Official Report 1139KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17360, in the name of Tim Eagle, on protecting Scotland’s fishing industry. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.
16:30
When I was representing my local fishing community as a councillor, I made a promise that, if I ever became an MSP, I would make sure to raise the subject of fishing. I have already fulfilled that promise, and I continue to do so willingly.
The thrust of today’s debate centres around worrying reports that the United Kingdom Labour Government is preparing to trade away our country’s fishing rights. Fishermen across Scotland are alarmed by that. I know that because many have been in touch with me. It has been widely reported that Labour’s desire for a deal means that it has forgotten fishermen, which could lead to its making a new deal that includes a multi-annual agreement and a freeze on quotas. That compares with the planned end of the trade and co-operation agreement next year, which would have brought annual negotiations and a significant transfer of rights back to the UK fleet.
I am more than happy to give way right now if the Scottish Labour front bench wants to intervene and give the sector a full assurance that that is not true and will not happen.
It is absolutely crass to suggest that fishing will be negotiated for national security. Surely, the member recognises that.
I did not say that.
That is the premise of your motion. I ask you to recant and actually have a debate about fishing.
Through the chair, please.
The member might need to read my motion. It does not mention defence, and I am not going to mention defence in my speech—others may, but I am not going to. I deliberately did not mention that in the motion.
Labour seems hesitant to talk about the truth that it is selling out our fishermen. However, if it had given us the assurance that I just asked for, this whole debate could have changed.
I am acutely aware that there are differences of opinion—based on politics—in this debate, which will, no doubt, come out today. However, as the subject means a great deal to me, I will try to counter them from the start.
The Scottish National Party will probably want to challenge me on Brexit—I see that Angus Robertson is in the room—which is ever the norm for that party. However, is the SNP going to tell us what re-entry into the common fisheries policy would look like if it took us back into the European Union? I doubt that it can discuss that in depth, because the SNP would never secure a treaty change if an independent Scotland rejoined the EU, which I hope never happens. In that scenario, the CFP would be back in full force.
Perhaps the member would like to read our paper on the marine economy and what that would look like in an independent Scotland, which was published as part of our “Building a New Scotland” series. I am sure that he would be greatly interested in what he would find out about the power that we would have and the position that we would be in as an independent member state of the EU.
I will read rhetoric from the SNP less and listen more to my constituents who want out of the common fisheries policy.
Labour members will perhaps challenge me on the Brexit deal. Perhaps they will cry that it could have been done better, but I doubt that Labour would have done better, judging by what we might be about to hear on 19 May, when Sir Keir Starmer’s planned EU-UK summit takes place in London.
I want to say this before anyone else does: when the UK signed the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, it did not deliver a deal on fishing that met the expectations of the catching sector. However, it delivered two important things: withdrawal from the hated common fisheries policy and an opportunity to gain an even better deal in 2026-27. For years, I have felt confident saying to fishermen that those twin gains were a given. Now, however, the Labour Party is putting them in peril.
Annually, Scottish fishermen land more than 500,000 tonnes, with a value of £683 million, including £175 million-worth that is landed abroad. However, the debate is about not just the sector’s economic contribution to Scotland but its cultural one. There is a rich and deep bond between the Scottish people and our natural assets, both onshore and offshore. For many, the connection with fishing is ingrained deeply in the collective memory of the generations of family members who have lived and worked with the sea. It is in the blood.
Polling released today by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—I thank it for this work—shows us that
“Almost nine out of 10 Scots believe the UK should definitively control which vessels fish in its waters”
and that
“87% of people believe the UK should have full powers over which fleets fish in the UK ... Exclusive Economic Zone, with just 3.2% disagreeing.”
Interestingly, that figure is high even in the central belt. That should be a wake-up call to Scottish Labour to get down to London with a clear message: this deal cannot be made; we must protect our fishing industry.
Several months ago, I asked the SNP to bring a Government debate on fishing to the chamber, recognising there has not been one in more than two years. That still has not happened. I recognise that the cabinet secretary told me before that it is going through the process, but what is taking so long?
Sadly, I do not have time to go into depth on other issues, such as the spatial squeeze; gill nets; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and the on-going discussions around inshore fisheries, scallop dredging and cockle closures. Nor do I have time to touch on significant concerns around the function of the marine directorate and marine protected areas. All of those issues lie solely within the control of the SNP Government. I believe that, if not in this parliamentary session, certainly in the next session a full and detailed review needs to be carried out in those areas.
Worryingly, I have also heard reports from the Government that it is looking to cancel the contract for marine aeroplane surveillance from its base in Inverness, with very little time for any discussion. That could potentially cost a number of jobs and would be a big blow not just to Inverness airport and jobs in the Highlands but to the fishing sector, which relies on those planes to monitor fishing in our waters.
I have written to the cabinet secretary, asking for an update on that, but, if she can give us any answers in her speech, that would be great. If those reports are true, it would be a shocking blow to marine protection in Scotland and I call on the Government to urgently rethink that decision.
I would never consider asking France for 40 per cent of its vineyards for a deal, although I enjoy its wine. The EU should not be asking us for our natural resources. It is time, once and for all, for Britain to again have a prosperous, sustainable fishing industry in our hands, with us leading negotiations on access. It is time that we stood up for our fishing sector—catching and processing—and for our coastal communities and all who know its rich history, because it is in Scotland’s DNA.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses its deep concern at reports that the UK Labour administration may agree a deal with the EU that enhances access for EU fishing vessels to UK waters; understands that the reported deal could result in a multi-year access guarantee as opposed to annual negotiations between the UK and the EU; believes that Scotland’s domestic fishing industry is a significant contributor to the economy and that every effort should be made to support it during trade negotiations; notes that the existing fisheries deal between the EU and the UK is not perfect, but that it took the sector out of the Common Fisheries Policy; acknowledges that the UK Labour administration’s potential new deal would turn a good opportunity to build on this foundation into a missed opportunity that represents a backwards step for the sector as bad as the Common Fisheries Policy; calls on the Scottish Government to drop its support for the Common Fisheries Policy and do all that it can to ensure that the UK Labour administration does not sell out the Scottish fishing industry as part of its talks with the EU, and believes that there should be an annual debate on fisheries to highlight its importance to Scotland’s economy.
