Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, November 7, 2024

Official Report 1071KB pdf

---

Brexit (Impact on Rural Economy)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15253, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on Brexit impacts on Scotland’s rural economy. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

14:58  

The opportunity to have this debate is both welcome and timely, given the lingering effects of Brexit and what can only be described as a perfect storm of post-Brexit implementation issues that are still having serious knock-on implications for our rural communities and our invaluable £15 billion food and drink sector in Scotland. Those effects and issues include: previous United Kingdom Government migration policy announcements and the on-going impacts of those on the already chronic post-Brexit labour shortages for the sector; barriers to trade and the timing of new border checks as part of the border target operating model roll-out; a lack of financial certainty with the removal of ring-fenced funding for the sector; and ambiguity around UK trade deal negotiations—the confusion and uncertainty that persist around trade deal negotiations further demonstrate that Scotland’s trading interests would have been best served by remaining in the European Union.

Overall, I am sure, members will agree that that is an unedifying list and that those issues, individually and collectively, have beset a sector that was already beleaguered by a long series of crises in recent years, including Brexit, the pandemic and the on-going cost crisis.

Only last September, the Parliament debated and recognised the importance and value of Scotland’s vibrant food and drink sector to our national and local economies. I talked then with reference to a series of facts, or impacts on industry, that have arisen largely as a result of Brexit. It is undeniable that, one year on, issues related to Brexit still pervade. That is why it is important that we debate again its impact on our rural communities.

Many of the issues that we are still dealing with are legacy choices that can be laid squarely at the former United Kingdom Government’s door—a set of arbitrary and unnecessary choices or decisions that were taken proactively by the UK Government. The impact of that would have been particularly difficult for the sector during what was already a tremendously challenging period.

Throughout all that, the sector has endured, and the farmers, fishers, crofters, food manufacturers and producers at the heart of our rural, coastal and island communities have shown remarkable resilience and worked tirelessly to continue to supply our food each and every day. What thanks do they get?

It is bad enough that we can attribute on-going issues to Brexit, but many of those choices by the previous UK Government only add insult to injury for those who work in this vital sector. That is at the heart of the issue and it is the reason for the debate this afternoon. We are at a pivotal moment, with a new UK Government having been installed at Westminster, where very different choices can now be made. That was then and this is now.

I want to make my comments today not by referring to a series of facts but by referring to a series of decisions that the new UK Government could take and how it could choose to do things better and differently. For example, it was a former UK Government choice to consider extending the not-for-EU labelling requirements beyond the terms of the Windsor framework so that they could apply to certain agri-food products Great Britain-wide, rather than just those products that are destined for Northern Ireland. If implemented, that could have an impact on a large number of businesses in Scotland, as adding costs arbitrarily to all businesses, rather than targeting those that trade specifically with Northern Ireland, seems disproportionate and wholly inappropriate, particularly when consumers are already bearing the burden of added food costs.

We are hopeful that the new UK Government has chosen to take a different tack by announcing on 30 September that it will work intensively with industry to monitor supplies to Northern Ireland and ensure that they are maintained as the Windsor framework implementation continues. The Scottish Government and the businesses that are affected now need to hear some more of the detail behind what the UK Government has said publicly, so that we can be reassured about the impacts.

It was also a former UK Government decision to reduce our seven-year EU common agricultural policy budgets to yearly allocations from HM Treasury. That uncertainty was compounded by the former UK Government’s failure to collectively agree the principles of future funding allocations, which was a Bew review recommendation that it chose to accept but then chose to ignore. It is beyond disappointing that the new UK Government has chosen to follow the approach of its predecessor and to simply impose a settlement on us.

I question the cabinet secretary’s being selective with her facts. She points out that the Labour Government chose to ignore the Bew review when it came to formalising agricultural funding and the Barnett formula, but she did not point out that the Bew review also suggested an uplift in payments to Scottish agriculture, which the cabinet secretary then failed to deliver. The Bew review identified £46 million of funding that went to other sectors.

I would have thought that the member who raises that point would have understood the Bew review recommendations and what was left outstanding. Again, that is a separate issue. We are talking about the new funding and the discussions that should have taken place with this Government that did not.

I have already been clear, as has the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, about the savings that were made in previous years and the fact that they were ring-fenced and would be returned to the portfolio. That commitment remains. However, we need to be clear about the issues and the facts—as the member says—and not confuse them with unrelated issues.

Coming back to the point that I was making, the settlement from the new UK Government fails to address the real-terms loss of previous years and fails to respect devolution by engaging with us. It fails to recognise the potential of our land for nature and climate outcomes, and it ignores the unified voices of our farming industry and our environmental non-governmental organisation base. That is a result of Brexit and of choices that have been made elsewhere.

It was also a former UK Government migration policy choice to adjust the skilled worker visa salary thresholds to increase the minimum earnings threshold from £26,200 to £38,700, which was unfathomable, given the potential to seriously impact our food and drink sector, including our sensitive red meat and seafood sectors.

A joint public letter from industry representatives to the former UK Government in February cited those choices as

“the biggest threat to the meat industry this year”.

Their view was that bringing in labour at the new minimum rate could place a significant cost burden on businesses, and that many businesses will not be able to manage those extra costs. The decision, which was taken summarily by the former UK Government, only served to exacerbate acute post-Brexit labour shortage impacts on the sector—impacts that industry and Scottish ministers had repeatedly highlighted to the UK Government. I am hopeful that the new UK Government will choose to consider the most serious issue of labour shortages in the spirit of collaboration.

We are already delivering our addressing depopulation action plan by working with local authorities to support local priorities around population attraction and retention. We will launch Scotland’s migration service before the end of this year to support employers navigating the UK immigration system to recruit internationally and to support individuals seeking to relocate to Scotland. We are clear that Scotland’s distinct demographic and economic needs require a tailored approach to migration, so we urge a collaborative approach to be implemented between the Scottish and UK Governments to develop a tailored route that would benefit Scotland’s economy, public services and communities.

This Parliament previously endorsed a tailored migration approach for Scotland, which included voicing strong support for our rural visa pilot proposal. It is important to note that that, or a Scottish visa, could be delivered within the current UK immigration system to address population and workforce issues across a range of sectors and regions within Scotland. The fresh talent initiative, which was delivered in collaboration between previous Scottish and UK Governments, is a model example of how that could be done. UK Government policies could limit labour migration in areas of Scotland that already face challenges of depopulation. The availability of an appropriately skilled workforce is vital, but exit from the European Union and the loss of the single market has compounded difficulties faced by rural employers in recruiting skilled workers.

I now turn to fisheries. It was a former UK Government choice to ignore the on-going inaccessibility of labour for our seafood industries. The UK skilled worker visa rules have consistently failed to address that, and I have repeatedly raised the matter with successive UK Government ministers. The new UK Government could choose to do things differently, and we wait to see what approaches it takes to support our commercial fishing industry in Scotland—a sector that, incidentally, comprises a significant proportion of the United Kingdom’s fishing industry, with landings by Scottish vessels accounting for 62 per cent of the value and 67 per cent of the tonnage of all landings by UK vessels, according to our latest published Scottish sea fisheries statistics from 2022.

There have been continued complexities and delays in introducing the post-Brexit regime of checks and controls under the border target operating model, which was published last year. Overall, additional trade barriers and red tape are hampering business and trade flows with the EU, and the Scottish Government is clear that the best set of trading relationships for Scotland remain to be found as an independent member of the EU.

The new UK Government has indicated a willingness to open negotiations with the EU on a sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—and veterinary agreement to remove the need for many checks, and the Scottish Government stands ready to work together to achieve the best results possible for Scotland’s interests. If there is one thing that could make a significant difference, such an agreement could. It could have significant benefits for key Scottish export products, as well as reducing barriers to trade with the EU, our largest single export market. It would also benefit our partners in the EU by reducing both cost and complexity for EU traders, and it would improve our relationships with the EU in general. I am nothing if not an optimist, and I think that the new UK Government’s opening gambit in relation to the agreement gives us overall cause for hope for better working in the future, in the interests of people and businesses.

Can the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament why the Scottish National Party did not pursue one of its flagship manifesto commitments to set up a Scottish veterinary service?

I can give you the time back for the interventions, cabinet secretary.

The former UK Government slashed our capital, which meant that we could no longer take that proposal forward. I wrote a letter to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, outlining why that could not happen.

While it has been necessary to for me to recite the sheer litany of challenges that are still facing our rural communities, it is important to remember that there are very real people and real businesses behind all of the decisions that we make as Government ministers. We are in office to represent each and every one of those people and businesses. We cannot lose sight of that, and I, for one, will put my shoulder to the wheel to support them. I will be making a similar plea to my new UK Government counterpart ministers to do the same, including at our next interministerial meeting later this month.

However, the time for action is now, and the stakes could not be higher. With this debate coming hard on the heels of UK Government budget announcements last week signalling that there are yet more challenging times ahead, we are, in addition, poised to debate in the chamber next week progress on the trade and co-operation agreement, which set the foundational framework for Brexit. That debate should lay bare, in a more forensic way, the impacts of Brexit on business and trade.

We have said that we want to work more collaboratively with the new UK Government to deliver on shared ambitions for Scotland. Effective joint working now could very well unlock some answers to previous decisions that were taken at UK level, and which are still impacting on our rural communities today. There is no room for procrastination or complacency, with yet more challenging headwinds ahead.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the ongoing harm caused by Brexit to Scotland’s rural economy, such as barriers to trade, loss of EU funding and post-Brexit labour shortages; acknowledges that these barriers have severely impacted Scotland’s world-class food and drink sector, which is of particular importance to Scotland’s rural and island communities, and calls on the UK Government to consider changes to the current Brexit arrangements that would address these barriers and impacts, including through the pursuit of a comprehensive veterinary agreement with the EU.

I advise members that there is a little bit of time in hand; certainly members will get the time back if they take interventions. I would be grateful if members who are asking for interventions could press their request-to-speak buttons as well.

15:10  

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a farmer and a former land agent. I welcome the debate, which gives me an opportunity to open for the Scottish Conservatives for the first time in my new role.

There will be times when the cabinet secretary, the minister and I have common ground. We clearly share a passion for farming, and I respect anyone who, like me, has been there themselves, working to produce food for our great country. However, there will be times when we disagree and, sadly, today is one of those times.

The cabinet secretary’s speech was not about the future but about grievances. It was about Brexit, and the Scottish Government’s constant grievance with it. Our rural Scotland has so many opportunities, and we should be approaching the debate on the positive issues.

The fact that, almost eight years after the UK voted to leave the EU, the SNP still blames every problem on Brexit, rather than acknowledging what is needed and what it can do to highlight the wonder of our Scottish produce, is a real pity. To be frank, the discussion on how we help our rural communities to thrive deserves so much more than this SNP Government motion.

