Rural Development Committee, 06 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 6, 2001

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Cod Recovery Plan

Item 5 on the agenda concerns the implications of the cod recovery plan. It was placed on the agenda at Richard Lochhead's request, in the light of the fisheries closures, which members may wish to discuss.

Members will be aware that meetings and protests took place in the past week. Fishing industry representatives are to meet the First Minister shortly to discuss matters. Before the committee discusses any action that it might take, I ask Richard Lochhead to speak on the matter.

I thank the convener for placing the item on the agenda at short notice and I thank the committee for allowing me to speak to the issue.

The committee will be aware that the fishing industry faces a crisis. A protest is taking place as we speak, in the form of a flotilla that has come down from the north-east and been joined by boats from around Scotland. That flotilla is now in the capital—I expect that it is at the Forth bridges—and comprises at least 180 boats, which is double the expected number. I understand that it stretches for 11 miles.

As with last Thursday's lobby, when 500 fishermen from around Scotland's coasts descended on the Scottish Parliament, and meetings before that around the country, the purpose of the flotilla is to highlight the crisis that the industry faces and to call for a compensated tie-up scheme for the fishing fleet, in light of the cod recovery plan.

I will briefly summarise the effects of the crisis. A fortnight ago, the European Union put in place a 12-week closure of key North sea fishing grounds to protect cod spawning. That has led to a concentration of fishing effort in the grounds that are open to the Scottish white fish fleet, which comprises between 300 and 400 boats. Those grounds are around Shetland and Fair isle. Within days, it became clear to the fishermen there that that concentration of effort was destroying immature haddock stocks and the haddock fishery. Fishermen came across billions of young haddock of the 1999 year class, which was supposed to sustain the fishery for the next few years. They had to discard 90 per cent of their catch. In some cases, 200, 300 or 400 boxes of fish were caught, of which 10 or fewer were put down in the hold to bring to shore, because the fishermen are not allowed to bring back the smaller fish, which are at any rate not marketable.

In response to that, the fishermen faced a dilemma. They could go to sea, destroy the juvenile haddock stocks and the future of the fishery, or stay in port voluntarily and allow the bills to run up and bankruptcy to come closer with each day. The fishing community has engaged in much high-profile activity in the past couple of weeks to call for the Government to compensate the fleet for staying in port, to safeguard the 25,000 jobs that relate to fishing and to protect the young haddock stocks.

I think that the committee would join me in commending the fishermen for the dignified way in which they have conducted their protest, which has caught the public's imagination and won the support of the public and many MSPs. As a result of last week's action, the First Minister agreed to meet the fishing industry on Wednesday to discuss the crisis. I asked for the subject to be added to today's agenda because the committee might wish to respond to that meeting and because fishermen are arriving in Edinburgh as we speak. The committee might wish to adjourn its meeting—perhaps at 3.30 pm—to meet the fishermen's leaders, who will be at Leith docks between 3.30 and 4 pm. I recognise that we have a heavy agenda, although we may not get through half of it.

I do not exaggerate the crisis. At stake are 25,000 jobs in the inshore and offshore sectors relating to fisheries. If the fishermen fish out the haddock because they have no compensated tie-up scheme, they will divert to other fisheries, such as the prawn fishery, which will in turn be wiped out. Then, the fish processing sector will close down, as will all our coastal communities. This is the week when the powers that be will take the decision that dictates the outcome of the crisis. That is why I ask the committee to consider its response to the First Minister's meeting tomorrow. Does the committee wish to contact the First Minister before then by letter or another means? Do we want to use the opportunity of the biggest fishing protest in decades coming to Edinburgh to meet the fishermen's leaders?

I will probe Richard Lochhead's idea a little. This is not a problem, but the Liberal Democrats had a group meeting at lunch time—as Richard knows—and we decided that Iain Smith would stand in for me and go down to meet the fishermen. He represents the East Neuk, after all. Could the fishermen come here? Only two boats are coming to Leith. Do they have other meetings scheduled for later today? I do not know.

That is a good suggestion. However, my understanding is that the fleet is allowed only into the Firth of Forth, where it plans to stay for a couple of hours. Two boats are breaking off from the fleet to dock at Leith, because the fishermen's leaders want to speak to the media and some people must be allowed off the boats to come onshore. Those boats must then rejoin the rest of the fleet, which will leave, for safety. For those reasons, I am not 100 per cent sure whether Jamie Stone's suggestion is an option.

