Mairi Gougeon
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Mairi Gougeon: As other members have done, Michelle Thomson has raised a number of important points. We established a food security unit precisely to address the key challenges that members have identified.”
“I am grateful to Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. Given the breadth of the areas that are covered in the motion, any one of my colleagues could have been here to respond. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so, because this SNP Government cares deeply about our rural and island communities.”
“He did not do as badly on that run as he thought, but I am glad to hear that he suffered afterwards. [Laughter.] On Fulton MacGregor’s substantive point and the concerns that he has raised about community right to buy, he is absolutely right.”
“Last but certainly not least, I thank my amazing family, whom I cannot wait to spend more time with, and my amazing husband, Baptiste. It takes the patience of a saint to be married to anyone in this job, but he has looked after me and I would be at a loss without him.”
“Of course, some of those challenges remain, but our rural and island communities and industries are rich with opportunity and this Government has been determined to unlock it. Housing is a key issue that has been raised in the motion and throughout the debate.”
“Our croft house grant scheme has invested more than £26.5 million to support more than 1,100 croft homes. We are going further still, with an announcement this year of a new rural and island housing grant scheme, with investment of up to £20 million.”
The complete record
Every one of 333 lines we hold for Mairi Gougeon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“A hearing is used to take evidence from specified interested parties rather than being open to all. 16:15 Sarah Boyack: I welcome the cabinet secretary’s constructive approach. I take it that she does not want to accept the actual wording of my amendment 77. However, is there a way in which the Scottish Government could support our park authorities to try to ensure that we get strategic alignment and a stronger focus on implementing the park plans? Even if you do not want that principle in the bill, would you accept the background principles?”
“As I said at committee, I believe that the language that we have used in the bill provides the right balance between the requirement to implement actions within national park plans and other duties and considerations that public bodies may have. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that amendment and I ask members not to support it. Ross Greer’s amendment 76 would, ultimately, undermine the established principle of taking a proportionate approach to the appeals process and would, effectively, create a two-tier system whereby the procedural requirements for planning appeals in national parks are different to those for appeals elsewhere in Scotland. Some parts of the process have already been outlined. It is currently for the reporter to determine the most appropriate approach to obtaining the evidence that they need and who they need it from.”
“to consider and report on a National Park proposal.” I was pleased to have further discussions on this amendment with Mark Ruskell after stage 2, and I am happy to support it. I am also happy to support Sarah Boyack’s amendments 74 and 75, which would insert a clear definition of “cultural development” into the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. I am delighted to support the vast majority of Sarah Boyack’s amendments in this group, especially since views on this grouping and the legislation seem to be coming full circle for her. However, on amendment 77, which we discussed further after stage 2, I recognise that the position is the same as for the previous amendment.”
“All the elements that are outlined in Emma Harper’s amendment 48, Tim Eagle’s amendment 71 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 72 are important to ensure that we have thriving communities in our national parks, so I am happy to support them and I encourage all members to do the same. Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73 would introduce a requirement for ministers to seek expert advice before making a proposal for a new national park. For the reasons that the member set out, I am happy to support that amendment. Mark Ruskell’s amendment 32 would modify the national parks legislation by allowing ministers to appoint either a public body or an independent person or organisation with expertise “relevant to the National Park aims ...”
“The SSI relates to our ability to continue to publish data under the retained payment schemes that we have at the moment, rather than being the new regulations that would be needed under new schemes under the 2024 act, if that makes sense. I am happy to follow up directly with Richard Leonard, to set all that out clearly. I would not want him, or any member in the chamber, to think that I am, by any means, using the Information Commissioner’s Office as an excuse. As I said in the last part of my initial response, we have not yet consulted the ICO on those specific regulations, because they will be brought forward when we are using those other powers. Future Farm Policy (Climate and Biodiversity Targets) 4.”
“This is about public money, it is about transparency, it is about public interest, and it is about who pays and who gains. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We are going to need shorter questions as well. Mairi Gougeon: There was quite a lot in there. On the fundamental point about transparency, I absolutely agree with Richard Leonard, which is why we agreed to the measures that were introduced as part of the 2024 act, but I think that we are speaking at cross-purposes slightly. The Scottish statutory instrument that Richard Leonard referred to, which has just come into force, does not relate to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, to which his initial question referred.”
