Official Report 1017KB pdf
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S6M-16282, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, on opportunities and challenges for Scotland’s fishing sector in 2025. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends the hard-working fishermen of island and coastal communities, including in the Shetland Islands constituency; understands that, as published in the most recent Marine Economic Statistics in December 2024, fishing contributed £335 million to Scotland’s economy in 2022, including £83.3 million from Shetland; notes the dangerous nature of the open sea and the at-sea dangers of manmade infrastructure, as well as from other fishing vessels conducting dangerous procedures and manoeuvres; further notes concern in the sector about increasing competition for marine space and the calls to establish designated cable corridors as a means of addressing spatial squeeze and promoting co-operation; recognises the cultural and economic significance of fishing to Scotland; highlights fish as what it sees as a sustainable, low-carbon source of protein; understands that the Scottish Government has not held a debate on fisheries since 2022, and notes the belief that action to address spatial squeeze in Scotland’s seas is in the long-term interests of the fishing sector as well as the wider Scottish economy.
17:47
Thanks to those who supported the motion and the debate and to everyone who provided briefings. Despite championing our world-class seafood, the Scottish Government last held a debate on fisheries in 2022. The sector makes a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy and to our coastal communities.
As a representative of Shetland, where fishing is of such economic and cultural importance, I cannot speak about the industry without referring to the recent sad passing of the senior fisheries policy adviser at UHI Shetland. Dr Ian Napier was a highly respected scientist and long-time supporter of Shetland’s fishing industry. He made a significant contribution to the industry, not least with his work on the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999, which, some 25 years later, is held up as a good example of local inshore fisheries management. Ian Napier’s sudden passing is mourned across the community and industry, by his friends and colleagues at UHI Shetland and, most of all, by his family. To them, I extend my deepest sympathy.
A recent global survey deemed fishing to be the most dangerous job in the world. I pay tribute to all the fishermen across the United Kingdom, many of whom are in the Shetland fleet. Fishing is a way of life, with family businesses, knowledge and skills passed down from generation to generation. Fishermen are custodians of our seas and stakeholders in its wellbeing, and they are invested in a sustainable future. However, fishing is becoming increasingly challenging. Without those who harvest the nutritious, healthy fish, the economy and food security would suffer.
On numerous occasions, I have raised concerns about the level of Scottish Government investment in Scotland’s marine directorate, which I believe is inadequately resourced given all that is asked of it. Fisheries protection, marine protection, renewable energy, scientific research and data gathering are all necessary for future policy making.
We have seen traditional fishing areas lost to at-sea infrastructure. Since the discovery of North Sea oil and gas, more than 50 years ago, we have had a growing renewable energy sector, with sites set to host vast swathes of offshore wind farms. Climate change is real, but so, too, is spatial squeeze. In its briefing to members the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation stated:
“Successful, viable and long-standing businesses will lose access to vast tracts of the seabed where they have fished effectively and efficiently for decades. These areas have remained productive for many years but are now set to be lost to food production as they become industrialised with floating offshore wind farms where it will be practically impossible for fishing to continue due to the physical infrastructure of the windfarm.”
Offshore wind power cannot happen at the expense of fishing. A transition is not just if it ends up squeezing the life out of viable fishing businesses.
In October 2022, Shetland experienced serious damage to sea bed telecommunication cables, which impacted all aspects of island life. There are also safety issues. Hauling up a cable could result in the loss of a vessel or, worse, the loss of lives. National security is important in a volatile world where foreign powers might seek to undertake acts of disruption. I therefore reiterate my support for the creation of cable corridors to co-ordinate cables from offshore wind turbines, interconnectors and telecoms to run along designated routes.
Yesterday, I was in Whalsay, where Shetland’s pelagic fleet is based. The island community there is built around centuries of fishing—it is the epitome of a successful fishing community. I heard at first hand of the impact of the Scottish economic link licence condition. The fish landings obligation requires pelagic vessels to land 55 per cent of their catch at Scottish ports. If they do not, they have to return quota to the Scottish Government. To the uninitiated, that might seem a reasonable ask, to benefit the wider Scottish economy, but when unintended consequences are not addressed they affect the fleet, its landings and income and, ultimately, the country’s economy.