16:37
I welcome Tim Eagle’s recognition that the TCA did not deliver for the fishing sector. Perhaps the Scottish Tories should have opened the debate by offering an apology to our fishing communities, given the harmful Brexit deal that they inflicted on Scotland against our will. Far from delivering a sea of opportunity, they delivered the worst of both worlds, as was noted by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. Coming to this chamber to pose as the champions of the fishing industry would be laughable if the matter was not so serious. The term “brass neck” springs to mind.
Benefits from the trade and co-operation agreement have been extremely limited. Moreover, the effects of Brexit represent permanent and on-going barriers to trade that significantly impair the competitiveness of our seafood sector. Today, this Government urges the UK Labour Administration not to repeat the failures of the previous UK Government. A heavy price has already been paid, with the fishing industry impacted far worse than many others. The Scottish Government cares deeply about securing a prosperous future for fishing communities and seeks to deliver the best outcome for our fishing interests in both catching and processing.
When I addressed the chamber on 18 February, in response to Beatrice Wishart’s members’ business debate, I emphasised that Scotland’s fishing industry is
“ingrained in our national identity.”—[Official Report, 18 February 2025; c 107.]
It plays a vital role in Scotland’s marine economy and it is a significant aspect of the economic, social and cultural fabric of Scotland’s rural, coastal and island communities. It is therefore essential that, as we face another milestone in the Brexit era, the UK Labour Government hears what we, in Scotland, have to say. I remain frustrated and deeply disappointed that, despite a promise to reset relationships, my UK Government counterparts have not sought to engage on these matters, which are of such importance to Scotland.
One of the Government’s priorities is driving economic growth, and fishing and our wider seafood sector are key parts of that. As I have just outlined, one of Scotland’s most important assets is our fishing industry, including the people and communities who make a living from it, and its contribution to the Scottish economy is vital.
Recent media coverage shows the lack of clarity in the UK Government’s strategy in the lead-up to the EU-UK summit on 19 May. I appreciate that Rhoda Grant states in her amendment that “speculation is not helpful”, but the UK Government has unfortunately left a complete vacuum on these issues, which means that there has essentially been no other option but to speculate.
It does not help when UK Government ministers contradict each other in what they say publicly. Stakeholders are blind, as are we, to what potential benefits—if any—might be sought by the UK Government and are left to worry about press statements and third-hand rumour. That is simply not good enough. We demand better for our fishing communities, given the disproportionate importance of fishing to the Scottish economy.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s remarks. Has the Scottish Government reached out to the UK Labour Government to ask for a meeting to discuss Labour’s important plans to concede fishing rights to the EU?
Unfortunately, the interministerial group meetings at which we would have hoped to discuss these issues over the past couple of months were cancelled at the last minute by my counterpart ministers in the UK Government. However, I hope to have an opportunity to catch up with the UK Government next week, and I will use that opportunity to discuss that point.
We need an agreement that delivers improvements for our fishing communities. We also need the UK Government to provide Scotland with a fair share of funding for our marine economy and coastal communities. The UK Government has imposed a short-term, Barnettised settlement, which is the complete opposite of what was called for by devolved Governments across the UK. Baselining the marine funding allocation at the current 2014 figure of £14 million simply does not reflect the reality of funding requirements.
If we compare that to our neighbours in the EU, we see that Denmark, for example, which has a population similar to Scotland’s but has a smaller sea area and marine sector, will receive the equivalent of £25 million through the EU’s current European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund. The post-Brexit power grab by the UK Government needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency.
The fact remains that we face a range of challenges arising from exiting the EU. There are permanent and on-going barriers to trade that are significantly impairing the competitiveness of our seafood sector. Although the trade and co-operation agreement avoided the imposition of tariffs, trade in seafood products with the EU is now subject to costly certification and inspection requirements. There is also the on-going threat of retaliatory tariffs on exports if the UK Government fails to meet relevant TCA obligations.
Securing an uplift in the TCA shares of fishing quotas is important and should always be based on zonal attachment—that is, where the fish mostly are. Of equal importance is the sustainable management of those shared and jointly managed stocks for the long-term future.
I remind members that we are debating a motion from a party that delivered a deeply damaging deal—one that was not in the Scottish national interest. In the words of one former MP,
“the UK Government has delivered far less than I hoped or expected ... It would be easier to get someone to drink a pint of cold sick than to try to sell this as a success.”
The UK Government has a lot of work to do if it wants to meaningfully address the inadequacies of the TCA. We call on it to engage with the Scottish Government as a matter of urgency, so that we can work with it to address these matters and deliver for Scotland’s fishing industry.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The point that the cabinet secretary made was—I know the word that I am not allowed to use—deliberately misleading and referred to a previous deal.
You are not allowed to use that terminology either, Mr Ross.
I cannot use the words “lying” or “deliberately misleading”?
No, you cannot.
What words can I use?
That is not a point of order, Mr Ross.
The cabinet secretary has—[Interruption.] I said “deliberately misleading”, but I am not allowed to use that term either. The cabinet secretary deliberately used a quote that did not refer to the final Brexit deal on fishing and claimed that that was the opinion of the member who said it—me—when it was not. I do not know how that can be corrected on the record. The cabinet secretary deliberately tried to use a phrase in this debate that was not in context.
You have made your point, Mr Ross. That is not a point of order—it is perhaps a debating point.
I require the cabinet secretary to move her amendment.
I move amendment S6M-17370.3, to leave out from first “with the EU” to second “with the EU” and insert:
“on fishing with the EU that enhances access for EU fishing vessels to UK waters without consulting the Scottish Government, despite the fishing industry being of comparatively greater importance to the Scottish economy than to the UK economy as a whole; understands that the reported deal could result in a multi-year access guarantee as opposed to annual negotiations between the UK and the EU; notes the need for an agreement that delivers improvements for Scotland’s fishing communities, including access to the single market for fish and seafood and long-term stability for fishing businesses; further notes the poor record of successive UK Conservative and Labour administrations in delivering for Scotland's coastal communities; calls on the UK Government to engage with fishing stakeholders and the Scottish Government to ensure that Trade and Cooperation Agreement renegotiations reflect the needs and priorities of the Scottish fishing industry; further calls on the UK Government to provide multi-annual funding that keeps pace with the equivalent EU funding that Scotland would have received as a member state, and that all marine funding be devolved; recognises the significant economic harm created by Brexit in reducing trade and access to labour for fishing businesses”.
I call Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment S6M-17360.1.
16:44
The Conservatives are so devoid of ideas that they are reduced to a point whereby they must feed discord on everything that they touch. The United Kingdom Government will, of course, hold talks on future working relationships and management of resources with European neighbours—and everyone knows that those talks are scheduled to take place in May.
