Chamber and committees

Does Maurice Golden agree that the EU’s targets are minimum targets and that there is nothing to prevent other European countries from going above and beyond those targets?

I, too, put on the record my thanks to those who gave evidence to the CEEAC Committee inquiry, the clerks and my fellow committee members. I also wish Clare Adamson a speedy recovery.

I agree that there is a great deal of complexity in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Professor Jo Hunt, in her evidence, said that the act views devolution as

“an obstacle and a potential irritant”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 2 December 2021; c 19.]

to the economic integration of the UK. However, we live in a devolved UK. For Scotland, economic integration that is driven by the needs of London and the south-east of England is not what we need.

As Jonny Hall from NFU Scotland said,

“It is vital that the Scottish Government is able to continue to support Scottish farmers and crofters in a way that is most appropriate for Scottish circumstances to deliver the outcomes that we want around food production, climate, biodiversity and so on.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 15.]

I recognise that assessment from meeting my crofting and farming constituents in Argyll and Bute.

As the cabinet secretary said, Scotland was pulled out of the EU and the EU single market—the world’s largest and most successful example of economic integration—to join UKIMA, the arrangements for which Professor Weatherill described as “idiosyncratic” in his evidence.

There are three main ways in which UKIMA differs from the EU internal market. First, as we heard in evidence, the EU rules are more generous, allowing relaxation of laws for non-economic public policy reasons. In our first evidence session, concerns were raised that that might impact more widely than on trade in products, with policies on animal welfare, wildlife protection and the environment all possibly being chilled as a result of UKIMA. The cabinet secretary said of Westminster:

“What is not right is for them to tell us that we cannot legislate in areas in which we have competence, and to use the internal market act to prevent us from doing so.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 January 2022; c 8-9.]

Secondly, the EU internal market is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and not just by mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Professor McEwen and colleagues say that UKIMA

“arguably creates a powerful disincentive to engage in legal reform or policy innovation, in response to changing social and economic”

preferences.

Thirdly, the EU single market is underpinned by a level playing field where member states implement co-determined regulations or environmental standards. That is not the case with UKIMA, where an asymmetry is built into the legislation, making the act protected within the devolution statutes. Professor McEwen said:

“There is nothing that you and your colleagues”—

that is us—

“can do about that in your law-making capacities to make any amendments. The Westminster Parliament is not constrained in the same way. If, in principle or in theory, it was found that that was a frustration for the UK Government’s ability to pursue and fulfil its policy objectives, it could change that in a way that you cannot.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 2 December 2021; c 31.]

UKIMA does not work to Scotland’s advantage; it does not help to enrich the lives of our citizens. It means that the economic policies that Scotland needs to defeat poverty, advance equality and promote wellbeing for all are seen by Westminster as

“an obstacle and a potential irritant”.

There is good news for the UK Government: there is a way to remove Westminster’s obstacles and irritants, and that is Scottish independence. Then and only then will Scotland get the economic and social policy that it needs and wants. Only when our economic needs are not viewed through the distorted lens of Westminster, and only when Scotland is free to make its own decisions and run its own economy, can the human and material richness of our nation be harnessed for the good of all.

As someone who lives on Islay, I have experienced the vagaries of the ferry service. However, the quality of island life is overwhelmingly positive. Yet again, Labour has cast life on the islands in a negative light, while the Scottish Government is actively taking steps to tackle depopulation throughout the islands. Does the minister therefore share my view that that latest example of Labour rhetoric, which may potentially discourage people who are considering moving to the islands, is both entirely partisan and extremely unhelpful in the image that it portrays?

I attended the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee as a substitute member for its meeting on 11 January 2022—unlike Graham Simpson, I was not steeped in the history of the committee. It was the final evidence session of the committee’s inquiry into the use of the made affirmative procedure during the coronavirus pandemic. Evidence was being taken from the Deputy First Minister, as he has stated, so I felt no pressure at all that day.

Reading the evidence that had already been provided by the two earlier sessions, I found that there was much agreement among witnesses on the key areas of questioning, which were clarity and accessibility of law, how to define urgency, and scrutiny of the Executive by the Parliament. I will look briefly at each of those areas separately, which I can do from two points of view: first, as a parliamentarian and, secondly, from my previous life as a community activist, in which my fellow activists and I were looking for up-to-date and clear guidance that was set out in a way that was easy to understand, because we passed it on to the people whom we were supporting during the Covid pandemic.

The law should be clear and accessible to all, especially when laws continually change or come into force with immediate effect, as has sometimes been the case during the pandemic.

Sir Jonathan Jones QC said:

“Ironically, it is probably true to say that it is easier to legislate for a lockdown with very tight controls and only minimal exceptions, by drafting very tight and clear laws, than it is to legislate—as we saw later in the pandemic—for partial closures and multiple exceptions.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 December 2021; c 7.]

