Chamber and committees

The important point is that the measures be taken with the agreement of, and in consultation with, local communities that know their own seas. Many communities have said to me that they want the management of their own fishing grounds and, indeed, marine environments to be devolved to them. We should do that rather than have a top-down policy that causes fear and alarm in communities.

The Government must revisit the policy. It cannot impose HPMAs on communities and say that the only communities that will be exempted are the ones that are vehemently opposed because that ramps up the pressure rather than calming it down and enabling negotiation with communities so that we can find out what is workable.

I agree that there is vehement opposition throughout the Highlands and Islands and, indeed, beyond. However, asking communities to demonstrate such opposition rather than sitting down and working with them is the real issue. We should be spending this time on considering how we protect our seas instead of on demonstrating vehement opposition.

Fergus Ewing mentioned a number of organisations and industries. Most of the debate surrounding the issue has been about fishing, but it is about much more than that. As he said, other industries are equally dismayed by the policy. For instance, will fish farms be allowed to stay where they are? Will they be exempted in the way that ScotWind sites have been, or will they have to move from their current sites? If they have to move, what timeframe will they be given to gain the consents that they will need to enable them to move to other sites, and what impact will that have on fishing in those new areas?

There will also be an impact on seaweed harvesting, which is another important industry that supports our rural economies and jobs. If it is also banned, will we lose prime Scottish brands such as ishga and Hebridean Seaweed? Will they no longer be able to harvest seaweed for their products? Less well known than the use of seaweed in other products is its use to replace plastics with a more environmentally friendly substance.

Seaweed is also used for fertiliser. That practice is well known in the crofting communities, as the Scottish Crofting Federation’s response to the consultation highlighted, but now large sustainable brands such as Hebridean Seaweed are providing fertiliser worldwide. Given what is happening to supplies of fertiliser around the world due to the war in Ukraine, we cannot view the policy in isolation.

Tourism is promoted throughout our coastal communities, and it is a growing industry. However, the policy will impact on that, too. The proposals go so far as to suggest that swimming could be banned in some areas. If we take it to include canoeing, kayaking and wildlife boat trips, the impact will be huge. It also begs the question: if people cannot swim there, should anyone be allowed to run a ferry there? Of course, that might be the object of the exercise, given the current lack of ferries and the daily disruption to their operation. Simply to ban them might provide the Government with a valid excuse for the lack of ferries at the moment.

Not all areas will be designated, and that means that we will be funnelling activity into smaller and smaller areas. The culmination of such activity in small areas will be to create damage, so that impact must be assessed.

The song by Donald Francis MacNeil and Skipinnish talks about the clearances happening once again. The clearances are not something that is easily evoked in the Highlands and Islands, yet in this instance the comparison is valid. People are already selling up, any investment has been shelved and families are already moving out. The policy will cause depopulation and will clear people off the land. People will not accept that.

Donald Francis comes from Vatersay—an island that was made famous just over a hundred years ago, when his forefathers fought for their land. The Vatersay raiders were jailed for their temerity in cultivating the land and building homes there. Despite their imprisonment, their actions led to the Government of the day buying the land for crofting. They were among the very early land reformers, fighting for their right to survival. The song evokes this:

“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”

Surely it should not take modern-day Vatersay raiders to overturn this decision.

I thank the MSPs who signed my motion, which has allowed the debate to take place. I make no apology for bringing the issue of highly protected marine areas back to the chamber. The impact that they will have on the whole of my region is unprecedented and the Scottish Government must listen to and, more importantly, hear the concerns.

It is a signal of those concerns that “The Clearances Again”, the song by Donald Francis MacNeil and Skipinnish, has achieved such success. I understand that it was a roaring success at the concert that coincided with the Scottish fishing expo in Aberdeen last weekend. The song spells out the dismay of our fishing communities at distant decision makers destroying their livelihoods and incomes at the stroke of a pen.

The economy of much of the Highlands is dependent on the sea. However, every aspect of life on our islands is governed by the sea. That includes their economies and connections to the mainland. The fishing community is obviously dismayed. The impact that HPMAs could have on fishing is devastating. Even the most sustainable and environmentally friendly forms of fishing would be affected.

The success of the no-take zone in Lamlash bay is quoted to us. However, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, which was instrumental in setting up the zone, tells us that the success is unmeasured. There have been no comparative studies to show whether the policy has worked. We also have the no-take zone in Broadbay, which has not worked well. We must have robust science to guide our management of the seas.

I agree absolutely with Brian Whittle. It is also important that those who live and work on the sea have their evidence recorded, because they have a huge amount of anecdotal evidence to add to the debate. They need to manage their fishing to maximise their catch while leaving enough behind to ensure that they have income and employment for the future. The communities concerned have, by their own initiative, taken measures to conserve stocks, such as the V-notching of spawning lobsters to protect females from being harvested. They are not people who damage the environment but people who need to work with it and protect it.

Will the member take an intervention?

Is the Scottish Government merely facilitating big profits for the private financial sector and international companies through exploiting Scotland’s resources and potential?

How will the Scottish Government ensure that the benefits of aquaculture extend to local communities? Specifically, how can community views be taken into account when considering planning permission for fish farms? When I say “community views”, I am including the views of other users of the marine environment.

Okay. Thank you.

One of the other benefits of fish farming is well-paid jobs in remote rural areas. I would therefore highlight how we might be able to turn around some of the depopulation in those areas. Cabinet secretary, you will be as aware as anyone that housing is a huge issue. We see tiny houses or houses that would be almost worthless elsewhere going for phenomenal amounts in some areas, simply because they are beautiful places to live in. Young people employed by fish farms are really struggling to get a home and to stay in the communities in which they were born and brought up. Is the Scottish Government doing anything to aid and assist young people in getting a home, and is it working with the fish farming industry on that?

I am trying to get to the bottom of the difference between licensed and unlicensed racing, and I know that it is difficult to have a good look at what goes on as there is only one racetrack in Scotland. The impression that we are forming is that there is a professional licensed greyhound racing industry that attracts finance, betting and audiences, and there is also an unlicensed industry, which seems to be more for personal entertainment. What are the differences between those? If you have a dog that is trained to go at speed and win races in order to encourage betting as opposed to one that is a family pet that is taken out on a Saturday for a run, the speed of the animals at that track must be different and the way that the animals are reared is different. Have you looked at that in any way?

To continue that theme, what is the difference between that and horse racing?