Chamber and committees

Can you give us some examples of where the bill would enable you to intervene, as opposed to the current situation? Also, can you say whether we should set out in the bill the circumstances where you must intervene?

Are you saying that the new powers would be used earlier, or is it that your intervention would not be so dependent on gathering information about the degradation of the area, so it would involve enhancing the current base rather than bringing the land back to the state that it was once in?

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.

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 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.

It is absolutely crass to suggest that fishing will be negotiated for national security. Surely, the member recognises that.

That is the premise of your motion. I ask you to recant and actually have a debate about fishing.

I will take a very quick intervention.

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.

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.