of all farmed fish by 50 per cent by 2020.
Alongside that industry is a wild fisheries sector, which is also highly valued in Scotland and throughout the world. One of Scotland’s most iconic images is of a wild salmon leaping up a river. That fish must be protected, as well as pursued, in its native environment.
In its briefing for the debate, the Scottish Wildlife Trust highlighted the fact that there has been a decline in Atlantic salmon in European waters over the past three decades. It identifies the complex reasons—food availability, water temperature changes, pollution, barriers in rivers, overfishing and the effects of aquaculture—and recognises that probably a combination of all of them has contributed to decline. Claudia Beamish: I want to stress something about being a sea trout champion that I did not get time to say in my speech. The serious point is the concern that the sea trout is under even greater threat than the salmon. Jamie McGrigor highlighted that as well. I would like the minister to be aware of that issue. Claire Baker: I thank Claudia Beamish for her intervention.
Although the two sectors need to coexist, an appropriate balance needs to be struck, and there needs to be greater trust and transparency. The level of regulation is crucial. No one wants us to have regulation that would damage an important Scottish industry, but calls have been made for proportionate regulation, in recognition of the fact that across our food chain there is a need—perhaps now more than ever—for transparency and, as my colleague Jayne Baxter highlighted, robust governance.
As many members identified, how we report sea lice is the most contentious issue and, in some ways, it is one that encapsulates the tensions that exist across the sector. It raises issues of proportionate regulation, of transparency, of trust, of consumer confidence and of the importance of a science-led approach. Both sides of the debate make persuasive arguments, of which Graeme Dey gave a good description as he outlined the nature of the debate that has taken place in the committee. I welcome the recent moves by the SSPO to increase its accountability, but I recognise the strong arguments in favour of a more robust reporting system. Although the minister has ruled out a Government amendment on the matter at this stage, the importance that the committee has attached to the issue suggests that we will return to it at stage 2.
In the time that I have left, I will pick up on a few issues that members have highlighted. Graeme Pearson and Alex Fergusson discussed illegal cockle fishing. Thankfully, cases of illegal activity and exploitation in the sector are few and far between, and it is important that we do not allow the activities of a minority to tarnish the reputation of the rest of the sector. I am pleased that the Government has recognised the need to strengthen the legislation in this area. It is important that the Government works with the Scottish police service, the industry and other relevant agencies to ensure that robust further progress is made.
It is interesting that many members have talked about areas that were discussed in the consultation, but which were not included in the bill. That indicates that there is much more work to do.
I will touch briefly on the issue of commercially damaging species. In its report, the committee suggested that the Scottish Government should take the opportunity to re-examine the issue and to consider lodging amendments, but at the moment the minister continues to argue that the current proposals are proportionate. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on the committee’s comments as the bill moves forward.
Angus MacDonald and Richard Lyle talked about the potential for the bill to contribute to tackling climate change challenges, as well as the challenges that the sector faces. Rob Gibson and Margaret McDougall spoke about the contentious issue of seals and reflected the committee’s support for greater use of alternative predator controls. Jim Hume discussed escapes and promoted a solution; we await the minister’s reply. The committee recognised that escapes from fish farms are undesirable and stressed the importance of all sectors working together to minimise them.
The report also raised concerns about biomass. Last year in the chamber, I highlighted to the minister the concern that the aim of increasing the production of all farmed fish by 50 per cent by the year 2020 could result in a subsequent increase in the use of chemical treatments. I reiterate that point and ask for assurances that the Government is actively looking into the issue. It is important that the regulatory framework that the bill contains is robust enough to ensure that any increases in aquaculture will be suitably managed and regulated.
It has been an interesting debate, in which there has been as much discussion of what is not in the bill as there has been of what is in it. We might be moving towards stage 2, but wider issues need to be addressed before we can be confident that we have an aquaculture and fisheries sector that is fit for the 21st century, and which will meet the needs of the industry and the wider environment. Those will need to be resolved through the bill or through future work by the Parliament.
Yesterday in Parliament I opened and closed the Rural Affair, Climate Change and Environment committee debate on Biodiversity for Scottish Labour. A copy of the motion that was debated along with a link to my speech can be found at the end of this post. The debate gave the Parliament an opportunity to reflect on the submissions received by the Scottish Government consultation on the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s biodiversity; we will hopefully also have a chance to debate the Government’s response.
Biodiversity has been on the political and global agenda since the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992. In April 2002, there was a commitment to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level. In addition, the Aichi Targets set by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity called for a step change in efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity and to restore the essential services that a health natural environment provides. Scotland’s response to this is the 2004 Biodiversity Strategy It’s in Your Hands.
Therefore it is hugely disappointing that Scotland failed to meet the 2010 target, and that this was a global failure. The call to action in 1992 has not resulted in the halt to the loss of biodiversity and The In Your Hands strategy is in need of a redraft – but the failed 2010 target makes it more difficult to reach future targets and we need to redouble efforts if we are to meet the important 2020 targets.
Biodiversity can seem removed for people’s everyday life, irrelevant to a modern, technological age, something to enjoy recreationally but not really impacting on our lives. But the problems we faced in 1992 are relevant today more than ever. The international Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 which brings together the Aichi targets, recognises that a functioning ecosystem is “essential for human well-being. It provides for food security, human health, the provision of clean air and water, it contributes to local livelihoods, and economic development, and is essential for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, including poverty reduction.’ Biodiversity is as much about human well-being as it is about anything else. If we consider challenges facing communities in Scotland right now – flooding for example – healthy ecosystems can mitigate against the impact.
