 Rektor yn visnes felly is a debate on motion 8, 7, 6, 6, ynghylch Eich Llywodraeth. On reconsidering highly protected marine areas, I'd be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Rachel Hamilton to speak to and move the motion. Can I have Ms Hamilton's mic microphone? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. Today's debate on highly protected marine areas is a rare opportunity for the Parliament to agree on something. Ond Playstation yn gweld sut panaddudu o'i gyfeirio ar ons i fyneidiol, blaen i'w ddweud i'r ddweud, i'w ddweud i SNP MSPs yn rwyfnod o'r cyfun ynghyrchu cysylltiaeth ac oes yn cael ei wneud i fynd i ddechrau ddyddai'r cyfun. Rydych chi'n fysg yn dod o'r gweithredu ffarniol, wrth sy'n credu'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r cyfun i'r ddweud o'r cyfun, yn rhan o'r cyfun ynghyrchu cysylltiaeth a'r cyfun i'r ddweud i'r paiddwg bei'r cymaint iawn i'r gweld gennymau a gweld yn gweldio'r si countlessio o'r siart a'i siart yn gweldio'r industryf ysgrifen y Scottish fishing. Rwy'n llawer o'r industryf wedi cyfgredig hynny sy'n cael 1,500,000 gwadwch o gyfish democru i fy nghymru ar arddug. Rwy'n i'r ysgrifen, bod yn ddweud o gwneud o gwneud o gyfforddiant o chwynhwyl, yn ddweud o'r ffishing ban, yn olyg i'r hyn ag ysgrifen i ddweud o'r parties are ready for their livelihoods for good. It is clear to them, as it is to us, that the proposed fishing ban goes too far with too little evidence. We know how that came about on a dark day in a dishonourable agreement signed in August 2021. Mary McCallan's amendment today shows that this Government is not only failing to listen o'r ffysiomau a'r cyfnodau oedd, ond mae'n gweithio'r gwaith o'r cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau. Mae'n ddifu'r cyfrwyr o'r proses ysgolwyddiant a'r gwneud o'r ddigonau bod hpma'n gweithio'n gweithio. Y popai ewing mwneud ffysiomau'n cyfrwyr o'r cwestiynau'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. The SNP motion potentially misleads the Parliament in suggesting the plans are in line with the EU, when, in fact, Scotland's already gone over and above their own MPA targets. They cite evidence from one area and entirely ignore contradictory evidence from another. The Butehouse agreement has much to answer for. It rides roughshod over the livelihoods of hard-working fishermen, with a blatant disregard for the communities that they support and the science around the matter that we are discussing today. The arbitrary figure of 10 per cent of Scottish waters for highly protected marine area designation has been plucked from the sky with no scientific backing or ecological justification to underpin it. The First Minister insisted that the Government would not impose the policies on communities that do not want them. Now that line has changed to vehement opposition. Even if that could be defined or measured, it is evident that the Government is moving the goalposts. There is no explanation of the problem that these proposals are trying to address, or the goal it is trying to achieve. We do not even know how effective the existing MPA network is in supporting and maintaining biodiversity in our waters. There has been no impact assessment on how those plans would affect our coastal communities and there has been no feasibility study into how those areas could be implemented and enforced. My colleague Murdo Fraser has just discussed a recent inquiry that we learned that former ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers, believed that Scottish Government decision making is rushed, unclear and unstructured as we saw with the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. We are here again to describe the policy as rushed, unclear and unstructured would be far too generous. On the other side of the conversation, the fishing sector has taken its time to construct clear, coherent arguments against those proposals. Nonetheless, it is important to say that I absolutely understand the need to protect our marine environment. I am certain that that is another point on which we can all agree. In March, her colleague, Theresa Coffey, the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, called HPMAs a vital way forward. She subsequently introduced them in England. How does she reconcile that with her remarks? The difference between the way that your Government are approaching it, Cabinet Secretary, is that you are not bringing on the coastal communities with you. This document is a paper exercise that is an online process that has had no consultation with any coastal communities at all. The difference between the UK Government approach is that deaf are consulted with coastal communities and the fishermen even agreed on the sites that were proposed. No-one gets this more than fishermen because, without good fish stocks, their businesses would struggle. As the former finance secretary said, sever the lifeline of fishing and you undermine the wider economy of coastal communities. She is right, and that is a clear sign of the need to work with fishermen on these issues, instead of imposing arbitrary, unevidenced restrictions on their activities. With sustainable fishing practices, our fleet has seen fish stocks rebound over the last 20 years. Place, Haik, Haddock have all seen their populations grow considerably in this time because of their own sustainable practices. That is down to the hard work of those fishermen who know our sea's best, not the result of top-down desktop policies, as we heard last night in Beatrice Wishart's debate. Our coastal communities have asked for the Scottish Government to reconsider those plans. The fishermen in those vulnerable, rural, fragile coastal communities need to be heard. Today, with this motion, the Scottish Parliament is presented with a clear choice. We can stand behind these communities, go back to the drawing board and work with them, rather than against them to protect our seas, or we can press ahead with these unevidenced, unwanted and hugely damaging plans. We should be under no illusions that these communities are clear that a fishing ban is an existential threat, not just to their jobs, but to their way of life. We have an opportunity today to send them a message that we have listened and we will support them. We have a plan to do that, and we want to work with this Government and all parties to make sure that we can protect them and our oceans. I believe that our amendments reflect that. I believe that the amendments to the motion from Labour and to the Liberal Democrats showed their willingness to do that. I absolutely welcome their support to standing up for fishermen. I am sure that there will be others on the back benches who will also stand up for their constituents too. Thank you. Thank you. I now call on Mary McCallan to speak to and move amendment 8766.3 up to five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Not having a great deal of time today, I'm going to restrict my opening remarks on behalf of the Government to what I think are the key issues in hand here. Firstly, it's an unavoidable truth that we are in the midst of a climate and natural emergency. This Parliament recognised that when every party proceeded to pass some of the world's most ambitious climate targets into law. Our oceans are a vital part of the emergency response that is needed. Scotland's marine environment stores at least 5.6 billion tonnes of CO2, but recent research is showing that the oceans are reaching their capacity to help us. That's because of a number of issues, including human impacts, upon them. If we don't protect our seas, they will not be able to protect us for much longer. Despite the considerable progress that has been made to improve the state of our oceans, the Scottish marine assessment of 2020 shows that a number of species are in decline. The most recent assessment under the UK marine strategy showed that, across the UK, 11 out of 15 indicators of good environmental status are being missed, and I'll take an intervention from Finlay Carson. I appreciate the cabinet secretary taking the intervention. Could you set out exactly how banning fishing will reduce greenhouse gases? Finlay Carson may wish to use language such