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?”
Yesterday in Parliament I spoke during Murdo Fraser’s member debate on wild land and endangered species. With 2013 being the year of Natural Scotland we have an opportunity to ensure a robust biodiversity plan will promote and ensure our countries heritage, wildlife and landscapes.
Please find below Murdo Fraser’s motion that was departed along with a copy of the speech.
Motion S4M-05602: Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) That the Parliament notes that 2013 is the Year of Natural Scotland; recognises the efforts of conservation charities and other organisations to save endangered species and wild land in Mid Scotland and Fife and across the country; understands that the indigenous red squirrel and the wildcat face a significant threat; believes that only 150 breeding pairs of wildcat are not in captivity; considers that habitat conservation coupled with breeding programmes could hold the key to saving endangered species; believes that there should be a network of grey squirrel trapping areas; notes the report, Public Perception Survey of Wildness in Scotland, which was published in July 2012 by Scottish Natural Heritage in association with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority; understands that the report claimed that 86% of people surveyed felt that further action was necessary to preserve wild land and that the most popular means by which this could be ensured was by introducing a specific wild land designation, and acknowledges calls for a concerted effort in 2013 to deliver a step change in conserving wild land and endangered species.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this evening’s debate. As the motion recognises, 2013 is the year of natural Scotland, which gives us an opportunity to focus on biodiversity and promote our heritage, wildlife and landscapes. I hope that it is about more than pinning a natural Scotland label on events that are already in the pipeline. We need much more debate and discussion about our environment, and a tangible legacy of the year would be a robust biodiversity plan with clear actions to deliver on our targets.
In focusing on endangered species, the motion highlights the red squirrel. Last summer, I went to a red squirrel fun day in Tentsmuir forest in north-east Fife to find out about the work of the Fife red squirrel group. Fife is not a target protection area, but the peninsula at Tentsmuir provides an opportunity for local activists to try to grow a population there. I commend the work of the Fife red squirrel group and groups like it across the country as they work tirelessly in raising awareness and introducing programmes to protect endangered species. However, as Murdo Fraser said, they need support to do that successfully.
Not for the first time in the chamber, I highlight the work of Scottish Environment LINK and its species champions programme, which is certainly capturing the imagination of MSPs. Although it is a bit of fun, it is proving to be an effective way in which to engage the Parliament in the challenges that many endangered species are facing. I am grateful to Dave Thompson, who is not here this evening, for adopting the sand eels. My puffins need them as they provide a valuable food source and help to grow their habitat.
Habitat protection is vital to securing the future of species. The minister will be aware that there are concerns that the marine protected areas do not protect seabirds. The motion also mentions habitat conservation. That is just as important offshore as it is onshore, and the minister knows that there is growing concern about the delayed marine plan.
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse): I understand the concern about migratory species such as seabirds, but I put it on the record again that we are proposing to protect sand eel populations through the MPA network.
Claire Baker: I am aware of other measures that the Government is taking, but the minister will know that there are still concerns about marine protected areas not protecting seabirds. Their inclusion would give an extra layer of protection.
To show that I am not someone who will back away from trickier issues, I note that the motion also mentions wild land designation, and I understand that the Public Petitions Committee will take evidence on the John Muir Trust petition in the near future. I recognise the concerns of the John Muir Trust and other organisations such as Ramblers Scotland about wild lands in Scotland. Effective protection of wilderness areas is important and, as Murdo Fraser highlighted, it is valued by the public. The Parliament has introduced protective measures over the years. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 resulted in the establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park in 2002 and the Cairngorms national park in 2003.
In a response to the Public Petitions Committee, the minister outlined the existing means of protection, which include sites of special scientific interest, national parks, national nature reserves and national scenic areas. NSAs are defined as areas
“of outstanding scenic value in a national context.”
There are 40 such areas and they cover 13 per cent of the land area of Scotland. They ensure that areas such as Glencoe, Ben Nevis, the Hebrides and some landscapes in Perthshire and the Borders are protected from inappropriate development.
There is a system of protection and there is already a system of constraints that are placed on developers. It is not easy to achieve the right balance between competing demands, but it is essential to do so. The John Muir Trust has a clear position on the limiting of renewables development and it raises concerns about the impact that such development has on our landscapes and the environment. However, Murdo Fraser started to explore the fact that designating wild lands would present other challenges. Decisions would be fairly subjective and they would run the risk of creating an imbalance in another direction. The key debate needs to be about the value of what is being protected, rather than what is being prevented.
The Government has said that it is
“satisfied that existing legislation and administrative systems for land use planning and environmental management provide appropriate means for meeting the obligations and objectives set out in the”
European landscape convention. However, there are issues, such as hill tracks, on which we need progress to make the protections that we already have work better. I am sure that there will be an interesting debate on the matter in committee, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response when he closes the debate.
This week I have called for Scottish Government action after latest figures show that accident and emergency waiting times have hit a record number since the SNP came to power.
The Scottish Government’s failure to address the underlying problems in our NHS is resulting in the people of Fife having to pay the price when it comes to accident and emergency waiting times.
According to latest figures nationally the number of patients seen within the four hour waiting time target fell to 90.3 per cent in December 2012. This is the lowest ever recorded since the target was introduced in December 2007 and follows a downward trend in compliance with the A&E waiting time target every month since July of last year.
