Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick question about cross-border pathways. Sometimes, folk in Kelso can get in-patient recovery spaces in, say, Carlisle. Does the bill cover how we manage cross-border costs?

Good morning. I will pick up on what Eleanor Whitham said about challenges in remote and rural contexts and stigma. In remote and rural areas, it might be challenging for a single mum with two kids who is experiencing harm from alcohol to voluntarily take treatment because of the worry about having her weans removed from her. Does consideration need to be given in the bill to stigma, access and remote and rural contexts?

I want to pick up on what has been said about the trauma-informed approach. Last week, I visited Stepping Stones community larder in Castle Douglas, which is a membership group where people can pick a grocery basket. The volunteers who work there recognise the need sometimes for distress brief interventions, which can be delivered by anyone. When you were Minister for Mental Health, convener, you took DBI forward as a pilot scheme. It is a multidisciplinary and third sector approach that is about wider engagement. Sometimes, a door is opened for the first time at a community larder organisation. Does the bill need to be amended to widen it out beyond healthcare professionals to people out there in the community?

Liam Wells said that some people might be drinking harmfully but not consider themselves dependent. In the earlier evidence session, I talked about the single mum who is looking after two weans. If she ends up with a diagnosis, that puts her family at risk of being removed from her. There are sensitivities around diagnosis versus access to whatever care or treatment would be warranted for that person.

According to the Scottish Government website, the number of carbon audits has dramatically increased. Is it a slow burn to get that data? That relates to my question to Dr Robinson about reluctance. There are early adopters, and there are folk who will need to be supported.

Following your point about profitability and rewarding farmers for sequestering carbon dioxide, Dr Eory, I am thinking about biodiversity issues as well.

For instance, in a recent round-table meeting on forestry, I talked about supporting ground-nesting birds and managing land for the sake of biodiversity. In the Clyde valley, 23 farmers are now involved with the Clyde valley waders project. They are working with SAC Consulting and there is a lot of peer-to-peer learning on things such as cover cropping for curlew and planting oats for black grouse. Even though the oats do not contribute to the farm’s profitability, they are part of the support for improving biodiversity. It is all about the complexity of putting the right tree in the right place, because trees can sometimes harbour predators that predate on ground-nesting birds. How do we reward farmers for actions such as implementing changes in their farm practice to support biodiversity?

The Scottish Government’s rural payments and inspections division’s tent was next to the Conservatives’ tent at the Dumfries agricultural show last summer—I stopped and spoke to the team—so there was visibility of the Government there.

I have a question for Dr Eory. Correct me if I am wrong, but you said that people should drink less milk. However, when we look at milk processing and the supply chain, more cheese, high-value products and protein yoghurts are being made. In my work on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I am keen to make sure that folk have nutritional foods as well.

David McKay mentioned Food Standards Scotland’s “Eatwell Guide”. My understanding is that milk, which has calcium, B12 and other such things, is more nutritious than soda pop, which is carbonated water that rots your teeth. Are you suggesting that folk should drink less milk?

I will not take up a lot of time, convener.

Minister, you mentioned having stakeholders on one side and your policy people on the other side. We talk about the transition for farmers, but we talk about a just transition in other areas as well. That involves thinking about co-development, co-design and diversity of food production and food security. It is different for sheep, beef, dairy and arable, so I assume that that means that there has to be a lot of diverse engagement. We know that, as Jonnie Hall said, one size doesnae fit all, so there has to be wider engagement.

I am looking at the number of farmers. There are 66,800, so I assume that 66,800 letters went out. How do we know that they are reading the letters? I know that you are engaging—that is my understanding—but how do we close the communication loop?

I will pick up on what Ariane Burgess said about data. Last week, representatives from the farming sector told us that there was a lack of baseline data for the agricultural sector that makes it challenging to measure progress.

I know that that is a challenge—most emissions are from nitrous oxide in the soils and methane from livestock and manure, for instance—but we know that there are differences between emissions from beef-fed cattle that are out on the hill and from dairy cattle in sheds. We cannae just put all beasts in one shed, so to speak.

What are your thoughts on the wider aspects of capturing data and even working with other countries such as Denmark to build on what they are doing?