as banning fishing. The point is that we are in a consultation. We're in the midst of a consultation, which asks exactly about the principles of HBMAs, including how they are constituted and what features we may wish to protect, including blue carbon, which would directly respond to your point. It's not just about carbon, it's about ecosystems, species abundance, all of which are absolutely critical to equilibrating our natural world, all of which is connected to the climate emergency. I would expect Finlay Carson to understand that. That matters to me, and that matters most of all to the people who are economically, socially and culturally connected with our seas. Of course, that brings me to my second point, that it's an unavoidable truth that, as we take the action that we have to take to respond to the climate emergency, we have to do it in a way that's fair, that's just, that leaves no one and no community behind. That's a task that I'm committed to, and it's a task that this Government is committed to, and it's one that we take very seriously indeed. That is why we have approached this really complex and emotive topic with as much democracy as we possibly can. It's why, being so early in the process, the Scottish Government has held no less than 40 stakeholder meetings, both in the development of the consultation and since then, to assist stakeholders in completing the same. I'm sorry, I don't have any more time to take interventions from the Conservatives. The meetings that we held included regional insure fisheries groups, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Communities Insure Fisheries Alliance, the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation, it's why we met yesterday with MSPs, it's why I've committed to meet with communities across the summer, and it's why I reiterate my commitment to look very closely at the thousands of consultation responses that we have received. I commit myself to that without politicking, without positioning, which, with regret, I'm afraid some are very much engaging with. Let's be clear, every party in this Parliament was elected on a manifesto commitment to marine protection. The Conservatives stood on a manifesto—no, I don't have time, I'm afraid—the Conservatives stood on a manifesto commitment to HPMA pilots. Labour parties stood on a manifesto to include 20 per cent of Scotland's waters in highly protected marine areas, double what this Scottish Government consultation proposed. I assume, Presiding Officer, that we can agree that action is needed, but I want to address—in the time that I have left, I realise I'm very short of time. I'm afraid, cabinet secretary, that you are over time and I will have to ask you to include at this point. I cannot regretably, as we are very tight for time this afternoon. I now call on Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment 8766.1. I want to start by expressing our disappointment at the Scottish Government's amendment. The tone and the content don't demonstrate any understanding of the consternation felt by our coastal communities. Let me be clear, we are all concerned about our marine environment and protecting it, none more so than those whose parents fish the seas, who themselves continue to fish and who wish to make sure that their children will be able to fish in the future as well. In support of the Government's proposals, we often have quoted the example of Llanlash Bay, but that example makes my point. Llanlash Bay was not imposed on the community by the Government, it was bought for by the community, by local people who know their seas, who fought hard for the powers, the powers for which the Scottish Government now seeks to take credit. It took them 13 long years to fight a system and get that protection. It's also noticeable that Broad Bay is not so often quoted as an example. Those NPA proposals seek to ban the most sustainable form of fishery that we have on static gear boats. They are small boats that fish in local waters, but they cannot move to other fishing grounds. Broad Bay, the only species that is really left, I believe, is starfish. That is correct, and it has caused untold damage to the fishery there. I think that the other thing that can't help but leave us gasping at this proposal is that paddle boats and swimming can also be banned under these proposals. It makes no sense at all. We are also concerned that more and more fisheries will be funneled into smaller areas that will end up overfished. It is really concerning that those proposals have been talked down. The First Minister gave the commitment that they would not be imposed on the coast of communities. The Scottish Government motion now says that they will not be imposed on communities that are vehemently opposed to them. Do they really want to see those communities 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. It is a direct result of this policy. It is deeply damaging and, given that those areas that are concerned are also subject to depopulation right now. The uncertainty surrounding that is damaging local economies and that people cannot invest, banks will not support them and their businesses may not have any future. It is not just fisheries that are involved in fish farming, seaweed cultivation and harvesting. The list is long and many as well as including many businesses that depend on marine tourism. Yet Scotland's wind 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 just shows the priorities of this Government that do not care about small business. One or two people businesses that are being put out of work and forced to leave are not being given any exclusions. I have never seen such a backlash. Everyone who has spoken to in coastal communities is furious. It takes a lot to drive people to write songs. It takes even more to make Donald Francis sing them. Do not underestimate the vehement opposition to this. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Lee McArthur to speak to in move amendment 8766.2. Thank you. It appears that you were ages for a debate on HBMAs and then two come along in very quick succession. Can I start by again thanking those who took part in last night's debate led by my colleague Beatrice Wishart. I think it sent the most unambiguous message about the strength of cross-party opposition to the Government's proposed approach on HBMAs. This is merely a reflection, of course, of the anger and, in some cases, fury felt in island and coastal communities the length and breadth of Scotland. It is right that we return to the subject again today. I thank Rachael Hamilton for allowing us to do so. The Government's amendments, sadly, are a rather predictable and vintage example of what a bootary. Brexit continues to cause great damage. UK Tory Government policies on skilled worker visas are indefensible. However, as the elsewhere MacDonald of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made clear, whatever issues the industry has with Brexit and labour rules, they pale into insignificance if fishermen are banned from fishing. The topic of the debate today is the same as last night, but the cast list looks a little different. Much like the HBMA designation, those operating arguments felt to be damaging or potentially damaging to the Butehouse agreement are to be arbitrarily excluded, so it is that Fergus Ewing and Kate Forbes find themselves confined to port by the SNP Work's Office. Yet, appropriately, there is no evidence that this forced tie-up regime will provide any sort of protection for the SNP Green Government's policy on HBMAs, particularly when assurances that were previously offered up by the First Minister and Cabinet Secretary are already being redefined and diluted. Humza Yousaf could not have been clear in stating that he would not impose those policies on communities that do not want them. A promise echoed by the Cabinet Secretary. Now we are told that there needs to be, quote, vehement opposition, whatever that means. Presiding Officer, the lack of any prior discussion or consultation with stakeholders in the fishing agriculture and other key sectors, most directly affected, is inexcusable. It has seen government policy developed—I do not have time, I am