Tim Eagle
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I do not approach immigration by seeking to divide communities or inflame tensions, as Reform appears to. I seek solutions even when they are difficult or unpopular in parts of this chamber. Victor Currie: Britain is a multiracial country, and people of all backgrounds call this their home.”
“Using thorium, the current stock of nuclear waste could be recycled into new reactors, which presents an opportunity to solve the waste problem once and for all. Does Tim Eagle recognise that we should be at the frontier of those developments and not simply a laggard? Tim Eagle: I absolutely recognise that.”
“We still have no timeline for the Nairn, Elgin or Keith bypasses. When concerns were raised about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we led the opposition. When concerns were raised about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, we fought the fight. When our fishing industry needed a voice, we were there for it.”
“When others were afraid to discuss welfare reform, we were prepared to have that conversation, not because it is easy but because responsible government requires difficult conversations. When Scotland’s ferries descended into chaos, it was us—the Scottish Conservatives—who continued to relentlessly pursue answers.”
“That is the point: there were good, skilled jobs, which allowed young people to stay in the area, so that they could have crofts and families and build houses.”
“I will try to keep to that, Presiding Officer. It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to. My colleague Murdo Fraser talked about the word salad of the motion. I was not quite sure what I should zone in on, but I will start with the title, which is “Scotland Needs Reform”.”
The complete record
Every one of 444 lines we hold for Tim Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“We asked for what might be negotiated, but we did not receive that. We have asked for what has been negotiated, but, short of a line that literally acknowledges the shortcomings of the deal—that hundreds of millions of pounds should be paid to fishing communities, which I have to conclude is because the deal is bad—we have no details of how it will be allocated or where it will be allocated. Tim Eagle asked what we will do about that. That is one of the first things that I will ask the UK Government minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, with whom I have been discussing the agreement, when I speak to him later this afternoon. I will be happy to report back to Mr Eagle so that he is aware of the conclusions from that.”
“Angus Robertson: Tim Eagle is right to take a critical perspective on the fisheries agreement that was reached, which is a continuation of the deal that was negotiated by a Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. There are many members who wish to put questions. Angus Robertson: I know that it is very difficult for members of the Conservative front bench to hear this, but it is a fact that what the Labour Party has done is agree to a 12-year roll-over of the deal that was agreed by the Conservatives. Therefore, I will take no lessons from the Conservatives or the Labour Party on the fishing deal. Tim Eagle asked an important question, and I share his concern. Where is the detail of the deal? Where is it? We asked for it.”
“It concerns me that today’s statement lacks any focus on the substance of the deal and its impact on our fishing communities. The cynic in me wonders whether that is because the Scottish National Party would force Scotland back into the common fisheries policy, going even further in surrendering our hard-fought fishing rights. Although I would like to focus on the SNP’s odd policy position, what really matters is the livelihoods of our fishing fleet and the communities that are connected with it. I have two important questions. What will the SNP Government now do to support our vital fishing communities, and what would the SNP have done differently from Labour?”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, which was helpful. There is much in the statement to discuss, but I will focus on fishing. The deal that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister with the EU is the worst deal possible for Scotland’s fishermen, short of going back into the common fisheries policy. Sir Keir Starmer caved in to French demands, giving EU vessels near- unfettered access to UK waters for up to 12 years. You can look at me, Labour members, while I am telling you this—you have done this to them. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Tim Eagle: Sorry, Presiding Officer. The deal has been described as “a horror show for Scottish fishermen” by Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.”
“The issues that Mr Eagle raises about the trade deal are vital and material in relation to the farming industry, and we will do all that we can to address those issues with the UK Government. On Mr Eagle’s point about trade engagement, one of the trade arrangements that I have always been very supportive of, and that I am keen for us to have more of, is a good trading relationship with the European Union. That relationship was shattered by the stupidity of Brexit and the actions of the Conservative Government, and I want to get us back into those arrangements as quickly as I possibly can. The Presiding Officer: We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. Nature”
“As the member of the Scottish Parliament for Perthshire North, which involves extensive agricultural interests, I spend a lot of my time engaging with the agriculture industry. If Mr Eagle is worried about that, let me assure him that the Government is very much engaged on those issues. When it comes to the protection and promotion of the agriculture sector, I venture to suggest that the farming sector feels better supported in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom and that this Government’s approach to the sector is more sympathetic to its needs and interests. That will, of course, be the case during my leadership of the Scottish Government.”
