I joined with my college Jayne Baxter in asking for clarity from the Scottish Government on the future of colleges within the Kingdom as we called for a delay on the SNP’s Post-16 education bill.
The bill, which seeks to address issues of college and university governance, widening access, data sharing and a tuition fees cap, has come under criticism from witnesses during committee evidence sessions. Labour, along with other opposition parties, are asking the Cabinet Secretary for Education to withdraw the bill and address the concerns raised.
There is growing criticism that the bill is not fit for purpose. Particular concerns have been raised over the college regionalisation aspect of the bill which is seeing Carnegie College and Adam Smith College merge.
The merger of Adam Smith and Carnegie Colleges has been driven by cuts to the sector from the SNP Government rather than by what is best for staff and students in the Kingdom. Throughout this whole process we have had very little reassurances over future course availability and student numbers.
Today Jayne Baxter MSP and I have written to Tony Jakimciw, the regional lead for Fife college mergers, to ask for a meeting to raise our concerns over the future of Fife colleges.
The criticism of the education bill comes on the back of motion of no confidence passed on Education Secretary Mike Russell by EIS earlier this month.
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.
I have called on the Scottish Government to take action after a labour market report highlighted that North East Fife has experienced one of the worst real terms wages decline in Scotland.
The report from the STUC found that North East Fife has seen a real terms decline in the median gross weekly pay of 18.7% which is almost three times higher than the Scottish average of 6.4% since 2007. Only two areas in the whole of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway (24.2%) and Glasgow East (23%), show a higher decrease in wages. The figures also show that across Scotland the average worker is £27.12 a week and £1410.24 a year worse off.
The people of North East Fife are facing disproportionate reductions to their wages compared with the rest of Scotland and it is vital that the Government at both Holyrood and Westminster take action to address the decline in real term wages. North East Fife has seen a dramatic decline in the value of their salaries at a time when prices are rising and household budgets are being squeezed. This takes money out of the local economy at a time when town centres and small businesses are struggling.
The report from the STUC follows on from last week’s monthly job figures which showed an increase in those claiming job seekers allowance across the Kingdom in the past year, with a significant increase in the number of women claiming job seekers allowance.
The Scottish Government could be taking bold action now to ensure that this imbalance is addressed but would rather put Scotland on pause to focus on the referendum. I will be writing to the Scottish Government to highlight these shocking figures and ask what action they will be taking to identify what the reasons behind the decline are and what it will be doing to address it.
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.”
I have called for the Scottish Government to take action to ensure more females and young people are entering the job market after latest figures show an increase in those claiming job seekers allowance.
According to latest statistics the number of people unemployed in Scotland has fallen by 4,000, however the number of women unemployed has risen by 8,000. Whilst any fall in unemployment should be welcomed when you look beyond the headline figures there is still serious cause for concern as economic inactivity is higher now than it was last year.
Unemployment amongst women is up by 8,000 since November and in every constituency in Fife the number of women claiming job seekers allowance has risen. More needs to be done to encourage women back into the workplace. This includes the SNP carrying through on their own election promises to ensure childcare is affordable and accessible to all.
There has also been a rise, of 2000, in February, in the number of young people claiming job seekers allowance. Locally in the Kingdom, the number of people claiming job seekers allowance has risen in the past year, with the number of females claiming rising in every Fife constituency.
The question the Scottish Government must answer is what action is it taking to ensure our young people have a chance to get a job rather than joining a queue at the local job center.
This week I have called on the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that Scotland’s restaurants are not selling adulterated curries after newspaper reports found that four out of five Indian takeaways and restaurants in Fife have regularly sold lamb curries substituted with cheap cuts of beef.
The survey, which was conducted across Scotland, found that of the 46 restaurant and takeaways that were selling adulterated curries, 33 did not contain any lamb with the remaining used lamb along with cheap cuts of beef. The meat is being passed off as lamb in popular dishes such as bhoona and korma.
Since the publication of the report the restaurants in Fife that have been found adulterating their curries have remained unnamed. All restaurants selling beef in lamb curries should be named as soon as possible and a full investigation carried out.
First it was horsemeat and now these shocking revelations show that the average consumer in Scotland is continuingly to be let down. Consumers deserve a right to know what they are eating and this is yet another devastating blow for consumer confidence.
The horsemeat scandal has already raised many questions that the Government still need to answer and this latest news just adds to questions over Scotland’s food chain. The reality is that we will probably never know how long the contamination of food has been taking place nor how much horsemeat or fake curries there has been in the food chain prior to the breakout out of the scandal.
I will be writing to both the Scottish Government to ensure they fully investigate this issue and I will also be writing to Fife Council to see what action they will be taking against the restaurants”
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.
This week I opened for Labour during the Liberal Democrat debate on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform.
There is widespread agreement that CAP reform is necessary to ensure a fairer distribution among EU members and for more focus on the environmental challenges faced across Europe. As the CAP budget is nearly 40% of the total EU budget this is an important debate and it is essential that there is public confidence and transparency that the benefit from CAP is being felt by all.
In Scotland CAP payments can vary drastically across regions. In East Lothian the average payment is over €125,000 whilst Highland receives an average of just over €34 per hector. During the debate I asked the Cabinet Secretary if he would “deliver the degree of redistribution that he argues for across the EU and within the UK, provide increased support to farming in disadvantaged areas, and ensure a level playing field for new entrants.”
