Chamber and committees

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I am grateful for the opportunity to take part remotely this evening. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing cross-party support for his motion and thank him for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I start my contribution for Labour by paying tribute to the thousands of land workers, crofters and farmers, both in the North East Scotland region and across Scotland, who already do an immense amount to put food on our tables and to care for our natural environment and biodiversity.

Let us remember what the stated objectives of the future farming investment scheme were: to improve sustainability, to restore and enhance the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate breakdown. In that context, it is hard to understand why the vast majority of the scheme has been allowed to go to big agricultural landowners and megafarms, or why the majority of the fund is going to parts of Scotland where land is favourable, with only a fraction going to less favourable areas. It means that the scheme looks increasingly like a missed opportunity to rethink where our farming funding should be going. In contrast, Scottish Labour believes that more should be going to smallholders, crofters, land workers and regenerative farmers, and to support for small and local businesses.

The regeneration of Aberdeen’s Union Street has been hindered by poor planning from the start—an issue compounded by the outsourcing of the work by the Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council. That resulted in the closure of numerous shops and small businesses and caused substantial disruption to the city centre, community and nightlife.

What representations has the Deputy First Minister had from Aberdeen’s SNP council leaders about any support that could be offered to them to get that city centre regeneration off the ground?

Vast amounts of money awarded under the future farming investment scheme have been hoovered up by large agricultural landowners and mega farms—the kind of wealthy farms that can afford to use deer fencing, leaving smaller, less wealthy farms that cannot afford it even more vulnerable to deer overgrazing.

Given that two aims of the future farm policy are improving business efficiency and sustainability and protecting and restoring the natural environment, will the minister assure us that priority under the scheme will be given to farmers—

—who engage in sustainable deer management solutions?

According to research from the Common Wealth think tank, Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in Europe. Dependence on overseas direct investment not only bleeds Scotland of the wealth required to fund our public services but pressures Scottish politicians, such as our First Minister, to appease foreign capital by lowering taxes, weakening workers’ rights and eroding environmental standards. Such reliance leaves Scotland vulnerable to dramatic geopolitical change, such as Trump’s latest tariffs. Given that threat, does the Deputy First Minister agree that what Scotland needs is not further private foreign ownership but a strong domestic industrial strategy?

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?