Chamber and committees

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.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and to members for not being in the chamber at the start of the closing speeches.

Will the member take an intervention?

Through ScotZEB 2 funding, 44 buses were purchased from Alexander Dennis, whereas 171 were purchased from Yutong in China. The Deputy First Minister has said that ScotZEB 3 will be different. Will that require a change in the law? If not, is that an admission that ScotZEB 2 got things wrong?

Will the member take an intervention?

Do you think that Gillian Martin’s constituents—

I agree that it should not be a case of one thing or the other, but Labour’s ban on new licences is making it one thing or the other. Does the member not accept that the ban on new licences means that we will have to import more oil and gas?

The fact that three north-east MSPs have lodged questions on the potential axing of the north of Scotland news programme shows how important we, on a cross-party basis, feel that it is that the local news coverage is retained. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the chief executive, Rufus Radcliffe, cannot make the north news work in light of STV North’s increasing profits, he should step aside and let someone else manage the company instead?

I am sorry, but she is jet set in a way, Presiding Officer.