Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Official Report 995KB pdf

---

Highly Protected Marine Areas

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-08651, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, on highly protected marine areas. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the importance of Scotland’s fishing and aquaculture industries to coastal and island communities such as Shetland, as well as the wider Scottish economy; notes that the Scottish Government consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas, a policy that forms part of the Bute House Agreement, closed on 17 April 2023; further notes that there are different views on Highly Protected Marine Areas and the contribution that they can make to protecting the marine environment; understands that many, including the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, have concerns about these areas and the impact that they will have on the fishing and aquaculture industries, as well as other activity of importance to coastal and island communities and the wider economy; notes the view that work should be done to ensure that all stakeholders are fully engaged with the process and that local community perspectives are taken into account; further notes stakeholders’ reported suggestions that scientific studies and pilot schemes should be considered and evaluated before any Highly Protected Marine Areas are formally designated; notes the view that this work should be carried out as soon as feasible and that any findings from studies or pilot schemes should be shared with all relevant stakeholders, and further notes the view that any work that directly affects coastal and island communities should always be undertaken in partnership with them to ensure that livelihoods are protected.

17:09  

I thank those members who signed the motion that allowed the debate to be brought to the chamber.

HPMAs are “a blunt instrument”. Those are not my words but those of Shetland’s only Green councillor. It is no exaggeration to say that the proposals for highly protected marine areas have struck fear and anxiety into coastal and island communities. Communication from the Scottish Government about its proposals has been poor and, had the Government engaged meaningfully with communities before now, it is possible that some of those concerns could have been alleviated.

A great many constituents have been in contact with me highlighting the potential impact on their livelihoods, and stakeholders across Scotland have raised concerns about the HPMA proposals. The three island-group councils have all come out in opposition to the plans, which once again raises questions over the degree to which Scottish Government policy is island proofed.

Around a third of Shetland’s economy depends on fishing and aquaculture. People in the supply chain, such as hauliers and marine engineers, rely on those businesses. Around three quarters of all Scotland’s mussels are produced in Shetland. Just last week, Salmon Scotland was promoting its global product at the seafood expo in Barcelona. All that could be seriously damaged by the HPMA proposals.

The HPMA policy appears to be out of step with the Scottish Government’s efforts in promoting Scotland’s food and drink sector around the world and with the strategy in ambition 2030. One producer said:

“The HPMA proposals are already doing damage to our business as we can no longer plan.”

I ask the Scottish Government to reflect on the damage that the proposals are already doing to the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Without plans, it will be difficult for businesses to expand and take advantage of opportunities.

My constituent goes on to say:

“The proposals could lead to our company being put out of business.”

Businesses fear closure and job losses, with a wider negative impact on the seafood supply chain. Those losses would have a devastating outcome for coastal and island communities. We cannot leave communities on the scrap heap, which has happened in previous decades.

It is important that the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are addressed. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that we cannot wait. The need to address the climate emergency and protect our vulnerable coastal and island communities is not in doubt, but the response should be led by proportional and evidenced-based policy, not imposed by a top-down approach.

Effective local management and decision making have already been demonstrated in my constituency through the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Efforts have been made to protect our seas through Scotland’s existing marine protected areas network, which was established in partnership with stakeholders. Each MPA is designed to protect vulnerable habitats, is based on evidence and includes restrictions where certain activities are permitted. That approach enables conservation and sustainable use to coexist.

If the Scottish Government put more money into investment and research, it could find out what conservation measures work best where. It would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government has learned from those networks and what can be developed. HPMAs could close an arbitrary 10 per cent of the seas to all but leisure activities by 2026.

A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Fishing has been a tradition for centuries for coastal and island communities. It is time to stop implying that fishermen do not care about our seas. The fishing sector relies on sustainable catches and it benefits from healthy seas. Who better understands our seas and how fragile they are than our fishermen, who want to ensure that there is a future for the next generation?

On proportionality, I point out that the fishing sector already faces spatial squeeze with increasing at-sea infrastructure, such as platforms, renewables, offshore wind farms and cables, as well as the network of existing marine protected areas.

HPMAs could have the cumulative impact of closing off 50 per cent of Scotland’s waters to fishing by 2050. When we consider that one third of all United Kingdom fish is caught within 50 miles of Shetland, that becomes extremely concerning. The concern is heightened when we consider that the consultation assumes that the designation of HPMAs beyond 12 nautical miles will be subject to the prior transfer of relevant powers by the UK Government to the Scottish ministers. If that is not agreed—which is a possibility—it is unclear whether the 10 per cent requirement will need to be made up of inshore waters alone.