We all know that fish know no boundaries and, because of that, negotiations have always taken place on fisheries. No one can pretend that those negotiations have taken place in a way that works for the industry. Often, annual negotiations go down to the wire and the industry does not know what its quota will be.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take a very quick intervention.
Does the member agree that it is best to have annual negotiations, as was expected at the end of the TCA, rather than multi-annual negotiations, which is being rumoured under the Labour deal?
There is no deal. We will see what comes out, and we will have discussions about that when it happens.
How the previous UK Conservative Government handled those negotiations did not work for the fishing industry. It is surprising that the Scottish Conservatives are trying to defend that, because positive changes to those negotiations would be welcome and would give our fishing industry more certainty and security.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time to take another intervention.
The Scottish Conservative motion seeks to suggest that we need no change to the current system that its Government presided over. What is much more concerning is that it seeks to conflate our national security and the security of the European continent with discussions on our working relationship with the European Union.
Regardless of what happens with the talks in May, the United Kingdom needs to work with the whole of Europe to protect our national interests in the light of Russian aggression. That is essential for our shared security. Not working together would be in no one’s interests, and it is simply wrong to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, it is crass, in the face of an aggressor, to conflate our national security with our economic wellbeing. The UK Government has made it clear that that will not happen.
There are messages on the fisheries negotiations that we, as a Parliament, must clearly send to the United Kingdom Government. We all understand the importance of fisheries to Scotland, and we need to encourage new entrants into the industry. Setting up fishing enterprises requires investment, so we need to create entry-level opportunities. We also all know that more of the earnings of smaller boats are retained in their communities, and that is an excellent way to encourage new entrants. New entrants also need to be able to access quota. Therefore, new quota must be leased in the public interest, not sold to the highest bidder. We should build on the Shetland model, in which quota is owned by a community and then leased to those who live in the local community and land their catches in Shetland. Orkney Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar also do that with prawn quota.
That should be how we manage our quota going forward. It gives councils the ability to manage fisheries in a way that benefits local economies. That is community wealth building in action: retaining the economic wealth of our fishing industries in our communities to ensure that we have the onshore benefits as well as the offshore benefits of fishing. All those things need to be discussed and put in place.
Let us be clear that the Tories pushed for Brexit to take back control of fishing. Sadly, they had already allowed the sale of United Kingdom quota to foreign boats—and quota was sold to the highest bidder. We will take no lessons from the party that created discord with our nearest neighbours in Europe to cover its own incompetence.
You need to conclude.
That party sold out our fishing industry and now seeks to conflate national security with economic benefit.
I move amendment S6M-17360.1, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:
“recognises that the upcoming UK-EU Summit will cover a range of issues as all sides look to build a stable and positive relationship that aligns with the national interest; notes that no agreements have been reached and therefore speculation is not helpful; further notes that the UK Government has stated that there is no link between fish and defence and that it would be wrong to suggest otherwise; acknowledges that the UK Labour administration has always been clear that it will protect the interests of UK fisheries; believes that the UK has long been a leader in the defence and security of the European continent and should stand ready to negotiate a security and defence partnership agreement with the EU; further believes that Scotland’s domestic fishing industry is a significant contributor to the economy, particularly in many of the island and rural communities, and must, therefore, be protected, and calls on the Scottish Government to reform quota allocation via local authorities to ensure a sustainable fisheries future for communities and biodiversity.”
I call Ariane Burgess, who joins us remotely.
16:49
Scotland’s seas and the communities that rely on them are at a critical juncture, and the climate crisis has heated our oceans, and will continue to do so, destabilising and damaging the building blocks that entire ecosystems rely on, and ultimately harming the livelihoods of fishers.
At the same time, Government is failing to adjust to this new reality and to deliver a viable future for the industry. We are already seeing the consequences of that situation. According to recent official statistics, 326 jobs on Scottish fishing vessels were lost between 2022 and 2023, and that came on top of the loss of almost 200 vessels in the North East and Highlands and Islands regions between 2008 and 2022. The loss of just one vessel is enough to impact an entire community, so the human cost of the loss of 200 in little more than a decade is devastating for Scotland, not just in a social sense but economically.
That situation should concern us all and it tells us something about the status quo: it simply is not working—not for fishers, not for communities and not for our precious seas. Neither today’s motion nor the amendments to it address that adequately. We urgently need to move from an extraction-based economy to a sustainable and regenerative one. The motion and amendments all still back extraction at all costs, but that offers a boom-and-bust scenario in which we fish, fish and fish until there is nothing left.
I share the concern in the Conservative motion that the UK Government plans to give the EU multiyear access to our fish stocks. Although the current annual system of negotiations is onerous, it allows a near constant assessment of fish stocks. Those stocks could be under serious strain and could face decimation if there is no on-going process of evaluation.
However, where I cannot support Tim Eagle’s motion is where it gets into the weeds of Brexit. The Conservatives seemingly want to blame the common fisheries policy for all the ills of the fishing industry, yet they conveniently forget that a Conservative UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, largely based the UK Fisheries Act 2020 on the very same policy that they are trashing today. It would be more helpful to fishers if we focused on the delivery of the duties that are contained in that act, which is where I turn to the Scottish Government.
Although I agree that Parliament should have an annual debate on the issue and that Scotland needs a seat at the fisheries table, I do not accept that the blame for the damage to our fishing sector sits entirely with the UK Government. For years, we have had a series of ministers tell this Parliament that fisheries management is complex. That is being used as an excuse not to do the hard yards required to deliver the change that is needed. The Scottish Government spends £80 million a year on the marine space and fisheries. Where is the money going if it is not being used to overcome the complexities that stand in the way of change?
The Scottish Greens want a clear-cut policy that delivers for fishers and for the environment that they operate in, which is why we want science to lead policy and a quota system that promotes low-impact fishing techniques and benefits Scotland’s communities, and why we want the EU, the UK and Scotland to come together to properly address overfishing. In that way, we can deliver for coastal communities, the environment and the economy.
16:53
I am delighted that Tim Eagle is following my lead in bringing a fishing debate to the chamber. Members will recall that, in February, I brought the first fisheries debate to Holyrood since 2022. The Scottish Government has simply not allowed for enough opportunities to speak on all that impacts our important fishing sector. I welcome calls for an annual debate on fisheries, although the sector is worthy of more than just one Government debate a year, especially considering the significance of sustainable fisheries to Scotland’s economy and coastal communities.
