Chamber and committees

I agree with what everyone else has said and will add two points. Committees can take a deep dive into issues that may not be topical but might be important. This committee is also interested in post-legislative scrutiny, and committees have a role in looking back to see how things have worked.

We have heard some concerns that assessments would apply beyond the 3-nautical-mile limit, while other feedback has suggested that they would not. There seems to be a bit of dubiety in that respect.

The policy memorandum sets out that the overarching policy intention in taking the delegated power in part 2 is

“to ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose and could be adapted, if required, to allow effective action in response to the twin climate and biodiversity crises.”

Do you agree that the proposed power is needed to ensure that EIA legislation and habitats regulations remain fit for purpose?

Okay.

My substantive question is about statutory impact assessments. Do any of you have concerns about how such assessments might, or might not, apply to aquaculture developments beyond the 3-nautical-mile limit?

To slightly turn the issue on its head, what is so wrong with the national parks aims, as they stand, that they need to be amended by the bill? What is being prevented? I remember that the aims were hard fought for at the time, and the right balance seemed to have been created. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

It seems to me that it is not altogether clear what regulation with regard to impact assessments would be required. The information that we have is that strategic environmental assessments will not be required, but wider environmental impacts could be considered. It is just not very clear that, given the 3-nautical-mile limit, the legislation that applies further inshore does not apply that far out.

What processes take place to consult the fishing industry about all the developments, not just those in aquaculture? I ask that because it feels as though you will be squeezed and squeezed, especially in the case of some of the bigger offshore energy projects. I do not know whether you can work in between those, but I would not have thought so. Are you consulted? Are changes made to accommodate your needs?

I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to the work of the Marine Conservation Society to highlight the impact of litter on our seas and beaches. I thank it for organising the beach cleans throughout the UK that have enabled more than 15,000 volunteers to take part this year.

The beach cleans are not simply a tidy-up exercise, although they are part of that. The feedback that the MCS gets and the information it gathers in its surveys—it did 1,200 surveys last year—tell us what is littering our beaches and what it is finding there. That information is useful. It gives us an insight into the main cause of pollution, but it also gives us an insight into the most likely culprits, which is valuable information for tackling the issue at source.

That knowledge also shows trends of pollution and the impact of Government policy. What I found particularly striking was the number of carrier bags that were collected, which increased over the decades and then fell dramatically when a charge was placed on them. We know that it was not the cost of the carrier bag that led to the change of behaviour, rather it was the constant reminder that we were not doing the right thing if we took a carrier bag. Before the charge was implemented, we all set off shopping with great intentions about taking reusable bags, but we often forgot. That led to huge numbers of plastic bags blowing away and being discarded deliberately. The charge changed behaviour and that change was almost immediate—in a very short space of time, there was an 80 per cent decrease in the number of discarded carrier bags that were found in beach cleans. That shows how many had been littering our seas and other public places until that point.

Sadly, that bucks the trend, because plastic litter continues to increase. Because of public awareness and the beach cleans that add to that awareness, the pressure to ban plastic and wet wipes continues to grow as we see an increase in the number of those wipes littering beaches. Their disposal in our sewage system adds to the pressure on the ancient infrastructure, causing further pollution.

We have heard that Scotland’s beaches regularly top the list of the best beaches in the world. I was going to start listing some of the beautiful beaches in the Highlands and Islands to give Finlay Carson a run for his money, but I just did not think that that would be fair, because there are many, many more in the Highlands and Islands. However, it is desperately sad that they can be spoiled by litter, which impacts habitats but also our enjoyment of the seaside.

The information that was gathered from the Marine Conservation Society surveys must be used to initiate policies that cut litter and change behaviour, because it has to be down to each and every one of us, individually, to make that change and to make it socially unacceptable for people to litter. We see it all too often—not just on our beaches but on our roadsides.

We must also clean up our waters and ensure that we properly monitor sewage discharge, with a view to ensuring that there are no discharges of untreated sewage into our environment, including our seas. That will be good for the environment and for nature, and it will make our seas much safer for us, too. It benefits us all to make a difference, and I urge the Government to act on those suggestions.

This debate pushes us all to examine our sense of right and wrong, not just for ourselves but for others. We all have our opinions, which are sincerely held and are based on our knowledge and experience and the evidence that we have read and heard.

This vote falls to us as individuals, and we must do what we believe is right. As elected members, we must also represent the wishes of our constituents as fairly and fully as possible. I understand that many of my constituents will be disappointed in my vote tonight.

I have a huge amount of respect for Liam McArthur and, especially, for the way in which he has pursued the bill. However, I cannot support the bill, because, for me, every day, minute and second of life is precious. When time is running out, it is even more precious.

When there is no tomorrow, it is only today and this moment that count. When spending time with loved ones when there are no future plans to speak about, we talk differently. We reminisce and talk more about happy memories and the things that are important. We talk about what is happening in the moment.

It is a time for people to make their wishes known. Some people use the time to give away prized possessions to the care of others. They take time to tell their loved ones what they mean to them. It is a time to help loved ones to cope with bereavement. For that to be done, there needs to be high-quality end-of-life care. The committee’s stage 1 report on the bill shows that 90 per cent of people need some form of palliative care at the end of life. We demand high-quality care at the start of life; we must demand it for the end of life, too.

Sadly, too often, that is not happening. Too many people cannot access the care that they need at the end of life. There is a significant variation in the services across NHS boards. We all see it in our postbags: people are stuck in hospital, spending their last days and hours on busy wards with no privacy, where staff are too stretched and do not have the time to support the bereaved or care for the dying.

There is a reluctance to acknowledge that someone is at the end of their life, because the resources are not there to support them. That leaves families struggling and asking for help but not getting it, because it is not recognised that the person is at the end of their life. In those circumstances, if assisted dying were an option, it is easy to see why somebody would ask for it for themselves, to save their families from that grief and worry.

We know that, in the Covid pandemic, not every life had the same value. Older people and disabled people were encouraged to sign “Do not resuscitate” forms. Some refused to do that but then found that those instructions were placed on their files regardless. That must never happen again.

Of course, we need to make end-of-life decisions; DNRs are a part of that, but they should always be an individual choice. Medical intervention and treatment is also a choice: we all know of people who refuse treatment because it makes them feel so bad or because it interferes with their last days with family and friends. Those are issues that we need to speak about. We must make sure that our loved ones know our wishes and that we update them when circumstances change.

As a society, we do not really speak about dying. We have to change that. We need to have those discussions. We need to make sure that everyone can access high-quality palliative care, to enable them to live their last precious days to the full with their loved ones. That has to happen before we ever consider assisted dying.