Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention?

We are talking about fairness. Last week, my dad went from Aberdeen all the way down to Glasgow to the Queen Elizabeth or the national treatment centre—whatever it is called—because he requires a cataract operation. He travelled for five hours to get down there, spent 15 minutes in an initial consultation and then spent another five hours going back. Where is the equality in that?

In Scotland, should we be looking to produce more of our own food? I am not talking about sparkling wine at this point, but should we be trying to produce much more of what we need locally as opposed to having to import it?

Would the amount that we need to spend on adaptation change significantly if Scotland reached net zero sooner than 2045? If Scotland reached net zero tomorrow, for example, would the amount that we have to spend change significantly, or is it pegged on global emissions?

You mentioned near the start something that I have never actually heard before. You spoke about the risks and opportunities around climate change. I have never heard opportunities being mentioned before. What are those opportunities?

Beyond Scotland, how might impacts on climate change globally affect life in Scotland? I am thinking about such issues as supply chains and food security.

Sadly, we are witnessing the self-inflicted deindustrialisation of much of Scotland as a result of both Governments’ anti-hydrocarbon rhetoric. There are two neighbouring plants at Mossmorran. Exxon has made its announcement, but we still have the Shell natural gas liquids plant. What discussions have taken place with Shell on whether its NGL plant remains viable, given the loss of Exxon’s ethylene plant?

Will the member give way?

Scotland’s fishing industry is one of the great pillars of our coastal and island communities. It is a sector that provides renewable, climate-smart food; that supports thousands of jobs; that anchors local economies; that prevents rural depopulation; and that is woven into the cultural identity of places all around our coast.

I welcome a debate on fishing, but it should not escape notice that this is the first Government-led debate on fishing in more than two years. Only after repeated calls from the Scottish Conservatives has the Government finally turned its attention to a sector that it claims to champion. If the Scottish Government truly cared about fishing communities, we would not have waited years for a Government-led debate on fishing to come to the chamber.

Let me be clear that we agree with the principles in the SNP motion—of course, Scotland deserves a fair share of UK funding. The Labour Government has shown a complete disregard to that. Of course, we want strong fishing opportunities and a sustainable future for the fleet—nobody disputes that. However, the motion deliberately ignores a very uncomfortable truth: the SNP’s record on supporting Scotland’s fishermen is one of confusion, contradiction and neglect.

This is the same Government that tried to impose highly protected marine areas—a plan so detached from coastal reality that it was forced to scrap it after an overwhelming backlash. This is the same Government whose officials advised ministers to dismiss concerns about spatial squeeze and told them not to mirror the language of industry, despite the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation warning that the sector risks being “crushed” by competing demands on our seas. This is the same Government that, in the latest consultations, is still proposing new restrictions across 19 sites. That is a disgrace. The cabinet secretary cannot stand here today talking about supporting fishing communities while the Government’s planning decisions, budget cuts and policy proposals undermine those very same communities.

Perhaps the clearest example of all is the SNP’s ambition to rejoin the European Union and, with it, the dreaded common fisheries policy—something that was applauded by SNP back benchers today. After decades of Scottish frustration under the CFP, after regaining control of more than 25 per cent of catching opportunities post-Brexit and after incomes having risen significantly, we now have a First Minister who believes that returning to the CFP would be part of Scotland’s national mission. That mission would hammer Scotland’s fleet, and Scotland’s fishing communities know it.

Let me also address the UK Labour Government’s role. The Labour-EU trade agreement, which extended EU access for 12 years, has rightly been described as “a total capitulation” by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. At the same time, as is noted in the SNP motion today, Labour is scrapping ring-fenced funding for fisheries and is allocating Scotland just 7.78 per cent of a £360 million growth fund despite Scotland landing more than half of the UK’s catch. That is a disgrace. Rhoda Grant tried to defend that today, but she is trying to defend the indefensible.

Both of Scotland’s Governments are failing the sector. Labour is selling out access and short-changing the Scottish fishing sector. The SNP is attacking fishing from the domestic side, wants to take us back into the dreaded CFP and prefers turbines over trawlers. No wonder communities feel squeezed from every direction.

The Scottish Conservatives stand firmly with Scotland’s fishing industry. We believe in sustainability and viability. We agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation when it calls for space at sea and for its members not to be pushed aside by unplanned, top-down development. That is why our amendment today highlights the proposed Moray Firth FLOW-Park, which local communities and fishermen fear will reduce vital fishing grounds, threaten livelihoods and drive yet more spatial squeeze.

This debate cannot ignore the scale of the spatial squeeze that has been driven by the SNP Government’s approach to offshore wind. Since 2022, ministers have approved 32 offshore wind projects, followed by another 12 in 2023 and a further 32 zones identified for future development. That is more than 36GW of capacity.

When our party leader Russell Findlay was in Fraserburgh last week, he warned that Scotland’s fishing industry cannot become a

“casualty of green energy obsession”.

He is absolutely right. These irresponsible plans risk pushing fishermen out of their traditional grounds and jeopardising the future of our fleets and stocks.

Our fishermen should not be thrown aside just to promote offshore wind. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Rather than bulldoze through historic fishing grounds, the Government should be working with coastal communities to protect fishing as the renewable, climate-smart food source that it is.

The Scottish Government cannot claim to support fishing while allowing developments that directly undermine the sector. Let me put it plainly: we cannot prioritise offshore renewables over our fishing communities. There should be no further consents for offshore wind developments until the impacts on our fishing sector are addressed in full, including through financial compensation for losses, to ensure that the fleet remains viable and profitable. We cannot ignore the voices of the more than 600 people who turned up for the meeting in Findhorn the other night. We need to listen.

Scotland’s fishermen deserve more than warm words; they deserve clarity, consistency and real support. Our amendment strengthens the debate by highlighting a key issue of concern for communities across the north-east. Time will tell whether the other parties have the bottle to stand up for our fishing communities.