Chamber and committees

I do not think that I have any relevant interests to declare, but I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I start by expressing our disappointment at the Scottish Government’s amendment. The tone and content do not demonstrate any understanding of the consternation that is felt by our coastal communities. Let me be clear that we are all concerned about our marine environment and protecting it—none more so than those people whose parents fished the seas, who continue to fish themselves and who wish to ensure that their children will be able to fish in the future.

In support of the Government’s proposals, the example of Lamlash Bay is often quoted, but that example makes my point. The Government did not impose the Lamlash Bay no-take zone on the community—the community fought for it. Local people who know their seas fought hard for those powers, for which the Scottish Government now seeks to take credit. It took the community 13 long years to fight the system and get that protection. It is also noticeable that Broad Bay is not so often quoted as an example.

The HPMA proposals seek to ban the most sustainable form of fishery that we have: static gear boats, which are small boats that fish in local waters and cannot move to other fishing grounds.

That is correct. Untold damage has been caused to the fishery there.

The other thing that cannot help but leave us gasping is that, under those proposals, paddle boarding and swimming can also be banned, which makes no sense at all.

We are concerned that more and more fisheries will be funnelled into smaller areas that will end up overfished. It is really concerning that these are top-down proposals. The First Minister gave a commitment that they would not be imposed on coastal communities, but the Scottish Government motion now says that they will not be imposed

“on communities that are vehemently opposed to them”.

Does the Government really want those communities to demonstrate vehement opposition? What would that look like?

That is not a just transition. I am already hearing about boats going on sale and families preparing to move away as a direct result of the policy. That is deeply damaging, given that the areas concerned are also subject to depopulation right now. The uncertainty that surrounds the proposals is damaging local economies; people cannot invest and banks will not support them, because their businesses might not have any future.

It is not just fisheries but fish farming, seaweed cultivation and harvesting that are involved. The list is long and includes the many businesses that depend on marine tourism. However, ScotWind areas are exempt. The waters that were sold on the cheap, with no community benefit, will be exempt in order to protect foreign investors. Exempting them and their profits shows the priorities of the Government—it does not care about small businesses, including the one-person or two-people businesses that are being put out of work and forced to leave. Those small businesses are not being given any exclusions.

I have never seen such a backlash. Everyone who I have spoken to in coastal communities is furious. It takes a lot to drive people to write songs, and it takes even more to make Donald Francis MacNeil sing them. The Government should not underestimate the vehement opposition to the proposals.

I move amendment S6M-08766.1, to insert at end:

“, and urges the Scottish Government to work with fishing communities and economies that have safeguarded the seas for generations to support and empower them to protect these fishing grounds for future generations, and to ensure that appropriate exclusions are put in place to benefit local communities and economies without being to the detriment of the marine environment.”

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.

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.

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.

I, too, thank Foysol Choudhury for securing the debate, and I hope that it will be instrumental in getting this issue the priority that it deserves.

Others have already spoken about the death of Awaab Ishak. It was a tragedy but, sadly, it was not a one-off. His parents fought bravely to have their housing issues recognised and to protect their child, and I am sad to say that they also had to fight to have the cause of his death properly recorded. That took strength.

I fear that, if all deaths due to damp and mouldy homes were recorded appropriately, the numbers would be huge. We all have cases of families coming to us, complaining of damp in their homes. All too often, they are told that it is down to their drying washing indoors, and their concerns are not taken seriously. “Putting Safety First: a briefing note on damp and mould for social housing practitioners” states:

“Responding to damp and mould primarily or initially as a lifestyle problem is inappropriate and ineffective.”

Indeed, that was reflected in the Housing Ombudsman’s report into the social landlord responsible for Awaab Ishak’s death. It takes effort and persistence to get a different approach taken and to get concerns taken seriously.

Housing problems are going to get worse, because of the cost of living crisis. People can no longer afford to heat their homes adequately and, as a result, damp is much more likely. The Highlands and Islands has the highest rates of fuel poverty in the country. The climate means that homes need year-round heating, and people do not have the luxury of being able to turn off the heating in the summer. The Scottish Government must therefore revisit the winter heating payment. It is unacceptable that people who have to have their heating on year round receive the same amount as those who can switch theirs off over the summer.

The Scottish Government must also look at its other schemes such as the boiler replacement and insulation schemes, which do nothing for off-gas-grid properties. They have been designed for urban housing schemes, not draughty old croft houses. It is sad that such ignorance on the part of the Scottish Government is actively stopping intervention instead of putting it in place.

Moreover, there is no point installing heat pumps in homes that have poor or no insulation. The Scottish Government must start by retrofitting old homes to make them energy efficient and then look at heating solutions. Of course, we need to stop reliance on fossil fuels, but the only way of doing that is by providing workable alternatives, which must start with cutting the amount of fuel needed to heat a home.

The Scottish Government is not doing that in the areas with the highest fuel poverty. Policy devised for rural areas works everywhere, whereas policy designed in urban areas does not transfer easily to rural parts. I urge those in the Government to get out from behind their desks and look at the reality of the impact of these policies on rural Scotland, because our young people should be able to grow up healthy and happy in warm homes.

The transport minister refused to take responsibility for the ferry crisis and also refused compensation payments for local businesses that are going to the wall because of ferry failures. Now that constituents on Uist will have no mainland ferry services from Sunday, which is in three days’ time, is the First Minister going to do the same, or is he going to tell us what emergency provision he will put in place? Has he asked the Ministry of Defence for help and what compensation will he give to the businesses that will close as a result of this?

To ask the First Minister what immediate action the Scottish Government will take to improve the situation regarding ferry services across the Highlands and Islands, in light of recent reports of unprecedented disruption. (S6F-02011)

To ask the Scottish Government when it will review the NHS Scotland patient travel scheme and the Highlands and Islands patient travel scheme. (S6O-02115)