Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. I seek your response to suggestions that basing the equality statement on equality impact assessments is a flawed approach, due to the lack of proven impact of EQIAs.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Your comments are noted.

Yes.

We move on to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

I thank my colleague Beatrice Wishart for securing the debate. I am the convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities. Ms Wishart is my deputy convener, and I know that she is really committed to the subject. It is absolutely right that we take the time to discuss our fishing sector—not just the challenges that it faces, but the solutions that we can all work towards.

In 2022 alone, fishing contributed £335 million to Scotland’s economy, with my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency leading the way. Peterhead remains the UK’s largest fishing port by landed weight and value, while Fraserburgh plays a critical role in both catching and processing. Buckie and many other smaller ports support local businesses and jobs that depend on a thriving seafood sector.

One of the biggest concerns raised by our fishing communities is the spatial squeeze caused by offshore wind developments, subsea cables and conservation measures, although representatives of the fishing industry have told me that they understand the need for an energy transition—they see the effects of climate change in our changing seas. I therefore proposed the creation of the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities to bring together fisheries and offshore renewables businesses and to have a space in which to have open discussions of the issues outwith formal negotiations. Offshore developers and the fishing industry must be able to co-exist. That means creating a formal framework in which fishers are involved from the start, and not just as a tick-box exercise.

If we want Scotland’s seafood industry to succeed, we need investment in the entire supply chain, and that means ensuring that our harbours and processing facilities have the infrastructure to support that growth. I welcome the investment in our harbours that the Scottish Government recently announced, and also the discussions on establishing a ring-fenced fisheries infrastructure fund, similar to those in countries such as Norway and Iceland, to ensure that our ports remain competitive in a global market.

In my constituency, seafood processing is a major employer, but Brexit has made it harder than ever for businesses to recruit the workers that they need. Many previously relied on skilled migrant workers, and the current crisis threatens not only our processing jobs but the entire seafood supply chain. The Scottish Government has consistently called for a visa scheme that works for seafood processors, but we cannot afford to wait for Westminster to listen.

I would welcome the establishment of a Scottish seafood labour task force to bring together processors, Government and industry leaders to push the issue forward. We must also explore new recruitment strategies, including direct partnership schemes with key non-European Union markets, such as the ones that we already have for seasonal agricultural workers. Where possible, we should invest in skills training and automation to ensure that the industry remains resilient.

If we want Scotland’s seafood industry to compete internationally, we could also consider having a Scottish seafood export strategy that focuses on streamlining customs processes, reducing export delays and expanding markets beyond the EU. For example, Scottish seafood trade missions could open up opportunities in Asia, North America and beyond.

If there is one thing that must come from the debate, it is the recognition that Scotland’s fishing sector cannot be considered in isolation. We need a whole-industry approach. All aspects of the supply chain—catching, processing and exporting—must be considered together if we are to secure the industry’s future. A thriving fishing sector depends on having a strong processing sector; a strong processing sector depends on having reliable access to markets; and all of that depends on investment in our ports, workforce and marine space. Those challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities if we all work together in a holistic approach.

Before I became a member of the Scottish Parliament, I was a councillor on Aberdeenshire Council and sat on the education and children’s services committee. In that role, as in this role, I would often hear the words “attainment gap” being wielded as a political weapon, but an important part of the phrase was left out—the crucial part. The first part of “poverty-related attainment gap” would be omitted, so I am glad that we are focusing on that part today.

Poverty is not just a statistic—it is a lived experience. It is gnawing hunger. It is the humiliation of not having clean clothes or of having to wear ill-fitting clothes. It is the shame of missing out on school trips. It is the anxiety of knowing that you might not go home to a warm meal that evening. A decent mattress to sleep on in a room of your own, or having a space for privacy, can seem like luxury to many children.

Education alone cannot lift a child out of poverty when they are trapped in a cycle of deprivation. For a child who is cold, hungry or struggling with the weight of any family hardship, focusing on learning can feel absolutely impossible. How can children concentrate when they have not eaten since the previous day?

I have spoken with families who often feel judged because their child has a phone at school and it is known that they get support. People ask, “Why do they have a mobile phone?” It might be their only connection to a parent who works night shift or their only means of accessing vital services. Poverty is not just about income—it is about dignity and choices that people do not have the luxury to make. We need to ensure that we eradicate judgment, and the shame and stigma that are associated with it.

That is why tackling child poverty must be interwoven with every relevant Scottish Government policy. I commend the action that the Scottish Government is taking to mitigate the damaging policies that are being imposed by Westminster.

I am frustrated by the cognitive dissonance that I see from other parties over and over again. Do Opposition members think that 14 years of Tory austerity has improved our education system? No, it has not. Austerity was imposed by the Tories and is now backed by Labour, which has also imposed national insurance hikes. What do members think that will do to our education system? We have to work together on this, but Opposition members have to stop coming to the Scottish Government and asking it to sort out the mess that both the Labour and Tory parties have made at Westminster. I am asking those members to join the dots.

