Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Maggie Chapman for highlighting the report and bringing the debate to the chamber. Destitution deserves our attention and our efforts to address it in any way that we can.

One of the most frustrating parts of devolution is that we know destitution exists in Scotland but that we are actively prevented from stopping it. I do not believe that the people who voted me into the Parliament want destitution to exist—I am certain that they believe that it is our duty to prevent it. I am less convinced, however, that they know about the way that we are hamstrung by Westminster.

I agree with Richard Leonard that we should do all that we can. However, I point out that what we can do for people in this situation could be changed with one order from the UK Government. If the UK Government does not like us in Scotland providing free bus travel to people seeking asylum, the UK Government can stop it from happening.

The cruelty of the no recourse to public funds system is highlighted in the way that it prevents the Scottish Government from using its own budget to help people who live in Scotland. If we think about that, it is incredible, but that is the state of play. Such a scheme has no place in a civilised society, and I agree with Maggie Chapman that it should be abolished.

During the Tories’ time in power, I was constantly devastated and disgusted by the efforts of that Government’s ministers to make life as miserable as they possibly could for people seeking asylum, including children. That included painting over murals in detention centres, using dehumanising language and storing people on barges as if they were, indeed, less than human. It is gutting, therefore, that the Labour Government now seems intent on giving an appearance of being at least as tough on immigration.

Labour candidates now share graphics on social media promising to shut down asylum hotels. A Government that should be abolishing the hostile environment is, instead, promoting it. A policy to reduce immigration to no end is incoherent. It will not serve Labour’s other purported aims, not least the aim of driving economic growth. In Scotland, we require more migration to support that growth.

I find a lot of the recommendations in the report very interesting, and they are worth further debate, in particular with regard to clarifying the definition of “public funds” in NRPF. However, part of me wonders whether that is a rock that we want to lift, in case some of the current support that is available turns out to be unwanted by the Home Office.

The report points out that the approach of the Home Office in the past has been to add Scottish funds to the list of public funds without first carrying out any engagement with the Scottish Government, as happened with the Scottish welfare fund.

The “Ending Destitution Together” strategy is the correct approach, with the Scottish Government working with COSLA and our incredible third sector to support people in any way possible.

It is tough not to feel demoralised in the face of continued harshness towards those who are fleeing war and persecution and seeking sanctuary in the UK and Scotland. However, my sincere hope is that we soon get the opportunity to do better in Scotland, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the debate.

Including in Glasgow.

It is vital that we support Scotland’s indigenous languages and promote Gaelic language and culture through continued education and investment. Will the Deputy First Minister say more about the Scottish Government’s work to support growth of the language and promote its cultural, economic and community value across Scotland?

I welcome the opportunity to debate the bill. I am glad to hear members of most parties pushing for the bill to be as strong as it possibly can be for communities across Scotland.

As I am a highlander, land reform is a policy area that I feel a great deal of emotion about. Our land is emotive, and it has too often been misunderstood, misused and misappropriated. The impact of the clearances is still very much visible and tangible in so many of the communities that I represent, not just because there are no homes where there could be, or thriving communities where there should be, but because awful, Cumberlandesque attitudes towards our communities and the land that we live and work on are still frequently displayed.

Back in 2021, I spoke in a members’ business debate secured by Rhoda Grant on the emergence of green lairds. I am sure that, ever since, she, like me, has continued to get Google alerts and to read in the local newspaper about further instances of that. The reaction to the BrewDogs of this world coming in and buying up bits of the Highlands to kill trees on while parading that fact around as if it is something to be proud of has frequently—I am pleased to say—been one of derision, dismay and disgust. However, there remains a pervasive attitude that the Highlands are a wilderness that is available for the richest urbanites to purchase and do with as they please, because whatever cause they want the land to serve will obviously be better than whatever the highlanders want to do with it.

Land ownership in Scotland has been far too concentrated for far too long, and the situation is getting worse, not better. As many have pointed out, 421 landowners own 50 per cent of private rural land, and that is in the context of 57 per cent of Scotland’s rural land being privately owned. That is wrong; it is not serving communities, culture or the climate. We need more diverse land ownership.