“I am not surprised by the question, because I understand that the Scottish National Party has never supported a single trade deal in the UK Parliament, whether negotiated by the UK Government or by Brussels. Trade deals offer great opportunity, but surely it is important that we protect UK food, welfare and environmental standards. NFU Scotland is right to say that the deal raises a number of important questions for Scotland’s farmers. In contrast to the SNP’s flawed domestic agriculture policy, is the First Minister able to give any reassurances on the work that his Government is doing to protect Scotland’s vital agriculture industry as the talks progress? The First Minister: We work very closely with NFU Scotland and the agriculture sector.”
“Jim Fairlie: The Scottish Government has been clear that protecting our food security and resilience is a key priority for Scotland, and we continue to do that through a range of measures. Quota Management Groups 5.”
“Changes in land use have worrying consequences for food security, with projections showing that nearly 20 per cent of farmland in England could be removed from food production in order to meet green targets. In April, the minister, in replying to a question from Tess White, said that no assessment had been made at a national level of the impact of the loss of land from energy infrastructure developments, where responsibilities cross the UK and Scottish Governments. Given the importance of food security, will the minister now commit to conducting a study, as has been done in the UK, of the potential impacts in Scotland of loss of land for alternative uses, and its potential impact on Scottish food security?”
“Residents across rural Scotland continue to face challenges accessing health and social care services. In Dunoon and Campbeltown, residents are unable to register with an NHS dentist; on the island of Barra, plans for a new hospital have been paused indefinitely; and local people have had to campaign just to get basic services at Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin. Kate Forbes: Will the member join me in welcoming the two new hospitals that have been delivered on Skye and in Aviemore, which are open right now? Tim Eagle: I am delighted to welcome them, but what about the other ones? What about all the people who still cannot access the services that they need in rural communities across Scotland? They are the ones who really matter. We cannot just take action for some people and do nothing for others.”
“The rural affairs portfolio was the only one that saw a real-terms cut in the last Scottish budget. Some £100 million of money that had been earmarked for rural homes was redirected to build homes in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The new ferries earmarked for Islay have faced fresh delays, and the costs for the two new vessels from the Ferguson Marine shipyard continue to spiral out of control. All the while, rural communities suffer with increasing ferry breakdowns and cancellations. Rural roads remain a major issue. Today, a brilliant piece in The Herald has eviscerated the Government over its abysmal failure to deliver a long-term solution to the problems on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful. Let us just be honest: road projects such as those on the A83 and the A96 will never be delivered under an SNP Government.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am a small farmer. It is a little over a year since I entered the Parliament. In that time I have heard a lot of grandstanding from two First Ministers and their colleagues about their records in government. Despite their cries of success, I see so much in our public services in Scotland that is deeply concerning. Just this week, we saw another critical headline in The Scottish Farmer as beef sector organisations “launched a stinging attack on the Scottish Government over ... a ‘lack of any meaningful intervention and policy direction ...’ to support the national beef herd.” That is one of a series of headlines that have provided a damning indictment of this Government’s approach and attitude to farming, crofting, fisheries and the wider rural sector.”
“That compares with the planned end of the trade and co-operation agreement next year, which would have brought annual negotiations and a significant transfer of rights back to the UK fleet. I am more than happy to give way right now if the Scottish Labour front bench wants to intervene and give the sector a full assurance that that is not true and will not happen.”
“When I was representing my local fishing community as a councillor, I made a promise that, if I ever became an MSP, I would make sure to raise the subject of fishing. I have already fulfilled that promise, and I continue to do so willingly. The thrust of today’s debate centres around worrying reports that the United Kingdom Labour Government is preparing to trade away our country’s fishing rights. Fishermen across Scotland are alarmed by that. I know that because many have been in touch with me. It has been widely reported that Labour’s desire for a deal means that it has forgotten fishermen, which could lead to its making a new deal that includes a multi- annual agreement and a freeze on quotas.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the prisoners released under the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025 included some who had broken prison rules. (S6O-04553)”
“I know that there are complexities, but my message really is simple—whatever it is that is required needs to happen now. My constituents need action that truly delivers. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Carol Mochan, who joins us remotely. 18:29”
“With the desire and passion to continue to serve those in her care, my constituent now walks 5km a day to the person she cares for, so that she can be with them, and walks 5km back. The situation has got so bad that a family member has had to reduce their working hours to provide support and care for that care worker. That family member sent me this quote: “The impact has been huge, she has lost independence, self value and had a detrimental effect on her mental health. It has put enormous pressure on myself having to care, she even finds cooking difficult as she cannot see that temperature on her oven or safely use the cooker. Waiting times really need highlighting more!” How can it be right that, in modern Scotland, either of those cases is crossing my desk?”
