I will come straight back in on that answer. Do we not miss out on joined-up thinking regionally? Is there more that the Scottish Government could do on that? You have all mentioned heat pumps in the context of heating, but you have not mentioned heat networks, which could be a good way of using electricity to provide heat where that electricity is produced.

Furthermore, on transport, EVs have been mentioned, but not railways or other big infrastructure projects that could use power close to where it is generated. I ask Claire Mack to briefly come back in on that, and then Gemma Grimes, who I see is nodding her head.

Yes—it is it just a supplementary question for Claire Mack. A few minutes ago, you mentioned the benefits of looking at innovative shares. The vast majority of the ScotWind projects are owned by countries outwith Scotland. When I say “countries”, I mean that some Governments outwith Scotland are getting really good benefits from investing in ScotWind projects. How do we get more of those real benefits for Scotland? You talked about the national wealth fund and SNIB. If the Scottish Government took a share in projects, would there be opportunities that could give us an economic benefit as revenues come in over the years?

You mentioned very big projects. Presumably, there are opportunities in smaller projects, for example in towns, cities and urban areas, where you could develop community-owned solar rooftop projects. There are other opportunities out there. It is a question of moving those up the agenda and making them more investable.

I should probably just put on the record that I am a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative.

I will stop here. I appreciate your indulgence, convener.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s constructive approach. I take it that she does not want to accept the actual wording of my amendment 77. However, is there a way in which the Scottish Government could support our park authorities to try to ensure that we get strategic alignment and a stronger focus on implementing the park plans? Even if you do not want that principle in the bill, would you accept the background principles?

I will press it.

It has been good to listen to the debate this evening. I know that we are all now very tired because we have been going for some time, but it is important to get members’ concerns on the record.

Emma Harper made a powerful justification for amending the 2003 act to deliver action on salmon poaching and stressed the importance of creating offences in order to protect salmon and freshwater fish. Maurice Golden highlighted the importance of reporting on the effectiveness of penalties in ensuring compliance with the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013, and other members highlighted the benefits of their amendments.

Given the time, I will make a speedy comment about the response from the cabinet secretary, and I would be delighted if she intervened on me. She said that my amendments are not necessary because what they seek to implement is already happening. However, on amendment 146, I would like to know the timescale for the Scottish Government’s contribution to the UK marine strategy, how there will be consultation and how the frustration of stakeholders, which I have reflected, will be listened to. They are not briefing us just for the sake of it. [Interruption.]

Ms Harper, do you want to intervene on an issue?

As the member knows, if we pass the amendment this evening, it would be for someone who was investigating the case to look at the requirements.

What really struck me was the other issues that are identified as offences. There is a

“prohibition against using explosive and other noxious substances for the destruction or taking of fish”.

Those are serious issues, and I am glad that the member has raised them today.

My final point is about amendment 146. The cabinet secretary did not give us a timetable for input from the Scottish Government to the UK marine strategy. In the absence of clarity, could the Scottish Government not just get on with that, given that we are dealing with half of the UK’s marine area? Marine biodiversity and support for our fishing communities are so important, and we need to get those right.

If my amendments do not pass today, I hope that they are, at the very least, on the record. The cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government will have to start listening to, and acting on, comments from key stakeholders.

[Inaudible.] Apologies, I have been in the chamber for some time but forgot to put the card back in.

I have five amendments in the group. Given our timings tonight, I will focus on my amendments, although I strongly support Maurice Golden’s amendment 21, to which he will speak later on.

I thank the Marine Conservation Society, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, which have been incredibly helpful in pulling together my amendment 142 and getting it in front of members. Amendment 42 seeks to amend the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to require the national marine plan—or, as the case may be, a regional marine plan—to contribute to the delivery of any relevant nature recovery targets to be set following the passage of the bill. It would ensure that the future national marine plan included policies that actively drove the recovery of marine biodiversity.

There is an on-going debate about the role and shape of marine planning, which was discussed during stage 2. Amendment 142 is an important opportunity to explicitly link the national marine plan with nature recovery targets. That would help to embed nature recovery as a core objective of marine planning.

