 The next item of business is tropical questions. As ever, short and concise questions and responses are appreciated. At question number one, I call Colin Smyth. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether it's appropriate for the chief executive of Circularity Scotland to be paid a reported annual salary of £300,000. Minister Lorna Slater. Circularity Scotland is a not-for-profit company, delivered and funded by industry in line with the Polluter Pay's principle. The structure is based on successful schemes seen elsewhere in Europe and was approved by the Scottish Parliament in 2020. Circularity Scotland is therefore separate from government and we have no role in the recruitment of staff or their pay levels. Decisions on pay are made by the Circularity Scotland board, which is made up of members who are with a range of experience from across a range of sectors, which is appropriate for a private company that is delivering an industry-led scheme. Colin Smyth. The minister said that the scheme is business-led, but let's be clear that it is being big business-led at the moment. Only big business can become individual members of Circularity Scotland and only big business that would appear can get contracts such as Biffa for collecting bottles. Let's also be clear that it was the minister who approved Circularity Scotland, not businesses, but the minister who made that decision. Was she aware of the proposed likely wage structure for the company's senior executive when she appointed Circularity Scotland as the scheme administrator? If not, when did she become aware of the plan to pay such excessive salaries? Has she at any time expressed concern about those salaries? It seems that the monopoly has a licence from the minister to print money, not for the benefit of producers but for the benefit of their own bosses. Circularity Scotland is a private not-for-property company, and it would be inappropriate for ministers to interfere with or comment on the matters of a private company. Members of Circularity Scotland include the Scottish Groceries Federation, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the Society of Independent Brewers, the National Federation of Retail Aid newsagents and the Association of Convenience Stores. Those are the bodies that make up Circularity Scotland and small businesses that are powerfully represented. Colin Smyth. I have to say that the minister is still learning to answer the questions that she has asked. I asked the minister, was she aware of the wage structures when she appointed Circularity Scotland as the administrator? When did she become aware and has she at any time expressed concern? Given the importance of ensuring value for money for small producers, we are deeply worried about the cost of the scheme. Surely the minister should have asked for this information before she made that decision, because the regulations are very clear that this Parliament agreed. Applications for approval as a scheme administrator must be made to Scottish ministers and must include any information requested by Scottish ministers. Why was that information not requested? Given that she now knows what those excessive eye water and salaries are, how does she expect small producers to sign up for a scheme when they are being so clearly ripped off and part of their fees are being used for the excessive salaries of bosses who are using Scotland as a stepping stone for their wider aim of running deposit return schemes right across the UK? Circularity Scotland's application to become a scheme administrator was approved on 21 March 2021. Any other organisation can also apply to be a scheme administrator provided that they can meet the requirements as in the DRS regulations. The DRS regulations were passed by this Parliament and CSL was an applicant who met those regulations. Producers and small retailers have been an important part of designing and putting in place Scotland's deposit return scheme and Circularity Scotland has indeed been working very closely with these businesses, including improving cash flow from day one and having the highest return handling fees for manual return points in the world. What is clear from the failure once again of the minister to answer straightforward questions is that Circularity Scotland is a creature entirely out of control. It is deciding its own policies, its own salaries and it will decimate small businesses throughout Scotland, whether they be shops, pubs, clubs, brewers, distillers or recycling companies. Have you not? On behalf of the Scottish Government, in creating Circularity Scotland Limited, created a modern-day 21st century Frankenstein entirely out of control. Circularity Scotland has been created by industry to support Scottish businesses to comply with the regulations passed by this Parliament. The approach of an industry-led and industry paid for scheme was supported by Scottish Labour and the Conservatives and is the same as schemes around the world. We are not reinventing the wheel here. Scotland's scheme is in line with successful schemes around the world. It is an insult to the Parliament that she comes here and asks questions and then reads a scripted answer whether it is relevant to the question that has been asked or not. Is she seriously saying that this not-for-profit that she has facilitated the creation of has got nothing to do with her, that she can do what she likes? The people of Scotland will have formed their own views on those monstrous salary numbers and they will also be forming a view of the incompetence of this minister who is painfully not fit for purpose. Minister, I did not hear a question in there, but the significant progress has been made towards Scotland's deposit return scheme as we work towards our go live date in August of this year. Katie Clark. The Scottish Government has confirmed that Circularity Scotland is to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Does the minister agree that freedom of information should be extended to cover all providers of public services including private firms that provide public services such as Circularity Scotland? Circularity Scotland is indeed a private not-for-profit company and it does not qualify for freedom of information because it is not providing a public service as described by the member. Therefore, as a private company, it is not subject to freedom of information requests. Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister has been dragged into this chamber week after week because of the secrecy in which is shrouded the Scottish Government-led company. It took a leak document for us to find out the extraordinary salaries that are being paid by CSL, because we cannot find anything out about CSL because the Scottish Government will not allow us to follow them at any time if they do not want an answer to their question. Blondness later has made CSL a private company so that she does not have to be held accountable and admit how badly the scheme has been rolled out. It is not about time that you lifted the secrecy, the shrouded secrecy and allow the Parliament, our Parliamentarians, to actually understand what is really going on with this DRS scheme. I have said it before, but I am happy to repeat it over and over again. Scotland's deposit return scheme is being delivered and funded by industry, an approach that was supported by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives. That includes the creation of a industry-led scheme administrator. Many of the questions that are being answered in this chamber could be answered by a simple google because CSL has an excellent website. I would encourage members to look at that if they are unsure of who is the membership, make-up of CSL and who their board members are. Can we resist any temptation to speak over ministers when they are responding? To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation recent warnings about the potential impact of highly protected marine areas on the fishing industry. I should like to begin by acknowledging that this is an issue that I expect shall generate interest among many stakeholders. Like a lot of matters in my Environment and Land Reform portfolio, there are a spectrum of views and often polarised views on either end of that spectrum. As I have tried to handle other similar matters, I would like to give a cast-iron assurance that the process will engage broadly and deeply, including with all those affected by the policy, because that is something that I believe very strongly in. However, I cannot answer the question without referencing yesterday's IPCC report, which has been called a survival guide for humanity, and makes the urgency of taking action on the climate and nature emergencies absolutely plain. We are right at the very early stages of developing highly protected marine areas. Our consultation is on-going. It is seeking views on what they should look like, how they should be selected and how they should be implemented. I will close by saying that the fishing communities should be reassured that their views will be heard as part of the consultation and that the socioeconomic factors affecting the resilience of marine industries, including fishers and the coastal communities, will be taken into account. Rachel Hamilton I thank the minister for that answer. Last night, Scotland's finance secretary echoed the words of Elspeth MacDonald from SFF, saying that these are unevidence proposals that have been hijacked by the Greens and will push the fishing industry into the red. The SNP health secretary views differ and believes that the Greens are right. Which of the two leading candidates to become Scotland's first minister does the environment minister agree with, the candidate who quotes industry experts or the candidate who panders to Green Party ideology? I am not really clear on the relevance of the question posed to the issue of highly protected marine areas. I would encourage Rachel Hamilton to focus on the issue at hand, which is likely to be much more important to coastal and fishing communities than perhaps the SNP leadership contest and the exchanges of candidates in that. My position is exceptionally clear that we are in the teeth of a climate and nature crisis. The opportunity, the window for us to take action, commensurate with that challenge, is narrowing. We must be bold. HPMAs are a bold proposal, but on the same token, I am equally clear that everyone who will be affected by this policy will be very deeply and widely consulted as we develop it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mary McCallum is absolutely right that the SNP are indeed in crisis. Councillor Norman MacDonald said that it is clear that Edinburgh-based Government ministers have no understanding of the devastating consequences that these disgraceful proposals will have on the economy and the community of the Outer Hebrides. The chairwoman of Tyree Community Development Trust said that the island was perilously close to being non-viable. With a local fisherman adding, if this is landed on top of us, we would be wiped out overnight with one stroke of the pen on a chart. Furthermore, SFFs have been clear that these proposals, which would decimate our vital industry, are entirely unevidenced. I want to ask the minister, will the Government listen, will they commit to taking an evidence approach to HPMAs, or are we going to see a repeat of the Clyde cod box to backll on a national scale, which was the demand of the Green Party for their support for independence at the expense of fragile rural communities, their livelihoods and their lives? I am quite sure that my colleague Lorna Slater will not mind me speaking for her when I say that the Green Party's support for independence predates some of the issues that Rachel Hamilton has raised there. I hope that it has been demonstrably clear from my responses that consultation is at the core of how we are developing this proposal. It is why I, on 12 December, published a consultation paper, a policy framework, site selection guidelines, a partial island and communities impact assessment, a partial business and regulatory impact assessment and initial sustainability appraisals. It is also why we have a significant stakeholder engagement programme starting now with the consultation, which includes taking some stakeholders through the process of responding to the consultation. I can commit to that continuing right through the development of the policy. Evidence is clear, not least from the no-take zone on Laumelash Bay, that protected areas benefit both fishers and fish and that one hectare of protected ocean in which fishing is not permitted produces at least five times the quantity of fish as an equivalent of un-predicted hectare fish that can swim into un-predicted areas to be caught. In discussions with the