 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 8651, in the name of Beatrice Wishart on highly protected marine areas. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Beatrice Wishart to open the debate up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to those members who signed the motion, which allows this debate to be brought forward to the chamber today. HPMAs are, and I quote, a blunt instrument. Not my words, but those of Shetland's only green councillor. It's no exaggeration to say that the proposals for highly protected marine areas, or HPMAs, have struck fear and anxiety in coastal and island communities. The communication from the Scottish Government about its proposals has been poor, and had it engaged meaningfully with communities before now, it is possible that some of those concerns could have been alleviated. A great many constituents have been in contact with me highlighting the potential impact on their livelihoods, and stakeholders across Scotland have raised concerns about HPMA proposals. The three island group councils have all come out in opposition to the plans as proposed, raising once again questions over the degree to which Scottish Government policy is island-proofed. Around a third of Shetland's economy depends on fishing and aquaculture, and those in the supply chain like hauliers and marine engineers rely on them. Around three quarters of all Scotland's mussels are produced in Shetland, while just last week Scottish Salmon was promoting their global product at Seafood Expo in Barcelona. All that could be seriously damaged by those proposals. The HPMA policy appears to be out of step with the Scottish Government's efforts in promoting Scotland's food and drink sector around the world, and the strategy and ambition 2030. One producer said, and I quote, The HPMA proposals are already doing damage to our business as we can no longer plan. So I asked the Scottish Government to reflect on the damage that this proposal is already doing to the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Without plans, it will be difficult for businesses to expand and take advantage of opportunities. My constituent goes on to say, and I quote again, The proposals could lead to our company being put out of business. So businesses fear closure and job losses with the wider negative impact on the whole seafood supply chain. Losses that would have a devastating outcome for coastal and island communities. We cannot leave communities on the scrap heap of which we have seen in previous decades. It is important that the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are addressed. The IPCC, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is clear that we cannot wait. Addressing the climate emergency and protecting our vulnerable coastal and island communities is not in doubt, but should be led by proportional and evidence-based policy, not imposed by a top-down approach. Effective local management and decision making has already been demonstrated in my constituency through the Shetland Fishery Regulatory Audit in place for over 20 years. We have seen efforts to protect our seas through Scotland's existing marine protected areas network, established in partnership with stakeholders, each designed to protect vulnerable habitats and, on an evidence basis, with restrictions where certain activities are permitted. It enables conservation and sustainable use to co-exist. If the Scottish Government put more money into investment and research, it could find out what conservation measures work best where. It would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government has learned from those networks and what can be taken forward. HPMAs could see an arbitrary 10 per cent of the seas close to all but leisure activities by 2026. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Fishing has been a tradition for centuries with coastal and island communities, and it is time to stop implying that fishermen do not care about our seas. The fishing sector relies on sustainable catches and benefit from healthy seas. Who better understands our seas that they are fragile than our fishermen and who want to ensure that there is a future for the next generation? On proportionality, the fishing sector already faces spatial squeeze with increasing at sea infrastructure such as platforms, renewables, offshore wind farms and cables, as well as the network of existing protected marine areas. HPMAs could have the cumulative impact of closing off 50 per cent of Scotland's waters to fishing by 2050. When you consider one-third of all UK fish is caught within 50 miles of Shetland, that becomes extremely concerning. The concern is heightened when it is considered that the consultation assumes that the designation of HPMAs beyond 12 nautical miles will be subject to the prior transfer of relevant powers by the UK Government to Scottish ministers. If that is not agreed, which is a possibility, then it is unclear if the 10 per cent requirement will need to be made up of inshore waters alone. We need a holistic approach to our seas to support all the interests of stakeholders and sectors, including how the future conservation of our seas should work. The Scottish Government should rethink that policy now. I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing in this debate to the chamber today for us all to have an opportunity to speak on it. I represent a number of coastal communities across Bamshire and Buckingham coast. In recent weeks, a number of constituents of mine have contacted me on this issue. I have held meetings with a range of stakeholders, including fisheries, to gauge their thoughts, and it is clear to me that there are significant concerns among stakeholders of the blue economy regarding highly protected marine areas. I welcome the First Minister's recent commitment to not impose upon any community a policy to which they are vehemently opposed. Last week, I asked the cabinet secretary for net zero and just transition to echo that commitment. In response to my question, she told me that she was happy to reiterate the First Minister's commitment and that she firmly believes that she does not impose policies on communities. I am grateful for our reassurance, although we need clarity on how those communities will be defined and how we will gauge their vehement opposition. We need it urgently, but today we heard of delays in the purchase