Fishing Industry: Government Support

Debate between Douglas Lumsden and Seamus Logan

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan]

Thank you for that clarification, Chair. I have six pages of almost entirely redacted correspondence, so it is clear that somebody does not want us to see these things.

In subsequent correspondence between the Scotland Office and the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, it is admitted that this was a Treasury decision in 2024, not a Scottish Government decision. It is admitted that the allocation in no way reflects the size and strength of the industry in the north-east of Scotland, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says she is too busy to meet the chair of the SWFPA, Jimmy Buchan—too busy. Perhaps in the forthcoming reshuffle she might find herself less busy.

Adding insult to injury, allocating this paltry pocket money to Scotland over 12 years means that Scotland will receive only around £2.3 million per year in additional investment. To say that that falls short of what is needed is to put it mildly. If the UK Government had engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as with the Scottish Government, they might have been made more aware of that. The Minister here today now has the opportunity to put this right.

Another expert in the industry, Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, has also called the allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds:

“Scottish waters are bearing the brunt of the 12-year EU fisheries access extension”,

which was negotiated by the UK Government, and that

“the use of the population-based Barnett formula fails to reflect this reality…with communities left carrying the burden with only a fraction of the support they deserve.”

This is not about tribal politics; nor it is about scoring points in this Chamber. This is about fairness and the lack of it in terms of support for our fishing industry in Scotland.

I was pleased to note the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Resetting the relationship with fishing communities”, which was critical of how the fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year 2.

In common with my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, I look forward to the forthcoming sectoral action plan being co-ordinated by the former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I would like to add my own recommendation that the ideal way to ensure better engagement in Scotland would be to support reinstating the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, as suggested by former Scottish Government Fishing Minister Mairi Gougeon, something which the Scotland Office endorsed. Collaboration with those in this sector will be invaluable in resetting relationships and an opportunity to understand a further pressing problem on how one size most definitely does not fit all when it comes to fishing’s labour shortages.

That brings me to the UK Government’s reluctance to have a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the north-east is affected by major labour shortages. The knock-on impact to growth and building a successful and prosperous future is very negative. I am currently in an unsatisfactory game of email ping-pong with the Department for Work and Pensions about its insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages.

Let me share some reality with the DWP and the Home Office. The north-east fishing industry cannot get local people to apply for these posts or, when they do, to stay in post for more than one shift, despite strong financial and career incentives. The flip side is that international workers are commonly keener to stay the distance once they are trained up—a costly endeavour for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue; just ask my colleagues from other parties. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows exactly what I am speaking about in relation to Northern Ireland.

On another front, Ian Gatt, the chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association points out that the ongoing situation with quota shares of mackerel between coastal states is yet to be resolved, despite efforts by UK and Scottish Governments to secure an agreement with the four coastal states. That is crucial, because mackerel is the most valuable to Scottish fisheries in terms of tonnage. The autumn negotiations are therefore crucial for Scotland.

All those issues point to the need for the UK Government to play a far more supportive role with the Scottish fishing industry. To do that, they need to listen to industry concerns, rebuild trust and boost economic growth, and they need to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and that reflect solutions to the realities that they face. It is just not good enough to bypass the sector, override the Scottish Government and play funding games with invaluable investment. The time for a more positive reset is well past due.

The Scottish Government’s support for our fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of marine fund Scotland, £70 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of £154 million—everything from supporting new entrants, the onboard observers programme, the promotion of Scottish seafood, safety training, covid-19 recovery funding for 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much more. Targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million-worth of mackerel and herring being landed in Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead port. There is much more to be done, not least in terms of harbour renewal and expansion at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Those are the kinds of capital projects that need co-operation between our two Governments in the interests of both Scotland and the UK.

I should be grateful if the Minister could address the following four questions, either in his closing remarks or in correspondence at a later date. First, can our fish processing industry colleagues be included in the energy-intensive industry scheme? The former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), was pressing hard on that point; I lobbied her strongly on it, and she understood. Secondly, does the Minister understand that the current Home Office approach to immigration is creating unintended consequences for our fishing industry, and will he lobby for a bespoke visa scheme that provides solutions, not problems?

Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the Scottish industry that the European Union will not use the forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I completely agree that the funding settlement is inadequate and unfair for Scottish fishermen, but will the hon. Member confirm that the SNP policy is to rejoin the EU and then rejoin the hated common fisheries policy?

[Seamus Logan]

I have no brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Of course, our policy is very clear: we want to rejoin the European Union, because Brexit has been a disaster for the Scottish economy. However, I do not believe that we want any of the worst effects of the common fisheries policy.

Finally, can the Minister support the re-establishment of the Scottish seafood industry action group and actively investigate doing so?