Meeting of the Parliament 03 May 2023
It appears that, if we wait ages for a debate on HPMAs, two will come along in quick succession.
I thank again all those who took part in last night’s debate, which was led by my colleague Beatrice Wishart. I think that it sent the most unambiguous message about the strength of cross-party opposition to the Government’s proposed approach on HPMAs. Of course, that is merely a reflection of the anger—and, in some cases, fury—that is felt in island and coastal communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Therefore, it is right that we return to the subject again today, and I thank Rachael Hamilton for allowing us to do so.
Sadly, the Government’s amendment is a rather predictable and vintage example of whatabootery. Brexit continues to cause great damage, and the United Kingdom Tory Government’s policies on skilled worker visas are indefensible. However, as Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has made clear,
“whatever issues the industry has with Brexit and labour issues, these pale into insignificance if fishermen are banned from fishing.”
The topic of today’s debate is the same as last night, but the cast list looks a little different. Much like the HPMA designation, members operating arguments that are felt to be potentially damaging to the Bute house agreement are to be arbitrarily excluded. As such, Fergus Ewing, Kate Forbes and Alasdair Allan find themselves tied up in port by the SNP whips office. Yet, appropriately, there is no evidence that this forced tie-up regime will provide any protection for the SNP-Green Government’s policy on HPMAs, particularly when assurances that were previously offered up by the First Minister and the cabinet secretary are already being redefined and diluted.
Humza Yousaf could not have been clearer in stating that he would not
“impose these policies on communities that don’t want them.”
That promise was echoed by the cabinet secretary. Now, we are told that there needs to be “vehement” opposition, whatever that means.
The lack of any prior discussion or consultation with stakeholders in the fishing, aquaculture and other key sectors that are most directly affected is inexcusable. It has seen Government policy, developed—