Official Report 406KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01460, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on supporting Scotland’s fishing industry. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak button now.
15:38
The fishing community has always had a place in my heart, and I have respect and admiration for what they do, so I am extremely pleased to open today’s debate on Scotland’s fishing industry and to update the Parliament on our approach to this year’s fisheries negotiations. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to highlight the economic, social and cultural importance of the industry to Scotland as well as this Scottish National Party Government’s commitment to supporting it.
Let me start with the figures, because they matter. Provisional estimates indicate that, in 2025, Scottish vessels landed a record 509,000 tonnes of sea fish and shellfish, worth £960 million. However, behind those figures are people, businesses and communities that depend on the sea.
Two common themes will run through everything that I say this afternoon. First, we need good, secure jobs in our coastal and island communities because the loss of a single business can change the whole character of a place, which we will try to avoid. The second point is about reputation. Scottish seafood is rightly considered to be among the finest foods that this country produces, and the name “Scotland” on the label is invaluable in every market around the world.
Since I was given the privilege of becoming the minister with the fisheries remit, I have started as I mean to go on by spending as much time as I possibly can on the quaysides of Scotland. I have met skippers and crews, processors, port operators, environmental organisations, scientists and communities, from Peterhead to Lerwick to Stornoway. I thank every one of them for their time and honesty—and sometimes that honesty is pretty brutal. As most folk know, my background is in farming, and I understand what it feels like when decisions that are taken far away can affect livelihoods in communities, so I have listened carefully to what people have had to say.
Fishers talk about increasing competition for marine space and have expressed concern that decisions that affect their livelihoods are not always made with sufficient engagement. I have heard concerns about our compliance activity. In that regard, we need to continue to demonstrate that our approach is fair, transparent and evidence based. I have also heard concerns about uncertainty arising from scientific advice on key stocks, as well as the issues of rising costs, labour shortages and attracting the next generation into the sector.
I understand that the marine directorate has proposed changing the one-net rule in a way that could have serious negative consequences for the fishing fleet. What is the minister’s view of that proposal? Will he take this opportunity to reject it?
I will not take the opportunity to reject anything at the moment, but I will take away the issue that the member has brought to the chamber and look into it.
I have also heard from environmental organisations that want continued progress on stock recovery and habitat protection. However, I think that there is much more common ground here than people sometimes recognise, because sustainable stocks and thriving fishing communities are both essential. The disagreements are about how we achieve that, but it is important to remind ourselves that our seas are a shared resource, which means that we have to talk and work with everybody.
Protecting our seas properly means looking after fish stocks, habitats and the long-term future of the industries that rely on healthy marine environments. I want a fishing industry and a wider seafood sector that is profitable, modern and sustainable, and I do not accept the argument that those things pull against one another. Healthy seas and stocks are the foundation of a profitable fleet, and I want the value of fishing to stay in our communities, because every tonne that is landed and processed here supports jobs far beyond the harbour wall.
I will spend a moment talking about provenance and the value of Scotland’s name. My experience in agriculture has taught me the value of provenance, and Scotland’s fishing industry already demonstrates that to great effect. In 2024, Scottish seafood exports were worth more than £1.2 billion. The reputation that Scottish seafood holds on tables and shelves around the world was earned by the people who catch, land and process our fish. However, provenance is not just a label; the brand is only as strong as the sustainability behind it, which is why how we manage our fisheries matters as much as it does, not just for the health of our seas and marine life but for the value of every product that carries Scotland’s name.
We have recently launched our consultation on fisheries management measures for the inshore marine protected areas, which follows extensive evidence gathering and engagement. I encourage everyone with an interest to engage with that process. I am determined that we will find a balanced way through that protects the marine environment while supporting productive seas and thriving coastal communities. On that point, the Government will use every lever that is available to us to support the sector and those communities.
The marine fund Scotland is one of the most direct means that is available to us. Since 2021, we have awarded more than £86 million in grants to 499 projects, enabling more than £185 million of additional public and private sector investment and aiming to create 480 jobs. That is 480 jobs in a sector that is small in numbers but has a huge effect in communities. As I said, supporting new entrants is essential. Since 2021, we have awarded £3.6 million to 58 young fishers to help them buy their first vessel or get a share in one. I was delighted to announce today the awards for this year’s marine fund, which will support projects that improve safety, strengthen seafood processing and develop more sustainable fishing technologies, among other things.
We continue to deliver our fisheries management strategy, which supports the fishing fleet to be innovative and more sustainable in the future through work such as our future catching policy. Remote electronic monitoring is being rolled out across the scallop, dredge and pelagic fleets, which is giving us better data and giving buyers even more confidence about how Scottish fish are caught. The fisheries management plans are helping to secure the long-term sustainability of key stocks and, closer to shore, we are building a more flexible way of managing inshore fisheries that can reflect the real differences between one part of our coast and another.
At the same time, we continue to support opportunities for diversification and to strengthen inshore fisheries management where that is practical, deliverable and supported by the available evidence. That support is making a difference. In 2025 alone, fishing opportunities worth more than £66 million were realised by more than 1,100 inshore vessels. Working closely with the industry, we have also maintained stability in domestic quota management and vessel licensing. Decisions should be grounded in good evidence with fishers engaged early in order to keep Scotland world leading in how we manage our seas.
The annual negotiations are almost upon us. I will not set out a detailed negotiating position from the floor, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide us. We will be guided by science while recognising the impacts that decisions have on fishing businesses, families and communities. Many of our most important stocks are shared with our neighbours, making co-operation between coastal states essential.
Scientific advice for many of our key stocks has now been published, which shows a mixed picture for 2027 with some significant challenges, especially with white-fish stocks. We will therefore continue to work closely with stakeholders, whose knowledge is invaluable, to shape our positions for the upcoming talks. My officials will once again work as part of the United Kingdom delegation to ensure that Scotland’s interests are heard.
Many of the decisions that affect our fishing industry, from international agreements to funding and matters that impact access to labour, are taken in Westminster. That includes the deal that was struck by the UK Government with the European Union that extended fisheries access to 2038 with no discussion with the Scottish Government, which will have consequences for our industry.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
I will take the intervention.
I am interested in what the minister is saying about the negotiations. Would he consider a further consultation on the quota system to potentially bring in community quota initiatives?
That is a new one on me, but I would be more than prepared to have a conversation with Ariane Burgess after the debate, and we can then take that discussion out of the chamber.
We will always work constructively with the UK Government where we can. However, that must be a two-way street. Scotland’s industry makes up the majority of the UK’s fishing activity, so Scotland’s voice must be properly heard when decisions are made that affect our fishing sector. That is why I will continue to press the UK Government on its insulting and downright damaging Scottish allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund. Considering that Scotland’s fishing sector accounts for more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity, the current allocation of £28 million, or 7.78 per cent, from a total of £360 million is, at best, unacceptable, and it must be urgently revisited. At worst, it confirms that the UK Government does not care about the Scottish fishing industry.
I have spent much of this summer listening to the people who make Scottish fishing what it is. I heard pride, realism and a determination to build a future for the next generation. I will continue to listen, to make the case for Scottish fishing and to seek the right balance between jobs and the environment. The real test of what we do will not only be the decisions that we make here; it will be whether, in 20 or 30 years, a young person in one of our coastal communities can still make a good living from the sea and say with pride that they are a fisher, that we can still bank on global brand recognition and that Scotland can be a global leader. That is the future that I am working for, and it is one we can build only together.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the vital importance of Scotland’s fishing industry in sustaining jobs and livelihoods in island and coastal communities and across the wider economy; acknowledges the international reputation of Scottish seafood and the value that Scottish provenance brings to the sector in markets both at home and abroad; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting a profitable, innovative and sustainable fishing industry; believes that this requires ongoing engagement across the sector, including with its associated supply chain, environmental organisations and fishing communities; notes the continued support provided to the sector through the Marine Fund Scotland, and that effective quota management and licensing arrangements can provide stability and support investment; recognises the range of challenges facing the sector, including the UK Government’s damaging decision to unfairly allocate only £28 million, or 7.78 per cent of the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund to Scotland, despite Scotland’s fishing sector accounting for more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity; agrees with industry stakeholders that the UK Government must reverse this decision, and supports the Scottish Government’s approach to the forthcoming international negotiations on fishing opportunities for 2027, where it will seek to balance the sustainable management of fish stocks with the long-term prosperity of Scotland’s fishing communities.
I call Donald MacKinnon to speak to and move amendment S7M-01460.2. The member has up to 7 minutes.
15:48
Last October, I attended the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association’s annual general meeting in South Uist. The well-attended meeting included members from the length of the Western Isles, from Barra to Lewis. I was encouraged by the number of enthusiastic young new entrants to the industry who had a genuine optimism for the future. They included Emma Scott, who went on to win young fisherman of the year in May at the age of 20. I take this opportunity to congratulate her.
Despite the enthusiasm at that meeting, the long shadow of the 2023 consultation on highly protected marine areas was still fresh in members’ minds, as was the battle that they had been through to make this Parliament understand how damaging those proposals would have been—ahead of them being dropped.
The uncertainty of further consultation on inshore marine protection also loomed over the meeting. Not long after, the Scottish Government took the decision not to proceed with that consultation and to do more work on the options, with a consultation eventually launching last month. A great deal of work has obviously gone into the consultation documents, and we have come a very long way from the disastrous HPMA consultation of 2023.
The member keeps referring back to the HPMA consultation. The decision with regard to HPMAs was a policy decision. What we are doing with the MPAs is meeting a legal requirement to deal with the stuff that we started to deal with 10 years ago. It is important to get that distinction on the record.
I absolutely take that point. I accept the distinction between the two. The point that I am making is that the discussion that took place as part of the HPMA consultation forms part of the context for how the fishing industry—especially in my constituency—views the matter.
I want to follow up on the point about the difference between HPMAs and the MPAs. The MPAs were carefully discussed in negotiations with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which gave its full backing to what was proposed. I hope that the fishers that the member represents understand that the MPA proposals were negotiated in a very careful and thoughtful way over a long period of time, and that we need to move forward with them.
The fishermen I speak to in my constituency do not feel that all the proposals that are on the table are ones that they would sign up to. I will come on to that.