“For months, my constituent waited, growing more and more jaundiced, in pain and having been on four types of antibiotics due to inflammation. After “six months of hell with no end”, a family member stepped in—this is not a rich family—to pay nearly £9,000 for private treatment. That should not have happened, and it should not have had to happen. My constituent commends the hard work of their GP but is utterly shocked by the waits in secondary care. Let me share a different case—that of a care worker, whose work we desperately need in our society. For more than a year, she has been waiting for a cataract operation. My constituent’s eyesight is deteriorating so rapidly that she is no longer able to drive.”
“It is a vital hospital for local people but, all too often now, I hear locals speaking about deep worries about staffing levels, reduced service levels and long waits. To my mind, that is not acceptable. We must all work together to alleviate the woes of rural depopulation and at least provide appropriate delivery in our rural hospitals, which truly are vitally important. Today, as Douglas Ross, Douglas Lumsden and Michael Marra did, I will highlight the human impact of waiting times. One of my constituents, who contacted me in January, has been in pain with gallstones since July 2024. She is regularly in A and E with crippling, indescribable pain. She has been given different concoctions of intravenous painkillers, but she is not getting the surgery that would quickly fix the problem.”
“Tim Eagle: That is a good question that it would be great to have an answer to. All that I know is that NHS Grampian has pointed out that it has the lowest number of acute hospital beds of boards in Scotland. I take Mr Stewart’s point about what that means, but NHS Grampian is saying that it is the second-lowest-funded board per head of population. To put that into numbers, NHS Grampian has 1.4 beds per 1,000 people, while NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has 3.6 and NHS Tayside has 2.8. If we are talking about delayed discharge in our hospitals, we also have the problem that we simply do not have enough beds for patients, which causes all the problems for constituents that we have heard about today. I cannot miss the opportunity to mention Dr Gray’s hospital, which is in my region.”
“Michael Marra pointed out that, in November 2024, NHS Grampian declared a board-level critical incident, which led to the diversion of ambulance patients to hospitals outside the region. The board is using outdated medical equipment, including a 15-year-old MRI scanner and a 27-year-old X-ray machine. There are too few acute hospital beds and too few staff in some key service areas to cope with demand. Kevin Stewart: I am not intervening to have an argument. We need to look at the counting of acute beds. I understand that what Public Health Scotland counts is acute beds in acute hospitals, but NHS Grampian has a number of acute beds in hospitals that are not acute hospitals. I have a simple question—why are they not counted and what are they being used for? How are they being utilised for the benefit of patients?”
“I thank Douglas Lumsden for bringing this debate to Parliament, and I quickly remind members that my wife is a GP in the NHS Grampian region. Pretty much every speaker so far has commented on the value of the staff that we have in NHS Grampian and all NHS boards in Scotland, and that is touching to hear. My wife would be pleased to know that they have political support, because they are out there every day doing amazing things for the patients who can get through the door. That is not to take anything away from the problems that we have heard about, but we do value the staff who are on the ground. Other members have mentioned points that I whole-heartedly agree with. NHS Grampian reports that more than 3,000 patients were waiting for more than two years for hospital treatment, which is the highest number among Scottish NHS boards.”
“However, we cannot shy away from that element of the wider debate. The previous Conservative UK Government took steps to address that issue. In particular, it reduced the number of illegal migrants entering the UK from small boats. I say that not only because vulnerable people are still being exploited by people-smuggling gangs but because lives are still being put at risk. More action is needed to reduce the number of people who try to enter the UK illegally. More needs to be done by both the UK and the Scottish Governments to dismantle the business models of those who seek to profit from illegal migration. That is just one element of a much wider debate that is needed on immigration. That subject cannot be taboo, and such debate must be open, frank and respectful if we are to properly address this very important issue. 18:04”
“With all that said, it is vital that both of Scotland’s Governments are abundantly clear that people who wish to come to the UK to live and work do so through legal routes, whether they be economic migrants who seek study or work opportunities or refugees who come here for a better life. Maggie Chapman: Will the member describe a legal route that somebody who is fleeing oppression in, for example, war-torn Yemen has open to them? Tim Eagle: I have to be honest that I am not completely up to speed with all the different elements, but—as I am about to come on to—we must ensure that people have a safe and legal route to come here. Scottish Conservatives believe that migration is important but that it must be controlled and legal. Both the motion and Professor Jen Ang’s report fail to address, or even mention, illegal migration.”