of vessels as a result of the lack of certainty. We must avoid the ambiguity and uncertainty that the Tory pursuit of Brexit saddled already on our blue economy. Many lives and livelihoods across our country, particularly in the north-east, depend on fisheries and the meaningful contribution that they make to both the culture and the economy of Scotland. Over the past number of years, fishers have had to battle with the cumulative impact of the pandemic, Brexit and the post-Brexit immigration issues. One fisher, in my constituency, told me earlier today, Brexit has been damaging to the industry with all of the additional administrative costs, and it is prevalent today as it was in 2021. HPMAs cannot be introduced without the support of local communities because that is where the damage would be caused. We are being driven by an urban agenda with little consideration on the impact of our rural communities and the way of life. That fisher is by no means alone. The Sustainable Insure Fisheries Trust told me this morning that it is concerned that the current programme has been developed without bringing in areas that are guaranteed for creelers and others for the mobile sector in economically advantageous areas, where mobile gear has a lower impact. We think that setting the environment against the economy misunderstands the economic basis for a strong and growing fishing industry. We can either fail on both fronts or bring in the kind of spatial planning that will let us succeed on both. If we are to be successful in our efforts to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis and restore marine habitats, we have to take the key stakeholders of the blue economy with us, and that requires a just transition. We have to do more than just listen to fishers. We have to act on their concerns. It is clear from recent interactions with my constituents that they feel that this is not currently the case. While I welcome the commitments from the Scottish Government to have fully comprehensive negotiations, I must reiterate the point that this must be led by lived experience and must not resemble a top-down approach. I have always been an advocate for lived experience shaping policy, but an honest and forthcoming exchange of views requires trust. Fishers across Bamshire and Buckingham Coast have put their trust in me, and I do not take that trust for granted. The coastal communities across my constituency depend on fisheries, and I will continue to stand up for those communities. In conclusion, I want to thank Beatrice Wishart for this welcome opportunity, and I also welcome any cross-party discussions on how we can best work together for our coastal communities. On that note, I look forward to seeing as many of my colleagues join the forthcoming cross-party group in fisheries and coastal communities that I am in the process of setting up. Marine ecosystems worldwide store and cycle an estimating 93 per cent of the earth's CO2, sea grass sequestration of carbon is 35 times faster than that of the rainforest, and it also provides a fantastic renewable food source that must be managed properly if we are to maintain food security. However, the poor launch of the Scottish Government's HMPA consultation has highlighted the need to look at our blue economy with respect to a just transition in more detail. What we needed was direct consultation with communities and allowing local communities to say. It is obvious that coastal communities in Scottish industries within the blue economy feel left behind and that the Scottish Government is not delivering on their promise of a just transition for them. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government does not take more direct approach on consulting communities on policies that would directly impact their livelihood and viability. It is easy to see that an online consultation with online workshops was a poor choice for that engagement. Instead of bringing parties together, the Scottish Government has managed to put NGOs and fishing in coastal communities against one another. Industry, NGOs and community groups have called for better spatial management plans that take advantage of local, historic knowledge and better balance industry and the need for conservation and nature-based solutions. Many of these stakeholders are psyched in adequate funding on clear objectives and a lack of data as key barriers to proper implementation of marine spatial planning. Much of the current Scottish Government's marine policy is driven by Scottish Green Party ideology and misleading international comparators rather than science-based evidence. The Scottish Government has admitted as much in response to portfolio questions, stating that they do not have the data to validate their policy choice but rather have policies based on, and I quote, how best we can develop policy in the absence of science and data. Similarly, Scotland Marine Assessment 2020 explicitly stated that I quote, there is insufficient data to allow detailed assessment. That is no way to approach such important legislation. Legislation that can have such a detrimental impact on communities reliant on a robust and sustainable blue economy. Scottish Government guesswork is what they are being offered. Proposing APMAs with very little evidence on their impact in temperate waters is this not ridiculous, it is hugely irresponsible. Our fishermen must be part of the solution to dual nature and climate crisis, but only if we create the policy context for them to participate. Our fishing sector and coastal communities have a unique local knowledge passed down over generations that is invaluable to the formation of policy. For example, the Clyde Fisherman's Association has been in operation since 1934. It, like many local fishers, understand their role in ensuring the long-term viability of their industry. For example, the CFA has advocated for a weekend fishing ban in its local area and engaged proactively with Marine Scotland in the formation of the Clyde MPH to support healthy fishing stocks. Its practical knowledge is instrumental to its advances in gear selectivity on significantly reduced by-catch. We must draw an extensive knowledge base from across the industry. The people who understand the sustainability of our seas most are those who gain their livelihood from it. They have been doing that for decades, Deputy Presiding Officer. Furthermore, there is a