Chamber and committees

Good morning to the witnesses. I wonder whether I could make a few comments and ask for, in particular, Mr Berman’s views on what I have to say. First, the linking of fisheries and energy by the EU seems entirely predictable. It is well aware that UK Governments of various descriptions have, over the past 40 years, shafted the fishing industry because it has been seen as dispensable. If the EU wants more from us, as I am sure it does in relation to fishing, it will tie it into something that we have an ask for, which is energy. That is entirely predictable and sensible from its point of view, but it spells danger for our fishing industry.

At the start of the meeting, Mr Berman, you mentioned the increased prices that we pay for energy in this country as a direct result of Brexit, the very substantial limitations on investment in the North Sea and the opportunities that are being lost day in, day out. I think that you were talking mainly about renewable energy, but it also affects oil and gas. That is a huge issue, especially as we pay some of the highest energy prices not just in Europe but around the world. The cost of energy for consumers in this country compared with those in France is massive. That must be impacted by the two direct effects of Brexit of increased prices and limited investment.

Given that, it surprises me that we have heard a lot about recognition of professional qualifications, which Mr Bain quite rightly talked about, but this is the first I am hearing about the impact on the energy side of the issue. Perhaps that is my omission, but I am not seeing a lot of news on it. I know that we have three major parties that are all happy with Brexit and mainstream media that were basically cheerleaders for Brexit, but despite that, I would have thought that the issue would have hit the news before now. That suggests that people such as you, and possibly the committee, may want to give the issue of electricity trading arrangements a bit more volume, especially because of its impact in Scotland. It might be useful for the committee to write to the UK Government about it. I am surprised that it has not really been at the forefront of anyone’s mind—perhaps I am missing something.

I am also a bit sceptical about the UK’s ability to get a beneficial deal on the energy changes that you would like there to be, given that, as we have read this week in The Guardian, the UK Government is not interested in a mobility scheme or in changing Brexit at all. Polly Toynbee wrote that article, and she is pretty well informed as to what the Labour Government is thinking.

Given that, and your comment about the UK Government not really paying any attention to the issue, it seems that the outlook is pessimistic, unless we can all put our good offices together to bring some pressure to bear—not on the EU, as it will follow its own interests, which it is perfectly entitled to do, but on the UK Government—to make it more of an issue. It would be useful to get your views on that.

As I have said, I do not have a further question, but does Mr Bain want to come back on any of the points that have been raised?

Will the member take an intervention?

This is probably a more serious occasion than usual to discuss human rights, given the state of human rights around the world. We are facing an increasingly stark reality, whereby, across Europe and beyond, far-right populism, xenophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric are on the rise. In a number of EU and non-EU countries in Europe, democracy is under threat and human rights are increasingly being disregarded. In addition, we are seeing a turning point in the US, which perhaps has the strongest constitution of any country in the world in relation to the protection of individual rights, with toxic populism and the undermining of human rights. Here, in the UK, we are witnessing the same troubling trends. I say to Paul O’Kane that it is not only in the corners of the world that we see such a threat; it is in open view in so-called democracies as well.

The UK Government’s hostile stance towards refugees and migrants, exemplified by the “Stop the boats” slogan, dehumanises vulnerable people and undermines the core values of compassion and respect for human rights. To give one example, the erasing of children’s cartoons in a refugee centre gives some idea of what the attitude of the recent Tory Government was to human rights. Its attempts to weaken the European convention on human rights present a dangerous threat. We have to remember that one of the initial signatories to, and inspirations for, that declaration was Winston Churchill, who saw what had happened in the first and second world wars and believed it absolutely vital that we had institutions that would protect human rights. I say that, of course, as this Parliament’s member of the Council of Europe.

Scotland is taking a different path. While the UK drags Scotland out of the EU despite our overwhelming vote to remain, we hold fast to the principles of human rights. Our opposition to Brexit, which has exacerbated anti-immigrant sentiment and weakened human rights protections, is a clear reflection of our commitment to upholding dignity and democracy. The recent commencement of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024—which was initially struck down by a Conservative Government, even though the Conservatives in this place had voted for it—demonstrates our firm commitment to a rights-based approach.

We are also committed to global human rights, as can be seen in our leadership on the international stage, for example through our call for a ceasefire in Gaza and our unflinching support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s illegal invasion.

It is also crucial that we stand firm and never roll back on human rights protections in areas such as hard-won women’s rights. Although there may be political pressure to backtrack in areas such as LGBT rights, the Scottish Government must, in my view, remain resolute in its commitment to ensuring that our progress continues. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the human rights organisations that are expressing concern about the lack of progress, but I am also convinced of the Scottish Government’s intentions, and its track record, on human rights protection. We cannot allow populist rhetoric or external pressures to diminish the rights of our people or undermine our achievements. Our role should be to protect, advance and strengthen human rights for future generations.

On this human rights day, it is essential that we also recognise the vital role of the Council of Europe as it marks its 75th anniversary. As the Parliament’s nominee and representative on the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, I wonder how my alternate‚ Alexander Stewart, feels about the excising of any mention of the Council of Europe from the Tory amendment. I can tell him that many Tories from elsewhere in the UK—Andrew Boff springs to mind—are absolutely staunch in their defence of the Council of Europe. I certainly give my whole-hearted support to its mission to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which are more important than ever, especially as we face growing challenges to those values across Europe.

Scotland’s commitment to human rights sets us apart. We continue to show leadership in defending rights and standing up for justice, but we cannot ignore the fact that our human rights agenda is at risk while decisions that affect us are still being made at Westminster. In my opinion, independence would ensure that the values that we uphold, such as compassion and respect for human rights and democracy, are protected in every policy decision that is made here in Scotland.

As we commemorate human rights day, we should reaffirm our commitment to a future in which human rights are protected not only in Scotland but across Europe and the world. We stand with the Council of Europe in its essential mission, and we commit to continuing our efforts to safeguard the dignity and rights of all individuals. We should do that regardless of the proximity of elections, in which we all have an interest—the commitments that we make on such matters should be permanent.

Above all, we should stand firm, protect the progress that we have made and never allow the forces of division to roll back our hard-won rights.

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

Rhoda Grant will, I am sure, be aware of the writings of L T Hobhouse, who said:

“liberty without equality is a name of noble sound and squalid result.”

Rhoda Grant is making the case for economic and social rights. Does she think that the two-child cap or the cut to the winter fuel payment will help to advance economic rights in Scotland, including in the Highlands?

Is Jeremy Balfour able to shed any light on the thinking behind the Conservatives taking out the reference to the Council of Europe in the Scottish Government’s motion? As I have said, it was supported and partly devised by Winston Churchill. What is their objection to marking the 75th anniversary of the Council of Europe?

Yesterday, we heard the Labour Party call for a vote on reinstating the winter fuel payment after previously voting against a Scottish National Party motion to do just that. It claimed, of course, to stand up for pensioners when it has already betrayed them and has proved that it cannot be trusted. Does the minister agree that that is nauseating hypocrisy from the Labour Party, particularly when it promised to lower energy bills but instead has overseen a £150 increase so far, with further rises expected in January, leaving millions of households worse off, with Scotland once again being hardest hit? Has the minister had any more success than I had when I asked Anas Sarwar how many people in Scotland, according to Labour’s own research, will die as a result of Labour’s energy price hike?

On a point of order, deputy convener. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no.

Does the minister share my concern that, despite Scotland being an energy-rich country, households here face higher energy costs than many European counterparts, a situation that is worsened by Labour’s failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge to cut energy bills by £300 a year and, of course, its decision to cut the winter fuel payment?