However, while the SNP Government has its problems—I intend to touch on them later—it would be remiss of me not to start with more recent events. The decision that was taken by the UK Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, to impose a family farm tax on some of our most hard-working people is not just shameful—it is a spin so fast that it is worthy of a place on “Strictly Come Dancing”. Before the election, Labour promised that it would not do that. I do not think that the Labour Government even knows how much of an impact the policy will have.

The National Farmers Union argues that the Treasury has got its numbers wrong—it will not be 25 per cent of UK farmers who are affected by the tax change, as Labour claims; it will impact almost every food producer in the country. The Scottish Conservatives and others have written to the chancellor to demand that she reverse that damaging and thoughtless measure and ensure that that vital relief is restored. Otherwise, it could spell the end for family farming in Scotland.

Labour also announced its plan to apply the Barnett formula to funding for agriculture and fisheries, contrary to the recommendations in the Bew review, in a move that was ruled out by the previous Conservative UK Government. That could have serious implications for budget planning.

Not content with taking our land and changing the budgets, Labour made it a triple whammy by changing rules on pick-up trucks, which are the modern workhorse of many farms and commercial businesses. I say to Labour, “Don’t worry, we have heard you loud and clear—you don’t like rural Scotland; it’s fine.”

Labour has shown very early that it does not have the interests of rural communities at heart but, to be frank, does the SNP? The cabinet secretary paints a happy picture, but the simple fact is that decisions—

Will the member give way?

I will take an intervention.

I am sympathetic to the criticism that Tim Eagle outlined in relation to recent decisions by the UK Labour Government. For the record, and for members of the farming community and exporters, who are keen to understand the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s position, will he clarify whether his party is in favour of a veterinary agreement with the European Union?

I can give you the time back, Mr Eagle.

I am in favour of any agreement by which we can get the best outcome that we can, but we need to discuss the positives of Brexit, because that was the democratic decision of the United Kingdom. We have opened up new markets around the world as well.

The SNP Government is about debating the grievance of Brexit; the Scottish Conservatives are about debating the future of the country—that is what we are here to do.

Will the member take an intervention?

Was that a yes?

Yes—I will take an intervention from Mairi Gougeon.

I would appreciate Tim Eagle’s views on an article that was published earlier this week, which said that the

“Worst of ... Brexit ... is still to come”.

I appreciate that the Tories would still like to gloss over Brexit because it does not suit their narrative, but does he recognise the damage that some of the trade deals that he is lauding in the chamber are doing to our food and drink industry in undercutting our farming businesses in Scotland?

I encourage members not to shout from a sedentary position. As I said, there are ample opportunities for interventions. If you want to make an intervention, please request one. I can give you the time back, Tim Eagle.

I love the passion that is being shown about farming, and I will always love that. I guess that I find it a little hard to take criticism that comes from a party that wants to split up the United Kingdom, when 60 per cent of Scotland’s trade goes to the rest of the United Kingdom; yet here they are attacking me about Brexit. It is some cheek, is it not? John Swinney likes to talk about a brass neck—well, I am afraid that you are titanium.

The simple fact is that the decisions that are taken by the Scottish Government—and sometimes the lack of them—have had a profound impact on rural and island communities. The Government’s record on paying farmers and crofters support payments is hardly perfect. The minister and cabinet secretary must know how difficult this year has been. Just this week, I was in Stornoway, where hay is as much as £75 a bale and harvest yields are down. In all seriousness, I urge the cabinet secretary to do all that she can to get the remaining payments out as quickly as possible. I am worried, because there are rumours that the Scottish Government’s rural payments information technology system is, yet again, buckling under pressure. I hope that that is not true.

The sector also has the uncertainty of having to wait until autumn 2025 before the Scottish Government publishes its rural support plan, with no planned parliamentary scrutiny and no commitment yet from the Scottish Government to multiyear funding. Farming requires long-term planning. The rural support plan should have been out months ago, when we debated the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Will the member take an intervention?

Absolutely.

We really have to clear some things up. It is very difficult for the Scottish Government to give a commitment on multiyear funding, which we would love to do. Guess what—before Brexit, we had that: we had a seven-year programme that we could commit to, and we knew what was coming down the line. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Presiding Officer—I would like to make my point.

The former Tory Government could have decided to provide the Scottish Government with multiyear funding, but it did not. It committed to engaging with the Scottish Government on how the allocations would come to us, but it did not do that, which is why we are in the position that we are in. We will continue to do all that we are doing for Scottish farmers and crofters to protect them throughout all the changes as much as possible.

I suggest that interventions need to be slightly briefer. I will give you the time back, Tim Eagle.

I beg to differ with the cabinet secretary, as I think that you did have that in place—

Speak through the chair, Mr Eagle.

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

Jim Walker, former president of NFU Scotland, said earlier this year:

“Scottish farmers have been waiting three years for some kind of direction—but we are still in the dark.”

Cabinet secretary, I am afraid that that is very true. It is not just farming that is impacted by the Government’s inertia. We are all aware of the impact of rural depopulation and what has caused it. That includes a lack of affordable homes in rural Scotland and a lack of investment in rural transport infrastructure, whether that be the lack of upgrades to the A9, the A96, the A83, the A82 or the A87—I could go on. There is the Government’s failure to deliver superfast broadband to 100 per cent of homes and businesses, which was supposed to have been delivered by 2021, and then 2026; the date is now 2028, but I have no doubt that the deadline will be pushed even further. There is even the Government’s failure to deliver new ferries to support our island communities. Could I tell members the horror stories that I hear on the islands about ferries?

All those failures, and many more, have had the effect of hollowing out many of our once-thriving rural and island communities. No number of SNP task forces, reports or working groups will resolve those long-standing problems.

I will touch on one aspect of the SNP Government’s motion, which is labour shortages. We know that, across a range of sectors, labour shortages and issues with skills gaps existed long before Brexit came into being. The answer to that problem is not in devolving responsibility for immigration. The previous UK Conservative Government showed that it could address the needs of particular sectors through the creation of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme—for example, for the fruit-picking sector. We know that immigration to the UK continues to be far too high, but immigration to Scotland is far lower. I say to the cabinet secretary that blaming Brexit gets us nowhere. A positive working relationship with the UK Government to develop reasonable solutions to shared problems is the answer.

Will the member take an intervention?

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

Probably not, at this stage.

I apologise—I have taken a few interventions already.

Rural and island communities deserve a Scottish Government debate that focuses on their actual priorities, rather than the arguments of old, but they did not get that from the cabinet secretary, and I suspect that they will not get that from the SNP back benchers in the debate.

It feels wrong that this type of negativity comes to the chamber when morale is already low over the family farming tax. We have fantastic farmers, resilient rural communities, super sheep, cuddly coos, happy harvests, fabulous food, stunning scenery, top-class tourism and proud people. The SNP can blame Brexit all it wants but, as the new Scottish Conservative spokesman for farming, rural affairs and fishing, I will spend all my time building up the industry, fighting for its future and making sure that the Scottish Conservatives’ policy is focused on working with it to build a new, long-term and prosperous economic future.

I move amendment S6M-15253.2, to leave out from “the ongoing” to end and insert:

“that those working in Scotland’s diverse agricultural sector are the custodians of the countryside, and that they are vital for the economy and ensuring that food security is protected; believes that many of the issues facing rural and island communities stem back many years as a result of what it believes to be the failures of several Scottish National Party administrations; understands that such issues include the lack of affordable homes, poor local infrastructure and transport options, and issues with accessing health and social services; recognises the need for common sense solutions to support Scotland’s rural and island communities; expresses concern at the announcements from the UK Government about changes to agricultural property relief and the integration of agricultural funding into Scotland’s block grant, and calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise the real issues facing those in rural and island communities as opposed to dealing in grievance politics.”

I call Colin Smyth to speak to and move amendment S6M-15253.1. You have around six minutes.

15:20  

The Labour amendment in my name recognises that the overwhelming vote for change on 4 July heralds an opportunity to reset the United Kingdom’s relationship with our European friends, to recognise the realities of our status outside the EU but grasp the opportunities to be a leading nation in Europe once again, and to move on from 14 years of chaotic Tory foreign policy by reinvigorating our international alliances to fix the Tory Brexit mess. That is why the new UK Government is committed to using the review of the trade and co-operation agreement next year to improve our trade and investment relationship with the EU, tearing down the unnecessary barriers to trade between our partners.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I will take an intervention.

Do you want to take an intervention from Mr Eagle or Mr Robertson?

I will take an intervention from Tim Eagle.

Will Scottish Labour give a guarantee today that it will not trade away fishing when trade and co-operation agreements open next year for the fishing sector? Will it make sure that our Scottish fishermen get the best possible deal, not trade them for the things that it wants?

I will tell Mr Eagle one thing that we will not do: we will not follow the Conservative Government, which sold out our fishing sector when it arranged that deal with Brexit.

I will take an intervention from Mr Robertson as well.

I am grateful to Colin Smyth for taking interventions so early in his speech.

I asked this of the new Conservative Party spokesman on the subject, who could not answer the question. Will Mr Smyth tell us the position of the Scottish Labour Party in relation to a food and drink agreement or a veterinary agreement, which would be transformational for the sector? Is he impressing on his colleagues in London the fact that support for such an approach goes wider than the Scottish Government? Is that something that the Scottish Labour Party can get behind?

I can give you the time back, Mr Smyth.

I thank Mr Robertson for his intervention. It is not something that I need to impress on the UK Government, because our manifesto across the UK included a commitment to seek that veterinary agreement to prevent the unnecessary border checks and to help tackle the cost of food. We will also use the reform of that agreement to secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters.

We need to turn the page on a Tory Brexit deal that has caused so much chaos. The world has become increasingly volatile, with a major war in Europe for the first time in a generation and ever greater threats to working people’s living standards. The age of insecurity that we face requires Governments at all levels to step up, not step aside, as the last Tory Government did.

I understand why, in their amendment today, the Tories airbrushed out all mention of Europe. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to associate myself with their Brexit deal, too. However, our rural communities can see, every single day, the impact of a deal that burned bridges with our allies and built barriers for our businesses. There may be zero tariffs and zero quotas on trade in goods between the UK and the EU, but those considerable non-tariff barriers have left businesses that trade with EU nations drowning in a sea of red tape.

Rural firms, particularly in agriculture, which rely on non-UK, often seasonal, labour, are being hit by staff shortages, and that is before we consider the impact of the loss of that free flow of goods to EU nations and the consequences of trade deals that undermine UK businesses, particularly in our food and drink sector. We cannot reopen the divisions of the past, but we must resolve to fix the mess left by the Tories and deliver a deal that seizes the opportunities ahead.

I recognise that the challenge facing our rural communities did not start with Brexit. After 17 years of decline under the SNP and 14 years of chaos and austerity under the Tories, Scotland faces our biggest ever housing crisis, which threatens economic growth in our rural communities. A week rarely goes by when I do not speak to a business that is facing labour shortages and struggling to recruit, but more and more of those businesses are telling me that, even when potential employees are interested in taking up posts, they often cannot do so because there is no suitable affordable housing near the place of work.

