Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the chamber an issue that matters to every fishing community in Scotland. It certainly matters to people in my island constituency, who have not been slow to raise it with me. I appreciate that the debate on my motion is the Parliament’s final item of business before the Christmas recess, so I am grateful to members who have stayed to take part in it. This is not the first time that the subject been raised in the Parliament but, as you will hear, there is good reason to raise it again.

In October this year, the United Kingdom Labour Government allocated its new United Kingdom-European Union fishing and coastal growth fund across the UK in a way that bears no relation whatsoever to the scale of Scotland’s fishing industry or, indeed, to the way in which such funds have been allocated in the past. Scotland consistently lands around 63 per cent of the UK’s total catch value, and more than 60 per cent of the UK’s seafood exports come from Scotland. However, the UK Labour Government has decided that, of the £360 million fund, only £28 million will make its way to Scotland’s coastal communities. The much smaller fishing industry in England is set to receive £300 million. Scotland has somewhere between half and two thirds of the UK’s fishing industry, but we will get less than an 8 per cent of the UK Government’s fund. That is because the funding has been divided up based on Scotland’s share of the UK’s human population—a fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scale of our fishing industry. Certainly, it has nothing to do with the proportions of landings, the value of exports or the total catch value for each country—nor does it have anything to do with precedent.

Prior to Brexit, the equivalent EU funding was split along the following lines: 46 per cent for Scotland, 36 per cent for England, 10 per cent for Northern Ireland and 8 per cent for Wales. That allocation recognised the significant economic contribution of Scotland’s fishing industry. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will recognise that the Labour UK Government’s decision to divide its new fishing fund using the Barnett formula is deeply flawed and does not provide our fishing communities across Scotland with the support that they need—indeed, the support that they were promised—after Scotland was taken out of the EU against our will.

The new UK fishing and coastal growth fund replaces the equivalent EU funding that was lost following Brexit. The Scottish Government requested £166 million of the £360 million fund and requested that it then be able to allocate its share to Scottish coastal communities, as fishing is a devolved issue.

I am afraid that the convoluted argument that Scottish Labour has offered to date on the issue—that the Scottish Government, in seeking to allocate our fair share of the funding in Scotland ourselves, is to blame for the situation where we receive only Barnett consequentials, rather than the equivalent proportion of the EU funding that we are no longer eligible for—does not hold water. The UK Government, by all accounts, refused to engage with devolved Governments on the issue in advance of, or indeed following, the allocation decision that was announced two months ago.

Labour Senedd members and MPs across the political spectrum at Westminster have criticised the UK Government’s allocation decision. Why are all Labour MSPs and indeed most Tory MSPs unwilling to do the same?

I had rather hoped that there would be no need to raise the issue again, given the pretty terrible reaction to the UK Government’s decision among Scottish fishing communities. However, the UK Government seems determined not to listen to reason on this occasion, despite many other notable policy U-turns in recent weeks.

In my constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, fishing remains a vital part of our daily lives and local heritage, from Ness to Vatersay. In 2023, fishing in the Western Isles contributed more than £8 million in approximate gross value added to the Scottish economy. Its percentage share of the fishing sector’s economic contribution has grown by 8 per cent since 2016, despite the fact that the number of individuals who are employed in fishing in my constituency has dropped by 16 per cent in the past five years.

Fishing is a vital industry in the Western Isles and elsewhere, both economically and culturally, but it is one that requires sustained support given the challenges that the sector faces, for example as a result of Brexit’s implications for both exports and immigration and the consequent difficulty for some parts of the industry in recruiting crews. Increased administrative requirements, restrictions on labour mobility and the additional costs that are incurred in exporting to the EU have all had an impact.

Seafood industry representatives estimate that Brexit has led to a 30 per cent increase in the cost of transporting products and a 50 per cent increase in the cost of packaging, with export health certificates estimated to have cost UK food businesses some £60 million in 2021 alone. At the same time, 20 to 25 per cent of seafood industry vacancies remain unfilled, and the end to EU freedom of movement provisions has been a significant contributor to that.

I am happy for Andrew Bowie’s words to be on the record and to accept what Stephen Kerr says about his stance and his party’s stance on the issue.

In conclusion, I note that this is hardly a great time for the UK to pull the rug from underneath the system of Government support that has, until now, supported Scotland’s fishing communities. I urge colleagues across the chamber to continue to exert pressure on the UK Government and to fight for fair funding for Scotland’s fishing industry and coastal communities. That is the least that they deserve from us.

Does the member agree that some of what we have heard from members in previous speeches has been truly extraordinary in its attempts to blame Scotland for having its money taken away? It is also truly extraordinary to describe the Scottish Government seeking to distribute money to fishing communities as the Scottish Government trying get its hands on that money.

I was thinking more of the budgetary impact that you talked about earlier. Will that affect the small producers?

The budgetary impact of not passing the SSI and the pressures elsewhere in your budget—would that have an impact on other parts of the sector?

I will cut to the chase. We have heard questions about whether there should be other schemes and about hypothetical schemes, and I understand that there are other schemes, such as the one for small producers. What we are looking at today is, as you have set out, a specific SSI in the interests of Scottish growers. Do you have any indication from that sector about how growers would feel if we were not to pass the SSI today?

No. Does the fact that that matter is outwith your control and that there is a reservation make any kind of sense?

Okay. Thank you.

Minister, I think that you mentioned at the beginning that the power to change the definitions of growers organisations is reserved or is under UK law. Given the restrictions that are now being placed through the SSI on the schemes concerned, does that still make any kind of sense?

You mentioned before that, if the SSI were not to pass, that would have a budgetary implication for how you use the rest of your agriculture budget.