Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have led me nicely on to the question that I intended to ask Charlotte Pearson about data and data gaps. Do we have enough data to follow the pathway of the young people in question and how they cope on the journey to positive destinations? Do we have enough data and information to be sufficiently informed with regard to where we need to deploy the resource?

This has been almost a summing-up of the journey that we need to go on. I think from the evidence that we have taken that we understand an awful lot more about the journey of young people. Anne-Marie Sturrock talked about an individual approach being needed, which is generally true for any person, let alone somebody with special support needs.

We have heard that half the people in schools have special support needs. I speak as the father of a daughter who is a school’s head of guidance. Schools are under extraordinary pressure already and we are coming up with extra resources and support that will be needed. In their entirety, the changes that we need to make look massive, but we need to start somewhere. What would you ask for, in the first instance, to start us on the process of closing the gap? That is an easy question.

I thank Rachael Hamilton. As I said, it is important that we do not consider bills in isolation. We should look at other bills and at other legislation that is coming down the track. We should look at how we, in delivering the bill, can drive the direction of travel of other bills. Parliaments in general are bad at cross-portfolio work, so I appreciate Rachael Hamilton’s contribution.

I will press the amendment, convener.

My amendment 54 is an effort to support the production of high-quality food in Scotland. We know that Scotland produces high-quality, nutritious food through primary production. What we are trying to do in the bill—and what we should be doing across portfolios and across legislation—is ensure that there is availability of high-quality food across our society, as opposed to highly processed food, which is the current situation.

The NFUS supports the amendment and, contrary to what the cabinet secretary said, the amendment also supports on-farm processing. Scottish food travels too far to be processed; some of it is processed down south and we do not do enough processing in Scotland. Amendment 54 aligns with the aims of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 by investing in local businesses, adds value to farm businesses and helps with their sustainability and the economy.

We would all agree that having higher-quality food available in Scotland would reduce the negative consequences of poor diet that cause a strain on our national health service. Ill health in Scotland is the biggest drag on the Scottish economy. That widens out to the local authority level. We are demanding from local authorities good food nation plans that focus on local procurement for schools and hospitals. Early diet interventions in schools have been shown to create long-term healthy eating habits.

We are also looking across portfolios at things such as education and trying to tackle poor mental and physical health, low attainment and even behaviour issues. Having access to a better diet and pushing the message out there about having a better diet speaks across the education portfolio. Healthier diets in hospitals also promote better and quicker recovery, which tackles the time that people spend in hospital. We need to move outside our portfolios and work across portfolios and across bills.

Supporting primary production in Scotland reduces food miles for imports and makes Scotland more food secure. It is illogical that we are driving our food producers to produce ever greener food yet we are arguing about an amendment to a bill that is trying to aid that. It seems illogical for us to ask our farmers to be ever greener when we are not doing that ourselves. The cabinet secretary says that other bills that are coming down the line will address that, but every bill should be addressing it. Why should this bill not help to drive that change?

My amendment 56 seeks to include the

“identification of rural anchor institutions”

as a subsection of the development strategies for rural areas, to tie in with future community wealth-building legislation. Although current research on anchor institutions in rural areas is limited, it is clear that anchor institutions in rural areas are not the same as they are in urban areas. Large public sector bodies, such as hospitals and schools are a typical model for urban areas. We need to look at how we can help rural communities to identify economically viable businesses and enterprises in their area that could serve the same function as traditionally defined anchor institutions. Examples might be farming co-operatives, markets and processing facilities.

Amendment 56 is supported by the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, which believes that it will help to support a place-based approach to building a nature-based economy and investing in local areas. I ask the committee to support the amendment.

My amendments 202 and 203 seek to place the production of food and drink on high-quality agricultural land at the heart of the bill by ensuring that such land is retained, as far as possible, for agricultural use and not other uses.

Prime agricultural land should be reserved for the primary production of food products, and consideration of other activities such as tree planting and renewables must be given with future food security in mind. The amendments seek to prioritise those primary production activities. They are supported by the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates.

I make it clear that Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which Food Standards Scotland adheres to, defines “primary production” as

“the production, rearing or growing of primary products including harvesting, milking and farmed animal production prior to slaughter. It also includes hunting and fishing and the harvesting of wild products”.

Agriculture is the single biggest use of land in Scotland, but half of that land is rough grassland and many areas are inactive. When you look at how that breaks down, arable agriculture makes up 8 per cent of Scotland’s total land area. We must protect that land. Improved grassland, which is limited to grass production due to circumstances such as slope, is only 18 per cent of the total area; mixed agriculture is only 20 per cent, and rough grazing, where land has severe limitations that prevent improvement by mechanical means, totals 51 per cent. We do not have an awful lot of primary production land, and, given our concerns about food security, it is important that we use that land specifically for the production of food when we can. I am interested in how the committee will respond to that issue, because it speaks to how the Government sees Scottish land use.

As I said, amendments 202 and 203 are about placing the production of food and drink on high-quality agricultural land at the heart of the bill.

I move amendment 202.

Of course.

Heather Fisken, you talked about someone who had applied for so many jobs for which they were overqualified; that sounds a wee bit like prejudice, to be honest. Is enough being done to interact with businesses to make sure that they understand the business case for not excluding disabled people?

That brings me nicely to ask Vikki Manson to speak from the FSB’s perspective about how we get the message out there and how we encourage employers to consider disabled people in the same light as everybody else. What work needs to be done to ensure that there is inclusion and that the gap shrinks?

I will come to Angela Matthews to widen that out a wee bit. Do employers understand the business case for employing more disabled people?