Chamber and committees

And would that have been with more than two dogs?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Good morning. I want to follow up on Karen Adam’s question about the practical support that the UK Government could be providing. You will be aware that creeled live nephrops are an important export for Scotland’s coastal fishery, and you might have heard that the national co-ordinator of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation has reported that, post Brexit, export difficulties have added £2.50 in costs to every kilo exported.

Given that the UK Government has invested in support schemes such as the UK seafood fund, what does it plan to do—and what is it currently doing—to help to allay such concerns, reduce those costs and protect low-impact fisheries?

There have been disturbing reports of the mistreatment of migrant workers aboard UK fishing vessels. Those reports included instances of 20-hour shifts with workers being paid as little as £3.50 an hour, racism, sexual abuse and violence. Research by the International Transport Workers Federation suggests that the use of transit visas is leading to the systemic exploitation of migrant labour aboard those vessels. Can you give a commitment to end the two-tier labour system by closing the loophole that allows transit visas to be used on fishing vessels in the UK?

My understanding is that those visas were supposed to be for long-haul shipping container work. Perhaps you could consider their appropriateness for fishing vessels.

I look forward to seeing how that digital solution progresses.

I have one more question. The Scottish Government’s proposed future catching policy plans to deviate from UK and EU law by unilaterally permitting discarding. What is the secretary of state’s view on that proposal and its potential impact on fishers across the UK?

Reaching net zero cannot be about just hitting a target. I think that everyone in the chamber agrees that we must drastically reduce our emissions. That agreement is testament to the climate movement. However, not everyone agrees on how it must be done. For me, as a socialist and a trade unionist, our path to net zero must redistribute wealth and power from landowners and chief executives to ordinary workers and households across the country.

Although the Scottish Government’s motion contains warm words about the opportunities that are available to island communities through a just transition, there are still significant gaps when it comes to explaining how the transition will be made reality. We must see real support for offshore oil and gas workers, we must create well-paid secure jobs in the offshore wind sector, and we must have a strategy for community owned, produced and distributed renewable energy. The Labour Party is in Parliament to give voice to organised labour. That is why our amendment makes it clear that we want a worker-led transition for offshore oil and gas workers, including those who live on Scotland’s islands.

Our transition to renewables must address the lack of training standardisation and skills transferability in the offshore energy sector, so that workers who want to get out of fossil fuels and work for a renewable future can do so without facing additional training costs. I believe that that can be achieved through the creation of an offshore training passport.

We should not stop there. Our transition must also empower workers through trade union recognition, sectoral collective bargaining and an end to casualised work. The Government should use every opportunity to promote those goals and should, whenever possible, lead by example in the public sector.

Members will be aware that I have been working with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and with climate campaigners from Friends of the Earth Scotland to secure a commitment from the Scottish Government to support, at least in principle, the introduction of an offshore training passport. Although I have spent months raising the issue in Parliament and engaging with the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, the Scottish Government’s position appears to be that the same failed market that has exacerbated the issues of skills transferability and a lack of training standardisation is now best placed to address those issues.

Although ministers claim that they have no formal role within existing legislation to address those issues, I believe that they can use their office to show political leadership and to drive progress forward. I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government will support Labour’s amendment, but I would like it to go further; I would like the Scottish Government to commit today to providing a statement to Parliament that will set out its vision for standardisation in the offshore energy sector, and to giving regular parliamentary updates on its progress. If the Government really wants skills standardisation, it should not be shy about being accountable for that.

As well as calling for a worker-led transition for the oil and gas sector, Labour’s amendment also recognises the need to create secure and well-paid jobs in the offshore wind sector. That is sorely needed because, so far, the Scottish Government has chosen to outsource jobs and offshore wind capacity in order to enable multinational companies to turn a profit at the expense of workers and communities here in Scotland. Given the consequences of the Scottish Government’s decision to outsource jobs through the ScotWind auction, Labour believes that it must now take a proactive role in the creation of secure and well-paid green jobs here in Scotland. Financed by the proceeds from the ScotWind auction, a Scottish renewables fund could invest in the development of skills and the creation of jobs throughout Scotland’s offshore wind supply chain.

However, it is not only job creation in energy that needs work. The ownership model of energy should also be explored. A public model of energy generation and distribution would cut out the profit motive, meaning that the lowest cost for consumers could be realised and the best pay and conditions for workers could be won.

Given that some local authorities have explored bold measures such as council-owned renewable energy to help in their transitions to net zero, I urge the Scottish Government to work with island communities to explore the potential for community-owned renewable energy as part of their net zero transition.