Uncertainty about the future in turn stalls further vessel investment and creates delay in replacing retiring crew or bringing in new, young talent. I heard an example of what can happen during the short summer herring season. Four pelagic processing factories operate in Scotland, and vessels that are not tied to a specific processor can find themselves vying for a time to land their catch. Waits of up to four days to land are not unknown, which impacts the quality of the catch and causes delay in returning to fishing grounds. Herring waits for no one. Steaming to Norway, where the price difference can be as much as £300 per tonne, to land a catch can save time and money, despite the costs and environmental impact of increased fuel usage. I understand that a Scottish Government review of the impact of the amended economic link provisions is under way. When the cabinet secretary responds to the debate, it would be helpful if she could indicate when that report will be published.
I recognise the time constraints on the debate, so I will conclude by mentioning that other challenges exist. They include the dangerous actions of other vessels at sea, such as the widely reported incidents involving the Pesorsa Dos and the Antonia Maria; the trade and co-operation agreement—TCA—negotiations; marine planning and marine protected areas; marine pollution; ghost gear; and the impact of dumping at sea on fish, seabirds, cetaceans and other marine life. There is so much to say, but, should the Scottish Government initiate a fisheries debate within the remainder of the parliamentary term, there will be a further opportunity to expand on all those important matters.
Thank you, Ms Wishart. I echo your comments on the loss of Dr Ian Napier.
We move to the open debate. I advise members that we are a bit pressed for time, given the later decision time. The debate has attracted a lot of interest, so I would be grateful if members could stick to their speaking time allocations.
17:54
I thank my colleague Beatrice Wishart for securing the debate. I am the convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities. Ms Wishart is my deputy convener, and I know that she is really committed to the subject. It is absolutely right that we take the time to discuss our fishing sector—not just the challenges that it faces, but the solutions that we can all work towards.
In 2022 alone, fishing contributed £335 million to Scotland’s economy, with my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency leading the way. Peterhead remains the UK’s largest fishing port by landed weight and value, while Fraserburgh plays a critical role in both catching and processing. Buckie and many other smaller ports support local businesses and jobs that depend on a thriving seafood sector.
One of the biggest concerns raised by our fishing communities is the spatial squeeze caused by offshore wind developments, subsea cables and conservation measures, although representatives of the fishing industry have told me that they understand the need for an energy transition—they see the effects of climate change in our changing seas. I therefore proposed the creation of the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities to bring together fisheries and offshore renewables businesses and to have a space in which to have open discussions of the issues outwith formal negotiations. Offshore developers and the fishing industry must be able to co-exist. That means creating a formal framework in which fishers are involved from the start, and not just as a tick-box exercise.
If we want Scotland’s seafood industry to succeed, we need investment in the entire supply chain, and that means ensuring that our harbours and processing facilities have the infrastructure to support that growth. I welcome the investment in our harbours that the Scottish Government recently announced, and also the discussions on establishing a ring-fenced fisheries infrastructure fund, similar to those in countries such as Norway and Iceland, to ensure that our ports remain competitive in a global market.
In my constituency, seafood processing is a major employer, but Brexit has made it harder than ever for businesses to recruit the workers that they need. Many previously relied on skilled migrant workers, and the current crisis threatens not only our processing jobs but the entire seafood supply chain. The Scottish Government has consistently called for a visa scheme that works for seafood processors, but we cannot afford to wait for Westminster to listen.
I would welcome the establishment of a Scottish seafood labour task force to bring together processors, Government and industry leaders to push the issue forward. We must also explore new recruitment strategies, including direct partnership schemes with key non-European Union markets, such as the ones that we already have for seasonal agricultural workers. Where possible, we should invest in skills training and automation to ensure that the industry remains resilient.
If we want Scotland’s seafood industry to compete internationally, we could also consider having a Scottish seafood export strategy that focuses on streamlining customs processes, reducing export delays and expanding markets beyond the EU. For example, Scottish seafood trade missions could open up opportunities in Asia, North America and beyond.
If there is one thing that must come from the debate, it is the recognition that Scotland’s fishing sector cannot be considered in isolation. We need a whole-industry approach. All aspects of the supply chain—catching, processing and exporting—must be considered together if we are to secure the industry’s future. A thriving fishing sector depends on having a strong processing sector; a strong processing sector depends on having reliable access to markets; and all of that depends on investment in our ports, workforce and marine space. Those challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities if we all work together in a holistic approach.