I was at the Making the Most of Landfill Tax event in Parliament this week, and from memory, it is 5% of the fund that goes to biodiversity project while almost half the fund goes to community assets. There is a need to capacity build, to improve community understanding of the opportunities there are for biodiversity projects, and for this to play a greater role in achieving the targets.
Marine biodiversity is another area of importance yet is an area which is sadly suffering decline in habitat and species. There is growing frustration over the lack of a network of Marine Protected Areas and the delay to publication of a Marine Plan. The latter is particularly frustrating as we all accept the need for a plan but, as we wait, marine development moves ahead, pre-empting its publication, and resulting in the plan having to fit around developments rather than be there to set out the strategic direction.
We do need to get on the front foot with marine planning – we all recognise the importance of the marine environment and we must make swift progress in bringing in the necessary protections. There will be developments – there is great potential in our seas – but it is crucial that we have the proper framework in place to accommodate fisheries, renewables, aquaculture without further eroding our marine biodiversity.
On marine issues, I would just like to raise the proposed closure of the University Marine Biological Station in Millport. I understand this is being proposed by the University of London in response to the capital challenges as well as the cut to teaching grant, but it is a facility used by Scottish universities and students working in marine and biodiversity fields and it is in a unique location, as well as recognising the contribution the station makes to marine science in Scotland. I would welcome the Scottish Government offering some leadership on this important resource.
Biodiversity is an area that needs championing – and we can make gains across all sectors from the simplest approach that adapts the immediate environment of a workplace or public place, to the more complex drivers which offer incentives to support biodiversity activity. It is an area that needs championing and we all have to role to play, from MSPs promoting the importance of our environment to the important role the Minister has to play in Government. I look forward to a refreshed Strategy which will provide a clear path to success.
Motion for Debate: S4M-05320 Rob Gibson on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee: Biodiversity—That the Parliament notes that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee will be examining the analysis of the responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity as the government looks to update its current biodiversity strategy against a backdrop of a global failure to meet biodiversity targets set for 2010, the revised target to halt biodiversity loss by 2020 and the related Aichi targets.
Yesterday evening in Parliament I spoke during Rhoda Grant’s member’s debate on Sustainable Biomass (the motion that was debated can be found below). It was an important debate as how Scotland meets its present and future energy needs is one of the key issues facing this Parliament and future generations.
In recent years we have had to pay more and more for domestic energy and everyone is finding they are spending a greater share of their income on energy bills; this is pushing an increasing number of the population into fuel poverty. Alongside this we are facing significant climate challenges and in Scotland we have a clear commitment to achieving a low carbon economy.
To try and meet these challenges alternative sources of energy needs to be exploited, but it is clear that we need greater engagement and confidence in the debate. It is difficult to think of any energy source that does not present a series of challenges or have a host of supporters as well as a group of detractors. It is important that the different needs are balanced in delivering a more sustainable low-carbon cleaner energy future. I’ve had meetings with campaigners who are raising concerns over the scale and location of large biomass proposals and those concerns should be heard.
Last night’s debate focussed on wood biomass. Wood is a limited resource and there are various demands on the sector in Scotland. As a limited resource any large scale biomass in Scotland will need to rely on imported wood as there is not a large enough market in Scotland to support the sector. The Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that 10 per cent of wood for biomass will be sourced domestically and 90 per cent will need to be imported. This introduces a whole host of concerns, not least of which is the lack of confidence in the sustainability of the imported wood.
Friends of the Earth and Biofuel watch have highlighted contradictions between Scotland’s support for climate justice and the expected growth in reliance on imported wood for biomass. Expansion could cause huge destruction to vulnerable communities and their food and water security, with a real lack of confidence in international accreditation schemes. The Scottish Government must be aware of these concerns when considering any applications.
Whilst the Government aim to ensure sustainable biomass is recognised as a limited resource and used primarily for heat and high efficiency combined heat and power is to be welcomed there is a loophole that they must address. The European Union directive recommends that 70% efficiency must be achieved in CHP whilst the Scottish Government (and UK Government) proposes that it is just 35%. We need to increase the level of efficiency that has to be reached to receiving subsidy and we should aim to meet the EU directive.
We need to have confidence that applications can deliver what they say that they will deliver. Under current proposals 10% heat efficiency needs to be achieved but this can be used within the plant and not exported to still qualify as good quality CHP. I urge the Government to look again at the proposed efficiency level and to ensure that the power of public subsidy is used to its greatest advantage.
Motion S4M-04966 Rhoda Grant – That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government’s stated intention that sustainable biomass should be recognised as a limited resource and that it should be used at an appropriate scale and primarily for heat and high-efficiency combined heat and power; notes that the EU renewable energy directive calls for a minimum efficiency rating of 70% for industrial applications; also notes concerns in the wood processing industry throughout Scotland and particularly in the Highlands and Islands regarding wood supply and understands that wood products provide a carbon store; looks forward to the outcome of and would welcome a widespread response to the Scottish Government’s supplementary consultation on the Renewables Obligations Banding Review, for which the deadline for views on the proposals on biomass sustainability criteria is 11 January 2013.