Andy Wightman points out that many of the landowners who are responsible for that figure will not be caught by provisions in the bill, because their portfolio is not contiguous. Currently, that can be the case if somebody owns multiple holdings that are slightly under the limit across Scotland, or if what is, in essence, one holding is split up by a railway line. It is not any better for somebody to own lots of little bits of land across the country than one big holding. I agree with Community Land Scotland and others that the contiguous requirement for hitting significance thresholds should be removed.

We are not short of examples of community land ownership proving a success. The cabinet secretary mentioned Eigg, which was purchased by islanders in 1997, just before I was born, after years of suffering at the hands of absentee landlords. It continues to go from strength to strength. It is worth noting that it was another community buyout in the Highlands—by the North Assynt crofters—that drove the people of Eigg forward in their plans. It was not easy, and the story is worth looking into for many reasons. The push from communities and the support that they required from the public sector contain lessons for us today.

We can also learn from places such as Eigg about the potential of the relationship between community ownership and depopulation. Often, when people speak about their decisions to leave the Highlands and Islands, they refer—even if not in explicit language—to a feeling of disempowerment, to an inability to impact how the land around them is used and to an awareness that decisions about that are out of their hands and instead available to the highest bidder to make. Eigg went from being home to about 60 people in the 1990s to being home to more than 100, 27 years later. The community knows what it needs better than anyone else, and that shows.

The Highlands and Islands hold many similar examples of community buyouts and their success; 97 per cent of community-owned land is situated there. That is not because that is easy to do in my region or because the central belt cannot or should not make use of community empowerment—it can and should. However, it is necessary for the future of Highlands and Islands communities; if we want people to stay and be productive in those areas, the righting of wrongs and the rebalancing of power are needed.

I welcome any steps forward in relation to land reform, but we should be doing as much as we can with the opportunities that we have. People keep voting for the SNP, as a party that says that it is going to do great things on community land ownership, so we should do those things wherever possible.

Although I completely back the general principles of the bill, as I would have any of the previous land reform bills, I hope that it is stronger by the time that we are debating it at stage 3. Some of that should be easy wins, such as lowering the land size threshold to 500 hectares for land management plans and registrations of interest, as the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has recommended. As the committee also recommended, there must be a clear public interest test in the bill, and the role of the public interest in decision making around lotting must be explicit. As many have mentioned, fines of £5,000 are not enough to disincentivise breaching the requirements of a land management plan, especially when some are arguing that creating the plan will cost more than that.

A land reform bill next parliamentary session seems as inevitable as ever, but let us do what we can with the last year that we have of this session to put power into the hands of communities in the Highlands and Islands and across Scotland. Those communities have shown incredible resilience in the face of decades of inequality, and sometimes they are successful in purchasing and making better use of their land—but not often enough. Land reform should be about recognising, rewarding and empowering that resilience.

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am proud that Scotland has maintained its fair trade nation status since achieving that in 2013. I know that the topic is incredibly important to many of my constituents, including those who are involved with Fairtrade Inverness, which is a very visible group. That makes sense, given that Inverness achieved Fairtrade city status in 2008 and has maintained it ever since. That Fairtade city status should not be confused with the far more controversial city status that we achieved eight years prior to that.

Last week, I had the pleasure of seeing artwork on display at the climate justice schools art exhibition at Inverness botanic gardens, many of which recognised the role and importance of fair trade. That display of understanding from primary schoolers across the Highlands of the intersectional inequalities that exist and of how climate change impacts some people more than others, was incredibly heartening.

I recall learning similar lessons as a child when looking at Fairtrade fortnight on a Scripture Union residential. What we discussed then about the power that individuals have really stuck with me, and I am glad to know that Highlands schools are taking the time to share that knowledge about the part that children can play throughout their lives in ensuring climate justice.

March is B corp month. Although Fairtrade and B corp certifications are different, I wanted to mention them both, as they both tie into the spirit of the debate.

There are businesses across the Highlands and Islands seeking to do the right thing—to be a positive influence on the world, to have a sustainable existence that plays its part in tackling climate change and to exert a force for good when it comes to working practices and social justice. From Prickly Thistle Scotland in the Black Isle to North Uist Distillery in the Western Isles, I am proud that my region continues to be a strong leader in sustainable, socially just businesses that have B corp and Fairtrade certification.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency hosted a reception in Parliament recently, celebrating the recent winners of the Vibes Scottish environment business awards. That included the Highland Weigh in Nairn, which is a zero-waste, ethical coffee shop and a favourite surgery spot of mine. At the reception, I heard business leaders from across Scotland discuss how Government can help them to make the right decision.