Fishermen and processors in my constituency are concerned. The consultation largely focuses on mobile gear, and, on the west coast, that is largely used for scallop dredging and prawn trawling, both of which are hugely important sectors of our fishing industry. Importantly, both provide significant onshore processing jobs.
Protection of the seabed and of priority marine features is undoubtedly important. As the minister has just pointed out, the Government has legal obligations to meet, and that is the context in which we must have this debate. However, although progress on marine protection needs to be made, it must not come at the expense of maintaining an active fishing fleet in some of our most fragile communities. That is why pragmatism is key. It is essential that, in the process of determining proposals, the fishing industry is listened to. I encourage all fishing businesses to engage in the consultation.
Jim Fairlie mentioned the fact that a mere £28 million, or 7.78 per cent, of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been allocated to Scotland. Will Donald MacKinnon take that up with the UK Government? He mentioned the need to listen to the sector. If he is listening to the sector, he must raise that issue with the UK Government. We deserve more than the 7.78 per cent of the funding that we are getting.
I regret the fact that the Scottish Government called for the devolution of that fund without first securing a guarantee that it would not be Barnettised. That said, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. I have written to Angela Eagle, and I will be taking up those concerns with her.
Where was I? Progress on marine protection needs to be made, but not at the expense of maintaining an active fishing fleet in some of our most fragile communities. That is why pragmatism is key. It is essential that, in the process of determining proposals, the fishing industry is listened to. I encourage all fishing businesses to engage in the consultation.
Knowledge and understanding of the sector will be crucial to finding a balance between protecting sufficient areas of the seabed and priority marine features while allowing for adequate areas to sustain a fishing industry. Any restrictions need to recognise how sophisticated modern fishing methods are and the ability of fishing boats to ensure that gear avoids specific features. Allowing for fishing as tight to features as possible makes the most sense and will help to ensure that restrictions are practical.
Although excluding access to a particular fishing ground may seem insignificant, when that area provides the only sheltered ground that a particular boat can access and provides a key part of the catch that keeps the business viable, it could mean that that boat will not be able to continue to operate. The inability of that boat to continue fishing will mean that the skipper and crew no longer have employment in the local area and that their families will no longer be part of that community. In our fragile coastal communities, that is indeed significant.
The impact of the closure of a fishing ground does not stop at the impact on a single boat. Onshore processing is reliant on a fine balance of inputs. If landings fall below a critical mass, that puts entire processing facilities at risk, which could have devastating consequences, including the loss of employment in the wider supply chain and the loss of an outlet for the remaining fleet. I sincerely hope that that will not happen, but I fear that, in some areas of the west coast, the cards are so delicately stacked that some of the options on the table at the moment could result in them coming crashing down. I know that the minister understands that, and he must do everything in his power to avoid it happening.
That all points to a need for a better approach to spatial planning in the marine environment. There are increasing demands on our seas, including from aquaculture, offshore renewables, conservation objectives and, of course, fishing. The current problem is the piecemeal approach to decision making. All of those competing uses are leading to spatial squeeze for the fishing industry right around our coast. Without a strategic approach, it is no wonder that our fishing industry sees any individual loss of fishing grounds as an existential threat to the future sustainability of the industry.
The marine plan is now a decade old. Not only has it not been implemented in large parts, but the marine environment has moved on significantly in that time—yet we seem to be stuck in a loop of delay and promise of an updated strategy that is badly needed. The Labour amendment therefore highlights the need for further work on spatial marine planning. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to how the competing interests are delivered while maintaining a sustainable and thriving fishing industry.
Of course, those issues are not the only ones that the fishing industry faces. High fuel costs, access to labour and barriers to export are all significant challenges. On the last of those, the UK Labour Government’s sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement has been an important step, not least for the export of live shellfish to Europe, removing significant red tape.
As international negotiations on the fishing quotas for 2027 take place, it is important that the Scottish fishing industry’s interests are well represented and that a suitable allocation is achieved. I welcome the minister’s outline of his future strategy. How that quota system is managed within Scotland is also important. I am keen to see support for schemes such as the one that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar operates to secure and lease quota to fishing vessels, allowing them the opportunity to target different species and to diversify their landings.
The minister does not have an easy task in front of him. The management of our seas requires the balancing of many competing interests. If the Scottish Government gets this consultation on MPAs and priority marine features right, we will go some way to striking that balance. The only way to do that is to listen to the fishing industry, engage meaningfully and find common ground.
I move amendment S7M-01460.2, to leave out from “welcomes” and insert:
“considers that the voices of fishers, processors and coastal communities must be central to decisions affecting the sector; believes that the future of fishing depends on thriving places, with the infrastructure, skills, housing and opportunities needed to retain young people and support industry growth; recognises the growing concern among fishing, aquaculture, ports, renewable energy and conservation interests regarding the cumulative pressures on Scotland’s marine space; calls on the Scottish Government to provide certainty for all users of the sea on how competing demands for marine space will be managed and how any spatial squeeze will be addressed, and further calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward, as a matter of urgency, its long-delayed Marine Plan 2 to provide a clear, integrated and strategic framework for the sustainable management of Scotland’s seas.”
15:57
I welcome this debate on supporting Scotland’s fishing industry. Right across my region, from the ports of Eyemouth and Burnmouth on the Berwickshire coast to the fishermen of Troon and Girvan in Ayrshire, and to Kirkcudbright and the Isle of Whithorn on the Solway Firth, fishing is central to so many communities across South Scotland. I am sure that members right across the chamber will recognise the historic and current importance of fishing for the social, cultural and, crucially, economic fabric of their own regions and constituencies.
Given the vital importance of supporting our fishing industry, I welcome the positive tone of the Government’s motion. There is a lot in it that I agree with and support. The motion notes the balance between the sustainable management of our fish stocks and the long-term health of the industry. It is paramount that we recognise that no single group has a more vested and valued interest in the long-term sustainability of fish stocks than the industry itself. As they are the stakeholders who interact with our marine environment on a day-to-day basis, it is crucial that marine policy is led by and developed for the interests of those in the fishing industry.
Although there is broad agreement between all groups with an interest in marine policy around the need for the long-term sustainability of fishing stocks, it is crucial that we also recognise the acute, short-term and medium-term economic pressures that the industry faces, noting that people need to be supported to ensure that there is a productive and thriving industry to benefit from our long-term fish stock ambitions.
Although I largely agree with the Scottish Government’s motion, further clarity from the Government on areas of marine and fishing policy would be welcome. Marine protected areas have been on the agenda since the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, but there still seems to have been significant confusion and delay around their impact on fishing. For offshore MPAs, the update of fisheries management measures came into force only in October last year; for inshore MPAs, a Government consultation that will be running until January next year was launched only recently. That consultation process is in its infancy, but it is crucial that, when we see the output of any process and proposals, the plans put forward by the Government are not restrictive in nature to the industry, given the significant area of prime fishing waters that would potentially be affected by the proposals.
As we have heard already, we saw the welcome scrapping of the proposals to designate 10 per cent of Scottish seas as highly protected marine areas—a move that would have been hugely detrimental to the industry had the Scottish Government proceeded with its initial plans. I hope that that will not be resurrected in this or future sessions of the Parliament.
There needs to be a broader conversation about the spatial management of our seas and fishing grounds, particularly in relation to the disproportionate impact of offshore wind developments on the Scottish fishing industry. In recognising the socioeconomic importance of fishing in Scotland, I ask that the Scottish Government look at the 2008 Norwegian marine resources act. The act’s central aim is to promote the long-term economic profitability of the country’s fishing industry and support associated employment. That gives the socioeconomic case for fishing equal legal footing alongside conservation ambitions. A similar move would give Scotland’s industry substantial legislative protection.
The member referenced the Norwegian marine resources act. What stands out for me is that the act notes:
“Wild living marine resources belong to Norwegian society as a whole.”
If a phrase such as that were to be included in a Scottish act, does the member think the approach would sit at odds with Scotland trying to work towards a closer relationship with the European Union?
No, I do not think that it would. Scottish fishing communities are central to Scotland’s society, so I do not see how wording such as that would be at odds with any future relationship with Europe, which members across the chamber expressed a range of views on during the debate yesterday.
Will the member take an intervention?
Why not?
Does the member agree that Brexit has failed Scotland’s fishers and coastal communities?
No. Is that the Europe that you want to join? I am just coming to our relationship with Europe.
As I mentioned, having a clause similar to that in the Norwegian act in Scotland would legally protect the socioeconomic value of fishing alongside conservation ambitions, which we need to meet legal requirements on, as has already been mentioned. We need to have a balance, so that the industry is not legislatively on the back foot.
I do not think that the UK Labour Government’s policy positions in recent years have been positive for the fishing industry in Scotland. The fishing and coastal growth fund, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2025, has been detrimental to the industry. Awarding Scotland just shy of 8 per cent of the total funding allocation did not match the significantly outsized importance of Scotland’s fishing industry to the United Kingdom’s broader industry. Of course, that is not the only instance of a Labour Government undermining the industry in recent years.
It is important that we debate how we allocate funding to Scotland. Is the member in favour of Barnett consequentials across the board, or does he have suggestions for another method?
We could have a broader discussion about Barnett consequentials. We could perhaps ring fence funding for fishing, given that the majority of the United Kingdom’s fish catch is in Scotland. We may have to have a discussion about how funding is allocated for the unique area of fishing.
With the UK-EU reset in 2025, the Labour Government was happy to sign away access for European fleets to British waters until June 2038, which has undermined the efforts of the Scottish fishing industry to sustainably manage its fish stocks and increase the industry’s take-home. Potentially, it has created an unfair playing field, given the expectations of European fleets. There are real and immediate challenges and concerns for the Scottish fishing industry, such as the North Sea cod report, which is due to be released this week, and the aforementioned upcoming international negotiations. With that in mind, the Parliament sending a broad and unambiguous message of support to the industry today is welcome.
The Government’s positive words are welcome, but I would like to see those being matched with concrete legislative support. Members on our benches will always engage constructively with initiatives and policies that could support our vital fishing industry. We will never waver from showing the industry the support and recognition that it deserves.