I conclude by urging the Scottish Government to move beyond the limitations of the motion and to be bolder in its ambition for Scotland’s island communities in their transition to net zero; to deliver the worker-led transition for offshore oil and gas workers that they expect and deserve; to create well-paid secure jobs in the offshore wind sector, instead of lining the pockets of multinational companies through outsourcing; and to support island communities in meeting their long-term energy needs by supporting them in exploring the potential of community-owned renewable energy.

I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this important debate on protecting marine life during unexploded ordnance removal. I also pay tribute to the work that Stop Sea Blasts continues to do to raise awareness of the issue, including the informative event that it held in the Parliament last month.

It is clear that the scale of the issue should not be underestimated. As a result of the two world wars, there are now more than 100,000 tonnes of unexploded ordnance in the UK’s waters. As we continue to develop our offshore energy infrastructure, there will be a greater need to remove unexploded ordnance from the seabed, but, as we have already heard, unexploded ordnance is being removed in a way that is highly disruptive to marine life and habitats because of the use of high-order detonations. As other members have already explained, that is having a particularly harmful effect on marine mammals who rely on sound for navigation, communication and feeding.

It is not just wildlife that is affected. The use of high-order detonations also harms marine habitats, with explosives leaving craters in the seabed and damaging the sea floor. That is why we must look urgently at the use of low-order technologies in unexploded ordnance removal to protect marine life and habitats. We know that these low-order technologies work. A UK Government-funded study found that low-order technologies reduce noise emissions and physical damage to the seabed. Crucially, those technologies are supported by a range of marine protection organisations such as Whale and Dolphin Conservation.

Given the damage caused by high-order detonations and the evidence of viable alternatives, it is now time for the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland to take concrete action. The Scottish Government has a national marine plan, and it should be updated to include support for a shift to the use of low-order technologies in unexploded ordnance removal. Marine Scotland has signed up to a UK-wide regulatory statement, which signals a shift towards favouring the use of low-order technologies, but it needs to be made binding. Marine Scotland already has licensing conditions for ordnance removal, but they are outdated. Those conditions must be updated to ensure that developers prioritise the use of low-order technologies and ensure that high-order detonations are subject to tighter restrictions.

There is, however, another issue that must be addressed by a change to licensing conditions. Most unexploded ordnance removal work is carried out by private companies on behalf of offshore developers. Given the risks associated with the use of high-order detonations and the removal of unexploded ordnance, there should be a clear obligation on employers to guarantee workers’ rights and safety. I am calling on the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland to commit to exploring the introduction of a new marine licensing condition that ensures that employers will adhere to established employment rights and health and safety legislation.

The debate relates to the role that Marine Scotland plays in managing our seas, so I will conclude by touching upon an on-going dispute involving its fisheries protection fleet. Up to 80 Marine Scotland workers face the prospect of having a below inflation 2 per cent pay rise imposed on them by the Scottish Government. As Unite the union has highlighted, imposing a pay award against the wishes of a workforce could constitute an illegal inducement and leave the Scottish Government in breach of collective bargaining arrangements. As well as taking the urgent action needed on unexploded ordnance removal, the Scottish Government must engage with Unite and the Marine Scotland workers to deliver the fair pay rise that they deserve.

I support Maurice Golden’s amendments 19 to 21, which highlight the limited number of public bodies that are covered by the bill’s provisions. It is clear that there are more public bodies that could play a vital role in producing good food nation plans and delivering real action towards addressing food poverty in Scotland, and it is right to seek to bring the Scottish Funding Council into the scope of the bill. As the major public body that determines funding for higher and further education, the SFC could produce a good food nation plan that would enable colleges and universities to tackle food poverty among students.

Let us be clear: food poverty is a real issue facing students in Scotland today. Back in February, the National Union of Students Scotland published research that exposed the true scale of student poverty. Eight per cent of students were found to be reliant on food banks. That statistic should shame us all into action, which is why I urge members to support amendments 19 to 21.

I have a couple of questions about strategic objective 3 of the national islands plan on improving transport services. The Scottish Government has committed to engaging with local authorities and island communities

“in developing regulations and guidance for the bus services provisions”

under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. As the cabinet secretary will be well aware, the act gives local authorities powers to bring buses into municipal ownership. Given the geographical challenges on the islands and issues around passenger demand, what additional support does the Scottish Government plan to provide to local authorities to deliver publicly run bus services, should they wish to do that?