In the past year, in my local area of Dumfries and Galloway, the number of homeless people placed—

Will the member take an intervention?

I will.

When Colin Smyth is speaking to those businesses, what are they telling him about the impact of the imposition of a national insurance tax on jobs in rural areas?

That is the challenge that we have from the Conservatives. After so many years of austerity, I would have thought that there would be some humility about the state of the public finances that they left the Government. We are fixing that particular mess. Mr Hoy may not believe in the national insurance changes or in the inheritance tax changes that are being made, but he would be leaving a black hole in the public finances of billions of pounds. He needs to say where the cuts would be made. Would he close community hospitals? Would he close rural schools? Would he cut rural transport projects? Would he be prepared to take the tough decisions when it comes to taxation?

As a result of austerity from the Tories and the mess of the public finances, in Dumfries and Galloway, the number of homeless people placed temporarily in bed and breakfasts has tripled in the past year. We have even had families being housed by the council in caravans, yet we are seeing the housing budget decimated. At a time when the population of rural Scotland sits at 17 per cent, no Government minister has ever explained to me why just 10 per cent of the Government’s target for new planned affordable homes in Scotland will be in rural areas.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am happy to take an intervention, but I am conscious that I am using up quite a lot of time.

I can give you the time back.

Does Colin Smyth agree that Rachel Reeves’s attack on family farms with the family farm tax will lead to further depopulation in rural areas?

The biggest challenge in rural areas is the lack of affordable housing. If Rachael Hamilton and her colleagues keep opposing any additional funding for public services and the public sector, that will continue. The biggest threat to rural communities would be more austerity under the Tories, who are not prepared to say where the funding would come from. We can only assume that they would make more cuts, as they have done over the years.

The lack of housing is holding back the local economy. It is stifling growth, fuelling depopulation and blocking the ambitions of those who want to get on in our rural communities. We are simply not building enough affordable homes to meet demand and to meet the needs of our rural communities. That is partly because of house-building capacity. National house builders have no interest in building what they view as small-scale developments in rural areas, and we have seen a decline in the number of locally based house builders. The house builders that exist are increasingly facing skills shortages, and they cannot get local contractors—yet, astonishingly, we have seen funding cuts to colleges, which have led to Skills Development Scotland reducing apprenticeship contracts. At my local college in Dumfries and Galloway, place numbers were cut by 13 per cent, at a time when demand for apprenticeships is at a peak level. The college now has a waiting list for apprenticeship places in construction. That is the economics of the madhouse.

We have also seen a lack of investment in construction when it comes to our infrastructure. The A75 and the A77 are key trunk roads to the ferry terminal at Cairnryan, which is the gateway to Ireland and, for many businesses, to the EU. Despite roads being a devolved issue, the only planned investment for the A75 is coming from the new UK Labour Government, after years of promises that were never delivered on by the Tory Government.

I could highlight, too, the uncertainty for our rural communities that was caused by the Scottish Government’s eight years of dithering while it developed a new rural support scheme, the ferry fiasco or the dismantling of our bus network in rural areas.

It is already clear from the debate that, yes, we need to reset that relationship with our EU partners to get the trade and co-operation agreement right after the failure of the previous Tory Government, but we must also get our own house in order by delivering the jobs, housing and infrastructure that Labour’s UK budget will make possible with the record investment that we will see in Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-15253.1, to insert at end:

“; welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to reset the UK’s relationship with the EU, and calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise the use of all the levers already at its disposal to improve the economy of Scotland’s rural areas, through supporting jobs, providing housing, progressing infrastructure and improving transport links.”

15:28  

In the years that I have been in this role, I have continued to see and hear about the troubling impacts of Brexit across the whole of Scotland’s economy. Before I speak specifically about the challenges that Brexit has brought to our rural economy, I will make a couple of broader points.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest fiscal outlook, which was released alongside the UK Government’s budget on 30 October, stated that export growth would average 0.5 per cent from 2026 to 2029, and that import growth is expected to average 1 per cent over the same period. It went on to say:

“Weak growth in imports and exports over the medium term partly reflect the continuing impact of Brexit, which we expect to reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15 per cent in the long term”.

Further, in a written statement by UK Treasury minister, Tulip Siddiq, which was published on 29 October, she said that we are still yet to see most of Brexit’s impacts on the economy. She wrote that the OBR has estimated that

“productivity will be 4% lower in the long run than it would have been had the UK not withdrawn from the EU, and that imports and exports will eventually both be 15 per cent lower than had we stayed in the EU. The OBR estimated in March 2024 that 40% of this impact has already materialised.”

I turn to the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s rural economy specifically. My proposed amendment

“calls on the UK Government to grant the Scottish Government the powers to set its own priorities for immigration to support the rural economy.

I was driven to lodge the amendment by a wealth of evidence that indicates that our rural labour market desperately needs inward migration. The Scottish Government’s action plan to address depopulation noted that

“14 rural council areas are projected to decline”

in population

“over the next decade”.

I commend Ariane Burgess for bringing up the advantages of differentiated immigration systems. Would she acknowledge that they work perfectly well in Canada and Australia? If it is possible to have differentiated immigration systems in such countries, why would it not be possible to have one in the UK, and why would it not be sensible to suggest that the new UK Government should look at that?

If such differentiation works in other countries, I absolutely agree that we could do it in Scotland and the United Kingdom. We have the level of intelligence—we can figure it out.

A Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that was issued at that time stated:

“Stakeholders and communities across Scotland have repeatedly highlighted that the current UK immigration system—particularly following the ending of Freedom of Movement—does not meet the needs of rural and island communities.”

Scotland’s population strategy, which was published in 2021, notes:

“Scotland’s seasonal industries are particularly reliant on migration. Those industries are particularly significant in rural and remote areas where populations tend to be older and population growth lower. While 8.3% of Scotland’s overall employment was made up of non-UK workers in 2019, this rose to 16.0% in Food & Drink and 15.0% in Tourism.”

As a specific example in the farming sector, under freedom of movement, agricultural workers could easily get to the UK from Europe to work on Scottish farms as needed. Since Brexit, the UK Government has operated the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—as we have been discussing—which grants short-term visas to migrant crop pickers. For the 2025 harvest season, 43,000 UK visas have been granted, which is 2,000 fewer than in 2024. The UK growing industry has repeatedly called for around 60,000 visas per year. According to reporting by The Scottish Farmer, approximately £60 million-worth of crops were lost in 2022 due to a lack of labour. There are also concerns that SAWS is opening migrants up to exploitation.

I have been told that the lack of labour and the complexity of the post-Brexit system have already led to the closure of one organic growing business, which said that it simply did not have the time to grow food and find workers.

Food standards, public health and animal welfare in abattoirs are also at risk due to a sharp reduction in the number of available veterinarians since Brexit. Members of the UK Parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reported that there are significant shortages of vets. The committee said that

“The number of EU vets registering to work in the UK has more than halved since leaving the EU”,

with those vets now harder to recruit due to current minimum salary visa thresholds for skilled workers.

My constituent Jo Hunt, from Knockfarrel Produce, told me that he has seen a 100 per cent reduction in available labour from two EU sources. The first source was volunteers with World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms—WWOOF—and Workaway. The other was sustainable agricultural student placements from three EU universities. That led to the company having to pay an additional £17,000 in labour costs and still having gaps in labour availability and less motivated workers. The additional costs moved it from being a low-profit organisation to one that posted a significant loss from operations. As a result, it has ceased to produce food.

How much time do I have left, Presiding Officer?

About a minute, Ms Burgess.

Thank you.

Jo Hunt went on to tell me that, at the same time, large farms have reduced their seasonal overseas pickers and weeding labour by about two thirds, due, largely, to a lack of availability and increased transaction and bureaucracy costs.

On the Opposition amendments, although I support the sentiment of the Labour amendment, which the Scottish Greens will support, we cannot overlook the fact that, as I have laid out, Scotland would be far better off remaining in the EU.

As for the Tory amendment, it skirts around the real issues that leaving the EU has brought to bear. To pick one specific point, we have serious rural housing challenges, as has been discussed, and one part of that problem is the lack of skilled labour, which freedom of movement could have helped with.

I advise members that, at this point, we still have a bit of time in hand.

I call Beatrice Wishart, who joins us remotely.

15:35  

A cornerstone of the EU’s single market has been a reduction in trade barriers; the nature of Brexit has been to build up barriers. Whether through new checks on fresh food, which affect the fishing, seafood and aquaculture sectors; the lack of a full e-certification system for exports, which means that the salmon sector is absorbing £3 million of costs per year under the current outdated system; or the ending of the free movement of people, which has had an impact on those on whom we previously relied to pick our fruit and veg, Brexit is about closing things down, in vast contrast to the liberal instinct of opening things up.

Brexit brought uncertainty, which no economy of any size thrives in. Scotland’s rural economies are intrinsically linked to our agriculture sector, and it was only this year that the Scottish Government’s Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill was passed. It took years to develop detailed proposals on future farm support and the future of the industry, which pushed crofters, farmers and growers into uncertainty.

Exports of Scottish seed potatoes have been impacted by barriers to trade with Europe, so those exports have been limited to Morocco, Egypt and Ukraine, where the illegal invasion makes for a volatile market. Now, UK growers are importing seed potatoes, which further constricts the Scottish industry.

Small businesses are struggling with the time and costs involved in post-Brexit trade with the EU. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that almost one in 10 have simply given up on importing and exporting. With 93 per cent of the market for smaller exports, the EU represents almost the entire overseas market, but the increased paperwork, higher costs and supply chain and logistical issues mean that many small businesses feel that it is no longer worth their while. Things are not smooth for those who do continue to trade, with more than half reporting high shipping costs, losses and delays in transit.

The war in Ukraine and the Covid pandemic have exacerbated the issue of food prices and, without the willing workers who used to come from the continent, food has been left to rot in the fields.

Brexit enthusiasts told us that we would be first in line for top trade deals and that countries would be queuing at our door to sign deals with us. However, the UK Government’s approach to trade deals has risked undermining Scottish and UK agriculture, because it has undercut the goods that we produce to high environmental and animal welfare standards.

NFU Scotland has described post-Brexit trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand as

“one sided, with little to no advantage for Scottish farmers”

and as posing a

“long term threat to key Scottish agriculture sectors, such as beef, lamb and dairy.”

Scottish Liberal Democrats reaffirm our position that all trade deals should meet UK standards in environmental protection and animal welfare.

Scotland’s tourism sector also plays a key part in our local rural economies, but Brexit has built a new barrier for EU citizens who come here. The UK Government website advises French citizens, for example, that, although they do not need a visa for tourist travel, they might need to prove at the UK border that they have arranged accommodation, that they or someone else are able to pay for a return or onward journey and that they will leave the UK at the end of the visit. That all seems somewhat off-putting when they could simply travel elsewhere in Europe. We should do all that we can to make things easier for tourism and business.