My amendment 143 seeks to update the definition of “marine environmental purposes” in section 2A of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. It follows on from amendment 328 that was agreed to at stage 2, which added wording on climate adaptation to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. I was very pleased that the Government was able to support that amendment and I hope that it can take a constructive and positive approach to my amendment 143.

Currently, the definition in the 1984 act speaks about

“conserving ... the natural beauty ... of marine or coastal areas ... or ... conserving flora or fauna which are dependent on ... a marine or coastal environment.”

However, given our understanding now of the role that the marine environment can play in tackling climate change—for example, through carbon absorption—the definition needs to be updated. That is what amendment 143 would do in relation to the existing powers in respect of three key issues: mitigation of climate change, adaptation to climate change and the support of ecosystem recovery. Amendment 143 would update those powers and bring them to the discussion that we now need to have.

There are issues that we need to focus on, including, as I will talk about, just how much more we need to do. Amendments 144 and 145 were crafted using the real-world experience of the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation. I have lodged those amendments again because I want to ensure that the Scottish Government has real plans to make such changes. If those amendments are agreed to, they would make Scotland a true leader. At the very least, I want to get the issues properly on the record.

Amendment 145 would give ministers the powers to bring in low-impact fishing priority areas, in line with the Scottish ministers’ commitment to supporting a just transition to a more sustainable industry. I have worked closely with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation on that amendment. It is truly a modest proposal. It would require any such areas to be subject to extensive consultation, and could be done only to help to meet any targets that are set under the bill, to fulfil the national marine plan or to help to achieve ministers’ legal duty to deliver good environmental status.

Amendment 144 would give ministers the power to protect the parts of our sea lochs that are most important as marine carbon stores. Those lochs make a significant contribution to Scotland’s climate mitigation efforts, burying more carbon than the whole of the North Sea and storing more per hectare than peatland. I was genuinely shocked when I saw those statistics, so let us hope that it focuses minds.

Amendment 146 provides for the delivery of a Scottish marine strategy. I had a constructive conversation with the cabinet secretary, who is now back in the room, and I spoke with a series of stakeholders after the meeting that I had with her and her officials. Stakeholders do not agree that we should rely on the UK Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. I want to flag the sheer frustration that came across in the meetings that I had following that discussion.

That frustration was well set out in the Open Seas joint briefing, which I hope all members have had time to read:

“Inshore Marine Protected Areas / Priority Marine Features consultation - delayed
National Marine Plan 2 - delayed
Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement Programme - delayed
21 Fisheries Management Plans - delayed
Biodiversity Strategy - not delivered
Proposed fisheries management bill - never introduced
Penalties review - launch date unclear
Good Environmental Status for Scottish Seas - targets missed in 2020 and 2024”.

There is a lot of frustration in the sector. I wanted to mention that in the chamber today, because we need to try to work together.

The UK has yet to fully develop a marine strategy. Scotland is responsible for more than half of the UK’s seas, so we have a responsibility to maintain good conditions. A strategy would require action. Having looked into the issue in depth, I believe that the current auditing mechanisms of the Office for Environmental Protection in England and Northern Ireland and Environmental Standards Scotland do not fully replace the previous auditing by the European Commission. A strategy requires appropriate indicators and monitoring to detect trends in those indicators. Three components of marine ecosystems need monitoring: mobile animals, including fish and seabirds; the biotic communities of the seabed; and the plankton and water column. In my view, the current monitoring in Scottish waters is both inadequate and underfunded, especially given the great extent of the Scottish inshore zone to the west of Scotland.

I hope that colleagues will consider supporting my amendments. If they do not, I hope that having got these issues on the agenda tonight and having put forward the big concerns that key stakeholders have put to us all, the Scottish Government will respond by being constructive, will listen and will act on those views from stakeholders.

As ever, my preference is for all my amendments to be accepted, but we know that that does not always happen. The issue is on the record so let us get moving, because there is much that we can do, even in respect of job creation. There are many opportunities here—let us not miss them.

I move amendment 142.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have just checked and it did work, but it asked me twice to vote.