Official Report 875KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19427, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on fairer funding allocation for Scotland’s fishing and coastal communities. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I encourage members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers the UK Government’s allocation of the £360 million UK-EU Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, which is based on population rather than fishing industry size, to be wholly unfair and deeply damaging to the Scottish fishing industry; understands that Scottish vessels consistently land more than half of the UK’s total catch, 63% of total catch value, and over 60% of seafood exports; believes that prior to Brexit, allocations of funds under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund were 36% for England, 46% for Scotland, 10% for Northern Ireland and 8% for Wales, in comparison to the allocation of under 8% for Scotland via Barnett consequentials used as the mechanism for allocating the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund; recognises what it sees as the vital importance of the fishing industry both economically and culturally to Scotland’s coastal communities, including in the Western Isles, and notes calls on the UK Government to reconsider its position on the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund allocation to better reflect the significant economic contribution of Scotland’s fishers and coastal communities.
14:12
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 note that Dr Allan referenced a lack of vocalised response to the apportionment of the support funds that he has identified. I want to make it absolutely clear that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Andrew Bowie, has condemned the apportionment. He has made it absolutely clear that, in his words, it is “disgraceful” and that
“This Labour Government has ... no regard for Scotland’s totemic fishing industry”.
I do not think that we could be clearer about our position as Scottish Conservatives than in the words of Andrew Bowie.
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.
We move to the open debate. I call Tim Eagle.
Hear, hear.
14:19
I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr.
This is the season of good will, so I want to end on a happy note, although, sadly, I have one negative point that I will bring up later on.
I thank Alasdair Allan for securing this important debate. The issue of Scotland’s share of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been discussed in the chamber before. It is ridiculous that Scotland has not received its fair share of that money. As has been said, the Scottish Government and the Conservatives have made representations about that.
I think that I could sum up Alasdair Allan’s speech simply by saying that the Scottish fishing fleet was better off under the Tories, because the Tory Government would never have done this. It is a real shame that Scottish Labour has not been able to secure the changes that are required, because Scottish fishermen do amazing and often dangerous work in our waters, day in and day out, to bring fresh fish to our communities. I thank them for that, and I wish them all a very merry Christmas.
I agree with Alasdair Allan’s points, and I think that we should continue the campaign to make sure that we get a fair part of that funding.
However, although Alasdair Allan has eloquently championed the Scottish fishing industry, I must bring up the fact that at 09:09 this morning, he lodged a Government-initiated question, the answer to which—which was issued about an hour and a half later—said that the Government was going to change the economic link requirement for landings figure from 55 per cent to 70 per cent. That has been a controversial policy, and it has upset several members of the small pelagic fleet in particular. To announce the proposed change on 18 December, a few days before it comes into place on 1 January, is, frankly, outrageous. It is a real shame—
Does the member accept that there are unprecedented pressures on the processing sector right now and that the decision has been taken in order to protect the whole of the Scottish industry, not just some boats?
I accept that the processors have made some comments on the issue, but I have had other stakeholders on the phone today, who have told me, “I can’t believe they’ve done this so close to 1 January.” It is a very last-minute decision.
I note that the written answer says that there was “intensive ... consultation”, but I have not seen any of that. I have no idea what that consultation was—nor, it would appear, does most of the fishing sector.
This is the season of good will, so I do not want to go on and on about it, but we will come back to the issue. The problem is that, because Parliament shuts today, I will not be able to obtain parliamentary scrutiny of the matter for the next two weeks. By the time I next have the ability to obtain parliamentary scrutiny, it will be past the date on which the measure comes in.
It is one thing to hold a debate the subject of which we can totally agree on—I agree with Alasdair Allan on the fishing and coastal growth fund—but it is completely outrageous that, at the same time, such a decision has been announced on the last sitting day before the recess. It is a problematic and controversial policy. There are operators of smaller fishing boats in the pelagic fleet who will be very worried about the proposed change, which represents a significant increase. I have already asked some parliamentary questions on the issue, which I did not want to have to do this side of Christmas, and I will be asking about it just after Christmas as well.
14:23
I congratulate my colleague Alasdair Allan on securing this debate and standing up for his constituents.
