Hansard

I fear that Claire Baker is right that both this debate and the debates on food that are going on in different forms throughout the country have come out of yet another food scandal.

I used to be involved in agriculture daily. It was a source of some regret to me that the only time that politicians got really interested in food debates or fishing was when there was some big scandal going on. Therefore, I hope that this debate will be not only about the constructive points that members of all parties want to put to the minister about his food policies, public procurement and other aspects of the industry—which is really important for Scotland—but about taking a much more mature and reflective look at the wider picture that Claire Baker painted.

It is important that the debate not only concerns the export trade, important as that is—I pay tribute to the Scottish Government for the way that it has stepped up on that point—but encapsulates food in its widest possible sense, from the school plate right through to a whisky bottle that is sold in Japan.

There can be no greater illustration of that wider debate than the Sunday Mail report this weekend on the substituting of lamb with beef that it is claimed is widespread in Indian restaurants. I suspect that, if anything would bring home to most Scots the issue with the food that we eat, it would be the thought that the lamb on the menu of their local restaurant or takeaway of an Indian persuasion is, apparently, not all that it might be. That is the kind of issue that is strongly in their minds.

In that report, Professor Hugh Pennington, whom many members have come across in the past, went on to describe what needs to be done and to point out the gaps that currently exist. That only illustrates the point that the sector does not stand still and that the regulatory environment and the measures that are in place to protect the consumer and enhance the consumer’s experience need constantly to be refined and reconsidered.

Before I discuss local food procurement, I will raise one particular measure, which concerns fish. Fish is a healthy part of a balanced diet. Mackerel and herring are notably rich in omega-3 oils, which are extremely good for human health. That also applies to salmon. Therefore, food policy for Scotland should include a heavy focus on fish.

Right now, white-fish prices, for species such as haddock and cod, are at very low market levels. There are increasing white-fish imports from northern Europe—and indeed from across the world, to take Patrick Harvie’s point about food miles. Sixty per cent of all fish that is eaten in Scotland is bought in fish and chip shops, and yet those shops are buying from the Faroes, Iceland and Norway. Less than 10 per cent of fish caught from Scottish waters is used in Scottish fish and chip shops.

We need a net-to-plate strategy that stimulates Scottish and indeed UK demand for home-caught product. The Scottish Government should promote the provenance and quality of Scotland-caught seafood in the way that it is rightly doing with beef and other products.

Why is Seafish—a quango that is responsible for promoting fish as a healthy part of the diet—spending advertising money on promoting fish from Iceland and the Barents Sea? There is a leaflet, which some members might have seen, in fish and chip shops the length and breadth of the country in which Seafish highlights fish from Iceland and the Barents Sea. It must be pretty tough on the Scottish industry, which watches Iceland break international laws and catch mackerel illegally, to find that an industry promotion body that is based in Edinburgh is helping to sell Icelandic fish into our markets.

I ask the cabinet secretary to look into that. With the other devolved Administrations, he appoints the chairman of Seafish and approves the board. The position cannot be filled unless he agrees with the appointment, so the Scottish minister has great power to wield on behalf of the industry in the promotion of food policy. However, does that not serve to illustrate that too many people across all the numerous Government agencies and quangos are not pulling for the industry? Will he undertake to fix the issue and therefore help the Scottish white-fish industry?

The new Scottish food policy and procurement approach for schools and hospitals should include fish to a far greater level than before. That would mean more locally caught fish on more dinner tables and in work canteens, schools and hospitals; fairer prices for our boats; traceability for food contracts, including North Sea Marine Stewardship Council caught haddock, from net to dinner plate; and economic benefits from that approach to Scotland and indeed the UK.

I have raised in successive weeks at various question times the sourcing and procurement of frozen food by 28 of the 32 local authorities from Brakes, the company that Claire Baker mentioned earlier. Mince for school dinners comes from that company, but—I asked Michael Matheson specifically about this a fortnight ago—no minister has been able to tell me from which farm that mince is sourced.

Michael Matheson said that the Scotland Excel contract includes traceability as a criterion, so I am at a loss to understand why mums and dads, teachers and pupils as yet do not know where the mince comes from. They know that it comes from Brakes, but they do not know which farm it comes from. As the company is a Kent-based conglomerate, it is fair to assume that it sources from widely across this country and no doubt Ireland as well.

If the minister can tell the Parliament more about that when he winds up, that would be genuinely helpful. Scottish farmers must comply with the most exacting traceability standards in the world, and promotion bodies such as Scotland Food & Drink and Quality Meat Scotland use that positively, and rightly so. Surely farmers have every right to expect that, in return, their children in local schools will know where the mince in their school dinners comes from. They do not know that at present. When will that change?

I finish with a point about the statement that the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities issued after the summit last week. It is a little disappointing that Mike Russell, the education secretary, is not here, as I am told that he was part of that. The statement does not mention sourcing or local produce. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the minister will take some time to go into what was achieved at the joint meeting, particularly on sourcing and local produce. It was right to have the meeting, and I agree with him about the need for it. However, what changes can be expected in schools, hospitals and the public sector, and will that work drive local food and local procurement?

I move amendment S4M-05892.1, to insert at end:

“, and further believes that reform in public sector food procurement is needed to place a greater importance on procuring quality produce from local suppliers.”

14:49