I move amendment S7M-01460.1, to insert at end:
“and calls on the Scottish Government to provide clarity around its plans for Marine Protected Areas and broader management of marine areas, and encourages the Scottish Government to look at the Norwegian Marine Resources Act as a model for recognising in law the socio-economic value of the fishing industry.”
I call Ariane Burgess to speak to and move amendment S7M-01460.5. You have up to nine minutes.
16:04
I may speak for a little bit less than nine minutes, given that the minister accepted my intervention.
I thank the minister for securing the motion for debate. I hope that he will commit to making a fisheries debate an annual fixture in the parliamentary session instead of timing it around annual quota negotiations, as happened in the past. We need to be able to have a full and frank discussion about the range of issues that the sector faces and the challenges faced by our coastal communities, which rely on healthy seas to thrive.
Our coastal communities are at a crossroads. Decades of shortcomings in fisheries management and failures to adequately protect our marine environment, as well as a system that has not delivered for the people who rely on our seas, have contributed to the loss of jobs, concentrated wealth in fewer hands and accelerated depopulation. However, I welcome the minister’s awareness of the need to manage fish stocks more carefully. It is also heartening to see that community wealth building is high on the Government’s agenda.
Turning to the Government’s motion, I would hope that we all want a sustainable fishing industry that delivers for the economy and the environment, so that fishers and coastal communities of the future can continue to make a living and enjoy healthy lives by the sea. I share the Scottish Government’s ongoing frustration with the UK Government about the pitiful allocation that Scotland received from the fishing and coastal growth fund, which has already been debated somewhat this afternoon. That fund should support a more sustainable fishing industry and our coastal communities. However, it will not deliver nearly enough of that for Scotland because the share of the pot that we are receiving falls well below the relative size of Scotland’s contribution to the UK fishing sector.
I will try to help the member to get to her nine-minute target.
Does Ariane Burgess agree that the shafting of Scottish fishermen last year by the Labour Government was entirely predictable, one, because that is usually the case and, two, because whether we are in the EU or under Brexit, when the interests of Scotland and of Scotland’s fishermen are represented by the UK Government, it will not work out to their advantage? Almost every year, the interests of the fishing industry in Scotland have been subordinated to other priorities by the UK Government, because it is seen as the one area that it can give up in order to get other things.
Although I would not use Keith Brown’s turn of phrase, I find it frustrating that Scotland is not sitting directly at the negotiating table when it comes to many of the issues to do with fishing.
The negotiations that are taking place this autumn will set catch limits for 2027, and mackerel shows what is at stake. For years, catches agreed by coastal states have exceeded scientific advice, putting the stock under considerable pressure. There are now encouraging signs, with scientific advice for 2027 suggesting that the stock is increasing, although it remains below the precautionary level. I am keen to hear whether the minister will press for catches to remain within the scientific advice and for all coastal states to agree a sharing arrangement that protects that recovery.
Where the Government’s motion falls short is in its lack of acknowledgement of some of the key issues affecting coastal communities. How we share out whatever is agreed matters just as much as the totals. The motion implies that the way in which quota is currently managed by the Government is good enough to deliver long-term prosperity to fishing communities. In fact, we have seen consolidation of a quota into fewer and fewer hands. Findings from Greenpeace show that 45 per cent of all Scottish fishing quotas are wholly or partly owned by just five wealthy families, yet the Fisheries Act 2020 requires fishing opportunities to be distributed using transparent and objective criteria, including environmental, social and economic factors. The act also requires ministers to seek to incentivise more selective fishing gear and techniques with a lower environmental impact.
I welcome, following my intervention, the minister’s consideration of a further consultation on the quota system and the potential for community quota initiatives. That would help us to move more rapidly towards the kind of quota system that the Fisheries Act 2020 requires of ministers. Quota is such an important tool in managing the health of our seas and the people who rely on them. A system that puts greater weight on social, economic and environmental benefit, and that incentivises fishing methods that are more in harmony with our marine environment, would do much to get us closer to that place.
That brings me to my amendment, because the Government’s motion also does not acknowledge the serious findings of the Environmental Standards Scotland report “Protecting Scotland’s seafloor: an assessment of Scottish Ministers’ implementation of the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010”, which came out in June. Scotland’s seafloor matters, because it underpins the marine ecosystem that our fish stocks rely on. Unlike most commercial fish, herring lay their eggs on the seabed. In Wester Ross, in my region, herring spawn has been found on maerl beds near Gairloch in 2018, 2019 and 2024. It is a powerful reminder that the health of fish populations begins with very local habitats. Maerl beds are also nurseries for young scallops and juvenile cod, and maerl grows so slowly that, once it is damaged by dredging or trawling, it is effectively lost. Our seabeds also store significant amounts of carbon, so we need the Government to maintain and protect that vital public resource. Environmental Standards Scotland has asked the Government to agree a remedial action plan within six months, and I would be interested to hear from the minister about when Parliament can expect to see that plan.
I could raise many more issues—spatial squeeze, landings, processing, the treatment of our international crews and the long-awaited consultation on inshore marine protected areas, for example—but I will use my closing minutes to look at what sits behind all of that, which is the question of how we plan and govern our seas. I remember being involved in the national conversation about the second national marine plan in June 2023, more than three years ago. The problems with marine planning go back much further than NMP2. Shetland and Orkney, which are both in my region, finally have regional marine plans in place, but, 16 years after the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, they are still the only two of Scotland’s 11 marine regions to have such a plan. Does the Government intend all 11 marine regions to have regional marine plans? If so, when will the other nine regions follow, and how will those plans relate to NMP2?
Our regional inshore fisheries groups are advisory. By contrast, England has 10 statutory inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which bring together local authorities, fishing interests, conservation expertise and local stakeholders with duties to manage inshore fisheries sustainably and powers to make and enforce local byelaws. Crucially, they manage fisheries and conservation together, which is exactly the connection that I have been making. I do not suggest that Scotland should simply copy that model, but we should ask whether our current system gives coastal communities and regional bodies enough responsibility, authority and resources to have a real say in how their marine environment is managed.
NMP2 gives us the opportunity not only to update national policy but to clarify the relationship between national and regional planning and to consider how stronger regional co-management could sit alongside that framework, with clear responsibilities, proper resources and genuine accountability for our seas. That is why my amendment calls for the national marine plan to be fully implemented.
I said at the start that our coastal communities are at a crossroads: one road carries on as we are, with a quota in fewer hands, a damaged seafloor and decisions that are made far from the people who live with them; the other road shares the benefits of our seas more fairly, protects the places where fish spawn and grow and gives coastal communities a real say over their waters. The Fisheries Act 2020 and the national marine plan give us the framework, and Environmental Standards Scotland has shown us where the Government is falling short. What is needed now is the will to follow through.
I move amendment S7M-01460.5, to insert at end:
“welcomes the findings of Environment Standards Scotland’s Protecting Scotland’s seafloor report, which calls on Scottish Ministers to take actions to meet their legal obligations to the marine environment, and believes that fully implementing the National Marine Plan is crucial to sustaining Scotland’s fishers and coastal communities for the long-term.”
16:13
I stand here as a proud Brocher, with family and friends who are currently out at sea in order to put food on our plates.
The Scottish fishing industry faces a growing number of challenges. Although it remains a major producer of high-quality food and an important part of Scotland’s coastal economy and culture, it can sometimes feel as though it is not given full legitimacy or recognition. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association has described the reality of all the difficulties that the industry faces at this time: fuel, gear, repairs, insurance and harbour charges are rising together, recruitment is becoming harder, quota uncertainty is threatening earnings and established fishing grounds are becoming increasingly crowded.
Our amendment addresses the straightforward principle that fishermen should be protected from financial losses that are caused by offshore wind expanding into long-established fishing grounds, or compensated if and when such losses occur. Fishing grounds are workplaces, and losing access can mean longer journeys, higher fuel bills, greater safety risks and pressure on the grounds that remain. A promise to consult does not pay those bills. Taken separately, each of the pressures would be difficult to manage; together, they are creating an increasingly demanding environment for vessel owners, skippers, crews and processors.
The immediate financial pressure is particularly severe when it comes to fuel, as it remains one of the largest costs for many vessels. High prices can quickly make a fishing trip uneconomic, especially when catch opportunities are limited or weather conditions cause delay or reduce the number of workable days. One skipper told me that the fuel price is crippling fishermen, with 20 per cent of their gross going to fuel—that is up to 30 to 40 per cent for the bigger trawlers. Those increases cannot always be passed on through the prices that are paid for the catch, which leaves their businesses with narrower margins and less capacity for investment.
As the end of the year approaches, quota negotiations will add another layer of uncertainty. Decisions that affect key stocks, particularly of North Sea cod and saithe, can significantly reduce the fishing opportunities that are available to our vessels. Our lower quotas do not only affect the volume of fish that can be landed; they also influence trip planning, viability, crew earnings and the supply of the raw materials to our processors. When catch limits fall sharply, the effect travels through the wider supply chain, affecting markets, transport businesses and harbour and coastal communities, whose local economies continue to depend on fishing activity.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation warns of serious difficulties for the white-fish fleet, including from gaps in our understanding of northern shelf cod. I hope that ministers will invest properly in fisheries science and secure international collaboration on those gaps. Shared stocks demand shared scientific effort, with consistent and mutually agreed outcomes. We also need a catching policy that works aboard a vessel, under real conditions, and supports sustainable fishing.
Recruitment is another serious concern.
On the point that the member was just making, I intervened on the minister to ask about the one-net rule. I have to say that, from the minister’s answer, I am not convinced that he knew what I was talking about. Will the member elaborate on what he thinks of the one-net rule and what should happen?
Over the past few days, I have heard from skippers—I was speaking to them on the phone while they were at sea—that they are particularly concerned about the implementation of the one-net rule at the end of the year. For the prawn fleet in particular, the rule will mean that, instead of being able to go out with the gear that enables them to catch fish and prawns, boats will have to come back into harbour to change the gear out and pick up new gear if they are unable to catch prawns and want to catch fish. That might seem sensible and sustainable but, with the rising cost of fuel, it means that they will have to—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
Talking of sensible policy, what is the member’s opinion of the trade and co-operation agreement that the previous Conservative Government negotiated? Does he regret the impact that it has had on north-east fishing communities?
