Chamber and committees

I speak today not just as a member of the Scottish Parliament and an unapologetic European but as someone who knows deeply and personally the cost of disconnection—disconnection from community and kin, from opportunity, from progress and from partnership. That is the true cost that Scotland is paying as a result of Brexit—a Brexit that we did not collectively vote for, that was imposed on us and that continues to inflict damage on our communities and economy.

At one point, not that long ago, the Parliament agreed—let me be clear: it was a deeply held belief for most members across the chamber—that the best relationship that Scotland and, indeed, the entire UK could have with the European Union was to be a full member. To my deep shame, and it should be to all our deep shame, we now find ourselves in an island of strangers and a Farage-esque, inward-looking, little Britain nightmare.

I find it deeply frustrating and very distasteful that, as economic migrants to Canada, when I was six, my family were known as expats, as if we were something exceptional, which I think had a lot to do with the colour of our skin.

I do not for one moment believe that the people of Scotland truly want us to accept that there is no way back for us to become part of the EU—not just to rebuild what we had but to rediscover who we are. They do not recognise the politics of Westminster any more. The EU was never just about trade or tariffs. It was about solidarity and shared values. It was about standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours to face the challenges of our age: climate change, social inequality, global health crises and conflict. At a time when we see war once again raging in Europe, we should be doing everything in our power to reignite that solidarity. We will not do that by tinkering about the edges, and I do not believe that it should be contingent on access to our fishing waters.

Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands that we were promised—far from it. It has delivered uncertainty for our businesses, anxiety for our young people and barriers for our farmers, our fishers and the food and drink sector, which is one of Scotland’s greatest economic assets.

Our creative industries, health system and universities have all been harmed by the red lines of past and present UK Governments—red lines that have become shackles. The refusal to even entertain access to the single market, the rejection of the customs union and the ideological opposition to freedom of movement were not inevitable choices; they were political choices that were made without the meaningful involvement of Scotland’s people or our Parliament. That continues to happen, and my colleague Emma Roddick highlighted how our Labour colleagues are just not able to challenge that.

When UK ministers speak of social care workers as being “unskilled”, it makes my hackles rise. Being a patient, caring, kind, compassionate and dedicated care worker takes great skill, and we should all do well to remember that.

It is time—indeed, it is past time—for the UK Government to drop its red lines. If it will not revisit its decision for the sake of principle, I ask it to do so for the sake of people: for the small business in Ayrshire that used to export cheese to France with ease but now faces paperwork delays and lost markets; for the nurse from Spain who used to work in our national health service but no longer feels welcome; and for the young person in Cumnock or Catrine who dreamed of studying or working in Europe but now faces borders, both literal and bureaucratic.

At the upcoming UK-EU summit, the UK Government has a rare opportunity—a chance to turn the page and to begin to rebuild trust and co-operation. I welcome all of that. However, that process must start with ambition.

Today, we must call on the UK Government to pursue a bold veterinary and food and drink agreement that can remove burdens from our farmers and producers, restore some measures of frictionless trade and bring immediate benefits to both sides of the channel. We must collectively call for closer energy and climate co-operation. We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency. Scotland is rich in renewable energy potential, and the climate crisis knows no borders. By aligning with EU standards and collaborating on innovation, research and resilience, we can deliver a greener and fairer future for us all.

We must call for greater freedom of movement, because people are not commodities. Our ability to live, work, study and love across Europe enriched our society and expanded our horizons. For our young people in particular, the loss of the Erasmus programme and the barriers to cultural and educational exchange are a wound that must be healed. We owe them better—we owe them the world.

I will be absolutely clear: it is not only the content of the UK Government’s approach that is unacceptable but the manner of that approach. The fact that the UK Government has not shared any draft summit text with the Scottish Government or any of the other devolved Administrations is an insult to the principles of devolution and democracy. It treats the Parliament and, by extension, the people whom we represent as afterthoughts.

We have unique issues surrounding depopulation and skills in Scotland. We should have the same powers over migration visas that a Canadian province has. I hear constantly that this is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but the Quebec province that I used to live in has more powers than this place does.

We in Scotland are not afterthoughts. Scotland has a voice, and today we must use ours here to amplify it.

The first part of my question is about your views on the Scottish Government’s decision not to include a non-regression clause in part 2, but we have already heard your views on that quite clearly. Are there alternative approaches to framing the powers that you would like to see in the bill? For example, would you like things such as protection for certain aspects of the core aims of the regimes or a requirement for additional consultation, scientific input or, indeed, parliamentary scrutiny of changes that could arise? In the absence of a non-regression clause, would there be other ways to consider the powers in the round and to start to curtail where the powers could go? Alternatively, you could just come back and tell me your views on the absence of a non-regression clause.

The second point that I was going to come back to is about expertise. The issue is not just about capacity in terms of resourcing but about the individuals who undertake work in closer-to-shore activity in the marine space, especially those who work for local authorities. We are thinking about high-energy waters and trying to understand how a site could work in that space. Is there the expertise for that?

My original question was around the resourcing of local authorities to undertake that work. It was interesting to listen to Professor Tett outlining the issue around the wider strategic planning and how that could work in practice in regional partnerships.

I do not want to stray into other members’ lines of questioning, but I am interested to understand what Elspeth Macdonald thinks about that. Obviously, spatial conflict would arise, but it is about the complexity of how a local authority would undertake the assessment of what could operate beyond the 3-nautical-mile mark. How would that impact on your organisation and members?

As a former chair of a council planning committee, I understand how the system works, although I did not have marine in my planning authority. I can think about it in terms of being on a planning committee during the proliferation of wind energy and understanding that from its beginnings and as it expanded rapidly, with the planning committee members and officials having to increase their knowledge base rapidly. It is important to look at it in that respect, because the local authorities are not coming from a standing start. They have knowledge, but how do we ensure that, if this goes forward, they have knowledge beyond their current capacity as well as expertise that they can draw on to make the best decision in a very busy space? I guess that was what I was trying to get at.

Support for emerging Scottish talent is key to a thriving music industry. Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government is supporting grass-roots music venues to ensure that up-and-coming artists have a platform to perform on? I fondly remember, way back in the 1990s, watching Biffy Clyro play in the teeny, tiny, tottie-wee Kay Park tavern in Kilmarnock. Such platforms are essential to a thriving sector.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what further action it can take in the current parliamentary session to tackle abuse against women and girls. (S6O-04652)

The First Minister has advised that, with his regret, the legislation to protect women and girls from misogynistic abuse will not be taken forward in this session. The cabinet secretary will know that that advice has been devastating to me as a former women’s aid worker for women’s organisations across Scotland and to my constituents in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

Does the cabinet secretary appreciate the depth of disappointment in that regard, and what reassurances can be provided to women and girls at this time, given that we are seeing an exponential rise in misogynistic harms?

I have a wee supplementary question. Let us look at the totality of somebody’s journey in, through and out of services. If we get this right as far upstream as we possibly can, we can prevent a lot of the harm that we see happening to individuals, such as losing custody of their children, interacting with the criminal justice system, facing homelessness and being unable to secure employment. Could the right to treatment realise that for an individual at an earlier stage?

I want to explore how the bill could enhance, or come into conflict with, the charter of rights that has been worked on for quite some time. That charter was to have been underpinned by a Scottish human rights bill that has now been delayed, and I am hugely concerned that we will now enter a vacuum in which people are unable to make an effective challenge to realise their rights. Could the bill, as drafted, complement that, or might the two conflict with each other?