Jamie Halcro Johnston
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I know that colleagues from across the chamber will miss his consideration of and commitment to the issues that he was most passionate about. Beatrice Wishart, too, will be giving her last speech, and I particularly thank her for all her efforts on the CPG on islands, for making it the success that it has been and for the strong voice tha…”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. I thank all those who have signed today’s motion, allowing me to bring the debate to the chamber.”
“Meanwhile, the ferries crisis continues, with the Scottish National Party Government coming face to face with the consequences of two decades of neglect, while islands and ferry-dependent communities pay the price.”
“There, too, costs for operators in the visitor economy are escalating, while the Government sees this as a good time to impose more regulation and more tax. In addition to economic woes, small rural communities are increasingly seeing services moved further away.”
“[Laughter.] However, I have served with John on committees, most recently the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I know how diligent he has been in conducting the vital scrutiny required of MSPs. Last but not least, the cabinet secretary will be giving her last speech, too.”
“That has practical consequences—whether it is the young family facing another year of being unable to afford a permanent home for their children; the small business owner who seems to be sacrificing more than she gains, but who keeps going; the working person who is trying to make ends meet; or the older person on a fixed income who is af…”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Jamie Halcro Johnston, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“What should be surprising is the number of opportunities that existed to have the commission change course. We find several examples where proper procedures were not followed, but approval for actions taken by the staff was given retrospectively. Although there are occasions when that sort of retrospective permission will be necessary, I suggest that they should be few and far between. In repeatedly authorising such actions, the Scottish Government effectively opened the gates for the commission to act how it pleased. I am encouraged, at least, that the committee’s report notes that that has been recognised and that a different approach will be taken towards retroactive approvals by the Scottish Government. Overall, the report recognises significant failings and weaknesses in the Scottish Government’s sponsorship role.”
“We should consider, however, that the issues at WICS happened in plain sight. This was not an organisation gone rogue; it was not some obscure institution hidden away or forgotten about. We heard of regular communication with the Scottish Government at a variety of levels. There was no shortage of red flags. Rather, this seems to be a story of two organisations—the Scottish Government and the commission—operating at cross purposes and of the role of oversight being consistently neglected. Other members have detailed many of the individual issues with the commission, and I do not intend to rehash them. However, this was more than just bureaucracy being circumvented or a lack of diligence in reporting. Many of those situations are essentially inexplicable.”
“My thanks go to the Public Audit Committee and its clerks for the report, which was published in May, and to the Auditor General for his earlier work in looking at the functioning of the commission. Sadly, we are dealing with a report that, as we have heard, details what the committee has called a “catalogue of failures” in a Scottish Government quango. Where public bodies fall short, we should all have an active interest in putting things right, particularly in cases where public money is misused. This chamber has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that their contributions are put to good use. I welcome the committee’s report and, in particular, its recommendations, which build on and develop the work of Audit Scotland. It is an important step in setting things right after this very public scandal.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the economic impact of any increased taxation by United Kingdom, Scottish and local governments on people and businesses across the Highlands and Islands. (S6O-04870)”
“Why did the First Minister not find time to meet those who are fighting to get urgent care restored at Portree hospital? Does he accept that the promises that he made to the people of Skye, which were made in this chamber, have not been delivered? When will they be delivered?”
“It has been just over a year since John Swinney publicly apologised to Eilidh Beaton for what he described as her “terrifying experience” at Portree hospital on Skye. He said that it was “not good enough” and that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s recommendations on restoring urgent care “must be implemented”—he claimed that that is what would happen. However, a year later, incidents keep happening and, last week, NHS Highland admitted that the current model for urgent care is not working. Skye SOS national health service campaigners told the West Highland Free Press that it was “shambolic”. One said: “They have been pulling the wool over our eyes all this time.” John Swinney was in Skye on Monday, pressing the flesh for a Scottish National Party by-election campaign. To their disappointment, he did not meet local health campaigners.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what new measures it has introduced in relation to supporting improved community engagement and respecting local democratic decision making, when section 37 applications for energy infrastructure are considered. (S6O-04817)”
“Even industry experts have acknowledged that that is a broader capacity issue. All of this comes in the same week as the United Nations ocean conference in Nice and the release of the film “Ocean”, which reminds us of the global urgency to work with—not against—our seas. I am not arguing against offshore aquaculture in principle; I am calling for a more joined-up, evidence-based and strategic approach that brings national oversight, robust science and proper resourcing together. 17:11”
“That is not a minor detail; it goes to the heart of responsible aquaculture. We also face a clear gap in regulatory oversight. Licences under the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s controlled activities regulations currently do not extend beyond 3 miles, which means that environmental monitoring of discharges and pollution risks falling through the cracks. That is not acceptable in relation to the marine environment, and it is not acceptable to communities that are being asked to trust the process. Local authorities, too, are being asked to carry responsibilities that they are not yet resourced or equipped to deliver. Planning for offshore sites that are more complex, more technical and more interconnected with national priorities should not fall solely to overstretched councils.”
