I absolutely understand that, but you also went on to say that there is a lack of knowledge of fish farming. You mentioned lice treatments. The effects of emamectin benzoate and hydrogen peroxide, which are two of the main treatments, are not known. There is no evidence of whether the lice are building up resistance, whether the treatments are working or what the effects on other crustaceans are. Do you agree with that as a summary?

The treatments will affect other crustaceans, such as crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns.

In the past five years, how many fish farms—apart from the one at Poolewe—have closed down and moved or consolidated to better sites?

Do you have any idea why those deaths happened? If it was to do with gill health, the transmitter of poor gill health would have had an effect on the rest of the environment, would it not?

Nick, thank you very much for your evidence. I will ask you a couple of questions to make sure that I understand it. The precautionary principle is that, when the environmental hazard is uncertain or the stakes are high, you do not do it. Do you agree with that?

It seems that we are doing something that we know has an adverse effect on the environment, so we are not sticking by the precautionary principle. You also went on to say that fish farming is a new industry and that they have not got it right and that, as legislators, we might not have got it all right. I think that that is a summation of what you said. With 25 per cent mortality among fish that are put to sea, can we just allow for things to carry on as normal if you believe in the precautionary principle?

Fish farmers themselves have said that 25 per cent is unacceptable. They lost 35,000 tonnes of fish in 2022 and 33,000 tonnes of fish in 2023. The mortality rate is not moving. Does the precautionary principle tell us to just continue and let things go?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was counted. I would have voted yes.

Before I go into my speech, I remind members that, as declared in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I run two small businesses.

I want to speak about small businesses and the vital role that they play in the growth of Scotland’s economy. Let us consider a small business in the Highlands that employs six people, each on a salary of £30,000 per year. It is impossible, however hard one tries, to measure how that money is eventually spread but, inevitably, employees will spend their wages in local shops, cafes, restaurants and entertainment facilities and on local services. They will keep the transport going, keep the workers driving the buses—if they can find them—and the trains working, and they will ensure local connectivity. They will contribute to local charities and non-profit organisations, perhaps by giving freely of their time, and they will support myriad other businesses.

As well as that reinvestment in the local economy, some of those six employees may have children in primary or secondary schools, thus helping the communities to employ teachers, childcare providers and support staff, which in turn ensures that local children continue to access good local education—so do not close our schools. Those employees will contribute to the employment of doctors, general practitioners, dentists, nurses and pharmacists—so keep local GP practices, pharmacists and hospitals open.

In essence, a small business with six employees creates many more jobs in the local economy than we could even calculate. A small business functions rather like a cog in a much greater network, which certainly employs dozens, if not hundreds, of people across Scotland. If the Scottish Government overlooks or neglects small businesses and local services, there will be collateral implications for the foreseeable future.

There is nothing small about the impact of small businesses across Scotland. In 2020, a staggering 87 per cent of the 180,000 businesses registered in Scotland were defined as micro-enterprises—companies that employ up to nine people. The Government’s own 2020 “Rural enterprise support: evaluation report” stresses that, compared with those in the rest of Scotland, three times as many people in remote rural areas work for small businesses. That means that, when small businesses are left unsupported or local services are cut—which means that those businesses cannot find employees—the economies of rural and island communities are hit the hardest. Indeed, parts of the Highlands and Islands have local economies that are made up purely of small businesses.

Small businesses function as a close-knit community whose members inevitably look after one another and attempt to self-sustain, but they require help. The chair of the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland recently commented that the First Minister needs to put

“growth and the needs of small businesses at the heart of his agenda.”

The very last thing that employees in those small businesses need are tax increases. That restricts the amount of money that they can spend locally, and they know how to spend it well.

If we do not look after small businesses and their employees, reinvest in local economies and keep local services open during this time, we will perhaps consign Scotland’s rural communities to the further depopulation that we are seeing across the Highlands. That is bad news. We cannot afford to let the Highlands and Islands wither and die by not investing in the very small businesses that keep Scotland going.

As the minister well knows, all capital works have stopped, and maternity provision across the Highlands, especially for Caithness mothers, is shocking. Given that NHS Highland has already spent £2.7 million on the project, and it has potentially overspent by £70 million, surely the Government must accept that the handling of the Moray maternity services redesign has been shambolic and nothing short of wicked.