I take it that, in your absence, someone else from the SNP is representing you at Leith.

Yes, but I will go there between 3.30 and 4 pm, because I gave an undertaking a while back to do that. The fishermen are highlighting a real crisis. They are not performing a publicity stunt. Therefore, it would be worth while if the committee spoke to them. That is an option.

Representations were made last Thursday. I accept what Richard Lochhead says about the situation being serious, but I am not sure whether anything has changed substantially since last Thursday. People listened to the arguments then. As Richard said, a meeting between the fishermen's leaders and the First Minister will take place tomorrow. If the committee wished, it could offer its support to the fishermen, but I am not sure what we could do by being in Leith, especially given our heavy schedule. No one would deny that the agenda contains equally pressing matters. We have said that we will have difficulty getting through the agenda, so taking time out to go to Leith and return would make it difficult to cover even half of it.

I welcome Mary Mulligan's comments, especially her support for the industry. I merely flag up a visit as an option. The committee has an opportunity to be innovative by adjourning at 3.30 pm to meet the fishermen, who represent thousands of people. The situation is unusual when a flotilla of 180 boats or more, stretching for 11 miles, comes to Edinburgh to communicate with the Parliament. We represent the Parliament. Welcoming the fishermen is an option for us.

You did not say whether anything had changed substantially since Thursday, to which we could respond.

The substantial change since Thursday is that we are only 24 hours away from the Government saying whether the campaign has been successful. If we greeted the fishermen, we would show our support for their cause.

Mary Mulligan made a good point. What has changed? Richard Lochhead said that we are 24 hours away from the fishermen's meeting with the First Minister. I have great sympathy with the fishermen's case as they put it to us last week, but we would be much more useful if we made a positive contribution by sending a message to the First Minister before the meeting. I feel that that would carry much more weight. I am seriously worried about the amount on the agenda and what another postponement would mean to the size of next week's agenda. I think that we have a meeting scheduled for next week.

I have sympathy with Mary Mulligan's point of view.

I detect a view that it is important to carry on with today's business. However, I am also beginning to detect a degree of support for the views that have been expressed by the fishermen. What are members' views on that? Is the committee in a position to express support for the fishermen?

Mary Mulligan's suggestion is a good one. Following on from what Alex Fergusson said, we should, if possible, say to the First Minister that we understand and sympathise with the fishermen's situation. Can the committee write to the First Minister prior to the meeting and ask him to do everything in his power?

Members will think that I am absolutely off the wall, but I think that it might be no bad thing for the committee to get its teeth into the detailed questions about what the fishermen are asking for. I know that we have an impossible schedule, but should we invite the fishermen to give evidence to us sooner rather than later?

We should await the outcome of this week's talks before we make a decision on that.

Okay. Subsequent to that meeting, could we issue that invitation? At last week's meeting, there was quite detailed discussion about, for example, the amount of money per day per boat per tie-up. We could quite easily get our teeth into that sort of thing. There was some haziness over the sums involved. The sum of money that was needed was realised, but there was some haziness in trying to define the average size of boat, for example. That could be useful work that would help the fishermen.

I am not sure what will transpire after the First Minister's meeting tomorrow. The committee may wish to write to the First Minister to ask him to do all that he can to deal with the problems that the fishermen are facing.

I went to both meetings last Thursday and was impressed with the fishermen's arguments. I was conscious, however, that we did not hear a direct response from the ministers to the fishermen's points. Unless some decision has already been taken or some announcement made, it might be worth while to have a session in which we take evidence from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and from the ministers to find out what can be done to ease the pretty dreadful situation that fishermen are in.

I support the points made by Elaine Murray. Over the past couple of weeks, I have become very aware of the range of issues that are involved. It is important that we hear from all sides.

I was quite surprised to hear of some of the financial arrangements, the impact on the crews on the fishing vessels and what might be done in a general sense to pick up and ease some of their difficulties. I would like to have some more information on such matters, presented in a structured and carefully thought-out way, so that we could make some recommendations.

I appreciate, however, that short-term difficulties have to be resolved. If the committee can do anything today—such as write to the First Minister to urge him to hear all sides and take whatever steps are appropriate—we should do that.

