Chamber and committees

I start by making a point of clarification in response to Beatrice Wishart’s speech. She was concerned that our amendment to the motion appears to take out the reference to an annual debate. It does take out that reference, but the point that Ms Wishart herself made was that one annual debate does not cut it. There is more than one facet to the fishing industry, so we need more than one debate—we need to look at how we add value to the processing industry, how we distribute quota and how we look at spatial planning. Karen Adam mentioned a lot more parts of the downstream industry. One annual set-piece debate does not deal with that.

We need to put a focus on the industry and all its parts to make sure that we maximise the benefit. That focus has been lacking and I hope that we will get it back, especially in relation to things such as spatial planning. It must be a priority when we are thinking about renewables and many of the other issues that we are dealing with in relation to the marine environment.

There is no deal, but a deal needs to be negotiated and it needs to be for the benefit of the fishing industry and the communities that the industry supports. We would expect trading in fish to be made easier—that is another thing that Beatrice Wishart talked about. The way in which the current deals are set up creates huge disadvantages for our fishing communities, which need to be sorted out. We look forward to seeing that happen. I hope that the Scottish fishing industry will be at the heart of that process, which will also involve the Scottish Government.

Members talked about research. We know that our research needs to be improved, and the marine laboratory needs investment. Some members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee visited the laboratory, and it looked pretty much like an old shed. It was not a place for cutting-edge science.

Ariane Burgess talked about climate change, which brings concerns, and we need to do research into the difficulties that it will bring. However, it also brings opportunities. As fisheries change, we need to be fleet of foot. We need to protect stocks while we get ready for new opportunities.

Colin Smyth talked about quotas and grants. He was very clear—and I absolutely agree—that boats that break the law should not be given quota, and neither should they be given grants. Boats that disregard the law, boats that trade in black fish and those that deal in modern-day slavery: those are all abhorrent, and such practices should not be part of our fishing industry.

We need to reform how we distribute quota to ensure that biodiversity is taken into account and that we protect species. Those with access to our community quota need to use it in the public interest and to employ people fairly.

The Conservatives brought this debate, and most of the issues in it have arisen because of Boris’s botched Brexit bill. That makes trading difficult, and we need to sort that out. The debate is based on a false premise, having been initiated by a party that, to quote Colin Smyth, promised “a sea of opportunity” but delivered “a wave of betrayal”.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been done of any impact on CAMHS waiting times targets, in light of reports of autism assessment services being cancelled leaving more children in distress and unable to access support that requires a diagnosis. (S6O-04562)

In NHS Highland’s area 1,537 children are waiting for neurodevelopmental assessments, and there are more who are unable to get on to the waiting list at all. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that young people receive such assessments in a timely fashion? How is it dealing with the knock-on impact of delays in child and adolescent mental health services? Given the reduction in additional support needs staff, what assistance is the Government putting in place in schools for children who are stuck on waiting lists for assessments?

Just for clarity, are you saying that any individual—not just Scottish ministers—can approach the Sentencing Council?

However, the Scottish Government has not asked the council to do so.

Scottish ministers can ask the Scottish Sentencing Council to provide guidelines in specific areas. Has the Scottish Government made, or would it consider making, a request for guidelines in relation to pet theft? Have you looked at that?

What are your views on the changes to national parks’ statutory purposes in the bill? What will be the practical impact of the changes?

To be clear, are you saying that the aims should include something on landscape?

Mark Lodge, do you have any comments on that?

For clarity, can I check that the provisions allow changes in the designation but also in the management of the designation? I am picking up that you are talking about management—for example, putting trees in to cool rivers down and things like that. Is it about management techniques or the designation—that is, the thing that you were protecting is beyond repair and you need to change the designation? There seem to be two subtle issues at play. Can you iron them out?