17:58
I could speed things up by saying, “Ditto” to both of the preceding speeches, but I will add a wee bit to the debate. I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this vital discussion to the chamber.
I agree with pretty much everything that has just been said about our fishing industry. I will start by mentioning a couple of initiatives that impressed me recently. One was the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s “Pride in the Seas” exhibition; the other was the Open Seas #OurSeas campaign. I have taken a few quotes out of the many that we saw at a recent showing of the SFF’s exhibition in the Parliament. Colin Stephen, the skipper of a haddock trawler from Peterhead, said:
“You’ve got to look after the next generation. I don’t know any fishermen who just think about today and forget about tomorrow.”
According to Erin MacKenzie from Mallaig,
“fishing holds an integral place in coastal communities”
and we have to preserve
“generations-old skills and knowledge”.
As part of the #OurSeas campaign, Haydn McKenzie from Kyleakin said:
“There’s definitely a future for the fishing industry if we play our cards right. But at the same time, it is a pretty bleak future if we don’t.”2
Going back to the “Pride in the Seas” exhibition, Mark Robertson, part-owner of a Fraserburgh shellfish vessel, maintained that
“solutions can be found if government works with fishermen, not against them.”
There is really only one question to be asked today, and it is for the cabinet secretary. Can she give us some time to debate the issue fully and have a full discussion about the importance of our fishing industry across the whole of Scotland? Whether it is in Shetland, on the west coast of Scotland or in Buckie, Fraserburgh or Peterhead, it really matters.
Beatrice and Karen already mentioned some of the reasons why that is important, but I will go over them again. There is the Norway-United Kingdom fishing deal and the end of the UK trade and co-operation agreement—it will be interesting to hear Rhoda Grant’s thoughts on that. There are issues around inshore fisheries; spatial squeeze is truly becoming a big issue and a real worry for our industry. There is the national marine plan and where we are going with it. We need more conversations about landings in Scotland and the local management of seas. We need to talk about the marine directorate, including where we are with it, what facilities it needs for the future and whether we are making the best use of the resources that it has.
How are we really managing foreign-owned boats in our waters? That affects several segments of the industry. I have recently spoken a wee bit to Fishing Forward UK about the pressures that it feels there are and its distrust of some of the statistics that the Scottish Government is putting out.
How can we invest in great projects like those in Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ullapool and Shetland, which would all love to see expansion? What about ghost fishing and black fishing—illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing?
Karen Adam made a very good point about the processing sector. I hear that there might be new markets in the middle east, but we need to have that discussion in the chamber so that we can ensure that the Government and the Parliament are fully behind everybody.
I have been trying to get to the bottom of concerns that my constituents have raised with me. As I mentioned, there are concerns about statistics not being right, and I have been sent videos of unreported and unmonitored landings and transhipping at sea. There are concerns about boats not meeting the economic link conditions, which Beatrice Wishart brought up.
We need time to discuss those things. I cannot cover them all in four minutes—we must have more time. That is why I really hope that the cabinet secretary can, today, give us an assurance that the Government will give time to this important debate. If we come together and get behind the great value of our primary industries; if we work towards practical, reasoned rules and regulations; and if we rightly allow ourselves to make the most of our seas—and, for that matter, our land—we can build communities that are strong and resilient. I say to the cabinet secretary: please let the Government take the initiative, and take the lead, so that we can all show that fishing matters to all of us in Scotland.
Thank you, Mr Eagle. I encourage members not to bring their speeches in on time by cutting the surnames of other members. That aside, I commend you for coming in on time.
18:02
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.
18:06
I welcome the opportunity to speak about Scotland’s fisheries, particularly given that—as my colleague Beatrice Wishart pointed out—the annual end-of-year fisheries debate has disappeared from the calendar. I urge all parties to come together and reinstate that debate, which would give this crucial topic the public airing that it deserves.
I have met with fishers from Shetland to the west coast and other parts of Scotland’s coast. I have been on board their vessels and have seen with my own eyes the dangers that they face. I am also aware of how fragile the industry is and how it struggles to attract young people.
