Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Earlier in the debate, Mr Douglas Ross shouted across the chamber at me, pointed at me and demanded that I stand up to answer him. I want to place on record that I found that behaviour unacceptable and disrespectful, and that I do not answer to Mr Ross—I answer to my constituents.

Although I do not find Mr Ross intimidating in the least, it might have been a very different scenario for another female MSP. Young women will be watching the debate in the chamber in Parliament and thinking that that is accepted here. I hope that anyone with aspirations to be a parliamentarian who is watching at home will not be put off, and will be assured that we stand against that type of behaviour. This is a workplace, and the Parliament should be a safe and respectful environment for women and for all members.

Presiding Officer, I ask whether such conduct is in line with the standards of behaviour that you expect, and whether you will remind members that robust debate does not justify shouting at, and physically gesturing towards, colleagues in that way. Thank you.

I was waiting for that comment. We need to stop pointing at bogeymen in the room who are not there. What the Conservatives did to the fishing industry in Scotland was nothing short of an utter and absolute betrayal. To sit there and point the finger— [Interruption.] You can shout from your sedentary positions all you want, but you know the damage—sorry, I will speak through the chair. They know the damage that Brexit has done to our fishing industry and, no matter how much finger pointing they do, they cannot get away from it.

Folk in Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Macduff and Buckie know that the work that they do is valued—and it should be. Their work is valued in our Parliament, even if it is not clearly understood or valued in the London Parliament.

It is not just about the boats that do the catching; it is about the processors in our local communities and the factories that keep the local economy moving, turning the catch into world-class seafood. Those processors are often the biggest workplaces in our towns. When this kind of funding is cut, it is those processors, workers and, ultimately, communities that pay the price. That is why the landing obligations and the strengthened economic link rules that were brought in by this Scottish Government are so important. Those policies have already started to shift more Scottish fish into Scottish ports and Scottish processors. That is what happens when decisions are taken in Scotland with Scottish jobs in mind.

Processors in my constituency tell me that they have the capacity for more. They can invest in new kit and new markets, but they have to be sure that the fish and the workforce will be there. The Scottish Government is doing what it can with its powers, investing through the marine fund Scotland and using the economic link to keep more value here, which I welcome. I thank the cabinet secretary for listening to the fishers and processors and for agreeing to meet with me to discuss the issue further.

We cannot ignore the damage that Brexit has done to the sector or the way that the Conservatives and Labour have treated rural Scotland as a whole. The Tories lined everything up and talked about a sea of opportunity, and Labour has chosen to own that project and carry on. There is a clear pattern. The power, the money and the decision making all sit in London but, regardless of which party is in charge, Westminster has never shown that it is willing to put Scotland’s fishing industry or our interests first, and certainly not the interests of rural Scotland.

Since my microphone is on, I will come in. I did not press my button to request an intervention but Douglas Ross has demanded that I stand up and speak right now. I think that that is a really inappropriate thing to do. A member cannot just point their finger and ask someone to stand up and jump in on their picky questions. We have already answered the question—I answered it earlier—so I ask Douglas Ross to be a bit more respectful.

Presiding Officer, if you stand at any of the harbours in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast before dawn, you will see what this debate is really about: boats landing, crews coming off after a hard shift—as always—and processors getting ready to work, with markets already bustling. My constituency helps to feed the nation and beyond. That is not just an industry that is economically vital, but is also part of who we are along the coast—fishing is the culture, the identity and the daily life of our communities. The sea gives us life but it often takes it away, and I pay tribute to those who have been lost working in our vital industry.

I am shocked at the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland just £28 million out of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. However, I cannot say that I am surprised. Giving Scotland around 8 per cent of the pot for a fishing industry that accounts for over 60 per cent of the UK’s total fishing capacity is exactly the sort of thing that we have come to expect from any London-based Government.

Scotland is never at the top of the UK Government’s list and our fishing industry is never prioritised. Scotland has been handed an 83 per cent cut while England’s proportionately smaller fishing industry walks away with over £300 million. Whether it is Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson, it does not matter who is in number 10. The colour of the party in Government changes but the message it sends to my coastal community stays the same: you are expendable. England’s industry will always top Scotland’s as a priority for Westminster, no matter how much we contribute.

Funding should follow the fish, the fleet and the jobs. It certainly should not be based on a population number that has been scribbled on a spreadsheet that is hundreds of miles away from our harbours. I condemn the UK Government’s decision. It is damaging and wholly unfair, and I join the Scottish Government in calling on the UK Government to reverse it.

Mr Lumsden often speaks up for the oil and gas sector and for our energy workers. What are his plans for what will happen after the decline in oil and gas? What about a just transition for those workers?