“The Scottish Conservatives, too, will be voting against the SSI. Does Ariane Burgess agree that these regulatory changes are premature and that we need to see the evidence first—as, I think, she hinted—so as not to replicate the inshore industry’s issues offshore? As the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation set out in its evidence to the committee, there has been no investigation into what impact extending the boundaries will have on wild fish stocks and on migratory salmon. Ariane Burgess: I agree with Jamie Halcro Johnston on the issues that he has raised. The welfare of farm fish in offshore conditions is still largely unknown. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others have highlighted, we do not yet understand how strong currents, wave heights or offshore husbandry practices affect fish health.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has introduced in the last year to improve road safety across the Highlands and Islands. (S6O-04721)”
“That money is not going into local communities; it often goes into the coffers of multinational companies and, in many cases, national Governments, such as those of China, the United Arab Emirates, France and Ireland.”
“In Shetland, fuel poverty is an ever-present issue for many households, despite the islands hosting onshore wind farms producing hundreds of megawatts. As Beatrice Wishart mentioned, the Viking wind farm was supposed to power around half a million homes, although, as she rightly said, some of the concerns over those figures have not been met. However, that does not keep bills in Shetland down. New onshore wind farms continue to be given the green light and existing sites continue to grow, despite millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent every year on constraint payments. In 2024, those payments rose to £380 million.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate, which is on a subject that is of great importance to my Highlands and Islands region. As others have done, I recognise the benefit of community owned energy and of the projects right across the region, particularly where they help to increase and support local resilience, which is important. However, I will focus on the Scottish Conservative amendment and the challenges that communities across my region face from energy infrastructure. There is a growing frustration and anger from those living and running businesses across the Highlands and Islands who feel under siege from large-scale energy projects being forced on our communities. For years, many have been subjected to wind farms from which they see little or no benefit, as power flows past their homes but their bills keep on rising.”
“However, the member is right to highlight the need to identify the scale of what is required. That is why it was important for the Scottish Government to provide funding to help with the scoping work that he has asked for.”
“Fiona Hyslop: The member will be aware that there are separate ferry replacement task forces for Shetland and Orkney, both of which are chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. I regularly meet members of the respective councils, in which I am supported by the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie. The member will also be aware that, in the recent budget that he did not vote for, £10 million was provided for each of those councils to do exactly the work that he says needs to be done to identify the scale of the issue. It is not just about ferry replacements; it can include other types of connectivity. For example, a number of people in the island communities that I am personally supportive of consider tunnels to be a potential alternative for the longer term.”
“An update on the dualling of the A9, which was meant to be completed this year, was noticeably absent from the cabinet secretary’s answer. I have repeatedly highlighted the growing crisis in our ferries fleet, including vessels that are operated by our councils. In Highland, Orkney and Shetland, there is an increasingly urgent need for a serious replacement plan, the cost of which could run into billions of pounds. Without passing the buck to local councils, which the cabinet secretary knows fine well are reliant on funding from the Scottish Government, what does she estimate to be the cost of any replacement scheme over the next 10 years? Is she comfortable with progress on delivering any replacement scheme, given that there is still no timetable, cost projection or funding commitment in place?”