body of evidence to suggest that investment in sea wood sector can also help us to achieve our net zero goals and improve our marine habitats. That is similar to Scotland's forestry sector, and its approach to tree cultivation to lock-in carbon as we produce other projects. During the duration of their cultivation, the farms can also produce a temporary habitat that has been shown to act comparably to wild nursery habitats. The special consideration must be given to the special quick squeeze that our marine environment is under, and it is important to note that there is scope to grow sea weed alongside existing industries such as salmon and shellfish farming, integrating multi-tropic agriculture, and even renewable energy installations. In some cases, the presence of sea weed may improve environmental quality by reducing the negative impacts of traditional fish farming practices that are helping to maintain and grow fish stocks. The Scottish Government seems intent on pursuing an ideological policy without considering the ecosystem and climate solutions as a whole and are doing so without any meaningful data or research. That is why there has been such a pushback and alarm from our fishing and coastal communities against Scottish Government proposals on HPMAs—a lack of any clear scientific basis for the proposals and a significant lack of any relevant data pertaining to softbed ecosystems. Comparing Scotland's inshore coastal waters to tropical waters such as the Great Barrier Reef is ridiculous. The Scottish Government must halt its current direction of travel, halt its plans for HPMAs, work with coastal and fishing communities, NGOs and academia to collect the appropriate data to deliver a comprehensive, cohesive, effective policy. The member is just bringing us much to close. Not to do so will be to turn your back on those communities, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whistle. I now call Alasdair Allyn to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Presiding Officer, can I begin by thanking Beatrice Wishart for securing this important member's debate. Over the course of the consultation period for highly protected marine areas, the level of fear across my constituency about what those proposals might mean for our islands has grown, although some recent remarks from both the cabinet secretary and the First Minister have certainly served to reassure about the Government's intentions. Following the consultation paper, individual island communities have had serious concerns that any designation around their own coastline would effectively end all forms of fishing and aquaculture for them overnight. Although it is important to say that it is only 10 per cent of Scotland's seas, which would be affected by the proposals, the difficulty is that no indication is being given yet of which areas are to be affected and every community therefore presently fears the worst. There is time, I believe, to address those fears if we act as I believe the Government is willing. However, Presiding Officer, I have to be direct. I have never known my constituency to be so apparently unanimously opposed to any single policy in all my time serving as a MSP. It is not just those involved in the fishing industry. Literally everyone who has spoken to me or written to me on this issue locally has expressed total opposition to the proposals as they stand. Even on recent primary school visits—I will make progress for very little time—even on recent primary school visits, HPMAs have been the first thing that many pupils have wanted to ask me about. My consultation response details many of the concerns expressed to me by constituents about the potential ramifications of those proposals locally, so I will not attempt to cover those in detail in the little time available. However, the key question is, in the case of a local HPMA designation, what would that mean economically to the coastal communities that are affected? On the west coast, many fishing vessels are too small realistically to work further afield. Even if they did, creelers would face the task of re-establishing grounds to work, and fish processing would be unlikely to have a future in any community, potentially where fishing and aquaculture had come to an end effectively. Those measures would, disproportionately, if implemented, punish low impact on more sustainable forms of fishing. With sites not due to be selected for another two years, I am afraid that the issue will be hanging over every coastal community between now and the site selection decisions being taken. Fishers and others who rely on the sea to make their living fully recognised the need to tackle biodiversity loss, and that loss is certainly real. However, nobody I have spoken with in the islands believes that a blunt approach is the best way to go. I would question how any such approach would be compatible in the end with the Scottish Government's commendable drive to tackle rural depopulation, as well as the overall aims and commitments set out in the national islands plan. When officials finish processing responses from the HPMA consultation, I believe—I cannot prove this—that they will find islanders from all walks of life and all political persuasions fairly united in the western isles in any case to the proposals as they currently stand. To conclude, I know that the First Minister gets this, as does the cabinet secretary. I am very grateful for her commitment that HPMAs will not be imposed on communities who do not want them. We all know that the consultation responses will show anger and opposition, but they will also show our coastal communities passion and positive ideas for growth and sustainability in the islands. We can have that conversation with the starting point being the Government's welcome commitment not to impose HPMAs on communities that view them as an existential threat. I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this debate. This is an issue that has cost great consternation in fishing communities. The Scottish Government has told them that their future is at stake and expects them to take that quietly. Fishing communities have harvested the seas for generations. It is their living. It is not in their interests to harm their own livelihoods, but the Scottish Government, with the arrogance of imperial masters, tells them they know best. They know that their seas are better than the people who have