I recognise that analysis from my experience during lockdown and our emergence from it. Throughout the pandemic, individuals, businesses and communities were looking for clear and timely guidance as to what they should or should not be doing. Emerging from lockdown was difficult. The resilience group that I was part of discussed long and hard how we could achieve that safely on Islay, and the Scottish Government’s route map provided the blueprint for our work.

To ensure that laws are clearly understandable for everyone who is affected, the DPLR Committee has concluded that policy notes and explanatory notes must be written in plain English and in sufficient detail.

Defining “urgency” was seen as key in determining the use of the made affirmative procedure. In her evidence, Morag Ross QC suggested:

“It would be tempting to think that we could narrow that down to say that ‘urgency’ definitely means X or Y and that it does not mean Z, A, B or C.”

She went on to say:

“Also, things change, so there must be flexibility to allow decisions to be made that respond to changing circumstances. ‘Urgency’ might mean one thing in week 1 and something else in week 2, so you have to allow for responses to be developed”.—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 7 December 2021; c 3.]

The example that the Deputy First Minister has just given in his speech mentioned 48 hours. In his evidence to the committee, he concluded by saying:

“In my book, that is why urgent action is required—because the situation has changed before our eyes in a very dramatic order and fashion.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 11 January 2022; c 23.]

In its conclusions, as other members have said, the committee asked for transparency in the criteria for determining whether a “situation is suitably urgent” to merit the use of the made affirmative procedure; requested publication of a written statement of “justification and evidence” prior to an instrument coming into force; and asked the Government to ensure that any such regulations are published “as quickly as possible”.

All witnesses raised concerns about the increased use of the made affirmative procedure during the coronavirus pandemic, and how that has impacted on the Parliament’s scrutinising or holding the Executive to account. Professor Tierney said:

“from my work in scrutinising legislation over many years, I have come to realise that all Governments like powers: they like to get more of them”.—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 December 2021; c 3.]

In answering my question on what the Scottish Government has learned from the pandemic and how that could shape future decision making and the use of made affirmative procedures to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Deputy First Minister said:

“In the circumstances of a global pandemic that requires swift action, the measures that have been taken are appropriate. However, we should always be open to learning lessons from the situation and the Government will consider with care any output from the committee’s inquiry.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 11 January 2022; c 22.]

The DPLRC report and its conclusions provide a number of suggestions about how decisions around the made affirmative procedure could be enhanced. I hope that the Scottish Government considers the committee’s findings with care.

As a former employee of BBC Scotland I welcome the motion and congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton on securing the debate.

The proposal to freeze the licence fee for the next two years, followed by inflationary rises until 2028 and then, possibly, abolition, has been described as cultural vandalism by some commentators.

I grew up watching “Swap Shop” and “Grange Hill” and listening to Radio 1 and “Sportsound”. Then, in the early 1990s, I joined BBC Scotland. My role was behind the camera or microphone. I worked with talented programme makers across the television and radio spectrum and across every programme genre on output that fell very much under the public sector remit: Gaelic broadcasting, Radio Scotland, education and the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra. I support the principle of public service broadcasting. It should be defended, but that does not mean that it should not be improved.

In its charter, the BBC has a public purpose to invest in the creative economies of the UK’s nations and regions. However, there is no requirement that the BBC invests to the same extent in each of the UK nations or regions. Analysis of the past five years of the BBC’s annual reports—members can tell that I was an accountant—shows how much of the licence fee is raised and spent in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. Between 90 per cent and more than 100 per cent of what is raised in Wales is spent in Wales. In Northern Ireland, the figure is between 84 and 97 per cent. However, in Scotland, it is 67 to 75 per cent.

Scotland is consistently being short-changed. That is important, because an independent report from KPMG calculated that every £1 that is spent by the BBC generates £2.63 in the wider creative economy. In 2020-21, £101 million of the licence fee raised in Scotland was spent by the BBC elsewhere in the UK. That is a £265 million loss to Scotland’s creative economy.

I ask members to imagine all the stories that could have been told from the Scottish perspective, to think about all the young people of Scotland who could have been on traineeships to work in the industry, and to picture how the lives and talent of those of us who live here could better have been reflected on screen and on the airwaves. BBC Scotland news has only one journalist based in my constituency, covering 22 inhabited islands, miles of coastline and five county towns, in English and Gaelic. Yes, that is value for money but, with lots of renewable energy, fantastic food and drink and amazing communities, Argyll and Bute has many stories that it could tell.

I want to see and hear Scotland better represented on television and radio at local and network levels, but we face the danger of things getting worse. Tory attacks on the BBC are nothing new. Before Nadine Dorries’s announcement, the previous three culture secretaries had raised the question whether public sector broadcasting and the licence fee were fit for purpose. The Tories have form in opposing the BBC and the very spirit of public service broadcasting.

