Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have heard a lot about opportunities, with fisheries management being mentioned in that respect. What specific opportunities might exist through the development of a fisheries management plan to improve such management in the Clyde? Perhaps Phil Taylor can take that question.

I sense a lot of frustration among the witnesses. It is not just the science that is being disputed but the process that Marine Scotland has followed. Why do you dispute the science? What is your evidence? On the process, what action should be taken? The science shows that there is a particular situation in which action needs to be taken.

I want you to drill down into what you are disputing. On the basis of your evidence, what different process would you have used from that of Marine Scotland?

I find all this fascinating. There seems to be a sticking point around the data and the science—that is something that we keep hearing. There is some science, but it is often disputed, as we heard from the previous witnesses.

What opportunities does the Scottish Government have to help with future research in your field? How do you see the fishers and the scientists collaborating in this field to improve the research data and monitoring?

That is a helpful response. Do you feel that what is needed is sustained, lengthy investigation rather than short-term gathering of evidence?

Thank you. That was really heartfelt and enlightening, although it was sad to hear. Your answer expanded on the question about communication, and not just in relation to spoken English.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. Your answers have been overwhelmingly comprehensive. I have expanded my education on the subject this morning, so thank you for giving me that opportunity.

In September last year, the British Medical Journal published a study on minority ethnic women’s access to, and lived experiences of, maternity care during the pandemic. The study includes information on their mental health and wellbeing. It says:

“There were four emergent themes including communication, interactions with healthcare professionals, racism and the effect of the pandemic, with further subthemes identified.”

I want to home in on the communication aspect. The study says:

“Communication, or lack thereof, played a major role in participants’ perceptions of whether they were receiving acceptable care. This consisted of routine or emergency interactions with midwives, obstetricians, general practitioners and health visitors ... Despite the high standard of English spoken, most participants felt that language barriers were the most common cause of miscommunication between themselves and healthcare professionals. They concurrently felt they themselves were more likely to make inappropriate decisions regarding their healthcare as a result of misinterpretation”.

Is that situation reflected across society—not just in healthcare but in financial, social and educational settings and in other areas? How is progress being made in addressing the issue?

I ask Mariam Ahmed to answer first, please.

Thank you. It is really helpful to know what we are focusing on.

It was for an earlier question—I must have been skipped over.

I want to dig down a little bit more into the cabinet secretary’s comments about the bill’s scope. We are trying to gather evidence and see things from an implementation point of view, but I felt that, with Rachael Hamilton’s question, more tentacles were being added and that what was said was not necessarily what I thought the cabinet secretary was trying to get across with regard to the bill.

Perhaps I should caveat this, but what are we looking for the bill to cover? For example, as a result of European Union exit, shipbuilders in my constituency face serious labour shortages, which really impact on their work of building and repairing the boats that are needed to go out and catch the fish that we then need to land and eat. Surely we are not looking for the bill to have an all-encompassing scope and to cover, say, shipbuilding. What is the scope of the bill? We could be forever picking out and trying to deal with problems that have nothing to do with it. If we just cracked on with the bill, its overarching framework and what it is supposed to be, would that support other industries and more collaborative working?

Over the past few weeks, I have been trying to dig down into the reasoning behind some people’s desire for setting targets in the bill. Over the evidence sessions, I have seen more and more how that could end up leading the process by the nose and how targets can end up being meaningless in this fast and ever-changing political and socioeconomic landscape. For example, I visited a food bank on Monday and was told that, after April, there will be an astronomical increase in demand for its services in the area. In relation to what I have heard about targets and how they can be detrimental to the kind of plan that we are considering, what could we use instead of targets as markers for outcomes?