Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for his unequivocal statement that, under a Scottish National Party Government, the NHS in Scotland will always be a public service that is free at the point of need. Ensuring that the NHS has the right staff is vital. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, as well as investing in training and recruitment, we must seek to attract staff from overseas to make Scotland and the NHS their home? Does he share my disappointment that Sir Keir Starmer seems content to use anti-immigration rhetoric that is on a par with that of Nigel Farage?

As I said, I will not. I am going to continue.

However, the impact that Brexit has had on our fishing industry, including through us losing our position in the negotiations, must be made clear. Through the UK seafood fund, the UK Government is directly funding projects in a policy area that is devolved. Additional spending on businesses and initiatives in Scotland is always welcome, but this is not simply additional funding. First and foremost, it is UK Government spending in an area that is devolved to the Scottish Government and is of crucial importance to Scotland. It is imperative that the Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament in this area, and that it can make decisions about the use of marine and fisheries funding that are in line with Scotland’s priorities.

The UK Government is presenting the UK seafood fund as a solution to all the industry’s challenges, with more landings and more opportunities to support long-term economic development in the coastal communities. However, Brexit has had a devastating impact, and it has not delivered on the promises that were made in relation to uplift in all quota shares. Those promises were made, but they have not been delivered on.

If the appropriate share of the £100 million UK seafood fund had been allocated directly to the Scottish Government, it would have been able to support meaningful investments, informed by its detailed engagement with Scotland’s marine and seafood sectors, in support of our blue economy. Instead, we have the UK seafood fund operating in the same space as the marine fund Scotland scheme. The Scottish Government does not ask to administer devolved expenditure in England, so there is no reason why the UK Government should do that in Scotland.

We need to ensure that there is an opportunity to do better and that we can be at the table so that we are front and centre of negotiations in the future. That will bring about improvements and a better deal for our fishing communities.

We have heard some interesting contributions, including from members who have strong fishing connections in their areas, as I do—inshore fishing is especially important across the South Scotland region. There are important fishing communities in Eyemouth, Kirkcudbright and Stranraer, as well as in other locations across the south-west of my region.

Like Jim Fairlie, I acknowledge that Colin Smyth and Rachael Hamilton rightly highlighted the dangers that are faced by our fishermen when they go out to catch and supply food for us all. It is really important that those members mentioned that, and I thank them for doing so.

Rightly, the Scottish Government’s key priority throughout negotiations is always to protect Scottish interests by securing sustainable catching opportunities for our fishermen. As others have said, it is important to work within environmental limits to ensure that fish stocks are managed sustainably, while providing a resource for future generations and safeguarding the diversity of our marine ecosystems. That is part of responsible fisheries management.

It would be wrong not to recognise the significant pressures that the Scottish fishing industry currently faces, including recovery from the pandemic, the effects of Brexit and the impacts of the cost of living crisis. We have already heard that from others.

Fishing opportunities for the majority of key stocks for the Scottish fishing industry are negotiated annually through a variety of multiparty and bilateral forums. The UK’s exit from the EU has had a devastating impact on the seafood sector overall. The Brexit discussions concluded on 24 December 2020 with a trade and co-operation agreement that clearly did not deliver on the promises made by the UK Government, particularly those on the uplift in all quota shares.

Following its exit from the European Union, the UK has now become an independent coastal state, and it has conducted negotiations on that footing since 2021. The Scottish Government’s key priority throughout negotiations is always to protect Scottish interests by securing sustainable catching opportunities.

However, for the Scottish fishing industry, the Tories’ promise of a sea of opportunity has now been exposed as being completely hollow. This is not the first time that that has been mentioned this afternoon. Jim Fairlie was right when he said that the fishing industry has been clear in expressing its views.

I do not think that there is time. There have been a lot of interventions this afternoon. I am sorry, but I am going to continue, because I want to comment on the common fisheries policy, which has also been brought up.

Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said that the Brexit deal on fisheries fell “far short” of what the industry sought and what the UK Government promised. Mike Park, CEO of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said:

“It is clear, for the offshore catching sector, Brexit failed to deliver any benefits of being a coastal state.”

Jimmy Buchan, CEO of the Scottish Seafood Association, said that fishers have been “badly let down” and that post-Brexit trading conditions for processors have been “challenging at best”.

In 2019, more than 70 per cent of Scottish seafood exports were to the EU—those exports were worth more than £770 million—and seafood accounted for 57 per cent of Scotland’s overall food exports, with a total value of £1.02 billion. Landings by the Scottish vessels accounted for 61 per cent of the value and 67 per cent of the tonnage of all landings by UK vessels. Members have mentioned that landings have increased, but the value has decreased. That is a really important point and one that we should explore in more detail.

The Scottish Government will continue to support our industry to recover from the Tories’ Brexit betrayal and will press for the £62 million of marine funding to which Scotland is entitled to be fully allocated to Scotland.

Will the member take a wee quick intervention?

I will pick up on Roz Foyer’s point about collective bargaining. A Scottish Government document from February 2021 states:

“The Scottish Government has made a clear commitment to promote collective bargaining through the inclusion of an employee voice indicator, measured by collective bargaining coverage, within the National Performance Framework, and will work in partnership with the STUC to achieve increased coverage.”

Therefore, the intention to do that work already exists; it is part of what is being progressed.

If that work is already taking place elsewhere in the Government’s processes, do you think that language around that needs to be in the bill, rather than using secondary legislation down the line to embed that in the co-designed approach? It looks like the Scottish Government is already taking forward that work.

Much employment law is still reserved to Westminster, so certain aspects of that cannot be achieved in Scotland. We have to look at what is doable in legislation in Scotland.

There are real challenges right now. We know that there are issues with recruitment and retention. One of the issues that I have raised is the need for a national approach to standards of training and education. Would that help to support the message that social care is a worthwhile career and a great way to look after people? We know that, predominantly, it is women who are carers and that they often care for other people at the same time. Will what is set out in the bill on training and a standardised approach move us forward in supporting recruitment and retention?

My understanding of the financial issue is that the projected costs for the bill are estimates that are already being used for health and social care. This is not £1.5 billion that is coming from somewhere else; it is for care delivery that is already happening on the ground. That might be worth picking up.

My questions are about training and research. We have covered many of the issues around the necessity for training to be standardised, which could be part of a national approach to supporting staff. This is about what people who are in receipt of care want—the folk who are being cared for and the carers who provide the care want a national care service. They can see what could be fixed and they know what works. We know that self-directed support works really well in some places but doesnae in others. The creation of the national care service is about helping to support people on the ground, because that is what people want. I am interested in that and in the training that will deliver what folk are asking for.

I know that there will be additional money, but I am considering the complexities of the financing of care and care delivery through 1,200 providers and the people who provide care at home and in residential homes. The whole situation is really complicated, so the bill is looking to iron out the approach to that.