This week in Parliament the Scottish Government had the chance to protect Scotland’s most vulnerable communities from socially divisive Coalition policies but simply failed to take any action. In Parliament the Scottish Government voted against a Labour amendment to mitigate the effect of the Bedroom Tax on the people of Scotland.
A Labour amendment to the Local Government Finance Order called on the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of the Bedroom Tax on Scotland’s most vulnerable and to respond positively to COSLA’s call to fully fund the replacement for council tax benefit as has happened at the National Assembly in Wales.
Labour asked the SNP Government to work with us in helping people through these tough times and by enabling local authorities to get the financial support they need. The amendment, however, was defeated by 81 votes to 35 after the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats joined the SNP in voting against.
Instead of promising action in a separate Scotland the SNP should be taking action now and standing up for the people of Scotland. The underlying problem is that there is simply a shortage of affordable housing across Scotland including here in Fife.
According to Fife Housing Association one in five of their tenants will be affected by the Bedroom Tax. An analysis of their housing stock shows that the Association holds only 82 1 bed properties compared to 2,364 properties with 2 beds or more. Fife Housing Association statistics show that their simply isn’t enough 1 bedroom properties to accommodate those that would want to downsize and unless the Scottish Government takes action we could see vulnerable families at risk of losing their homes.
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”.
Scottish Labour’s Rural Affairs spokesperson, Claire Baker, has criticised the Rural Affairs Committee for refusing to invite the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse to answer questions over the Raasay lease.
Claire Baker MSP, said: “There are many unanswered questions about the way the Raasay contract was awarded and the way in which this decision was reversed.
“It is the job of the Scottish Parliament committees to hold the Scottish Government to account and the refusal of the Rural Affairs committee to ask the hard questions means that we cannot get to the bottom of this debacle.
“Once again the SNP is using its majority on the committee to close down debate. The committee should be shining a light on how this poor decision was made in the first place, but they would prefer to kick this into the long grass.
“Only last week they were able to show flexibility by including a Thursday session to accommodate the Cabinet Secretary. If they can also make time to travel to Brussels to visit the European Parliament, then surely they can make time to question the Minister on an important topical issue?”
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.
Today I have called on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and the Environment Committee to invite Paul Wheelhouse to discuss the awarding of the lease to manage shooting and fishing rights on Raasay.
The Government u-turn has raised as many questions as it has answers and it is important that Parliament receives the full facts from the Minister and his department.
It is the role of committee’s in the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the administration of the Scottish Government and I hope they take up my request to invite the Cabinet Minister to ensure lessons are learned.
A copy of my letter can be found below:
Dear Rob,
I would like to suggest that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and the Environment Committee invite Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for the Environment, to the committee to discuss the awarding of the lease to manage shooting and fishing rights on Raasay, along with a wider discussion on how these decisions are made in the future.
The awarding of the lease firstly to South Ayrshire Stalking before latterly being returned to Raasay Crofters’ Association has raised question. I would hope that the Minister’s attendance at committee would provide him with the opportunity to answer questions about how the lease was awarded. It is important that members are given the opportunity to fully understand the issues going forward to ensure lessons are learned for future decision making processes.
I do appreciate that the committee has an agreed work plan. However, I hope that you are able to consider this request at the next committee meeting on the 5th of March and I look forward to receiving your reply.
In Parliament yesterday I questioned the Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, on Scotland’s new food safety body.
This Ministerial Statement was on the back of the current horse scandal – which I have talked about previously http://www.clairebaker.org/?p=361 – and an announcement in June of last year that a new food body would be created in Scotland.
The Scudamore report which recommended a new food standards agency reported in April 2012 and the Minister announced he would take this forward in June of that same year so it is unfortunate that it has taken a scandal to force our Government into action.
The horse meat scandal has also brought to light that the FSA in Scotland underspent its budget by 10% and that meat inspectors have halved since 2008 raising questions on just how robust our food regulatory system currently is.
A video of the statement can be found below along with a copy of my question to the Minister and his reply.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report.
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): As the minister will know, the number of meat inspectors has halved since 2008. While that is partly due to a reduction in the number of premises requiring inspection, there has been a move towards lighter-touch regulation, with a reduction in the number and frequency of inspections.