“Richard Leonard: When I pressed the cabinet secretary to publish the ultimate recipients of farm payments, as legislated for by this Parliament under section 19 of the 2024 act, I was told in a letter: “we must consult with the Information Commissioner before making any changes ... when we deal with controlling interests.” I know that the Information Commissioner has been rather busy recently, but it feels like the Information Commissioner’s Office is being used as an excuse by the Government for delay after delay. When will that work be completed? The regulations came into force three weeks ago. When the data is published, will it disclose the names of all individuals, including all big landowners, and not simply list them as anonymous private applicants, as well as organisations and businesses?”
“The Scottish Government consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the publication of data of recipients of payments made under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, as required by article 36(4) of the United Kingdom general data protection regulation—UK GDPR—at the time that the bill was introduced. The Scottish Government did not consult the Scottish Information Commissioner, as that office’s remit is limited to regulating compliance with freedom of information legislation for Scottish public authorities. The Scottish Government has not yet consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding controlling interests, as that will be addressed later, when secondary legislation is being prepared for introduction under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.”
“Will the cabinet secretary look at this matter and at considering the sheep to be feral? Mairi Gougeon: I can only reiterate the position that I set out in my initial response. The Government has a long-standing position on the matter, and we do not intend to change it.”
“The Soay sheep on St Kilda are considered to be an unmanaged population of wild animals due to their unique history of adapting to life without management over many generations. This unique historical flock is protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which provides the same protection that is afforded to Scotland’s wild deer population. In the meantime, the National Trust for Scotland is undertaking a full review of the situation, and we are engaging with it on that. John Mason: In the first place, the sheep are clearly feral. Sheep are not wild animals. Those sheep were put on St Kilda by human beings in the 1930s. They are in a confined space. If the same sheep were in Perthshire or Angus in a confined space, they would not be considered wild.”
“We should bear in mind just how significant some of the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 are, and their implementation will be critical. Important amendments were agreed to at stage 3, particularly Martin Whitfield’s amendment on the review of the act, because we must ensure that we monitor things and learn lessons as the act is implemented. That will mean that we can improve and build on the measures that have been introduced. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 7 has been withdrawn. Future Farming Investment Scheme (North East Scotland) 8.”
“Sarah Boyack: I am glad that the cabinet secretary has reflected on what further changes can be made, but, after the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed, many stakeholders and community groups were disappointed with the Scottish Government’s refusal to apply the bill’s lotting and public interest powers nationwide. As land justice is a nationwide issue, does the cabinet secretary agree that those crucial powers need to apply to land on a nationwide scale so that constituents across the country do not miss out? Mairi Gougeon: I appreciate the point that Sarah Boyack has raised, but we added the measures to the bill that has now passed on the basis of the evidence that we had, and we need to have the evidence base in place when we develop policies or make proposals, to ensure that they will work when they are implemented.”
“We welcome the Scottish Land Commission’s “ScotLand Futures” report and are considering its findings. The recently passed Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 represents a significant step forward in the land reform journey and delivers tangible improvements, such as lotting provisions and land management plans. Plans for implementation of the 2025 act are being developed, and we will continue to consult stakeholders to ensure that the provisions are as impactful as possible. Alongside that, we are progressing work in other policy areas, including community right to buy and compulsory purchase, and we are considering compulsory sales orders. We are also addressing vacant and derelict land and exploring the role of taxation.”
“Deer control has been talked about a lot during the passage of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Work is on-going on all those fronts, and I look forward to continuing to deliver on our first national good food nation plan.”
“The plan underwent a great deal of scrutiny from a number of Scottish Parliament committees, all of which has been taken into consideration in the plan that we have published. We recognise that we need to implement the plan and know that that is important. It is the job of every minister in all the different portfolio areas across Government to work to deliver those outcomes. Pam Gosal touched on a number of areas that are critically important, such as the role of our farmers and food producers. We want to ensure that more people in Scotland have access to their produce, which is a fundamental point that is made clear in our good food nation plan. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is progressing so much work to ensure that people have access to foods such as venison.”
