Chamber and committees

My constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar received significant investment from EU funding sources over the years, much of it—to respond to a point that a member made earlier—while this place was in what we might call its long adjournment. That support helped to facilitate major infrastructure projects, transport links and new community facilities on the islands, as well as contributing to the establishment of the University of the Highlands and Islands and delivering wider community benefits through numerous training and social inclusion programmes.

Life for islanders would have been far more challenging without that support. Without the causeways linking Berneray and North Uist, Eriskay and South Uist and Vatersay and Barra, for example, I imagine that I would now be dedicating even more of my time than I currently do to the issue of ferries. In Harris, the significance of funding from the EU for invaluable infrastructure such as the Scalpay bridge and the road to Rèinigeadal cannot be overstated.

The loss of financial support from the EU will be sorely felt throughout my constituency unless the UK Government fully commits to allocating at least the same levels of investment that are needed to replace the loss of EU structural funds, as well as the funding from schemes such as the LEADER programmes and the common agricultural policy payments for crofters. It is disappointing, yet unsurprising, that the UK Government’s engagement with the devolved nations regarding the development of EU funding replacement schemes has been much weaker than the close working relationship that the Scottish Government had with the European Commission in the development of the structural fund programmes.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 allows Westminster, rather than this place, to allocate funds that were previously dispensed by the EU. It is increasingly clear that the UK is not, in that respect, a partnership of equals, despite many attempts to convince us otherwise. When spending decisions for Scotland are made not on the basis of the Scottish Government’s knowledge and experience, but according to a UK Government agenda, that simply adds to the complexity of the funding landscape and creates a confused, incoherent policy framework as well as financial inefficiencies.

I will address a key question that has come up several times today: the question of gratitude, as I suppose one might call it. Of course everybody wants to level up, however ill-defined that phrase might be, and everybody wants to share prosperity. Those principles are not controversial. However, we should remember that when the UK Government spends money in Scotland, it is—as we discussed earlier—spending Scottish taxpayers’ money.

Will the member take an intervention?

As I said, the Scottish Government managed to work very well with the European Commission on some of the issues around promoting social cohesion to which the member alluded, and I am sure that we will do so again in the future.

In the past, we had an understanding that money would be directed and spent in devolved areas by a Government that had gone to the trouble of being elected in Scotland at some point more recent than the Suez crisis. It is clear, therefore, that the way in which the funds will now be allocated represents a UK Government infringement on areas that are firmly and fully devolved.

If the Tories do not see it as their job to stand up for the powers of this Parliament and this place, and to defend Scotland’s interests, there are many of us who—unapologetically—do. Money that Scotland would previously have received, for instance, under the seven-year EU structural fund programmes will now be distributed annually by the UK Government according to its own priorities, which could leave Scotland worse off—

This question is probably for Professor Austin, although others might have an interest in it, too.

The issue of rising sea levels presents an existential threat to some parts of the world. A few days ago, I found myself speaking to a politician from Tuvalu who made that very point. However, as was mentioned earlier, it also has an impact on the Scottish coastline. I represent the Western Isles, so I have a particular interest in that. Will you say a bit more about what the trajectory is and what you expect to see—for instance, on the west coast of Scotland—over the next few decades?

I have a final, brief question for Professor Smith. In the environmental debate, we now factor in questions around biodiversity intactness. Scotland seems to be doing a bit better than some places in the UK on that score but perhaps not as well as other places in Europe. Other witnesses might want to chip in, but what do you understand by the term “biodiversity intactness”? In parts of Scotland such as the Highlands and Islands, for very good historical reasons, there is a slight recoil from the word “wilderness”, so what is biodiversity intactness, and how do you reconcile that with attempts to repopulate fragile areas?

Professor Smith, on that very point, looking to the future, I am keen to know whether some of those mistakes are reversible. I will touch on other questions briefly with regard to what we mean by “biodiversity intactness”, but, helpfully, you raised the very point that I was going to ask about. I will not mention prominent broadcasters who invested in those trees in the 1980s. Are some of those decisions reversible?

I have often cited an example in my constituency, where a school has had to move because of the very phenomenon that you are talking about.

Has any attempt been made to quantify the costs that we face in the coming decades as we try to cope with the infrastructure problems that Scotland will face as a result of rising sea levels?

I think and I hope that the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—has produced a much deeper and wider public interest in and understanding of some of those issues.

I was certainly shocked by the statistics that suggest that, if we move from 1.5°C to 2° of warming, that 0.5° difference doubles some of the consequences that we are talking about—it makes them twice as difficult, which is a dramatic difference.

Can you or others on the panel give an illustration of the difference between those two possible scenarios that face us if we do not do something in the next 12 months, before the next COP, particularly in relation to the impact on the coastline in Scotland?

As the minister indicated, CalMac is consulting on two options for the Uig triangle timetable that have no additional cost implications but would result in less capacity than in previous years. Given how busy the route is in the summer months, can any consideration be given to alternative options that would see an increase rather than a decrease in capacity?

Similar concerns were expressed 300 years ago and they are written on the side of the Parliament:

“But naebody's nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.”

Vhairi Tollan, could you comment briefly on something that the Scottish Crofting Federation said in its submission to the UK Government consultation on its internal market white paper? The submission states that

“we accept the need for an organised internal market but this must be designed and agreed by all four UK administrations, not imposed by one”.

You have touched on those issues. Do you feel that legislatures or organisation such as yours have been involved in the design of the proposals for the internal market?