Chamber and committees

Edward Mountain makes an important point. It is incumbent on all of us to keep campaigning and encouraging as many member states as possible to sign up so that we can have that international working, which is what is needed, because the ocean is common to us all.

Members will be aware that I have repeatedly raised the issue of the impact of bottom trawling on marine environments and have done so both in the chamber and with the cabinet secretary. That practice is damaging and destructive to both the marine environment and marine life but continues because it is an efficient way to catch bottom-dwelling species such as cod, haddock and shrimp. In common with a number of other practices that I have raised here, bottom trawling continues, despite being wildly destructive to the environment, because it delivers vast profit for a few vested interests. By strictly regulating bottom trawling in areas beyond national jurisdictions—which are, as I said, areas that for the most part have no environmental protection—the bill will have a hugely positive impact on marine life and will strengthen fish stocks in Scottish waters.

The cross-party consensus in support of the legislation is heartening and welcome. However, I take on board the comments by the cabinet secretary and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee regarding the need for intergovernmental and interparliamentary work. I make clear my support for open and honest communication at all levels in the interests of democracy and accountability, but I urge all members to support the LCM tonight.

Marine environmental and biodiversity protection is a worldwide challenge in which boundaries and borders have no relevance, which is why it is so important that the UK plays its part in protecting biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and honours its international commitments.

The bill is a key part of those commitments, particularly in how it supports our duty of climate action. It is our obligation to other countries, to future generations and to those who are feeling the effects of climate change in the here and now to protect our oceans as a vital source of food, oxygen and carbon storage. That obligation prompted the UK to sign up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and it is that obligation that makes the Labour Government so committed to the agreement’s objectives.

As highlighted by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, just 1 per cent of waters beyond national jurisdictions are under environmental protection, which means that our marine environment is particularly vulnerable to degradation by pollution, unsustainable fishing practices and exploitation for profit. All countries have a right to fishing, shipping and research in marine areas beyond their national jurisdiction, which means that all countries have a responsibility to protect those areas. With the bill, the UK Labour Government is stepping up to our responsibility.

The bill will enable the UK to enforce compliance with area-based management tools in international waters. The most prominent of those tools is, of course, marine protected areas. The bill is ambitious in that it requires environmental impact assessments for activities that might impact marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

I begin by reiterating my support for the motion and my gratitude to the thousands of firefighters and support staff who keep my constituents, and all of us, safe.

Securing meaningful and sustained funding for the fire service is a crucial issue for the North East Scotland region that I represent, particularly in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry, which—as Maggie Chapman mentioned—are served by Balmossie fire and ambulance station. Like many communities across Scotland, Monifieth and Broughty Ferry have been impacted by an increasing centralisation of powers and services of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and by almost two decades of continued austerity and underfunding from the SNP Government.

In 2023, stretched budget funding resulted in one appliance at Kingsway east station in Dundee being removed. That was played down at the time as a short-term measure by both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but, three years later, we still have no resolution to the downgrading of the service at Kingsway east. Now, with the current proposals on the table, we face the same dangerous situation at Balmossie. That will result in slower response times and a greater risk to life and to the community. The community in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry feels—rightly—that the battle has already been fought and won once before, when previous attempts to close Balmossie were overturned as a result of sustained public pressure led by the Fire Brigades Union. Yet, once again, the service is under threat.

I therefore ask the minister today how she can defend these brutal cuts. Does she seriously believe that they will leave anyone in North East Scotland safer? My constituents need and deserve a fire and rescue service that can meet the challenge that we face from increased wild fires, flooding and extreme weather. Instead, under the SNP, we have had two decades of managed decline of our public services; reductions in the number of front-line firefighters; exposure to occupational hazards; and inadequate training equipment. Under the SNP, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has seen a real-terms resource budget cut of tens of millions of pounds. Those cuts mean that much of the estate and the equipment are now unfit for the service.

Further cuts will, therefore, surely risk lives, because neglect and lack of investment leave the SFRS unable to implement best practice in reducing cancer and other disease risks that disproportionately affect firefighters.

At every opportunity, the SNP Government has chosen quick cuts to balance a broken budget over the lives of workers. That has happened against our interest, against the public’s interest and against the will of us all, because the public do not support these cuts. The public do not support the changes that the SFRS has put forward; they do not want to see any reduction in services; and, most of all, they do not want their local fire stations, such as Balmossie, shut down.

My constituents want a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that is properly funded and well resourced to face the risks that climate and environment breakdown are causing. However, if the past two decades are any indication, it is clear that they will not get that from this minister or this SNP Government.

The First Minister has said that he cannot see how international law has been respected by the United States in its military intervention in Venezuela, and has said that the

“international community must now ensure that de-escalation, diplomacy and democracy”

follow. Although defence is a matter that is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, Wick John O’Groats airport is owned by the Scottish Government, so reports that it is being used to support US military operations in relation to Venezuela are alarming. Was the First Minister made aware of the intention to use the airport to support yesterday’s action? Given his expressed views, what assurance can he give to my constituents in the north-east that their Scottish Government-owned infrastructure is not being used as a staging post to violate international law?

As the First Minister just said, Scotland is an energy-rich nation, so surely revenues from our natural resources should benefit us all, yet the ScotWind auction round massively undervalued Scotland’s offshore energy resources by setting a bid ceiling. Similar auctions held at the same time raised 20 to 40 times the amount per megawatt capacity than ScotWind did. Does the First Minister accept that setting a bid ceiling was a mistake? What assurance can he offer my constituents in the north-east that that mistake will not be repeated?

Does the member also recognise that one part of the culture that people come from is the public services that we all rely on, including roads, street lighting, street cleaning, schools and healthcare, all of which rely on taxation, and that we need both?

Farmers in the north-east have expressed concern that the Scottish Government is dragging its feet in reforming and rebasing agricultural support, such as that provided through the future farming investment scheme and the less favoured area support scheme. That means that young farmers are being cheated out of a fair deal and that small-scale, environmentally friendly and regenerative farming is being prevented from taking place in less favoured areas. Recently, I asked the minister whether future support for less favoured areas will be based on contemporary data or historical data, but I did not get an answer, so I will ask the question again. Will he ensure that future support is based on up-to-date information and data?

I am grateful to my constituents who volunteer at Speakability Tayside, who contacted me ahead of tonight’s debate. Does Ms Mochan agree that something that we can all do to support people with language disabilities, such as those she has outlined, is to undertake the free one-hour online training that is being developed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists?

Since its introduction, the energy profits levy has raised more than £11 billion for the public purse and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030, redistributing excessive profits from energy giants to those struggling in fuel poverty, including in the north-east region.

Does the minister not agree with Great British Energy’s founding premise that

“the ... people should have a right to own and benefit from our natural resources”?

Will she not join me in welcoming the launch of GB Energy’s £1 billion supply chain initiative—which is called energy, engineered in the UK—to grow the domestic supply chain and create jobs in Scotland?

Seven prisoners who are in their second month on hunger strike are now at risk of death due to their deteriorating health. They are part of a larger group of political prisoners who are being held under special terrorism conditions due to alleged association with the proscribed group Palestine Action. I oppose the ban on Palestine Action, I support those who have protested against the ban and I add my voice to the call for their immediate bail while awaiting trial.

On behalf of my constituents in the North East Scotland region who care deeply about the issue, will the First Minister join me in opposing any curtailing of human rights and the intimidation, discrimination and victimisation of those who oppose genocide?