We need a holistic approach to our seas to support all the interested stakeholders and sectors, which should include considering how the future conservation of our seas should work. The Scottish Government should rethink the policy now.

17:14  

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.

17:18  

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

Marine ecosystems worldwide store and cycle an estimated 93 per cent of the earth’s CO₂. Sea grass sequestration of carbon is 35 times faster than that of the rainforest, and it also provides a fantastic renewable food source that must be managed properly if we are to maintain food security. However, the poor launch of the Scottish Government’s HPMA consultation has highlighted the need to look in more detail at our blue economy with respect to a just transition. We needed direct consultation with communities and to allow those communities their say. It is obvious that coastal communities and Scottish industries within the blue economy feel left behind and that the Scottish Government is not delivering on its promise of a just transition.

It is disappointing that the Scottish Government does not take a more direct approach when consulting communities on policies that would directly impact their livelihoods and viability, and it is easy to see that an online consultation with online workshops was a poor choice for that engagement.

Instead of bringing parties together, the Scottish Government has managed to pit non-governmental organisations and fishing and coastal communities against one another. Industry, NGOs and community groups have called for better spatial management plans to take advantage of local historical knowledge, and to better balance industry with the need for conservation and nature-based solutions. Many of those stakeholders cite inadequate funding, unclear objectives and a lack of data as key barriers to the proper implementation of marine spatial planning.

Much of the Scottish Government’s current marine policy is, I think, driven by Scottish Green Party ideology and misleading international comparators, rather than by science-based evidence. The Scottish Government has admitted as much in response to portfolio questions, stating that it does not have the data to validate its policy choice. Rather, it has policies that are based on

“how best ... we can develop policy in the absence of science and data”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; c 4.]

Similarly, “Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020” explicitly stated that

“There are insufficient data to allow detailed assessment”.

That is no way to approach such important legislation that could have such a detrimental impact on communities that are reliant on a robust and sustainable blue economy. Those communities are being offered Scottish Government guesswork. Proposing HPMAs with very little evidence on their impact in temperate waters is not just ridiculous—it is hugely irresponsible.

Our fishermen must be part of the solution to the dual nature and climate crises, but only if we create the policy context for them to participate. Our fishing sector and our coastal communities have unique local knowledge, passed down over generations, that is invaluable to the formation of policy. For example, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association has been in operation since 1934; the association, like many local fishers, understands its role in ensuring the long-term viability of the industry. The CFA has, for instance, advocated for a weekend fishing ban in its local area and engaged proactively with Marine Scotland in the formation of the Clyde MPAs to support healthy fishing stocks. The association’s practical knowledge is instrumental to its advances in gear selectivity on significantly reduced bycatch. We must draw on an extensive knowledge base from across the industry. The people who best understand the sustainability of our seas are those who gain their livelihoods from them, as they have been doing for decades.

Furthermore, there is a body of evidence to suggest that investment in the seaweed sector can help us to achieve our net zero goals and improve our marine habitats. That is similar to Scotland’s forestry sector and its approach to tree cultivation to lock in carbon as we proceed with other projects. During their cultivation, the farms can also produce a temporary habitat that has been shown to act comparably with wild nursery habitats.

Special consideration must be given to the spatial squeeze on our marine environment. It is important to note that there is scope to grow seaweed alongside existing industries such as salmon and shellfish farming, integrating multitrophic aquaculture and even renewable energy installations. In some cases, the presence of seaweed may improve environmental quality by reducing the negative impacts of traditional fish farming practices, thereby helping to maintain and grow fish stocks.

The Scottish Government seems to be intent on pursuing an ideological policy without considering the ecosystem and climate solutions as a whole, and it is doing so with no meaningful data or research. That is why there has been such pushback and alarm from our fishing and coastal communities against the Scottish Government’s proposals on HPMAs. There is a lack of any clear scientific basis for the proposals, and a significant lack of any relevant data pertaining to soft-bed ecosystems.

Comparing Scotland’s inshore coastal waters to tropical waters such as the Great Barrier Reef is ridiculous. The Scottish Government must halt its current direction of travel and its plans for HMPAs, and work with coastal and fishing communities, NGOs and academia to collate the appropriate data to deliver a comprehensive, cohesive and effective policy—[Interruption.]

The member is bringing his remarks to a close.

Not to do so would mean that the Scottish Government was turning its back on those communities.