An annual debate not only allows us to cover those issues; it also allows Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s actions, which have been lacking in recent times. The Government seems to be content to contravene its own policy and legal obligations. For example, MSPs have been told that fisheries management is
“not a national or regional marine planning matter.”—[Written Answers, 19 December 2024; S6W-32232.]
However, the reality is that, under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the national marine plan, fisheries management is very much in scope.
The Government also has a legal duty to balance the needs of economic actors with those of the environment, communities and other marine users. That makes sense, because neglecting any one of these elements damages the others. However, the Government has been ignoring that legal requirement and has been prioritising the needs of the current extraction-based economy above all else. That approach is not only ruining unique, precious ecosystems along Scotland’s magnificent coastline; it also risks the future of the fishing industry, marine tourism and, by extension, coastal communities.
The failure to view those interests as a single whole has already had a negative impact. Overfishing and harmful fishing practices, as well as a lack of effective marine planning, have led to a drastic decline in fish stocks.
For example, Clyde cod, which was once a staple of west coast chippies, has practically disappeared. A lack of inshore management measures and poor monitoring practices means that the safeguards that are intended to protect the species are all but worthless. Clyde cod continues to be caught as bycatch by trawlers, which means that that unique type of cod has been unable to recover. That type of bad governance has also led to a steep decline in the number of fishers and fishing vessels. The Government’s statistics show that, in 2023, there was an 8 per cent year-on-year reduction in the number of fishers, most of whom—more than 200—were islanders. That is fuelling depopulation in those areas, pulling families apart and damaging our nation’s economy instead of bolstering it.
What can we do about that? Continuing with extraction at all costs is simply not an option if we want our seas and coastal populations to teem with life. What is needed is for the Government to abide by the law and ensure that it is working towards good environmental status whenever it makes marine decisions. We also need joined-up thinking from the Government and the marine directorate that is based on proper engagement with all those who rely on and enjoy our seas.
Inshore management needs urgent reform, marine protected areas need protection and low-impact fishers must be given the support that they need to flourish. Damaging fishing practices need to be halted in areas where they lead to a loss of fish stocks, and the roll-out of remote electronic monitoring measures must be sped up across all fleets.
Will the member give way?
I have heard that we are short on time and I want to conclude my points, but I thank the member for trying.
We need to address all those things and design a holistic system that works for Scotland’s seas, taking inspiration from existing schemes in neighbouring countries, such as England’s inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. Above all, we must remember that wanting the best for our marine environment underpins fishing, as our environment is essential for fishing’s future.
18:10
I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on lodging the motion and on the way in which she opened the debate. I also associate myself with her remarks—and yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to the family and friends of Dr Ian Napier, who I know was respected by members on all sides of the chamber and across the industry.
I thank all the organisations that submitted briefings for the debate. The number of briefings that we received shows the interest that there is outside the chamber in influencing what MSPs say inside it. That supports the point that has been made by almost every speaker, which I reiterate yet again, that we should be debating the subject in Government time, not as an issue that is added on at the end of the day because a back-bench MSP has brought it to the chamber.
The Government really needs to reflect on the fact that it has not held a debate on fishing for three years, which is also sadly indicative of that particular department of the Scottish Government. We should also be debating the rural affairs brief more in Parliament. Indeed, when there was outrage—correctly—from farmers across Scotland and the rest of the UK about the inheritance tax that was applied by the UK Labour Government, although the Scottish Government brought a debate on the subject to the chamber, it only did so a week after Tim Eagle had led a debate on the issue for the Scottish Conservatives. Again, Opposition parties had to use their debating time to get the Government to discuss the issue.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will take many things away from today’s debate and that we get a guarantee that there will be a full debate in Government time to allow the issue to be discussed in Parliament and across the parties, given that there are so many issues that we could focus on today.
I will focus on an issue that was one of three that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation highlighted in its briefing for the debate. Spatial squeeze is an issue that the industry and the sector are acutely aware of and are particularly worried about with regard to their future. We hear talk about a just transition to renewables, and we all want to get behind that, but the industry feels that it is an unjust transition for the fishing industry. Too many long-established fishing areas are being lost to provide opportunities to allocate fishing grounds to the renewables sector.