afraid, Mr Whittle—developed and consulted on over years, upended and replaced by closed-door negotiations in Bute House between the SNP and Greens. That is not evidence-based policymaking, it is not ministers being inclusive or accessible, and it makes a mockery of any commitment that this Government professes to genuine island proofing, a point made in my amendment, which I move. Damage is already being done, as Rhoda Grant said, through heightened uncertainty and a collapse in confidence, reaching agreement on measures that might actually help protect our marine environment, have been made more difficult to achieve, and the Government's handbrake turn undermines those in the fishing sector already leading efforts to manage, protect and enhance stocks and biodiversity. In my own ordinary constituencies, fishers recognise their sector relies on healthy ecosystems and environment. They have been working in partnership with academics, environmental groups on a range of projects, tagging brown crab, trialling technology and creals to measure environmental variables such as salinity, temperature, light and current, using cameras to understand interactions of creals with the seabed, recording sightings of cetaceans and seabirds, carrying out a carbon audit of Orkney's fleet. Precisely what we would want to see in the interests of our fishing sector, the marine environment and our island and coastal communities. Let me finish with the words of Hannah Fennall of Orkney Fisheries Association, who told me earlier this week, and I quote, HPMAs undermine the concept of environmental stewardship. Instead of punishing those who live near and work in the marine environment, the Government should be empowering communities and fishers. The knowledge that fishers hold should be seen as an asset and part of the solution to the twin climate crisis. I could not agree more. I would just like to say at the outset that I was taken by the call that I was on yesterday afternoon with many of the MSPs, where we were asked for our opinions on HPMAs a bit late. I am not sure that it actually followed the advice that had been given, and it was disturbing, and it must have been disturbing to the minister that she heard from nearly all of the MSPs that the level of responses and the pure venom in some of those responses had not been experienced by parliamentarians before. Now, Presiding Officer, you will know as I do that many songs and folk songs that you hear are written either about heroes or villains. Now, in this case, we have had a folk song written, The Clearance is Again, and it is not about heroes, it is about villains, and that is the way the islanders view it. Now, looking at the Highland and Islands MSPs, I do not think that there is any doubt that we on this side of the chamber understand it, and I know Labour understand it, and I know the Liberal Democrats get it. I am pretty sure that the Greens do not get it, and I am pretty sure that some of the MSPs on the SNP benches get it. We listened to Fergus Ewing last night and I will come back to that. He gets it, and I think Kate Forbes gets it. But what is clear is that the other two Highlands and Islands MSPs, Mary Todd and Emma Roddick, do not get it. In fact, I do not even see them in the chamber today, perhaps because that is because they have taken the Government's shilling so that they do not have to respond or take part in this debate. However, they will pay for it at the next election. Of that, there is no doubt. I would take an intervention. Thank you, Edward Mountain, for taking the intervention. He will know of the United Opposition by the whole of Scotland's seafood sector to HPMAs. Does he agree with me that those proposals are not only about the survival of fishing and aquaculture, but also the very communities that rely on them? Absolutely they are. I would like to thank, at this stage, Beatrice Wiskart for enabling the debate last night. It was really interesting, because one thing that we must understand—and I am going to come on to it—is the importance of those people who are employed in the local economy and live in the local economy, not to have their livelihoods destroyed. Now, Presiding Officer, there is no doubt that if you start a hair running, it is difficult to stop it. That is exactly what this Government has done with HPMAs. They have no clear idea how they are going to achieve their aims, but they have a clear idea that they have to get on with it because the Greens are telling them to do it. They have no clear idea how they are going to save the jobs of the fishermen, but the Greens do not care about that, because to them those jobs are collateral damage. They are going to push on with a policy that, to me, is not based on the knowledge of those people who live and work in the environment, who are protected in that environment, who cherish that environment and have no wish to destroy it because it forms part of their livelihood. Yes, I will take an intervention. Cabinet Secretary, full to Edward Mountain for taking an intervention. I just wondered if he would accept, because I agree with him about the importance of the communities, and right from the beginning I have been clear that this would have been developed hand-in-hand with them. By a broad and deep consultation right at the beginning of this process, how else does he think that I could have more meaningfully engaged to those communities who I have been so clear I cared deeply about? Presiding Officer, I do not know if I will get my time back from that, but no, that is not what the community sees. The community sees a centralised Government pushing down from on top without listening to a word that they are saying. All I would say to the Cabinet Secretary, if you are in doubt about that, take your time, come up to my office, have a look at some of the emails that I have got. I am very happy to share them with you. Presiding Officer, I know by taking interventions that I have to end my speech early. Sorry, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call Karen Adam to be called by Katie Clark. Presiding Officer, I want to start by saying that I have had sincere and deep ponderings over this debate today and, in fact, over the last few weeks. I have had cause to really take time to reflect. My concerns around HPMAs and the impact that they will have on ffishers and coastal communities across Scotland are well known to the Scottish Government. First and foremost, however, I hope that they are known to the fishers across my constituency. Representing coastal communities of Bamshire and Buckingham Coast is a great honour, and one that I do not take lightly. It is for this reason, Presiding Officer, that I wish at that outset to make this promise to them. I promise that I will never support a policy that would be to the detriment of the lives and livelihoods of the coastal communities across Scotland. I was elected to be a strong voice for our coastal communities and a steward and an advocate of not just the people, but also the land and the sea, and I will be just that. Our rural communities have been through a great deal over the last few years, and as a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I have listened to some devastating testimonies about the impact of Brexit on our farmers and fishers. The loss of EU funding as a result of the reckless Tory Brexit is just one example of the significant damage that is imposed on our rural economies. We place so much responsibility for delivering net zero on our rural industries, and we must remember that our farmers and fishers are also responsible for our food security. I will get the time back, Presiding Officer. I appreciate the member taking the invention, but on Brexit, would the member not agree with me that it is not Brexit that is hell-bent on barring fishing in the vast swaths off our seas? No, I disagree with the member's take on that. I will come to that later on my nice speech, but the whole rhetoric around ban on fishing will come to politics, which seems to be driven by popularity. That is not helpful to this debate, and it is not constructive. We place a lot of burden and responsibility, and they are responsible for our food security. If