I will admit that, when we left the EU under the previous Conservative Government, many in the north-east fishing industry, including me, were unhappy that not every promise was fulfilled. I accept that. As I said, I am part of a fishing community, and I am told regularly by family and friends their opinions on that, and I share them.
I will get back to the one-net rule. It is seriously concerning for the prawn fleet. One of the skippers who I spoke to the other day said that he feels blackmailed by the potential policy that will require them to install cameras on their boats should they want to carry two sets of gear. If they want to change their nets, they should be able to carry both sets on board. The idea that they have to steam back into harbour, expending more fuel and producing more carbon, to change their nets and then go back out to catch the fish is wholly unacceptable.
One of the skippers said to me that he fears that the prawn fishing fleet in Fraserburgh might have to tie up. I ask the minister to meet the skippers and the fishermen in order to look at the rule and discuss whether it is the right way to go ahead. I know that the fishermen in my region and in my hometown are not happy.
I reiterate my point that no decisions will be made in the chamber today, but I will agree to have a meeting with the member, because we are looking to find practical solutions to the issues that the fisher community faces.
I thank the minister for that—I look forward to meeting him with local skippers, as the issue is important to the region.
To go back to my main point, recruitment is another serious concern for the industry, both offshore and in the onshore processing sector. Fishing businesses already struggle to attract and retain enough suitably experienced crew, and processors face similar difficulties in filling essential roles.
The expected loss of access to the skilled worker visa route at the end of the year may make the situation more acute. Greater scrutiny of the transit visa arrangements—sometimes referred to as code 7—also creates uncertainty for vessels that rely on non-domestic crew to work outside the 12-mile limit. Employers need immigration agreements that are lawful, clear and practical, but they also need enough stability to plan ahead and to operate their vessels safely.
More broadly, the working life of Scotland’s fishermen is becoming harder because of spatial squeeze at sea. Oil and gas installations, pipelines, offshore wind arrays, subsea cables and offshore and inshore marine protected areas all change established fishing patterns or increase the distance that vessels must travel. The impact of any single development may appear manageable when considered in isolation, but the cumulative effect can be substantial for the commercial fleet. Vessel owners and skippers are being asked to operate in an increasingly crowded marine environment, while maintaining safety, protecting livelihoods and remaining economically viable.
There is therefore a strong concern that decision makers do not always understand the combined effect of those pressures, and that the practical knowledge and experience—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not going to allow James Adams to take an intervention; he is well into his additional time. He has been generous in taking interventions, and he has tried to respond comprehensively to them, so I ask him to start winding up.
I will start winding up—that is not a problem. I will skip the next bit, but I will say something on funding, which the minister mentioned in his motion. I find myself in agreement with his motion; it is decent and, I would say, safe.
On funding, we agree that allocating Scotland £28 million from a £360 million UK fund fails to reflect the importance of our industry, and we agree that Labour should reconsider. Given that the fund was meant as a sweetener for Starmer giving away 12 more years of free access to our waters, will the Scottish Government commit to ensuring that all those funds are available to Scotland only and that they will go to the fishing businesses and communities that have been directly impacted by the previous Prime Minister’s capitulation to the EU?
We left the EU under the previous Conservative Government. As I said, I accept that many in the north-east fishing industry and outwith it felt that not every promise was fulfilled, but we did leave the common fisheries policy and we did take back control of our fisheries management and regulation, not just at a UK level but at a Scottish level, too.
Industry representatives have repeatedly confirmed that in annual negotiations—
I am going to ask the member to wind up. I appreciate that he was generous in taking interventions.
This is my last paragraph. Industry representatives have repeated that Scottish ministers and their officials have never had such a strong voice in negotiations as they have had since we left the CFP.
I move amendment S7M-01460.3, to insert at end:
“and backs the principle that fishermen should be protected from, or compensated for, any financial loss caused by the expansion of offshore wind farms into their long-established fishing grounds.”
16:22
I welcome the fact that, so early in the current session of Parliament, the Government has brought forward a debate on Scotland’s fishing industry. There is also something else that is worth welcoming today. Across the chamber, and across the amendments before us, there is widespread recognition of the enormous importance of fishing to Scotland: to our economy, to our food security and, above all, to the coastal and island communities where fishing supports jobs, families and local services.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make a little more progress before I give way to the member, if he wants to try again shortly.
Scottish Liberal Democrats share that commitment to Scotland’s fishing industry. The question is whether Government policy demonstrates the same ambition for fishing as it demonstrates for the other industries competing for Scotland’s seas. I want to concentrate on the areas where I believe that there is still a considerable gap between the Government’s ambition and the industry’s experience. Before I do so, however, I will give way to Mr Simpson, if he wants to make his intervention now.
Yes—thank you. It was nice to hear about the cross-chamber collaboration that the member spoke about. Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats will be voting for the Reform amendment?
The member tempts me down a dangerous path. On the face of it, the amendment seems sensible, but I am still unconvinced as to the real detail and the aim of the Reform party in seeking to introduce an act similar to the Norwegian model. I am prepared to be convinced later in the debate, however, and I may change my mind before we come to the final vote.
The first issue that I would like to concentrate on is the growing spatial squeeze on our fishing fleet. I know that the Government has sometimes appeared reluctant even to use that phrase, but whether ministers like the terminology or not, I do not think that they would deny that there is a potential problem. Offshore wind, transmission cables, conservation measures and other pieces of infrastructure are placing ever-greater demands on a finite marine space.
Although Liberal Democrats support renewable energy, we do not think that Scotland’s seas can simply become a profit sheet for overseas developers. We need renewable energy from our seas, but we also need renewable food from our seas. If energy infrastructure is regarded as critical national infrastructure, I ask ministers whether Scotland’s ability to produce its own food should also be regarded as critical national infrastructure.
When fishing businesses suffer genuine financial loss because access to long-established fishing grounds is taken away, there must be fair compensation. If we accept that communities on land should benefit from the impact of major energy infrastructure, that principle cannot simply stop at the shoreline. That is why we are calling for a comprehensive compensation framework alongside a new settlement for marine spatial planning that puts fishing at the table from the beginning, uses local knowledge and makes the Government and Crown Estate Scotland properly accountable for the cumulative consequences of their decisions.
My second concern is about the capacity of the marine directorate. Issues around that came through strongly at last week’s meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation told us that resources are increasingly thinly spread and that the effort that is devoted to actual fisheries science has significantly reduced, and we know that environmental organisations express concerns about Government capacity, monitoring and data collection. This is not simply the fishing industry making a special plea; there is a much broader problem.
The Scottish Government’s strategy says that Scotland should be
“a world class fishing nation”.
I agree, but a world-class fishing nation requires world-class fisheries science. Good policy requires good science. However, the MRV Scotia, our principal fisheries research vessel, is ageing and increasingly prone to breakdown. The Government has developed plans for its replacement. What we need now is a funded timetable for actually delivering that.
That is why Liberal Democrats believe that public sector reform should include a fundamental review of the marine directorate, its resources and its capacity and of whether decisions should instead be taken through a much more decentralised system that ensures that our waters are managed as locally as possible.
That brings me, finally, to the current MPA and priority marine consultation. Those most affected by decisions must have a meaningful part in making them. The minister says that no decisions have yet been taken, and I accept that assurance in good faith. However, I hope that he understands why some fishing communities remain suspicious. The Government has a responsibility not simply to consult but to demonstrate that consultation can genuinely change the outcome. Where the evidence shows that targeted or zoned protection can achieve the necessary conservation objective while allowing sustainable fishing to continue elsewhere, ministers must be prepared to choose that proportionate approach. The objective cannot simply be to draw lines on maps; it must be to deliver healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and thriving coastal communities. If we genuinely put local knowledge, robust science and those three objectives at the heart of marine policy, there is no reason why Scotland cannot achieve all three.
I move amendment S7M-01460.4, to insert at end:
“; believes that there is a spatial squeeze, due to an increasing demand in marine space and that steps must be taken to address the impacts the fishing sector is facing due to this demand, including striking a new settlement on space-based planning for Scotland’s seas, which respects local knowledge and ensures the right activity happens in the right place as well as a comprehensive scheme of compensation for fisherman who are displaced; notes long held concerns about the level of Scottish Government investment into its Marine Directorate and whether it is fit for purpose; calls therefore on the Scottish Government to conduct a review of the Directorate and to examine whether it should be replaced with a decentralised system, which manages waters as locally as possible, and further calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a scheme on creel limits.”
We move to the open debate. We have one minute in hand.
16:29
My constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast is one of the most important fishing constituencies in Scotland, and I will not hear anything else about that.
Peterhead is the UK’s leading fishing port, with landings worth more than £341 million last year. Fraserburgh is Scotland’s largest shellfish port and one of the biggest in Europe. Along the coast, through Macduff and Buckie, we have harbours, processors, engineers, hauliers and businesses whose livelihoods are tied to what comes out of our seas.
We are an island nation that is surrounded by an extraordinary natural food resource. Fish is nutritious and high in protein, and many of the species that we catch compare very favourably with other forms of high-protein food in relation to being low on carbon emissions. In an increasingly uncertain world, food security must be part of our thinking about how fishing is protected and our ability to produce food for the longer term.
Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the people who go out to sea to bring that food home. It is hard, skilled and dangerous work. In communities such as mine, there are families who know the terrible cost when somebody does not come home. We should never forget that. When we make decisions about the industry’s future, we should always remember it.
Over the past few years, I have listened to catchers, processors, harbour boards and businesses right along my coastal community. They do not always agree, and I do not always agree with them, but the need for stability and confidence about where the industry is going comes through consistently in all our conversations.
Does Ms Adam regret refusing to sign the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s call for a moratorium on offshore wind developments, which are affecting the fishing industry in her area?
I do not regret that, because I do not think that the answer to improving food security is to create an energy security problem, or vice versa. Scotland needs to address both issues.
I am listening intently to what Karen Adam is saying. Stephen Gethins, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Energy, has said that if people are impacted by onshore energy infrastructure, they should get compensation. Does she agree with that principle and that it should be extended to cover offshore infrastructure, or does she think that that principle should stop at the shoreline?