fished them all their lives and depend on that knowledge of the sea for their very survival. It is a little wonder that they are angry and that they are right in protest songs and that they simply will not accept that. I also bust the myth that the imperial masters promulgate, but, left unchecked, our fishers will destroy the marine environment. Fishing communities actually want to nurture and protect the seas. It is life or death to them. They are more motivated to do this than any pen-pushing pseudo-environmentalist sitting behind a desk in Edinburgh. I am very grateful for the member for taking an intervention and I understand deeply her points on that. I just wanted to question how what she is saying reconciles with the fact that she was elected on a manifesto commitment to 20 per cent highly protected marine areas, double what the Scottish Government is currently working through. That then gets to the nub of the matter. It is not about protecting the marine areas, it is about how you protect them. You do not do that top down, you do it bottom up with those who want them protected as much as you do. That is my point. It is those that fish the seas that are motivated more to protect the seas than anybody else. I will give you an example of that. When I was first elected to this Parliament, I represented the community in Loch Torridon. That is the area that I was brought up. The community badly wanted to close the Loch to mobile gear boats, and it took persuasion to make that happen. Meetings, negativity, it was close to impossible. That community was looking to preserve their income and their fishery and their livelihoods. It took a long time, but eventually that was granted, but it was not easily obtained. The results were positive, so positive, that the area became a honeypot for static gear boats, and that was threatening the good work that had been put in place. The community then again asked for the powers to manage the fishing effort, and again they were rebuffed. It was the same top-down approach that we are seeing now. The Scottish Government is condescendingly telling communities that how they need to work and how they need to manage their seas is simply wrong. Again, it is the same Scottish Government when they reduced quota in the North Sea, then encouraged boats from the North Sea to fish the minch and hoover up the prawn quota. The prawn quota was finished in six months putting the very survival of those fisheries and communities in balance. That was the Scottish Government, not the fishers in those communities. The same communities want the Scottish Government to look at what they are doing. The Scottish Government cannot take the moral high ground over them because they cannot. They have to stop. Looking after our seas and managing them. Presiding Officer, the member will remember that in 2016 this Government was elected on the principle of bringing an inshore fisheries bill, which they fundamentally failed to do. Does the member believe that, if they had bought that bill in, they would not have had to do this knee-jerk reaction without consulting anyone and could have gone through the proper process, which they supposed to have started over seven years ago? Managing our seas has to be devolved to local communities. They depend on the fisheries for their very survival, and they need that fishery to continue for future generations, so we must help them, we must support them, we must empower them to protect our seas, and I would urge the Scottish Government to do just that. I now call Fergus Ewing to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I warmly thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this debate and the opportunity to speak in it here today, and I congratulate her on her excellent contribution and enjoyed listening to all members speak thus far. I have spent 49 years campaigning in various capacities to support, to provide succor to our fishermen and fishing communities throughout Scotland. Starting off as a schoolboy campaigning for our mother in 1974, when she successfully won Murray and Nairn from then Gordon Campbell, and she thought that she had the fishing community on her side during the campaign. It was a cold count, so the votes weren't counted until the Friday, but she went on the election night programme and was interviewed by the anchor man of the elections results from London, who asked her this at midnight after the votes had been counted elsewhere, but not in Murray. Well, Mrs Ewing, how have you done in Murray and Nairn? And she said, I won. And he said, how can you possibly know because the votes haven't been counted yet? And she said, because the votes came in. At that point, the BBC executive producer was completely mystified. He didn't understand that poster votes weren't a thing, then, and the fishermen came in. They disrupted their fishing effort in order to cast their vote for Winnie to fight for them. In those days, Presiding Officer, it was precisely because the fishing community had lost confidence in the Conservatives under Ted Heath. Now, my fear is that they are now losing confidence in the party that I have served for nearly 50 years in our Scottish Government. I have had the privilege of serving as the MSP for Lachabur for eight years, now in Cape Forbes, with capable hands. I got to know the fishermen in Malig and in Arrasaig, and I got to understand and appreciate what they do, producing food on our table, hard-working, great characters, many of them very God-fearing as well, and making a huge contribution to Scotland. Over the years, it is the fishing community that have gone on to form the backbone of the Merchant Navy, and then the 70s and 80s working offshore in our oil and gas industry, because they were already familiar with the perils of working in the Coral Sea indeed. They did then and still do now put their lives at risk for us. They deserve our respect. They deserve our thanks. But what have they got in this document? The only mention of fishermen is that what they do is disruptive. What an incredible act of provocation that is. Plenty of us are going to list of questions here about this consultation document. Some have been asked already. Why didn't the Government sit down with fishermen at the beginning? Work with them, as Beatrice said, and local management to learn what they do. After all, no-one has got a more interest in fishermen than preserving socks for