Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the cabinet secretary for the constructive discussions. [Interruption.]

I was going to ask about free bus travel and the positive impacts that that could have on people, but you have clearly stated your point on that matter, which is noted.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, panellists. Thank you so much for your contributions so far, which align with what I will ask about. I want to focus on solutions. Asylum and immigration policy is a reserved matter, but there are things that we can do within our devolved competence at the Scottish Parliament. Although we are fiscally constrained in many ways, there are things that we can do. What are your feelings about the new Scots strategy and the ending destitution together strategy? What is going well? What is not going so well?

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this debate to the chamber today and giving us all the opportunity to speak on the issues.

I represent a number of coastal communities across the Banffshire and Buchan coast. In recent weeks, a number of my constituents have contacted me about this issue, and I have held meetings with a range of stakeholders, including fisheries, to gauge their thoughts. It is clear to me that there are significant concerns among stakeholders of the blue economy about highly protected marine areas.

I welcome the First Minister’s recent commitment to not impose on any community a policy to which it is vehemently opposed. Last week, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition to echo that commitment. In response to my question, she told me:

“I am happy to reiterate the First Minister’s commitment. I firmly believe that you do not impose policies in communities”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2023; c 4.]

I am grateful for her reassurance, although we need clarity on how those communities will be defined and how we will gauge their vehement opposition.

We need that clarity urgently. Only today, we heard about delays in the purchasing of vessels as a result of the lack of certainty. We must avoid the ambiguity and uncertainty that the Tory pursuit of Brexit has already saddled our blue economy with. Many lives and livelihoods across our country, particularly in the north-east, depend upon fisheries and the meaningful contribution that they make to the culture and economy of Scotland.

In the past few years, fishers have had to battle with the cumulative impact of the pandemic, Brexit and post-Brexit immigration issues. Earlier today, one fisher in my constituency told me:

“Brexit has been damaging to the industry with all of the additional administrative costs. And it is as prevalent today as it was in 2021. HPMAs cannot be introduced without the support of local communities because that’s where the damage would be caused. We’re being driven by an urban agenda with little consideration on the impact of our rural communities and way of life.”

That fisher is by no means alone. This morning, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust told me that it is

“concerned that the current programme has been developed without bringing in areas that are guaranteed for creelers, and others for the mobile sector in economically advantageous areas where mobile gear has a lower impact.”

It said:

“we think setting the environment against the economy misunderstands the economic basis for a strong and growing fishing industry—we can either fail on both fronts or bring in the kind of spatial planning which will let us succeed on both.”

If we are to be successful in our efforts to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis and restore marine habitats, we have to take the key stakeholders of the blue economy with us, and that requires a just transition.

We have to do more than just listen to fishers—we have to act on their concerns. From recent interactions with my constituents, it is clear that they feel that that is not what happens. Although I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to having fully comprehensive negotiations, I must reiterate the point that they must be led by lived experience and must not resemble a top-down approach. I have always been an advocate for lived experience shaping policy, but an honest and forthright exchange of views requires trust.

Fishers across the Banffshire and Buchan coast have put their trust in me and I do not take it for granted. The coastal communities across my constituency depend on fisheries, and I will continue to stand up for those communities.

I again thank Beatrice Wishart for this welcome opportunity and I will also welcome any further cross-party discussions on how we can best work together for our coastal communities. On that note, I look forward to seeing many of my colleagues join the forthcoming cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities that I am in the process of setting up.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken, in addition to its public consultation, to engage with the fishing industry and the coastal communities that could be affected by highly protected marine areas. (S6O-02158)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer. In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of fishers across my constituency, who have expressed their concerns around highly protected marine areas. I welcome the First Minister’s commitment last week not to impose on any community a policy to which it is vehemently opposed. Will the cabinet secretary reassure the fishers whom I spoke to and make the same commitment?

As the cabinet secretary noted, Scotland has the most generous provision of free school meals in the UK, and £400 per eligible child is a very notable amount. What difference do free school meals make to the education journey of our young people in Scotland?

How does that behaviour manifest itself? I know that they would be stressed—that is the emotion—but what behaviour is displayed?

A lot of my questions have been answered during the session, so I might throw in a wild-card question—it is not too wild, convener.

Having heard all the evidence thus far, I want to touch on what Kate Rowell said about France spending a bit more on food. That got me thinking that energy costs and commuting costs in France might not be as high as they are in our everyday lives. A report might need to be commissioned to find out why more is spent on food there and why we often cannot pay more.

The constant dichotomy between profitability and affordability keeps coming up all the time. We might want to focus more on a health and wellbeing economy in which low-carbon foods are encouraged, perhaps with a levy on produce with a high-carbon footprint. That would mean that imported produce that would generally be cheaper might cost more because of its higher carbon footprint, whereas local produce would have a lower carbon footprint. Perhaps some Government support could be provided for low-carbon produce. We could flip the position around and focus on a health and wellbeing economy in which we consider the environment, good mental health and local food production with great employee benefits.

Fishing and ports were also mentioned. There are quite high costs for people landing their fish in the north-east—

I am sorry—I am trying to wrap things up. If we focused on a health and wellbeing economy rather than just profits, would that make a big difference to the industry and to what we do?