17:24  

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important members’ business debate to the chamber. Over the course of the consultation period for highly protected marine areas, the level of fear across my constituency about what the proposals might mean for our islands has grown, although some recent remarks from both the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition and the First Minister have certainly served to reassure them about the Government’s intentions.

Following the consultation paper, individual island communities have had serious concerns that any designation around their own coastline would effectively end all forms of fishing and aquaculture for them overnight. Although it is important to note that only 10 per cent of Scotland’s seas would be affected by the proposals, the difficulty is that no indication has yet been given of which areas are to be affected. Every community, therefore, currently fears the worst. There is time to address those fears if we act, as I believe that the Government is willing to do.

However, I have to be direct: I have never known my constituency to be apparently so unanimously opposed to any single policy as this one in all my time serving as their MSP. That opposition is not only from those who are involved in the fishing industry—literally everyone locally who has spoken or written to me on the issue has expressed total opposition to the proposals as they stand.

Will the member give way?

No—I will make progress, as there is very little time.

Even on recent primary school visits, HPMAs have been the first thing that many pupils have wanted to ask me about.

My own consultation response details many of the concerns that constituents have expressed to me about the potential ramifications of the proposals locally, and so I shall not attempt to cover those in detail in the little time that I have available.

The key question is this: in the case of a local HPMA designation, what would that mean economically to the coastal communities that are so affected? On the west coast, many fishing vessels are too small to be able, realistically, to work further afield. Even if they did so, creelers would face the task of re-establishing grounds in which to work, and fish processing would be unlikely to have a future in any community where fishing and aquaculture had, potentially, effectively come to an end.

If the measures are implemented, they would, I believe, disproportionately punish low-impact and more sustainable forms of fishing. As sites are not due to be selected for another two years, I am afraid that the issue will be hanging over each and every coastal community between now and when those decisions are taken.

Fishers and others who rely on the sea to make their living fully recognise the need to tackle biodiversity loss, and that loss is certainly real, but nobody with whom I have spoken in the islands believes that a blunt approach is the best way to go. I question how any such approach would, in the end, be compatible with the Scottish Government’s commendable drive to tackle rural depopulation, as well as with the overall aims and commitments that are set out in “The National Islands Plan”.

When officials finish processing the responses to the HPMA consultation, they will—I believe, although I cannot prove it—find that islanders from all walks of life and all political persuasions are, in the Western Isles in any case, fairly united in their opposition to the proposals as they currently stand.

I know that the First Minister gets that, as does the cabinet secretary, and I am very grateful for their commitment that HPMAs will not be imposed on communities that do not want them. We all know that the consultation responses will show anger and opposition, but they will also show our coastal communities’ passion and positive ideas for growth and sustainability in the islands. We can have that conversation, with the starting point being the Government’s welcome commitment not to impose HPMAs on communities that view them as an existential threat.

17:28  

I, too, thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing the debate to the chamber. This issue has caused great consternation in fishing communities. The Scottish Government has told them that their future is at stake, and it expects them to take that quietly.

Fishing communities have harvested the seas for generations. It is their living, and it is not in their interests to harm their livelihoods. However, the Scottish Government, with the arrogance of imperial masters, tells them that it knows best—it knows the seas better than people who have fished them all their lives and who depend on their knowledge of the sea for their very survival. It is little wonder, then, that they are angry and they are writing protest songs, and that they will not simply accept that.

I want to bust the myth that those imperial masters promulgate—that, left unchecked, our fishers will destroy the marine environment. Fishing communities actually want to nurture and protect the seas—it is life or death to them. They are more motivated to do that than any pen-pushing pseudo-environmentalist sitting behind a desk in Edinburgh.

I understand deeply the member’s points, but I want to question how what she is saying reconciles with the fact that she was elected on a manifesto commitment of 20 per cent of seas being highly protected marine areas, which is double what the Scottish Government is currently working through.

That gets to the nub of the matter. This is not about protecting the marine areas—it is about how we protect them. That is done not from the top down but from the bottom up, with those who want to protect them as much as we do. That is my point. It is those who fish the seas who are more motivated to protect the seas than anybody else.

I will give an example of that. When I was first elected to this Parliament, I represented the community on Loch Torridon, which is the area where I was brought up. The community badly wanted the loch closed to mobile gear boats, and it took persuasion to make that happen. There were meetings and there was negativity—it was close to impossible. That community was looking to preserve its income, fishery and livelihoods.