It is the job of the SNP Government to ensure that winter planning measures are in place for any potential increase in patients due to winter illnesses but this has clearly failed as December’s results are at their worst for 5 years. This is not an isolated incident as there has been an ongoing downward trend since July that the Government is failing to halt.
Locally, NHS Fife had the third highest number of patients, across Scotland, waiting over 12 hours in December 2012. Throughout the final month of last year 65 patients had to wait over 12 hours in accident and emergency, an average of over two per day. Only NHS Lothian, with 78 patients, and NHS Lanarkshire, with 117 patients, posted worse results.
Week after week we hear personal stories of patients experiencing the pressures placed on NHS Fife. The SNP are asking NHS staff to do more with less and we cannot continue down this path without expecting consequences for patients.
NHS Fife failing to meet their accident and emergency waiting time target follows on from missing their cancer waiting time target, a fall in the number of hospital bed available and a rise in hospital complaints.
We need urgent action from the Scottish Government to address failings of their own making and I will be writing to the Health Secretary to raise my concerns regarding NHS Fife.
I was delighted to once again support WWF’s Earth Hour on the 23rd of March and to be joined this year by my colleague Jayne Baxter. I hope that on the 23rd of March you will join both of us by switching off the lights and celebrating the power of the planet.
The initiative began in 2007 in Sydney, Australia, and by 2012 a record 152 countries and territories, and 6,895 towns and cities took part of the biggest call to action to protect the planet. In Scotland places such as Edinburgh Castle, the Forth Rail Bridge, the Scottish Parliament and the Falkirk Wheel switched off. They were joined around the world by iconic buildings such as the Sydney Opera House, the Eiffel Tower and the Pyramids of Giza.
This year WWF are encouraging people to think about the kind of energy we use and where it comes from. Both Jayne and I are urging people, businesses and organisations from the Kingdom and beyond to join us by switching off at 8.30pm on Saturday the 23rd and show your support for action against the impacts of climate change on people and wildlife.
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.
Yesterday in the Chamber I asked a topical question on the growing horse meat scandal. This follows news that horse DNA has been found in school burgers in North Lanarkshire and frozen beef products have been withdrawn across Scotland.
It was only last week that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs assured Parliament that “food and drink contracts are awarded in a way that balances price and quality…it is not necessarily the lowest price that wins; quality is vital in the public sector.’ However what we now know to be the case is that school contracts are awarded on a weighting of 65% price and 20% quality. That means cost is weighted three times to that of quality in the national contract.
We have also found out that under the watch of the current Scottish Government food safety tests have been cut by a third since 2008 and the Scottish Food Standards Agency has underspent their budget by 10%. With Union publishing a damning survey yesterday of Environmental Health Officers, which found that 56% have seen major cuts in their team and one member saying “we have not submitted any samples for food for ten months!” the Cabinet Secretary must answer questions on whether he has taken the necessary steps to ensure that safety can still be delivered with these reductions.
Why, when there was a substantial underspend in the Scottish FSA, were the number of inspections allowed to drop dramatically? Did the Minister not ask what the consequences to food safety would be? Producers and consumers deserve better leadership from the Scottish Government to ensure the best possible advice gets out there.
Scots, regardless of income, should be able to buy with confidence and know that when a product says it is made of beef, it actually is. For many hard working families isn’t an option for many hard-working Scottish families simply to be told to buy more expensive meat.
Last week in Parliament I raised concerns over the Scottish Ambulance Service’s patient transport service after reports in the press along with concerns raised to me by constituents highlighted that patients from the Fife region have had their patient transport cancelled on the day of their appointment.
It is not acceptable that patients are having their transport to hospital cancelled at the last minute, leaving them struggling to make a vital appointment. With the current problems around securing an appointment in the first place it is crucial that help is given to those who need it to make sure they can get to the hospital.
Previous press reports highlighted one patient who had to pay £30 for a return taxi journey to Cameron Hospital after her patient transport was cancelled just hours before her scheduled appointment.
The day of a hospital appointment or possible operation can be a stressful time for a patient and that stress should not be compounded with a last minute cancelation. This is not an isolated incident and the Cabinet Secretary must look at the extent of capacity issues within the Scottish Ambulance patient transport service and ensure no patients are left stranded on the day of their appointment.
I lodged a question to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil MSP, during General Questions. In answering the question the Cabinet Secretary indicated that “the Scottish Ambulance Service is taking forward an extensive improvement programme for the Patient Transport Service.”
I will be writing to the Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to further discuss this issue.
Claire helped encourage shoppers across Fife to try alternative, lesser known British fish for free when Sainsbury’s gave away fish as part of ‘Switch the Fish Day’.
Customers were able to try lemon sole, mussels, Cornish sardines, coley fillets or loch trout fillets in a bid to encourage shoppers to expand the range of fish they eat and try alternative species as part of the retailer’s continued commitment to sustainable fish.
Claire visited the store in Kirkcaldy to encourage customers to continue to broaden their appetite for fish beyond the ‘Big Five’ species of cod, haddock, tuna, salmon and prawns, which currently makes up 80% of all the fish Brits consume.
