Chamber and committees

We have had some discussion about a transfer test versus a public interest test, which has all been geared towards communities buying land. However, I wonder whether anyone who is buying large tracts of land should face a public interest test. There is nothing in the bill that insists that a new owner follows the land management plan. Given the power and control that owners of large land holdings can have, should whether they will manage the land in the public interest be considered before they buy land?

I argue that crofters have agricultural landholdings.

I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this members’ business debate and for her fitting tribute to Dr Ian Napier. I, too, send my condolences to his family.

I recently had the privilege of hosting the Our Seas coalition exhibition and reception in the Parliament. It was clear to me from that event, and from speaking to the fishing community throughout the Highlands and Islands, how disengaged from decision makers the industry feels.

Bailey Dacker, who took part in the exhibition, summarised a lot of the feeling around decision making when he said:

“I don’t feel like I have a say in the decisions made about the sea, but I’d like to. A lot of the decisions by the government aren’t taking into consideration the fishermen’s thoughts at the moment. If I were to make one request of political decision-makers, it would be to come and ask us younger fishermen. Whatever you manage right now, the likes of myself or my mates don’t ever hear about anything or get asked any questions about what we think about this. We just see it happening and have to adapt to it.”

That has to change. However, as the motion testifies in highlighting the lack of a Government debate on the subject, fishing appears to be a very low priority for the Government.

I know that those in the fishing community were keen on Brexit, as they thought that being outside the European Union would deal with many of the issues that they faced. Sadly, however, that has not been the case, and there is now even less focus on fishing.

The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recently visited the Scottish Government marine laboratory in Aberdeen, and—to be frank—we have all visited better-kept boat sheds. The lack of investment in the laboratory and in marine science was absolutely embarrassing to see. At the same time, some of the Scottish statutory instruments to manage fishing that come to committee are based on data that is incomplete or simply wrong. The fishing community is bemused by regulation that bears no resemblance to reality.

There is also the added pressure on our marine areas. Inshore fisheries are under pressure from mobile gear boats, and all areas are under pressure from increasing demands on our seas. Aquaculture and seaweed farming are marine activities, but there is encroachment on those areas from offshore renewables, cables, pipelines and the like. All of that puts pressure on fishing, before we even start to look at the conflict that arises from foreign boats. The policing of that conflict falls to the marine directorate’s seafarers, who are undervalued and underpaid and are sent to police the seas in extremely dangerous conditions.

There are many other issues that we need to debate, including the shape of our industry; the gear that is used; how fishers can work to protect our marine environment; and training, skills and investment. A members’ business debate simply does not allow us the time to debate all those issues properly. We need Government to look at the industry and beyond and at the way in which we use our seas, and to work with stakeholders and use their knowledge and expertise.

We need a strategy for the seas that shows where we fish, the features that we need to protect, where we generate energy and the many other aspects of our marine environment. That strategy needs to be drawn up with stakeholders and, within it, we need to allow for local management so that we can farm our seas in a way that is sustainable for future generations.

There has been a lot of chat about co-management. Given what you have said, I am keen to learn what co-management means in practice and how—or whether—it will lead to decentralised decision making.

It seems to me that there is a source of free information that is being totally ignored. The fishers want to be part of decision making, but they also have a huge amount of information that would be useful to you. How do you capture that? People who are working for themselves do not often have time to go to association meetings or join associations. Your job must be to make it easier for them to engage, and I wonder how that can happen.

I was hosting the “Coastal Testimonies” exhibition this week in the Parliament, and I will quote from it because I think that it makes the point better than I could.

One of those who gave a testimony was Bailey Dacker, who is a creel fisher. He says:

“I don’t feel like I have a say in the decisions made about the sea, but I’d like to. A lot of the decisions by the government aren't taking into consideration the fishermen’s thoughts at the moment. If I were to make one request of political decision-makers, it would be to come and ask us younger fishermen.”

He goes on to say:

“Whatever you manage right now, the likes of myself or my mates don’t ever hear about anything or get asked any questions about what we think about this. We just see it happening and have to adapt to it.”

That does not sound like co-management to me. For someone like Bailey, how will the situation change under the review?

Would there be a greater chance for communities to have the right to buy, for example, landholdings that were not being managed in the public interest, in the form of compulsory purchase?

I have a slightly niche question about crofting. Should the bill include a provision to compel landowners to put more land into crofting and to transfer small holdings into crofting legislation, rather than creating a whole bureaucracy around small holdings?

I will try to keep my questions short—I do not know about the answers.

A number of you have talked about compulsory sale orders. In what circumstances should those be used? Who should be able to exercise that power? Sarah, do you want to comment on that?

Many of you have talked about a public interest test. Should that apply to anyone who seeks to buy land, and not just communities? Should a private purchase of land be subject to a public interest test, too?