It took a long time, but the request was eventually granted. It was not easily obtained, but the results were positive—so positive, in fact, that the area became a honey pot for static gear boats, which threatened the good work that had been put in place. Again, the community asked for the powers to manage the fishing effort, and again it was rebuffed. It was the same top-down approach that we are seeing now.

The Scottish Government is condescendingly telling communities how they need to work and how to manage their seas. It is simply wrong. This is the same Scottish Government that, when it reduced quotas in the North Sea, encouraged boats to fish the Minch and hoover up the prawn quota. The prawn quota was finished in six months, putting the very survival of those fishing communities in the balance. It was the Scottish Government that did that, not the fishers in those communities.

Those same communities want the Scottish Government to look at what they are doing. The Scottish Government cannot take the moral high ground over them. It has to stop.

The member will remember that, in 2016, this Government was elected on the principle of bringing in an inshore fisheries bill, which it fundamentally failed to do. Does the member believe that, had the Government introduced that bill, it would not have had this knee-jerk reaction without consulting anyone and it could have gone through the proper process, which it was supposed to have started more than seven years ago?

Absolutely.

Managing our seas has to be devolved to local communities. They depend on the fisheries for their very survival and they need the fisheries to continue for future generations. Therefore, we must help, support and empower them to protect their seas. I urge the Scottish Government to do just that.

17:33  

I warmly thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing the debate and the opportunity to speak in it to the chamber, and I congratulate her on her excellent contribution. I have enjoyed listening to all members who have spoken thus far.

I have spent 49 years campaigning in various capacities to support and provide succour to our fishermen and fishing communities throughout Scotland. I started off as a schoolboy campaigning for our mother in 1974 when she successfully won the Moray and Nairn seat from Gordon Campbell. She thought that she had the fishing community on her side during the campaign. It was a cold count, so the votes were not counted until the Friday, but she went on the election night programme and was interviewed by the anchor man of the election results in London. At midnight, after the votes had been counted elsewhere but not in Moray, he asked her: “Well, Mrs Ewing, how have you done in Moray and Nairn?” She said: “I won.” When he then said, “How can you possibly know? The votes have not been counted yet”, she said, “Because the boats came in.” At that point, the BBC executive producer was completely mystified; he did not understand. Postal votes were not a thing then, and the fishermen had to come in. They disrupted their fishing effort to cast their vote for Winnie to fight for them, precisely because the fishing community had lost confidence in the Conservatives under Ted Heath. My fear is that it is now losing confidence in the party that I have served for almost 50 years and the party of our Scottish Government.

When I had the privilege of serving as the member of the Scottish Parliament for Lochaber for eight years—it is now in Kate Forbes’s capable hands—I got to know the fishermen in Mallaig and Arisaig. I came to understand and appreciate what they do. They produce food for our table and are hard-working, great characters; many are God-fearing, too, and they make a huge contribution to Scotland.

Over the years, members of our fishing communities have gone on to form the backbone of the merchant navy and, in the 1970s and 1980s, they went to work offshore in our oil and gas industry, because they were already familiar with the perils of working on the cruel sea. They put their lives at risk for us then, and they still do so now. They deserve our respect—they deserve our thanks. However, what have they got in this consultation document? The only mention of fishermen is when it says that what they do is “destructive”. What an incredible act of provocation that is!

I have a list of questions about the consultation document. Some have been asked already. Why did the Government not sit down with fishermen at the beginning and work with them on local management to learn what they do? After all, no one is going to be more interested than fishermen in preserving stocks for the future and for their families coming behind them. No one knows more about it than they do. No one can convince me that an academic working at a university at a typewriter knows more than a fisherman working the sea.

Where do we go from here? I have already urged the minister to do something, and I know that she has rejected me, but this issue will haunt the Scottish Government. It will not go away. The document that I am holding is not a consultation document—it is a notice of execution. Together with the inshore cap and the priority marine features, it is putting the fear of God into our fishermen. The collective impact means that, as Dr Allan has already said, the anger is palpable. In 49 years, I have not come across anything like it.

The minister should withdraw the consultation document and apologise. She should go around the coast to most of the fishing ports, as I have tried to do in my time, and then she should go back to the drawing board and work with the fishing communities.

In the meantime, I have three suggestions about what to do with the consultation document. First, it could be put in the burgeoning recycled policy unit along with the alcohol advertising ban and the deposit return scheme. Secondly, it might be preferable to use it as a firelighter. Thirdly—and in doing this, I think I am summing up the views of the people whom I work for and have valued and cherished for almost 50 years—it should be torn up, as I am now doing. That is what the people of Scotland who have great affection for our fishermen want to happen. It is what should happen and what I believe will happen at one stage or another.