Six months ago, Scotland’s fishing industry found itself being sold out, yet again, by a UK Government, this time under Labour. To soften the blow of conceding fishing access to European trawlers for a further 12 years under its EU reset deal, Labour announced a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund to
“modernise Britain’s fishing fleet, deliver new training and skills to back the next generation of fishers and promote the seafood sector to export our high-quality produce across the world.”
Labour committed to working with the industry
“to target investment where it matters most.”
A casual observer might have thought that a fishing fund would have been targeted where the most significant fishing takes place and at the local communities that are involved in that activity. That was certainly the case under the previous European maritime and fisheries fund, under which Scotland received approximately 46 per cent of the UK’s total funding.
However, to the horror of Scotland’s coastal communities and the acquiescence of Labour parliamentarians, only one of whom is here in the chamber today, minister of state Angela Eagle MP confirmed that Scotland would receive a paltry allocation of less than 8 per cent, despite the fact that Scottish vessels account for 70 per cent of total UK landings, 63 per cent of the total value of fish landed and 40 per cent of the fishermen. Shetland alone lands more fish than England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
The reaction from fishermen has been fierce. Sheila Keith, executive officer of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, said:
“This allocation is not just inadequate—it’s a betrayal of Scotland’s fishing communities ... we’ve been handed a dismal fraction of the support we need to modernise and sustain our industry.”
Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said:
“This has gone from being a consolation prize to now being a booby prize. It’s hard to feel that this”
UK
“government cares one jot about the Scottish fishing industry. Sold out by the Prime Minister through the EU re-set, told that we would have this fund to help support the industry for the future, only now to find that Scotland’s share is close to derisory.”
Faced with such a staggering injustice and betrayal of his constituents perpetrated by his own Government, Western Isles Labour MP Torcuil Crichton said:
“There is a question of fairness in the geographical distribution of the fund, and the Minister should consider that; I hope the funding will be reviewed in due course”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 October 2025; Vol 773, c 1112.]
Stirring stuff indeed there from Mr Crichton. One wonders what Torcuil Crichton the journalist would have made of such a meek response had it come from his predecessor, or any Scottish National Party or, indeed, Tory MP.
The approach of the Labour Government, sadly echoed by members on the Labour front bench in this Parliament, has been to deflect, buck pass and blame those who had the temerity to call for funding to be devolved. Time and again, Ms Eagle said the Barnett formula had to be applied, and if we did not like it, we should find the money from devolved budgets.
This is desperate stuff. There is no legal or constitutional requirement that sector-specific funding be allocated according to Barnett. Whether it was the previous UK Government short-changing the Scottish Government of expected Barnett consequentials when it rolled out the levelling up fund to communities around the UK, or Theresa May’s deal with the Democratic Unionist Party for £1 billion to Northern Ireland, there is a whole catalogue of examples to the contrary. This is a political decision by Labour that sees it value a fisherman in England more than 14 times more than a colleague in Peterhead, Lerwick, Stornoway or Ayrshire.
Labour is not the first UK Government to demonstrate that it does not understand, value or care about the Scottish fishing industry; sadly, I doubt that it will be the last. The Labour Government should, as a matter of urgency, reform the allocations to deliver a fair and equitable outcome for Scotland’s fishermen.
This episode demonstrates yet again that, for Westminster, fishing will always be an afterthought at best. The only way that we can secure the long-term future of this vital Scottish industry is through the full powers of an independent country.
I advise Mr Gibson and other members that we have members online who are participating in the debate. I call one of them now—Karen Adam.
14:27
I am grateful to Alasdair Allan and congratulate him on bringing the debate to the chamber. The unfairness that his motion describes is felt from the Western Isles to the north-east of Scotland.
In Banffshire and Buchan Coast, fishing is not just an abstract sector; it is boats leaving before first light, processors keeping lines moving and families whose weekly wage depends on what lands at the quayside. That is why the UK Government’s approach to the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund is so hard to justify.
Scotland is being allocated, as has been said, around £28 million—under 8 per cent—because the distribution is based on population and not on the scale of our fishing industry. Barnett, as has been said, counts people; it does not count ports, processors or the real costs of keeping coastal economies working.