We should recognise that we are talking about a high-protein, low-carbon food staple that is caught around our coast in what is one of the world’s most dangerous industries, and that it contributes significantly to food security. Fishing is also of cultural and social significance at home in Shetland. It is important that we enable the generations of family ties to fishing to continue into the future. We have already lost many such ties as well as vessels in the fleet due to policy decisions.
Scottish Liberal Democrats will not support the Conservative motion. We will not oppose the Labour amendment. Although I note the clarification on the link with defence, which I will expand on shortly, we are disappointed by the fact that that amendment would remove from the motion the line about an annual debate. We will support the Scottish Government’s amendment.
The Conservative motion refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Last week, my Westminster colleague Alistair Carmichael sought assurances that there would be “no linkage” between current negotiations with the EU on security and defence and those around future access to fisheries. During Cabinet Office questions in the House of Commons, the minister responsible for negotiations confirmed that there will be no such link, which is a commitment that he will be held to account for.
It is critical that we listen to those in the fishing industry who feel that, over the decades, they have been sold out by successive UK Governments—most recently, by the botched Boris Brexit deal in 2021, which brought in new trade barriers. That is why Westminster colleagues—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have no time.
That is why Westminster colleagues who are in the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is co-chaired by Alistair Carmichael MP, have launched a call for evidence from the fishing industry and related stakeholders on their priorities for future fishing arrangements with the EU ahead of 2026, when the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement will be reviewed and the adjustment period on fisheries will end.
Cutting red tape on trade with the EU with a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would benefit the sector. After announcing polling data, which showed strong public support for the sector, ahead of the UK-EU summit in London on 19 May, Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said:
“The Scottish public are crystal clear—our fishing industry must not be sold short again.”
She continued:
“This poll confirms that Scots understand the value of fishing to our economy, our coastal communities and our national food security—and they expect their governments to stand up for those interests.”
Given that the Scottish public is clearly supportive, those in our fishing sector must no longer be made to feel that policies are being enacted, with little or no consultation, that are to the detriment of their livelihoods.
I have long held and raised concerns about the resourcing of the Scottish Government’s marine directorate given all that it is asked to do, from patrolling Scotland’s waters to research and analysing data. Concerns continue that the landings at Scottish ports by non-UK vessels are not being effectively scrutinised, at the expense of the Scottish fleet and accurate scientific data.
As we increase at-sea infrastructure and transition away from legacy fuels, a better communications channel is needed for discussions about the impacts of offshore wind developments on traditional fishing grounds and nursery areas. I urge greater engagement between stakeholders, the Scottish Government and local fishing fleets about the realities of spatial squeeze in order to ensure the future of Scotland’s important fishing sector.
We move to the open debate.
16:57
The motion is clear: it is a call to safeguard our coastal communities. Reports that the UK Labour Government might agree to a deal with the EU that enhances access for EU fishing vessels in UK waters are deeply concerning. Such a deal, which could result in multiyear access guarantees, threatens to undermine our fishing industry’s very future. Scotland’s fishing industry is hugely significant as it not only contributes to our national economy but also sustains our coastal towns and villages, and it is imperative that every effort is made to support the industry during trade negotiations.
The existing fisheries deal between the EU and the UK, while not perfect, took our sector out of the hated CFP and has delivered increased access for UK fishermen to UK waters. The agreement for 2025 has secured 150,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the UK. That represents a 15,000 tonne increase on 2024 and it ensures sustainable fishing practices and the long-term viability of the UK fishing industry.
However, the new deal that is potentially being proposed by the UK Labour Administration represents a backward step for the sector, which we cannot allow to happen. Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, has pointed out the absurdity of the UK Government caving in to French demands for multiyear fisheries deals with fixed quotas. Such deals are not just a betrayal of our fishing industry; they are a betrayal of our national interests.
Public support for our industry is overwhelming. Today, a Scottish Fishermen’s Federation poll revealed that nearly nine out of 10 Scots believe that the UK should definitively control which vessels fish in its waters, and more than 80 per cent believe that the EU fleet should not be granted continued access to UK fishing grounds without tangible benefits being returned to Scottish skippers and crews. That means that 80 per cent of the people in this nation expect both of their Governments to stand up for those interests. The poll also shows that 86 per cent of Scots believe that any future UK-EU fisheries deal should place Scotland’s fishing industry at its heart. Younger Scots are often perceived as being more Eurocentric, but 65 per cent of them believe that Scotland’s fishing industry should be prioritised in any future UK-EU agreement.
Scotland’s fishing industry lands two thirds of all the fish and shellfish that are caught in the UK each year, which makes it the UK’s powerhouse of seafood production. My home town of Kirkcudbright has been the centre of the Scottish scallop industry, with West Coast Sea Products leading the way.
We must not overlook the importance of inshore fishing opportunities. Last week, when my colleague Tim Eagle and I met fishermen in Galloway, one of the topics that we discussed was cockle fishing—I can already see the cabinet secretary cringing. Before cockle fishing was prohibited by the SNP Government, at its peak in the early 1990s, the Solway produced more than 5,000 tonnes of cockles every year, which were worth more than £5 million to the local economy.
In 2023, SeaScope Fisheries Research Ltd, in partnership with others including the University of Glasgow and Marine Scotland science, carried out research on cockle stocks. The results have been very positive and a sustainable plan has been produced with partners from across business, academia and environmental organisations, but there has still not been a satisfactory response from the marine directorate on the next steps to reopen the fisheries. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will meet those representatives, or perhaps she will pull a cockle out of the bag today by informing us how we can move forward. The SNP has failed to make significant progress on improving inshore fisheries management, with the lack of scientific assessments hindering the development of these valued resources.
The EU must follow through on the treaty that it signed in 2020, which states that, after 2026, the issue of access to waters will become part of the annual negotiations on fisheries between the UK and the EU. Annual negotiations are the international norm. If EU states want to keep benefiting from our rich fishing grounds, that access must deliver clear and lasting benefits to Scotland’s fisheries.
The Parliament must express its deep concern at the reported deal and stand firm in protecting Scotland’s fishing industry. Let us have an annual debate on fisheries to highlight the sector’s importance to Scotland’s economy and ensure that our fishing industry, both offshore and inshore, is not only protected but championed as a vital sector.
17:02
It is hard to talk about fishing and the industry as a whole without talking about Brexit, so I found it quite insulting that, at the beginning of the debate, it was said that SNP members might raise Brexit. Let me tell members: £100 million was lost in the first month of Brexit, people lost their livelihoods, families lost their incomes and coastal communities are struggling. All that such comments do is to invalidate that. Let us talk about the issues and find a solution, but let us stop the politicising.