17:38  

I join other members in thanking my colleague Beatrice Wishart not just for bringing this evening’s debate but for the tenacity that she has shown in articulating many of the concerns that we have heard this evening on behalf of her Shetland constituency.

I have always been a great fan of members’ business debates. I have participated in many and, in recent times, have had the privilege of chairing a good many, too. They are often underestimated. Anybody tuning into this evening’s debate will be left in no doubt whatsoever about the powerful message that these debates often send.

We have heard from each speaker about the response to the proposals to HPMAs, and we have been hearing the same from coastal and island communities right around Scotland. Alasdair Allan is absolutely right about the reaction in his constituency, and it is very much echoed in my own constituency. There is anger and confusion but, equally, there is a determination and absolute resolution to see off the proposals for very good reasons that I will come on to.

Karen Adam was also right to point out that the proposals are already having an impact, due to the uncertainty that they have created. Similarly, Brian Whittle was right to say that, in a sense, they have made it far more difficult to come to a resolution at the end, because emotions are running so high and the faith and confidence of our island and coastal communities has been so undermined.

Does Mr McArthur also agree that the uncertainty that the proposals are causing is impacting the ability to recruit into the sector?

I very much agree. I think that that was the point that Karen Adam made. Whether it is in relation to coming into the sector or people seeking to buy new vessels, that uncertainty cannot be anything other than bad and damaging. We have a combination of the blunt and arbitrary nature of the proposals, with the 10 per cent on the one hand—which, as Alasdair Allan reflected, has everybody suspecting that they might be part of—and the deadline of 2026 on the other, which, given what the Government is seeking to achieve here, is a ridiculously short timeframe. It seems entirely arbitrary and based on when the next election falls.

The timeframe is driven by the fact that the whole commitment emerges from a Bute house agreement that rides roughshod over the development of policy that has been in place over many years. The fisheries strategy from 2019 will have been an iterative process through engagement with the sector and stakeholders and through the development of evidence. What has happened in the equivalent of smoke-filled rooms in Bute house is something that is wholly arbitrary. The evidential base is just not there.

For years, the message from Government has been about local management, local control and local engagement. In my Orkney constituency, we are seeing fishers who absolutely recognise that their sector is reliant on a healthy ecosystem and a healthy marine environment. That is why they have been working with research academics and environmental groups on a range of conservation initiatives over recent years. Therefore, to have this top-down approach imposed upon them has left them absolutely baffled.

There are a few minor bright spots; the assurance from the First Minister, repeated by the cabinet secretary, that none of the proposals will be imposed on communities is welcome. However, there is no definition of what a community is or what level of opposition will be required.

I welcome Màiri McAllan’s willingness to engage with MSPs across the Parliament, and I welcome the meetings that she held with us earlier today. I do not want to breach any confidences from that meeting, but I am absolutely sure that she will have been left in no doubt about the strength of cross-party feelings on this issue.

Let us not mistake the opposition that we are seeing as an unwillingness to engage on what will genuinely safeguard the future of our fishing sector, our aquaculture sector and all those who rely on our marine environment through having it protected. However, let us not be in any doubt, either, that the Government will be able to find a way of railroading the proposals through on the basis of the Bute house agreement, because, otherwise, it will not have the numbers in Parliament.

I look forward to the remainder of this debate, and I look forward to participating in tomorrow’s. I do not think that we can give the issue enough focus at the moment, and I thank Beatrice Wishart for giving us the opportunity this evening to reflect on concerns.

17:43  

I, too, thank Beatrice Wishart for securing the debate. I will start by supporting some of what she has said in her motion.

We all know, and we all agree, that fishing is hugely important to Scotland’s coastal communities, including those across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. I also agree that any decision should be taken on the basis of robust evidence and an assessment of its impact, and that stakeholders must be fully involved in the process.

In March, after nearly 20 years of discussion, 193 countries agreed to a new high seas treaty, which will protect 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030. The UK Government also recently announced the creation of three highly protected marine areas in English waters, one of which is on the English side of the Solway Firth.

It is internationally accepted that the world needs to do more to look after the marine environment, and there is cross-party support for HPMAs across the UK. However, the process by which they are achieved must be carefully managed and people’s livelihoods—and, indeed, the way of life in many of our coastal communities—must be considered and even protected. Any change must be made with full consultation with those communities.