“Indeed, it was the previous Conservative UK Government that listened to concerns expressed by the soft fruit sector and expanded the seasonal worker scheme to address that issue. I agree, too, that the Scottish Government could do more to tackle such issues if it chose to do so. That view is supported by the extensive recommendations in Professor Jen Ang’s report and in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s paper that the motion references. Far too often in such debates, we hear it said that such issues involve a reserved element and a devolved element. Although I might not agree with many of the elements of the report that Maggie Chapman’s motion mentions, it shows that the Scottish Government has the power to do things differently in a variety of policy areas. Ultimately, that is a question for the cabinet secretary to address.”
“I begin by noting some areas of common ground on this issue. First and foremost, in the wider debate on immigration, it is far too easy to dehumanise people, particularly those who are in vulnerable situations or leaving destabilised nations in search of a better life. It is right that we have a proper and robust asylum process for people who find themselves in such situations, but that does not mean that that process is always perfect. Whoever is in power at UK level should continuously monitor that system to ensure not only that it works effectively and efficiently but that the people at the heart of the process are treated with dignity. I support a controlled form of legal immigration, particularly when there is a need to fill skill shortages, for example.”
“In the meantime, I am confident that there will be legal teams across the country that will be happy to help the Government to develop clauses to ensure that leases can be tailored where the main reason is to relate them to climate change goals. That approach would be much better than the one that is taken in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Frankly, the bill is unworkable. The approach that I have suggested would create good law; the bill will not. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. 15:49”
“I would keep the land management plans, because I think that what the Government really wants to do is to put community engagement on estate plans on a statutory footing. That is what Fergus Ewing meant when he spoke about the need for us to work with the estates to deliver what we want to see in rural areas. The Government should scrap everything else and allow the review of the community right to buy to be completed. It should then review its findings with stakeholders and work together with them to simplify and implement any conclusions from that review. At the same time, it should set up a proper agricultural holdings review to explore everything that has happened over the past 50 years and how we can take forward tenancies in the interests of owners, tenants and communities.”
“The issue of addressing off-market sales to ensure that communities have the opportunity to buy land could lead to legal disputes over the transparency and fairness of the process, and landowners and investors could argue that the bill’s provisions deter investment in rural land and negatively affect the economy. I am speeding through my speech because there is so much to talk about. There is a lot that I have not touched on, including the need for the land and communities commissioner. The Scottish Conservatives, sadly, cannot support the bill. I say “sadly”, but it is not really sad. We simply cannot support an unworkable bill, and because of the risks associated with the bill, we cannot support the financial memorandum, either. I say to the cabinet secretary that I think that I could make the bill a great bill if I really had to.”
“As the Scottish ministers own 10 per cent of rural Scotland—I think that my colleague Rachael Hamilton mentioned that—they will have to make decisions about themselves, which will highlight significant conflicts of interest. There could be legal challenges to do with the expropriation of land and the adequacy of compensation; failures to adequately support the enforcement of new regulations; the requirements for community engagement; property rights; the criteria used for lotting decisions; and the criteria for determining public interest in lotting decisions.”
“NFU Scotland has expressed concern that the changes will simply put landowners off any tenant farming, thereby further damaging the tenant farming market. I could do a whole speech on that alone. For example, resumption changes, such as the extended notice period, enhanced compensation and a public interest test, will undoubtedly worry any prospective owner who would consider letting land. That is what happened following the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. I could mention other things, one of which is that there is a huge risk of legal challenges in relation to compliance with the bill. Clarity is needed on compensation for value other than agricultural value. There is significant potential for legal crossed wires when land is part of a large landholding but is also a registered croft.”
“Mercedes Villalba: Will the member give way? Fergus Ewing: Will the member take an intervention? Tim Eagle: I will bring in Fergus Ewing. Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Eagle agree that the emphasis should be far more on working with existing landowners and encouraging them to invest in things such as the provision of additional rural housing, rather than on imposing on them ever more regulations, which will discourage investment and new tenancies, dampen the rural economy and prevent us from achieving the opportunities that exist in rural Scotland? Tim Eagle: I apologise to Ms Villalba for missing her out. That is exactly the point that I am about to come on to. There are different ways of doing what the Government wants to achieve. I had better skip forward. There is so much that I could go into.”