I represent one of Scotland’s most iconic fishing communities, so I know only too well the frustrations there. I talk to fishers, too. I represent Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Macduff and Buckie, and it is not just about economic activity.
When Karen Adam speaks to those fishermen—as we do, too—how many tell her that they want Scotland to go back into the CFP, as the SNP wants?
I will tell you what they say—you are welcome to join me in the discussions.
Please speak through the chair.
They say that that argument is wearing thin, that the mask has worn off and that they know that it was the UK Government that was representing them at the table in negotiations and making bum deals.
Today’s debate matters, but we need more than debates to protect the industry—we need clear-eyed realism and workable solutions. The fishing industry is about more than boats and quotas; it includes processors, engineers, harbour staff, lorry drivers, environmental officers, night watchmen and many others, who all work hand in glove. We cannot talk about supporting the sector while ignoring infrastructure and the people who keep it going.
I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment because it reflects something that the motion misses: decisions about Scotland’s waters are still being made without proper consultation with the Scottish Government. I was really sad to hear Tim Eagle say that he did not think that we would be competent enough to negotiate on our own.
Will Karen Adam give way?
I will, although I have a lot to get through.
It is all very well talking about the UK Government, but what is the Scottish Government doing to support inshore fisheries if it completely ignores the opportunities that we have with sea bass, cockles and extending lobster fishing? The marine directorate has done nothing in the past few years to assist the inshore fishers.
I will carry on with my speech, but if the member wants me to go into that, I am quite happy—I am sure that the minister will be, too—to talk to him about that after the debate.
The UK Government looks set to negotiate a multiyear access deal with the EU. Again, Scotland risks being left out of the room, which follows a pattern set by both Labour and Conservative Governments in London. I understand that the UK Government is thinking about the UK as a whole, but that is the problem. We were told that Brexit was about taking back control, but that control did not come to Scotland—it stayed in London, which is as far away geographically as it is from understanding what the fishers of the north-east actually need.
The motion focuses on what Labour might do, but it ignores what the Conservatives did. It was the Tories who negotiated that deal. Labour might be carrying the baton, but it was the Conservatives who handed it to them.
Tim Eagle should perhaps have a word with his colleagues at Aberdeenshire Council, because local decisions matter, too. Conservative-led Aberdeenshire Council removed the night watchman service at Macduff harbour. It did not just cut a post; it put vessels, property and lives at risk. Members cannot claim to be protecting the fishing industry in Parliament while stripping its support on the ground.
As convener of the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities, I have worked with stakeholders across the board and I have invited members from all parties to contribute, because if we want support for our fishers, we need to act and not just speak. I am here to represent them and I want not just warm words but fair outcomes. I am willing to work across parties to make that happen for the benefit of the people in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Debates are good, but what we really need is real power in the hands of Scottish fishers.
I appreciate the emotion in the debate, but I give a gentle reminder about the language that is used.
17:06
I will not use any words such as “bum”, Presiding Officer.
That is not a good start, Ms Hamilton.
Our fishing industry is caught between two Governments who consider it an afterthought or a chip to be bargained away to suit their political interests. Just like those of the SNP, Labour’s ambitions to do deals and cosy up with the EU put the future of our fishing industry at serious risk. The latest data shows that Scottish vessels landed £683 million-worth of sea fish and shellfish in 2023, which represents an increase of 16 per cent compared with 2019. However, the size of our fleet is currently in decline and employment on Scottish vessels has fallen by 13 per cent since 2014. Whose fault is that?
Labour’s reported deal with the EU to hand away multiyear access to UK fishing waters will put further pressures on our Scottish fishing industry. In February, Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation stated:
“The UK now has the opportunity to do fisheries management better than the EU—more practical and appropriate to the UK situation. Any concessions on this that would suck the UK back into even the outer reaches of the CFP’s orbit would be a significantly backward step.”
Does Rachael Hamilton not recognise that fish do not know boundaries? We must work with our neighbours to manage fishing stocks; we cannot simply go at it alone.
I do realise that. I have Eyemouth in my constituency and I know how fish move. However, the Scottish Conservatives have not cosied up to the EU and we will not do that. We have no intention of going back into the CFP. We want autonomy for Scottish fishermen and we want to support them, because the sector is hugely important in Scotland.
I fully support the UK’s ability to determine its own fisheries management arrangements in UK waters. Any deal that puts that principle at risk would represent a betrayal of our status as an independent coastal state. We must ensure that any negotiations regarding fishing rights or defence remain separate and that there is no linkage between fisheries and access to markets. I wonder whether Anas Sarwar needs to stand up to President Macron a bit more rather than sidling up to Keir Starmer, who clearly wants to butter up the EU.
Labour has also removed ring-fenced Scottish funding for agriculture and fisheries. In typical fashion, the SNP showed its disdain for fishing communities by taking that as an opportunity to cut funding to the marine directorate budget in real terms between 2024-25 and 2025-26. It is not only the Labour Government that the fishing industry has to put up with.
Perhaps Rachael Hamilton will welcome the increase to the marine directorate’s budget for the current financial year.
Of course I welcome an increase to the marine directorate’s budget, but the damage has already been done, cabinet secretary. Those decisions were weak. You were at the cabinet table at the time and you should have stood up for the Scottish fishing industry. I could not have said that in any other way, Deputy Presiding Officer.
It was only after strong lobbying from the industry and the Scottish Conservatives that the SNP and the Greens were forced into a rapid U-turn on highly protected marine areas. The HPMAs would have shut off 50 per cent of our Scottish seas and decimated the industry. However, despite that U-turn and the strength of the voice from the industry, the SNP is now trying to bring in HPMAs through the back door.
The SFF has also warned that the industry risks being crushed by the so-called spatial squeeze. That is having a massive impact on fishing, and the regulation of offshore wind projects and marine conservation measures are putting pressure on Scottish fleets.
As my colleagues have highlighted, the polling is clear. Four in five Scots believe that the EU should not be granted continued access to UK fishing rights. We are the only party that is defending the fishing sector in Scotland.