There is a big queue to speak, but Fergus Ewing has been waiting for a while.

No one who was at the meeting at which John Buchan spoke last week can be in any doubt that the fishing industry in Scotland is facing its greatest crisis ever. I support Richard Lochhead's proposal to visit the fishermen this afternoon. I detect, however, that it will not be supported by the committee as a whole.

Alex Fergusson was the first to point out that there is one thing that we can do today. We can write to the First Minister to express the committee's clear support, in principle, for a compensation package for the industry in exchange for a tie-up scheme. I do not need to rehearse before committee members the arguments for that, because members were present last week and therefore know the arguments.

As has been mentioned by Cathy Jamieson and Elaine Murray, we cannot put a figure on the compensation package now, nor would it be appropriate that we do so in such an open forum. However, I am sure that to give fishermen what they have been arguing in favour of for a long time, we should accept the principle that a tie-up scheme is not only necessary but essential if we are to have a fishing industry. If we accept that the millennium dome cost around £1 billion, by broad rule of thumb, we could pay for a tie-up scheme around 50 to 100 times over from the money that it cost to build the millennium dome.

My proposal is quite simple: that the Rural Development Committee, following today's meeting, writes to express its unanimous support for the principle of a compensation package—to be negotiated between the Executive and the fishing community—with the aim of securing the tie-up that the fishermen say is necessary to conserve the industry and fish stocks.

I think that we have to go further than that. Fergus Ewing's proposal is all very well as a means of dealing with the immediate crisis, but if we are to have a fishing industry, we need to look at the long term. Our letter should say not only that we need to consider and deal with the short-term issues, but that we need to take a serious look at the industry's long-term needs. I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has produced proposals to make the fishing industry sustainable. Rather than just firefighting, we need to keep our eye on the long-term goal: if anything, that is as important as the short-term goal.

As other members wish to comment, I will take Mary Mulligan first—she has been waiting for a while—then Alex Fergusson.

On the point that Rhoda Grant made, I would be reluctant to tie ourselves strictly to compensation for tie-up at this stage, as we may lose some of the benefits that could be brought about by looking at a longer-term plan, which might result in some kind of decommissioning situation. We need to look at what resources are available—Fergus Ewing can sit here and say that money was spent elsewhere, but we are talking about money that will have to come out of the Scottish Executive budget. I accept the difficulties that the fishermen have at the moment, but members must recognise that the money has to be found from somewhere. I am not ruling out a compensation package, but we need to discuss it in more detail. I do not think that at this stage, with the information that we have, we could support compensation.

As Rhoda Grant said, we must look at longer-term provision. If we are to write to the First Minister, asking him to look sympathetically at the fishermen's position when he meets them tomorrow, we must accept that he will have to consider all the options and all the information that is relevant to those options, before he makes a decision. We must look carefully at what we have to do to bring that about, but the First Minister must recognise that we totally support a long-term future for fishing in Scotland.

I agree absolutely with Mary Mulligan and Rhoda Grant. However, it was brought home to me last Thursday that the situation is different, because of the desperate short-term urgency. Damage to the young stock is being brought about by regulation and legislation, which have closed the areas for cod fishing and forced fishermen into other areas. A warning that there would be consequential damage to those areas was made in a debate in the chamber some time ago. The fact that the damage has been brought about by legislation means that we must address not only the long-term situation, which is vital to the sustainability of the industry, but the urgent short-term situation. I therefore tend to support Fergus Ewing's proposal.

John Buchan made the point eloquently last week when he said that, if there is no survival in the short term, there would be no long-term future. I suggest that there is a middle way: the thing to do is to write to the First Minister, saying that the Rural Development Committee is deeply concerned about the state of the fishing industry, particularly at this point in time. We should ask that the First Minister consider all means of ensuring the short-term survival of the industry, including a possible tie-up scheme. Such a request would not box him in too much. We should rule nothing out, but we are duty-bound to the fishermen to mention the tie-up scheme.

I have considerable sympathy with the views of Richard Lochhead and Fergus Ewing. However, at this time—the day before the meeting with the First Minister is due to take place—this committee's highest priority must be to send a unanimous message to the First Minister and the Deputy Minister for Rural Development. I therefore propose that we contact them—today if possible, but certainly before any discussions take place tomorrow—to express a unanimous view along the lines that Jamie Stone has suggested.