I will answer the question about offshore infrastructure. I absolutely agree that fishermen should not be expected to carry financial loss resulting from decisions made around them. My preference is always to avoid displacement in the first place. However, when genuine loss cannot be avoided, there must be a fair way of addressing that, so those discussions need to cover the whole of Scotland.
We need healthy stocks, good science and respect for fishermen’s knowledge of grounds that they have worked for decades. The pressure on marine space is growing. One of the reasons why I set up the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities was to allow us to properly discuss spatial squeeze.
On the point about parties coming together, I hope that Ms Adam will accept that Reform UK’s pro-union and pro-fishing platform resulted in our going from zero votes to within 364 votes of winning her constituency. How does she square the concerns of her constituents, many of whom are involved heavily in the fishing industry, with what the First Minister said about refusing to work with Reform in the Parliament?
I thank Mark Simpson for that intervention, but I will not take lectures from a party whose London-based leader was the architect of Brexit, which was an unmitigated disaster for the fishing industry. The fact that Reform members were sitting giggling about that earlier is an absolute disgrace. They do not take into account the number of businesses that were lost after Brexit, so they should reflect on that. Also, I do not think—
So, no answer.
Mr Simpson, you should allow Karen Adam to respond to your intervention.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I will not take advice on fisheries from a party whose top priority is stopping boats.
The offshore renewables industry supports thousands of jobs and is part of Scotland’s energy future, but fishing cannot simply be expected to fit around everything else. Fishermen must be involved early enough in marine planning to genuinely influence what happens. What happens after the fish comes ashore determines how much of that value stays in our communities.
I supported the 70 per cent Scottish landing requirement for mackerel and herring, but I know that catchers have concerns about price, delays and capacity. Businesses in my constituency have told me that longer-term certainty would allow them to invest, expand and employ more people locally, and I find that hard to ignore. If we want more of our catch landed here, Scotland has to be competitive. Our harbours need the capacity, processors need the infrastructure and businesses need practical help to take Scottish seafood into international markets so that more of its value can support local jobs. Young people also need proper training, safe working conditions and realistic routes to progress. That future needs investment.
As has been said, Scotland has more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity, but it received under 8 per cent of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. I want it on the record that if that fund were devolved, it would not have to be Barnettised. Agricultural funding has previously been devolved without being Barnettised. It is a political choice that could be rectified with the stroke of a pen, and I implore members to tell their leaders at Westminster to do that.
We cannot talk about fishing now without talking about Brexit. I understand why many fishermen voted for it. They were promised control and told that fishing would finally be prioritised. Instead, they faced more paperwork and barriers, and businesses lost easier access to labour. I do not blame fishermen for believing what they were promised. The politicians who made those promises should answer for what they delivered.
Underneath all of that is that our fishing interests go through the UK now, as they did then—Scotland had the same problem before Brexit. Scotland has never had a negotiating voice in its own right, and an industry that is of enormous importance to us has always had to sit within wider UK priorities. I want Scotland to represent those interests for itself. Independence would not make every negotiation easy, but the Government making Scotland’s case would be our Government, which is answerable here for the deal that it secures and the choices that it makes. I believe that long-term security for an industry that feeds people, supports communities and gives Scotland so much economic potential lies in the power of an independent Scottish fisheries industry.
16:37
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am an Angus councillor.
I acknowledge the sad loss of Mr Ben Dowie in December 2025. He is deeply missed by the community of Arbroath and Angus.
Arbroath, in my Angus South constituency, has been a fishing town for centuries—giving its name to the famous smokie. Although today the haddock for that smokie is now landed at Peterhead, Arbroath’s fleet is still made up of smaller boats, which now land mainly crabs and lobsters.
Before the debate, I spoke to one of the fishermen there. Boats like his can burn through £200 to £300-worth of diesel a day, yet the UK Government’s red diesel duty relief is worth only 3.7p per litre. The cost of red diesel has gone up by more than 50p since last year, so that relief is woefully inadequate and does not touch the sides when compared with the support that some EU boats receive—they get up to 20p a litre. The UK Government’s paltry fuel duty relief scheme must be expanded. It cannot be allowed to expire at the end of this year.
Arbroath boats are landing a decent catch, but often they barely cover their costs, and many of them are losing money. We cannot accept that. When a boat ties up for good, it is not only one business that is lost. For the fabricator, it is a customer gone. For the engineer, it is work that will not come back. For the harbour, it is one more empty berth in a town that was built around full ones.
Infrastructure matters, too. Mackay Boat Builders Arbroath operates the slipway at Arbroath harbour. It is vital for boats on Scotland’s east coast and beyond, but it has been out of action for months. In August, Angus Council rejected calls to release funding for repairs. Instead, it kicked the can down the road and it has only just brought back proposals for investment. However, affected fishers and Mackay’s tell me that they are no further forward. Mackay Boat Builders has told me directly that unless the slipway is reopened as a matter of priority, the business will simply not survive. The significant impact that would have on local fishers—not only in Angus but much further afield—cannot be measured. A solution that arrives after a business has failed is no solution at all. That is a clear example of why investment in infrastructure is also an investment in the future of our fishing sector.
As the minister said, fishing policy must be judged by whether it leaves a viable and sustainable industry for the next generation. One point that has often been raised concerns new entrants to the sector. Local fishers have told me that that is one of their key shared concerns, which is why I welcome the £75,000 announced today to help a young fisher in Angus buy their first vessel. We must see more of that kind of investment.
Let me take on the point about congested waters, because that has been raised with me through my engagement activities. The issue has been exacerbated by temporary restrictions related to wind farm development, and some developers are now calling for a limit on creel numbers. I would welcome the minister’s engagement on that issue—perhaps he will reflect on it when he closes the debate—particularly in relation to compensation for fishermen who are affected by wind farm development.
Let me now reflect on Brexit, because our fishers were promised a “sea of opportunity”, but they were sold down the river. Brexit brought barriers to trade, reduced access to labour and resulted in lost fishing opportunities. Although we account for more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity, Labour has allocated our fishers just £28 million, which is a paltry 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund. Over 12 years, our fishing communities will lose out on more than £100 million. Of course, we have no meaningful seat at the table when those decisions are being made. That is a disgrace.
Whatever the member’s position on Brexit, we are in a fishing debate, and he will acknowledge that Brexit ended the UK’s participation in the common fisheries policy. Like me, did he welcome our departure from the CFP? If he did, why are he and his party so keen to take us back into it?
I want Scotland to be independent so that we negotiate our fisheries deals, rather than have them negotiated by a UK Government that has sold us down the river multiple times.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thanks.
This summer, I welcomed Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to Arbroath. She was absolutely clear that that funding model simply does not work for Scotland. Not only is it “grossly unfair”, but the fund has gone from a consolation prize to what she described as a “booby prize”. She also went on to say that the Scotland Office
“did not stand up for the Scottish fishing industry”—
a tale as old as time.
Betrayed by Brexit and now by Labour, Scotland’s fishermen deserve better. Every Labour MSP should join us in demanding that the UK Government reverses its funding betrayal. The situation shows that, under Westminster control, Scotland will always be an afterthought.
The only way to rid ourselves of the harms of Brexit, give Scotland a seat at the table in Europe and allow our fishing industry to reach its full potential is to have the powers of independence.
16:42
I am glad to follow Lloyd Melville because I will, in part, talk about the benefits that could have come from Brexit and the opportunities that could have come to our north-east fishing communities.
For our fishermen, leaving the European Union should have meant taking back control of our waters. Nowhere had more to gain than the north-east. Fishing is the lifeblood of towns such as Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Macduff. Families there have gone out to the North Sea for generation after generation.
Last year, well over £700 million-worth of fish was landed. More than 3,700 fishermen work on Scottish boats, with many more jobs on shore in processing, haulage and engineering.
Peterhead is the busiest fishing port in the United Kingdom. Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of visiting ports including Peterhead. That reinforced to me how vital it is that we get fishing policy right for those communities.
When we left the EU, the Conservatives shamefully treated our fishing industry with contempt. They gave it away in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement and left workers, the industry and entire communities to pay the price.
Let me outline how Brexit could have been a real benefit to our fishing industry. Iceland, a nation of a few hundred thousand people, pushed its fishing limits out to 200 miles and bravely took on the Royal Navy in the cod wars. It won that, and all that it took was political will.
A proper Brexit would have meant introducing a 200-mile zone that is reserved for our own fishing fleet, with access to foreign ships agreed on our terms, not those of Brussels.
Does the member accept that, when he was in the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage pushed for that Brexit deal, and that his leader, Mr Offord, was a member of the Government that passed it?
I am not here to speak on behalf of anyone else. I am here to speak on behalf of Reform UK. I have no intention of speaking for anyone else.
Given that Mark Simpson wants to speak on behalf of Reform, can he tell me what discussions he has had with his party leader about how he, as a former member of that Government, failed our fishermen on Brexit?
We are indeed in deep discussions and we will release their full details in due course.
For every British boat that does not catch, a job is lost: a deckhand, a haulier or an engineer. Those are real jobs in communities, which have been squandered because of our inability to do Brexit properly. The Scottish Government’s motion rightly condemns the UK Government’s handling of the fishing and coastal growth fund, and it is not right that Scotland gets only 8 per cent of it. However, the Government cannot just point south and cry foul. Enforcement in Scotland’s waters is its own responsibility. Fishing Forward UK recently met marine directors in Shetland, and what they reported should alarm every member here. They said that foreign-owned vessels flying the Scottish flag were taking most of their catch straight to the EU market, and when they asked the very legitimate question of where those catches had landed overseas, nobody could tell them. If that is not the marine directorate’s responsibility, whose is it?
The truth is that our fishing industry has been shafted, first by Westminster and then by Holyrood, and the simple fact is that our fishermen deserve better. Three parties share one broken record: the Conservatives betrayed our fishermen, Labour has locked in that betrayal and the SNP has stood by and watched. Reform UK will back Scottish fishing—our waters, our quota and our fishing families. Support our amendment.
16:47
I am pleased to support the motion, which recognises the enormous contribution that Scotland’s fishing industry makes to our economy and to the coastal and island communities that depend on it. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Mairi Gougeon, my predecessor in Angus North and Mearns, on her new position as the chief executive-designate of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.