17:11
It is appropriate that the Conservative Party has brought forward a debate on the damage that can be caused if you have a botched deal with the EU, because, frankly, it is well qualified in delivering such bad deals. Not content with wrecking our economy through their economic illiteracy, nor with putting party before country by calling the EU referendum in the first place, the Tories went on to deliver a Brexit deal that broke every single promise that they made to the fishing industry. Fishers were promised a sea of opportunity. What they got was a wave of betrayal—red tape, export chaos and continued EU access to UK waters, without a meaningful better deal for our own fleet. Under Boris Johnson, the Fisheries Act 2020 was passed—a law that is, frankly, not far removed from the common fisheries policy that the Tories now say they oppose. How dare Conservative MSPs pretend to champion Scotland’s fisheries when their party was the one that sold out the sector.
Our fishing communities from Peterhead to Eyemouth are vital to Scotland’s rural and island economies. In 2023, Scottish vessels landed more than £683 million-worth of seafood. I want to see that grow further, but many of those communities remain in areas of multiple deprivation under the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Why? Because the wealth is not fairly shared. The outdated fixed quota allocation system allows a handful of big businesses to dominate while smaller fishers and coastal communities lose out. Section 25 of the UK Fisheries Act 1998 says that quotas should be distributed on the basis of
“environmental, social and economic factors.”
However, the Scottish Government still relies on a system that ignores compliance history, it fails to incentivise low-impact fishing and it overlooks illegal practices such as illegal discards, modern slavery and human trafficking.
In Annan in my region, victims were exploited aboard fishing vessels in a case that exposed the gaping lack of due diligence. When I asked the cabinet secretary in a number of written questions what checks had been done before the awarding of quotas or grants, the answer was that the Government was
“continuing to look into this matter”.—[Written Answers, 7 October 2024; S6W-30076.]
That is not good enough. No business involved in abuse or illegality should be given access to our shared public resources, whether through financial support in the form of grants or valuable fishing quotas.
We need reform. Quotas and grants should come with conditions to protect biodiversity, drive sustainability, protect workers and support local economies. The way in which we allocate quotas arguably has as much impact as the level of the quota that we negotiate. However, we need better relationships with our neighbours to get the best deal for our fishers. That means building a stable and grown-up relationship with the EU, not one that is based on the paranoia and point-scoring of the Tories. There is absolutely no basis for media speculation on a link between fisheries and defence in current talks between the UK and the EU—that is what prompted this debate.
Scotland’s fishing industry deserves better.
Will the member take an intervention?
I think that I need to wind up.
The member is concluding.
We need serious leadership, not crocodile tears from the party that is responsible for many of the failures that are affecting the industry today. We should have had a debate about how we can use the extensive powers that the Parliament has to stand up for our fishers, reform the system and deliver a sustainable, long-term future for a sector that is vital to Scotland’s economy.
Emma Harper will be the final speaker in the open debate.
17:15
I agree with Tim Eagle’s expressing of concern about the UK Labour Government’s attitude to our fishing industry. I fear that Scotland’s fleet will again be hammered as a result of deals done by Whitehall behind closed doors. However, the only reason that those negotiations are happening at all is that Mr Eagle’s former leader at Westminster gambled Scotland’s fisheries and every other sector in our economy on a one-armed bandit Brexit referendum, only to lose and then swan off into the sunset, while his successors carried out the act of dragging Scotland out of Europe against our democratic will. They also did a Brexit deal with the European Union that ended nearly five decades of international co-operation.
Boris Johnson’s trade and co-operation agreement means that a quarter of the existing EU fishing quota in UK and Scottish waters will transfer to the UK in a period of just over five years. To put it another way, which I am sure that the Tories will squeal about from sedentary positions, despite the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the Tories’ mantra of taking back control and all their hot air and yitterin on and bletherin aboot the benefits of Brexit—we must pay heed to the fact that not all fishers wanted Brexit; as I understand it, inshore fishers were pretty much opposed to it—the EU fleet will retain 75 per cent of its quota in UK and Scottish waters, while the UK Government has zero say on the common fisheries policy. In addition, from next year, the UK Government will have to negotiate fresh access and share of quota agreements with the EU every year. Westminster is desperately trying to avoid having to do annual negotiations and is instead setting up multiyear agreements.
The Tories have got what they wanted—the Brexit that they hold so dear. Mr Eagle comes to the chamber and tries to hoodwink skippers in the fishing industry into believing that his party is on their side. Was the common fisheries policy perfect? Of course not. One of Scotland’s major barriers to fairness under the CFP was the complete inertia and apathy shown by the UK Government every time quotas and take rates were up for negotiation.
Does the member accept that the SNP’s policy would be to take us back into the CFP? Given that the CFP is a treaty, how would the SNP be able to negotiate with France and Spain to get a better deal than the one that we had before? Most of the fishermen I speak to want to be out of the CFP.
I welcome the member’s suggestion that Scotland would have its own voice at the table and would be able to negotiate for itself as a normal independent country.
We know that the CFP wasnae perfect, and we know that one of the barriers under the CFP was the UK Government’s complete inertia; I have just covered that. That did not affect only Scottish fishermen—just ask the former skippers of Grimsby and the Humber, who were sold out by the UK Government decades ago, or the fishermen of Cornwall, who have seen the supply chains to their most profitable markets in France and Spain torn asunder by Brexit and the Tory omnishambles that was set in train by Boris Johnson.
I recommend that members read the Politico article headlined, “How Brexit Betrayed the UK Fishing Industry”. I will give a flavour of what it says about how supportive Tim Eagle’s colleagues were of our fishermen:
“When Johnson cited a rise in the numbers of Dover sole UK trawlers could catch, fishermen pointed out this meant little to the Scottish industry, given the species are primarily found in southern UK waters. ‘He wasn’t across the details,’ said an attendee ... ‘He just could not comprehend that we weren’t happy.’”
We are talking about a UK Tory Prime Minister who could not comprehend the needs of a Scottish industry and Scottish workers. I am shocked.
The Scottish fishing industry deserves this Parliament’s support. It is time for Labour to be honest about the damage that the hard Brexit has done and to stand up for Scottish fishing. Of course, the SNP will do the very same.
We move to closing speeches.
17:19
We have heard many useful and colourful contributions today. I am pleased to note the widespread agreement that the annual fisheries debate needs to be restored.
I will refer to a couple of points that we heard in the debate. I particularly appreciate Karen Adam’s impassioned point about the effect of Brexit on our coastal communities, the broken promises and the devastating impact that Brexit has had on many people’s lives. Colin Smyth talked about how too many coastal communities are in areas of multiple deprivation. In the light of those points, I urge the Scottish Government to act: to use its devolved powers to protect our seas and fishers, and to press the UK Government and the EU to be more responsible in how they approach negotiations.
