Chamber and committees

The oil and gas giants BP and Shell are reporting record profits on the sale of energy while millions of people are struggling to heat their homes. However, the extortion does not stop there. I have received reports from the Dundee Pensioners Forum that its elderly members are receiving alarming letters demanding payment from their energy suppliers. Those are payments to accounts that are not only not in arrears but in significant credit. When those vulnerable people are unable to pay what they do not even owe, they are threatened with forced installation of prepayment meters.

Although I appreciate that much of energy policy is reserved, the First Minister meets energy providers regularly and has their ear, so will she condemn any use of such bullying and strong-arm tactics, and will she commit to ending the granting of warrants by courts in Scotland for the forced installation of prepayment meters?

Good morning.

Going back to the discussion around the original 3-mile limit and the references to the Cameron report, is it fair to say that its conclusion that the original limit could not be justified on conservation grounds did not take an ecosystems-based approach and did not factor in the impact on the sea bed and related species? Is it also the case that research and evidence in this area have moved on and that we now have a greater understanding of the importance of ecosystems management?

Can we take a vote on it?

I just want it to be noted that I wanted to keep the petition open.

What about the second part of my question? Do you see any dangers in the committee closing the petition?

I think that we should keep the petition open. The Scottish Government’s position is not clear to me, as it is still consulting on these issues. As the petitioner pointed out, we have had strong commitments in the past that have not materialised into action. It would therefore be premature to close the petition until we have a clear position from the Government and an outcome from the consultations.

As you will know, the Bute house agreement of November 2021 committed the Scottish Government to introducing highly protected marine areas and to capping fishing activity in inshore waters. The consultation on highly protected marine areas was launched only in December and is under way. As far as I am aware, the consultation on a cap on fishing activity has not yet begun.

To what extent would those proposals address the concerns that are raised in your petition? Given the current pace of work by the Scottish Government on those commitments, do you see any dangers if the committee were to close your petition today, prior to any progress on the Government’s commitments being made?

The minister mentioned that the bill will prevent the import of shark fins. Does she have any further information about fins being used as part of other products—for example, they might be ground up and incorporated into other products—or on whether there has been any research into the impact of the ban on importing such products, how widespread the practice is and how common shark fin importing is?

I rise to speak to the Labour amendment. Although we welcome the progress that the Scottish Government is making in supporting the six islands in the carbon neutral islands project to become fully carbon neutral by 2040, we must not lose sight of the needs of people living on islands that are not included in the project.

As has already been said today, the cost of living crisis is hitting some island communities hardest, with extreme fuel poverty being highest on some of the islands that are not included in the project and, as we know, fuel poverty—or any other aspect of poverty—requires action on incomes.

Although employment law remains reserved, this Government could demonstrate a greater commitment to addressing the systemic failures in our economy that suppress wages and widen wealth inequality. That is why it is so disappointing that the motion does not commit the Government to investing in island services or to prioritising job creation and retention on islands, and it is why the Labour amendment calls for guarantees that a just transition for workers is included in all areas of the carbon neutral islands strategy.

This is just one debate, and I expect that we will hear constructive ideas from members across the chamber. I hope that the Scottish Government will integrate those ideas into all aspects of upcoming legislation, because in the application of every bill that we pass in this Parliament, islands can be understood as a microcosm for the rest of Scotland. If something works for our islands, with all the pressures and difficulties that islanders face, making it work for the mainland must surely be achievable.

For example, the circular economy bill presents us with an opportunity to shorten supply chains, which will lead to improvements in areas such as food, energy and workforce security, among others. In turn, those improvements will only increase the resilience of our islands, counteract depopulation and ensure that islands are places where people thrive and live well. However, that will take planning, investment and the prioritisation of people over profit, democracy over diktat and workforce investment over short-termist outsourcing.

I have listened with interest to the speeches in the debate because, unlike many—if not all—of the members who have spoken, I do not live on one of Scotland’s islands and nor do my constituents. However, it is important to stress the importance of sustainable island life to the rest of the country. As has already been highlighted, islands provide Scotland with significant opportunities for renewable energy and economic development. They are also home to thousands of Scots whose history and culture are intrinsic to life in the rest of Scotland.

I have benefited from the opportunity to visit some of Scotland’s islands. Last summer, as part of my research into community land ownership, I visited Gigha and Colonsay, where I heard about the difficulty of maintaining schools and other services in areas with declining populations, and about the difficulty of building communities when so many people are experiencing homelessness. Despite those difficulties, I saw incredible determination and resilience, yet that resilience does not relieve us of our duty. That is why I urge all members to support Labour’s amendment, which reminds us all of our responsibility to islanders and our path to net zero.

I thank the minister for the advance sight of her statement.

To tackle nature loss, we need to be clear about what caused its decline in the first place. No one sets out to kill off entire species or to risk our food security but, for decades, that is exactly what has been happening. It is therefore essential that any Government strategy to address nature loss has at its heart a plan to change the flawed system that got us here. That means requiring employers to account for the environmental and social cost of doing business so that chief executive officers and shareholders are no longer able to profit from the underpayment of workers and the pollution of our water, air and earth.

Can the minister explain how her Government will expand the nature conservation workforce in our public sector across our marine, woodland, peatland and other environments?