We have to find a better way for the renewables industry to work with the fishing sector. I believe that the fishing sector has done an awful lot to accommodate what is happening in the seas and in our waters, but it is not being met halfway by industry, and in some cases by Government, which has left it feeling squeezed out of the fishing areas that provide us with the vital produce that we need.
People speak about renewables and offshore energy being part of our energy security, but we have to treat food security as being as high a priority as energy security. That means supporting our farmers but also our fishermen and giving them areas to fish in to provide the quality produce for which our Scottish fishermen are rightly famed.
I have worked on spatial squeeze for some time. When I was a member of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry on the issue and we published a report. Sadly, however, our report was not as full as it could be, because the cabinet secretary refused to attend the session. I know that SNP members were disappointed that she failed to attend. That reinforces the point that the Government needs to get behind the fishing industry and get involved in and engage with the sector.
Finally, several members have mentioned the coastal testimonies that we heard at the reception that was hosted by Rhoda Grant, which are in the book that has been provided to members. Rhoda Grant quoted Bailey Dacker from Kishorn, and I will finish by quoting him, too. He is a young fisherman who is passionate about his industry, and he says:
“Who would I say owns the sea? All of the fishermen.
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.”
We need to hear from the future generation of fishers, who are so important. I hope that the Government takes that on board.
18:15
I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on her speech and on her support for the fishing industry. Indeed, she is following in the tradition of her predecessor, Tavish Scott, who championed the industry’s interests for many a year. Four minutes for a speech is very short, and I agree that there should be a proper debate. If there is not, that would be a bit of a slap in the face for our fishermen.
The magnitude of the challenges that face the sector now is serious, particularly in the case of some of the inshore fleets. I do not have time to address the issues relating to the demersal or pelagic fisheries, important though they are. Mr Ross made several points that I agree with, as did Rhoda Grant.
Some inshore fleets are in a parlous state. Elaine Whyte has told me that, as far as the Clyde goes, the decline is at a tipping point. Ten years ago, there were 66 trawlers, but now only 14 are active. One was lost this week, three are up for sale and many skippers face retirement.
We sometimes talk about fishing as if things have been the same for ever, but the challenges that the industry faces are absolutely enormous. That is why it is important that we have more time to debate them.
One of the key problems is that, contrary to some people’s impression, large chunks of the sea are designated areas that cannot be fished.
I will make two points. First, the method of assessing the economic impact of proposed MPAs and other designated areas is seen by fishermen as deeply flawed and as completely failing to take account of the magnitude of what has happened. The figures that I have quoted about the declining fleet tend to give credence to that.
Secondly, there should surely be a review of the efficacy of what we have done already before we go on to do even more. It is madness to create more designations unless we know how the existing ones are performing.
The best conservation measures are often those that are proposed by the likes of Duncan Macinnes of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, or his equivalents in Mallaig, on the Clyde, in Pittenweem and all around our coast.
I am talking just about inshore fishing because I do not have time to do anything else in this speech. Why do we not listen more to fishermen? As Rhoda Grant said, they feel that they are the forgotten tribe in our rural economy.
I suggest to the Scottish Government—although it is a bit late now because it has had four years to do this—that there should be a review of the effect of the MPAs and an independent analysis of how we assess their economic impact. The current system does not work. I hoped that that review would happen in my time, but we never quite got there.
I have here the strategy. I promise that I am not planning to tear it up, not least because I wrote the document but also because it would be out of order to do so. Scotland’s fisheries management strategy, which was produced in 2020, sets out 12 action points. I cannot go into them all now, but they are designed to promote fishing—not to regulate, challenge, ban or restrict it. Surely, five years on, it is time to have a review of the strategy.
In conclusion, in the 10 seconds that I have left, I note that Scotland’s fishermen are close to the hearts of most people in Scotland. They are part of our DNA and they deserve our respect and support. I hope that the cabinet secretary will answer some of the points that I have made.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. Whether or not you are ripping them up, props should not be waved around in the chamber.
The final speaker in the open debate is Finlay Carson.
18:19
I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing the debate to the chamber today. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not held a debate on fisheries for more than three years. The annual debate used to be an opportunity to praise our fishers and to recognise their efforts and the sacrifices that they make as they take to our hostile seas to put food on the table. Celebrating our fishing sector is a good enough reason for the Scottish Government to have a debate, but its failure to hold one also prevents the Parliament from effectively holding it to account.