“I move amendment S6M-17598.2, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert: “raises significant concerns about the lack of reliable ferry services for many island communities and the challenges that this creates for islanders and businesses, as well as the absence of a long-term plan to provide solutions and funding for a much-improved ferry network; draws attention to the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which found that Scotland’s islanders face a number of human rights challenges; emphasises the acute difficulties that islanders face, including in relation to the increased cost of living for households and businesses, access to health and social care, housing, fisheries, farming and island education; notes the widespread concern about depopulation and considers that not enough has been done to tackle it; highlights criticism raised about the national islands plan in terms of a lack of benefits and progress; appreciates the valuable role that the islands play in Scotland’s tourist industry; raises concern about the potential impact of the Scottish Government’s visitor levy on tourism; recognises the benefits brought by the energy sector on Scotland’s islands, but notes that this sometimes comes into conflict with communities, and urges the Scottish Government to take clear action to tackle all challenges.” 15:35”
“Our islands deserve better than a Scottish Government that legislates from Edinburgh and Glasgow as though the central belt were the only place that mattered. I am an islander, and I and my party know the challenges and the opportunities of our islands. The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for Scotland’s islanders, our island businesses and our island communities.”
“However, the visitor levy is not just a tax that hits our tourism sector; it risks disproportionately hitting islanders, including those who have to travel for medical appointments and need to stay overnight, and families visiting patients in hospital. I ask the ministers on the Government front bench: is that fair? Was that even considered as the bill was developed? Is that really island proofed? Many island communities feel increasingly detached from central Government and the decisions that are supposedly made on their behalf. They do not have confidence that ministers and officials understand or care about the impact that those decisions will have on islanders’ lives. There is a feeling that when ministers talk about island proofing, what they really mean is island box ticking.”
“Regulatory burdens are an issue for our tourism sector, too. However, instead of reducing those burdens, the Government has forced even more new taxes and new regulations on an important sector for our island communities, and one that is still recovering from some tough years. It has been hit time and time again by this regulation-daft Government. Short-term lets licensing has seen costs rocket for accommodation providers, forcing many to close entirely. Now they are threatened with the introduction of the visitor levy, the Scottish National Party’s latest tax, which has been so badly thought out that, in the face of widespread anger and opposition, Scottish National Party ministers have said that they are already looking at amending it—or claim that they are.”
“It means that employers simply do not have the accommodation for staff, which often severely impacts their businesses and even their viability. Scottish ministers have failed time and again to come anywhere close to the solutions that we need. It is not rocket science—we need to build more houses. Even when Scottish ministers say that they are doing something, the devil is in the detail. The cabinet secretary has mentioned the rural and islands housing funds, but the Government spent £100 million of that money building new city developments. Between 2016 and 2021, the dedicated islands housing fund delivered fewer than 20 homes. Added to that, for many of our smaller island communities, the cost of a private build can be 30 per cent higher than that on the mainland, while planning restrictions continue to be a barrier for many.”
“I would suggest that that luck is not entirely unconnected to the fact that SNP ministers have no direct control over the operations of either company. Ahead of the island showcase that I mentioned, I hosted a number of round tables on various different subjects, with attendees from across our island communities. They were extremely informative, but what was most striking was that virtually every issue came back to a lack of housing in those communities. That has an impact on people’s ability to stay on our islands and bring up their families, and it stops much-needed public sector workers, teachers, nurses and police officers taking jobs on our islands and ensuring that vital services are delivered locally.”
“When I look out of the window of my home in Orkney and see the nearly 30-year-old MV Hoy Head ploughing through the waves of Scapa Flow, what confidence can I have that she will be replaced when she needs to be, and not be forced to plough on as growing technical issues risk her reliability? Given the SNP’s record, with the over- budget and delayed Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa, the answer is: not a lot. The SNP ferry fiasco, scandal or boorach—delete as appropriate— means that no islander, except perhaps the most loyal SNP supporter, has any real confidence that the Government will get on top of the problem. In Orkney, we are fairly lucky, because our ferry links with the mainland are operated by NorthLink Ferries and Pentland Ferries.”
“Our ferry fleet is ageing and increasingly unreliable, and although this worsening crisis is, for now, largely affecting the west coast, it is a threat to services across Scotland. Island councils such as my own, in Orkney, and our friends a little bit further north, in Shetland, operate internal ferry networks that keep our island communities connected, but our fleets are ageing, too, with replacement costs likely to run into billions of pounds. There have been talks between island leaders and Scottish ministers— there are always talks; the Government loves talking—but we still do not have a definitive timetable, cost projections or funding commitments that cover the entirety of what needs to be replaced.”