A vast amount of work needs to be done before any location is decided on. Acceptable socioeconomic impact should be a key indicator of whether a successful outcome can be achieved. As things stand—and based on the feedback that has been provided to me—the policy agreement seems a bit unclear about the degree to which designations in the Scottish inshore region would contribute towards the overall 10 per cent target that applies to inshore and offshore regions.

Galloway is home to many inshore fishers, who fish in the Solway and the Irish Sea and beyond. Scotland’s inshore waters extend from the coast out to 12 nautical miles, and fishing activity is concentrated within 6 nautical miles of the coast. There are more than 2,000 active Scottish fishing vessels, three quarters of which fish primarily in inshore waters. That inshore fleet is diverse and includes trawlers, creelers, netters, dredgers and divers, and we should absolutely thank them all for putting food on our tables. The sector contributes £284 million to Scotland’s economy and provides employment for many people in our rural communities. I also appreciate Karen Adam’s point about the importance of the blue economy.

The Galloway Static Gear Inshore Fishermen’s Association, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and other bodies that represent fishing interests have contacted me as an MSP for South Scotland, a region that has coastal waters on both sides, and have asked me to convey their concerns. On behalf of my constituents, I want to ask whether the 10 per cent target for HPMAs, which is perceived as being arbitrary, can be removed and, instead, a focus on acceptable socioeconomic impact can be considered.

They also want to know whether the exclusion from HPMAs of current inshore waters, such as those in the Solway and the Irish Sea, can be considered, and whether clarity can be provided on the evidence base for restricting water sports, including swimming and kayaking, in HPMAs. That is an important issue for folk in the Loch Ryan area. I also ask the cabinet secretary for a commitment that, before any HPMA is established, our static and mobile gear fishing communities will be properly consulted and their concerns addressed.

The purpose of HPMAs, in so far as they align with Scotland’s nature conservation strategy, is reasonable, and the principle of taking a whole-site approach in targeted areas would, we hope, achieve positive biodiversity outcomes. [Interruption.] I cannot give way to members—I think that I am in the final 10 seconds of my speech. With the implementation of such a programme of work, there must be appropriate recognition of the drastic step change that it will represent for designations in the marine space and the existing users and coastal communities that will be affected.

Positive biodiversity aspirations are important, as are actions to support them. I know that any actions that are taken will be well considered by the cabinet secretary, to ensure that outcomes are successful and just.

I will conclude there, as I am conscious of the time. The target for protecting these areas must consider all waters, not just those for which the Scottish Government currently has delegated authority. The integration of critical socioeconomic considerations and thorough community engagement must be embedded at an early point in the process.

Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Beatrice Wishart to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Beatrice Wishart]

Motion agreed to.

17:49  

I thank my colleague Beatrice Wishart for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject of HPMAs.

Scotland is an island nation, and our marine waters are our last great commons, but they are under threat from decades of damage. It is commendable that the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation allocates limited fishing licences for local shellfish, but 80 per cent of Shetland’s sea floor is in “poor condition” as a result of towed, bottom-contacting fishing.

Scotland as a whole is failing in its legal duty to maintain our seas to good environmental status. Disturbance of the seabed is widespread and total fish landings across Scotland are decreasing. Living seabed habitats—such as flame shell beds—that provide spawning and nursery grounds for fish have suffered catastrophic decline. That threatens not only fish, seabirds and marine mammals, but us humans.

What species are in danger of extinction, and is that verified by neutral science, by any chance?

Does that include crofters?

I apologise to Brian Whittle. I was being distracted by somebody else.

Presiding Officer,

“This is a crucial next step to aid marine ecosystem recovery in our waters and I’m delighted to see my recommendations become a reality today. Not only will the first of these Highly Protected Marine Areas protect important species and habitats, but they will propel the UK forward in our mission to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030.”

That was said by the Minister for Biosecurity, Marine and Rural Affairs, Lord Benyon—a Tory—on the HPMAs for England. [Interruption.] I will continue, because I need to use the time.

If we do not take action, fish stocks will continue to suffer, making it harder and harder to earn a living as a fisher. In addition, losing the flood defences that are provided by healthy coastal habitats would cost billions.

Shetland’s fisheries are faring better than most, but other coastal communities are realising that the collapse of fish stocks—not an increase in protection—is what threatens coastal economies.

It is time for communities to step up and demand change. In the coming months, coastal and island communities can continue to shape the ocean recovery network of our highly protected marine areas. The cabinet secretary will hold meetings and workshops. Marine Scotland assured me that coastal communities will be central when they

“get together in a room with maps and … draw the thing out in a very collective manner”.