we place ever greater burdens on them, we must ensure that we also provide the relative financial human and legislative support. Fishers have lost trust in politicians to deliver for them, and quite frankly, I do not blame them. That is a sorry result of being used as a political football for so long and having their priorities consistently politicised. That brings me to the motion before us in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Are we really supposed to believe after everything that the Tories have done over the last few years to bring our rural industries to the brink and our economy to the knees that they are trustworthy custodians of our farms, fisheries or natural environment? Need I say more than Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Brexit? Despite Tory indignation, in March it was announced that HPMAs will be introduced south of the border by the Tory UK Government. The hypocrisy is astonishing. Yesterday, Rachael Hamilton said that she is obviously opposed to HPMAs, but why does she stand on a Tory manifesto commitment in 2021 to implement pilot schemes of them? To the fishers listening at home, be aware of this. The cabinet secretary will be reassured that I do not intend to tear up any motion in a fit of theatrics today, although my colleague Rachael Hamilton did state that she would like to see that. The Scottish Parliament is not a place for amateur dramatics. It is a place where we debate, discuss as reasonable representatives of the genuine needs of our constituents and of our country. I want to thank the cabinet secretary for the constructive discussions. Thank you, Ms Adam. You must conclude at that point. I call Katie Clark to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. And there has already been mentioned this afternoon of the lamb lash no take zone. Having represented Arran, it is clear that strong marine protection can have support and buy-in from local communities. The community of Arran seabed trust coast was founded in 1995 and led successful community campaigns to establish Scotland's first no take zone. The Scottish Government has much to learn from the approach of coast and indeed the painstaking work carried out on Arran to build community support for marine protection. I pay tribute again to coast for the work that they have done. Without buying from the local community, marine protection areas will not work. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept that there have been significant mistakes in the handling of the policy to develop highly protected marine areas. I thank her for taking the intervention and for her contribution. I am just looking at the four words that I put to the consultation. Closing lines, that is why I want to hear what you think. I want to take on board your concerns. I want you to help to shape the creation of these highly protected areas. How does that not demonstrate that I care how coastal communities fail? The approach that the Scottish Government has taken has caused upsets in many communities that rely on the seas, causing concern to many who probably would never be affected by any proposals. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept that it would be far preferable for the Scottish Government to have come forward with specific proposals to restrict particular practices in defined areas. With a full and genuine consultation and evaluation process, I do not think that I will get the time back so I apologise, I will not take an intervention. However, the approach that the Scottish Government has taken has created maximum distress and anger. The cabinet secretary rightly pointed out that we are in the middle of a climate and nature emergency. The backdrop is, of course, a significant decline in the marine environment and in many parts of the fishing industry and fishing stocks over many decades. Indeed, the World Wildlife Fund report published in 2015 highlighted that worldwide the amount of fish in the oceans has halved since 1970. Indeed, the report also highlighted that the populations of marine mammals and birds have fallen by 49 per cent between 1970 and 2021. I do not think that anybody in this chamber refuses to accept the scale of the challenge of the damage to our oceans and the urgent need for action to help to regenerate marine ecosystems. Indeed, many parts of Scotland, such as Ayrshire, where I come from, had significant fishing industries in the past, with coastal communities relying on the industry for jobs and livelihoods. However, what we have seen over many years, for example, with the removal of the coastal limit on bottom trawling in 1984, is significant damage to Scotland's seabed habitats by policies from government. The use of high-impact and unsustainable fishing practices no doubt has taken significant toll on our seas. However, the use of high-impact fishing messages such as bottom trawling and dredging remain unaddressed by the Scottish Government. Indeed, more than 17,000 tonnes of fish are estimated to have been discarded by Scottish fishing boats in 2021. As a result of the policies and the future catching policy, it is unlikely to address those issues. The Scottish Government has failed to come forward with a sustainable fishing policy. We need to get that community buy-in. I am delighted to speak in today's debate on which we will be watched with interest and with real concern in coastal communities across my islands and islands region. I thank all the individuals and organisations who have provided input into today's debate, including many constituents who have been in contact. Let me be very clear that they are almost without exception strongly opposed to the Scottish Government's plans, and they represent communities from right across my region. I think that it is important to listen to my constituents. One of them, Kate from Dingwall, recently said of the Government's plans that no other EU country has implemented HPMAs, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that they actually achieve their aims. She argued that they would have disproportionate socio-economic impact on our island and coastal communities and that she could not understand why anyone in Government thought it would be a good idea to take such a blanket approach. I hope that Kate from Dingwall will stand by those comments she made when campaigning for the SNP leadership and that she will stand up for our constituents and our coastal communities today by voting against the Scottish Government shameful attempt to water down the Scottish Conservative motion. Only by doing so will she send out that clear message that she opposes these SNP green proposals. I hope that those of her SNP colleagues who represent coastal communities will do the same. They will know as well as I do the real anger in their Government's plans have caused and the real fear for the future it is causing in these often fragile communities. They will know that if they prioritise the deal with the greens over the future of their communities, they will never be forgiven. Presiding Officer, those plans have been rejected right across the Highlands and Islands. Highland Council warned that they will stop vital economic activity in fragile remote and rural communities. They referenced concerns raised with them that make comparisons between those proposals and the Highland clearances. Orkney Islands Council said that they believed that proposals could have an adverse economic and social impact on Orkney's communities and that they would strongly oppose the introduction of HPMAs, including by judicial means if necessary. I apologise to the cabinet secretary, I just don't have time. An Orkney supply chain would be impacted too. Julius Garrett of Garrett Brothers said that the proposed HPMAs would be devastating not just to the agriculture and fisheries sector in Orkney, but also to the hundreds of jobs in the supply chain that depend on these businesses. In Shetland, the Shetland Fishermen's Association called the Government's plans one of the most pressing threats facing all sectors of Shetland's fishing feet and, therefore, Shetland's entire seafood economy. Daniel Lawson of the SFA said, Shetland's fishermen have proven in the past