Scotland already has the powers to do a fair bit to change the status quo. At present, it puts quota in the hands of a small number of businesses that have to meet only a small number of obligations. The Government needs to learn from the agricultural sector and to make sure that we use public assets to incentivise the changes that we want to see—using them not just for pockets but for people and planet.
We need to put an end to bycatch. Every day, large volumes of fish and other marine wildlife are killed and then chucked back into the sea. That damaging system needs to end. We can solve the problem by promoting low-impact fishing systems and introducing tighter regulations and harsher penalties. It is the Government’s legal duty to end bycatch; failing to act is simply not an option.
We also need the Scottish Government to deliver on its legal duty to protect marine habitats. I have lost track of the number of commitments made by SNP ministers to protect marine protected areas and the habitats outside them. Their promises, and the law, are crystal clear on this: action is needed to reduce the harms caused by certain fishing practices—namely, scallop dredging and bottom trawling.
The time for promises is over. Now it is time for long-overdue action. Scotland’s seas are an asset that can provide Scotland with huge social and economic benefits, but years of inaction and legislative failure have resulted in severe harm and a drastic decline in our marine environment. That is holding us back from meeting our nature and climate targets. It is costing fishers jobs and ripping communities apart. A well-managed marine environment would reverse all those trends and guarantee a sustainable future for Scotland’s marine environment and for all the communities that depend on it.
17:22
I start by making a point of clarification in response to Beatrice Wishart’s speech. She was concerned that our amendment to the motion appears to take out the reference to an annual debate. It does take out that reference, but the point that Ms Wishart herself made was that one annual debate does not cut it. There is more than one facet to the fishing industry, so we need more than one debate—we need to look at how we add value to the processing industry, how we distribute quota and how we look at spatial planning. Karen Adam mentioned a lot more parts of the downstream industry. One annual set-piece debate does not deal with that.
We need to put a focus on the industry and all its parts to make sure that we maximise the benefit. That focus has been lacking and I hope that we will get it back, especially in relation to things such as spatial planning. It must be a priority when we are thinking about renewables and many of the other issues that we are dealing with in relation to the marine environment.
There is no deal, but a deal needs to be negotiated and it needs to be for the benefit of the fishing industry and the communities that the industry supports. We would expect trading in fish to be made easier—that is another thing that Beatrice Wishart talked about. The way in which the current deals are set up creates huge disadvantages for our fishing communities, which need to be sorted out. We look forward to seeing that happen. I hope that the Scottish fishing industry will be at the heart of that process, which will also involve the Scottish Government.
Members talked about research. We know that our research needs to be improved, and the marine laboratory needs investment. Some members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee visited the laboratory, and it looked pretty much like an old shed. It was not a place for cutting-edge science.
Ariane Burgess talked about climate change, which brings concerns, and we need to do research into the difficulties that it will bring. However, it also brings opportunities. As fisheries change, we need to be fleet of foot. We need to protect stocks while we get ready for new opportunities.
Colin Smyth talked about quotas and grants. He was very clear—and I absolutely agree—that boats that break the law should not be given quota, and neither should they be given grants. Boats that disregard the law, boats that trade in black fish and those that deal in modern-day slavery: those are all abhorrent, and such practices should not be part of our fishing industry.
We need to reform how we distribute quota to ensure that biodiversity is taken into account and that we protect species. Those with access to our community quota need to use it in the public interest and to employ people fairly.
The Conservatives brought this debate, and most of the issues in it have arisen because of Boris’s botched Brexit bill. That makes trading difficult, and we need to sort that out. The debate is based on a false premise, having been initiated by a party that, to quote Colin Smyth, promised “a sea of opportunity” but delivered “a wave of betrayal”.
17:26
The global and geopolitical outlook that we face today has truly exposed the incredible act of self-harm that this Government and the people of Scotland always knew Brexit to be. The force of global economic volatility and the spectre of US tariffs simply reinforce more than ever the importance of Scotland having the security, stability and opportunity that come with European Union membership.
Scotland paid a heavy price for a Brexit that it did not vote for, and that affected the fishing sector worse than many others. Salmon Scotland reported that Brexit cost Scotland around £75 million in 2023 in lost salmon exports to the European Union, and farming companies face increased red tape and costs. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described the Brexit deal as “desperately poor” and said that it generated
“huge disappointment and a great deal of anger”
about the
“failure to deliver on promises made repeatedly to this industry.”
Although I welcome the UK Government’s stated intention to improve relations with the European Union—and the Scottish Government will continue to engage proactively to seek improvements that can benefit Scottish people and traders—I deeply regret the fact that Scottish businesses, including those in the fishing sector, are no longer part of the largest single market and customs union on earth and no longer have the many benefits that come with freedom of movement within the EU.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I have to make some progress, but I will come to Mr Eagle’s comments in a moment.
The fishing community finds itself in a predicament made for it by the UK Government, and the UK Government has severely limited the scope for progress by the red lines that it has set itself for negotiating with the EU. The interests of Scotland are best served as an independent nation and member state of the European Union.
Coming now to individual contributions, I will start with that of Tim Eagle, who began by acknowledging that the TCA negotiated by the Conservative UK Government did not deliver for fishing communities. It is a shame that he did not apologise for his party’s sell-outs. We should never forget that it was the Conservatives who signed the UK up to the common fisheries policy.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will make some progress. My cabinet secretary colleague Mairi Gougeon updated the Parliament on cancelled meetings with her UK Government opposite number. I hope that that will be rectified as a priority. Sadly, that reminds us more of poor relations with the previous UK Government—not one that is committed to a genuine reset with Europe and with the devolved Administrations.
Rhoda Grant rightly warned about suggesting that fishing agreements have been reached. I am not aware of that being the case—it would be good if true—but I would welcome it if she encouraged her UK colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to meet representatives of the Scottish Government.
Ariane Burgess pointed to a loss of fishing sector jobs since Brexit, which should concern us all. Beatrice Wishart underlined the contribution of the fisheries sector in Shetland and Scottish coastal communities. She raised something that I think has been missing in the debate: the importance of an agriculture, food and drink agreement—a sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, agreement—which, as I hope everybody across the chamber would agree, would be a beneficial part of the reset with the European Union that is being negotiated.
Karen Adam reminded members about the scope of the sector and the needs of the fishing communities that she so ably represents. Emma Harper reminded members how badly the fisheries sector is understood both by Tories and by the Labour Party.
