Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue that Fergus Ewing raised in NHS Highland highlights the need to start to adopt a basic national collaboration and communication platform. That would allow all healthcare professionals, with the permission of patients, to access basic health data that is important to the delivery of safe patient care, and would bring the Scottish national healthcare service into the modern world. Does the cabinet secretary agree?

I thank my friend and colleague Daniel Johnson for continuing to shine a light on this issue. The fact that we need to continue to shine that light should bring shame on us all.

It had not been my intention to speak in the debate; instead, I wanted to listen to those speaking today. However, when I was speaking to some of the autism campaigners, I asked their permission to talk about some of the issues that I want to raise, and they gave it to me.

Last week, I met representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and heard about its report. Shockingly, there was, between 2019 and 2021, a rise of up to 800 per cent in referrals for ADHD. At the same time, we have a reduced psychology sector in which, as Jackie Baillie has said, people are hitting burnout and moving to the private sector to get a work-life balance.

I was struck by Elena Whitham’s point about the need for a whole-system, holistic approach, and I will be focusing some of my speech on the societal approach in education. I might well bore members with it, but I will never tire of talking about how we must give kids outlets to express themselves. I raised with the autism campaigners the withdrawal of the ability to be physically active or involved in music, drama or art and how the impact of that on those who are neurodivergent can be much more significant.

In that respect, I remember a couple of issues that my constituents raised with me. In one case, there were a couple of children who loved to do art. They could remain in the mainstream as long as they had quiet time to themselves to do their art. The problems started after that was withdrawn, because they had no outlet for their thoughts and processes.

As I have said before in the chamber, one of the most fulfilling times in my coaching career was when I worked with a couple of children with autism and with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It was extraordinarily fulfilling to be involved in the impact that that routine had on their lives.

We need to consider how we structure our education system. Despite what the minister and the Government might say, there is no question but that there has been a reduction in children’s ability to participate in such outlets in schools and communities. When I spoke to the autism campaigners, I learned that that has a more profound impact on people with neurodivergent conditions. We need to consider a whole-system approach and how we ensure that such children can interact with, take part in and be a part of community and society.

I had not thought about getting to my feet in this debate, but I felt compelled to do so. Once again, I thank Daniel Johnson for compelling me with his very powerful speech. We need to make a societal change in this matter across all the portfolios that we look after in the Parliament.

Will the member give way?

Does Carol Mochan agree that, to tackle the attainment gap in schools, many of the tools that are required inside the classroom are better learned outside the classroom?

Ross Greer highlights one of the Government’s issues with this, which is that it is difficult to quantify what we do not spend. It is difficult to link outdoor activity to the actual savings that we make further down the line. The Government needs to take a leap of faith here.

In listening to Miles Briggs, I was struck by a quote from the president of World Athletics and International Olympic Committee president-elect, Seb Coe, who said:

“Sport is the most potent social worker in all our communities.”

Does Mr Briggs agree that we have the opportunity to fund either prevention or the outcome of not funding prevention?

Will Miles Briggs give way on that point?

The minister will recognise the necessity of building a skilled workforce and growing the green economy to encourage investment. He will also recognise the invaluable contribution that our colleges make in fulfilling that task. Given that, can he explain why Ayrshire College has been told that its core teaching grant has been cut, and why, despite 5,000 skilled engineers being required by the area’s businesses, including many related to the green economy, engineering is not being prioritised as an area of growth?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. My colleague Jamie Greene had hoped to participate, as the area that is covered by Peel Ports falls within his West Scotland region rather than mine. Nonetheless, I know many owners of leisure craft in my South Scotland region who will be affected by the proposals, and Mr Greene and I are aligned in our views on them.

I am grateful to Stuart McMillan for bringing the debate to the chamber and for his efforts, through the CPG on recreational boating and marine tourism, to highlight this unfair, ill-thought-through and ignorant proposal from Peel Ports, to which—as members might have gathered—I am utterly opposed.

Although I recognise that Peel Ports has the right to impose reasonable fees and charges to cover its costs relating to services and upkeep within the Clydeport area, the proposals are far from reasonable. More than that, they have the potential to cause significant harm to the area, damaging marine tourism, deterring investment and, in my view, potentially impacting public health by creating barriers to access. The lack of public engagement and public consultation by Peel Ports is hugely disappointing and only serves to reinforce the view that it is acting in a high-handed way with no consideration for the wider impacts that the decision will have.

Turning to my point on the public health impact of the proposal, many of the smaller craft that will be impacted by the proposals are not superyachts or gin palaces; they are small sailing craft that are crewed by members of the public who enjoy a day out on the water as a way of being active or to relax. Many of them are coastal rowing skiffs that are built by members of the community and rowed for fun or competition.

I am particularly aggravated by the idea that community groups such as coastal rowing clubs could be affected by the plan. Those are exactly the kind of community groups that I want to see more of. They offer a welcoming environment in which people of all ages and abilities can learn new skills, make new friends and keep fit. Sadly for them, their main rowing skiffs are longer than 6m, so they will now have to stump up to Peel Ports if they want to regularly row anywhere north of Irvine. The dozens of other clubs in Scotland that might visit the area to compete in a regatta will be hooked for a visitor fee.

I understand the position that Peel Ports is in. Its costs are rising and it argues that it has issues dealing with abandoned vessels and wrecks. However, all those vessels belong to someone and those individuals should be pursued for the costs. Responsible owners and seafarers should not be punished for the negligence of a few.

Scotland is an island and seafaring nation. Whether for leisure or commerce, seafaring is an important part of our history and culture. Leisure boaters take to the sea for many reasons: some for the challenge of pitting themselves against the elements or fellow sailors in competition, some for the camaraderie of meeting others with a shared passion, and many simply for fun. Whatever the reason, we should be encouraging more people to enjoy the pleasures that boating has to offer, not putting up barriers.

Peel Ports does not have to listen to the outcry from organisations such as the Royal Yachting Association or a number of local boating organisations that have objected to the plans. However, if it does not listen and if it does not change course, it will do profound harm to communities up and down the Firth of Clyde. I once again thank my colleague Stuart McMillan for bringing this issue to the chamber.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says about these being private companies in which the Scottish Government cannot intervene, but does the Scottish Government not give grants to some ports to help with their development, the docking of ships and so on? Is there no leverage in that respect that the Scottish Government can potentially use?