As a result of having read the paperwork in advance of the meeting and listening to the questions and answers, my question has changed slightly. It is partly triggered by the deputy convener talking about the need for pragmatism. My concern is about accountability through the legislation in respect of knowing what we are voting for, given the huge powers that it will give to Government at both the UK and Scottish levels, and the difficulty for us in working out what they might be and testing that. My initial question was going to be about the uncertainty and the damage to relations with the EU. However, the fact that things have changed since the bill was introduced makes things even harder, because the uncertainty is greater. It seems to me that we do not know what we are voting for.

In respect of parliamentary precedent, given the huge scope of the bill, should we as parliamentarians support it? We are being asked to vote for something before we know about the negotiations. We do not know the context of what will be in the negotiations, and we are, in effect, being asked to support a bill that could be anything without being able to scrutinise it. I would be interested in feedback from the panel on the precedent for that at the UK and Scottish levels. Would Jonathan Jones like to come in on that precedent and uncertainty issue? Is the bill bad in terms of accountability?

I will ask Dr Fox the same question. Should we have concerns about certainty and the lack of accountability?

That was helpful. The concern about what “conduct” and the making of “any provision” might mean and our capacity to interrogate that has come across very clearly, and I thank the witnesses for their answers to my questions.

We have had some very concerning evidence from witnesses this morning about the way in which the bill undermines parliamentary accountability, leading to the instability and uncertainty that you referred to in your opening comments. Can you say a bit more about the discussions that you have had with other devolved nations about pushing back on this legislation? You have highlighted the challenge in Northern Ireland, but what about the Welsh Government? Can you say a bit in principle about the use of secondary legislation rather than primary legislation, using the Henry VIII powers, which makes it impossible for us to conduct scrutiny on what you may be doing as a Government, given the concerns that our own devolved regulatory committee highlighted, as we have seen at the UK level, both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing the debate, because the issue of sewage and pollution needs to be tackled more effectively. I also thank The Ferret team for the work that they do in general, and more specifically for what they have done to help to uncover this problem and to draw our attention to the problems that far too many of our communities face.

Alex Cole-Hamilton focused on the problems that have been identified in the River Almond, but there are also problems that constituents have raised with me regarding the River Esk, the Water of Leith and the River Forth.? In relation to the River Esk, one of my constituents gave me examples of the impact that waste and sewage are having on the immediate area and on downstream areas. My constituent identified Dryburn as an area where there was a particular issue and showed me photographs of the negative impact.? My constituent has also identified problems with the Water of Leith that impact on the river all the way down to the shore at Leith, where pollution is then released into the River Forth.

I raised those issues with SEPA in the summer. In the response that it sent me this autumn, it was interesting to see the different classifications for bathing waters in Edinburgh and East Lothian. Although nine of the areas identified were categorised as “Good” or “Excellent”, it was interesting that Portobello’s west and central beaches, Seton Sands and Milsey Bay at North Berwick were identified only as “Sufficient”.? Pollution can arise, and the challenge that we face is that there needs to be more monitoring and more mapping so that we have accurate information for all our rivers and action can be taken to address the problem upstream, as well as where it occurs on our beaches.

For me, one of the most striking impacts of Covid was people’s greater reliance on their local beaches for leisure, swimming and surfing. People were holidaying at home. In addition, there are many more people who do wild swimming all year round. Therefore, we need to know that our beaches and rivers are as safe as they can be. As Mercedes Villalba highlighted, we need accurate, up-to-date information so that people can be confident of their safety.

As the motion says, pouring sewage into the water puts us at risk of harmful bacteria and viruses, such as E coli, gastroenteritis and ear, nose and throat infections. As local members will know, E coli has a disruptive impact, which includes businesses having to close.

The BBC has reported that the number of recorded spills from combined sewer overflows in Scotland’s rivers and seas has increased by 40 per cent over the past five years. There were 12,725 “spill events” in 2020, and at least 120 million cubic meters of waste water was spilled from CSOs between 2016 and 2020. We need to look at those overflows. CSOs are designed to spill during heavy rainfall to prevent sewer flooding in properties, but the data is incomplete. The BBC suggested that the number and volume of spills is likely to be higher, because the list that it received related to only a fraction of the operating CSOs. That is because Scottish Water is only required to monitor less than 3 per cent of CSOs for pollution, and no volume data is provided for more than half the spill events. Therefore, we need more action.

SEPA and Scottish Water have recognised that there has been an increase in the frequency with which some CSOs are discharging sewage. They state that that is due to increases in water flows, which exceed the flows that sewers were originally designed to handle, and to blockages resulting from the flushing of inappropriate items, which other members have mentioned.

In its improving urban waters route map, Scottish Water has stated that it will increase monitoring to cover all CSOs and that that should involve around 1,000 additional monitors. I am keen for that work to be progressed as soon as possible so that practical improvements can be made in our rivers and our natural environment.

?According to the advocacy group Surfers Against Sewage, Scottish Water data shows that the equivalent of 47,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools’ worth of waste has been discharged since 2016. That gives a sense of the scale of the challenge.