There will be a second public consultation on locations, and anyone will be able to submit proposals for sites.

We should go further. We need a process for communities to meaningfully input into wider spatial plans for their inshore waters, which could include HPMAs as part of a package of measures that works for each community.

It is about that whole package. Fishing is indispensable, but it makes up just 6 per cent of marine economic value and 7 per cent of marine employment. Our coastal economies are a rich tapestry. They include recreation, hospitality, tourism, shipping and the increasingly growing sector of nature restoration. Many of those will benefit from HPMAs, as in Arran, where the Lamlash bay no-take zone has increased both tourism and lobster catches near the HPMA—and where, we also hear, the general ecosystem is flourishing.

Lamlash bay is demonstrating multifaceted benefits from high protection. It should be recognised and funded as a formal pilot. However, we can also draw on ample international evidence, including benefits for fishers outside HPMAs in California, Florida, New Zealand and the Mediterranean, where the fishers asked for them to be brought in.

HPMAs have piqued public interest in marine management. We should seize the opportunity to catalyse a process of community wealth building all along our coastlines.

Through careful co-design and management with our coastal communities, we can create world-famous HPMAs, where visitors and residents alike enjoy the beautiful, nature-rich waters, from which the benefits literally spill over for local fishers and the ecosystems on which we all depend.

17:53  

I cannot think of a more important issue on which to give my first speech from the back benches since 2018. I am delighted to be back. However, I am not delighted about the substance of the debate because, given that it is about conservation, my warning is stark: if the proposals go ahead as planned, the rarest species in our coastal areas and islands will soon be people.

The figures back that up. National Records of Scotland is clear that all our coastal areas will have a double-digit reduction in population between 2018 and 2044. We are talking about the Western Isles, Argyll and Bute, and Inverclyde. It is people who are at greatest risk, through depopulation. Despite that bleak outlook, there are signs of recovery, and that recovery is driven in many areas by fishing.

Let us look at Tiree, where fishing supports 20 full-time jobs, which, in turn, support 25 per cent of the children under the age of eight on the island. Every one of those children are in the Gaelic-medium unit. Language, heritage and culture drive tourism, but if we sever the lifeline with fishing, we will undermine the wider economy.

My position in the leadership contest was that I would scrap HPMAs completely if elected. I did not win, and my job now is to represent my constituents and to navigate a way forward. The seafood sector’s statement, which I believe is to be issued tomorrow, offers a way forward: either to drop the proposals or to find a clear consensus—which requires fishermen’s voices to be part of the discussion—on balancing protections in the marine environment and safeguarding tens of thousands of jobs.

I was hugely heartened by the First Minister’s comments—and, indeed, by those of Màiri McAllan, who has been exceptional at engaging—that no communities will see HPMAs imposed on them against their will. The difficulty, of course, is that I have not come across a single community that wants HPMAs. Therefore, the challenge will be finding anywhere to impose them.

I have not taken interventions, as I wanted to use the last minute of my comments to quote the words of a fisherman. That is because this is not about taking politicians’ words but about listening directly to those people. I want to quote Donald Francis MacNeil, who made his singing debut last month with Skipinnish with the song “The Clearances Again”.

I will not sing it, but it can be heard sung online. He sings:

“Donald Francis MacNeil is my name,
I’m a fisherman through to the bone.
I have lived by the creel and the wave
To provide for a family and home.
Generations before me have followed
The toil and the call of the seas
But the soul will be torn from our future
And the heart from the Hebrides ...

My people, my language, my Island
And the rights that our forefathers won
To remain on the soil of our homeland
By the sweep of a pen will be gone—
A wrecking ball through our existence;
Tradition and culture condemned
At the hands of the arrogant stranger—
The Clearances over again.

But we’ll join with the kin of our coastline
From Ness to the Holy Isle.
Faceless grey suits from the cities,
They will not play games with our lives.
My song marks a fight for survival
A Mayday call we cry.
We will stand for the rights of our children.
We will not let our islands die.”

May that be the rallying call for this Parliament.

I now call on the cabinet secretary to respond to the debate.

17:58  

I thank Beatrice Wishart for lodging the motion. I also thank her and other members for their contributions today, and those colleagues who joined me in the round-table session that I held earlier.

I acknowledge the emotion that has been so clear in exchanges today and outside the chamber up until this point. In response, I commit that I will be balanced and measured and that I will take the matter exceptionally seriously.