In summary, it is beyond debate that key promises that were made during Brexit have not been delivered and that Brexit has had significant impacts on Scotland’s marine sector and our coastal and island communities. The Scottish Government will continue to represent the sector’s interests as it presses the United Kingdom Government to move ever closer in its relationship with the European Union until such time as we can, once and for all, reverse the folly of Brexit and rejoin the European Union as an independent member state.
I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to wind up.
17:30
I am sorry that the cabinet secretary did not take my intervention, because I was going to point out to him that 5 May is a very special day for us, because it is the date on which he and I stood against each other in the general election. Who would have thought, nearly 20 years ago, that we would both be in this place, with me representing a party that took us out of the CFP and him representing one that wants to take us back in.
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
I am pleased to be able to close what has been an important debate on the future of Scottish fishing—an industry that is vital and so ingrained in many of the communities that I represent across the Highlands and Islands, including Mallaig, on Skye, and in Orkney, where I live, as well as in Shetland, which Tim Eagle and I visited only last month and where we spoke with the local sector.
As Tim Eagle and other members have highlighted, the Scottish Conservatives have chosen to use our business time today to bring a fishing debate to the chamber in Holyrood, after the SNP Scottish Government failed to do so. There has not been such a debate for two years, and it is clear from the many contributions today that that is a shameful failure by the SNP. Its amendment actually supports calls for an annual debate, which raises a question that could be asked of the SNP in many areas: why the delay?
Our fishing industry is a vital employer in our coastal and island communities, and it supports many local jobs and livelihoods, both directly and indirectly, across my region. However, the industry faces a number of challenges, some of which were raised with us when we were in Shetland as well as in meetings with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. Most pressing are reports that the UK Labour Administration seems to be prepared to bow to pressure from the French Government and sell out Scotland’s fishermen for access to EU funding. If that is true, it really would be a betrayal of our fishermen, giving away access to our waters and our fish just to appease a French President who appears to be shamefully exploiting European security concerns for his own ends.
Reacting to reports of a deal, James Anderson, chairman of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, said:
“If true, this report is more or less suggesting that the UK returns to being in the much-maligned Common Fisheries Policy ... with a multi-annual deal condemning us to fixed quotas year after year.
Ministers clearly haven’t got a clue about the impact on Scottish fishing grounds—and the people whose livelihoods depend on them—or they would not be agreeing to this as a way forward. Food security should be part of our national security, and the interests of one industry should not be traded off against those of another, no matter how small.”
Labour’s amendment claims that no agreements have been reached and that, therefore, “speculation is not helpful”. Well, it is perhaps not helpful for Labour—and can we take the party at its word? Ahead of last year’s general election, Keir Starmer told farmers that
“food security is national security”
and reassured them that they had his support, saying that
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business – it can’t come back.”
Labour was right behind our farmers, he suggested, and then he betrayed them by introducing Labour’s family farm tax. Labour went from supporting farmers to cutting the legs from underneath them—they will just have to
“learn to do more with less”,
Labour said. Farmers have learned to their cost that they cannot trust Labour, and fishermen may be about to learn the same.
The SNP’s amendment is as expected. It cuts out any awkward references to the common fisheries policy, clearly in the hope that Scottish fishermen will somehow forget that the SNP’s obsession with breaking up the UK and rejoining the EU would also mean rejoining the common fisheries policy. The SNP is desperate to hand back control of our seas and our fish to bureaucrats in Brussels.
Can the member tell us how Brexit has remedied the situation through our coming out of the CFP?
We were just talking about the opportunities that have been presented to us that I think Labour will throw away, but I will come to that later.
Leaving the CFP has been positive, but I also recognise, as did Tim Eagle, the industry’s concerns about the limitations of the deal that was agreed with the EU when we left. That brings me to some of the other contributions in the debate. Tim Eagle rightly recognised the concerns of some in the fishing industry—concerns that were raised with me at the time, as the party’s lead on fishing when we left the EU—that the trade and co-operation agreement that was signed with the EU did not meet the expectations of many in the sector. Mr Eagle is also right that it delivered two important things: we left the hated CFP and we built in an opportunity to get a better deal in 2026-27. That is what Labour now threatens
The threat is from the SNP, too, because, if it has its way, it will back the CFP, as I have just mentioned. As Rachael Hamilton reminded us, SNP ministers in the Parliament, egged on by Fergus Ewing’s favourite nationalist colleagues, the Greens, planned to bring in HPMAs, which would have shut 50 per cent of Scottish seas and decimated our coastal communities. Thankfully, after pressure from members on the Conservative benches, the industry and local communities, the SNP was forced to U-turn, although the threat of HPMAs being introduced by the back door remains.
Finlay Carson highlighted the historic importance of his local cockle fishing industry, which particularly resonated with me. Time and time again, local fisheries close or are blocked because of questionable science or prevaricating ministers. That is certainly the case with the closure of the Clyde cod box. A derogation for Shetland fishermen to catch squid was not granted because—I will paraphrase a response that I received—there was not enough evidence to allow it, but there also was not enough evidence to reject it. Valuable local fisheries, often worth millions of pounds to local economies, are being lost—sometimes year after year—because of decisions that have been based on questionable science or because decisions have not been made at all.
Does my colleague agree with me that, perhaps the reason that we have not had a fisheries debate in the chamber is not because the SNP does not like to give up the chance to kick the UK Government, but because it would absolutely fail to defend its position in support of its inshore fisheries and the devolved fisheries regulations that it is wholly responsible for? The party has let the fishing industry down since it came to power.
The member will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him whole-heartedly on that point—we have seen that time and time again.
Members have spoken about some of the other challenges that the industry faces, such as spatial squeeze, which is of increasing concern for many fishermen. However, the threat that the sector now faces from the Labour Government’s potential deal with Brussels is grave. The deal would be a sell-out of local fishermen and our fishing communities. Polling that was released by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is clear: the Scottish public overwhelmingly believe that the EU’s fishing fleet should not be allowed access to our waters without tangible benefits for Scotland’s fishermen and our fishing industry.
By supporting the Scottish Conservatives’ motion unamended at decision time, the Parliament can send a clear message that it opposes Labour’s damaging deal; that it confirms its support for Scotland staying out of the CFP; that our future must be as an independent coastal state, not one that is controlled by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels; and that both of Scotland’s Governments must get behind our fisheries sector and work together to deliver the bright future that we know that it can have.
That concludes the debate on protecting Scotland’s fishing industry.
Previous
MotoristsNext
Business Motions