Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2024
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.