Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to speak to my amendments 79 and 82.

At stage 1, we received evidence from the RSPB that offences committed under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 should be included as relevant offences with regard to the wildlife traps and grouse licensing schemes that are set up. The RSPB set out its rationale for that, and the committee encouraged the Scottish Government to look at that ahead of stage 2. I am grateful to the minister for offering her support for the amendments.

Amendments 79 and 82 seek to achieve exactly that. The provisions are already complex, but my amendments simply seek to add to the list of legislation so that an offence that is committed under section 19 of the 2006 act is added to the list of offences to be considered in respect of revoking or suspending a licence. Section 19 of the 2006 act sets out that a person will have committed an offence if they are found to have caused a “protected animal unnecessary suffering” by an act that they knew would have caused, or would have been likely to cause, that animal to suffer. Amendment 79 would add to the bill an offence under section 19 of the 2006 act as a ground for revoking or suspending a wildlife trap licence, and amendment 82 would do the same for a grouse licence.

My amendments would make important additions to the bill to provide greater protection for animals and wildlife, and I hope that members will support them.

I extend my thanks to Rona Mackay for bringing this incredibly important debate to the chamber, and I welcome people in the gallery.

I have raised my experience as the child of a deaf adult on several occasions in the chamber, and I have given my dad many mentions. However, my experience as a CODA—child of deaf adult—has deeply influenced my understanding of how we should approach disabilities, in particular ones that relate to hearing loss and communication.

The first meeting that I had with a deafblind person was more than 40 years ago. I was just a wee girl visiting Aberdeen deaf club with my dad. An elderly woman was sitting at a table, with a few people surrounding her. A person was crouching down beside her, holding the woman’s hand upwards in the palm of her hand. They were using the palm as though it were a drawing board or keyboard.

My dad placed his hand on my back to coax me forward to say, “Hello.” I looked back and signed to him, “What is she doing?” He signed to me, “She is deaf and blind, and that is how she communicates.”

I went over and waved “Hello” to the person doing the interpreting. They then signed to the deafblind woman that a young girl—Len’s daughter—was saying hello to her. She gave me a huge smile and tapped my hand.

What I did not understand then but have a profound understanding of now is the social isolation and loneliness that can accompany living with deafblindness, and how my dad’s small push on my back was a small but significant teaching to ensure that I was polite and introduced myself. It also encouraged me to have a go at communicating, regardless of my hesitations at my abilities, because everyone needs connection.

As an adult, I realise that that interaction gave me the opportunity to learn that deafblindness—even within our community of deaf people and CODAs—was a unique experience with distinct communication and interaction support needs.

Dual sensory impairment or loss, or the loss of sight and hearing to the point at which someone’s communication and ability to access information are impacted, is a distinct disability. Deafblind UK explains:

“If you mix the colours yellow and blue together, you get green. Green is completely different to both yellow and blue, it is a colour in its own right.

The same is true of deafblindness. If you have sight loss and hearing loss, then you are deafblind, which is a completely unique condition.”

It bears repeating that, across Scotland, about 30,000 people are living with deafblindness. I just did a wee search—that number is almost equivalent to the population of Dumfries. That is a significant amount of people.

Those people are a wide variety of ages, but deafblindness is more common in older people, such as the lady I met when I was little. As was mentioned, as a result of our ageing population, the number of people living with deafblindness is due to rise.

Some of those living with deafblindness will struggle to see and hear the television, while others might not be able to see or hear anything at all. There is a wide spectrum of dual sensory impairment or loss, which affects everyone differently.

Currently, as we have heard, Scotland lacks a legal definition for deafblindness. I believe that our agreeing on a definition would be a crucial step towards recognising and diagnosing dual sensory loss at the earliest point and addressing the unique challenges that the deafblind community faces.

The World Health Organization, alongside other significant health systems and countries, has adopted the Nordic definition of deafblindness, and the European Parliament recognised deafblindness as a unique disability 20 years ago. It is time that Scotland did the same, and I am grateful for Deafblind Scotland’s work in raising the issue and for the support of colleagues and other stakeholders on the cross-party group on deafness, of which I am a member.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is particularly poignant to note that our speeches today could be being uniquely translated, as we deliver them, to those who relate to the deafblind experience. I hope that we have done them justice.

The committee and I, as a constituency MSP, have seen some fantastic examples of diversification on farms, particularly in areas such as agri-tourism. That is often driven by the female force on the farms. They help to support rural communities to thrive. We have seen fantastic examples of employment opportunities for local young people in those environments. Do you think that that should be considered in this process? It is very much tied to the agricultural side of things.