We also have to look beyond the symptoms of what we hear about bad behaviour in our schools and pay attention to the causes. We must be careful and sensitive in how we have that debate. We do not want to stigmatise children with additional support needs, nor do we want to stigmatise teachers and make the public think that teachers are not coping in their jobs. There are sensitivities around behaviour in schools, and it is important that the issue is not used as a political weapon.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation projects that child poverty will decline in Scotland while rising in the rest of the UK. The Scottish child payment has, as we have heard, been called “game-changing”, and that is for a reason—because it is.

In the budget, we are investing in education as a tool not just for learning, but for liberation from poverty, by expanding free school meals, increasing the school clothing grant and investing in bright start breakfasts. Those are not just numbers on a spreadsheet—they are policies that change lives for young carers and for children who are already, before they even get to school, having to administer medication to siblings or to provide emotional support to struggling parents. Our social security system recognises that reality and provides direct financial support, and people who receive that support should not be stigmatised for it.

There are those who say that benefits are a waste of money, or insinuate that people take advantage of the system. However, we should be clear that the real waste is the cost of inaction. Studies show that childhood poverty impacts on brain development, academic achievement and future earnings. The longer a child is trapped in poverty, the harder it becomes for them to escape it. Investment in poverty reduction is an investment in education, in health and in future prosperity.

Barnardo’s Scotland is working with hundreds of schools and has documented the real impact of poverty on participation in education. It highlights children who are skipping meals so that younger siblings can eat, and parents who are unable to afford uniforms.

We must also acknowledge the real financial commitment that the Government is making through investing around £3 billion per year in its mission to eradicate child poverty, address the cost of living crisis and break the cycle of poverty. That funding supports measures—

Raising revenue through a visitor levy has the potential to be transformative, particularly in high-traffic tourist destinations, and placing the powers in the hands of local authorities ensures that no region is disadvantaged in a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the minister say more about how the decision to empower local government could benefit communities and businesses across Scotland?

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate—it is extremely important, and I am delighted to speak in it, as it allows me to put on record my profound gratitude to the campaigners who are fighting against library closures by Aberdeenshire Council and Moray Council. I have had the pleasure of working with them, and I know that one of them, Kate Johnstone, is in the gallery this evening. She has been a real force in the fight to save Cullen library, and she knows and understands how important libraries are.

There is an apt quote by Professor R David Lankes:

“Bad libraries build collections, good libraries build services, great libraries build communities.”

It is with and for those communities that I speak today. They understand, as I do, that libraries are vital hubs that provide far more than books. Their closures are not just a loss of service but a blow to the very heart of our communities.

The closure of libraries in Scotland, particularly in rural areas such as Aberdeenshire and Moray, is a direct result of short-sighted, cost-cutting councils and it disregards the essential role that libraries play in supporting children, older residents and those who lack digital access.

I do not doubt that councils are struggling financially. We know that times are really tough. However, what does Tim Eagle think that 14 years of Tory austerity have done to our public services? To Richard Leonard, whose party is upholding that and adding more pressure with the national insurance tax on jobs, I say that Labour is constantly blaming the Scottish Government for those things, but the Scottish National Party Government is trying to resolve the issue. Local councillors set the priorities and make the decisions—they have the power.

The libraries that are earmarked for closure in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast—Cullen, Macduff, Rosehearty and Cairnbulg, and more—are not just buildings but thriving community centres. SNP council groups in those councils have offered budgets that do not include the cuts to library services.

I was privileged to meet save Cullen library campaigners and to host a public meeting to support them. I must point out that all the members of the public who attended that meeting were women, highlighting equality issues, which I will come on to later in my speech.

I have also visited Macduff library, where I met a campaigner, and I saw at first hand the lifeline that those spaces provide. In a cost of living crisis, libraries offer free internet and help residents to navigate services. They also provide them with warm spaces and social interaction. I saw the children’s corner with sensory play and vital health signposting. Those services are indispensable to rural communities as costs soar.

Closures will hit those who can least afford them, and children will lose reading clubs and after-school activities. Older residents, many of whom already face digital exclusion, will be cut off from resources and community connections.

The Scottish Government has a steadfast commitment to culture and communities. Despite Westminster austerity, it has delivered a record £34 million to boost the culture budget this year as part of a £100 million pledge by 2028-29. Local authorities will receive an extra £5 billion, and an extra £144 million was announced just yesterday to cover United Kingdom Government-imposed national insurance costs that threaten public services.

Ultimately, this is an equalities issue. Under the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty compels local authorities to consider how their decisions impact people with protected characteristics such as disability, age and gender. Many of those people are library users who will be impacted negatively by closures. Councils must take that responsibility seriously. Any failure to do so not only risks harming the most vulnerable, but opens up the potential for legal challenges. Ignoring equality is unjust, but it is also unlawful. Stand up for your communities, and please save our libraries.

I apologise—I am going over my time. I am very impassioned by the subject, Deputy Presiding Officer.

In conclusion, I simply say to Opposition members that we have a moral duty to act, and if they truly care about the attainment gap, they must care about poverty first. We should not stop until every child in Scotland has the future that they deserve.