We can and must fight for the best possible deal within the union, and the motion is part of that fight, but the long-term answer is independence, which would give the ability to design funding that follows our fleet and to negotiate directly for our coastal economy. [Interruption.]

Rural Scotland feeds this nation, but Westminster starves it of fair funding and the fair treatment that it deserves. That is why we need Scottish independence.

If we want stable investment, a fair funding share and an economic system that actually fits our needs, we have to be honest about what is required.

I note that the cabinet secretary does a lot of work, particularly in my constituency, and is praised for her collaborative work with the Scottish fishing sector.

Communities across the coast rely on a fairly funded Scottish fishing industry, but, given the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland less than 8 per cent of the post-European Union fishing fund, despite our sector being the largest in the UK, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is only with the full powers of independence that Scotland’s fishing industry can be properly prioritised?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the Scottish fishing industry. (S6O-05095)

I want to start by acknowledging everyone who has been let down by our maternity or neonatal services. Those families have suffered greatly, and every death or injury is an absolute tragedy. That any concern that is raised is not acted upon is simply not good enough. People who live with such experiences deserve to be heard, believed and shown what is changing because they made the effort to speak up.

The Scottish Government has been clear that it will ensure that it learns from every case in order to improve care and strengthen patient safety. I am glad to hear that, but parents and families need to feel that and see it in action, not just hear it in words spoken in the chamber today.

I come to this debate with a little bit of my own experience. I have had six babies, and I was lucky enough to be at the birth of my first grandchild. I have seen the difference that good care makes, but I have also seen poor care—I have seen poor practice that leaves a lasting mark. I understand the difference that it makes when people are listened to, when plans are explained and when people are treated as partners in decisions. That should be the baseline everywhere and every time.

In recent weeks, following the difficult coverage that we have seen, families have contacted us. They want straight answers, but they also want visible action. We should be honest about where culture has fallen short, and we should also be clear about the work that is already under way. Independent, unannounced inspections by Healthcare Improvement Scotland are finding issues on the ground, but they are also driving immediate improvements.

That is scrutiny doing exactly what it should. However, it builds trust only if boards act quickly and report openly so that families can see that change. National standards for maternity care have been commissioned to make expectations clear for everyone, and ministers have said that inspection findings will be acted on decisively. Delivering clear standards, honest inspection and rapid local action—that is how we build confidence.

Feeling safe is not only about what happens when something goes wrong but about the care that people receive every day. I am glad that the Scottish patient safety programme’s perinatal improvement programme and the best start supporting boards are there to improve day-to-day practice by achieving better handovers, clearer communication and stronger teamwork, particularly in emergencies. That is how care becomes more personal and more reliable, and not just the subject of a postcode lottery.

Continuity matters, too. Women should have a named midwife and a small team that they see regularly, without being passed from pillar to post, because experiencing such an approach lowers stress and improves outcomes. I have believed that for many years, and—perhaps I should declare an interest here—when I was expecting my fifth child I signed a petition in favour of such an approach, because I knew how important continuity was through my lived experience. I still believe that now. Let us make continuity real for the women who need it the most—in particular, for those who have high-risk pregnancies, as I did—and then build it across the service so that it is the norm and not an exception.

When something goes wrong, families should get a plain-language explanation and be able to see what has changed as a result. Staff should be supported to speak up and be heard, and boards must act immediately when concerns are identified. Families should be able to see that action and not have to chase it.

We should also keep sight of progress. Over the past two decades, Scotland has reduced infant mortality, neonatal deaths and stillbirths, through the support achieved by having more midwives and consultants. That does matter, but progress never represents a finish line—it creates a responsibility to keep moving. When inspection flags risks, action must be quick and visible. When the culture falls short, leadership must step in. When families ask for clarity, they should not be met with jargon. When improvement is working, we should scale it and sustain it. A new early pregnancy, maternity and neonatal oversight group will keep an eye on delivery of those aims, but what matters most is that families feel the difference when such care is given.

Birth trauma needs plain speaking. If someone was ever dismissed, not believed or left without answers, that should matter. People should not be regarded as making a fuss if they still feel an aftershock months or even years after their experience. Services must be trauma informed and include postnatal debriefs that answer questions, easy routes into perinatal mental health support and care that recognises how poverty, disability, rurality and language can compound risk and fear. Equity should not be simply part of a slogan—it must be a part of safety.

We must keep the focus on what happens to women in the room, in that moment. It is important to listen early, act quickly and be clear, to provide real continuity and to keep instructions sharp and updates plain so that families can see progress without having to fight for it. That would set us up in those early days for achieving a society that is truly founded on wellbeing.

I will finish simply: this is about creating trust and providing care that people can rely on. If we hold to those basics, we will not just talk about having safer, kinder and more consistent care but deliver it—excuse the pun—for every family in Scotland, as we absolutely should.