Only today, we hear news of banned mechanically separated meat being used in the UK to count towards meat content. Will the minister respond to Unison Scotland’s warning against the introduction of a new body that promotes lighter-touch regulation? Will he give an assurance, particularly given what we now know about the food chain, that the new system, with a robust regulatory framework that puts consumers’ interests first, will prevent future scandals of this nature?
Michael Matheson: I hope that the member has been reassured by my statement that the primary focus and overall objective of the new food safety body in Scotland will be consumer protection.
The member asked about the number of meat inspectors. Meat inspectors are provided at a UK level and operate throughout UK, rather than specifically through the Food Standards Agency in Scotland. Their numbers have changed for a variety of reasons. For example, the number of abattoirs has reduced. In addition, during incidents such as the BSE and foot-and-mouth outbreaks, inspectors were put into premises but, once the restrictions that followed those incidents were reduced or removed, the number of inspectors that had to be present in those premises also reduced.
The new food body in Scotland and the review group that I have set up give us the opportunity to look at what we have at the moment. Are there ways in which we could do things better? Do we need to look at how we can improve the inspection and regulatory regimes to get them fit for purpose in a way that best suits Scotland’s needs?
There is no intention of having a lighter touch with existing regulation, but we need to make sure that we have a proportionate, intelligence-based system that uses the best science and evidence to support its work.
I recently joined forced with Focus Scotland Magazine to help promote community based volunteering.
The campaigns aims to get the Scottish public to embark on a volunteering journey in 2013 whilst also raising awareness and promoting community volunteering throughout the year.
I’m pleased to join Focus Scotland in promoting community based volunteering and hopefully build on the success of 2012. I signed their banner in Parliament pledging my support to the campaign, with the hope of seeing an increase in community involvement throughout Fife in 2013.
Last year was a positive year for the image of volunteering with the successful summer of ‘Games Makers’ during the Olympic Games. Focus Scotland hope that individuals within Scotland will continue to volunteer and that the campaign will act as a reminder for them of the impact they can have at community level.
Scottish Labour MSP Claire Baker has signed up to MASScot’s campaign to prevent skin cancer, the most common cancer in 15 to 34 year olds in Scotland.
MASScot (Melanoma Action & Support Scotland) hosted an exhibition in the Scottish Parliament, highlighting the high incidence of malignant melanoma in Scotland.
MASScot asked the MSPs to consider a public education campaign to prevent skin cancers by avoiding sunburn and to make people aware of the early signs of skin cancer and the dangers of sunbed use.
Early diagnosis with removal by minor surgery will cure thin melanomas, but all too often the early signs of cancer are missed. MSPs were asked to sign that they agreed that Sun Protection is Vital and add a comment of their own.
Responding to the announcement that 11 sites in Scotland have now been confirmed with Ash Dieback and that the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse will be convening a summit of key stakeholders this Tuesday, Claire Baker MSP said:
“The disease was first believed to be in Scotland in July yet there was no information from the Scottish Government until last week. Considering the ease with which the disease can spread and the fact the disease was confirmed months before in England, the Scottish Government are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and failed to be proactive in containing the disease.
“The Scottish Government must answer questions on when they first became aware of the threat of ash dieback and what if any precautionary action did they take.
“The First Minister admitted today that Ash Dieback is seasonal so one must ask why the Scottish Government did not take any action during the height of the season once they became aware the disease had spread to Scotland. The Government may be convening summits and attending COBRA meetings in winter whilst the disease has less chance of spreading but is it a case of too little too late?”
In response to a question Claire asked last week, the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse admitted that the Scottish Government were aware of the disease in the summer, however Parliament was only informed at the end of October.
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): The minister will be aware of newspaper reports that the Forestry Commission was aware of the threat of ash dieback as far back as 2009. When exactly did the Scottish Government and the Forestry Commission Scotland first become aware of the threat of ash dieback and what action was taken then to stop the disease spreading?
Paul Wheelhouse: The member is correct in her assessment that Scotland has been aware of the disease. Work is on-going to identify exactly how it is being transmitted to the UK and within the UK. As I said in response to John Scott, the disease was first identified in Scotland in July and was confirmed in August. Until that point, there was no evidence of its presence in Scotland. We are now undertaking extensive survey work to identify the extent of its presence in Scotland. I assure the member that we will do everything that we can to move forward, to manage the disease effectively and to try to eradicate it in the best way possible