that they are not opposed to sensible conservation measures, recognising that strong fish stocks in healthy marine ecosystems are in their own interests and in the wider interests of sustaining our fishing community. However, proposals for HPMAs are being driven by politics and pledges and are devoid of any environmental imperative or scientific backing. Ruth Henderson of Seafood Shetland said that the agriculture sector was already highly regulated and warned the Scottish Government of disregarding the importance of the sector to jobs and in providing nutritious food in pursuit of vacuous conservation headlines. Tavish Scott once of this place and now, Sam and Scotland said, the HPMA proposal risks seeing jobs and investment going abroad. How does that fit with a Cabinet Secretary's own claim that our seas must remain a sort of economic prosperity for the nation, especially in our remote coastal and island communities? Presiding officers, this green SMP coalition is pushing proposals that would decimate our fishing industry, its supply chain and our coastal communities. I urge all MSPs, but particularly those SMP MSPs from the Highlands and Islands, put your constituents first today, not your Government and their deal with the Greens. At decision time, reject the Scottish Government's amendment and back ours. All those who care about our coastal communities and their future must come together and send a clear message to the Scottish Government that they have got this very wrong. They must scrap their plans for HPMAs. Presiding officer, the fact that we have debated the same issue twice in this Parliament in the space of 36 hours says something significant. As indicated in the member's debate last night, I have never had to confront anything quite like the issue of highly protected marine areas before, a policy to which, to the best of my recollection, literally every single person of the many 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 now reached in the Western Isles at any rate. Presiding officer, 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 aware that the Tories who had HPMAs in their election manifesto are playing political games with their own motion today, yet the problem with HPMAs is that, while only affecting 10 per cent of our sea area, we will not know for two years yet which 10 per cent that is. In the meantime, every coastal community in Scotland, particularly those on the west coast, not unreasonably has fears that it is going to 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 impact. In areas that are fished by smaller vessels, like 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 to go to nearby. I know that the scenario that I describe there 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. The Government amendment today, I would also acknowledge, goes some way towards recognising the fears that exist, although I regret almost certainly not yet far enough for my constituents. I realise why the Government has to wait for the scrutiny of the consultation responses before it can commit to action, but I can see locally what the Government must themselves increasingly now suspect, and that is the sheer depth of opposition that exists in many island communities to the proposals that they presently stand. After much thought, therefore, I am going to register those concerns in a very reluctant vote against the Government's own amendment. In case anyone imagines that I do such things lightly, 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 very often required or helpful on the political football pitch. However, I feel that I do have little choice today about to apply some real pressure on behalf of my genuinely worried island constituents. HPMAs, as the policy presently stands, need to be rethought, and sooner rather than later. I welcome the encouraging way in which the minister has engaged with those concerns today. Thank you. I call Ariane Burgess to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Presiding Officer, all of us defend on a healthy natural world because nature underpins life is not a nice to have, it's essential, but species are being lost today even faster than in any of the previous five mass extinctions, and scientists say that ecosystems will collapse if we do not stop this biodiversity loss. We must act. It is in this sense of urgency that led us to ensuring that protections for our oceans were included in the Butehouse agreement because what happens in our seas is just as important as our attempts on land to replant, rewild and reverse the destructive impact that humans have had on our planet. The Scottish Government does not stand alone in proposing HPMAs. Let me share with you some quotes from other supporters. Highly protected marine areas are a vital step forward in enabling our ecosystems to thrive, increasing climate resilience and ensuring that we have a healthy and productive productive marine environment for generations to come. That's the Tory environment, Secretary Therese's coffee, just earlier this year. That's England, you may say. Scotland's marine environment is clearly different. Here's the Tory manifesto on which Ms Hamilton and her colleagues stood in 2021. Our coastal communities can thrive and grow while we better protect our marine biology. The two are not mutually exclusive. Their manifesto commits to a pilot of highly protected marine areas. Here's Conservative MSP Peter Chapman in 2020, speaking in this very Parliament. There's no doubt that no-take zones would be beneficial in the long run, and I genuinely think that having more no-take zones would be good not only for the environment but for our fishermen. HPMAs are a policy—I don't believe I will get the time back. I apologise to the member. HPMAs are a policy on which all parties were once united across this chamber, but the Tories cannot stand to see Greens in government actually standing up for our values and delivering our commitments to voters, so have pulled a U-turn. They've sacrificed highly protected marine areas for their highly protected Tory vote. The hypocrisy of this motion which not only calls for the scrapping of their own manifesto commitment but claims there is no scientific basis or ecological justification for marine protections which they themselves are rolling out in England is breathtaking. No-take zones and strict marine protections are not new policies that the Scottish Government has thought up, but standard good practice for ocean protection and recovery with well-established zones across the world in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the Mediterranean. The EU is currently passing a nature restoration law, which would require at least 10 per cent of European waters to be strictly protected. To claim that this continent-wide move somehow has no scientific backing, takes Brexit-fuelled exceptionalism to an astonishing level, but we have just begun the process of community consultation. We must let that continue and let the genuine concern of local communities be heard, not seek to undermine the real and credible scientific basis that underpins this policy. We need a process for communities to meaningfully input into wider spatial plans for their inshore waters. The Scottish Government is consulting with communities trying to make this work for everyone with a stake in our sea. It's the Tory politicians who are playing politics. Jumping on an awful social ban work, I must ask you to conclude at this point. Ms Burgess, you will conclude your remarks. Ms Burgess, I now call Fulton MacGregor, the final speaker in the open debate. I want to highlight the outset, as colleagues will know that I do not represent a coastal constituency, and I know that my colleagues who do are much closer to this issue and much more knowledgeable. Indeed, I caught many of the speeches from last night's members' debate and found these very educational. However, I know that we can all agree that we need our fishing industry to be sustainable for the future, so that's why we must make steps right now to facilitate this transition. The fishing sector in Scotland has often been the leading industry in our country's immensely successful food and drink