Most people who seek Fairtrade or B corp certification do so because it is the right thing to do. They do not need a better reason than that, although the satisfaction of their staff and customers, the benefits of having a good reputation and their own happiness and confidence in their impact are all common benefits. However, we must ensure that doing the right thing does not disadvantage those leaders.

Our international development work is something to be proud of, but individuals and businesses domestically can also make a huge difference themselves. I ask the Scottish Government to consider whether there is more that we can do to reward the best practice that exists in communities across Scotland.

Making use of the businesses across the Highlands and Islands that are already doing their bit has been a learning curve for me, but it was surprising to me how easy and inexpensive it is to make many better consumer choices.

When I was struggling with money, I fell into the trap of believing that making better decisions is too expensive and that shopping around required time that I did not have. I thought that people had to be rich in both money and time to change their habits. That is not true. I have saved money and found new products that I enjoy by seeking out fair trade and ethical products. My swapping to Palestinian olive oil, which has enriched a few of my go-to dishes, and laundry eggs and ensuring that the coffee and grains that I buy have the Fairtrade mark has required little time and, often, I am spending less than I would on familiar brands.

I completely understand that, if someone is suffering cash-flow issues, when every penny counts, it is easy to go for the cheapest and nearest options and not to ask any questions. However, those are all symptoms of the same problem, and the cost of not doing the right thing is greater. If it is okay for what we buy here, in Scotland, to be the product of exploitation, exploitation is okay. If it is okay for the UK to engage in unfair trade deals, it is okay for other countries to subject us to unfair treatment, too.

Fair wages for fair work is a principle that we cannot afford to neglect—either for those in the global south whom we trade with or for farmers across Scotland. Although we might frequently discuss the global south when it comes to fair trade, the impact of accepting exploitation and low pay is felt by us all. Without equality and fairness for all, there is not equality and fairness. For the people of Scotland to enjoy high-quality products, fair work and happy lives, we must be a good global citizen.

Our continued efforts on fair trade in Scotland echo our wider campaign to be a neighbourly, co-operative country that has a positive and recognised impact on the rest of the world. It is yet another example of how in Scotland, the Scottish National Party Government, although undeniably held back by not having access to the full powers of an independent country, always seeks to act as we would if we were a normal independent nation. We support and work with other countries on shared goals and principles. We play our part in influencing others and showing leadership. We push the boundaries as far as we can, proving that we are more than capable of taking on those full powers and doing even more with them as soon as the people of Scotland back us in that aim.

I am glad to hear the minister discuss the need to strengthen building safety standards. I have been concerned by recent reports that the UK Government is looking to cut red tape in order to push developments through the planning system faster. The tragedy at Grenfell and the recent report remind us that the planning system and building standards are our opportunity to get things right before they can go wrong. Does the minister therefore agree that the most important aspect of house building is providing people with a safe and secure place to live?

I think that there is disagreement on the question of being offshore or onshore and on the distance that is most suitable for salmon farms but, overall, more thought needs to be put into how we use marine areas. It is clear that some places are already warmer than others. Given climate change, we should be thinking about the best place to have salmon farms.

On welfare standards for salmon, despite people on both sides of the debate being pressed, it was very difficult to come to conclusions about what a happy fish looks and acts like. Before visiting the farms, I spoke to animal welfare campaigners and asked them what to look out for, but it was not really possible for visiting MSPs to know, from just standing at the side of the pen, what the fish’s experience was. I enjoyed feeding the salmon and watching them leap, but I could not tell members what their welfare standard was.

Pinned up on the wall in the barge on the Dunstaffnage farm was a copy of the welfare standards for farmed animals. Those who are familiar will know that many of those standards are not relevant to fish, and it was painfully clear that there is no consensus on fish welfare. Professor Lynne Sneddon’s evidence on the pain and distress of salmon that are subjected to various lice treatments in particular was very helpful. I highlight her comments to the Scottish Government as a great place to start if we are looking to create welfare standards, which I sincerely believe that we should. I look forward to further information on that in the next year.