“An increasing number of GP services are now available only online, but broadband connectivity does not support that. Indeed, colleagues might focus on farming on our islands—as we will— where costs can be significantly higher. Those are only some of the issues that islanders and island businesses face. The most high-profile issue is ferries, which are one of the most serious challenges that we face on our islands, both now and in the future. There is a crisis in our ferries network. Between 2015 and 2024, the number of ferries that were cancelled due to technical faults on the Government-owned west coast routes rose by 531 per cent. In 2015, technical faults accounted for only around one in every 10 cancellations; they now account for almost four in 10.”
“Colleagues who came to the island showcase that I hosted in Parliament last month, and which the cabinet secretary has mentioned, will know that our islands are all different, with unique characteristics and unique challenges. However, there is a common thread of problems that many of them face, as highlighted in our amendment to the Scottish Government’s motion. I am sure that colleagues will concentrate on a variety of areas of concern—for example, the challenges of supporting education and learning in our island communities. They might also focus on the growing pressures on health and social care, which mean that far too many people are left without the care that they need, are left waiting for treatment or cannot access a general practitioner.”
“As my party’s spokesman on islands, as convener of the Parliament’s cross- party group on islands and as an islander myself, I am delighted to open today’s debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I do not think that people really understand island life and its challenges unless they live on one—and that is particularly true, it seems, for the Scottish Government. I appreciate that the minister and the cabinet secretary want to talk only about positives today—the Scottish National Party motion makes that very clear—but I want to focus on the challenges of island life and of running a business on our islands, where the SNP could and absolutely should be doing a lot better and where, in too many cases, it is failing islanders so badly.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it estimates the cost to local authorities has been since May 2021 of dealing with planning applications and appeals relating to new energy infrastructure, such as wind farms, pylons and battery storage facilities. (S6O-04683)”
“Members have an opportunity to put a question and the minister responding has an opportunity to respond. We are not going to have an on-going, backward and forward conversation. Angus Robertson: Perhaps Mr Halcro Johnston should turn up at the start of debates and statements to hear what people actually say. I am surprised that he does not know that European Union member states are part of an annual negotiating process. This 12-year straitjacket deal is not part of that process, which is why I have said that it is the worst of all worlds. The fact that the UK Government could not even share with the Scottish Government the detail of what of what it was prepared to negotiate, and to negotiate away, is something that we deeply regret—sadly, no one in the Conservative seats has thought it important enough even to mention.”
“Angus Robertson: No, I do not accept that characterisation. Jamie Halcro Johnston: How is it going to work? The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Angus Robertson: Jamie Halcro Johnston asks how it works. Under this agreement— [Interruption.]—I am not sure that Mr Halcro Johnston wants to hear the answer. The Presiding Officer: Do continue, cabinet secretary. Members, let us hear one another. Angus Robertson: Under this arrangement, because this is a statement about the agreement reached by the UK Labour Government, on Scotland’s behalf, Scotland has been signed up to a 12-year tie-in that is a straitjacket deal on fisheries. Over the next 12 years—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Please sit down, cabinet secretary. This is not acceptable.”
“I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for missing the start of the statement. Only last month, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands confirmed in this chamber that “the common fisheries policy is an integral part of EU law. It is well established that membership of the CFP is a fundamental requirement of EU membership. The Scottish Government supports the overarching principles and strategic outcomes of the CFP”—[Official Report, 2 April 2025; c 28.] We can all agree that Labour’s deal is a sell-out of our fishing communities, but will Angus Robertson also accept that, although Labour may have given away the opportunity of annual negotiations for the next 12 years, the SNP’s obsession with rejoining the EU and so rejoining the CFP means that it wants to give that away permanently?”
“By supporting the Scottish Conservatives’ motion unamended at decision time, the Parliament can send a clear message that it opposes Labour’s damaging deal; that it confirms its support for Scotland staying out of the CFP; that our future must be as an independent coastal state, not one that is controlled by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels; and that both of Scotland’s Governments must get behind our fisheries sector and work together to deliver the bright future that we know that it can have. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on protecting Scotland’s fishing industry. Business Motions”
“However, the threat that the sector now faces from the Labour Government’s potential deal with Brussels is grave. The deal would be a sell- out of local fishermen and our fishing communities. Polling that was released by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is clear: the Scottish public overwhelmingly believe that the EU’s fishing fleet should not be allowed access to our waters without tangible benefits for Scotland’s fishermen and our fishing industry.”