Can we also—today—send a message to the people on the boats saying that that is what we have decided?

All parties will be represented when the fleet arrives at Leith docks, and that is very welcome. I was merely flagging up some options. I fully accept that we have an agenda and that we will all be represented down in Leith anyway.

I have to make one thing absolutely clear. Alex Fergusson and Jamie Stone hit the nail on the head. The protests are happening because of tomorrow's meeting. Much of Scotland's fleet—the vast majority of boats—supports a voluntary tie-up. They are showing solidarity as an industry and are speaking with one voice, which has not happened in a long while.

We face a short-term crisis. Tomorrow, at the meeting with the First Minister, if the fleet does not get a compensated tie-up scheme, it will have to go back to sea so that people can make a living. Otherwise, those people will go bankrupt. As Alex and Jamie have said, if the fleet goes back to sea, it may not have a long-term future, because the stocks that are to sustain the fishery for the next few years will be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

What is required tomorrow is a scheme that will get the fleet through the next 10 weeks, while the grounds concerned are closed. That is the nub of the issue. Rhoda Grant is absolutely right to say that we need long-term measures; however, this week we need a short-term measure, which can only be a compensated tie-up scheme. That is the absolute truth, and it is very important that we convey that message in our letter to the First Minister.

From what he is saying, I am not sure whether Richard Lochhead supports Jamie Stone's approach or not. That approach, which is not prescriptive and which allows for discussion to take place between the First Minister and the fishermen's representatives, is appropriate. At that discussion, things will be said and points of view will be expressed that none of us have heard. I therefore support Jamie's approach, but I am not sure whether Richard does.

I broadly support what Jamie Stone said when he cautioned us about the wording of the letter. Tomorrow, only one issue is on the agenda: the short-term measure to save the industry. The First Minister either supports that or he does not. I suggest that this committee should make it clear to the First Minister that we support that measure.

Jamie Stone has hit the nail on the head. He has outlined a proposal that I am sure has the support of every single member of the committee. However, I do not think that everyone takes the view that Richard Lochhead takes. As the convener has suggested, it will be much more forceful if our letter to the First Minister and our message to the fishermen represent the unanimous view of the committee. We should support Jamie.

In fairness to Richard Lochhead, I do not see why the letter should not say that this committee is concerned about the short-term survival prospects of the Scottish fishing fleet. I think that that is what Richard is saying.

It seems to me that my proposal, as expanded by Richard Lochhead, and Jamie Stone's proposal are different in one important respect. My proposal was that we should unequivocally support the principle of a tie-up scheme. Jamie said that, although we should make it clear that we are concerned about the short-term future of the industry, we should recommend measures including—and I wrote this phrase down—a "possible tie-up scheme".

With respect to our colleagues as the committee tries to find unity, Richard Lochhead and I disagree with that wording. There is no question mark—a scheme is necessary. I would find it difficult to support a form of words that merely referred to the possibility of such a scheme, because, with all due respect, that is almost identical to the form of words that the ministers have suggested. Nothing is ruled in or out. Without being prescriptive, Richard and I want to rule in the principle that such a scheme is necessary. That is the clear difference between the two positions. Although the details are a matter for negotiation, the principle must be established beyond doubt.

It will be unhelpful if we cannot reach a unanimous view. If we have to push the matter to a vote and it becomes likely that a motion will not go through unanimously, we should have no motion at all.

In that case, shall we instead say something like "a tie-up scheme or a similarly financed scheme that would equally lead to the survival of the fleet"?

We must be careful that we do not prescribe anything.

The wording that Jamie Stone proposed earlier should be able to encompass the views of all committee members. I agree with Mike Rumbles. If we cannot give out a unanimous message, we will divide people over a very small point instead of allowing them to focus on what all committee members want: a short-term solution to deal with the immediate crisis, but in the context of a discussion about measures for the longer-term sustainability of the industry.

Although I do not know the technicalities or practicalities of a tie-up scheme—those are for others to work out and negotiate—it should be considered as an option. However, I do not want to rule out any other possibilities that I may not yet know about. As a result, Jamie Stone's suggested wording is perfectly sensible.