I have long argued that infrastructure is one of the greatest tools in our arsenal to address and reverse depopulation in our island and rural areas. We do not need to look beyond Shetland for evidence of that because, when Burra and Trondra were connected to the Shetland mainland by bridges, the populations on those islands grew. A commitment to connect Shetland’s island communities via tunnels would provide certainty in rural areas and attract people back to places where they grew up, as well as bringing in new people to the area, thereby boosting the economy. We have seen that in the Faroe Islands, following the positive impacts of the expansion of the tunnel network there.

Germany and Denmark are undertaking a €10 billion tunnel project, which will cut travel times from a 50-minute ferry journey to a 10-minute car journey through the new tunnel. The EU will be contributing €1.1 billion to the project. Before Brexit, we could have bid for EU cash to help us to invest in rural Scotland. Now, every time I see a project in Scotland that is emblazoned with an EU funding sign, I consider just how much we have lost.

The experience of breaking away from a wider bloc and building up new barriers has not been a positive one for our country. I would like us to return to those liberal values of openness and co-operation.

We move to the open debate.

15:40  

Forgive me, but I will start with the bad news. In the referendum on whether to remain in or leave the EU, commonsense Scotland voted 62 per cent to remain—it did not matter which part of Scotland you lived in; every council area in Scotland, urban and rural, voted remain. That was in 2016. The result was that David Cameron resigned and in came Theresa May, who was dispatched quite quickly and was followed by oven-ready Brexit Boris, with that £350 million a week so-called Brexit bonus for the national health service plastered on the side of a bus—oh, and, apparently, a queue of other countries just itching to do trade deals with a liberated UK.

I recall President Barack Obama warning that, after Brexit, the UK would be at the “back of the queue” for trade talks with the USA, and President-elect Donald Trump is going one better by threatening tariffs of 10 per cent to 20 per cent on imports to the USA, which is the UK’s biggest trading market. There are tough times ahead for food and drink exports from Scotland. Beatrice Wishart was quite right about that so-called queue of people waiting for trade deals.

Interestingly, before the referendum, Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne issued extremely dour predictions on the effect of Brexit on the economy. Those predictions went all the way to 2030. He is better than Mystic Meg, as his predictions have come to pass. Fast forward eight years and the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“weak growth in imports and exports over the medium term partly reflect the continuing impact of Brexit”,

which it expects to

“reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15 per cent in the long term.”

Will the member take an intervention?

I will shortly.

Furthermore, rather than our having that £350 million a week Brexit bonus that we saw on the side of a bus, the UK Treasury has been forced to admit that the UK has already paid to the EU £23.8 billion as part of its financial settlement agreement and will pay a further £6.4 billion. I do not call that a benefit.

Then there was the Boris battle cry that, after Brexit, the UK could control immigration. How has that gone? As a matter of fact, immigration from the EU was largely economic, based on job seeking, which is much less true of immigration from outside the EU.

I say to Tim Eagle that the present and the future are predicated on the past. No wonder he and the Tories have lodged an amendment that would delete from the motion any reference to Brexit.

The rural sector, like others, is feeling the impact of Brexit—one that Labour will not reverse. That sector comprises 26 per cent of Scotland’s economy.

Will the member take an intervention?

If you are going to tell me a benefit of Brexit, I will listen.

rose—

Oh, Mr Eagle is going to tell me a benefit—good.

Ms Grahame, from whom are you taking the intervention, please?

Well, I do not know—what a choice. I will give way to my friend Mr Hoy.

I thank Christine Grahame for finally giving way, which has interrupted her long list of grievances and what I view as faux outrage, because is it not the case that Scotland and the rest of the UK would still be in the customs union were it not for the fact that SNP MPs at Westminster vetoed that? Can she explain why they took Scotland out of a customs union with the EU?

Interestingly, my letting you make an intervention, Mr Hoy, was predicated on your giving me a benefit of Brexit, but, as usual, you neatly avoided that.

I note that 26 per cent of Scotland’s economy is rural.

Will Christine Grahame give way?

I will, but a little bit later, Mr Eagle, if you do not mind.

The rural economy puts food on our plates, leads the fight against climate change and nature loss, and delivers significant value for taxpayers’ investment. Rural businesses are at the forefront of our efforts to tackle the nature and climate crisis, and, at the same time, they provide jobs that boost our economy and support Scotland’s food economy. It is a fantastic sector. Rural businesses are the custodians of the land that they farm, and, if only on that, I agree with that part of Mr Eagle’s amendment.

I turn to the labour market. Much of the rural economy was dependent on EU workers, who were often seasonal. That has pretty well ended, and we have heard of produce dying and rotting in the fields for want of labour. Is that one of the benefits of Brexit, Mr Hoy?

I turn to the possible veterinary agreement with the EU.

Will Christine Grahame take an intervention?

I would like to get on. Is it about the veterinary agreement? [Interruption.] Is this a benefit?

Yes.

Is it a Brexit benefit, Mr Eagle?

Ms Grahame, are you taking the intervention or not?

I was pondering, but I think that I will.

I did not want Christine Grahame to finish speaking without giving her a benefit. One of the serious benefits of Brexit to the whisky industry is the opening of emerging Asian markets, which represent the future for the whisky sector. That could not have happened if we were in the EU. I was speaking about this up in Moray just the other day. The India market will be massive, and we can access it from outside the EU. That is a benefit that we can get if we take the opportunities of Brexit.

An intervention should be a wee bit briefer than that.

That was more of a speech, and it was not really worth it. When you think of the tax that is now being levied on the whisky industry, which the sector is up in arms about, and the levies that the USA is about—[Interruption.] I am coming to the lovely Tories. As I was saying, 10 to 20 per cent tariffs on whisky exports to the USA might be coming. I cannot see that as a benefit of Brexit.

I return to the veterinary agreement, which Tim Eagle did not want me to talk about. Such an agreement would ensure that UK and EU standards were equivalent or aligned. That is important for animal welfare, the biosecurity of plants and so on. The Labour Party made a manifesto commitment to pursue such an agreement, which would aid a new trading relationship with the EU. For many years, the Scottish Government has called for a comprehensive veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which would substantially reduce the barriers to trade that have been put in place following Brexit. I hear that the cabinet secretary is hopeful that that will come to pass. Let us watch this space.

I have lost my speech now—excuse me a minute. I never should tamper with technology. Oh, something strange has appeared. I will go back to it.

Ms Grahame, in any event, you should bring your remarks to a conclusion now.

I am going to. I have a paper back-up.

I have not had time to mention national insurance or agricultural property tax relief. That would have been an attack on Labour—it deserves it, too.

When it comes to the good news, I have a problem. While any Government in this Parliament has to rely on the bulk of its budget coming from Westminster, while macroeconomic policies such as national insurance and inheritance tax are reserved and while the UK Government has ruled out rejoining the EU in any shape or form, there is very little good news on Brexit until we are—here is the word that the Tories like—independent and can rejoin the EU. Frankly, I agree with George Osborne and his dire predictions.

I remind all members that they must speak through the chair.

15:48  

As members are possibly aware, the latest series of “I’m a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here” is about to hit our screens. However, before Mairi Gougeon gets excited about the prospect of escaping to the sunshine, I should warn her that it is probably more likely that Angus Robertson, with his impressive air miles, will be taking the trip to Australia.

I want to indulge in a game today, but it is not “I’m a Celebrity”. It is a game that members on the SNP benches will have to be content with playing. However, it is their favourite game. It is called the blame game. Blaming others for its incompetence and financial mismanagement has become something of an art form for the SNP Government. How many times have we sat in this chamber and heard Scottish ministers blame Westminster for their own inevitable failings, whether in relation to ferries that do not sail, education standards that were once the envy of the world nosediving, or climate change targets that are never met and then dumped? On top of that, we have another of the nationalists’ diversionary tactics—their customary frequent references to Brexit.

However, the fact of the matter is that this Government—we should not forget the SNP’s previous playing partners, the Greens, who, if they were still in government, would be continuing to destroy Scotland’s rural communities and to marginalise our indigenous rural population—has already done much damage through its ill-thought-out Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 and Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which attack our country way of life and our rural population because of the urban-focused lens through which this Government views rural policy. It wants to appease the wine bar socialists of Morningside, instead of ensuring that rural land managers have the tools that they need to protect our invaluable rural flora and fauna or protecting our rural families, who, for generation after generation—for hundreds of years—have made Scotland a beautiful and productive country that is envied the world over.

The fact of the matter is that it is not Brexit but the SNP’s total mismanagement and its failure to understand the needs of rural Scotland, whether in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries or further afield, that are at the root of rural problems.

One shining example that we have already heard about is the need for affordable rural homes in order to encourage the young lifeblood of our communities to remain and prosper where generations of their family have lived for years. Only this week, we learned that more than £100 million that had been earmarked for rural housing has now been handed to councils to build homes in the city. According to Scottish Land & Estates, instead of being spent on bolstering rural communities, that cash is being spent in Gilmerton in Edinburgh and Dyce in Aberdeen, right next to the city’s international airport.

I come back to the point that it is important that we are clear when we talk about such issues. I appreciate that the issue of the figure that Finlay Carson mentioned was raised by SLE. However, it is important to point out that funding for the affordable housing supply is not ring fenced for urban or rural areas. The share of funding that each local authority receives through that programme is informed by the strategic investment framework that is agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

It is important to recognise that the overall funding that is provided through the affordable housing supply programme is complemented by the rural and islands housing fund, which is a demand-led scheme that is open, and the rural affordable homes for key workers fund. When it comes to the amount of rural housing that we have delivered overall, I am sure that the member welcomes the fact that around 16 per cent of the houses that have been built between 2016 and 2023 have been in rural areas.

That was an extremely lengthy intervention, so I will give the time back to Mr Carson.

One of the main issues is the fact that an arbitrary target of 10 per cent of the national house-building target has been set for rural areas. The Government has not looked at what rural areas need and set a target based on their needs. An arbitrary 10 per cent target is absolutely not what is required.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Anna Gardiner, SLE’s housing policy adviser, has argued that Scotland’s rural communities are being short-changed by the flawed criteria for the urban-rural classification system. Rural areas receive a lower proportion of the funding in the first place, and the funding that was previously earmarked for rural local authorities is now being spent by their city counterparts.

The same goes for agriculture: the Scottish Government has failed to deliver millions of pounds that were earmarked for farmers and crofters. That additional funding was hard won by Jim Walker and the previous rural affairs secretary, Fergus Ewing, as part of the Bew review. The current rural affairs secretary has already admitted that more than £46 million is still due to be returned to the rural portfolio, with only £15 million having been paid back to date. It is little wonder that that has attracted widespread criticism, most notably from Fergus Ewing, who described it as “disgraceful” that the money had been siphoned off for other purposes.

Scotland’s farming sector is essential to our food security, but it has been repeatedly failed by the SNP Government. The farmers are now under attack from the Labour Government, which is jeopardising succession planning through its ill-thought-out inheritance plans.