When the minister sums up the debate, I am keen to hear her respond to the proposals of Surfers Against Sewage for stronger and bolder targets to end the discharge of untreated sewage; an enhanced testing regime that gives a true picture of our water quality in real time; nature restoration to reduce pressure and minimise impacts on sewage infrastructure; and increased investment from industry in infrastructure to prevent destructive practices.

In their powerful speeches, Audrey Nicoll and Siobhian Brown highlighted the issue of climate change, which means that we will get more rainfall and more intense rain. Therefore, we need to up the standards and up the investment so that, as well as meeting the current challenges and ensuring that people across the country have clean water, we tackle the issue for the future so that our rivers and beaches are not damaged by sewage and pollution.

The cost of living crisis is having a massive impact on people’s lives. Mortgages are rocketing and inflation is massively increasing people’s food costs and it is those on the lowest incomes who are hit the hardest.

In Edinburgh, around six in 10 people say they fear that they will not be able to pay their energy bills; four out of 10 are worried that they will not be able to afford their rent or mortgage; up to a quarter fear that they could be made homeless; and up to 30 per cent say that they might have to resort to food banks.

A couple of days ago, Homeless Project Scotland shared a picture that really brought home the shocking reality that many of our constituents will be facing this winter. It is a picture of people standing in the cold waiting to receive a hot soup, sandwiches, and a coffee. Homeless Project Scotland said:

“We need a building to bring people indoors this winter. Glasgow City Council, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government: you have the power to help.”

However, the problem is that our Governments are failing people. In Scotland, we have a Government that avoids responsibility and action, driven by its independence obsession—as we have heard today—and in the UK, our third Tory Prime Minister this year is leading the party that caused the chaos that is now hitting people and damaging our economy.

SNP and Green MSPs will say that their hands are tied because Scotland is not independent. However, as we debate the need for action, I am disappointed and angry about the lack of forward thinking and the lack of priority given to insulating our homes and building community heat and power networks. That would have given our communities more investment and more protection from the cost of living crisis that we are now in—15 years in power and none of the political leadership to deliver the warm, energy-efficient, low-carbon homes that we desperately need across Scotland.

No, I am very short of time.

We need action now. Labour-led City of Edinburgh Council is proposing to use libraries and community centres this winter as spaces where people can come together and stay warm during the difficult months ahead. We need out-of-the-box thinking.

Many organisations in our arts and culture sector are now on the brink of collapse, so the Scottish Government must explore creative solutions and utilise our cultural spaces to provide multiple benefits for our communities. I have spoken to many arts and culture organisations, and the general consensus is that there is a gap between what is said about the value of culture and the action required to support the sector now. As a result of Covid, people became isolated and were unable to access culture. As we build Covid recovery this winter, there are still people who are nervous about going to venues and people who cannot afford to access them. Those who work in the culture sector need support now.

Trade union Equity is clear that people are leaving the sector as a result of precarious employment and low salaries. Scotland’s Workshops said:

“Many of our staff are finding that they are deeply affected by cost of living increases, with sub average (£26,000) salaries common in the sector and many people working part time hours.”

Another quotation is that:

“27% of creative workers aged under 25 left creative occupations after lockdown in 2020, compared with 14% of workers aged 25 and over.”

If that continues, it will be catastrophic for Scotland’s culture, with the impact cutting across generations to come, affecting our tourism, our incomes, our economy, our communities and who we are. Therefore, we need action—not just in the culture sector but right across the public and private sectors, to give people decent work, decent salaries and an end to precarious and short-term employment.

In the previous debate, Paul O’Kane spoke powerfully about the need for fair pay for our carers. Yesterday, I joined posties in the Communication Workers Union who were protesting against the 2 per cent—2 per cent—pay rise that they are expected to live on. It is not acceptable. We have a cost of living crisis. People need support now, not warm words for our Government. That is why this debate is so important.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the Tories have created massive inequalities and divisions, but will he accept that our focus in Scotland now should be on tackling the cost of living crisis, not replicating such division and wasting £20 million on a referendum that people simply do not want?

Yes, there are huge challenges, which is why I asked the question. The message from the culture sector is that it needs that support now, as the costs of electricity and gas are rocketing, and its staff need support, too. We know, from evidence that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has taken on the budget, that staff have left the sector. We cannot afford that to keep happening.

What will the Scottish Government do now? Does the minister agree that winter is the critical time to make the best use of our cultural spaces, whether they are national organisations or local authority spaces, to give multiple benefits for local communities? For example, the City of Edinburgh Council is looking at warm spaces with our libraries. Will the Scottish Government sit down with the sector, through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and consider the ideas that are being suggested by the sector for small procurement hubs like the Birmingham anchor network to make life easier for the sector by taking away some of the bureaucracy that makes life tough for it?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported “perfect storm” that the arts and culture sector is facing, in light of reports that organisations such as the Falkirk Town Hall, the Filmhouse in Edinburgh, the Belmont in Aberdeen and the Edinburgh International Film Festival recently entered into administration and the Modern Two art gallery in Edinburgh was forced to close for winter. (S6T-00915)

I would like to clarify that the word “closure” should have applied to the Falkirk Town Hall—it has not gone into administration.