Scotland’s contribution is not in dispute. Scottish vessels consistently land more than half of the UK’s total catch, 63 per cent of total catch value and more than 60 per cent of seafood exports. If the aim of this fund is fishing and coastal growth, those figures should be the starting point.
Since the motion was lodged, the pressure on the pelagic supply chain has become even clearer. Quota reductions coming for mackerel and herring next year will bite, especially when processing factories have fixed costs, contracts and a workforce that cannot simply be switched off and on.
That is why I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce an emergency measure for 2026 by amending the economic link licence condition. From 1 January 2026, the requirement will be species specific—70 per cent of mackerel landings and 70 per cent of herring landings into Scotland in 2026, up from the current combined requirement of 55 per cent—with the measures kept under review.
Processors tell us plainly that reduced volume next year threatens jobs and undermines confidence to invest. If we lose onshore capacity—skills, plant, contracts—it does not spring back overnight, so when the Scottish Government uses a devolved lever to help to keep more of that reduced volume landing into Scotland, so that the cash flow stays in our coastal communities and wages are protected, I struggle to see who can argue against that principle. It is not forever and is not without review; it is a stabiliser—an emergency condition—for 2026.
We also have to be honest about the limits of what Holyrood can do. Two of the biggest pressure points that processors raise with me are trade friction and immigration rules, which are not devolved. Those decisions are taken elsewhere, but the strain lands on our harbours and in our coastal communities.
Yes, the debate is about fairness, but it is also about respect. If Scotland’s fishing industry is held up as a national asset when it suits, it cannot be treated as if it is a rounding error when money is allocated.
Our coastal and island communities are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for a mechanism that reflects contribution, recognises need, invests where the potential is, and underlines the wider point at the heart of the motion that decisions that are taken closest to the industry tend to fit the industry better. The Scottish Government is engaging intensively with stakeholders and using its powers to protect jobs and investment. Meanwhile, the UK Government is telling Scotland to accept a population-based share of a fund that was designed for fishing and coastal communities.
If Westminster wants to prove that it respects Scotland’s fishers, it should start with the simple step of rethinking the allocation of the fund so that it reflects contribution and need. Coastal growth cannot be delivered by treating Scotland as an afterthought.
Scotland’s fishing and coastal communities deserve fairness in funding and practical support that keeps value and jobs where the fish is landed. I support the motion, and I urge the UK Government to do the right thing at last and support an uplift in the coastal communities growth fund.
14:31
The SNP continues to complain about the fishing and coastal growth fund allocation, but it was devolved at the SNP’s request. It knew that devolved funding comes through the Barnett formula, yet getting its hands on the additional money for it to spend was more important than letting the Scottish fishing industry bid into a total UK pot. The SNP should have negotiated a greater share before asking for the money to be devolved.
That is not a convoluted argument. It is a statement of fact, and failing to do that negotiation is another indication of the Government’s incompetence. Indeed, we should all be relieved that this Government was not asked by the Scottish people to negotiate a severance agreement with the UK, because that would have been an even greater disaster, given its incompetence.
I am not going to rehash the points that I made a few days ago in a similar debate, but I do hope that the Scottish Government has reflected and that it will make sure that this does not happen again. I hope that it is trying to get agreement for the Scottish industry to be able to bid into the UK fund.
The Scottish Government allocates marine fund grants to organisations in the rest of the UK, such as £57,703 to a company in Gloucester. That is a recognition that research and development will assist the whole of the UK, not just one part.
As well as arguing that the Scottish Government should negotiate a greater share of the UK fund for the Scottish industry, I also ask what it is planning to do with the share that it has. Our coastal communities are crying out for funding, and we desperately need forward planning. Many fishing boats are concerned about their future, given cuts in quotas. Will the money be used to invest in technologies that will allow more selective fishing? Will it be used to improve fishery science?
Last year, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee visited the marine laboratories in Aberdeen as part of our budget scrutiny. Staff were working in desperate conditions and carrying out a high standard of work despite that, but it was clear that Government cuts in marine science were impacting on what they could do. They are not independent of Government, which hampers their ability to get contracts elsewhere. We are dependent on the International Council for Exploration of the Seas for data, and we have to accept that data if we do not have robust data of our own to counteract it. With a hollowed-out marine science centre in Aberdeen, that is simply not possible.
