Seòmar agus comataidhean

The cabinet secretary clearly knows the concerns of local people regarding those roads, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for meeting community campaigners to hear their concerns.

Given the key economic importance of the A77 not only to the south-west of Scotland but to the whole country, does she believe that the figure that she mentions is enough to significantly address the problem and ensure that it will deliver an economic benefit to the south-west?

I know that we are running out of time, but I want to make a point about young people in more rural areas losing out. The lack of connectivity across Government portfolios such as transport is a real issue in my area. I wanted to put that point to the cabinet secretary and to express my hope that we could work together to resolve that for people.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s intervention. Of course, I understand how difficult it is to get time with the Government of the day—I am in an Opposition party. We need to keep moving forward and keep talking.

Although the fishing sector in South Scotland is a small part of the overall Scottish industry compared with major hubs such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh in the north-east, it is a vital component of the coastal and rural communities of my region.

My constituents believe that, in order to maintain the environmental wealth that we have in the south of Scotland, we must begin to see the coast as a delicate ecosystem with varied needs and challenges, from erosion to the loss of seagrass to the changes that the fishing industry brings. We need a thriving coastline in order to preserve not just the local environment but the environment of our whole country, and to provide the boost to the economy that coastal and rural communities require. That is a weighty responsibility, so it is important that the chamber takes the time to treat this issue seriously. It also gives us a reason to work together.

I return to the economy. I will not restate the figures that the cabinet secretary provided, but we know that the fishing industry gives us large amounts of landings and of jobs. It is important that we work with that industry to ensure that that continues.

Fisheries employ more than 20,000 people in Scotland. That is important because fisheries are part of our rural and coastal communities, as others have said. We also know that employment in the industry has decreased by 15 per cent. We need to talk about what we can do about that now.

I have only 38 seconds left to speak. I want to talk about what we need to do. I reiterate that we must work together, but in that we must pay attention to some of the things that we can do in Scotland in our devolved capacity. What will make a difference here and now? From what others have said, we know that we need to look at sustainability. We also need to use the science that the Labour amendment mentions. I hope that that can be supported, because without a move towards the use of that science, we might find that we cannot keep the seas sustainable.

During this parliamentary session, we have had a much greater emphasis on this issue, mostly from Opposition members. I reiterate my gratitude for people working together, participating in the debate and, I hope, changing the trajectory.

I will start with a quote from my colleague Rhoda Grant, who has said before in the chamber:

“We all know that fish know no boundaries and, because of that, negotiations have always taken place on fisheries.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; c 70-1.]

That is a very good place to start. If we are to help to protect the future of our fishing industry, we must learn to negotiate and, of course, work together. It seems to me that the Parliament wants to support the industry and indeed believes that we need to do so. How we work together will make a great deal of difference. The Government motion recognises the need for

“continued investment to build a thriving, sustainable and modern fishing industry, which is of key importance to Scotland’s island and coastal communities and the wider economy”.

I think that we all want to work towards that.

Across the UK, we are deeply fortunate to live on a spectacular and unique island that is furnished with an incredible coastline that, for centuries, has provided us with food, employment and leisure. The environmental wealth that is present across Scotland’s coast is abundant and, without it, our entire culture would be altogether different. I am immensely thankful for that environment. From speaking to my constituents, I know that it is perhaps the thing that they love and value most about the South Scotland region, and that is why I speak in the debate today.

My constituents love the history of the coastal and fishing industry and the environment within which it functions, and they enjoy the chance to improve their towns and economy that comes with the industry. Of course, I recognise that the industry has had complex difficulties over many years in relation to quotas, funding across the UK, Brexit and other worldwide matters that are often turbulent. I think that we can all agree that the fishing industry deserves stability, and it is by working together that we might get that.

It is fair to say that we need to think about what happened. My colleague Torcuil Crichton, the MP for the Western Isles, has also spoken to the Labour Government in the UK. Rather than fighting across the chamber, we need to talk about what we can do to move forward.

Right, no bother. I appreciate your time. Thanks very much.

I want to touch on the definition of “wellbeing”. The Scottish Government consulted on whether there should be such a definition alongside the national outcomes. What is the minister’s view of the definition in the bill?

To be clear—do you think that the definition does not need to be in both the bill and the framework or that it would be confusing if it were in both?

Can I just have a wee bit of clarity? You might have touched on this already. The bill seeks to link directly the definition of “sustainable development” with the definition of “wellbeing”. The committee has heard concerns that the definitions could go into statute without explicit reference being made to environmental limits. Would the minister agree with that?