trade. However, this very industry is at risk due to the climate crisis that we find ourselves in. When marine species are in the midst of a population decline, a report published last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has bluntly stated that smallholder farms, pastoralists and fishing communities could be some of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to climate change. As we have heard, the HBMAs seek to protect marine environments, increase sustainability and, as seen in California, Malaysia and New Zealand, perhaps provide economic benefits to regions close to HBMAs through increased stock and equal tourism. On the other side of that, I am aware that the proposals have been met with significant criticism and objection, as was expressed by colleagues, such as Dr Alasdair Arran, Karen Adam, Fergus Ewing and Kate Forbes yesterday and today. I am very much a believer in representational politics, and I think that it is essential that we hear concerns of communities when making policy decisions. Of course, if depopulation and loss of livelihoods in culture is a possibility, as has been suggested, then we must do all that we can to prevent that, not least as further migration to the urban central belt will also not help us to meet climate targets either. From an outside perspective, if you want to call it that, it seems that we have two strong cases, one for HBMAs and one urging a total rethink of the policy. It is, of course, Governments across the world's job to navigate and balance competing rights and ideas, and from what I can tell, that is exactly where we are, despite Tory attempts through this motion to say otherwise. Indeed, the Scottish Government's initial consultation on HBMAs will only closed just over two weeks ago, and it is now necessary, as others have said, to take some time to review what I believe are a substantial number of responses that were collected over a four-month period. The First Minister has made it abundantly clear that the Scottish Government will not steamroll through or impose on a community a policy that is eminently opposed to, which is why the Scottish Government has engaged with a wide range of fishing groups and many other environmental organisations, and I know that there have been public engagement sessions and the like. From what I have heard from yesterday's debate and today from colleagues, the Cabinet Secretary has been very open to meeting with communities to hear concerns and has been given much credit. The policy will get much attention, and it is important that the Scottish Government push forward with environmental policy objectives while also not leaving anyone behind and protecting our communities. I encourage the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary to continue its robust engagement with stakeholders, and I eagerly await the assessment of the consultation process as well. I know that other members have mentioned it, but I would also like to hear a bit more about the thinking behind swimming and water sports and stuff as well, because we may not have touched on that as much as today. Fulton MacGregor is clear that everybody, including across the chamber, is concerned about the Scottish Government's proposal for HPMAs that are causing anxiety, stress and even much anger for all involved in the fishing sector. Would he agree with me that we need to seek concrete assurances from the cabinet secretaries that the fishing communities will not be decimated in the process that is being pursued by the Scottish Government? Mr MacGregor, you will have to conclude. I thank the member for that intervention. I agree with her, and I should have mentioned her earlier as well. I know that she is a great representative and advocate in this area. As you have said, I will conclude there. During the course of this debate, reports have appeared in the media that the First Minister has confirmed that he is happy to reconsider publishing the details of an investigation into alleged bullying that was made against the former Minister, Fergus Ewing. Previously, it was asserted by the Government that this would not be in the public interest and there would be a legal bar to it. I cannot help but have some suspicion that this announcement by the First Minister is related to the concerns that were being expressed by Fergus Ewing last night during the debate on HPMAs. If that is the case, I think that it would be absolutely despicable. I know that this issue raises high emotions. I see that in my constituency and we have had evidence of it expressed during the debate last night and again today. I think that there were some excellent contributions throughout the course of this debate, but I would single out the contribution from Alasdair Allan. I know that the speech he gave in the debate last night cannot have been easy. I think that the speech he gave very passionately in this afternoon's debate would have been even harder. As somebody who has rebelled against my party, I think that some would argue that this is perhaps more commonplace in my party than in his, it is not an easy thing to do. This is a team sport and I do not doubt for a second that Dr Allan has come to that decision very reluctantly. The views that he expressed on behalf of his constituents are ones that are reflected in coastal and island communities around the country. I hope that his constituents will consider the speech that he has given, the decision that he has taken as being an exemplification of the way in which we as elected members ought to be representing our constituents and constituencies. The problems with the approach to HPMAs are many and various. I think that the fact that there is a lack of evidence, a lack of clear purpose to the proposals has not helped, but the blunt and arbitrary nature of a 10 per cent designation by a timeline of 2026 puts the tin hat on it for many people. I know that the cabinet secretary reflected earlier that there is a need for an emergency response in relation to the climate and biodiversity emergency, but in an emergency response you were still, despite having to make difficult decisions, you are still going to have to bring people with you. My concern is that the approach that the Government has taken has so alienated key stakeholders in this debate that the ability to reach agreement on the protections that may be needed going forward is going to be immeasurably more difficult as a result. Rhoda Grant mentioned the approach to the reference in the Government motion to Llanlash Bay. I was very interested in the insights that Katie Clark was able to bring in terms of the bottom-up approach that was taken, the buy-in that is absolutely needed. I think that that is what we would all wish to see, whether it is with MPAs, whether it is with stricter protections that are put in place. If they are imposed from above, they have no prospect of being accepted and therefore delivering the objectives that we wish to see them deliver. It is about the fishing industry, certainly, but it is about depopulation. It is about the viability of many communities. Again, like I did last night, I would simply urge the Government to fundamentally think again on the proposals and the damage that they are likely to cause on island and coastal communities. That has been a vital debate for our Parliament, but particularly for the communities that we serve. I will, as many members have said, be watched closely by constituents from around our coastal communities, but it is also a test of the very idea of a just transition in the face of what we all recognise as a climate and nature emergency. That matters to all our constituents across the country, the approach that we take to the idea of just transition. I do think that Parliament has been clear today across all parties that the Government must do better, that it must listen and that it must bring these people with them. Rightly, when we talk about the ideas of transition, the SNP Government continually reject the idea of the Tory approach to economic change, where it has abandoned our coalfield and our industrial communities over generations. It must not, and it cannot be, cabinet secretary, Lerwick no more, Kirkwall no