Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2025
I need to make progress.
The Scottish Greens’ amendment to the Scottish Government’s motion seeks to reflect another aspect of fairness that must be addressed—namely, the need for spatial management for fishing, which would relieve the severe pressure on all fishers as well as our marine environment. We need a system that allows us to identify areas in which we should or should not fish that fully adheres to the science and comes with strong local input.
We must also look at how we can better support low-impact fishing, which will die out if we continue to allow trawlers to operate pretty much anywhere they please or if bad actors continue to be able to factor paltry fines into their business plans.
Although I whole-heartedly agree with a lot of what the Scottish Government is saying today, one element of its motion needs clarity, reflection and pause—that is, the reference to the challenging advice on key stocks. We could choose to read the issue in two ways. On the one hand, we could argue that the advice is indeed challenging—cod and mackerel are on the precipice—not just because of overfishing but because of bycatch. The actual level of cod mortality has been estimated by the United Kingdom Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science as being 62 per cent higher than quota limits in recent years.
To allow stocks to regenerate, cod should not be fished unless safeguards are introduced. For example, there should be a higher eligibility bar for quotas to ensure that the stock can recover. This is a challenging situation for fishers who rely on cod, but it is a challenging situation that we find ourselves in because the science has not been enforced strongly enough in regulations.
The second way in which you could read the “challenging advice” line in the motion is more problematic. I think that I heard from the cabinet secretary that it is not intended this way, but those two words could be read as meaning that the advice is challenging because it is frustrating the aims of the fishing industry. I could choose to be cynical, given that the marine directorate has repeatedly shown itself to be more inclined to follow economic concerns than the science. Is this Government science led or not? Being science led is important for the sake of fish and the coastal communities that live off them. Yes, fishers are getting scientific advice that runs counter to their aims, but that advice is crucial if there are going to be any fish to catch in the future. Although I completely sympathise with those in the industry who find the science frustrating, we must look at the issues through a long-term lens and view it as a form of insurance for coastal communities of the future. I ask the cabinet secretary to prioritise the low-impact fleet during the allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund.
I will turn to the other amendments. I agree with Beatrice Wishart that the Scottish Government must provide guarantees that it will distribute the funding that it has received in a proportionate manner. It is good to see that Rhoda Grant also raised the point about space-based planning and investing in marine science, but I cannot support the Labour amendment where it points the finger at the Scottish Government. Reading between the lines, it appears to suggest that Scottish fishers and coastal communities are being punished because the Scottish Government did not negotiate in the way the UK Government wanted it to. That is not constructive and inclusive leadership.
The amendment in the name of Tim Eagle reflects the unease that I am hearing from constituents about the Moray Firth FLOW-Park, and I sympathise with his amendment. However, I feel that the plans are at such an early stage that we cannot yet say what the impact—