Chamber and committees

If we cannot pinpoint an average cost for that, is there a comparison that we can make with our neighbours in the rest of the United Kingdom? How do our fees compare with those in the rest of the UK?

I will briefly follow up Professor Kaiser’s point about the engaged and knowledgeable fisheries sector that exists in the States. I want to come back to Elaine Whyte and ask her to touch on engagement among her association’s membership. We have been driving a huge amount of data gathering for a long time, and we are actively considering how we manage our stocks of cod in the Clyde. How do we use our existing structures, such as the groups that have been set up, to re-engage with those fishers, who could potentially be the ones who help us to collect temperatures and other data and to feed those into the science? It is easy for them to become disengaged and to become one of the individuals that Alastair Hamilton was talking about, who are no longer—or never have been—interested in the issue. How do we address that?

I have tried to reformulate my questions in my head, because a lot of them have been answered, as is always the case in round-table discussions. There is such rich, in-depth discussion going on round the table.

It is absolutely right that we are looking at the topic in the space of collaboration and co-management. Indeed, the draft “Joint Fisheries Statement” said:

“Our future vision is that industry should take a greater, shared responsibility for sustainably managing fisheries, while making a greater contribution towards the costs. This can include, for example, work to develop new management practices and contributing to fisheries science, being more actively engaged in fisheries management decisions, and co-designing future policy.”

We have just heard about joint endeavour. If we get to a space where we are doing things with people and not doing things to them, we will take all the communities with us. We have just discussed the FMAC, the regional groups and the regional marine planning partnerships. I had some questions about their effectiveness and whether the model is the right one and the one that we should be using. We have already strayed into some of that, but does anybody want to put a little more meat on the bones of that? I am not looking to hear what the future model should be; my question is whether we are, right now, realising the intention that was set out when the local partnerships were set up to feed into the wider system. What could change now, and rapidly, while we are looking forward?

I do not know who wants to answer that first. I would like to hear the views of Elaine Whyte from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, and also the views of Alastair Hamilton, because he sits on one of the groups and is in charge of leading that. I will then open it up more widely.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that some pupils have unique personal circumstances that mean that they require their phones. Can she say more about how the published guidance considers pupils—such as our young carers and those with neurodiversities, mental health struggles or mental conditions—who may need exemptions from school-wide mobile phone policies?

A recent study from researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science has indicated that, between 2010 and 2019, United Kingdom Government austerity spending cuts cost the average person in the UK nearly half a year in life expectancy. Given that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that both Labour and the Tories are planning further substantial austerity cuts, will the First Minister advise what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the impact of those Westminster cuts on public health in Scotland?

We have before us a bill at stage 1 that will go a long way to strengthening our democracy in the Scottish Parliament and across our council chambers. I thank everyone who has engaged with it this far.

The bill introduces provisions to expand candidacy rights, to protect candidates and campaigners from intimidation, and to improve administrative arrangements for elections in Scotland. It provides an opportunity to create an electoral system that improves democratic engagement, including for those who have chosen to make Scotland their home.

In the short time that I have to speak, I want to focus my remarks on where I believe we can focus attention to improve the bill to ensure that we deliver on our collective aim to positively enable greater diversity in political representation.

During my time as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities community wellbeing spokesperson, along with the then COSLA president Councillor Alison Evison, we convened a barriers to elected office working group, as we urgently wanted to understand why our council chambers were largely male and pale. At the time, there were fewer than 30 per cent women councillors and a very low number of people from minoritised communities or with disabilities in them. When we started to dig into intersectionality, it became very apparent that there was a mountain to climb before our council chambers and, indeed, the chamber that we are in today reflected the communities that we serve.

As a little side note, Councillor Kelly Parry and I did a wee act of breaking the glass ceiling. We became the first community wellbeing spokespersons to job share, as she went on maternity leave. Both of us were paid the full salary. That was a first. We need to recognise such achievements.

I thank Engender for the briefing that it provided to MSPs for this debate and for its efforts to dismantle structural sexism in order to increase women’s social, political and economic equality. Like me, Engender knows that, by having women—disabled women, black and minority ethnic women, women who are carers and women on low incomes—in our chambers shaping policy and legislation, we make lives better. That was one of the key drivers for me when I first sought nomination. As a former Women’s Aid worker, I saw local decision making result in the tendering of our specialist service. I wanted to be around the table to ensure that our voices were heard and acted on. I often think of the saying “If you’re not around the table, you’re on the menu”. What I did not expect was the level of intimidation and misogyny that I have encountered over the past nine years in office.

There are a few ways in which we can strengthen the bill to increase diversity and support that diversity when people are in office. First, how do we know what we do not know? Without a duty on the Scottish Government to survey candidate diversity and experience at all future local elections, we will not have robust equality monitoring data. Intersectional data on the protected characteristics of our elected representatives is vital in ensuring a high-quality democracy. I will always campaign for disaggregated gendered data. We simply do not have enough of that.

Secondly, candidate and elected member safety is key, because the toxic levels of abuse and harassment right now are having a chilling effect on women’s participation in politics and on their decisions whether to stand again for elected office. Just last month, I was granted a five-year non-harassment order. I know that I am but one of many politicians who have faced threats and intimidation. Like Engender, I press the Scottish Government to look closely at incorporating the recommendations from the Jo Cox civility commission and to exempt costs associated with candidate safety from election spending limits.

Thirdly, we need to provide financial support to ensure participation. Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I urge the minister to look at the successful access to elected office fund, which was administered by Inclusion Scotland and helped to alleviate financial barriers that disabled candidates faced.

Finally, how can the Parliament, our councils and, indeed, our political parties ensure that mentoring, support, coaching and training are available to ensure that those who are furthest from elected office are supported to get there and stay there?

The bill is our vehicle to increasing participation. I urge members to support it at stage 1.

You just answered my next two questions, which were about OURO. I wanted to understand how it works in practice—how it is financed by the industry and its being compulsory for farmers to be members of it.

This my final question. Is any of the ring-fenced sanctions money going where it is supposed to go, which is into conservation?

We can see from the report that, where there is introgression, it is concentrated around where aquaculture is happening as opposed to the migration of smolts into some of the rivers, which was one major concern. Some fears may therefore be allayed, but there absolutely still is evidence of genetic introgression.

I have found everything that you have said to be quite fascinating. It has answered some of the questions that we have been asking all along.

Following the questions about escapes, I have a couple of questions about sanctions. Notwithstanding the desire to have 100 per cent containment, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report said that there are

“strict penalties ... in place in Norway ... and recommends that appropriate sanctions should be developed and introduced in Scotland.”

Do you consider the current sanctions on escapes to be appropriate, or should we have stricter measures in place?

Is further research needed on introgression?