fishing industry, will the minister continue to emphasise that highly protected areas ultimately serve the interests of fishers themselves as well as helping to restore marine biodiversity? Yes, I think that Ken Gibson is absolutely right. One of the elements right at the heart of our proposals are plans to do more to do exactly what he says to protect essential fish habitats. We believe that a properly designed network of HPMAs will provide benefits to fishers and that the best way of realising those benefits is to work with fishers when designing the proposals. We are committed to a participatory process, some of which I have set out, which listens to the views of fishers and helps to make our coastal communities more resilient and which absolutely recognises that the sustainability and the health of our seas are good for fishers and for coastal communities as well as to the imperative of tackling climate change. The minister will be aware of the devastating consequences of those proposals and how they will impact on rural and island communities, banning sustainable fishing and marine activity that has safeguarded our waters and their features for generations is nonsensical. The Harris development trust summed up the views of many island communities when they said, it has shared arrogance for desk bound experts to suggest that we are not looking after our environment or protecting our stocks. The whole basis of the HPMA is that locals are clearly not doing what they should and need to be told how to look after it. You take no cognisance of the evidence that is available of sustainable fisheries and local voluntary measures put in place before marching in and wiping out our communities. Will the minister therefore listen to our communities and support their work in protecting their marine environment rather than taking a top-down approach? I am only sorry that members are not listening to what I have said. If they are not going to take it from me, perhaps they will look at the multitude of papers that I published in December and the work that I am currently doing and officials in Marine Scotland are doing to talk stakeholders through them and to help them submit their views to the consultation. There is no part of that, which I do not want the views of stakeholders to be embedded within. On the point about the reason that we have to do that, I mentioned the IPCC. It is absolutely clear that we have that narrowing window. Equally, the Scottish Marine assessment tells us that we have much more to do in achieving good environmental status and that more needs to be done to protect ecosystems and benthic habitats, including from damage by fishing. All that underpins the policy here, but it will absolutely be developed hand-in-hand with stakeholders. I am pleased that the minister is prepared to listen, but she will be aware of a column pieced by her Green Party colleague, which outraged communities from Shetland to Tyree and our fishing fleet, who know our seas well. The 10 per cent figure for HPMAs in the Butehouse agreement seems concocted. Can the minister explain the scientific basis for this figure and consider evidence-gathering pilot projects? There are a lot of useful points in that. I have spoken about the scientific underpinning of this. I have spoken about the IPCC report. There can be no clearer depiction of the crisis in which the whole world finds itself and the very specific need for us to up our efforts. I also mentioned the marine assessment. On the point about the timeline and the 10 per cent, I draw members' attention to the fact that the EU, by diversity strategy for 2030, is requiring member states to step up their conservation efforts to protect 30 per cent of both Europe's land and sea by 2030, of which 10 per cent will have to be strictly protected. Scotland is not out of step here whatsoever. I am glad to hear the minister outline the benefits of HPMAs. We have heard about Llanlash Bay and Arran. England's Lundy Island notake zone shows evidence of increased tourism spend and larger lobsters that benefit the local shellfish fishery. However, there is evidence on learning to be gained from more established notake zones. If the Scottish Government is in communication with other territories such as California, New Zealand and Norway to learn how their fisheries and coastal economies have benefited from notake zones. Ms Burgess is absolutely correct. Scientific studies tell us that we can expect fish stocks to increase in HPMAs, providing spillover benefits for fishers. Of course, a good example of that is evidence from Southern California of the benefits from marine protected areas for the spiny lobster fishery. The experience of New Zealand and Australia have helped to inspire our vision that recreational users will visit coastal HPMAs for their enjoyment and appreciation, bringing economic benefits to the communities as they do. I should be very happy to provide Ms Burgess with the published evidence on this that has informed our position. With little available research, can the minister explain why fish habitats have already been listed as a priority for site designation when the report commissioned on the subject remains unpublished and in draft form? Will the minister also acknowledge that current research work is not sufficiently far advanced or robust to be reliable to form policies that could see the lights go off in our coastal communities? I am not even sure where to begin with that question. There are a lot of vagaries and it makes it difficult to respond with the specificity that I want to. I suggest to Finlay Carson that there are—firstly, we are at the very early stages and we are taking the opportunity to ask people what they think should form the basis of the HPMAs. There are a number of things that we have suggested. Blue carbon being one of them, essential fish habitats, strengthening the Scottish MPA network, protecting from storms, research and education, enjoyment and appreciation and other important eco systems. To the extent that Mr Carson has views on which of those should be prioritised, I encourage him to fill in the consultation. As I have said in all the responses today, I want to be absolutely clear that we will take all the responses into account. I absolutely agree that fishers and our coastal communities have a really strong stake in that and need to be involved. Thank you. That concludes topical questions.