more, Stornoway no more, Ulipwil no more, Arbroath no more. Tragically, I think that today's debate is just the latest example in a litany of policies from this Government, which have failed our coastal, but particularly our island communities. Ferries that do not materialise a breakdown in crofting regulation delays in extending reliable broadband provision, housing policies, pushing families out of villages, and a tokenistic commitment to the Gaelic language, which I will come back to. This Government's myopic focus on central belt policies has served our island and coastal communities poorly for 16 years. The protection of Gaelic and our ancient cultural heritage cannot be achieved without the protection of the communities that speak Gaelic. The language is a question of economy. The systemic failure of our island communities in the west of Scotland by this Government is leading to depopulation and the destruction of livelihoods. That was made clear in a research paper titled The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community, published in 2020, and it had this stark warning. The Gaelic speaker group does not have the demographic or societal resources to sustain a communal presence in the islands beyond the next 10 years. While we undoubtedly face that climate crisis, the Government must recognise, Presiding Officer, the concurrent demographic crisis in the communities most impacted by the proposals that we are debating today. That paper went on to highlight the on-going economic and demographic challenges in the Western Isles and other island groups exacerbate matters. The retention of young people and young families willing to contribute to community vitality will be essential to any credible strategy of revitalisation. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. He rightly sets out a sweth of concerns, but can I ask him, does he accept that, where those views are held, by consulting as broadly and as early as I have, and by committing to very closely considering the responses before deciding steps forward, I have engaged coastal communities as early and as meaningfully as I can? I would say to the Cabinet Secretary not quite gently, I have to say, that meaningful consultation is genuinely about listening and changing. That is the opportunity that is in front of the Cabinet Secretary today to accept the motion and the amendments that are in front of her, to listen to some of our backbenches, but crucially to listen to the people in these communities who do not see many of them, a future for themselves and for their children and their grandchildren in the places that they love and that we are elected to serve. The Government cannot persist in willful ignorance of the realities of life in those communities. Islanders are making sure of that, and I have to say that Parliament today has made sure of that. The people have raised their voices through the consultation the Cabinet Secretary to talk about, and those voices are being heard in this debate through many of the speeches. Those voices cannot be ignored. Please, please, please think again. I really want to thank members for their contributions today. I am glad to have the opportunity to take part and close this debate in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, given my responsibilities for fisheries, for aquaculture and cross-government work on islands. Those are responsibilities that I care about and that I take seriously. I do really appreciate the gravity of the concerns that have been raised across the chamber today, and I have listened intently to each of the contributions that members have made. Like the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, I represent a rural constituency and coastal communities within it. Like Mary McCallan, I care about what those communities are saying to us and what they are thinking. Just as I know that all those who have taken part in the debates today, yesterday and yesterday, took part in the meeting with Mary McCallan and myself due to, all of that is very clear from the contributions that we have heard in the chamber this afternoon. First, I want to welcome the widespread and the shared recognition that we all have of the importance of the Scottish fishing industry, the aquaculture industry, as well as the importance of having healthy and vibrant coastal communities. Scotland's marine environment is a national asset that we are privileged to have. The resources it provides maintain, they create jobs, it brings prosperity to coastal and island locations and to the wider supply chain across Scotland. I am very grateful just on that last point. I wonder what assessment has the Scottish Government made on the economic impact to those very fishing communities and coastal communities of a fishing man? I am sure that the member will be aware that we have published partial information in relation to that. Of course, in relation to the socio-economic impacts, the island community impacts assessments, we can only fully complete those when we have sites in mind, so we know what the exact impact of that is going to be and we can look at that more fully. That is why the partial assessments were included in the papers. I am sorry, not at the moment, but I need to make progress. We need to recognise that our marine environment and the resources are also under pressure like never before and that bold and ambitious decision making is needed to ensure that we have that sustainable future. Alongside other priorities that the Government is delivering, HBMAs will have a role in helping to preserve our natural capital, our marine industries depend on and safeguard our marine environment for future generations to enjoy. That is essentially what this is about. This Government's priority is the long-term sustainability of our communities, for our economic growth, supporting people to live and work in our rural areas and really helping those communities to thrive. However, we are also wholly committed to protecting the marine resources that our fishing industry depends on with consultation embedded at every stage and with just transition at the heart of everything that we do to give us the best chance of arriving at the right decisions for the right reasons. That is the complete opposite approach to what we are seeing to be delivered elsewhere. We do not have to look far to find those examples. HBMAs are in the process of being introduced by the UK Government, who are implementing pilot sites in England. They are doing that and we are seeing that being done in a top-down way, with unclear goals and inappropriate locations. I think that it is also important to remember that two of those sites have already been dropped because of rejection by those communities. Unlike the Tories, the Government is not willing to base the future of marine protection in Scotland on pilots in English waters and based on the English fishing industry when they are profoundly different from those in Scotland. To do that would mean that Scotland's unique interests are being disregarded. However, it is also not clear from the debate today whether the Scottish Conservatives support their own manifesto commitments on HBMAs or not. Indeed, all the opposition parties campaigned and were elected on manifestos that committed to pursuing a policy in this regard to enhance protection of our marine environment. I know that Katie Clark and her contribution mentioned that we should have introduced specific proposals, but I think that that would have been the complete opposite approach to what we are actually trying to do, which is consulting at as early a stage as possible on how we even go about this process, which I think is really important. I know that we all agree about the importance of fishing and aquaculture to our economy. That is why we have supported the industry with significant amounts of funding over previous years, £9.7 million in fisheries science, and we have negotiated £468 million through our international fishery negotiations because we recognise the importance of the sector. I am sure that we can also all agree on the fact that we need to take action on the climate and nature emergencies. I am sure that we would also all agree