“Finlay Carson: Does my colleague agree with me that, perhaps the reason that we have not had a fisheries debate in the chamber is not because the SNP does not like to give up the chance to kick the UK Government, but because it would absolutely fail to defend its position in support of its inshore fisheries and the devolved fisheries regulations that it is wholly responsible for? The party has let the fishing industry down since it came to power. Jamie Halcro Johnston: The member will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him whole- heartedly on that point—we have seen that time and time again. Members have spoken about some of the other challenges that the industry faces, such as spatial squeeze, which is of increasing concern for many fishermen.”
“Finlay Carson highlighted the historic importance of his local cockle fishing industry, which particularly resonated with me. Time and time again, local fisheries close or are blocked because of questionable science or prevaricating ministers. That is certainly the case with the closure of the Clyde cod box. A derogation for Shetland fishermen to catch squid was not granted because—I will paraphrase a response that I received—there was not enough evidence to allow it, but there also was not enough evidence to reject it. Valuable local fisheries, often worth millions of pounds to local economies, are being lost—sometimes year after year—because of decisions that have been based on questionable science or because decisions have not been made at all.”
“Mr Eagle is also right that it delivered two important things: we left the hated CFP and we built in an opportunity to get a better deal in 2026- 27. That is what Labour now threatens The threat is from the SNP, too, because, if it has its way, it will back the CFP, as I have just mentioned. As Rachael Hamilton reminded us, SNP ministers in the Parliament, egged on by Fergus Ewing’s favourite nationalist colleagues, the Greens, planned to bring in HPMAs, which would have shut 50 per cent of Scottish seas and decimated our coastal communities. Thankfully, after pressure from members on the Conservative benches, the industry and local communities, the SNP was forced to U-turn, although the threat of HPMAs being introduced by the back door remains.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston: We were just talking about the opportunities that have been presented to us that I think Labour will throw away, but I will come to that later. Leaving the CFP has been positive, but I also recognise, as did Tim Eagle, the industry’s concerns about the limitations of the deal that was agreed with the EU when we left. That brings me to some of the other contributions in the debate. Tim Eagle rightly recognised the concerns of some in the fishing industry—concerns that were raised with me at the time, as the party’s lead on fishing when we left the EU—that the trade and co- operation agreement that was signed with the EU did not meet the expectations of many in the sector.”
“Labour went from supporting farmers to cutting the legs from underneath them—they will just have to “learn to do more with less”, Labour said. Farmers have learned to their cost that they cannot trust Labour, and fishermen may be about to learn the same. The SNP’s amendment is as expected. It cuts out any awkward references to the common fisheries policy, clearly in the hope that Scottish fishermen will somehow forget that the SNP’s obsession with breaking up the UK and rejoining the EU would also mean rejoining the common fisheries policy. The SNP is desperate to hand back control of our seas and our fish to bureaucrats in Brussels. Karen Adam: Can the member tell us how Brexit has remedied the situation through our coming out of the CFP?”
“Food security should be part of our national security, and the interests of one industry should not be traded off against those of another, no matter how small.” Labour’s amendment claims that no agreements have been reached and that, therefore, “speculation is not helpful”. Well, it is perhaps not helpful for Labour—and can we take the party at its word? Ahead of last year’s general election, Keir Starmer told farmers that “food security is national security” and reassured them that they had his support, saying that “losing a farm is not like losing any other business – it can’t come back.” Labour was right behind our farmers, he suggested, and then he betrayed them by introducing Labour’s family farm tax.”
“If that is true, it really would be a betrayal of our fishermen, giving away access to our waters and our fish just to appease a French President who appears to be shamefully exploiting European security concerns for his own ends. Reacting to reports of a deal, James Anderson, chairman of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, said: “If true, this report is more or less suggesting that the UK returns to being in the much-maligned Common Fisheries Policy ... with a multi-annual deal condemning us to fixed quotas year after year. Ministers clearly haven’t got a clue about the impact on Scottish fishing grounds—and the people whose livelihoods depend on them—or they would not be agreeing to this as a way forward.”