Before I move to the substance of the Scottish Government’s position, I categorically remind members that we are at the very beginning of the development of the issue, that I have very deliberately consulted early and widely in the process, and that I am currently in the position of considering thousands of responses to the consultation that we set. I am committed to closely considering the views that have been expressed as I decide the way forward. Noting the uncertainty that a number of members have mentioned, I commit to doing that as soon as I can and to updating members.

Can the cabinet secretary give members a sense of how long it will take to read the responses to the consultation? How many responses did the Government receive, and how long might it take to get through them?

In an interview that I gave earlier, I noted that we have had thousands of responses. I am still working out how many of them are duplicates and how many were generated via campaigns, but we are looking at about 4,000 responses just now. I cannot put a timescale on exactly how long it will take to meaningfully get through them, but I commit to doing that as soon as I can.

I say to everybody who has been concerned by the proposals that I care and empathise. As an MSP who represents a rural area, I feel deeply connected to the land in the same way as island and coastal communities feel connected to the land, coast and sea. I am listening, which is exactly what the consultation exercise is about.

As someone who is working on a member’s bill to which there have been 14,000 responses, I feel the cabinet secretary’s pain and wish her good speed in getting through the consultation responses. However, in my speech, I made the point that the way in which the consultation has gone down in coastal and island communities is likely to make the process of reaching agreement more difficult. Can the cabinet secretary advise members of anything that will allow her to rebuild trust and confidence in the process? Fundamentally, there is a lack of confidence at the moment.

I accept that there were different ways in which one could have approached the consultation on an issue that I understood would elicit a lot of different views. I could have done what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did—I do not criticise it for this—by taking a top-down pilot approach, but I felt that consulting as widely as I could on the principles of the proposals right at the beginning of the process, rather than at the end point, was the best approach. I accept that that might have created a vacuum into which some mistruths have entered, with concern being allowed to grow.

In relation to how we address that, I am here today, I will meet MSPs, I have committed to meeting coastal communities, and I will closely consider the consultation responses. In essence, I will gather as much information as I can on the views on how the proposals should be taken forward, and I commit to acting on that as much as I can.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I will take a final intervention; I will then need to make some progress.

I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking so many interventions.

How can the Scottish Government consider HPMAs when it has not yet assessed the effectiveness of MPAs? Surely we must gather that information first before we can move on.

We have a statutory process for assessing the development of MPAs, and our consultation recommends that HPMAs follow a similar statutory cycle of monitoring.

That brings me to the point that the IPCC is clear that we are in a climate and nature emergency. The most recent assessment of the state of marine areas in Scotland and the rest of the UK demonstrated that we are failing on, I think, 11 out of 15 indicators of good environmental status. That is all happening against a backdrop of our knowing that our oceans store about 25 per cent of the carbon dioxide that is emitted by humans and 90 per cent of the heat from human-caused climate change. Recent research shows that none of us can deny that, although we need oceans to help us to maintain equilibrium in the natural world, the seas are reaching their capacity to assist us in that because of the impact of humans. If we do not protect our seas, they will not be able to protect us. That is a fundamental truth.

Another fundamental truth is that the actions that we take in response to that science and to the emergency must be carefully considered, fair and just—and, in this case, they must be developed hand in hand with people who will be affected by them. That is exactly what I am seeking to do.

The idea that our economy and our environment are not in opposition to each other but are, instead, mutually inclusive is at the core of our blue economy vision. We recognise that economic prosperity and the wellbeing of our people are underpinned by nature and are not external to it. The people who understand that fact more than anyone are those who live in our coastal and island communities, as they are socially, economically and culturally linked to our seas. That is why it is so important to me that they have been involved to date and that they will continue to be involved.

I wanted to take as many interventions as I could. However, I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude.

Many important points have been raised in the debate. We all recognise the importance of Scotland’s coastal and island communities and the industries that support them. We recognise the importance and the indispensable value of working with those communities as we develop our policy. At the same time, we must all recognise the threat that our environment is under.

Every MSP in the chamber was elected on a manifesto that committed to the protection of our environment. My colleagues in the Labour Party committed to turning 20 per cent of Scotland’s seas into highly protected marine areas, and the Conservatives committed to piloting highly protected marine areas, so there is agreement that marine protection is required. My job, which I take very seriously, is to ensure that we achieve those aims while working hand in hand with the people who will be impacted by them, and I commit to doing that.

Meeting closed at 18:06.