Hansard

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has brought a fishing debate to the chamber. This follows my member’s business debate in February, which was the first fishing debate in Holyrood for some time. There are stakeholders in the public gallery who are listening keenly to the debate; they are very welcome. Their presence underlines the importance and the necessity of regular fisheries debates in the Parliament.

Fishermen have a direct interest in sustainable management of the seas, and the Scottish Government should be doing all that it can to support them and the wider onshore industry. Our fishing fleets face difficult circumstances, and it is vital that the catching and processing sectors work together to ensure that there is a future. Let us not forget what fishermen are doing in often dangerous weather: it is about providing healthy high-protein food.

There are suggestions of a 77 per cent reduction to mackerel catches and a call for a zero total allowable catch for cod, which would see the end of many white-fish vessels. It has also been suggested that the Scottish Government’s economic link licence condition, which requires the pelagic fleet to land 55 per cent of its herring and mackerel quota into Scotland, be increased. That would be devastating for the Scottish pelagic fleet, which is made up of 21 family-owned vessels. Meanwhile, the fleet misses out on potentially better value from landings elsewhere, and, without some of our vessels, the wider supply chain infrastructure and economy will all be impacted.

In my constituency of Shetland, any loss of pelagic vessels would affect the whole economic system and the infrastructure around it. The fish market, the marine engineering companies, the hauliers, the ferriers, and even the grocery stores and butchers that provide food for cruise meals would feel the negative impact of a fleet reduction, and there would be consequences for the white-fish fleet and the 200 or so under-10m vessels.

The Liberal Democrat amendment calls for the proportionate allocation of funding. As the Scottish Government motion sets out, the fishing and coastal growth fund that will come to Scotland is just about 8 per cent of the £360 million fund. Recently, at First Minister’s questions, I highlighted the fact that 9 per cent of the value of fish landed in the UK comes through Shetland ports. In 2024, Shetland was responsible for 88 per cent of Scottish total mussel production, and shellfish aquaculture is also earmarked for support from the fund.

Let us remember why the fund has become available. It follows the botched Conservative Brexit deal and Labour’s disastrous 12-year deal, which the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said was

“an absolutely disastrous outcome for the Scottish fishing fleet.”

The UK Government should look again at how it allocates money through the fishing and coastal growth fund. Some of our island and coastal communities are economically fragile, and both Governments should be supporting the whole economic ecosystem, recognising the national contribution of our fishing and seafood sector.

My MP colleague Alistair Carmichael, as chair of the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, was informed last week in a meeting of that committee that there were requests for the fishing and coastal growth fund to be devolved. That has led to the Barnett formula being put into practice, hence the disparity in the percentages coming to Scotland, despite our importance in the overall UK fishing sector. Shetland and Scotland’s fishing fleets deserve better backing from the devolved Government, but I also urge the UK Government to look again at a fairer funding package.

This afternoon, Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the Conservative amendment opposing the Moray Firth FLOW-Park due to local concerns and the possible impact on local fishing, and we urge meaningful discussions with local stakeholders about the project.

We will not support the Labour amendment, which rewrites the motion, although we agree with the position that the fishing and coastal growth fund should not have been devolved without first agreeing a mechanism outside of the Barnett formula. We are also calling for a policy that better reflects the size and value of the Scottish industry. The UK Government should have sought a better answer to the situation that we now find ourselves in.

Island and coastal communities will be all too well aware that the Scottish Government in this parliamentary session has not allowed for enough conversation in this place to speak about all that impacts the fishing sector. Indeed, this afternoon’s debating time has been cut to accommodate other business. The significance of fishing to Scotland’s economy and to coastal communities will be well understood by voters in those areas. A cynic might suggest that the Scottish Government has just remembered that, now that an election is looming.

I move amendment S6M-19739.4, to insert at end:

“, and calls on the Scottish Government to guarantee that its own distribution of the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, as well as any other similar funding, is allocated proportionately so that the contribution made by Shetland and other island and coastal communities to the fishing industry and Scotland’s wider economy is properly recognised.”