We also need investment in processing. Our ambition is to increase the Scottish share of fishing in our waters, but we cannot do that without the ability to process the fish that we catch. We need a strategic plan for fishing to allow us to grow the industry, and that should be happening now. Instead, we see the Scottish Government trying to divert attention by blaming others for its failings.
14:34
I support Dr Allan’s motion. I want to highlight the impact that the UK Government’s choice of allocation for the UK EU coastal growth fund has had on our smaller inshore fishing communities in the south-west of Scotland. My colleagues Alasdair Allan and Kenneth Gibson outlined really well the Barnett formula percentages and how, with the allocation of the £360 million, a huge amount is going to English fishermen while the Scottish fishermen are landing most of the quota. In the south-west of Scotland alone, there are about 400 jobs directly involved in landings and fishing, to say nothing of the jobs in the supply chains behind that and in the local food and drink sector.
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.
Absolutely. The twisting of the information is just a distraction from what is happening: the money is going predominantly to English fishermen when most of the quota is landed in Scotland.
A total of 9,000 tonnes is landed annually at South Scotland ports. That might be a small amount in comparison with some of the big ports, and I absolutely agree with Karen Adam when she describes how the allocation is going to impact the north-east. However, it is still an issue in South Scotland, as fishing in the south-west contributes a massive amount to the local economy and to the few jobs that we have.
We need to impress on the UK Government that the policy must be changed. It is a policy choice and it harms all our communities across Scotland, including those in Dumfries and Galloway.
I call Jim Fairlie to respond to the debate.
14:37
I thank Alasdair Allan very much for lodging the motion for debate, and I thank members for giving their views on this important issue. I am heartened by the fact that there has been broad recognition that the UK Government’s insulting allocation to Scotland from the fishing and coastal growth fund is unacceptable. It is a decision that cannot stand, and it must be revisited.
Mr Allan clearly laid out the details, so I will not reiterate them, but it is clear that our fisher folk are the bedrock of our coastal communities. I remember when, as a shepherd, I would put stuff up on social media and folk would say, “Oh, it must be a really hard life there in the snow.” I always referred to the fact that it is not nearly as hard as it is for the fisher folk, because what they do for our coastal communities to keep the jobs and keep the economy going there is absolutely fantastic.
We have heard about the position of Welsh Labour. I commend Martin Whitfield for sitting in the chamber and listening to the debate, but that is going to be absolutely no comfort to the Scottish coastal communities, as they have seen themselves absolutely hammered by the UK Labour Government.
I think, however, that the minister ought to address the issues that Rhoda Grant raised. Can he confirm that, when the Scottish Government asked for the funding to be devolved, it was made clear that that was not going to be on the basis of the Barnettisation of the fund? That is basically the position that Rhoda Grant took in her speech, and it is on the minister to clarify whether the Scottish Government did actually ask for that.
I can give you the time back, minister.
Patience, Mr Kerr.
Tim Eagle said that we were “better off under the Tories”. Well, I can hardly say that that was the case, given the fact that the Tory Government did not have a devolved scheme. I remember clearly when my friend and colleague Richard Lochhead, when he was the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment, which included fisheries at the time, was over in the EU while the discussions about quotas were taking place. The UK Government minister could not make it on time, but Richard Lochhead was there in the room. We have heard about the size of the Scottish fishing fleet and what it brings to the UK, yet the Tory UK Government decided that the best thing to do was to bring an unelected lord over from London to sit in the room and negotiate rather than allow the man who actually knew the details of what Scottish fishing needed to do so. I am sorry, but we are not going to hear any nonsense from the Tories about things being better under them.
Rhoda Grant’s ridiculous attempt to dupe the fisher folk by trying to defend the indefensible is truly heroic but, ultimately, it will be futile, because folk will see it as just another Labour disaster as Labour treats Scotland as nothing more than an afterthought. I tried to talk to Dame Angela Eagle about the matter.
Will the minster give way?
I will take the member’s point in a second.
I tried to talk to Dame Angela Eagle about this very point in an interministerial group meeting, but it was utterly dismissed and passed over: “Move on, Mr Fairlie. There’s nothing to see here.”