Before I turn to policy, we should remember the people behind the industry and the risks that they take whenever they go to sea. As Mr Melville said, communities across the north-east were deeply saddened by the loss of Mr Dowie, of the creel boat Sea Eagle, who left Arbroath harbour and never returned home. In December, his unmanned boat came ashore in Inverbervie in my constituency. His death is a tragic reminder of the dangers that fishermen face every day. Our thoughts remain with his family, friends and colleagues. Those fishermen, and the communities that they sustain, must remain at the heart of this debate.
As MSP for Angus North and Mearns, which hosts multiple small creeling businesses, I know that the value of Scottish seafood extends far beyond the quayside. Fishing supports processors, hauliers, exporters, hospitality businesses and—may I claim—some of the best fish and chip shops in Scotland. Those local businesses provide skilled employment, sustain local supply chains and keep wealth in our communities.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitments in the programme for government, including investments through marine fund Scotland, the £16 million that was announced today to protect 122 jobs in coastal and island communities, and measures to provide greater stability through quota management and licensing. The detail will matter and the industry must be closely involved in shaping how those commitments are delivered.
I, too, support the Scottish Government’s call for a fairer allocation from the UK Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund—that has been said many times this afternoon, but it is absolutely worth repeating. Scotland accounts for more than 60 per cent of the UK fishing capacity and lands most UK quota species but is set to receive less than 8 per cent of the £360 million, with no consultation or forewarning by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when we previously received around 47 per cent of that fund. That settlement does not reflect the scale of Scotland’s industry or the needs of our coastal communities. It cannot be justified and should be revisited.
The sector needs more than short-term financial support, however. Its future depends on productive seas, resilient fish stocks and marine habitats that are capable of sustaining them. Ten years after scallop dredging was banned in the Wester Ross marine protected area, the evidence shows that environmental protection and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. Fishermen and scientists have reported recovering scallop populations, more marine wildlife and the return of herring spawning grounds in the Summer Isles.
That recovery provides a practical example of what patient and evidence-based management can achieve, and a recent Blue Hope Alliance report reinforces that point. Maerl beds provide vital nursery and spawning grounds for herring, scallops and shellfish. The report identifies signs of herring recovery in parts of Wester Ross while warning about illegal dredging, invasive algal growth and nutrient pollution. Those threats require effective monitoring and enforcement, not simply good intentions.
I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s consultation on strengthening protection for inshore marine protected areas and priority marine features, both within and beyond the existing network. The proposals aim to protect important habitats and species while supporting sustainable fisheries. Fishermen, environmental organisations, scientists and local communities should engage constructively so that the final measures are workable and credible and are based on best available evidence.
This is not a choice between fishing and the marine environment. Lower-impact methods, including creeling and hand diving, can deliver greater benefits for coastal communities while retaining more value locally. Healthy fisheries depend on healthy seas, and sustainability and prosperity are mutually dependent. We must also address the other immediate pressures that fishermen face, from labour shortages, rising fuel costs and Brexit-related challenges to growing competition for marine space, including from offshore wind development and aquaculture. I therefore call on the Scottish Government to accelerate national marine plan 2 so that competing demands are managed fairly, transparently and coherently.
In conclusion, the future of Scotland’s fishing industry depends on fair funding, evidence-based management and healthy marine ecosystems. The UK Government must reconsider its funding decision and give the world-class Scottish sector the support that it deserves.
The member must bring her remarks to a close.
I am just finishing, Presiding Officer.
The member has not taken any interventions, so she must bring her remarks to a close.
By working with fishermen, processors, scientists, environmental organisations and coastal communities, we can secure a sustainable and prosperous future for this vital Scottish industry.
We are short of time so, when members do not take interventions, they have to stick to the time that has been agreed with their business managers. If we had more time, that might be different, but we have to stick to the agreed time limits.
16:53
I grew up and still stay in the town of Dunbar, which is in my constituency. Many families have fished in the area for more than 200 years. Dunbar harbour runs through the psyche of Dunbar people. We heard today about the loss of Arbroath fishermen and, like many other coastal towns, many Dunbar fishermen have been lost over many years. My constituency of East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs also includes the coastal towns of North Berwick and Port Seton and their fishing communities.
The fleets have reduced in size over the years, but Scotland’s fishing industry is not a peripheral interest. It is a cornerstone of our coastal and island communities. It is a source of high-quality jobs and, of course, it is a proud expression of what Scotland does best. What is landed in East Lothian is eaten all over the world. We have white-fish vessels, inshore creelers and processing plants in East Lothian that turn our catch into products that are sought after across the world. The sector, of course, sustains livelihoods and underpins local economies, and it deserves the consistent, fair and ambitious support that we are all talking about today.
Fishing has shaped identities and opportunities for generations, and healthy stocks, secure access to markets and a fair share of the resources that flow from the waters around Scotland deliver real benefits on the ground. Scottish seafood carries a reputation for quality and provenance, and the minister also talked about the premium that such provenance commands at home and abroad. That reputation has been hard won and must be protected.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s clear commitment to a profitable, innovative, and sustainable fishing industry. That means more than warm words. It means that the practical tools are already in place through the marine fund Scotland, which continues to support investment, innovation and resilience across the fleet and the wider supply chain—there have been two announcements today of funding for East Lothian fishers. There is also quota management and licensing arrangements that give operators the stability that they need to plan and invest with confidence.
That commitment also means taking a genuine partnership approach, which is a point that we have heard in this debate from a few members. That includes ongoing engagement with the industry, processors and the rest of the supply chain, environmental organisations and, above all, the fishing communities whose futures are more directly affected. Just prior to the election in May, I met local fishermen in Dunbar with the then Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon—I was delighted to hear the news about Mairi’s new role. Moving forward, the voice of fishers will be incredibly important; Ariane Burgess made an important point in her speech about how we should involve fishermen and local communities.
Sustainability and prosperity are not opposing forces; they are interdependent. Responsible management of our stocks is the only foundation for long-term success. The Scottish Government understands the need for that balance and is determined to strike it, yet we cannot ignore the serious challenges that remain, and those are not challenges of our own making. We heard about the UK Government’s decision to allocate less than 8 per cent of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland, which is damaging and unfair. As we have heard, Scotland accounts for more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity. To receive less than one twelfth of a fund that is specifically designed to support fishing and coastal growth is an affront to fairness and the principle that resources should follow activity and need.
Industry stakeholders are clear that that decision must be reversed, and I hope that all members will support them. I agree with them completely: Scotland’s fishing communities should not be penalised for the success of their industry or for the simple geography of where the fish are. We should all urge the UK Government to look at that again and to listen to the sector.
Looking ahead, the forthcoming negotiations on fishing opportunities for 2027 will be critical. Many of my colleagues have mentioned that an independent Scotland will be able to negotiate on our own priorities and in the best of interests of Scotland, which is an approach that we should all support. I fully support the Scottish Government’s approach to the negotiations. We must secure outcomes that balance the sustainable management of fish stocks with the long-term prosperity of Scotland’s fishing communities. That means defending our interests robustly, working constructively with partners and ensuring that the voices of those who fish our waters are heard and respected. Sustainability without prosperity is hollow, and prosperity without sustainability is short lived.
Scotland’s fishing industry has proven repeatedly that it can adapt, innovate and compete on the world stage. I am proud to represent a coastal constituency that shares in that story, and I urge members to support the Scottish Government’s motion.
16:58
I will start with a Gaelic proverb: “Is corrach gob an dubhain”. That literally translates to: “The point of the hook is precarious”. In other words, fishing is a risky, uncertain or precarious way to make a living. That point was echoed by James Adams, Karen Adam, Lloyd Melville and Dawn Black.
I was brought up in the east neuk of Fife, and fishing was a constant in my childhood. My father’s accounting business supported fishers, my higher geography project was on the sustainability of the industry, and a fish supper at Anstruther harbour, often after a visit to the Scottish Fisheries Museum, was a top treat.
I now live in Islay, and I will give members a quick foodie tour of places featuring its natural bounty from the sea. At the southerly tip of the Rhinns of Islay sits the Orsay food shack, a young woman’s business that is adding value to the area. On Loch Gruinart is the Oyster Shed, which combines fishing and farming and is a great place that the minister has visited. In Port Charlotte, the seafood kitchen and Port Charlotte hotel serve fantastic seafood, sustain jobs and livelihoods, provide must-visit experiences for tourists and provide islanders with places to gather and celebrate.
I saw a great example of that at the Tarbert seafood festival in July. Even as the rain fell constantly, the turnout of locals and visitors was truly amazing. It was clear from that festival, which was a celebration of the fantastic seafood that is landed in Tarbert, that fishing is at the heart of the community, as it is on the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute’s coastline. It keeps those communities alive and illustrates how the involvement of the whole community is integral to sustainability.
As other members have said, the UK Government’s allocation of less than 8 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland does not reflect the 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity that Scotland has—
Will the member give way?
I will do, if the member lets me finish making this point.
The UK Government’s allocation perhaps reflects its lack of knowledge or understanding of Scotland. Although I agree with most of what Donald MacKinnon said, the UK Government’s decision was definitely not pragmatic.
I want to ask about an EU fishing regulation, given that an independent Scotland would seek to join the EU. Article 16 of EU regulation 1380/2013 would allow EU fishing boats to fish in Scottish waters without a quota. What impact would that have on Scottish fishing?
I thank the member for his short intervention. I point out that seafood lorries were evident in the demonstrations that took place at Westminster in protest against Brexit red tape in 2021. I know that people from my constituency were there, and I am sure that people from his region were there, too. As Karen Adam and Lloyd Melville made clear, once Scotland regains its independence we will make those arguments at the table in Europe.
A connected issue that fishers in my constituency raise with me is the impact of the UK Government’s immigration policy. That is another reason why the Scottish Government is calling for the devolution of immigration powers to our Parliament.
In preparing for this debate, I was in contact with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, which had three areas that it wanted me to raise. First, it is concerned that there is a push to merge fisheries management into marine planning. It believes that the current fisheries management arrangements, which involve links with regional and national marine planning, should remain. I believe that that is the point that Ariane Burgess was making.
The second issue is the fact that successful employability work is being done in Argyll and Bute and other areas to bring new starts into the fishing industry. Therefore, I was very pleased to hear the minister’s announcements, and I am sure that he will continue to engage with the fishers in Argyll and Bute.
