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 hear what Mr Balfour says, and I echo what has been said about his dedication to supporting disabled people. However, before we set up any false divisions, will he acknowledge that many of us have campaigned for both Gaelic and BSL?

Looking back on the legislation as someone who was involved in it at the Government end, I think that Karen Adam touches on an important point, which is the importance of BSL as a language and all the human dignity that that implies. I realise that the act is about more than symbolism, but does she agree, as I am sure she will, about the impact that it made on that community to know that, symbolically, the country had recognised their language for what it is, which is a language?

As we rightly consider these figures, does the cabinet secretary agree that we also have a responsibility to ensure that we recognise the economic importance of salmon farming to the Highlands and Islands, not least in my own constituency?

Does the First Minister agree that, whatever solution is found to the tender in question, the decision must be informed by the views of people in Uist and other island communities, who clearly want to see new vessels in service as soon as is feasible?

I believe that amendment 39 responds directly to the concerns that have been expressed by crofters, tenant farmers and rural communities that, as we have heard, face increasing damage from rising deer numbers. I am grateful that the Government has been willing to work with me on the amendment.

Currently, occupiers and tenants can act only on improved land and enclosed woodland, which leaves moorland and common grazings vulnerable. As everyone knows, deer move freely across those landscapes, causing harm to crops, woodland regeneration and livestock and contributing to tick-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and louping ill.

Amendment 39 will extend to all types of land, including moorland, the right of tenants to take or kill deer and will empower grazing committees to act collectively in that regard. It is a simple and low-cost measure that will support Scotland’s biodiversity and our national target to reduce deer densities by 50,000 annually.

On Rhoda Grant’s point, I do not feel that our aims are in conflict. I think that she was referring to amendment 70 or other amendments. I hope that amendment 39 will provide a good sound way to empower tenants with the same rights to control such issues as landowners have. If she feels that there are still outstanding issues, I hope that we will be able to work on them at stage 3.

Yes.

In responding to the committee on this issue, as you have just mentioned, you highlighted areas that are not specified in the SSI because they are already specified elsewhere—in other legislation. How do you ensure clarity, given that things are specified in different pieces of legislation?