I am grateful to the minister for taking this intervention and for his kind compliments on my attending the debate—which is interesting in itself. Is what Rhoda Grant said incorrect? Did you not ask for the funding allocation to be devolved, with the Barnett formula as the calculator?
Always speak through the chair.
I say to Mr Whitfield what I said to Mr Kerr: patience.
The decision is insulting to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities, and it demonstrates an incredible lack of care by an out-of-touch UK Government. Fighting for a fairer funding allocation for Scotland is absolutely critical. The attempt to blame devolved Governments for the unfair allocation, claiming that asking for delivery of the fund to be devolved has somehow triggered the application of the Barnett formula, is insulting to the intelligence of fisher folk. It fundamentally misunderstands how fishing funding has been treated by precedent, and I am glad that that has been recognised in the chamber by Alasdair Allan.
When we were in the EU, Scotland received 46 per cent of the UK fisheries funding and delivery of the funding was devolved, so it is inaccurate to say that, if something is devolved, the Barnett formula must be applied. There has been a purely political decision by the UK Government, which clearly does not understand—or, indeed, care about—our iconic fishing industry.
Will the minister give way again?
Not at this time.
On our engagement with the UK Government ahead of its announcement about the fund, we were clear that we expected the funding approach to continue to be based on the size of our industry and that Scotland would receive the full 46 per cent of the fund. Instead, UK ministers decided, without any discussion or consultation in their methodology, to use a population-based calculation that short-changes fisher folk in Scotland. The UK Government claims to care about devolution, but it completely ignored Scotland in its decision—it did not even give us the opportunity for meaningful discussion—and it is our fishing and coastal communities that will suffer.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
Make no mistake: the decision was made in London, and it treats Scotland as an afterthought.
Since the UK Government made its announcement, team Scotland, fishing stakeholders and Scottish ministers have been asking UK ministers to get round the table for a meaningful discussion on a different way forward for the fund that treats our fishing industry with the respect that it deserves. I am sincerely disappointed that, to date, UK ministers have stopped short of committing to that. Instead, they have written to us, explaining their flawed funding methodology. In their letter, UK ministers said that the reason for applying the Barnett formula to the fishing and coastal growth fund is a change in His Majesty’s Treasury’s statement of funding policy, which removed the ring-fenced funding from marine funding and baselined the funding allocation from 2024-25. The UK Government said that the Barnett formula would be applied to future marine funding, claiming that that better respects the devolution settlement. That is nonsense. It is entirely disingenuous, and the UK Government is fully aware that we did not support the change. In fact, it was implemented without any meaningful engagement or consultation with us at all.
We have always been clear that applying a population-based model to fisheries funding fails to recognise Scotland’s greater share of the UK seas and significantly penalises our fishing industry. It also fails to recognise the industry’s significant contribution, through taxation, to the UK Government.
Parliamentarians learned today of the emergency measures that the cabinet secretary has announced. Can the minister tell me when that decision was signed off?
I am sorry, but I could not hear that. Could the member say that again?
We learned today, through a Government-initiated question, about the decision to take emergency measures. Can the minister tell the Parliament when the cabinet secretary signed off that decision?
I do not have that information to hand. What I can say, to return to the point that I was making, is that there is sufficient flexibility within the statement of funding policy for the United Kingdom Government to take a different approach to the fund—one that respects the size and importance of Scotland’s industry and that reflects precedent. That is entirely within the UK minister’s gift. Those are not immovable rules. The fact that the UK Government is choosing not to do so speaks volumes.
The disproportionate allocation of funding comes at a time when the Scottish fishing industry is dealing with multiple pressures, from the agreement to extend European Union access to Scottish waters to the inevitable impacts that are being placed on cod and mackerel quotas.
I am running out of time, so I will finish by saying that the UK ministers have the power to change their approach to the fund if they so choose. I urge Labour members to put the needs of the Scottish industry first. They have a choice today: they can stand up to Keir Starmer and join us in standing up for Scotland. It is an opportunity for members across the chamber to speak together with one voice as team Scotland and to demand a better deal for our fishing and coastal communities. The decision cannot stand, and it must be revisited.
Thank you, minister. I congratulate members on making it through to the 2025 finishing line. I wish you, those in the public gallery and all staff in the Parliament a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Meeting closed at 14:46.Air ais
Decision Time