However, it is not just the agriculture industry that is at risk. The body that is charged with attracting investment and creating jobs in the south of Scotland has also had its budget slashed. South of Scotland Enterprise, which supports 1,300 groups, has seen a £3 million cut this year, and next year its budget will be further reduced to £27.4 million. Exactly how will significantly reducing its budget help to reverse the shocking rural depopulation in the likes of Galloway or help rural communities where people are already struggling on lower wages? How will it encourage people to stay? Is it any wonder that rural Scotland is facing that depopulation?

Finlay Carson is right to mention low pay, given that he represents the lowest paid constituency in Scotland. Does he therefore welcome the Labour Government’s budget move that will increase the minimum wage to a real living wage, boosting the wages of many of his constituents?

I have spoken to businesses and the most important thing to consider is that the changes to national insurance will lead to employers laying people off, so I say to Mr Smyth that there will be no living wage. There will be no wage at all.

It goes without saying that people who live and work in Scotland’s rural communities are more concerned than ever about their future. We have a chronic shortage of general practitioners due to the SNP’s inept workforce planning and we have the highest taxes in the UK, not forgetting our dire dental crisis. There is nothing to smile about. As we heard, the Government’s flagship reaching 100 per cent—R100—broadband scheme was supposed to deliver by the end of 2021, but it is now not even likely to deliver this decade.

The upcoming Scottish budget will give the Scottish Government an opportunity to show a solid commitment to supporting our farmers. It can start by ensuring that farming businesses are guaranteed multiyear funding at a significantly higher rate than the Scottish Government has provided up to now, in order to ensure a meaningful just transition to more environmentally and financially sustainable food production. However, given its drive towards an urban-centric policy-making position, I am not going to hold my breath.

15:56  

I start by recognising, despite certain colleagues’ refusals to do so, that Brexit is not an historical event that is over and done with. It is not grievance politics to acknowledge that Brexit is still damaging our economy—particularly our rural economy, and particularly the food and drink industry, given that food and drink is our biggest non-energy export. Brexit is still badly impacting the Highlands and Islands and preventing rural economy growth across the board, and we do not know yet how big the ever-growing Brexit bill will end up being.

It will take a long time to recover from the massive labour shortages that have been caused by cutting off EU nationals from the market here, and it is still unclear where the UK Government expects those workers to come from. As someone who represents many rural areas and grew up around farms and appreciating local food, I find it devastating every time I see reports of crops rotting because staff are not available to pick them. That food should be on plates.

It is bad enough that Brexit is still costing billions and that billions more in contributions to the economy from our rural sectors are being put at risk by decisions that were taken on our behalf but without our permission, but there are cultural, climate and cost risks here, too. Farmers in Scotland are growing varied nutritional and quality foods that we do not have to import, that provide local jobs and that make use of our natural resources. Pretending that Brexit is now neutral is not forward looking or clever; it is fiction, and it excuses the timidity of the majority of Westminster parties, who refuse to consider reversing Brexit despite the continuing and obvious harm that it causes.

That is before we even consider all the lost opportunities in innovation, research and investment. Beatrice Wishart outlined an experience that I have regularly, too: travelling around the Highlands and Islands and noting how many operations in the region benefited from EU funding in the past. Who knows how many projects and programmes have not even got off the ground thanks to the removal of that opportunity and aspiration? Tim Eagle said that he wants to talk about the future of the country, but we have to ensure that there is a future for the rural economy to speak of. That requires accepting that Brexit has had impacts, including an impact on recruitment that we cannot solve without changes to immigration policy.

On recruitment and staffing, does the member accept that, eight years ago, there was a completely different outlook on working patterns, which meant that people were prepared to work longer weeks? Since Covid, people now like to work a four-day week and have a day’s work at home, which means that many rural jobs, including working on a farm, are no longer suitable to many young people. That is why it is difficult to find employees.

I do not accept that that is why it is difficult to find employees. That is not where the drop in employees came from; it came from an overnight message from the UK Government of “We are no longer welcoming EU nationals.” There is certainly more flexibility in the job market—which I think is a good thing—but let us not pretend that there are not people out there who would be very willing to work in Scotland’s agricultural sector if we made it clear that they were welcome.

During discussions of a rural visa pilot, I have often found myself having really positive and agreeable discussions with folk who otherwise detest my politics but who are desperate to support an approach that is tailored for this country. I was not alone in feeling a glimmer of hope at reports a few weeks back that the new Labour Government was considering having a Scottish visa. That is necessary, which is why it was so gutting to hear the very quick climb-down and the clarification that Labour is actually not interested even in thinking about change, let alone delivering it.

It is clear that no party in London is willing to implement an immigration system that works for Scotland and that, in that refusal to act, Keir Starmer, his Labour colleagues and the Tories before him have proved that those decisions must be taken in Scotland. Our needs and demographics are different, so the policy should therefore also be different. Simply remaining wilfully ignorant of the need to address that glaring imbalance will never result in positive change for Scotland.

We know that Scotland is an attractive place to live and work. Last year’s population growth, as mentioned by other speakers, proves that we need migration in order to prevent a fall in our population and also shows that folk are willing to come here. In the past couple of days, many news outlets have reported a rapid increase in Google searches by Americans trying to find out how to move to Scotland, for some reason. If people want to come here and we need more people, why would we not make it easier to match those needs and wants? There is a rich history of migration to Scotland, and that must continue if we want to have enough people living here so that the public services that the Scottish Government is investing in can function, and function well.

I would love to see an independent Scotland implement the kind of immigration system outlined in the Scottish Government’s migration white paper. In lieu of that, there is no good reason at all—nor has any recent UK Government tried to offer one—for Scotland not being able to have a tailored approach within the UK. The cabinet secretary has already pointed out that there are examples of different approaches for rural areas in Canada and Australia. It is not a new idea, but it is a good one and it should not be normal for the UK Government to keep refusing ideas that would be good for Scotland.

Scotland did not vote for Brexit and we did not vote for the door to be closed on EU nationals or to have our workers targeted with hostile immigration policies. I do not believe that Scotland would vote for those things, and it is unforgivable for Labour to refuse even to seek a solution to the acute problems that we are suffering as a direct result of decisions taken against our best interests. The only way back is for the UK Government to now do the right thing by engaging with the Scottish Government on immigration efforts, devolving immigration powers and letting us sort out the mess that we have been left with.

16:03  

Can I start by introducing some objective—

Please resume your seat. There is a point of order from Edward Mountain.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt the member—I thought that I had pushed the button early enough.

When I spoke regarding employment in rural areas, I should have reminded members that I have an interest in a family farm in Moray. I apologise for not drawing that to members’ attention. I know that it is not the most important subject on some people’s agenda, but I should have pointed out that interest in a family farm.

Thank you, Mr Mountain; that is now on the record.

Can I begin by introducing some objective economic facts? Pre-Brexit, 150,000 non-UK EU nationals were in employment in Scotland, representing 6 per cent of the workforce in 2017. Post-Brexit, 170,000 EU nationals are in employment in Scotland. That is 7.4 per cent of the workforce in 2022. Pre-Brexit, just 70 private firms accounted for half the total value of Scotland’s international exports. Post-Brexit, that export base has narrowed even further and just 60 private firms now account for half of Scotland’s international exports.

So our export base is too narrow and it is getting narrower, but it has been too narrow since way before Brexit. In 17 years of the SNP in office, there has been no dynamic industrial strategy, no economic planning, no regional policy and no export strategy to address that either. In fact, there has been no rethink of the SNP’s economic strategy post-Brexit at all. It remains completely wedded to foreign direct investment and, as a result, Scotland has more of its economy under overseas ownership and control than any other nation or region of the UK. That means that we are more of a branch plant economy and so are much more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Here are some more economic facts. The value of our exports to the rest of the UK is one and a half times the value of our exports to the whole of the rest of the world put together, and it is three times the value of Scotland’s exports to the EU. So when the nationalists, who want Scotland to leave the UK, lament the economic impact of our leaving the European Union—“devastating” is how the cabinet secretary described it in the Parliament yesterday, I think—I hope that they will reflect on the economic damage and impact that would be caused by withdrawing from the UK.

Today, as we debate the impact of Brexit just hours after the re-election of Donald Trump to the White House, we should also not forget that the USA is Scotland’s single biggest export market outside the UK, worth £5 billion, and that the incoming President is promising to put up tariff barriers of 20 per cent, so I hope that this is something that we will be debating in the Parliament in the coming months. How can we diversify our export base? How can we diversify our export markets? How can we support more businesses, including smaller businesses, to export?

We have heard in this debate of the new Labour Government’s plans to end the 100 per cent relief on inheritance tax for those with farm assets worth more than £1 million. Below that threshold, 100 per cent relief will continue to apply to farm buildings, farm cottages and farmhouses. There will still be no capital gains tax to be paid, and there will still be roll-over reliefs for the sale of farmland for redevelopment. Agricultural land and buildings will still be 100 per cent exempt from non-domestic rates. Farmers will still be entitled to use red diesel, paying a rebated rate of duty of 11p, instead of 58p, per litre.

Richard Leonard is working on the presumption that land prices have stayed stagnant. They have not done so. They have increased. For example, the price of some land has gone from £1,000 to £14,000 an acre. That is not the fault of a family farmer who wants to pass on a family farm. That £1 million also takes into account the growing price and inflationary aspects of the capital value of machinery on that farm.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for her remarks, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the changes

“will affect a remarkably small number of some of the most valuable farms”.

Let me return to the litany of other tax exemptions and reliefs that farmers get. They will still pay the reduced VAT rate of 5 per cent on domestic heating and electricity costs. There will continue to be a zero rating on most agricultural products, and VAT exemption on insurance and bank interest. Farm income from subsidies and grants will still be outside the scope of VAT altogether. So the major tax advantages for farmers as farmers remain in place. This is a question about how we equalise the taxation of inherited wealth. This is about how we tax wealth.

I attended a conference recently where the Minister for Equalities was a keynote speaker. We were told that Scotland was a welcoming, safe and fair place and of our humane and principled approach to migration, but as she spoke, I thought of all those migrant workers across rural Scotland who I have met, listened to and heard, thanks to the migrant workers centre, 90 per cent of them in tied accommodation, with no rights to protect them, who describe their living conditions in metal boxes as unhygienic and overcrowded, with no heating.

The cabinet secretary and the Minister for Housing have given an undertaking to Parliament that they will address that, which we welcome, but we are repeatedly told that we have to beware of unintended consequences of ending it. Surely what we have to deal with in the end, in the here and now, are those actual existing intended consequences that result in that inhumane treatment.

There has been an impact of Brexit in rural Scotland, but it has not been felt equally. The people who suffer the most are those on the lowest pay, on the most precarious employment contracts, agency workers and those migrant workers, many from central Asia, who are living in uninhabitable accommodation, enduring the worst exposure—

Mr Leonard, you need to bring your remarks to a close, please.

They are the ones hit hardest. They are the ones whose lives are damaged, and it is on their side in their fight for justice, in their fight for dignity, in their fight for not just workers’ rights but human rights—

Thank you.