that we need to do that in a way, as the cabinet secretary described in her opening, which is fair, which is just, which leaves no one and no community behind. The Scottish Government wants to work hand in glove with all those who have a stake in this, the communities, the fishers, our marine industries to create the best possible future for our environment, our economy and for those communities. In closing, I really just want to reiterate again some important points. Firstly, that we will not steamroll through or impose on any community a policy that they are vehemently opposed to. I am in my closing remarks. We are at the very start of this process, not the end. Thirdly, we have had a consultation. We will carefully look at all the responses that we have received. We will be engaging with industries, with communities and we are listening. Let's agree to put people ahead of politics and help make the consultative and collaborative process to deliver that vision of a positive future for our environment, economy and communities as successful as it can be. I now call on Finlay Carson to wind up the debate. The First Minister stated that my starting point will always be that we all want the best for Scotland and the people that we are so privileged to represent. Powerful words, and I genuinely hope that he delivers on that promise, particularly in light of the response to the ill-conceived proposals in introducing highly protected marine areas, which have sparked enormous backlash among fishing communities a length and breadth of Scotland. They rightly fear that if the plans to increase limitations on inshore fishing and marine activities go ahead, they will devastate many coastal communities in what has been described as the modern-day highland clearances. Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned Kate from Dingwall, and her comments are remarkably similar to MSP Kate Forbes, who voiced deep concern during her leadership campaign saying, I cannot understand why anyone in government, particularly when we are deliberately trying to stem depopulation in rural areas, thought it would be a good idea to take such a blanket approach. She more recently suggested that the Government may have turned a corner. Sadly, from what I can see from the Government's amendment, the only corner that has turned is the corner that leads to a dead end for our fishing communities. Would Finlay Carson be able to enlighten me as to the Government's motion on what an HMPA means? It certainly came to light that the Government's amendment certainly does not mean to make sense, and it might be helpful if the cabinet secretary explains which HMPA is. One thing that is obvious is that changing direction is not unusual for the SNP, because it has had more changes of direction than the wind of the Mull of Galloway. One thing that is certain is that the SNP's green alliance will not be satisfied until even gudolin and rock pools are prohibited. Karen Adams, Emma Harper and before her pay rise, Jenny Binto have spoken out about the enormous levels of concern that exist in the future of our fishing communities. With primary school children even questioning Alice Arallen over HMPAs, the phrase, leave a light on, was once a commonly used phrase for the SNP green government, but this time it is them who are looking to turn the lights off in our coastal communities. Perhaps the most emphatic critic has been Fergus Ewing stating that the only mention of fishermen says that what they do is destructive, describing the consultation document as a notice of execution. If those HAPMAs go ahead, everyone involved in our seafood industry sector will have the spectre of redundancy hanging over them for many years to come. Is the Scottish Government going to seriously jeopardise plans for a workable blue economy just to appease the greens who make no mistake or the extremists behind this highly contentious back-of-a-fag-packet policy commitment? They cannot even turn up in the chamber in any numbers to defend their policy. There is no robust policy analysis, no data underpinning the process, no time to establish baselines, no indicators to measure their effect and, critically, no assessment of the impact of thousands of families in their rural communities. Should we be surprised given the central belt bias that we often see from the SNP green coalition, it is only the Scottish Conservatives who understand and stand up for our rural and coastal communities. Seafood is a key part of Scotland's transition to net zero, and we need policies that support sustainable low-emission food production, and that goes hand-in-hand with marine conservation. The seafood sector is highly supportive, and for generations its practice is meaningful and well-founded conservation, but the HPMA policy fails to appreciate that. I do not have time for those proposals. Those proposals threaten balance with the Government unable to provide any substance to why they believe they are needed. As Eltham Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation points out, the later response from the Government is both misleading and hugely concerning. It takes as fact that the HPMAs will happen making a complete mockery of the consultation process. The Scottish Government is clearly only interested in discussing where HPMAs will be imposed, not whether the case for them has been made. Karen Adams has already sought to be given assurances from both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary that HPMAs would not be imposed on communities. That language has now changed to communities that are verminally opposed. Does that mean protests outside Parliament, or gunboats quelling troublesome fishing boats? If verminally could be defined or measured, it is evident that the Government has moved the gall posts. Perhaps Mary McCallan can tell us what she plans to do if the consultation reinforces the universal opposition to HPMAs from coastal communities across the width and brids of Scotland. What happens to the Bute House agreement, commitment to the Greens to bring 10 per cent protected areas in? Furthermore, the Scottish Government makes a misleading statement claiming the plans are in line with those of Europe. Wrong. They are going to exceed them. The EU target is 30 per cent of waters that are similar to our existing NPAs, which allow some fishing and aim to strike the right balance between conservation and sustainable harvesting. Scotland is already almost 40 per cent of its waters under some protection, so here we are adding another 10 per cent of total fishing ban. I am quite sure that even SNP treasurer can do that simple sum. The cabinet secretary said that she cares. She empathised. She is a rural MSP and deeply connected in listening, but not so deeply connected or willing to listen to stakeholders in the Huntington with Dogs Bill, where she effectively banned the legal activity of rough shooting after watching a YouTube video. She does not understand that Muirburn does not burn peat. So how can we place any trust in her or her colleagues' judgment to get this right? This is all the signs of being another example of bad policymaking. Akronym seems to be the common thread of green SNP policy, from DRS to GRR, R100 to UNCR, and now it is HPMAs. It should be TTFN, tata for now for this policy. It should be tagged to DNR. Do not resuscitate this dead duck policy. Our manifesto supports a pilot, but we did not support a blanket introduction of HPMAs. In closing, we have already heard about the anti-HPMA protest song, The Clearances Again by Skipanish, highlighting the real fear surrounding the serious economic and social devastation that this policy will bring. My song marks a fight for survival, a mayday cry, we cry. We will stand for the rights of our children, we will not let our islands die. Alasdair Allan, Karen Adams, Anna Harper, Jenny Minto, Marie Todd and Anna Roddick, do not allow yourselves to be bullied by the whips. Stand strong for your communities. Where will you place your allegiance at decision time? With extreme policies of the green or with the communities you represent? Please conclude, Mr Carson. You will be letting your communities down. They will be watching.