Chamber and committees

I am gonnae move on to the next question, but I am gonnae be fair and come to Dr Walton first—Paul, if you want to add anything on the first question, please feel free to do so.

The plan highlights the progress that has been made with woodland and peatland restoration programmes, but we know that there are still challenges in meeting targets and spending the committed budgets. What needs to happen in the coming five years to accelerate progress so that we can get things going?

Grand. Good morning, panel, and thank you for coming.

The objective of the draft strategy is to accelerate restoration and regeneration of the ecosystem. Does the draft plan set out a clear prioritised pathway for that through the key actions? What do you think needs to happen on the ground to support its delivery?

I will go first to Bruce Wilson, as he has caught my eye.

I am gonnae stop you there, because I asked whether the system needs more power to its elbow, and we have heard from you previously. I am sorry if I sound rude, but I am trying to get everybody in.

Do you mean that what they do is dependent on where they live?

Everybody is agreeing with that comment. Would anybody like to add anything? I think that Paul Walton has just answered my third question, too.

I am, because I know that you will ask a few supplementary questions.

I thank the convener, the committee members and the clerks for their work on the report that is before us today.

I would rather not be taking part in this debate; I would much rather that Scotland had not been ripped out of the EU against its will and that there would be no need for it. However, we are where we are.

Today, we are worse off, more isolated and subjected more and more to the whims of an increasingly desperate UK Government. A majority of Scots voted against that outcome, but it has been mandated by a UK-wide electorate and delivered by a UK Government.

Before I go into the detail of the debate, it is important that we reflect on one of the reasons why Brexit happened and why folk voted for it. A lot of folk simply could not see a link between how the EU worked and how it impacted on their day-to-day lives. As we try to untangle the mess that is Brexit and how that impacts on some of the more complex aspects of how devolution and this Parliament works, I hope that we can take a few moments to explain how that will impact on the lives of the folk whom we all represent.

Let us face it: as important as conventions and legislative consent mechanisms are to how we work, those terms might not mean much to a lot of the folk in our constituencies and regions. However, in practice, the challenges that the committee’s report highlights mean that this Parliament and the Scottish Government are now more limited in how they can deliver for the folk of Scotland.

Let us take the example of food standards. The Aberdeen-based Food Standards Scotland, which works to protect all our constituents, used to have a clearly defined remit in relation to what is devolved. Today, however, this Parliament might not be able to insist on food standards for all products in future. That in turn means that Food Standards Scotland might be restricted in how it can safeguard the public.

The issue of different standards extends to more than just food. In my Aberdeen Donside constituency, I have spoken to numerous businesses that are worried about their ability to continue to do business with the EU, with the divergence of regulations being a key concern of many. Those businesses, including many in the wider energy industry, which should be helping to establish Aberdeen as a net zero capital, need to be able to do business in Scotland and across Europe, but they fear that, having been cut adrift from Europe, we will be anchored down by Westminster’s internal market act.

The scale of the issue means that jobs and livelihoods in my constituency are put at risk not just in the immediate future but in the longer term. I have a real fear that that could undermine Aberdeen’s ability to realise a just transition, which could damage our local economy for generations to come. If we truly want Aberdeen to establish itself as the global net zero capital, we need to provide the clarity and consistency that the report highlights have been sorely lacking since we left the EU.

For a lot of folk, the 2016 referendum was not just about how the EU mattered to their lives; it was about how much power they felt that they had over their destinies. In that referendum, folk across Scotland were bombarded with leaflets and billboards that promised to “take back control”. Now, after three years of broken Brexit Britain, I wonder whether they feel that they have more control than they did before the referendum. Do they feel that Brexit has worked for them or made any positive difference to their lives?

The report highlights that, through this Parliament, through us as elected members and through their ability to engage on devolved issues, folk in Scotland have less control now than they did in 2016. From everything that I have seen, I believe that Brexit has made us poorer, financially and socially. It has made it harder to attract the best and the brightest from across the globe to Aberdeen—to our universities, our national health service and our energy industry—and it has made my constituents’ lives worse.

For as long as the UK still exists, the UK Government—whatever the Government of the day might be—needs to work with this Parliament to ensure that devolution works for Scotland and that we can do the best for the people we represent, so that, as we move forward, those folk feel that they have a meaningful say in shaping and determining their own destinies.

To ask the Scottish Government what impact the recently announced trilateral agreement on total allowable catch limits and management measures for jointly managed fish stocks in the North Sea will have on fishers in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. (S6O-02895)

I understand that there has been an agreement to set quotas for North Sea cod at levels that reflect the latest science. What scientific data and analysis are used in such determinations? What was Scotland’s overall approach to the negotiations?

The MAT standards emphasise a multipronged approach to treatment and recommend residential rehabilitation as a potential course for support. Will the minister provide an update on the progress that is being made on expanding and improving access to publicly funded residential rehabilitation?