“The Scottish National Party promised that we would be a good food nation by 2025, but instead we see a failure to deliver, along with the neglect of food producers and limited effort to make use of widely available sustainable produce such as venison. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this is a case of the SNP overpromising and underdelivering? Mairi Gougeon: I respect Pam Gosal, but what she has just outlined is complete and utter nonsense in regard to our good food nation plan as well as—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can members listen to both the questions and the responses in a respectful manner? Mairi Gougeon: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Again, we have published our good food nation plan—the first of its kind—today. The work that we are doing in Scotland to become a good food nation is world leading.”
“Scotland is making excellent progress towards becoming a good food nation. I am delighted to note that “The First National Good Food Nation Plan” was laid in Parliament this morning and published online today at noon. The plan reflects the feedback from the wide-ranging consultation throughout its development and the input from parliamentary scrutiny. This is an important stage of our good food nation journey, and we will now turn our attention to the future development and implementation of the local authority and health board plans. Pam Gosal: The good food nation plan has become nothing short of a fiasco. Although the plan has been laid, stakeholders do not agree with it and have concerns and questions about governance and accountability.”
“I thank Marie McNair and her team for their involvement in the working group that has been established to co-ordinate resources to tackle the issue of antisocial behaviour in the Kilpatricks, which is affecting the local community that she represents. Good Food Nation 5.”
“Forestry and Land Scotland does not have those same byelaw-making powers, so it cannot replicate the actions that have been taken elsewhere to tackle some of those issues. On the specific matters that Marie McNair has raised, we are currently developing a wildfire strategy for Scotland, through which we will explore and assess any potential legislative options for seasonal restrictions on fire lighting, as well as considering the use of disposable barbecues. In doing that, we will draw on the lessons that will be learned from the implementation of the new fire management byelaws in the Cairngorms national park.”
“Marie McNair: I recently met Forestry and Land Scotland and other stakeholders to discuss antisocial behaviour in the Kilpatrick hills, such as the illegal use of e-bikes and motorbikes on the trails. Litter, including remnants from campfires, also poses a risk. I am aware that campfire bans have been implemented in the Cairngorms national park during the summer months. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether Forestry and Land Scotland could consider that approach for the Kilpatrick hills? Will she join me in calling out the antisocial behaviour in the area that is causing damage to our precious environment? Mairi Gougeon: Absolutely. I could not agree more with Marie McNair on that point. She mentioned the powers that the national park authorities have.”
“Forestry and Land Scotland manages approximately 3,500 hectares of land on behalf of Scottish ministers in the Kilpatrick hills, which is around 80 per cent of the land in the area that is loosely referred to as the Kilpatrick hills. Scottish Water manages the reservoirs on the upper ground. The area is comprised of woodland and moorland, and it is managed for multipurpose objectives, including social and environmental objectives. The area is well used by visitors for recreation, including mountain biking. It also includes a section of the long-distance walking route the John Muir way. The John Muir way is the only formal trail, with other areas for walking being access roads and hill paths. The Scottish Government supports Forestry and Land Scotland through direct funding.”
“The strength of feeling in the community was quite clear throughout the debate that we had on those amendments on land reform, which is why I have been determined since then to ensure that we keep up the momentum and try to find a solution, where possible, that works for everyone. As Mark Ruskell outlined, I met the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust in Burntisland. That helpful meeting allowed me to get some of the background to the situation while seeing the area that we are talking about. I am still due to meet Fife Council and Forth Ports, and we are in the process of getting those meetings finalised. I am happy to keep members updated on how those meetings progress, as well as on the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust, as we have those discussions, because I am keen that we find some form of resolution for the people of”
“It was first drafted in 2003, and it is clear that some councils are failing to adequately enforce access rights in and around communities. One of those communities, which the cabinet secretary will know, is Burntisland. I know that she has recently met the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and has indicated her intention to meet Forth Ports and Fife Council, to hold them to account over the long-standing issue of community access. What progress has been made under her leadership towards a resolution for that issue? Mairi Gougeon: I thank Mark Ruskell and members across the chamber for highlighting the issues that have been experienced at Burntisland.”
“I recognise the importance of the guidance to access authorities in part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That key document outlines their roles and responsibilities. I acknowledge that it has been some time since that guidance was last updated, which is why, during the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill stage 3 debate on 28 October this year, I undertook—in response to, I think, amendments from Mark Ruskell—to discuss the process for updating it with those interested members of the Scottish Parliament. Officials will need to properly consider the process and resourcing that will be required for a review, but, once I have reviewed those options, my private office will contact those interested MSPs to discuss the next steps. Mark Ruskell: It is clear that the updated guidance is long overdue.”