“Its amendment actually supports calls for an annual debate, which raises a question that could be asked of the SNP in many areas: why the delay? Our fishing industry is a vital employer in our coastal and island communities, and it supports many local jobs and livelihoods, both directly and indirectly, across my region. However, the industry faces a number of challenges, some of which were raised with us when we were in Shetland as well as in meetings with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. Most pressing are reports that the UK Labour Administration seems to be prepared to bow to pressure from the French Government and sell out Scotland’s fishermen for access to EU funding.”
“I am pleased to be able to close what has been an important debate on the future of Scottish fishing—an industry that is vital and so ingrained in many of the communities that I represent across the Highlands and Islands, including Mallaig, on Skye, and in Orkney, where I live, as well as in Shetland, which Tim Eagle and I visited only last month and where we spoke with the local sector. As Tim Eagle and other members have highlighted, the Scottish Conservatives have chosen to use our business time today to bring a fishing debate to the chamber in Holyrood, after the SNP Scottish Government failed to do so. There has not been such a debate for two years, and it is clear from the many contributions today that that is a shameful failure by the SNP.”
“I am sorry that the cabinet secretary did not take my intervention, because I was going to point out to him that 5 May is a very special day for us, because it is the date on which he and I stood against each other in the general election. Who would have thought, nearly 20 years ago, that we would both be in this place, with me representing a party that took us out of the CFP and him representing one that wants to take us back in. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.”
“I move amendment S6M-17360.1, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert: “recognises that the upcoming UK-EU Summit will cover a range of issues as all sides look to build a stable and positive relationship that aligns with the national interest; notes that no agreements have been reached and therefore speculation is not helpful; further notes that the UK Government has stated that there is no link between fish and defence and that it would be wrong to suggest otherwise; acknowledges that the UK Labour administration has always been clear that it will protect the interests of UK fisheries; believes that the UK has long been a leader in the defence and security of the European continent and should stand ready to negotiate a security and defence partnership agreement with the EU; further believes that Scotland’s domestic fishing industry is a significant contributor to the economy, particularly in many of the island and rural communities, and must, therefore, be protected, and calls on the Scottish Government to reform quota allocation via local authorities to ensure a sustainable fisheries future for communities and biodiversity.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ariane Burgess, who joins us remotely.”
“Sadly, they had already allowed the sale of United Kingdom quota to foreign boats—and quota was sold to the highest bidder. We will take no lessons from the party that created discord with our nearest neighbours in Europe to cover its own incompetence. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Rhoda Grant: That party sold out our fishing industry and now seeks to conflate national security with economic benefit.”
“We should build on the Shetland model, in which quota is owned by a community and then leased to those who live in the local community and land their catches in Shetland. Orkney Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar also do that with prawn quota. That should be how we manage our quota going forward. It gives councils the ability to manage fisheries in a way that benefits local economies. That is community wealth building in action: retaining the economic wealth of our fishing industries in our communities to ensure that we have the onshore benefits as well as the offshore benefits of fishing. All those things need to be discussed and put in place. Let us be clear that the Tories pushed for Brexit to take back control of fishing.”
“Furthermore, it is crass, in the face of an aggressor, to conflate our national security with our economic wellbeing. The UK Government has made it clear that that will not happen. There are messages on the fisheries negotiations that we, as a Parliament, must clearly send to the United Kingdom Government. We all understand the importance of fisheries to Scotland, and we need to encourage new entrants into the industry. Setting up fishing enterprises requires investment, so we need to create entry- level opportunities. We also all know that more of the earnings of smaller boats are retained in their communities, and that is an excellent way to encourage new entrants. New entrants also need to be able to access quota. Therefore, new quota must be leased in the public interest, not sold to the highest bidder.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Rhoda Grant: I do not have time to take another intervention. The Scottish Conservative motion seeks to suggest that we need no change to the current system that its Government presided over. What is much more concerning is that it seeks to conflate our national security and the security of the European continent with discussions on our working relationship with the European Union. Regardless of what happens with the talks in May, the United Kingdom needs to work with the whole of Europe to protect our national interests in the light of Russian aggression. That is essential for our shared security. Not working together would be in no one’s interests, and it is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions it has had with the tourism sector and other stakeholders regarding amending the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-04586)”