the future for their family coming on. No-one knows more about it than they do. You cannot convince me that an academic working in a university buying a typewriter knows more than the fisherman working to see. Where do we go from here? I have urged the minister already to do this. I know that she has rejected it, but this will haunt the Scottish Government on this issue. It will not go away. This is not a consultation document. It is a notice of execution, together with the inshore cap and the special marine features that are really putting the fear of God into our fishermen. The collective impact of all of that means that the anger that Dr Allan has already said is palpable. In 49 years, I have not come across anything like it. The minister should withdraw the document, apologise, get round the coast, go round all the fishing ports, or most of them, as I have tried to do in my time. Then she should go back to the drawing board and work with the fishing communities. In the meantime, in conclusion with regard to this document, I have three suggestions to make about what to do with it. First of all, put it in the burgeoning policy recycling unit, along with the advertising ban and deposit return. Secondly, if you prefer, use it as a fire lighter. Thirdly, I am summing up the views of the people that I have worked for and value and cherish for nearly 50 years. That is what to do with it, Presiding Officer. I do it now. That is what the people of Scotland who have great affection for our fishermen want to happen and what should happen and what I believe will happen at some stage or another. I now call Liam McArthur to be followed by Emma Harper. I join others in thanking my colleague Beatrice Wishart, not just for allowing this evening's debate for the tenacity that she has shown in articulating many of the concerns that we have heard this evening and on behalf of her own Shetland constituency. I am a great fan, always have been a great fan of members' debates. I have participated in many in recent times for the privilege of chairing a good many as well, and I think that often they are underestimated. I think that anybody tuning in to this evening's debate will be left in no doubt whatsoever about the powerful message that they can often send. I think that we have heard to date from each of the speakers about the response to those proposals on HPMAs. We are seeing them in coastal and island communities right around Scotland. I think that Dr Allan is absolutely right in terms of the reaction in his constituency. It has echoed very much in my constituency. There is an anger, there is confusion. Equally, there is a determination and absolute resolution to see off the proposals for very good reasons that I will come on to. I think that Karen Adam is also right to point out that they are already having an impact in terms of the uncertainty that they have created. Similarly, Brian Whittle is right to say that, in a sense, they have made it far more difficult to come to a resolution at the end, because emotions are running so high that the faith and the confidence that there is within our island and coastal communities has been undermined. Will he also agree with me that it is impacting the ability to recruit into the sector as well, because of the uncertainty that this bill is bringing? I very much agree. I think that that was the point that Karen Adam was making, whether it is coming into the sector, whether it is people seeking to buy new vessels. That uncertainty cannot be anything other than a bad and a damaging thing. The combination of the blunt and arbitrary nature of the proposed, the combination of the 10 per cent on the one hand, which is how Sir Allan reflected, has everybody suspected that they may be part of that 10 per cent, but also the deadline of 2026, which, in terms of what the Government is seeking to achieve here, is a ridiculously short time frame. It seems entirely arbitrary on the basis of when the next election falls. I think that that is driven by the fact that this whole commitment emerges from a bute house agreement that rise roughshod over the development of policy that there has been over many, many years. The fisheries strategy from 2019 will have been an iterative process through engagement with the sector, engagement with stakeholders and the development of evidence. What has happened within the equivalent of smoke filled rooms and bute house is something that is wholly arbitrary. The evidential base is just not there. The message from the Government for years has been about local management, local control and local engagement. I take my own ordinary constituency as an example. Fisheries, who absolutely recognise that their sector is reliant on a healthy ecosystem and a healthy marine environment, is why they have been working with research academics and environmental groups on a range of conservation initiatives over recent years. To have that top-down approach then imposed on them has left them absolutely baffled. There are a few minor bright spots. The assurance from the First Minister and repeated by the cabinet secretary that none of those proposals will be imposed on communities is welcome, but there is no definition of what a community is or what the level of opposition would be required to be. I welcome Mary McCallan's willingness to engage with MSPs across the Parliament and to welcome the meetings that she held with us earlier on today. I do not want to breach any confidences from that meeting, but I am absolutely sure that she will be left in no doubt about the strength of the cross-party feelings that are on the bill. Let us not mistake the opposition that we are seeing to this as an unwillingness to engage on what will genuinely safeguard the future of our fishing sector and our aquaculture sector to all those who rely on a marine environment through having a protected marine environment, but let us not also be in any doubt that the Government will be able to find a way to railroad through those proposals on the basis of the Bute House agreement because they will not have the numbers in this Parliament. I look forward to the remainder of the debate and participating in tomorrow's debate. I do not think that we can give this issue enough focus at the moment, but I thank Beatrice Wishart for giving us this opportunity to reflect on those concerns. I also want to thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this