“At that group, we agree cross-portfolio action around our population programme, which includes the work that we are doing to address depopulation. In line with evidence, our response is ultimately led by local priorities and local communities. That is why interventions across multiple portfolios, such as when we consider housing, childcare and skills, are being delivered by affected councils. We have established tailored monitoring and evaluation approaches with each of the delivery partners, to ensure that we can measure the initial outcomes that have been achieved. We are undertaking an interim evaluation that covers the first full year of delivery. We will then consider the outcomes of that review as we look forward to phase 2.”
“In addition, population retention and attraction is the overarching objective of our new national islands plan. Michelle Thomson: At the round-table discussion of the report, we agreed that a focus on rurality and the needs of rural people encompass many different directors and supporting committees; however, from the work in my various committees, I am aware that that does not always happen in practice. As the cabinet secretary has pointed out, and as the report said, clear accountability is needed and the monitoring of any initiatives needs to be carefully done. How will the Scottish Government measure the success of its rural repopulation policies across all portfolios? Mairi Gougeon: Michelle Thomson has raised important points. The ministerial population task force meets quarterly.”
“The Government recognises the challenge of depopulation and is committed to working closely with partners to address it, with evidence highlighting that local communities are best placed to respond to their own distinct challenges. We are, therefore, currently funding seven councils to deliver pathfinder projects that address population decline, many of which align with some of the key areas that were highlighted by Scottish Land & Estates in its report. Building on that, ministers will shortly consider options for a second phase and, where resource allows, expand delivery across a wider range of partners. We have also launched a non-statutory rural assessment toolkit to recognise the unique characteristics, challenges and opportunities of rural areas.”
“Our investment in innovation is critical in ensuring that we get ahead of those challenges and drive down mortalities to the lowest possible levels.”
“We published our response to that in full, in terms of the recommendations, all the work that we are taking forward as a result and the commitments that I have made. To follow up on that work, I published a response to the committee in September outlining the steps that have been undertaken, and I am due to provide another follow-up for the committee in March to update it on our progress. However, it is important to highlight that we expect mortalities to be driven to the lowest possible levels. It is in no one’s interest for there to be high mortalities or for such mortality events to take place. We also have to recognise that, sometimes, these incidents and events are completely outwith the hands of the fish farmers— they could be due to changing climatic conditions, micro jellyfish or algal blooms, which cannot always be predicted.”
“While I am threatened with legal action by the chief executive of the body that represents the farmed salmon sector for highlighting the industry’s failures, the cabinet secretary has twice been entertained by that body at international rugby matches. Will she confirm that she shares my concern that more than 10 million salmon have died in the first 10 months of this year? Will she therefore implement all the recommendations from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s 2018 report—specifically, recommendation 9? Mairi Gougeon: There were many points in Edward Mountain’s question. First, he will be aware that the committee undertook a follow-up inquiry on the back of the work that was done in 2018.”
“It is important to highlight that, although Edward Mountain chose in his question to reflect one set of data that is published on mortality figures, there are several different sources of data, and we collect many different pieces of information on many different reporting matters. When we compare figures, it is important that we look at the overall analysis, such as the rate of survival to harvest, which is part of the Scottish fish farm production survey that the Scottish Government publishes each year. Edward Mountain: I think that even the cabinet secretary will agree with me when I say that the optics do not look good. The industry is under the spotlight for increasing mortality.”
“We know that more farmed salmon will die in Scotland this year than last year. Does the cabinet secretary share my deep concern about that, especially when one fish farm had a monthly mortality rate of 45.2 per cent, with more than 600,000 fish dying since the end of September? Mairi Gougeon: Edward Mountain raises an important point. I hope that I made clear in my initial response that we expect producers to drive mortalities down to the lowest possible levels. This was an area of interest when the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee undertook an inquiry into salmon farming. Several recommendations stemmed from its report, and the Scottish Government made several commitments in response.”