I will open up the conversation and ask whether the witnesses feel that there is any detail missing from the bill in regard to CPD or whether there should be a focus on any particular groups, such as tenants and young farmers.

Good morning. I have a question about citizen participation as part of our human rights budgeting approach. Where do you feel that such participation is best placed? Is that best done in committees or should the Scottish Government play a more direct role when it comes to citizen participation?

I will go to Clare Gallagher first, please.

It is great to get that feedback on the committee’s deliberative approach. As a member, I found it very beneficial to be in touch with citizens in that way. It was part of an educational process.

With regard to how we proceeded with our work, do you feel that other committees would benefit from our deliberative approach towards participatory budgeting? You mentioned cross-portfolio and collegiate working. Would it be beneficial for other committees to do that, too?

No, thank you.

It is not often that I agree with my colleague Jeremy Balfour, but I agree with his statement that we are in the last days of a dying nationalist Government—the one at Westminster.

The debate marks the publication of the seventh paper in the Scottish Government’s “Building a New Scotland” series. The first paper in the series set out a detailed analysis of the UK’s performance across a range of economic and social indicators relative to that of 10 European countries, including Norway, which is a member of EFTA, and Denmark, which is a full member of the EU. That analysis of the economic and social performance of the UK, and therefore that of Scotland within it, in comparison with 10 countries suggested overwhelmingly that independent countries of Scotland’s size do better. That is particularly true of independent countries of Scotland’s size in the internal market—be that via EFTA or as a full member of the EU.

Last summer, I stood atop the picturesque clifftop at Rosehearty, in my constituency, and looked across the North Sea. Aside from providing spectacular coastal scenery, those rocks are the closest point of our mainland to Norway. If members looked at the 16th century Carta marina map, they would be forgiven for thinking that Scotland was just a stone’s throw from Norway and Denmark. The first map of the Nordic countries to give details and place names greatly exaggerates our proximity, but our relative closeness in geography and culture has meant that, for many centuries, the commercial and social connections between Scotland and the rest of Europe—particularly its northern reaches—have gone from strength to strength.

It therefore came as a surprise to no one that Scotland voted by nearly two to one to remain in the European Union. Scotland is European. I have said that before, I say it again and I will continue to say it for as long as I have the privilege to be a representative in Scotland’s national Parliament, because the democratic will of Scotland will not be ignored.

This might be an inconvenient detail for the unionists, but remaining in the European Union is the clear will of the Scottish people. Scots now find that our membership of the internal market, our freedom of movement and the social, cultural and economic benefits that came with that have been stolen from us by a UK Government and an indifferent Westminster Opposition, which delivered us the hardest of Brexits on a vote that was won by the narrowest of margins south of the border and was based on many lies—lies about taking back control and about a Britain that is bursting at the seams.

The most egregious lie affected the coastal communities, which put their faith in the UK Government to deliver for them a sea of opportunity. When I spoke with fisheries stakeholders recently, I was given numerous examples of seafood-processing businesses that are still suffering the consequences of this denial of Scottish democracy, more than seven and a half years on from the vote. Some of those businesses are composed of up to 90 per cent migrant workers. Our loss of freedom of movement, coupled with hostile immigration policies, is threatening Scotland’s flagship industries.

We have all heard the stories of shellfish rotting on the way to European markets because of the new UK Government red tape, but it is not only fisheries that have been let down. Our farmers are being undercut by the few trade deals that the UK Government has managed to negotiate. We could not export our seed potatoes, and our soft fruits have been rotting on the vine at each harvest without adequate numbers of seasonal workers to pick them. All of us have heard about the hospitality sector’s woes because of staffing shortages. I have met hoteliers in my constituency, where the lack of chefs has been extraordinarily detrimental to local services.

Perhaps the saddest point of all is about the impact that Brexit will have on the futures of Scotland’s children. In the past couple of weeks, some of my children have been preparing their university applications, which has caused me to reflect on the opportunities that they might have in years to come. With the UK Government’s refusal to negotiate membership of the Erasmus+ programme, Westminster has deprived many young Scots of the opportunity to live, learn and exchange across the continent. I urge the Scottish Government to do all that it can to restore Scotland’s membership of that cross-border educational, social and cultural initiative, which does much to build friendships across borders and maintain lasting peace in Europe.

Independence offers Scotland the opportunity to rejoin the European Union and regain all that we have lost. Scotland’s history is interwoven with the histories of our European neighbours; Scotland’s present is as European as our past; and Scotland’s future is as an independent state in the European Union.

Does the member believe that a statement of fantasy could be “Vote no to stay in the EU”?