“Sarah-Jane Laing from Scottish Land & Estates said: “Lotting provides uncertainty. Any intervention in the land market that places obligations on you or reduces your ability to liquidate your assets—which is what we are talking about here—will impact on your ability to borrow from the banks.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 19 November 2024; c 48.] Given the lack of timescale for Government decisions, there is a great risk that lenders will see the inability to dispose of land as a large risk. In turn, that will create uncertainty in the market, and markets do not like uncertainty. As well as affecting people who bring their land to the market voluntarily, the lotting provision will have an impact on the wider land market and the attitude to land value and risk in Scotland.”
“Proposed new section 44A(4) of the 2016 act mentions the land rights and responsibilities statement. It looks as though that provision puts on to a statutory footing the voluntary approach to developing a stronger relationship between landowner and communities that is set out in the 2016 act. As someone who has worked in this area, I am not sure that whoever wrote the bill actually understands it. It is very common for land sales to take place for small pieces of ground, such as a little bit of garden ground or a new site for a local teacher or doctor. As the bill stands, it will require all sales to be notified to the Scottish ministers. What a huge blockage that will create, and that is before we get to the administrative nightmare and the huge cost that it will introduce.”
“An area of land for, say, housing that is already going through the statutory planning process will face public consultation and discussion, and it is vital to avoid duplication. Why has size been chosen as the key measure for who is impacted by the bill? Why not value? There is a huge difference between 3,000 hectares of moorland and 3,000 hectares of agricultural land. The Law Society of Scotland has pointed out that proposed new section 44B(3)(c)(iii) that the bill seeks to insert in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 requires that a land management plan must contain information about how “the owner is complying or intends to comply with ... the code of practice on deer management”. That creates a compliance duty in relation to a voluntary code of practice.”
“I know landowners who have given plots of land for local people to build a house at next to nothing in cost, and large landholdings that are leading the charge on peatland restoration, large landscape projects along rivers, tree planting and land for community projects. I note at this point that there is a challenge in every sector of life where the few can impact the many. It is vital that those who work in the industry, and the organisations that support it, work to make sure that all landowners meet their responsibilities. However, major legislation is not required to ensure that. Secondly, the bill is fundamentally unworkable in its current form. There is a risk of consultation upon consultation.”
“That is for three key reasons: I do not agree with the principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, the bill is fundamentally unworkable in its current form, and the legal implications could be far reaching and lead to challenge. Let me take those points in order. First, the bill—and, for that matter, large parts of land reform—seems to make the major assumption that owning a large landholding is inherently wrong, or perhaps that large landowners do not care about the land that they manage or the communities that they are part of. Mercedes Villalba: Will the member give way? Tim Eagle: I apologise, but I do not have time. However, my experiences are somewhat different.”
“Is he against diversifying land ownership and tackling the concentration of land ownership that we have in our country? Tim Eagle: I am just about to come on to that— wait, and I will get to it. I was tempted to go for the full Richard Leonard experience with this speech and shout from the back benches about the grotesque, unjustified big state intervention against the most basic of human rights for what appears to be nothing but envy politics—but I have decided instead to remain a little calmer. However, I cannot express enough my utter horror at the bill. In the year that I have been here, it is by far the worst bill that I have seen.”
“The policy memorandum to the bill says: “These proposals deliver the Bute House Agreement commitment to deliver legal mechanisms to tackle scale and concentration of land ownership.” The moment that I read that, I realised what the bill actually is—nothing other than a measure for the Green Party’s consistent desire to take away rights from individuals—[Interruption.] You can groan all you like, but that is despite many of those landholdings delivering on climate change goals. Mairi Gougeon: Will the member take an intervention? Tim Eagle: Go for it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Although it was not lacking in courtesy, I note that that language was a bit relaxed. Mairi Gougeon: Is the member against the proposals that we are taking forward to ultimately make things fairer for our tenant farmers and our small landholders across Scotland?”
“Importantly, no amount of amendments at Stage 2 or 3 will change the underlying mechanisms being relied upon in the Bill.” I could tell members that that pretty cynical quote is from a known Government critic or perhaps a large lobby organisation, but no—it is from Andy Wightman, a former Green MSP and a leading figure on land reform. I do not agree with his view on land reform, but what a quote that is, and he is not alone—the Scottish Land Commission, Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and others have all raised significant concerns about the bill.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a small farmer. I also have a couple of short limited duration tenancies. I apologise in advance for speaking a little quickly; I have a lot to get through. I wish that I could share the enthusiasm that the cabinet secretary showed at the start of her speech. It is a nice day outside, but I do not think that it is in here. I will start with a wee quote: “My analysis suggests that the impact of these provisions on the pattern of land ownership in Scotland will be vanishingly small at best and zero at worst.”