16:11  

Emma Roddick was correct when she said that Brexit is not just a historic date that has happened, and that is it—“It is done; move on.” The impact is on-going. The cabinet secretary outlined that Scotland is paying a high price for a failing Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. As I said, the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised eight years on from that June 2016 Brexit vote.

Today, however, I will focus my comments specifically on agriculture and the impact of Brexit on Dumfries and Galloway, on our standards and quality of food and drink and on our food security. Scotland’s rural economy is a major source of growth for Scotland. It delivered an economic contribution of more than £39 billion in gross value added, which is 26 per cent of the Scottish total, in 2021 alone.

The rural economy in Scotland is still bearing the brunt of Brexit because of the negative impact of the labour shortages on the food and drink industry. Indeed, in Dumfries and Galloway, I hear daily from farmers and employers in agritourism businesses and those in the food and drink sector about how they cannot recruit staff to keep their businesses floating. One prominent business restricted and reduced its opening hours, including during the peak summer season this summer, because it cannot find the right staff—any staff, I should say.

In Scotland as a whole, food and drink jobs alone equate to approximately 129,000 in 17,000 businesses, many of which are in rural areas with fragile economies, as in Dumfries and Galloway. There is absolutely no doubt that Brexit is a key cause of the struggles that the industry continues to face. Scotland could—here it comes, Presiding Officer—do better with the full powers that any normal independent country has at its disposal.

As I indicated earlier, Scotland is paying a high price for a failed Brexit that we did not vote for. The Brexit vote was eight years ago, and the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised in the years to come. Just this week, the UK Treasury minister, Tulip Siddiq, said that 60 per cent of the impact of Brexit is yet to materialise. That is an astonishing percentage.

Research by the London School of Economics and Political Science centre for economic performance suggests that UK households have paid £7 billion to cover the cost of post-Brexit trade barriers to food imports from the EU. That has pushed up the average household food cost by £250 since December 2019 and has disproportionately impacted on low-income households, who spend a greater proportion of their income on food. The Tory-created cost of living crisis is exactly that—it was created by the Tories. Tory ideological party shenanigans have led to people in Scotland suffering.

Many Scottish food industries are suffering from lower volumes of exports to the EU, including a 59 per cent fall in fruit and vegetable exports and a 29 per cent fall in meat exports in the year ending March 2024, but that is not all. The research and development associated with food and drink and agriculture is also affected, with millions of pounds of EU funding now inaccessible to business.

I will again pick up on the matter of labour shortages, because that really does have an impact on us in Dumfries and Galloway. Migration is possibly the biggest challenge facing Scotland’s economy right now. It is unforgivable that every Westminster party is completely ignoring Scotland’s specific needs. The UK parties are too busy fighting for right-wing voters in England. UK migration policies are actively harming Scotland’s economic growth and prosperity, and a tailored migration system suited to Scotland’s specific circumstances is long overdue. A rural visa pilot scheme would mitigate the effect of labour shortages, it would facilitate routes for workers to come to Scotland and support our public services, and it would help businesses to reach their full potential.

During the general election campaign—

Will Emma Harper take an intervention?

I ask Mr Carson to give me one wee second. I knew that he would be on his feet during my speech.

During the general election campaign, Jackie Baillie said that Labour was open to talks, but there has been no progress on the matter so far, despite the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands consistently raising the issue with UK ministers.

I thank Emma Harper for taking my intervention. I do appreciate it.

Can Emma Harper say whether she believes that a lack of rural broadband, a lack of good road infrastructure, a lack of rural housing, a lack of general practitioners and a lack of dentists are having a positive impact or a negative impact on rural depopulation?

I absolutely get what Mr Carson is speaking about regarding many of the things that he mentions. One thing that Scotland has done to address issues around rural GPs is the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme. Everybody forgets to big up ScotGEM, but it has been so successful for Dumfries and Galloway. Of course we have challenges with housing and so on, but today we are supposed to be focusing on the impact of Brexit. That is what we are focusing on today, eight years down the line.

Scotland could do better by making our choices for ourselves. The impact of Brexit on Scotland is disproportionately and negatively huge. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s motion, urging the UK Government to address the “barriers and impacts” caused by Brexit and to make the required changes to policy.

16:17  

Because I represent Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I see at first hand how our farmers, businesses and fishing communities are adapting to ever-increasing challenges, but this afternoon’s debate sums up the SNP’s lack of understanding of communities like those in the Borders. Can SNP members really sit here with straight faces and pretend that it is not their policy decisions that have been the single biggest blow to the rural economy? The SNP, aided and abetted by the Greens, has brought a series of wrecking balls to the rural economy.

Nowhere was the disdain for our rural communities more apparent than with the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill and the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which sought to demonise rural estates and rural land workers and put aside any intention of pursuing evidence-led policy decision making.

The coalition of chaos should have ended much sooner than it did, and rural communities have paid a price for that. Why should we be surprised? If the SNP really understood rural areas, it would have actually delivered for residents in rural areas. For example, it would have used the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill to create a bespoke funding scheme with the interests of Scottish farmers and crofters at its heart. It would not have snatched £46 million from the agriculture budget—despite the empty promises from the cabinet secretary. She has left the chamber, but I am sure that she can answer this later. I would like to know when that money will be returned.

If the SNP really understood rural areas, it would have delivered on its rural action plan for housing, rather than giving £100 million that was ring fenced by the Scottish Government for rural homes to developments in cities instead. It would have invested in key rural infrastructure projects, such as dualling the A9, on time. It would not have had to U-turn on banning fishing in 50 per cent of Scottish waters.

Ultimately, if the SNP really wanted to deliver for our rural community, it would—as I said—have ended its disastrous partnership with the Greens a long time ago.

In bringing this debate to the chamber, the SNP Government has chosen to waste precious time rather than discuss the issues that exist right here, right now, over which it has presided for 17 years. Those are the issues that we hear about from our constituents, who are being affected by them daily.

On Monday, I was speaking to residents in the Borders about the issues that affect them most. I can tell members that nobody—not one person—mentioned the impact of Brexit. Instead, they told me about the lack of affordable housing and the poor transport links between their homes and between towns and villages.

They told me about the difficulties of finding well-paid jobs away from the central belt, which forces people to make the decision between having a long commute and finding work that bears no resemblance to the skills that they have been trained in. They told me about how difficult it is for young people to build a life in the community in which they grew up.

All those issues are the responsibility of the devolved Scottish Government, and we should have been discussing them this afternoon. My constituents in the Borders deserve a Government that is proactive and ambitious, rather than one that is anti-business and anti-rural. However, the SNP Government’s title as the most anti-rural and anti-business party in the UK is under threat, with Labour’s high-tax budget last week giving the SNP a run for its money.

The cut to the agricultural property relief, the Barnettisation of the agriculture budget, and the increase in tax on pick-ups will have a communal, cumul—I cannot say that word. It will have a large effect and a devastating impact on Scotland’s rural sector. On top of that, rural businesses will be shouldering the burden of the increases to capital gains tax and employer national insurance rises.

I will comment on what Richard Leonard said, because it was totally unfair of him to conflate wealth with exploitation. The two things do not go hand in hand. A very small percentage of people might be creating the working conditions that Richard Leonard talked about, but that is not the general picture of farmers and crofters across Scotland, who are doing their best to put food on our plates. They are working 24 hours, seven days a week, and they are earning very little to do that.

I am not for a minute suggesting that all farmers are involved in the level of exploitation that is, as I described, facing migrant workers. By the same token, however, would Rachael Hamilton accept that some farmers are excessively exploiting migrant workers who are on seasonal migrant worker visas?

We need to see the evidence for that. That subject was raised in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on which I used to sit. I would be absolutely 100 per cent behind tackling exploitation of any workers, but we are not talking about an agricultural sector or a land-working sector—we are talking about all sectors across Scotland. It does not happen only in agriculture; it is just that I have experience, from being on the committee, of hearing about possible concerns in that sector.

I have put out a Borders business survey this week—yesterday, in fact—and I have had a lot of replies to it so far. The majority of people indicate that the recent UK Labour Government budget is going to have a negative impact on their business, as we have discussed in the chamber.

The Scottish Government must focus on Scotland’s future. With the powers that it has, it should focus on following through on the promises to rural Scotland that it has so far broken. It is rich of SNP members to make some of the arguments that they have made today, when it is clear that the SNP is creating deep uncertainty for farmers with the deferral of money that was ring fenced for agriculture. They must recognise that at the heart of rural economies are real people, farmers and land managers—real communities—and we must support them.

16:24  

As the MSP for Banffshire and Buchan Coast, the impact that Brexit has had on my rural constituency is clear to me.

I want to be clear that my speech has been crafted with the words and experiences of people in my constituency who have felt the effect on the ground in the here and now. That may be because of decisions that have been made in the past, but that is how time works. The impact is hurting people now, and it is right and proper that we discuss and talk about it—so that we know not only who we can trust, but what we can do about it, going forward.

For my constituents, the outcome of Brexit feels more painful and personal because Brexit was touted as the answer to all the fishing sector’s challenges. It is now more than eight years since our fishers were promised “a sea of opportunity”. They were assured that we would take back control of UK waters, enjoy increased quotas, see an economic revival in our coastal communities, benefit from reduced bureaucracy and gain enhanced export opportunities with global market access. It has been eight years, and there have been countless promises, yet Brexit has delivered none of them. If anything, our fishing industry continues to catch and process our food and sustain coastal communities despite Brexit, not because of it. It is the hard-working people in the industry who have kept things going and delivered results by themselves.

I am surprised by what you have said. Will the member not accept that the fishing community, particularly in the north-east where her constituency is, is largely pro-Brexit, and that many still believe that massive opportunities will come to them by taking back control of our waters? I am pretty sure that your communities still think that there is value in Brexit, whereas you are suggesting that they would want to go back into Europe.

I remind members of the need to speak through the chair at all times.

I have spoken to my constituents and to the fishing industry. Their words are in my speech and members will hear what they have to say. Brexit has absolutely been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to the promises that your party served them and the subsequent outcomes.

It was vote leave architect Michael Gove—was it not?—who said:

“The day after we leave, we will be able to decide who can access our waters .. We can rebuild our fishing communities and take back control of this important natural resource.”

His double-act partner, Boris Johnson, proudly declaimed that

“We will restore Britain’s fish, and our fishermen will see an economic boom like they have not seen in decades.”

I remember the vote leave leaflets proudly exclaiming that Brexit would cut EU red tape and simplify regulations for our fishers, thereby allowing them to operate with more freedom and fewer burdensome restrictions.

However, when we strip back the bravado, what is the reality? “Take back control”, they said. Well—the trade and co-operation agreement allows EU vessels to retain significant access to UK waters under a phased arrangement. The transitional period, which will last until at least 2026, limits the UK’s control, as EU fleets continue to fish in British waters under negotiated quotas. The promise of exclusive control has not been realised in the way that fishers anticipated.