debate and I want to start by supporting some of what she said in her motion. We all know and we all agreed that fishing is hugely important to Scotland's coastal communities, including across the Friesland Galloway and the Scottish Borders. I also agree that any decision taken should be on the basis of robust evidence and assess their impact and that stakeholders must be fully involved in the process. Presiding Officer, in March, after an early 20 years of discussion, 193 countries agreed to a new high seas treaty that will protect 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030. The UK Government also recently announced the creation of three highly protected marine areas in English waters. One of them is on the English side of the Solway Firth. It is internationally accepted that the world needs to do more to look after the marine environment and there is cross-party support for HPMAs across the UK. However, the process by which this is achieved must be carefully managed and people's livelihoods, indeed their way of life for many of our coastal communities, must be considered and even protected. Any change must be in full consultation with those communities. I know that there is a vast amount of work that needs to be done before any location is decided upon and I would ask that acceptable social economic impact should be a key indicator of successful outcome. As it stands, the policy framework seems to be a bit unclear based on the feedback that has been provided to me to what degree designations within the Scottish inshore region would contribute to this overall 10 per cent target that applies to both inshore and offshore regions. Galloway is home to many inshore fishers who fish in the Solway and the Irish Sea and beyond. Scotland's inshore waters extend from the coast out to 12 nautical miles, with the concentration of fishing taken place within six nautical miles. Over 2,000 active Scottish fishing vessels and three quarters of them fish primarily in inshore waters. The inshore fleet is diverse and includes trawlers, creelers, netters, dredgers and divers, and we should absolutely thank them all for putting food on our tables. This sector contributes £284 million to Scotland's economy, providing employment to many in our rural communities, and I appreciate Karen Adams' point about the importance of the blue economy. The Galloway static inshore fishers, Clyde fishing and fishing representative bodies have contacted me also as the South Scotland MSPs, with coastal waters on both sides of my region. They have asked me to convey their concerns, so I am asking on behalf of my constituents whether removing of the arbitrary, which is perceived as arbitrary, 10 per cent target of HPMA and instead can we focus on acceptable socio-economic impact? Will that be considered also with our exclusion of current inshore waters such as the saw that we already see from HPMA proposals can be considered and also could clarity be provided on the evidence, the evidential basis for restricting watersports, including swimming and kayaking, et cetera, from HPMAs? That is important for folk in Lochraeim. I also ask the minister for a commitment that, before any HPMA is enacted, our static and mobile gear fishing communities are properly consulted with and that their concerns will be addressed. The purpose of HPMAs in as far as they align with the Scotland's nature conservation strategy is reasonable and the principle of taking a whole-site approach in targeted areas would hopefully achieve positive biodiversity outcomes. However, implementing such a programme of work must properly recognise the drastic step change that it represents for designations in the marine space and the existing users and coastal communities that will be affected. Positive biodiversity aspirations are important as are actions to support them. I know that any actions will be well considered by the minister and the cabinet secretary to ensure that outcomes are both successful and just. I will conclude there because I am conscious of the time. I know that targets for protecting the areas must consider all waters and not just the Scottish Government currently has delegated authority over. The integration of critical socioeconomic considerations and thorough community engagement must be embedded at an early point in the process. Due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept emulsion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I now invite Beatrice Wishart to move a motion without notice. Do members agree to extend the debate this evening? That is agreed. I now call Arianne Burgess to be followed by Kate Forbes. I thank my colleague Beatrice Wishart for securing this debate and giving the opportunity in the chamber. Scotland is an island's nation and our marine waters are our last great commons, but they are under threat from decades of damage. It is commendable that Shetland's shellfish management organisation allocates limited fishing licenses for local shellfish, but 80 per cent of Shetland seafloor is in poor condition due to towed bottom contact fishing. Presiding Officer, Scotland as a whole is failing in its duty, its legal duty, to maintain our seas to good environmental status. Disturbance of the seabed is widespread and total fish landings across Scotland are decreasing. Living seabed habitats like flame shell beds that provide spawning and nursery grounds for fish have suffered catastrophic decline. That threatens not only fish, seabirds and marine mammals, but also us humans. If we do not take action, we will not take action. I am very grateful for the member for taking intervention. I wonder if she could tell me which species she thinks are in danger of extinction and is that verified by some neutral verified science by any chance? Arianne Burgess? A college member is always being distracted by somebody else, but I would like to say that this is a crucial next step to aid marine ecosystem recovery in our waters. I am delighted to see my recommendations become a reality today. Not only will the first of three highly protected marine areas protect important species and habitats, but they will propel the UK forward in our mission to protect at least 30 per cent of the global ocean by 2030. That was Marine Minister Lord Benyon, a Tory on the HBMAs for England. I am going to continue because I think I need to use the time. If we do not take action, fish stocks