Chamber and committees

We go back to Pam Gosal.

Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received apologies from Maggie Chapman, and Marie McNair will join us remotely.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take in private agenda items 3, 4 and 5. Item 3 is consideration of the evidence on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Item 4 is consideration of the committee’s approach to scrutiny of the legislative consent memorandum for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Item 5 is consideration of the committee’s approach to the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report on progress in moving people from institutions to independent living, following the committee’s evidence session on 1 April. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I welcome the expansion of specialist regional centres in order to deliver 150,000 additional appointments and procedures, which will reduce waiting times and waiting lists. I also welcome the 100,000 extra appointments in GP surgeries, which are focused on addressing the root causes of ill health.

How will the programme for government build on the recent progress that we have seen and ensure that more people can see their GP and get the care that they need in their community?

I will, although I have a lot to get through.

This is another example of successive London-based Governments snubbing Scotland. The Acorn project at St Fergus in my constituency, which was delayed again and again, was key to Grangemouth, and now that project is in jeopardy. That is a disgrace. While billions of pounds are found for projects in England, Scotland is left behind. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, given the implications for industry and the just transition for both Grangemouth and the north-east, Acorn must be an immediate priority?

They say that that argument is wearing thin, that the mask has worn off and that they know that it was the UK Government that was representing them at the table in negotiations and making bum deals.

Today’s debate matters, but we need more than debates to protect the industry—we need clear-eyed realism and workable solutions. The fishing industry is about more than boats and quotas; it includes processors, engineers, harbour staff, lorry drivers, environmental officers, night watchmen and many others, who all work hand in glove. We cannot talk about supporting the sector while ignoring infrastructure and the people who keep it going.

I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment because it reflects something that the motion misses: decisions about Scotland’s waters are still being made without proper consultation with the Scottish Government. I was really sad to hear Tim Eagle say that he did not think that we would be competent enough to negotiate on our own.

I will carry on with my speech, but if the member wants me to go into that, I am quite happy—I am sure that the minister will be, too—to talk to him about that after the debate.

The UK Government looks set to negotiate a multiyear access deal with the EU. Again, Scotland risks being left out of the room, which follows a pattern set by both Labour and Conservative Governments in London. I understand that the UK Government is thinking about the UK as a whole, but that is the problem. We were told that Brexit was about taking back control, but that control did not come to Scotland—it stayed in London, which is as far away geographically as it is from understanding what the fishers of the north-east actually need.

The motion focuses on what Labour might do, but it ignores what the Conservatives did. It was the Tories who negotiated that deal. Labour might be carrying the baton, but it was the Conservatives who handed it to them.

Tim Eagle should perhaps have a word with his colleagues at Aberdeenshire Council, because local decisions matter, too. Conservative-led Aberdeenshire Council removed the night watchman service at Macduff harbour. It did not just cut a post; it put vessels, property and lives at risk. Members cannot claim to be protecting the fishing industry in Parliament while stripping its support on the ground.

As convener of the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities, I have worked with stakeholders across the board and I have invited members from all parties to contribute, because if we want support for our fishers, we need to act and not just speak. I am here to represent them and I want not just warm words but fair outcomes. I am willing to work across parties to make that happen for the benefit of the people in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Debates are good, but what we really need is real power in the hands of Scottish fishers.

I welcome the fact that this year’s Scottish budget provides an increase of more than 7 per cent in funding for Aberdeenshire Council. Will the minister outline how that additional funding should help to alleviate financial pressures for the local authority and provide additional opportunities so that it can improve our communities as a result?

It is hard to talk about fishing and the industry as a whole without talking about Brexit, so I found it quite insulting that, at the beginning of the debate, it was said that SNP members might raise Brexit. Let me tell members: £100 million was lost in the first month of Brexit, people lost their livelihoods, families lost their incomes and coastal communities are struggling. All that such comments do is to invalidate that. Let us talk about the issues and find a solution, but let us stop the politicising.

I represent one of Scotland’s most iconic fishing communities, so I know only too well the frustrations there. I talk to fishers, too. I represent Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Macduff and Buckie, and it is not just about economic activity.

I will tell you what they say—you are welcome to join me in the discussions.