My understanding of the treatment of cleaner fish on salmon farms suggests an even graver situation, and data and welfare standards for those fish are desperately needed. Concerns were raised about the impact of salmon farming on wild wrasse populations, which is also deeply worrying.

It is never easy to go against the grain, and I felt a lot of pressure to just say, “Let them get on with it,” because the industry brings in money and jobs and there is a view that we must let it keep on growing without question. However, we do not have to do that, and the industry should be as sustainable as it is possible for it to be.

As the inquiry went on, I felt more and more strongly that there was justification for a pause in expansion until issues around mortality, welfare and the use of cleaner fish and other lice treatments were sorted out. By the end, I felt that doing any less would be irresponsible, both for the animals that we are discussing and for the industry itself. That is why, after debating every detail of the recommendations running up to it, I could not put my name to the final section of the report, which stated that the committee did not feel that a moratorium was justified. I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that I will come back with the committee next year astounded by the positive progress that has been made. I will be happy to have a red face, and I will approach any new evidence next year with an open mind.

I agree with Edward Mountain on the Salmon Scotland letter that responded to the inquiry. The tone was one of indignation and even offence at being scrutinised at all. That really highlighted that this is not an industry that will change practices unless it is forced to.

I hope that colleagues can hear that I have given this a lot of thought, and I appreciate that there is great disagreement on many of the points that I have outlined. With hand on heart, I can say that I feel that there needs to be more urgency from the Government, regulators and industry to get things up to scratch.

I want to get behind Scottish food and drink, and I do not want to have hesitations. There are strong recommendations in the committee’s report, and I hope that they serve as a catalyst for progress and that another committee does not meet in another five years, confused about how few have been heeded.

I genuinely enjoyed taking part in the inquiry; it felt like proper scrutiny work. There were really tricky bits of contradictory evidence, and we were asking questions that we did not know the answers to. I changed my mind a few times throughout the process, going back and forth with colleagues from different parties. I say a huge thank you to my committee colleagues, the clerks, SPICe and everyone who came forward with evidence for us.

I move on to the less positive bit. I am a huge fan of Scottish salmon—it is delicious, and I love it with scrambled eggs, but I have questioned a lot during the inquiry how much damage my enjoyment of salmon has done. I do not want that to be the case. I want Scotland to be proud of the industry and the product; I want to have confidence in the product and to be able to tell others that it is an ethical purchase.

When we look at the issues, the mortality rates of farmed salmon are of great concern to me. It is particularly frustrating that many different types of death do not have to be reported. The Coastal Communities Network highlighted in evidence that the current fish health inspectorate data

“exclude all deaths below quite high weekly thresholds of 1.5% or 1% of salmon in each farm (depending on their weight) as well as any smolts that die in their first six weeks at sea”,

as so many die when they are first put in salt water. It also said:

“These figures exclude mortality in the earlier freshwater stage, during which more than 30% of fish often die, before the survivors are put to sea.”

Thanks to that, I could not say with confidence that at any stage in the inquiry I had a full understanding of the true scale of deaths in the salmon farming industry.

It is all very well to point to the quantity of available data, but I am far more concerned about the quality of the data, because I was frustrated by it. Many people who gave evidence were also frustrated by it, and it is a complaint of many constituents who have reached out because they have been unable to pin down the true impact of nearby farms.

We discussed in detail the fact that many drivers of salmon mortality are not within farmers’ control. They cannot reasonably predict or prevent climate change, extreme weather, jellyfish or algal blooms, but that does not change the number of dead fish on the farms.

The stark difference in average mortality between Shetland farms and Argyll farms and the difference in risk of interactions with wild salmon between those areas suggest that some places are more suited to hosting salmon farms. I hope that progress on marine planning in the future might give greater clarity to the industry and affected communities.

It is so important that the facilities that teachers and pupils teach and learn in are positive and of a high standard, and I know that there is great excitement at the moment about the new Nairn academy building. Can the cabinet secretary give more detail on the investment that is being made in the Highlands and Islands through the learning estate investment programme?

On the point of morality, does the member acknowledge that disability benefits are not all out-of-work benefits? Does he realise the impact that cutting those welfare payments to disabled people would have on their ability to stay in work and to feed and clothe themselves?