will continue to suffer, making it harder and harder to earn a living as a fisher, and losing the flood defence that is provided by healthy coastal habitats would cost billions. Shell and fisheries are faring better than most, but other coastal communities are realising that it is collapsing fish stocks that threaten coastal economies, not increased protection. It is time for communities to step up and demand change. In the continuing months, coastal and island communities can continue to shape the ocean recovery network of our highly protected marine areas. The cabinet secretary will hold meetings and workshops. Marine Scotland assured me that the coastal communities will be central when they get together in a room with maps and draw them out in a very collective manner. There will be a second public consultation on locations and anyone will be able to submit proposals for sites. We should go further. We need a process for communities to meaningfully input into wider spatial plans for their inshore waters, which could include HBMAs as part of a package of measures that works for each community. It is about the whole package. Fishing is indispensable, but it makes up just 6 per cent of marine economic value and 7 per cent of marine employment. Our coastal economies are a rich tapestry, including recreation, hospitality, tourism and shipping, and the increasingly grown sector of nature restoration. Many of these will benefit from HBMAs, just like in Arran, where the Llanlash Bay note-take zone has increased both tourism and catches of lobster near the HBMA zones and where we also hear that generally the ecosystem is flourishing. Llanlash Bay is demonstrating multi-faceted benefits from high protection. It should be recognised and funded as a formal pilot, but we can also draw on the ample international evidence, including benefits for fishers outside HBMAs in California, Florida, New Zealand and the Mediterranean, where the fishers asked for them to be brought in. HBMAs have piqued public interest interests in marine management. Let's seize this opportunity to catalyse a process of community wealth building all along our coastlines. Through careful co-design and management with our coastal communities, we can create world-famous HBMAs, where visitors and residents alike enjoy the beautiful nature-rich waters, with the benefits literally spilling over for local fishers and the ecosystems on which we all depend. I can't think of a more important issue to speak on as my first speech from the backbench since 2018, and I'm delighted to be back, but not delighted about the substance of this debate. In a debate about conservation, my warning is stark. The rarest species in our coastal areas and our islands will soon become people if those proposals go ahead as planned. We look at the figures to back that up. The national records of Scotland are clear that all our coastal areas will see double-digit reductions in population between 2018 and 2044. The western isles are gylem bute, inverclide. It's people and depopulation that are at greatest risk. Yet, despite that bleak outlook, there are signs of recovery. That recovery is driven in many areas by fishing. Let's look at Tyree. In Tyree, fishing supports 20 full-time jobs that, in turn, support 25 per cent of the children under the age of eight years old on the island. Every one of those children is in the Gaelic medium unit. Language, heritage and culture are what drives tourism. Yet, whenever the lifeline with fishing undermines the wider economy, my position in the leadership contest was that I would scrap HBMAs completely if elected. I didn't win. My job now is to represent my constituents and to navigate a way forward. The statement from the seafood sector, which I believe is to be issued tomorrow, offers a way forward to either drop the proposals or to find a clear consensus. Consensus requires fishermen's voices to be part of that discussion, to find a clear consensus on balancing protections in the marine environment and safeguard tens of thousands of jobs. I was hugely heartened by the comments from the First Minister and, indeed, from Mary McCallan, who has been exceptional in engaging, that no communities will see HBMAs imposed on them outwith their will. The difficulty, of course, is that I have not come across a single community who do want it, so I think that the challenge will be finding anywhere to impose those HBMAs. I have not taken interventions because I wanted to use the last minute of my comments to quote the words of a fisherman, because that is not about taking politicians' words, it is about listening directly to those people. I want to quote Donald Francis McNeill, who made his singing debut last month with Skipnish in the song Clearances again. I am not going to sing it, but you can hear it sung online. He sings, Donald Francis McNeill is my name. I am a fisherman through to the bone. I have lived by the creel and the wave to provide for a family and home. Generations before me have followed the toil and the call of the seas, but the soul will be torn from our future and the heart from the Hebrides. My people, my language, my island and the rights that our forefathers won to remain on the soil of our homeland by the sweep of a pen will be gone. A wrecking ball through our existence, tradition and culture condemned at the hands of the arrogant stranger, the clearances over again, but we will join with the kin of our coastline from Ness to the Holy Isle, faceless grey suits from the cities. They will not play games with our lives. My song marks a fight for survival, a mayday call we cry, we will stand for the rights of our children, we will not let our islands die. May that be the rallying call, Presiding Officer, for this Parliament? I now call on the cabinet secretary, Mary McCallan, to respond to the debate. I should like to begin by thanking Beatrice Wishart for lodging this motion. I want to thank her and others for their contributions today and for those of my colleagues who joined me on the round table that I held earlier on. I want to acknowledge the emotion that has been so clear in exchanges today and outside this chamber up until this point. In response, I want to commit that I will be balanced, I will be measured and I will take this matter exceptionally seriously. Before I move to the substance of the Scottish Government's position, I just want to categorically remind the