Scottish ministers are supposed to have a role in any review of the BBC’s charter. The provocative statements from the UK culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, on the future of the BBC had no input from devolved nations. That demonstrates a complete lack of interest in devolved views on public service broadcasting. Although the debate is about the BBC, I say to the UK Government that it should keep its hands off Channel 4, too.

There is, of course, a solution to any Westminster attempt to diminish public service broadcasting for Scotland: let us cherish the ethos of it and enshrine it in an independent Scottish broadcasting service for an independent Scotland.

I, too, congratulate Ariane Burgess on securing a debate on the importance of Scotland’s coastal environment. The diversity of the contributions today emphasises that importance.

The local authority area of Argyll and Bute has a coastline longer than that of France, and almost 80 per cent of its population live within 1km of the coast. The natural asset that is the sea is integral to how communities the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute live, work and play.

In his 1703 journal, “A description of the western islands of Scotland”, Martin Martin told of the Leòdhasach water spirit Seonaidh. Each year, one of the community would wade into the sea carrying a cup full of ale and would cry:

“Seonaidh, I give thee this cup of ale, hoping that thou wilt be so good as to send us plenty of seaware for enriching our ground during the coming year”.

“Seaware” was seaweed, an organic and sustainable fertiliser.

Now, 320 years later, we face the challenge of sustainably supporting our coastal communities and ensuring that we are

“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”,

as the United Nations definition of sustainability states.

As I researched for this speech and spoke to people in Argyll and Bute, one consistent piece of advice kept coming up—“Look to Norway.” Our two countries have many similarities, but the one that struck me as relevant to this debate is that both Scotland and Norway have extensive ocean areas—in both cases, six times greater than our land mass.

The Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment says:

“The seabed and water are biological treasure troves that we will both protect and harvest in a sustainable manner”.

Norway effectively manages its marine areas while also ensuring that the environment is looked after. That is based on knowledge. Researchers across different disciplines are involved in preparing a scientific basis for the management plans. We are doing that in Scotland, but we should be mainstreaming it.

Here are a couple of examples of how Argyll and Bute is contributing to that work. The Scottish Association for Marine Science has been working for healthy oceans since 1884. It studies the processes that drive the marine system, to understand how our coastal environment responds to ever-increasing man-made pressures. When I visited SAMS in November last year, it was about to launch a robotic device to measure the ocean’s temperature from Scotland to Iceland. Knowledge like that can help to develop a sustainable blue economy for the benefit of people without degrading the sea’s health and productivity.

SAMS also works with community groups such as South West Mull and Iona Development and, together, they have created a 6-hectare sugar kelp farm at Aird Fada. Seaweed farming is a growing global industry and seaweed is in high demand for a multitude of uses from culinary to agricultural and bio-plastics to cosmetics.

As mentioned in the motion, Seawilding on Loch Craignish is working with all stakeholders to improve the health of the loch, to increase biodiversity and generate green jobs, and to aid community welfare and wellbeing. People who have lived and worked by the sea for generations need to be listened to. Communities must be at the heart of nature restoration and the stewardship of their environment.

At this point, I want to mention the Clyde cod box. On the one hand, I represent the fishers whose livelihoods were being negatively impacted; on the other hand, I recognise that we have a duty to ensure that our seas are sustainable. It is a complex issue that needs balance and needs fishers, environmentalists and scientists to work together.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has listened and acted on the concerns that were raised, and that a revised Scottish statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament. I, of course, made representations on behalf of my constituents and their interests. A proportionate way forward has been found. I recognise that not everyone is 100 per cent happy with the decision, but I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to continue to work closely with local stakeholders to ensure that the policy meets its intent.

We should be looking to the strengths of coastal communities to help to solve the problems, rather than trying to solve them centrally. As Seawilding says, the sea belongs to all of us.

As the First Minister has just said, the Scottish Government has committed £580 million to fund new ferries and port investments over the next five years. The soon-to-be-deployed MV Loch Frisa is the most recent example of the Scottish Government’s strong commitment to our islands Given the fragile nature of many island communities and their dependence on ferries, does the First Minister share my view that Labour’s scaremongering on the future of ferry services is extremely unhelpful at a time when the Scottish Government is taking positive steps to combat the trend of depopulation in many Scottish islands?

The chief executive of Seafood Scotland recently said that the United Kingdom Government’s post-Brexit immigration policy is preventing new people from coming into Scotland’s seafood workforce and that, as a result of that, an average of 20 to 25 per cent of vacancies throughout the industry are left unfilled, particularly on fishing vessels and in processing facilities. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that a Scottish visa is greatly needed to support the fishing and seafood sectors?

I thank the minister for that answer and look forward to meeting her soon.

Making sure that people are proactively engaging in the process is crucial to shaping how island communities are able to travel to the mainland and other islands—that has been raised with me this week by Jura community council and the Isle of Jura Development Trust. How is the Scottish Government encouraging community organisations to fully involve themselves in consultation processes?

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports island communities with their connectivity to the mainland or other islands. (S6O-00705)