My amendment to the debate highlighted that it was important to support new entrants into farming and crofting and ensure they know where they stand with regards to the CAP. Currently new entrants get a raw deal, failing to get the support other farms get. With the challenges they have to face in entering farming it is important that clarity is given to those wishing to enter farming on the timescales for reform and on the support that would be available.
Another issue I raised was around the Irish tunnel subsidy payment system. Whilst there is support from NFUS and the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations I urged caution as the reform will be slow and will result in some who are in need of support having to wait longer than others to receive it.
Once again we heard from the Government the claim that we would see an increase in CAP funds from separation. The reality is that we continually see the terms of Scotland’s automatic EU membership, as claimed by the SNP, questioned. The majority opinion indicates that at best a separate Scotland would have to negotiate many treaties before being allowed to join and that will probably include the CAP payments.
With a likely reduction in the EU budget and more pressure being placed on it, examples show that new member states, including those who joined in 2007, having payments phased in gradually. This would be disastrous for Scottish farming and the SNP can give no guarantees on the future of farmers within the EU in a separate Scotland.
Below you can find a video of the CAP refrom 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): I am pleased to be speaking in this debate.
There is widespread agreement that reform of the CAP is necessary. There must be greater fairness in distribution among European Union members; we need to recognise the environmental challenges that Europe faces; and we need to deliver public confidence and respond to the priorities of a changing world. The CAP budget is nearly 40 per cent of the total EU budget, and there must be greater public confidence and transparency in its use and priorities. With 85 per cent of Scotland’s farmed area designated as disadvantaged and less favoured, reform needs to recognise those challenges. I hope that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can work together positively on those matters. It needs to be recognised that farming in more remote and disadvantaged areas brings multiple benefits to communities.
We can agree that there needs to be a fairer distribution of support throughout the EU and within the UK, and not just for Scotland. The accession countries receive small pillar 1 payments, and agriculture is at the very centre of the economies of many of them. It employs many people, and those countries also deserve a fairer distribution.
Towards the end of the process, decisions will need to be made about how Scotland will distribute its payments in the move from historic to area payments. We have sharp contrasts in Scotland. The average payment in East Lothian is over €125,000, while Highland receives an average of just over €34 per hectare. Therefore, there is an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to deliver the degree of redistribution that he argues for across the EU and within the UK, provide increased support to farming in disadvantaged areas, and ensure a level playing field for new entrants.
The Scottish Government’s amendment argues for CAP spending to be rectified in order to address the needs of rural Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary take the same approach when he makes allocation decisions relating to Scotland’s direct payments?
Whatever decision is made on area payments, there needs to be greater transparency in the proposals as well as an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and engagement. The Government amendment says that more will be revealed on 17 April. Meanwhile, the Welsh Assembly Government, which is facing similar decisions, has been open about the changes that are being proposed. It even has a website that anyone can go to and do the sums. That is quite a contrast with the Scottish Government’s approach. It is inevitable that there will be winners and losers in the process, and farmers and crofters need to be able to begin planning for the changes.
Our amendment highlights the need to be clear about new entrants to farming and crofting and where they stand. New entrants currently get a raw deal from the CAP. While recognising that they get pots of money from the Scotland rural development programme and other targeted payments, they rightly ask why, when they are productive and growing new businesses, they do not get the support that other farms get. New entrants face lots of challenges in entering farming: financial barriers, rising land prices and lack of tenancies and starter units. The reform of the CAP must deliver for new entrants if we are to see a secure future for farming in Scotland. Greater clarity is needed on the timescales for reform and the support that will be available.
NFU Scotland and the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations—COPA—have signed a declaration in support of the Irish tunnel subsidy payment system. However, I think that we should be cautious about that approach, because it will slow reform and, although it will cushion change for some, it will mean that others who are in need of support will have to wait longer. For example, a farmer from Grampian recently tweeted me to say that it will mean that he will have to wait until 2025 for a level playing field. As Tavish Scott said, it would be helpful to know the cabinet secretary’s view on that.
I am short of time, but I want to address the Conservative amendment. We support the principle of convergence and the need for a fairer allocation within the UK, but I am concerned that the amendment is too prescriptive and does not address the issues around production and disadvantage. An average per hectare payment masks quite a lot of inconsistencies in Scotland, as the earlier East Lothian and Highland example illustrated. However, I will listen to Alex Fergusson’s speech with interest.
We hear again from the Government the assertion that we would see significant additional CAP funds from independence. During a debate in January last year before he became a minister, Paul Wheelhouse claimed that
“when Scotland becomes independent, the full economic benefit of convergence between member states will be delivered to Scotland automatically.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; c 5396.]
However, we increasingly see the terms of Scotland’s EU membership being questioned: the SNP claimed that it would be automatic, but it now acknowledges the need for negotiations. Richard Lochhead: Will the member take an intervention? Claire Baker: I am sorry, but I am just closing.
What could be more open to negotiation than CAP payments? We see a reducing budget with more pressures being placed on it. Recent examples show that new member states, including those that joined in 2007, have had direct payments phased in gradually. That would be disastrous for Scottish farming, and the SNP can give no guarantees on the future of farmers within the EU.
I move amendment S4M-05898.2, after “substantial changes” to insert:
“and that new entrants into farming and crofting can be clear on what support will be available to them”.
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”.