I totally understand the desire for unanimity and agree that we will have problems with sending a message if we cannot be unanimous, but I am also worried that the wording will be too wishy-washy. Although I do not mean to call my friend Jamie Stone wishy-washy, the proposed wording dilutes what the committee is trying to say.

Although I am willing to accept that I am no expert on the subject and am therefore open to what I hear about it, it was made clear to us last Thursday that there are two options; that a tie-up scheme is introduced or that the fishermen go back to sea and destroy the future stock. Given that choice, I can see no alternative but that the committee should suggest a tie-up scheme. We do not need to go into how much it would cost or the amount that individual boats and skippers should be paid. Any message that we send must be relatively robust; watering it down too much will have no beneficial effect. That said, I would like to see a degree of unanimity.

Although the evidence to date has indicated that a tie-up scheme is the solution, there has been some strong evidence against. All I am trying to do is find a form of words that the two SNP members can accept.

Perhaps we could say something to the effect that we urge the First Minister to consider all options and that if no other option can be achieved, he should consider a tie-up scheme.

Or we could simply ask the First Minister to consider all options, including a tie-up scheme.

That is what I said in the first place.

No. You said "a possible tie-up scheme", which is different.

Oh well, take out the word "possible", then.

If we do that, we could reach an agreement.

Richard Davies has made some notes. At the risk of not being able to read his writing properly, I will ask him to run through them.

What appears to be suggested by Jamie Stone comes in three parts: first, to express unanimous deep concern over the present situation; secondly, to urge the First Minister and the Deputy Minister for Rural Development to do all that they can to ensure that all options for sustaining the future of the industry are considered; the third part uses the words, "including a possible tie-up compensation scheme".

We should take out the word "possible".

Could you read out the third part again.

No problem: "including a possible tie-up compensation scheme".

Could you take out "possible" and say "to consider a tie-up scheme"?

Or "to consider all options, including a tie-up scheme."

The text now reads: "to express unanimous deep concern about the present situation, to urge the First Minister and the Deputy Minister for Rural Development to do all they can to consider all options for sustaining the future of the industry, including a tie-up compensation scheme."

Can we prefix those lines with one line to say that that the committee recognises the short-term crisis facing the industry, due to the current closures of key fishing grounds and the displacement of fishing effort? We have to highlight the urgency.

We will highlight the fact that we are discussing the short-term future of the industry. That will, of course, be the subject of the meeting tomorrow.

Moving on, do I understand that the committee does not wish to adjourn to visit Leith? Do I further understand that Richard Lochhead intends to visit Leith to be present at the meeting with the fishermen? Would it be appropriate to ask Richard to return at a future point to give us a report on that meeting?

I am sure that we will still be here later this evening if he wants to come back then.

I am not suggesting that it be today.

Could I ask that Richard Lochhead inform the fishermen when he meets them of the terms of the letter that we have sent to the ministers? It is important that Richard, as a member of the committee, be able to do that.

We can ensure that Richard Lochhead has a copy of the rough outline of the letter to be sent to the First Minister today.

The meeting is informal, but I will be happy to convey the committee's best wishes to the fishermen when I speak to them.

We would be grateful if you would do that.

We will have to revisit the issue following tomorrow's meeting.

That is the case. Once tomorrow's meeting has taken place, the committee may indeed wish to consider the matter again and examine the longer-term future.

If there are no further comments on agenda item 5, we will go back to item 2.

Without wanting to prolong the meeting's proceedings unduly, I have one point to raise, convener. I wish to put on record the fact that I received a message this morning from a haulier based in my constituency. He points out that, because of the tie-up, he is left with four lorries, five employees and no work. I hope that we do not overlook the fact that there are many people in the rural community other than fishermen and farmers who depend on fishing and farming for their livelihood—I draw particular attention to hauliers. If fishing and farming go, they go too. It is extremely important that, in the context of the two crises that we are facing, we do not omit to consider the plight of all those affected. For the record, that message came from Iain Stewart and Sons of Arisaig.

I think that we are all aware that many others will be affected by the present situation apart from the fishermen. During question time last Thursday, Elaine Thomson raised the situation that fish processors find themselves in. Those effects on other occupations mean that it is important for the committee to examine the whole issue in a broader context than that of the immediate difficulties being discussed tomorrow. We should examine the future of the Scottish fishing industry. I take on board the points made by Fergus Ewing, but I think that the committee recognises that a lot of people will be affected.