The third issue that the CFA asked me to highlight is the fact that the new MPAs and PMFs have the potential to cause significant damage to an already depleted inshore fleet. Although the association is supportive of the protection of priority marine features, particularly through the use of technologies such as Anchor Lab’s depth-sensing technology, the significant closures and buffer zones that are being discussed would result in more overtly restrictive measures in the waters around Argyll and Bute. To quote one fisher:
“The three vessels will no doubt become defunct with nowhere to fish. All have local crews with young families who attend Tarbert Academy, as well as having taken out large mortgages to purchase houses, which they have had to pay over the odds for.”
So, I extend an invitation to the minister to come and visit some of the fishers in Tarbert.
I agree that the Scottish Government is committed to supporting a profitable, innovative and sustainable fishing industry, and that that requires ongoing engagement across the sector, including with its associated supply chain, environmental organisations and fishing communities. I had exactly such a discussion on Friday.
I note what the minister has said about the need for a thriving marine environment and thriving coastal communities. It is not an either/or. It is imperative that the discussions bring the right people around the table so that we avoid “Is corrach gob an dubhain”.
We move to the closing speeches.
17:04
Whatever our differences on individual policies, there is broad support across the Parliament for Scotland’s fishing industry and for the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. I had thought that we had complete consensus this afternoon, until that illusion was shattered by Mr Simpson’s “It’s everyone else’s fault, not the architects of Brexit” speech. I far preferred his colleague Jamie Langan’s emollient balm at the beginning of the debate to the brashness of his speech.
The challenge now is to turn the consensus that we have into action. Rather than rehearse all the arguments, I will leave the minister with three straightforward questions, which I hope he can answer when he closes the debate.
First, will the minister commit today to developing a compensation framework for fishing businesses that are suffering demonstrable financial loss as a result of offshore wind and associated infrastructure?
Secondly, will the minister commit to a world-class fisheries science capability, reversing the decline in capacity, making proper use of fisherman-generated data and, crucially, giving Parliament a timetable for funding, procuring and delivering the replacement for the ageing research vessel the MRV Scotia?
Thirdly, on the MPA consultation, the minister has told fishing communities that nothing has been decided, so will he provide me with an assurance today that, where the evidence demonstrates that targeted or zoned restrictions can deliver the required conservation objectives, without the additional socioeconomic damage of closing an entire site, the Government will choose the proportionate option, rather than imposing restrictions that the evidence does not require?
Those would be three practical commitments. They would demonstrate that fishing communities are not simply being listened to, but are being heard.
17:06
First, I thank the minister for his offer of a meeting. Someone must be listening, as I have already had a few messages from skippers who are welcoming that meeting.
My amendment offers Parliament a practical commitment to protect fishermen from financial loss caused by overexpansion of offshore wind development or to compensate them when those losses cannot be avoided. Avoiding damage must come first. Compensation must not become a licence for poor planning.
We need to have fishermen involved, with a credible assessment of cumulative impacts and a fair process for establishing losses and resolving disputes. Ministers need to set out who pays, how claims are assessed and when their framework will be delivered.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments also recognise the pressure on the marine space, and I am glad to see that there is common ground on that. I welcome Karen Adam’s commitment to discussion. Despite that, the SNP is pushing ahead with offshore wind, while leaving fishermen feeling without proper safeguards. The updated sectoral marine plan for offshore wind was due for adoption in the summer of 2026. However, it had still not been approved by 22 September, and ministers gave no revised date. When asked when a compensation framework for fishermen affected by offshore wind would be completed, the Government said that the work was ongoing, and yet again gave no completion date.
Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation stated:
“That principle cannot stop at the shoreline. The Scottish Government’s own analysis confirms what we have been telling them for years—that fishing businesses will lose access to productive grounds and see areas they have depended on for generations squeezed by offshore development.”
I and my party will continue to work alongside organisations such as the SFF to raise such concerns, here and down at Westminster, for the protection of the fishing industry.
Speaking of the SFF, I wish to welcome the former Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon, to her new role as the chief executive-designate of the SFF. I look forward to working with her for the betterment of the north-east fishing industry.
I wish to touch on the pelagic fishing sector, which Karen Adam mentioned. It is one of the most economically productive parts of Scotland’s fishing industry. Scotland’s pelagic vessels represent just 1 per cent of our fleet, but they account for 52 per cent of the value of all landings in Scotland. SNP ministers introduced a requirement for Scottish pelagic vessels to land a certain percentage of their catch into Scottish factories. In the first year it was 30 per cent. It went up to 40 per cent in year 2. Many fishermen think that an increase from 55 per cent to 70 per cent in 2026 is too high. The minister recently met members of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, as did I, and we both heard their views on that matter. There are certain parts of the industry that welcome the proposal. It is a matter of finding the right balance that is supported across the pelagic sector, if possible.
I am not necessarily against the Government’s motion. As I said before, it is a good one. However, I hope that its actions will match its rhetoric.
I hoped that one of the Government’s own MSPs, Hannah Mary Goodlad, would be here today. Oh—she is there. My apologies. I was just about to welcome her passion for the industry up in the Shetland isles. I know that she supports her industry there, as I do mine.
Hannah Mary Goodlad signed the SFF’s pledge for compensation during the election campaign. Do the Scottish Government and the Parliament agree with the minister, and will members back my amendment to ensure that fishermen receive fair compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds?
17:09
It has been great to have a fisheries debate, especially with the many new voices in the chamber. Let us maintain the debate as an annual fixture in the parliamentary calendar.
I will touch on a few of the amendments to the motion. I agree with Donald MacKinnon’s call for there to be thriving places, infrastructure, skills, and housing alongside the fishing industry. I share a growing concern about the cumulative impact on our marine area. We should be concerned that the amendment does not acknowledge the disparity in Scotland’s share of the fishing and coastal growth fund, but I am glad to hear that the member has taken up that concern with UK Government ministers.
It was good to hear James Adams speaking about compensation concerns, but I ask him where the backed-up sums are, so that we can see what that would cost.
I am supportive of Andrew Baxter’s concerns about the cumulative impact on our marine environment and I certainly share his calls for a review of the marine directorate’s capacity. Again, I note my concerns about the costs that would be involved with a compensatory framework, which I would like to understand.
In closing, I say that a healthy and resilient marine environment matters for so many reasons. Not only does it support our work towards achieving our 2045 carbon emissions reduction target; it safeguards a crucial public resource that can support jobs and prosperity in our coastal communities for generations to come. For too long, we have prioritised short-term gains over long-term sustainability, but the tide has started to turn.
I welcome the progress that the Government has made, but I want to go further and faster. I want every coastal community to thrive not just because they receive a fair share of the wealth that is generated from fishing but because they benefit from renewables developments, critical infrastructure and the wider opportunities that come from healthy, well-managed seas. The Government’s response to Environmental Standards Scotland’s report will be an important test of whether the ambition is matched by action over the course of the parliamentary session. The future of Scotland’s fishing industry depends on more than the fish that we catch today; it depends on the health of the seas that we leave behind and whether the communities who live beside them share fairly in their wealth.
17:12
There was a lot of consensus in the debate, despite some healthy differences of opinion about how Brexit was needed to free up our fishing grounds, among other things, from the tyranny of Europe. There was a lot of support for our fishing industry in the chamber, which is very welcome. It was recognised that our fishing industry is one of our great national assets, as it supports jobs, sustains our coastal communities around the country, contributes to food security and forms an important part of the identity and heritage of many of our towns and villages.
That being said, fishermen tell me that they feel that they are under pressure from every direction and that, most frustratingly, decisions affecting their livelihoods are being made without them being properly listened to. The Government needs to deliver on the warm words that have been expressed in the chamber.
I was in Peterhead and Fraserburgh this week speaking to fishers. Their main concerns were about there being too many overseas boats, the threat of reduced quotas and the removal of fishing grounds due to wind farms and potential additional protection areas. Whether the overseas boats are foreign-owned vessels that are operating with UK registration or foreign vessels that are accessing our waters directly from Europe, many local fishermen feel that there is an imbalance. They feel that the marine directorate does not monitor foreign vessels robustly enough and believe that many French and Spanish vessels ignore the rules, but the directorate is not strong enough to challenge their behaviour. That directly contrasts with similar regulators in Norway, which are extremely robust with foreign-owned vessels, particularly UK vessels.
The fishermen are also frustrated that foreign-owned vessels operating with UK quotas do not use our local supply chains. They do not use port services and simply truck fish back to their domestic markets. Again, there is a feeling that we are not checking the quotas rigorously enough.
There is also concern over costs that are being imposed, such as in relation to remote electronic monitoring. James Adams set out the one-net policy very well. There is concern about those policies, which, again, seem to be being imposed without enough discussion.
Fairness matters to fishermen and to everyone. If fishermen are expected to comply with strict rules and regulations, they must have confidence that those rules and regulations are being applied consistently to everyone in our waters. At the moment, however, they do not feel that they are.
We have also heard concerns about quotas. When it comes to quotas, we need to ensure that we understand the benefits of fish coming from our own sustainably managed waters rather than being imported. We also need to ensure that, when we impose quotas, we do not penalise things such as incidental catches to such an extent that we, in essence, prevent and penalise normal fishing.
Many of us also talked about the challenge of the growing spatial squeeze. I do not know whether that is a trademark term, but I picked it up. As if those other challenges were not enough, fishermen are also seeing the amount of sea that is available to them steadily reduced. There is an expansion of offshore wind developments and there is the potential for a significant increase in the number of protected marine areas. The industry recognises the importance of protecting the marine environment, but there has to be balance: we need to ensure balance between conservation and sustainable use.
I recognise the time, so I will conclude.
The bottom line is that, for any measures to succeed, fishermen must be part of their design. That has been missing in historical fishing policies. Fisheries management is achieved successfully when fishermen are involved in all of the design, and when things are not simply dictated to or imposed on them. The fishing industry and the wider seafood industry remain resilient, productive and capable of delivering significant economic and social value. However, businesses, fishermen and production are facing huge pressures, so we must ensure that policy works with the fishing industry. Policy must ensure that we continue to have a strong industry that is able to attract, employ and retain people, and that we have a sustainable industry that allows a strong future for our coastal communities.