Increased quotas were promised, but many fishers feel that the adjustments have been marginal and do not compensate for the additional costs and challenges that they face due to Brexit-related trade barriers. Some industry representatives have criticised the minor quota gains as symbolic, rather than transformative.

They promised more jobs in our coastal communities, yet those communities, especially in north-east Scotland, have experienced economic challenges instead of a revival. Brexit-induced trade barriers have led to reduced profitability, especially for fish exporters, who now face increased costs and delays in getting to EU markets. Many small-scale fishing businesses are struggling to stay afloat due to rising export costs, and some communities report that there are fewer job opportunities.

“No more red tape”, they said. Instead, Brexit has introduced new administrative requirements, especially for those who export to the EU. Fishers must now complete extensive paperwork, including export health certificates, customs declarations and additional checks that delay shipments. For perishable seafood products such as shellfish, those delays have a direct impact on product quality and market competitiveness. Many fishers and processors report that regulatory burdens have increased rather than decreased, which is contrary to the promises of the Brexit campaign.

“Brexit is increasingly looking like a betrayal of the UK fishing industry”.

Those are not my words, but the words of the president of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Elspeth Macdonald.

Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland’s rural economy, and especially for our fisheries. Where Scottish fishers once dominated EU markets, our fishers now find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, compared with EU-based competitors.

Many seafood businesses in Scotland have reported a decline in export volumes since Brexit. UK fish, crustacean and mollusc exports to the EU declined by nearly 45 per cent in net mass from December 2020 to early 2023.

One of the pressing challenges that are facing the processing sector today is the severe labour shortage, which has—as we have heard from my colleagues—been worsened by limited access to EU nationals who would traditionally fill those roles. Many businesses in my constituency rely heavily on migrant workers—some up to almost 80 per cent, I have been told—and they are gravely concerned about their ability to stay operational. The proposed pay thresholds for visas are quite simply unrealistic for many of those roles. Since Brexit, the absence of EU workers has made it difficult for processing plants to run at full capacity, which is cutting productivity and driving up operating costs.

Fisherman James Stephen, who is based in Peterhead, has been at sea for 40 years. Earlier this year, he said:

“We’re such a small part of GDP, but yet we were one of the major arguments in the Brexit story. But when it all came to fruition, it was just a pack of lies we were told. We were led up the garden path.

We’ve ended up with the crumbs for extra quota, which has been one of the major things. Even the on-shore industry really gets hit by the paperwork. Now we have to export the fish to Europe. So I think for all concerned, to me, it has been a total shambles.”

Those are not my words; they are his.

I have little more to add, Presiding Officer.

You need to bring your remarks to a close, please.

I have little more to add. Our fishers have been betrayed by a Conservative Government that promised them a sea of opportunity but delivered to them a sea of troubles. It is time for Scotland to escape this Brexit.

Ms Adam, you need to close.

It is time for independence. Thank you very much.

I will take this opportunity again, just while it occurs to me, to say that any references to “you” that are made by members are actually references to me. I am sure that that is not what members are intending when they make their contributions.

With that, I move to closing speeches and call Ariane Burgess to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. We have no more time in hand. You have up to six minutes.

16:31  

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for that clarity about references to “you”.

In my opening remarks, I spoke at length about the day-to-day issues that the rural farming community faces as a result of Brexit, but the community also faces long-term concerns as a result of the UK leaving the EU. One of the most difficult is that Brexit has made it harder for our small farmers and growers to get hold of climate-resilient varieties of vegetables. Complex paperwork, seed spot-testing at ports and a lack of domestic suppliers have meant that EU exporters simply do not want to attempt to trade with the UK.

Even getting hold of existing seed varieties has become more difficult in the light of Brexit. My constituent Jo Hunt, who, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, has been forced to cease organic food production, told me that red tape and a surge in organic growing in the EU have seen EU seed suppliers prioritise their customers on the continent over organic farmers and growers in the UK. That means that the range of seeds that are available to our growers has shrunk and availability is patchy. At a time when we have committed to increasing our organic production as part of our response to our biodiversity and climate crises, that is severely concerning.

Fully state-funded seed research and development was ended by Thatcher’s Government in the 1980s, and I am told that the only company currently operating in the UK that focuses on developing varieties that can cope with our increasingly unpredictable growing climate is doing all its research in the Netherlands. That is untenable, given the sheer pace of change in our climate and the need to ensure that communities have access to locally produced food. I urge the Scottish Government to look at using its new powers over agricultural funding to resurrect that vital work and encourage a thriving Scottish seed sector.

As we have heard today, the ill effects of Brexit labour shortages extend beyond agriculture. The rural hospitality sector is struggling to sustain itself, with many businesses having to cut back or close down because of staff shortages and barriers to trade, including some that have been in families for generations.

Rural health and social care systems are on their knees because of the lack of workers. One example of the challenges facing the latter sector can be seen in the mental health care system. We are all well aware of the mental health challenges that affect our foresters, fishers and farmers, which often tragically result in suicide.

There could be a different outcome if those people had access to local mental health support. However, there is such a chronic shortage of workers in the mental health care system that the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland says that the retirement of a single consultant can mean the end of an area’s entire service. The organisation also says that, in some health boards, more than half the psychiatry positions are vacant or held by a locum. If we were still in the EU, we could have a wealth of workers taking up those positions.

It is also becoming apparent that Brexit has hit living standards. As we heard from Emma Harper, research in 2023 by the London School of Economics and Political Science found that Brexit has accounted for about a third of the increase in food bills for households since 2019, which is equivalent to £250. That extra cost is likely to have been most keenly felt in Scotland’s rural areas, which have already been hit especially hard by soaring energy bills. A 2021 report by the Scottish Government estimated that the minimum cost of living in remote rural Scotland was between 15 and 30 per cent higher than that in urban parts of the UK.

On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the UK Government would not devolve immigration powers to Scotland. However, given the severe negative impacts that Brexit is having on our rural and island communities, it is time for the Labour Government to finally devolve immigration and visa powers. The people of Scotland did not vote for breakfast—[Laughter.] The people of Scotland did not for Brexit and they do not support it. We did not vote for breakfast either.

Just as our citizens are now unable to freely work in Europe, Europeans also suffer, with limitations placed on how they can live, work and study in our country. Scotland should have the right to make its own decisions on immigration and to reach out to the world around us. The Scotland that I want to see us build is one where we can welcome people into our country, support their right to work and allow our rural businesses and communities to thrive and prosper. As such, I hope that our Parliament will come together to back the sentiment of the amendment that I proposed for the debate and call on Westminster to undo the awful damage that has been done by Brexit.

16:37  

We have had an interesting debate. Other than perhaps from Tory members, there has been broad agreement that Brexit has not been good for Scotland. It has not been good for rural Scotland—indeed, for all of Scotland—and it has not been good for the UK.

As Colin Smyth said, Labour is committed to resetting the relationship with the EU, and the question is about how we do that. Some people say that we should be back in Europe tomorrow, and I think to myself, “If only it was that simple.” I have no doubt that even the people who voted for Brexit, many of whom were completely conned by the Tories, would have a different point of view today. However, I do not think that the issue is as straightforward as simply clicking our fingers, getting in a room and saying that we want to be back in.

Karen Adam quoted the fisherman from Peterhead who said that they had been led up the garden path. I think that most fishermen feel like that—that they were lied to and cheated. That is how many people who supported Brexit now see things.

I challenge the member for suggesting that it would be very difficult for Scotland to re-enter the EU. Most of our legislation and policies remain EU compliant. They are now being dismembered, but they are there, so it would be much easier for us than for somebody who was coming in for the first time.

What I said is that it is not as straightforward as some people suggest.

Keir Starmer has been very clear that a priority of the UK Government is to foster a closer relationship with the European Union. That is a welcome move away from the Tory position of seeing the EU as the enemy of the UK, in its petty culture war that is designed only to cling on to power for those who cannot see the benefit of good international relations with our neighbours in the EU.

In recent months, Keir Starmer has begun talks on a new co-operation agreement between the UK and Germany, with the aim of boosting trade, creating jobs and delivering economic growth in both countries. That is certainly a shift away from the position of the previous Tory Government. He has also made it clear that he is seeking a closer relationship with the EU on a number of fronts, including the economy, defence and exchanges. That is all positive and moving in the right direction.

In her speech, the cabinet secretary was fairly positive about where we should be working together and how we could be working together. That second key change is important. We now have a UK Government that wants to work with the Scottish Government. If we are to overcome some of the challenges that there are, we absolutely need to work together.

I have always said that we should be able to look at things such as the skilled workers visa. We should be looking at the evidence and asking whether there is a problem with people not wanting to come to Scotland. I think that Emma Roddick said that people want to come here, but the evidence does not suggest that. Is there a specific problem? If we build relationships between the two Governments, it should not be beyond us to get round the table and start to look at solutions. I have always said that we should explore an approach. If one approach is a specific visa or immigration passport for Scotland, we need to look at that—it is not beyond us.

Quite a number of speakers have raised issues that cannot simply be blamed on Brexit. We have to have an honest discussion. The skills challenges in rural Scotland are, in some ways, similar to the skills challenges across Scotland. We cannot look at those challenges without looking at what we have been doing with our colleges over the past number of years.

I am listening carefully to what Mr Rowley is saying. Is it Sir Keir Starmer’s policy to have a separate immigration policy for Scotland?

I ask Mr Rowley to close.

It is not, and that is not what I said. I said that I hope that we now have two Governments that will work much more closely together and put the people of Scotland first, instead of the ideological nightmare that we had from the previous, failed Tory Government. It should therefore not be beyond us to present evidence and a case and to come together to work on it. Unfortunately, the Tories have consistently looked to create division to drive their agenda. I hope that those days are over and that we have two Governments coming together.

To go back to the point that I was making, the SNP Government has to take some responsibility for the skills gaps. As Richard Leonard said, no proper skills and industrial strategy is in place. On housing, which is one of the major issues for rural Scotland that is causing rural depopulation, the Scottish Government has to be honest and accept its failures. I close on that.

16:43  

In case those who are in the chamber now were not here when I intervened earlier, I remind members that I am a partner in a small family farm in Moray—a small family farm meaning one that is less than 500 acres and that is going to get hammered by the tax brought in by Labour.

On 23 June 2016—unless I got that wrong—Brexit was voted on and it was decided to go. That was eight years ago. I cannot remember how many debates in this chamber I have had on Brexit, but they seem to all be on a Thursday afternoon when we could be more reasonably talking about interesting things such as the A9 and why transport policies in the central belt and in southern Scotland were prioritised over rural areas in the north of Scotland. We could be talking about hospitals and the lack of them, or dentists and the lack of those, or the impossibility of finding any.

We seem to be stuck eight years ago, without having moved on. Although I do not deny that there have been some challenges, industry as a whole has tried to move on, as it fully understands that one cannot just sit there and say, “I’m going to cry over spilt milk for ever in the hope that the cornflakes won’t get soggy.” The cornflakes are soggy and we need to move on—that is what industry is doing.

