Seòmar agus comataidhean

If members are content that they have asked everything that they would like to, and unless the panel members have anything to add, I thank our witnesses very much for their time.

That concludes the session with our first panel. We will suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

You stated in the same response that the UK

“report will detail significant progress towards addressing concerns previously raised by the Compliance Committee.”—[Written Answers, 17 October 2024; S6W-30377]

Can you explain what that “significant progress” will include and what changes will be made?

I am happy with that progress, but I am also happy if members want to come in and ask for more detail.

We will move on to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

We move to questions from Paul O’Kane.

Mark Roberts and Professor Reid, would you like to come in on that point? It looks as if you feel that the point has been covered.

We will move on to questions from Maggie Chapman.

Do members have any other questions?

Are members content that they have been able to ask all their questions?

Members indicated agreement.

It is time for independence. Thank you very much.

As the MSP for Banffshire and Buchan Coast, the impact that Brexit has had on my rural constituency is clear to me.

I want to be clear that my speech has been crafted with the words and experiences of people in my constituency who have felt the effect on the ground in the here and now. That may be because of decisions that have been made in the past, but that is how time works. The impact is hurting people now, and it is right and proper that we discuss and talk about it—so that we know not only who we can trust, but what we can do about it, going forward.

For my constituents, the outcome of Brexit feels more painful and personal because Brexit was touted as the answer to all the fishing sector’s challenges. It is now more than eight years since our fishers were promised “a sea of opportunity”. They were assured that we would take back control of UK waters, enjoy increased quotas, see an economic revival in our coastal communities, benefit from reduced bureaucracy and gain enhanced export opportunities with global market access. It has been eight years, and there have been countless promises, yet Brexit has delivered none of them. If anything, our fishing industry continues to catch and process our food and sustain coastal communities despite Brexit, not because of it. It is the hard-working people in the industry who have kept things going and delivered results by themselves.

I have spoken to my constituents and to the fishing industry. Their words are in my speech and members will hear what they have to say. Brexit has absolutely been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to the promises that your party served them and the subsequent outcomes.

It was vote leave architect Michael Gove—was it not?—who said:

“The day after we leave, we will be able to decide who can access our waters .. We can rebuild our fishing communities and take back control of this important natural resource.”

His double-act partner, Boris Johnson, proudly declaimed that

“We will restore Britain’s fish, and our fishermen will see an economic boom like they have not seen in decades.”

I remember the vote leave leaflets proudly exclaiming that Brexit would cut EU red tape and simplify regulations for our fishers, thereby allowing them to operate with more freedom and fewer burdensome restrictions.

However, when we strip back the bravado, what is the reality? “Take back control”, they said. Well—the trade and co-operation agreement allows EU vessels to retain significant access to UK waters under a phased arrangement. The transitional period, which will last until at least 2026, limits the UK’s control, as EU fleets continue to fish in British waters under negotiated quotas. The promise of exclusive control has not been realised in the way that fishers anticipated.

Increased quotas were promised, but many fishers feel that the adjustments have been marginal and do not compensate for the additional costs and challenges that they face due to Brexit-related trade barriers. Some industry representatives have criticised the minor quota gains as symbolic, rather than transformative.

They promised more jobs in our coastal communities, yet those communities, especially in north-east Scotland, have experienced economic challenges instead of a revival. Brexit-induced trade barriers have led to reduced profitability, especially for fish exporters, who now face increased costs and delays in getting to EU markets. Many small-scale fishing businesses are struggling to stay afloat due to rising export costs, and some communities report that there are fewer job opportunities.

“No more red tape”, they said. Instead, Brexit has introduced new administrative requirements, especially for those who export to the EU. Fishers must now complete extensive paperwork, including export health certificates, customs declarations and additional checks that delay shipments. For perishable seafood products such as shellfish, those delays have a direct impact on product quality and market competitiveness. Many fishers and processors report that regulatory burdens have increased rather than decreased, which is contrary to the promises of the Brexit campaign.

“Brexit is increasingly looking like a betrayal of the UK fishing industry”.

Those are not my words, but the words of the president of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Elspeth Macdonald.

Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland’s rural economy, and especially for our fisheries. Where Scottish fishers once dominated EU markets, our fishers now find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, compared with EU-based competitors.

Many seafood businesses in Scotland have reported a decline in export volumes since Brexit. UK fish, crustacean and mollusc exports to the EU declined by nearly 45 per cent in net mass from December 2020 to early 2023.

One of the pressing challenges that are facing the processing sector today is the severe labour shortage, which has—as we have heard from my colleagues—been worsened by limited access to EU nationals who would traditionally fill those roles. Many businesses in my constituency rely heavily on migrant workers—some up to almost 80 per cent, I have been told—and they are gravely concerned about their ability to stay operational. The proposed pay thresholds for visas are quite simply unrealistic for many of those roles. Since Brexit, the absence of EU workers has made it difficult for processing plants to run at full capacity, which is cutting productivity and driving up operating costs.

Fisherman James Stephen, who is based in Peterhead, has been at sea for 40 years. Earlier this year, he said:

“We’re such a small part of GDP, but yet we were one of the major arguments in the Brexit story. But when it all came to fruition, it was just a pack of lies we were told. We were led up the garden path.

We’ve ended up with the crumbs for extra quota, which has been one of the major things. Even the on-shore industry really gets hit by the paperwork. Now we have to export the fish to Europe. So I think for all concerned, to me, it has been a total shambles.”

Those are not my words; they are his.

I have little more to add, Presiding Officer.