The issues that our fishing industry faces have been overlooked for far too long, particularly the failure to protect our inshore fishing industry. That industry is not only an economic cornerstone for many coastal communities but a vital part of our cultural heritage and identity. Despite the threat that the industry faces, the response from the Scottish Government has been insufficient. More often than not, the policies that are meant to safeguard and enhance our seas lack the necessary scope to be effective.
The recent consultation on fisheries management measures in offshore marine protected areas included the late addition of the whole-site approach. That was not part of the initial collaborative discussions and has put a significant dent in the industry’s trust in the Government. The approach is disproportionate and offers minimal environmental benefits while imposing significant costs on the fishing sector. If the whole-site approach is extended to inshore MPAs and priority marine features, it will have profound negative implications for the fishing fleet, contradicting the principle of sustainable use that was promised.
The Government’s sudden prioritisation of habitat restoration, including marine environments, lacks a solid evidence base and clear objectives. Restoration efforts are being rushed without proper consideration of baseline conditions and potential unintended effects, and the feasibility of projects is put at risk. The approach also risks exacerbating the spatial squeeze on the fishing industry that Douglas Ross touched on, and it prioritises theoretical impacts over scientifically validated outcomes. We need a Government that is focused on adapting to changing environmental conditions rather than on attempts to restore undefined baselines.
The development of the national marine plan 2 is another area of concern. The existing plan, which was never properly implemented, is being replaced with a new plan that overemphasises the climate and nature crises, placing them above socioeconomic needs. That imbalance could lead to a social crisis, as the long-term importance of producing food from Scotland’s seas is not adequately recognised. We must ensure that the NMP2 supports sustainable fishing practices and does not impose blanket spatial management approaches that could harm the fishing industry.
The inshore fisheries management improvement project is a response to the lack of investment and robust data in managing inshore fisheries. The cabinet secretary is very aware of examples of failure in the current system. Last night, I met local fishing stakeholders whose livelihoods and futures are at risk, including members of the Galloway static gear fishermen’s association, for whom I helped to force a U-turn on a misguided ban on fishing for berried hen lobsters.
We have a cabinet secretary who has also failed to act on a potential multimillion-pound boost for the economy of Dumfries and Galloway from a boat-based cockle fishery. Independently verified stock assessments, impact assessments, RSPB Scotland approval and compliance and funding models have all been delivered on a plate to the marine directorate, but it has turned a blind eye to the opportunity because it is not a national priority. When it comes to the next election, I can assure the cabinet secretary that the good people of Galloway will not forget being told that they are not a priority.
I realise that my time is up, so I will conclude. The Government’s current approach undermines the fishing industry’s sustainability and its trust in the Government. The Government must prioritise collaboration, evidence-based decision making and the long-term viability of the fishing sector in its policies.
Skippinish, a band that is famous for its anti-highly protected marine area protest song “The Clearances Again”, captures the spirit of coastal life. It poignantly reminds us that
“The sea is our lifeblood, our heritage, our home.”
Skipinnish’s lyrics—
You need to conclude.
Skipinnish’s lyrics resonate deeply with our inshore fishermen and their current plight. They are witnessing their livelihoods being eroded. Let us honour that heritage by ensuring that the policies that we make reflect the importance of preserving our inshore waters—
Thank you, Mr Carson. I invite Mairi Gougeon to respond to the debate.
18:24
I will start by associating myself with the comments that were made by Beatrice Wishart about Dr Ian Napier. I extend my sympathies and condolences to his family and to all those who worked with him.
I thank Beatrice Wishart for her comments and for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I thank colleagues more widely for their contributions to the debate this evening.
As Beatrice Wishart outlined, Scotland’s fishing industry is vital to our economy but it is also ingrained in our national identity. Scotland’s rural and coastal communities are a hugely significant aspect of our economic, social and cultural fabric. One of the Government’s chief priorities is to drive economic growth, and fishing and our wider seafood sector are a critical part of our diverse marine economy.