What annoys me when we talk about Brexit is that the Government and other members from across the chamber ignore all the other things that have been going on around the world. We have had Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, which have made a huge difference to rural Scotland—I am sure that the minister and the cabinet secretary will know that when Ukraine was invaded, fertiliser went up from a mere £230 a tonne to more than £1,000 a tonne, which affected every farm in Scotland. We have seen oil prices go up.

On the side, we have seen the SNP dipping into ring-fenced rural funds—that should have been going to the rural economy—to use them for other things. That is to say nothing of the various other things that have gone on, such as cuts to rural housing and tree planting targets, and a delay to the agricultural support scheme—I say to the cabinet secretary that I will be interested to see and fully understand what the new scheme involves, because, as a farmer with a lot of capital invested in that industry, I am still not sure that I do.

I would like to know when the cuts to transport and health will be stopped. All those things are crushing the rural economy and causing huge problems. Of the 200 Caithness mums who gave birth in 2022, only eight gave birth in Caithness; the rest of them were moved down to Inverness, because there were no facilities for them in the rural areas. Take my word for it that, when people look to move to and to stay in rural areas such as Caithness, that situation puts them off.

I want to talk about labour—first, about the Labour Party whose members are sitting opposite me, and then about labour. The Labour Party has made a huge mistake. I know that Mr Leonard, who is sitting at the back, laughs about the wanton attack on small family farms. It is all very well for Mr Leonard to laugh about it, but my small family farm employs three people and we have two families living in the countryside—be under no illusion that we will be affected by that taxation. I doubt whether I will be able to hand my small farm over to my son, and that gives me a worry. The tax gives every farmer in Scotland a worry, and I am not surprised about that. The Barnettisation of farm payments is a disgrace and will affect the rural economy. Everyone in the chamber has spoken against it—the Conservatives have always done so.

On labour as a whole, I tried to make the point with an earlier intervention that finding labour to work in rural areas, especially on farms, is extremely difficult. I know from personal experience that young people do not want to work on farms, which require an extraordinary amount of commitment. Farm work can see young people being asked to come out of their beds at 2 o’clock in the morning to calve a belligerent cow that will probably kick them in the process—they do not want to do that. They certainly do not want to be working hard at all times of night. A lot of young people nowadays expect to be able to work for four days a week in an office and take a day off. That has an effect on all the countryside. If people do not believe that, they only have to look round Edinburgh to see whether restaurants are open for more than four days a week—they are not, because they cannot find the people who are prepared to work five or six days a week.

Working on a farm is hard work. I understand Ariane Burgess’s point about finding people to pick fruit. Having done it, and having got dirt under my fingernails doing it, I can tell you that it is an extremely difficult task, which not everyone wants to do. In fact, I will be honest—it was such hard, back-breaking work, I never want to do it again. Finding people to do it in this day and age is really difficult. That is not a fact of Brexit—that is a fact of where we are.

To pick up on a couple of points that some of my colleagues made, Mr Eagle was right to say that slow payments to farmers actually put farmers off. Although I know that the cabinet secretary got a lot of the payments out early, we must remember that harvest came that much later in the year, so farmers will get paid much later in the year.

Some of the farmers have not received their harvest payments yet and are desperately relying on the single farm payment to ensure that they can invest in crops for next year. They want to be able to plan in the long term, which, as Mr Eagle suggested, is not unreasonable.

Mr Carson talked about rural homes, and I absolutely agree with what he said. Rachael Hamilton talked about the lack of housing, which is a key point for people in the rural economy, and also about the issue with the Barnettisation of farm grants.

We did not quite hear what Christine Grahame’s problems were, although she alluded to them. I think that the issue might have been to do with her speech notes or something else, but we will never know.

There are going to be problems if this Government wants to continue pushing the Brexit theme and not move forward. Let me be clear: even if the Government gets its way, which I do not think that it will, and Scotland rejoins the EU, doing so will be extremely expensive. It will cause incredible trade barriers with the other parts of the United Kingdom that do not; we will be forced to have the euro; and, be under no illusions, if the USA is going to employ trade barriers, the EU will be affected just as much as any other country.

16:51  

I offer my thanks to members across the chamber for their speeches this afternoon. It is clear from the range of most of the contributions that the level of challenge that Brexit has presented across the rural economy and beyond is understood and taken seriously.

There are many issues that need to be taken into account when we consider how we address those challenges, and I will share my initial reflections on today’s debate.

As we have heard today, the food and drink sector has been beset by a range of challenges in recent years. We know that there are increasing risks to Scotland’s food security, including from climate change and events such as the conflict in Ukraine. A strong political relationship with one of the world’s biggest agrifood exporters and our closest geographical neighbours does not just support our agrifood businesses, but strengthens our overall food security in terms of our trading relationships and critical supply chains. The European Union shares our values and our goals, and having friends that do so is critically important in the current geopolitical situation.

Speeches in today’s debate have laid bare the impact that the loss of freedom of movement has had and continues to have on Scotland’s rural and island communities. We are clear that Scotland has distinct demographic challenges and that, in response to that, we need a tailored migration route for Scotland that will support our public services, our economy, our communities and, in particular, those rural and island communities that have their own distinct challenges resulting from Brexit.

This Parliament has previously supported broad calls for a tailored approach to migration that supports Scotland’s economies, communities and public services. Right now, there is a significant opportunity for the new UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver on our shared priorities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will make a bit of progress, and then I will happily give way to Mr Carson.

We are committed to working together with the UK Government to explore opportunities for progress, including our proposals for a Scottish visa and a rural visa pilot. Those proposals are strongly supported by key stakeholders across Scotland, and their delivery is vital to supporting the sustainability of Scotland’s rural and island communities and economies, which have faced such harm since the ending of freedom of movement.

I turn to individual members’ contributions. First, I congratulate Tim Eagle on his new role and responsibilities. As I used to represent him as his local member of Parliament, he knows that I share his interest in the issues that he spoke of, which I know are very close to his heart. However, what we heard from him today was Brexit denialism. We did not get a straight answer in response to a straightforward question about a veterinary agreement—an agreement on agriculture, food and drink. I encourage Mr Eagle and his colleagues to make efforts in the coming weeks and months to understand the importance of the issue—which concerns a Labour Party manifesto commitment—as it becomes more of a realistic prospect.

To Colin Smyth I say that I was grateful to hear that clarification about the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment, and I am delighted that Labour is following the lead of the SNP in committing support to the veterinary agreement. I will be happy to work with him and his colleagues to make sure that that is delivered.

Ariane Burgess was absolutely right to highlight the damage of Brexit, its scale and the scale of the damage still to come. We are well warned about wishing it away as if it were not going to have an enduring and negative impact. I commend the point that she made about differentiated immigration systems, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, are perfectly possible in both Australia and Canada. There is absolutely no reason why such a system could not happen here, which is the reason why we on the SNP benches will support the Green Party amendment.

Beatrice Wishart was absolutely right to raise the issue of seed potatoes and of food rotting in the fields. Those are Brexit impacts; they are on-going, current and avoidable.

Christine Grahame’s contribution was, frankly, a master-class in inviting Brexit denialists in the chamber to give a single Brexit benefit. Not a single one was heard—not one.

I turn to Finlay Carson, to whom I give notice that I am about to give way to him. In his speech on Brexit impacts, he managed to totally ignore the facts and the issues around the damage of Brexit. Perhaps, when I give way to him, he will update us on any advantages that Brexit has delivered so far.

Much of the debate has focused on immigration, but we have also touched on rural depopulation. Will the cabinet secretary tell us why we see accelerated depopulation in rural areas when it is the SNP Government that has control of nearly all the levers that are responsible for that depopulation and that potentially hold the solutions to reversing it?

I declare an interest, having chaired the Scottish Government’s population task force. I am sure that Finlay Carson would agree that Scotland is a country that has endured both emigration and immigration. Population change in Scotland has been a constant. Our challenge is that we do not have all the tools in the toolbox to deal with issues of population change in our immigration system. That is why I encourage him to have an open mind. Conservative Governments in Canada and Australia have been able to see the advantages of differentiated migration systems, and I encourage the Scottish Conservative Party to have an open mind about that.

Emma Roddick talked about the necessity of honesty on Brexit. We cannot just wish or brush it away as if it has not had a negative impact. She powerfully added her voice to the case for a Scottish visa and highlighted the disappointment—expressed on one front page recently—that the Labour Party marched us all up the hill believing that it is in favour of a Scottish visa, only to have us march down the next day, saying that it is not.

Richard Leonard was correct to point out that the United States is the biggest single overseas market. He is absolutely right. However, when counted together, the markets of the countries of the European Union account for significantly more than the United States market. We should not avoid that as a fact; it really matters.

Emma Harper, who is a strong voice for the south of Scotland, pointed out the impact of labour shortages in her part of the country and in the rest of it, which underlines why we should have the appropriate tools in the toolbox to deal with migration.

Rachael Hamilton said that it is important to have an understanding of rural areas, and I agree with her. That is why I am proud that the Scottish National Party represents most rural constituencies across the length and breadth of Scotland. It is members on the SNP benches who take Brexit and its seriousness as a major priority, when her party does not. She had difficulty saying the word “cumulative”. I say to her that that is perhaps understandable when we understand the cumulative impact that Brexit has had on rural Scotland, which has not been good.

Karen Adam brought up the litany of false Brexit promises to fishing communities about the labour market and the export market, and she is absolutely right. Another future is possible.

Alex Rowley was absolutely right to talk about the advantages of a reset in relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments. I agree with him that we should do everything that we can to work out where there are things that we can reach agreement on. We also agree on the advantages of a veterinary agreement—an agriculture, food and drink agreement. I welcome the fact that Alex Rowley is open-minded to a Scottish visa system, and I encourage him to impress on Anas Sarwar and his colleagues on the Labour front bench that they should remain open to that as well. It would be hugely welcome if the Labour Party were to support the position of the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Government on that issue.

Alex Rowley was right when he said that we cannot simply click our fingers and rejoin the European Union, but that is not a reason for us not to try. Surely we must end the self-harm in all of this.

Finally, I turn to Edward Mountain’s speech, in which, perhaps unsurprisingly, he joined his colleagues in minimising the impact of Brexit. He described it as being like soggy cornflakes and said that we should not cry over it. I do not think that he was trying to make a joke about the issue in the sense of suggesting that it should not be taken seriously, but Brexit is a serious matter, and he should know that it impacts on the communities of Speyside as someone who lives in the middle of it.

I reiterate that, as the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands so clearly put it, the time for action is now. The United Kingdom Government has a number of choices before it. It needs to work with us to ensure that the choices that it makes will not negatively or disproportionately impact on the people and businesses of Scotland. The consequences of the hard Brexit that was pursued by the previous UK Government are plain to see. It is far less obvious how the current UK Government intends to mitigate or reverse the harmful impacts that we have discussed today, which is why SNP members, and the majority of members in this Parliament, believe that the best future for the economy and for Scotland is for it to be an independent member state of the European Union.