“Perhaps his party should not have supported Brexit in the first place, given all the damage that it has caused seafood exporters the length and breadth of Scotland. I am sure that, unlike the member’s party, Mairi Gougeon, the cabinet secretary responsible for the negotiations, takes the interests of the fishing industry very seriously. Gaelic-medium Education (Glasgow Shettleston) 4.”
“Karen Adam has raised some incredibly important points. The catching and processing sectors are important to communities across Scotland, but many are very worried that, in future talks between the UK Government and the European Union on a new deal, there might be demands to back down on current fishing rights. What conversations is the Scottish Government having with the UK Government and European officials to protect the processing sector? Richard Lochhead: The member has raised an important point, but he will be aware of the obstacles for seafood exporters in Scotland that Brexit created and the damage that those obstacles have caused the sector. I am therefore surprised that he has now reversed his position and is saying that being out of the European Union is causing problems and leading to difficult negotiations.”
“I declare an interest as a small farmer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that the reported £203 million it spent on external advisers to help administer agricultural support payments to be good value for money. (S6T-02447)”
“The most important point that I want to press is that, for the protection of our wild fish stocks, our communities and the farmed salmon industry, it is absolutely vital that the committee’s recommendations, along with the measures in the cabinet secretary’s response, are implemented. It might be that we need to put more regulation in place, or that sites need to move further offshore. Some areas might no longer be suitable. However, it is only through discussion and action that we will have the sustainable and thriving salmon farming sector that Fergus Ewing described, for all who are involved. 15:56”
“In 2023, we saw the lowest wild salmon catch since records began, with a 25 per cent reduction compared with the figure for 2022. I come from an area with rivers that once teemed with fish. It is devastating to see our rivers now nearly empty. I do not blame the farmed salmon industry, but, like all of us, it has a role to play. It must ensure that wild salmon genes are not mixed with those of farmed salmon through escapes and that, where they might cross paths, habitats are healthy. The committee stopped short of calling for a pause or moratorium on new site expansion, but, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, it is no secret that various groups and individuals have called for that.”
“I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is due to speak again in the debate, but, if so, it would be great to hear more about that assessment in her closing remarks. If she will not speak again today, perhaps she could write to the committee on that point. It is disappointing to see that the Government does not support the collection of data that would include wrasse mortality. I recognise that the industry is producing a lot of data, but it would have been good to know about levels of wrasse mortality. Such data would have given us useful insight into how efficiently or otherwise the sector currently uses wrasse. It is absolutely vital that we remember the massive importance of wild salmon to our natural environment.”
“The use of wrasse was an important discussion for the committee. Wrasse plays an important role in natural habitats, helping to maintain the balance of marine ecosystems. For that reason, they are widely used in aquaculture as an alternative method of controlling sea lice to chemicals. The committee heard evidence that almost a third of cleaner fish die within a few weeks of being deployed in marine pens. More worrying than that for the committee is the great concern about the impact that the catching of wild wrasse is having on other fish stocks and the health of our marine ecosystems. The Scottish Government recognised that, in the light of evidence in the University of Glasgow’s report on wrasse, an assessment of the fishery should take place before the opening of the season in May 2025.”
“Mandatory mortality reporting to the fish health inspectorate is a positive, so that we can all ensure that significant events do not occur and that, when they do, everything is done to work out why. The Government has said that it will look at issues around persistent high mortality and consider regulatory powers to limit or halt production at sites with high mortality rates. That is welcome, and I look forward to seeing that progress. A number of serious concerns have been raised around welfare. I welcome a new assessment of options, which will be completed prior to the September update to committee. As my colleague Edward Mountain mentioned, it is vital in any farm system that robust health and welfare standards are in place, which includes good monitoring and ensure long-term sustainability and ethical management practices.”
“Finlay Carson: Does Tim Eagle recognise that, in many parts of the industry in Scotland, we are already seeing performance that is above the regulatory baseline and reaching world standards when it comes to welfare and reduction in chemicals? The Government, by increasing the bar, might increase confidence in the industry and show it to be one of the world leaders. Tim Eagle: I completely agree, and I am coming on to that. I am not for massive regulation; I am for small state. However, there is a role for the Government in ensuring that the industry is sustainable for the future. It is too large a report to touch on everything, and I do not have time to do so, but I want to touch quickly on a few key parts. Mortality is a very serious issue.”