17:18
I thank members for what has been, on the whole, a thoughtful and considered debate, with some excellent interventions. I also thank Dawn Black and Lloyd Melville for their reminder about the dangers of the sea and the fact that lives can be lost. I really appreciate it that they brought that to the chamber.
Fishing is the cornerstone of the economy and identity of many coastal towns, and it plays a vital role in supporting our national food security. As we have heard, the importance of our fishing industry cannot be overstated. That is why we have a responsibility here in Scotland to ensure that our industry is supported to be both profitable and sustainable while operating in a healthy marine environment. The minister set that out very well in his opening remarks, so I thank him for that.
We all spoke about our regions. There was a suggestion that Labour does not care about coastal communities, but it is fair to say that Donald MacKinnon and I are here because we care about our coastal communities. My South Scotland region relies heavily on thriving and successful fishing industries. My remarks will therefore be made with their strong opinions in mind, alongside the necessity to meet sustainable targets.
In last year’s debate, I said that we should work together, and I continue to think that we should do so. We agree on so much—there were many contributions on food security, the dedication of the workers, the environment and the ability to make fisheries sustainable.
I want to make a point about what we could do to make a difference. Of course, the debate focused on UK Labour—I understand why that happened—but we could perhaps seek not to be so combative over the next year and seek to work together. My colleague Donald MacKinnon has written to the UK minister; last year, I talked about some of the work that the MP for the Western Isles had done; and I extend a hand to Karen Adam, Jenny Minto and other women in the chamber whose contributions brought real value to the debate. Let us see whether we can do some of that work over the next year when it comes to the fishing industry.
I move to our amendment. We are very keen to talk about community infrastructure. The minister and others in the chamber will know that I often talk about cross-portfolio working, which I think is relevant in this debate. Ensuring that our fishing industry remains sustainable includes supporting the coastal communities with the necessary infrastructure, skills, housing, other job opportunities, nurseries and availability for our young people. That will help to support the growth of the community and the industry, which is why we highlighted that aspect in our amendment. If we do not have those things, we chip away at the industry itself. I thank Ariane Burgess for bringing up the community quotas, which link quite nicely with community wealth building and community infrastructure. I do not know a great deal about those things, so I would appreciate if we could discuss them further in the Parliament.
There are definitely pressures on Scotland’s marine space—we have heard about spatial squeeze from several members. I ask whether the minister could speak to us in his closing remarks about what the Scottish Government is doing about the issue because, as Ariane Burgess and others have mentioned, we are not delivering on it—[Interruption.] Sorry?
The minister was not listening. [Laughter.]
Sorry, I do apologise—[Laughter.] Now he will definitely mention how important the issue is.
It is about how we deliver on that marine space. Andrew Baxter made some really good contributions about that finite space and there is so much more to discuss in relation to that area.
Sometimes, in this place, we can be a wee bit guilty of not focusing on Scottish Parliament responsibilities. We are calling for proper planning and we urge the SNP Government to introduce a management plan for all those integrations between wind and sea, for example, and to ensure that our seabeds are healthy. We would appreciate that plan coming forward and hearing about some of those issues.
The future of our fishing industry is dependent on its sustainability. Without any rules to govern implementation, the impact of the marine protected areas is of limited value. We must support our marine habitats effectively. The Scottish Government needs to prioritise inshore waters for our ecosystems and the way of life of sustainable fisheries on our coasts. If too much damage is done to the natural environment, there will be no fishing—other members made that important point. If we work together, we can support Scotland’s fishing industry and have a healthy sea and environment and communities that thrive. I hope that, by working together, we can do that.
17:24
I am genuinely grateful to all members for their speeches and their interventions this afternoon. It has been a good debate and there has been a wide span of views. That in itself says something: that the fishing sector has the attention of the whole chamber.
I am very pleased that James Adams mentioned my good friend Hannah Mary Goodlad. Her advice and help to me has been absolutely invaluable since I was given the role of looking after marine in my portfolio. One of the most glorious days of my life was when Hannah Mary took me out on her boat. We were creeling for lobsters and line catching mackerel. It was an absolutely glorious evening. However, it reminded me that the sea is dangerous. As we were steaming out, Hannah Mary was perfectly comfortable, and I was a nervous wreck; I did not have the sea legs for that bit.
That touches on the point that Karen Adam made at the start of her speech, which is that people sometimes do not come home. It was also mentioned by Lloyd Melville, Dawn Black and other members—I apologise for not mentioning them all. The loss of Ben Dowie, a creel fisherman, in August last year shows the reality that fisherfolk deal with yearly. Fishermen are lost on a regular basis, and we must remember that they are genuinely the last of the hunters who go out there and catch food for us all to enjoy. It is important that we remember that.
I will touch on some of the points that have been mentioned by members across the chamber. Donald MacKinnon talked about HPMAs and people’s perception that the MPA consultation is about the same thing. I completely understand that sentiment, and we have had a pretty good debate, but that means that it is up to us collectively across the chamber to get the message across that these are two entirely different things. The MPA consultation is as much about protecting the long-term stability of fisheries as it is about anything else.
Donald MacKinnon asked that fishers be listened to. I can tell him that officials were in the Western Isles last week talking about the MPA consultation, and that will happen in communities around Scotland. I am very glad that Donald MacKinnon will add his weight to the call for the fishing and coastal growth fund to be rectified and for the appropriate amount of money to be brought back to Scotland. Carol Mochan also mentioned that we need to do that. I think that, rather than speaking to Angela Eagle, Donald MacKinnon might well have to speak to the Treasury, because it looks as though the Treasury is the issue. I will leave it to Donald MacKinnon to fix it and bring that money back to Scotland. Good on him.
Jamie Langan talked about the Barnett consequentials, and Carol Mochan was trying to argue against that, but what we had previously was land-based and landing share-based allocation; it was not about population. The funding should never have been Barnettised. We should have stuck with the previous position.
Ariane Burgess talked about the coastal state agreements, which are absolutely essential. We have to negotiate with our neighbours. Hannah Mary Goodlad brought to my attention that mackerel top slicing is already happening in Shetland. That SNP policy introduced the ability for small boats to top slice 1,000 tonnes of mackerel. When the population crashed previously, those small boats were sustained by that top slicing. Therefore, work is already going on.
We will support James Adams’s amendment, and we will do so on the principle that fishers should be protected from disproportionate financial loss arising from onshore wind development. Our first priority must always be to avoid or minimise the impacts through careful planning, engagement and mitigation. However, where impacts remain, it is reasonable to expect developers to work constructively with affected fishers and fishing communities to identify fair and appropriate solutions, including financial arrangements. Supporting the amendment does not alter the current legal framework, nor does it create new statutory powers for ministers to require compensation; rather, it recognises the importance of protecting fishing communities and ensuring that the costs and benefits of the energy transition are shared fairly. That is an important recognition, and, on that basis, we will support the Tory amendment this evening.
James Adams opened by talking about immigration. I have to say that the irony of that, given that it was his party that gave us all the disasters post-Brexit, is really something to wonder at.
I will respond to Andrew Baxter. The Government is not—and I certainly am not—reluctant to use the phrase “spatial squeeze”, but balance is essential, which is why we will support the amendment. We agree in principle, and balance is absolutely part of what we have to do. Food is critical, and I get the point that food and energy have to go hand in hand. As Andrew Baxter will have heard in committee this morning, we, as a Government, see the ability for us to produce food in this country as vital, and fish are very much a part of that. A raft of work is going on in the marine directorate, and I am happy to speak to Andrew Baxter about that offline—we simply do not have enough time to go through it here just now, but I am happy to have a conversation about that.
Where do we go from there? First off, Karen Adam mentioned the people who do not come home from the sea, and it is essential to acknowledge that in any fishing debate. However, I really enjoyed her slapping down of Reform—that was excellent. She also talked about the catching obligations. Last week, I held a round-table event with the catching and processing communities. I get that some individuals are not happy with the catching obligation, but it brings that valuable catch back into Scotland and it supports Scottish jobs, from those on the boats to those right through the processing sector.
To me, it is an opportunity. At the start of the debate, I talked about brand Scotland. We now have an opportunity to bring more of that fish into Scotland, brand it properly and sell it on the global market to the benefit of all the communities that we are all trying to protect. We will continue to discuss that, and no decisions have been made as part of the work that is going forward, but I highlight that the landing obligation brings money into Scotland and, in my view, that is a good thing.
Ariane Burgess talked about the legislative requirements from the marine directorate. I have to say that the marine directorate is under pressure, because we have more than 200 pieces of legislation on which the directorate has to work regularly. In addition, I note—I say this gently to members—that the number of portfolio questions eats up valuable resource in putting marine directorate staff to work answering them all. It is really difficult for the directorate to deal with the number of questions that ask the same thing but with different wording. I gently put that point on the record.
[Made a request to intervene.]
No, I will not take an intervention—I am sorry. We are rapidly running out of time—
Members: Oh!
You have time, if you want to take the question.
Do I? I will take the intervention.
Is the minister seriously saying that it is down to members putting pressure on the marine directorate? We rehearsed this issue at the Rural Affairs Committee today. There is a capacity issue. Will he commit to arguing, in his pre-budget talks with colleagues, for an increase to the funding that is available to the marine directorate, in particular to increase its scientific capacity?
Ministers for every portfolio will have their elbows out, looking to get as much money into their budget as they possibly can; I can guarantee that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs, who is sitting beside me, already has them well sharpened.
The point that I am making is this. If a member asks a PQ and gets an answer, that is the answer—they will not change the answer by changing the wording of the question ever so slightly and putting in 30 or 40 different PQs. They are going to get the same answer, and that is not going to give the marine directorate time to do the work that we actually want it to do.
Members made various other points. Dawn Black talked about recovery of the seabed, which is achievable—
You need to wind up, minister—you are well over time, even including the extra time.
You gave me extra time for the intervention—
Yes, but you were already 20 seconds over time when I gave you that intervention.
Yes, absolutely.
I want to respond to so many other members. Jenni Minto’s oratory was absolutely fantastic, and I congratulate the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. There are too many other things that I need to discuss, which I think indicates how well the debate has gone. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on supporting Scotland’s fishing industry.