Chamber and committees

Good morning, everyone, agus gu sònraichte madainn mhath dhan nàbaidh agamsa an-diugh, Art bho Fhèisean nan Gàidheal.

I want to ask about the concept of unmet cultural need. I want to start with Steve Byrne and Arthur Cormack in the context of traditional arts and then perhaps broaden the discussion to everyone to talk about what they understand by the concept.

I want to start with Art Cormack, because, traditionally, traditional arts have not historically featured as a priority in educational or cultural policy in Scotland. As people have said, that is now changing for the better. Is there still an unmet cultural need in Scottish traditional culture, and is there a more general unmet need in other areas of the arts that we should also try to fill?

The question is for Art and Steve first, then for everyone else.

I hope that they have recorded that in the Official Report.

I can bring him in, either in continuous prose or in song or music before I open it up to everyone else. No pressure, ma-thà.

That wis fair braw that Ah set that up. Fowk micht jalouse Ah hid set it up, but Ah hidnae.

Art Cormack is a fine singer too. I do not know if he has a song.

My final question is for Gilly Mendes Ferreira. Your organisation’s position is that unregulated tracks should come to an end. I realise that there is only one track in Scotland and that it is unregulated, so it is difficult to make a recommendation about anything else. However, as others have mentioned, we have heard an awful lot about the differences between the commercial GBGB tracks operating in England and what seems to be a hobby activity in Thornton. I do not say that to minimise the risks, but we have heard an awful lot about some of the casualty figures for GBGB tracks. I appreciate that there is only one track in Scotland for you to come to a view on, and that it happens to be unregulated, but why did you focus on unregulated tracks and make recommendations to bring that activity to an end?

Some of the points that I was going to ask about have been covered. I want to briefly get your assessment of the SAWC report. As members have said, in questioning people at committee sessions, it was difficult to get an indication of how evidence was gathered. A lot of our questions simply drew answers such as, “Oh, we don’t have any evidence on that.” Are you satisfied with the report? I am not here to rubbish it, but we were surprised by how many times we heard the answer, “We didn’t gather any evidence on that—sorry, we don’t know.”

Thank you.

The fact that we have debated the same issue twice in this Parliament in the space of 36 hours says something significant.

As I indicated in the members’ business debate last night, I have never before had to confront anything quite like the issue of highly protected marine areas—a policy to which, to the best of my recollection, literally every single one of the many people in my island community who have offered me a view is strongly opposed. As I mentioned last night, even when I was showing a local primary school around the Parliament recently, the first thing that the kids wanted to ask me about was HPMAs. That is a measure of where things have reached—in the Western Isles, at any rate.

There is an undoubted need to address biodiversity loss in our seas, so I certainly do not make any case today for unrestricted fishing. I am also aware that the Tories, who had HPMAs in their own election manifesto, are playing political games with their motion today.

However, the problem with HPMAs is that, although they will affect only 10 per cent of our sea area, we will not know for two years which 10 per cent that will be. In the meantime, every coastal community in Scotland, particularly those on the west coast, not unreasonably fears that it will be them.

The prospect of a virtually total ban on all fishing activity in any one of our most fragile communities would, in fact, disproportionately affect some of the very forms of fishing that have the smallest environmental impacts. In areas that are fished by smaller vessels, such as many of those in my constituency, there is little realistic prospect of established fishing businesses—or, indeed, aquaculture or fish processing businesses—finding somewhere else nearby to go.

I know that the scenario that I describe is not what the Government seeks. The very encouraging tone struck by the First Minister and other ministers in recent weeks, indicating that HPMAs will not be imposed on unwilling communities, is very helpful and much welcomed locally. I also acknowledge that the Government’s amendment goes some way towards recognising the fears that exist, although I regret that it almost certainly does not go far enough for my constituents.

I realise why the Government has to wait for scrutiny of the consultation responses before it can commit to action, but I can see locally what the Government must itself increasingly now suspect, which is the sheer depth of opposition in many island communities to the proposals as they stand.

After much thought, therefore, I am going to register those concerns in a very reluctant vote against the Government’s amendment. In case anyone imagines that I do such things lightly, I say that I am someone who believes—quite unapologetically—that politics is a team sport. I am not one of those types who suffers from delusions that the lone brilliance of the tennis player is often required or helpful on the political football pitch. However, I feel that I have little choice today but to apply some real pressure on behalf of my genuinely worried island constituents.

As the policy stands, HPMAs need to be rethought, and sooner rather than later. I welcome the encouraging way in which the minister has engaged with those concerns today.

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.

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.