chamber that we are at the very beginning of the development of this issue, that I have very deliberately consulted early and widely in that process, and that I am currently in the position of considering thousands of responses to the consultation that we set. I am committed to very closely considering the views that have been expressed as I decide the way forward and noting the uncertainty that has been narrated by a number of colleagues. I commit to doing that as soon as I possibly can and to updating the chamber in time. Thank you very much for taking the intervention. It is just really to put the chamber in the picture of how long the readings of the responses might take, so how many consultations did the Government receive and how long do you think you might be able to get through those? In response to an interview that I was doing, I noted that we had had thousands of responses. I am still working out how many of them are duplicates or how many of them were generated via campaigns, but we are looking at about 4,000 just now. I cannot put a time figure on exactly how long it is going to take us to meaningfully get through them, but I commit to doing that as soon as I can. I suppose that to everybody who has been concerned by the proposal, I want to say first of all that I care, that I empathise, that I am a rural MSP, that I feel deeply connected to the land in a way that I know island and coastal communities, feel connected to land, coast and sea. Finally, I would say that I am listening and that consultation exercise is exactly what that is about. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention as a member, bringing forward a member's bill that has had 14,000 responses. I feel her pain, but I wish her good speed in getting through those consultations. The point that I was making during the debate about the effect that consultation and the way that it has gone down in coastal and island communities is likely to make that whole process of reaching agreement more difficult. Is there anything that she can advise the chamber today that will allow her to rebuild that trust and that confidence in a process that fundamentally, at the moment, is lacking that confidence? I accept that there are different ways in which one can approach the consultation on what I understood was going to be an issue that would elicit a lot of different views. I could have done what has been done by DEFRA, and I don't criticise them in this, but I could have done top-down pilot approach. I felt that consulting as widely as I could right at the beginning of the process on the very principles of that rather than the end point was the best way to do that. I accept that that has potentially created a vacuum into which some mistruths have entered and also concern has been allowed to grow. In terms of how we address that, I am here today. I am meeting with MSPs. I have committed to meeting with coastal communities. I will very closely consider the consultation. Essentially, I will gather as much information as I possibly can on the views of how that proposal should be taken forward, and I commit to acting on that as much as I can. I will take one last intervention. I am very grateful if the cabinet secretary takes my interventions. My point is how can the Scottish Government consider HBMAs when they have not assessed yet the effectiveness of MPAs? Surely we must gather that information first before you can move on. We have a statutory process for assessing the development of MPAs. Our consultation recommends that HBMAs would follow a similar statutory cycle of monitoring. That brings me to the point that we know that, first of all, the IPCC is very clear that we are in a climate and nature emergency. Most recent assessments of the state of the marine area in both Scotland and the UK have demonstrated that, in 11 out of 15 indicators of good environmental status, we are failing. Of course, all that is happening on a backdrop where we know that the oceans store around 25 per cent of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans and 90 per cent of the heat from human-caused climate change. Recent research shows that none of us can deny that, whereas we need the ocean to help us to maintain equilibrium in the natural world, the seas are reaching their capacity to assist us in that, and that is because of human impacts on them. If we do not protect our seas, they will not be able to protect us. That is a fundamental truth, but what is also a fundamental truth is that the actions that we take in response to that science, in response to that emergency must be carefully considered, they must be fair, they must be just and, in this case, they must be developed hand in hand with the people who are affected by them. That is exactly what I am seeking to do. I should say that that idea that our economy and our environment are not in opposition with one another but mutually inclusive of each other is exactly at the core of our blue economy vision, recognising that economic prosperity and the wellbeing of our people are underpinned by nature and are not external to it. If there is anybody who understands that fact more than anyone, it is the people who live in our coastal and island communities who are socially, economically and culturally linked to our seas. That is why it has been so important to me that they have been involved to date and that they will continue to be involved. I am conscious of time. I want to take as many interventions as I possibly could, but I suppose to conclude that this debate has raised many important points. We all recognise the importance of Scotland's coastal and island communities and the industries that support them. We recognise the importance and the indispensable value of working with them as we develop the policy. At the same time, we must all recognise the threat that our environment is under. Every MSP in this chamber was elected on a manifesto that committed to protection of our environment. My colleagues in the Labour Party committed to 20 per cent highly protected marine areas and the Conservatives to piloting highly protected marine areas. There is agreement on the fact that marine protection is required. My job, which I take very seriously, is to make sure that we achieve those aims, but that we do it hand in hand with the people impacted by them. I commit myself to doing that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting.