Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to amendment 88, in my name. I have a particular interest in the parts of the bill that relate to continuing professional development. I was a clinical nurse educator in my previous role with NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and I was embedded in CPD for 30 years as a registered nurse. During those 30 years, I witnessed and experienced the value of on-going education and CPD.

The Barony campus of Scotland’s Rural College in Dumfries and Galloway, which I have visited on a number of occasions to meet and hear from the exceptional expert team that provides education for our current and future farmers, is crucial for agricultural education.

I lodged amendment 88 to make it clear in the bill that continuing professional development activities need to be made available in “a range of formats”. It needs to be clear that there is no requirement for farmers, crofters, land managers and other agricultural producers to attend off-farm or away from their business to achieve their CPD.

With CPD, a person who is working in agricultural production could obtain knowledge or improve their knowledge about the best techniques, innovations and skills in a range of ways that meet their individual needs. That could mean peer support and completing online learning, which is similar to how healthcare staff achieve much of their required continuing professional development. NFU Scotland has highlighted that CPD could be obtained by engaging with professional organisations such as the Soil Association.

I am aware that there are other amendments on CPD, and I will listen carefully as everyone speaks. I will end there, and I will now hear from colleagues and the cabinet secretary.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Amendment 47 would ensure that the need for sustainable food systems and supply chains to deliver food security was explicitly considered right at the heart of the rural support plan. I am pleased to hear of the cabinet secretary’s support for that.

The issue of food security has gained prominence recently, given the impacts on it from conflict and climate and the interest in it among members of Parliament, stakeholders and the public. After the conflict in Ukraine started, we began to hear the term “food security” much more often, and that conflict continues to highlight the fragility of the global supply chain and of global food systems. The conflict in Ukraine has hit the agriculture sector hard, leading to some significant changes to gross margins. Input costs have risen sharply during the past 12 months, with the hike in fertiliser and fuel prices impacting agricultural businesses and increased feed costs affecting livestock margins.

I recognise that the objectives of the bill lend themselves to ensuring that consideration, but I am sure that all members must agree—

Good morning, everybody. I worked on drafting amendment 93 with NFU Scotland. It is a fairly simple amendment, but I believe that it is an important one. I am sure that we can all agree that it is important to specify the role of Scottish agricultural policy. Through amendment 93, I believe that we are emphasising Scotland’s world-leading reputation for high-quality agricultural production and high standards of animal welfare. As NFU Scotland highlights, those commitments should be specified in the bill to enhance the understanding and importance of Scottish provenance.

During my past eight years as an elected member for the South Scotland region, I have spoken in chamber debates and have raised questions about promoting and protecting the provenance of our world-class produce, especially in the language of protected geographical indicator status. We know that we have world-class produce in Scotland, including our Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and other products, and I know that we are always keen to support the work of Quality Meat Scotland and the Scotch whisky industry. They are so valuable for our economy.

I will keep my contribution short. The legislation sets out the requirements for Scottish agricultural policy and it should be defined as such.

In the overall consideration of the bill, I am suggesting that we amend the rural support plan to explicitly put the food security issue at the heart of the plan.

Members around this table agree that it is important that food security is considered. We have heard about amendments relating to the issue earlier. Having it explicitly put at the heart of the rural support plan is something that I am sure members would agree to support, and we have heard representations for doing so. I would like to see it made explicit that food security is of paramount importance. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 47.

Good morning, Dr Cass. Thank you for being here this morning. I am interested in the recommendation that young people should remain within the young people’s service from the age of 17 to the age of 25. The recommendation says that NHS England should ensure that each regional centre has

“follow-through services for 17-25-year-olds ... either by extending the range of the regional children and young people’s service or through linked services”.

I am interested in hearing about how that recommendation means that those young people should stay under the care of the same service from the age of 17 to the age of 25 and how that would work in practice. I think that there has been some misrepresentation of the recommendation as meaning that no one would be able to transition before the age of 25.

I want to pick up on what you said about the misrepresentation of that recommendation or other parts of the report. You talked about a holistic assessment for young people for the whole process. One of the comments that have been made is that the recommendation is based on “dubious science”. Can you solidify for us your advice or your recommendation around having a whole process for young people right up until the age of 25?

There are alternatives to meat. I looked up what 70g means. A plate of spaghetti bolognese has about 100g of meat; a quarter pounder beef burger has 90g. I was trying to work out what that all means. A full Scottish breakfast can also have about 90g, so you get your whole daily recommendation in one meal. However, if you were vegetarian for the rest of the week, that might be acceptable.

I am interested in how we support people to replace red meat with things such as eggs, legumes and other vegetable options to give them the nutrients that you talked about. What could Food Standards Scotland do to recommend alternatives to people?

I am conscious that there is loads to cover, but I want to focus on ultra-processed foods.

Henry Dimbleby and Jemima Lewis were co-authors of a book called “Ravenous”. Recently, Henry Dimbleby gave a presentation at the shaping the science for the Scotland’s food future event at Dynamic Earth. It was really interesting to hear him talk about his research and his work on a proposed food strategy.

We know that the food system is really complicated, but is it a good idea to replace Scottish lamb and Scottish beef that are produced to high welfare standards with meat replacements containing chemicals such as stabilisers, emulsifiers, xanthan gum, guar gum, colours, flavourings and stuff that has been labelled as “industrially created enteric substances”? Is that really food? Given that we produce meat to the best welfare standards, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on replacing that with ultra-processed food that has unpronounceable chemicals in it, and how that links with, for example, the issue of the high levels of fat, sugar and salt in food.

I have a wee supplementary question. One of the questions in the Scottish Government’s consultation was about restricting the sale of foods with high levels of fat, sugar and salt within 2m of the checkout. What Sandesh Gulhane said about product placement in supermarkets is valid. There are challenges for us in Scotland when it comes to marketing and advertising; we cannot control what Ofcom does about advertising on television, because that is a reserved matter. However, with regard to supermarkets, we can certainly advocate for restrictions on product placement at the end of the aisle or within 2m of a checkout. Is that something that we could support?