“Edward Mountain refers to data that was published by Salmon Scotland, not by the Scottish Government. Salmon Scotland stated that “These figures represent isolated events, with overall survival rates remaining high at around 98.5 per cent per month.” Fish farming is highly regulated, and reasons for fish mortalities are complex and vary significantly between sites and incidents. Nonetheless, we expect producers to manage mortalities to the lowest possible levels. We support the sector in that regard through our support for the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, which enables research into the challenges that are faced by the sector and the development of innovative solutions to those challenges. Edward Mountain: It does not help that, this year, the industry has changed the way that it reports fish mortality.”
“That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio questions, to allow members on the front benches to move seats. Health and Social Care”
“I am happy to send Pauline McNeill the list of commitments and to outline some of the work that we are taking forward in that area, because we recognise the recommendations that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made in its most recent inquiry, which updated the recommendations of the previous salmon inquiry. I want to offer some assurances that there are specific strands of work on animal health and welfare in relation to this matter. We have also made a commitment to publish guidance, which we will look to engage and consult with people on. I am regularly updating the committee on the work as it progresses. I am happy to follow that up and to send the information to Pauline McNeill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, cabinet secretary. I apologise to those members whom I was unable to call.”
“Animal Equality UK carried out covert filming at the Bakkafrost Scotland farm on Loch Torridon and claims that welfare regulations were breached. Tesco has suspended the farm while it investigates the supplier. In its first report of 2025, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee found that the Scottish Government is not being responsive enough to the complex needs of the Scottish salmon farming industry and how it interacts with biodiversity, animal welfare and the workforce. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what is being done to ensure that the industry receives better support as well as improved oversight? Mairi Gougeon: There are a number of matters involved.”
“The Scottish Government takes the welfare of farmed fish seriously. Robust legislation, policies and industry standards are in place to safeguard fish health and welfare, and I am clear in my expectation that all producers must comply. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 protects farmed animals from “unnecessary suffering” and places a duty of care on those caring for animals to meet their welfare needs. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is responsible for considering and investigating complaints and potential welfare breaches relating to farmed animals, including farmed fish. Pauline McNeill: It has been alleged that salmon infested with sea lice were left in a pen that was meant to be completely empty.”
“As Keith Brown highlighted, we were clear right from the outset that Scotland should receive at least 46 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund, in recognition of the sheer size and importance of an industry that is vital to Scotland. The decision to apply the Barnett formula to the fund was taken by UK ministers. It completely ignored what we asked for and is an insult to our industry, as well as to our communities. I remain steadfast in urging the UK Government to reconsider its approach and to enter into discussions with us and with fishing industry leaders with a view to agreeing a way forward that, ultimately, treats our industries and communities with the respect that they deserve. United Kingdom Budget (Support for Scottish Farmers) 7.”
“The Scottish Government was clear in its expectation that Scotland’s fishers needed and deserved to maintain an arrangement outside the Barnett formula that recognised the relative size and importance of fishing industries across the UK, and that Scotland should receive at least 46 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund. The Labour Party has ignored Scotland’s Government and insulted our fishing industry. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scottish Labour MSPs need to decide whether they are backing our fishing industry and communities or their bosses at Westminster? Mairi Gougeon: I could not agree more with that.”
“There has been no response to my letter to UK ministers of 22 October, in which I set out our serious concerns about the announced approach of allocating to the Scottish Government just 7.78 per cent of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund, which is, of course, an insult to the Scottish fishing industry. On 4 November, together with other key Scottish stakeholders, I wrote to the UK Government, calling for the Scottish seafood industry action group to be reconvened to discuss that urgent issue, alongside other concerns. Once again, to date, there has been no reply from the UK Government. Keith Brown: The UK Government’s unresponsiveness is appalling.”
“Research by the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science shows that UK households have paid £7 billion to cover the cost of post-Brexit trade barriers on food imports from the EU, which has pushed up household food costs by an average of £250 since December 2019. We know that low-income households, which spend a greater proportion of their income on food, have been disproportionately affected. Brexit has undoubtedly increased the barriers and the costs for industry. Kevin Stewart rightly highlighted the value of our food and drink exports. We hope that some of that damage could be mitigated by a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, but such an agreement will never fully reverse the damage that has been done by Brexit. Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund 6.”
