���˿���

I was somewhat concerned that, at the start of her summing up, the cabinet secretary seemed to say that she would speak to and work with the Greens according to the Bute house agreement to reach a settlement on this particular section. Latterly, though, she seemed to include the rest of us with an interest in this matter, and, before I decide whether to press or withdraw amendment 26, I am looking for a commitment from her that this will not be a stitch-up between her and the Greens and that she will try to reach consensus among all of us with an interest.

Amendments 3, 15, 17, 28 and 29 would require plans and revisions to be set out by regulation. Amendment 3 would require that for the first plan and amendment 15 would require it for revisions. Amendment 17 is a consequential amendment, because section 6(4) would no longer be required if the plan was set out in regulations, as all regulations are published and laid before the Parliament.

Amendments 28 and 29 are consequential amendments to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That would mean that plans and revisions were subject to scrutiny by the Parliament—in committee and in the chamber—and were voted on. It is only right for such plans to have parliamentary scrutiny and approval, if we are to put right our broken food system.

I move amendment 3.

The cabinet secretary said that the plans would be laid before the Parliament, but my amendments would allow the Parliament to vote on the plans—simply laying them before the Parliament does not allow that. She also pointed out that to have regard means simply that the Government can have regard to the issues that are raised and then ignore them. The only meaningful input that the Parliament can have is by voting on the plans, and I urge the committee to support amendment 3.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 40 would ensure wider consultation than just having a vote in the Parliament on the plans. I agree that the plans should be consulted on as widely as possible. I press amendment 3.

In order for the bill to achieve its desired outcome, it should specify some high-level outcomes or objectives that are to be achieved, instead of those being left entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine. The outcomes should be aligned with the UN sustainable development goals and the national performance framework, in a similar way to what is set out in the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019, the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

The bill must ensure fair work standards, which are often lacking in the food processing industry. We often hear that people who produce our food have to rely on food banks to get by.

Ideally, such targets and outcomes should be measurable, because that is intrinsically preferable and it would ensure effective reporting and scrutiny of the provisions. Although those objectives must be included, they would not prevent ministers or public bodies from adding any others that they wished to add.

I still have a huge number of concerns about rural healthcare. I am concerned that the nature of the proposed centre of excellence is still being defined and considered, and we are a long way from it becoming a reality. Meanwhile, in my region, fast-track midwifery training has been removed from the University of the Highlands and Islands even though we know that there is a huge lack of staff.

Maternity care is a big issue in the Highlands and Islands. The maternity unit in Caithness was downgraded to a midwife-led unit and the same thing has happened at Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin, although they are quite different places. Caithness patients go to Raigmore hospital in Inverness and there is agreement that, at some point in the future, Moray births will go to Inverness too, at least for a period. However, Raigmore hospital does not have enough staff for the births that it has, let alone taking on more. We need to have people in the communities.

The submission from the community in Caithness talks about the distances that people have to travel. I am taking part in a Caithness group that is looking at the cost of living, the impact of price rises and especially fuel costs. It was put to me that people are getting 15p per mile—with the first £10 top-sliced off—for travel to Raigmore. I wrote to NHS Highland on that topic and it has increased the rate by a couple of pence per mile in recognition of fuel costs, which are worse in rural areas. However, that presupposes that the person has a car and can afford to put fuel in it. It takes no account of rural deprivation.

One of the submissions to the committee makes the point that people think that living in rural areas is a lifestyle choice—someone moves to a rural area and it is lovely, and if they are going to do that, they have to accept that they are not going to have an accident and emergency department around every corner. Everyone knows that. However, we are talking about people who have been born and brought up in deprived communities in rural areas being expected to travel hundreds of miles to access healthcare. On top of that, with the Covid situation, there are restrictions on access to hospitals, even during childbirth.

In Inverness, in the height of summer, even budget hotels cost about £400 for a room. That means that people on limited incomes cannot be with their loved ones in hospital. It has huge implications for families and for people accessing healthcare for themselves, and there is a cost attached to that. We need to do better.

I urge the committee to keep the petition open and push for people in rural areas to get the health services that they need. How we supply them should be a case in point, rather than people just receiving the crumbs from the edge of the table. Access to health services should not depend on people’s wealth.

NATS currently operates the radar service for Sumburgh from Aberdeen. Is that right? No one is based in Sumburgh; there are no job implications for Shetland.

I have a comment about community involvement. I have spoken to Prospect members and the like. They seem to be happier with their current involvement, but we have heard from Peter Henderson that he is concerned about community involvement. He is representing the community—albeit that he is doing so as a previous employee of HIAL. We need to get everybody on side. The issue is so important that we must ensure that, whatever comes from the discussions, there is buy-in from everyone, and that they all have confidence in the system that will be put in place.

Thank you, convener. I have a question for clarification. Prospect has worked well on the matter and I am pleased that we are where we are and are making progress. We talked about replicating the Sumburgh service. Peter Henderson, the petitioner, had some concerns about what might happen in Sumburgh with radar being centralised to Inverness. Does that have staffing implications and do you see issues with it?

Thank you—that is helpful.

I have a couple of questions about procurement. It seems that the whole procurement process was wrong. We have recently heard in the news that the Scottish Government is procuring ferries from Turkey, as is Norway. However, Norway is paying only half the price for comparable ferries. Is there something very wrong with the Scottish Government’s procurement process that leads to it paying huge amounts of money for ferries and, in a way, perhaps not procuring them? Obviously, the ferries that we are talking about now have not been delivered and we have yet to see whether the others will be delivered.

Will you look into that in the future, given that it is about public spending and the cost to the public purse?