The range of issues that have been covered in the debate speaks to the complexity and diversity of our marine sector. It is important to take stock and reflect on one of Scotland’s most important assets, which is our fishing industry, the people and communities who make a living from it, and its valuable contribution to the Scottish economy.
I want to pick up on some of the points that members made. Beatrice Wishart and Tim Eagle raised budget issues. When we were undertaking budget scrutiny, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee focused on the marine directorate, and I welcome the scrutiny that was undertaken on that. During those committee meetings, we covered at length some of the particular issues that we have with the marine estate. I outlined that a programme board is taking forward work to address the immediate issues as well as looking to the medium and longer term. We have also set out in our indicative portfolio allocations in the budget an increase to the science budget, which I know the committee was concerned about. I hope that that shows that we have listened and that we are trying to address the concerns that were raised, while recognising the importance of that part of the portfolio.
Another key point that members have raised today largely relates to the debate. I am more than happy to commit to having a debate on fisheries and scheduling Government time for that. I appreciate that we are always short of time when it comes to members’ business and debates, but I want to pick up on a couple of points in relation to that. We had an interim statement on the autumn negotiations and, as I have just outlined, I am more than happy to consider reinstating that debate.
As we have seen from the variety of issues that members have raised in their contributions this evening, so much is going on in our marine environment, much of which concerns our wider fishing industry. However, I want to highlight that a lot of work is being done in the marine directorate on all the issues that we face in our marine environment. It is important to reflect on and recognise some of the work that is being done and to see some examples of that.
The approach that our negotiating teams take to the annual fisheries negotiations is informed by the best available science. It takes into account scientific advice, other socioeconomic factors and the dynamics of fisheries. Our negotiators played an active role in the UK delegation throughout the negotiations last year, acting as a constructive partner, and they always seek to do the best for Scottish interests in those discussions. It is important to highlight the financial impact of those efforts, which have generated opportunities that were worth more than £600 million for Scotland in 2024.
On sustainable fishing, which was raised by Ariane Burgess, it is important to reflect on the figures in the Scottish sustainable fishing indicator, which summarises the sustainability status of commercial fish and shellfish stocks in Scottish waters. That shows that the status has increased through time from 37 per cent in 1993 to almost 70 per cent in 2022. Our fishers undertake such an important role more widely, including in relation to our food security, which was another point that was raised. It is in everyone’s best interests that we protect our marine environment.
I want to touch on a number of other key points that were raised today. Beatrice Wishart touched on issues related to economic link licensing. We are due to publish a report on that this spring, so I am more than happy to follow up on that.
Karen Adam touched on the importance of our fishing industry and the wider seafood trade on the back of that. We have only to look at our export statistics to see that the seafood trade was worth more than £1 billion in exports in 2023. However, in relation to that, there are issues with employment and the workforce that we have been trying to address at length with the UK Government. I hope that the new UK Government will listen to and work with us to address the concerns and find some solutions. I know that Karen Adam’s constituent Jimmy Buchan is really passionate about the issue and has put a lot of work into it.
Another key item, which I know the SFF has raised and is of significance to members across the chamber, is the competition that exists for marine space and the pressure on fishing activity from potential restrictions in that space. Effectively managing how we use our marine space will be critical as we transition to net zero by 2045. The Scottish Government is committed to maximising the opportunities that come with a blue economy approach and what that can deliver for not only our environment and marine sectors, but our rural and coastal communities.
As we develop the national marine plan 2, we are adopting an approach that considers our marine economy, our local communities and the environment. Ultimately, that will, I hope, put in place the right planning framework so that we can address the increasing competition that exists.
A few members mentioned young fishers and people who feel that they are not part of that conversation. We are making strong efforts to address that by trying to engage with young fishers, especially as we go through the national marine plan 2 process, because this is about their future.
Every day, Scotland’s fishing fleet puts itself at no little risk on the front line to ensure that we can all benefit from outstanding healthy produce that is important not only to our rural economy but to our national culture, as we have heard. I had no hesitation in signing the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s “Pride in the Seas” campaign pledge to protect and support Scotland’s vital fishing industry and coastal communities, because this Government values and appreciates all who make a living from and care about our seas. Yes, there are challenges, but I am determined to continue to work with our industry as we look to address those challenges.
Meeting closed at 18:32.Air ais
Decision Time