“Although the food and drink sector remains Scotland’s largest international export sector and accounts for a fifth of Scotland’s international exports, there has been a 5 per cent real-terms decrease since 2018. That decrease, which is a result of Brexit difficulties, has had an impact on jobs, the economy and communities, yet Westminster Labour will not even consider re- entering the EU, the single market or the customs union to help exporters. Is Westminster Labour wrong? Mairi Gougeon: I could not agree more with the points that Kevin Stewart has made. He has highlighted the massive economic damage that has been done by Brexit—in particular, the hard Brexit that was pursued by the UK Government at the time.”
“The food and drink sector continues to suffer the consequences of a hard Brexit, which has disrupted supply chains and created new trade barriers. Many Scottish producers continue to face reduced European Union market access, which resulted in a 50 per cent decline in the value of fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2024. While the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised, we know that businesses face higher trading costs, and some producers have lost the ability to export goods to the EU altogether. Kevin Stewart: Today’s official statistics show that Scottish food and drink exports are worth £7.5 billion.”
“We are continuing to work with our enterprise and innovation agencies on the international stage to ensure that Scotland has a key presence at the major trade shows, targeting new business opportunities and ensuring that Scotland remains a global leader as well as, more broadly, a collaborator. We are also working to ensure that more people can enjoy Scottish salmon. This year, £50,000 was awarded through the marine fund Scotland— which was match funded by the sector—to try to grow sales under the coveted Label Rouge label. We continue to work together to capitalise on new market opportunities. I am delighted that Scottish salmon is on track to deliver another record year for exports in 2025.”
“Annabelle Ewing: The cabinet secretary is aware of recent estimates that put the annual contribution of the salmon industry to the Scottish economy at more than £1 billion. Given that, and given the fact that some 11,000 jobs are supported by the industry—including more than 600 at Mowi, in Rosyth in my constituency—will she reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to do all that it can to promote the industry here and abroad? Will she welcome the significant contribution that it makes to sustainable jobs across Scotland? Mairi Gougeon: I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to Annabelle Ewing and to members across the chamber. We remain committed to promoting the sector at home and abroad.”
“Several assessments, including the marine economic statistics and annual fish and shellfish farm production surveys, have demonstrated that the growth of aquaculture in Scotland has led to significant economic benefits for our country. The marine economic statistics report for 2023 is due to be published in December, but in 2022, aquaculture generated £337 million in gross value added, which is 7 per cent of the marine economy GVA, and it directly employed 2,200 people. The latest Scottish fish farm protection survey reported that, in 2024, salmon farming achieved a record value of more than £1.3 billion. In our “Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture”, which was published in 2023, we set out our support for the sustainable development of the sector and recognise “the considerable social and economic benefits the sector delivers”.”
“We will carefully consider stakeholders’ views.”
“I recognise how important the licence condition has been for Scotland’s processors and for our ports. This year, we have received challenging advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is recommending major quota cuts for mackerel and herring. That raises real concerns about throughput and about the impact on our processors and the jobs that depend on them. We are in active discussion with processors and catchers to assess what the full supply chain impact would be and what, if any, Government intervention might be needed. We also recognise that there are strong and differing views on any further intervention. In any action that we take, we will be guided by the public interest. I emphasise that, at this point, no decisions have been made on intervening to increase mackerel and herring landings in 2026.”
“Karen Adam: Given the United Kingdom Government’s decision to short-change Scotland’s fishing and coastal communities, tools such as the economic link licence are important for keeping value in our ports and our onshore sector. Processors in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency tell me that economic link changes have helped, but they still see some unused capacity and are concerned that, without increases, businesses might suffer. Will the cabinet secretary consider commissioning further analysis of whether the current licence condition is maximising landings and processing in Scotland? If not, what options might there be to strengthen the condition in support of coastal jobs? Mairi Gougeon: I thank Karen Adam for raising that important point.”
“A review of the amended economic link licence condition was published in August. It showed that the policy has delivered significant benefits. Landings of mackerel and herring into Scotland have risen sharply, meeting phase targets and bringing record values to Peterhead and Lerwick ports. That has strengthened coastal economies, supported jobs and driven major investment in processing facilities, which has in turn improved business security and enabled expansion. Scottish processors report greater confidence to invest, extended employment and improved access to premium export markets in the far east. Overall, the policy is achieving its aims but continues to be under review.”