Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, absolutely. I have the support of the Fishmongers’ Company, which will provide secretariat support via a company called Pagoda Public Relations, which is based in Edinburgh. The Fishmongers’ Company provides such support for the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries at Westminster as well.

I am a member of a few CPGs, but the nature of this one is different. As a new parliamentarian who has been bedding in over the past two and a half years, I have found that there are gaps where I need to have conversations. There needs to be a forum where certain industries can come together and where we can talk across parties in a more politically neutral environment. We need places where we can really get to the crux of important issues, bash them out and get some action points. I think that the proposed CPG will enhance my work and not add to the workload. It will support my on-going work and that of other MSPs who have come forward to say that they want to join.

That is an important point. Individual fishers have spoken to me about the agendas of some of the potential members of the CPG and how they would affect the group’s work. As convener, I would have to be attuned to that and ensure that we kept true to what the cross-party group is meant to be about, which is supporting coastal communities and fisheries and ensuring that their voices are heard, above all. I always go on about lived experience, but I will definitely highlight that and give it the most voice on the CPG.

Yes. Thank you, convener, and good morning. As part of my opening statement, I want to get across the importance of our fisheries to our country and the economy as a whole. Our fisheries and wider blue economy are an essential part of Scotland’s economy and culture. The seas and shores are a part of the rich tapestry of Scotland’s history. As a representative of a coastal constituency, I know at first hand the important contribution that fisheries and coastal communities make to Scotland.

As much as I love to boast about Banffshire and Buchan Coast, I have some stats for you—in case anybody is a bit of a statistician—that show that 48 per cent of the Scottish Parliament’s constituencies are coastal. If we include estuaries, the figure is 60 per cent. All but one of the Scottish Parliament’s electoral regions touch the coast. That means that 93 MSPs represent coastal communities, including estuaries, which is 72 per cent of our Parliament. We know from recent debates, both in and outwith the Scottish Parliament, that policies that affect fisheries and coastal communities are matters of great importance and have been highly politically sensitive.

Scotland boasts the United Kingdom’s largest fishing port and Europe’s largest white fishing port. Our fisheries and wider blue economy are rapidly evolving, and it is abundantly clear that our food and drink sector, particularly our seafood sector, plays a leading role in supporting Scotland to thrive at home and abroad. At the local level, the opportunities that fishing provides are invaluable, from catching to processing and from packing to marketing. Our blue economy offers huge opportunities in abundance. The Scottish fish sector is also essential to brand Scotland and it is a key component of Scotland’s soft power on the world stage.

There are a number of issues that fisheries and coastal communities face. We have climate change, the spatial squeeze with offshore and inshore renewable energy, and restrictive policies on fishing. Those are just some of the issues that we hope to look at across party lines. I hope that the committee will approve the establishment of this vital cross-party group.

I have looked, but I have not found a forum for the issues. Over the past two and a half years, they have obviously come up in my constituency work and my work on the rural committee. We had a round-table discussion with fishers from the pelagic sector and people from the processing and inshore fisheries sectors. That was beneficial, but it was only one occasion.

You will appreciate how packed our workloads can be, but I feel that we need additional space for more people to come forward. The fisheries sector keeps talking about the renewables industry and the impacts on ports and service vessels, and I do not think that there is a joined-up or collaborative approach yet. Some offshore wind companies have had discussions with fisheries, but only in bits and pieces. If we have a national overview, we will be able to set a standard for best practice on communication between all the relevant industries.

The Scottish National Party Government has a strong track record in improving the school estate. However, there are still significant challenges facing teachers, staff and students in schools, such as Buckie high school in my constituency. When will we expect to hear an announcement on the LEIP phase 3 funding, which would build on that track record and could provide real support to address the challenges that have been mentioned.

The bill specifies that it is about dogs as pets. For clarity, then, are you saying that that should be changed to include all dogs?

Just listening to some of the discussion, my focus has been on pure-bred dogs. That is where the conversation seems to be tied in. I am not quite seeing how the code of practice would fit in with mixed breeds—I am thinking of people whose dog has been caught out or somebody in a local community whose dog has had puppies. For example, would the puppy have to be vaccinated before someone could take it? If so, there is perhaps an affordability issue with the code of practice, whereas the person who was going to take the puppy might be willing to do that. I can see where it fits in with pure-bred dogs, but where does it fit in with the scenario that I have just mentioned?

Yes.

Section 1 specifies that the Scottish ministers must make a code of practice in relation to the buying, selling or transferring of dogs as pets. Where is the space in that for working dogs? Should there be a space for them?

I am always quite interested to see how a bill or proposed new legislation can help to support a change in culture, which is something that we have not mentioned. We are talking about people who breed pups for the purpose of making money and who use those dogs as commodities. How can we embed into the bill a change of culture around how people view breeding and buying their dogs? Holly Conway has touched on that point a bit. The bill can change the attitude around how we are buying and selling animals. For example, I have a family member who has Romanian rescue dogs, and that organisation is very strict: they do home visits and if the dog is not suitable for that family—even if it is up to two or three years later—or if the family no longer wants that animal, that organisation steps in to help rehome it, taking on the responsibility for it. It has a whole culture around those stray dogs. Sorry—that was a bit long-winded, but where does that fit into the bill? Could the bill change the culture around how we view purchasing and owning a dog?