Public Petitions Committee, 10 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 10, 2002

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Fishing Industry (PE582)

I welcome everyone to the 19th meeting in 2002 of the Public Petitions Committee. I welcome my colleagues on the committee and our visitors who are here for the first item of business: Margaret Ewing, Stewart Stevenson, Richard Lochhead and Fergus Ewing. Other MSPs are waiting for the next item. I will introduce them when we come to that. We have apologies from John McAllion and Rhoda Grant.

Our first petitioners are James Cardno and Councillor Agnes Strachan from Aberdeenshire Council. I welcome them to the meeting.

Petition PE582 was presented to John McAllion at a public meeting last week. I think that Winnie Ewing was also at the meeting. The petitioners handed over 44,000 signatures. The petition is one of the largest that we have had in the Parliament. It is not the largest, but it approaches it. As the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, will be going to Brussels next week, we thought it vital to fast-track the petition. That is why we have brought forward consideration of it to this meeting, which was convened to question Tony Cameron from the Scottish Prison Service on the next petition.

Petition PE582 was prompted by the deep concern about the future of the fishing industry in Scotland. I invite the petitioners to address the committee for three minutes. After that, committee members will question the petitioners. Questions will last as long as members need. Thereafter, we will consider what steps to take to try to assist the fishing industry in Scotland. There is great concern about the issue throughout Scotland.

I have been a fisherman for 45 years. I have been a skipper for most of that time. The fishing industry is in a grave position; the industry has never been in a worse state. My sons have large overdrafts and mortgages on their homes, which is typical of the whole fleet. They will not be able to survive if the proposed cuts take place. The whole fleet will be finished. The cuts will harm not only the fishing industry but associated industries such as retailers. The devastation that our communities will suffer if the cuts take place does not bear thinking about.

The cuts are not about conservation. We believe that they are political. My sons tell me that there are plenty fish in the sea. One year ago, we met scientists in Aberdeen through our research. They told us that the cod stocks were still low but were on the increase. What has been said is not true. The message is getting across. We believe in conservation. We are 100 per cent for it.

Cuts have taken place. We have changed our mesh size and there are practically no discards. Fifteen per cent of the fleet has been taken off the sea. The position is very difficult and will get worse. If the proposed cuts take place, the fishing industry will be finished. We have heard about death by 1,000 cuts. If the proposed cuts take place, they will be the death-blow to the fishing industry. We in the fishing industry are in a very grave position.

I have some facts about the sea-fish industry. The 2001 economic survey of the United Kingdom fishing fleet reported that, between 1998 and 2001, average vessel earnings fell by 24 per cent, crew share fell by 30 per cent and net profit fell by 75 per cent. The white-fish sector was particularly hard hit by a fall in landings, increased running costs and lower-than-expected prices.

The vast majority of the white-fish fleet cannot simply absorb a further cut in profitability. Due to the fleet's recent poor economic performance and the high levels of industry debt, it is unlikely that many vessels would survive even short-term recovery measures. The analysis estimates that average profit, including interest payments but excluding depreciation, is 2.6 per cent of turnover. Thirty-five percent of white-fish vessels make a loss or no profit. I could go on.

Why are we in such dire trouble? It is because of cuts. They are directly involved in the current financial position. If the cuts are authorised, they will be the death-blow to the fishing industry.

The moral position must be considered. Why are fishermen being persecuted? Are scientists authorised to write the fishermen off? The fishermen know the facts. Only a skeleton fleet remains—it is merely a fraction of what it was—but my sons tell me that there is cod in areas where it has not been seen for 20 years.

Bureaucrats who do not understand the situation will wipe out the future of whole communities with the stroke of a pen. That is not only wrong; a total injustice is being thrust on our people. It is vital that members of the Scottish Parliament, who are the stewards of the Scottish people, endorse the petition. It is our heritage and God-given right to reap the harvest of the sea. The cuts are not about conservation; they are a political move to drive our fishermen off the sea and to make room for the Southern states.

I stress the gravity of the situation. If the cuts are implemented, the Scottish fishing industry will not survive.

I echo Mr Cardno's remarks. Our fishing community has never faced anything like the potentially devastating effect of the proposed cuts. Year in, year out it faces cuts and, as a consequence, the boats have trimmed their crews—they manage with about four or five crew members, whereas before they had seven or eight. They have cut their overheads, until they have nothing left to cut. Given that the bycatch from industrial fishing far exceeds the legitimate quota that a Scottish fishing boat would catch in a year, I cannot understand why it continues to be allowed.

Our Spanish counterparts are ploughing European money into their fishing industry to build larger and more efficient boats, which is the case in Ireland, too, yet our boats are being decommissioned. The Spanish and Irish authorities are building boats to work the west coast and Shetland fisheries. What has happened to our boats? They are no longer allowed to fish those areas because the quota was worked out on a historical basis and our fishermen did not have a historical basis—they wanted their days at sea, but that was disallowed. Of course, the quota that our fishermen were given was not viable and it does not pay them to steam the necessary distance. As a result, the boats that would have worked the west coast have been forced to work the east coast, which puts more pressure on the stocks in that area.

The cuts will affect the whole community, including bakers, candlestick makers, ice manufacturers and engineers, not just the fishermen. Every member of the community will go to the wall. If people do not have money to spend, all businesses will suffer. The future is grim, and who knows what might happen when the fishermen's backs are to the wall.

My comments will refer mainly to my constituency. I am sure that my colleagues will address the more general points. Approximately one third of jobs in the Banff and Buchan constituency are dependent on the fishing industry. An example of the benefits of fishing, which will be lost if there is a wholesale closure of the industry, can be seen in a small village called Strichen. Like many other rural villages, Strichen has witnessed economic shrinkage and shop closures. However, today it has two butchers, a fish-and-chip shop, a newspaper shop and a couple of pubs—it is doing quite well 10 miles from the sea.

Why are there two butchers in Strichen, a village with a population of less than 1,000? The answer is that the two butchers provide supplies for fishing vessels at ports in the constituency: Banff, Fraserburgh and Peterhead. If the fishing industry closes, a large and important part of the business of those two small shops will be removed at a stroke—technicians would describe that as a third-level effect. The shops would not survive in their present form—perhaps there would be only one shop or perhaps there would be none. What effect would the closure of the shops have on the village? It would deplete further economic activity in the village and reduce the quality of life of the people who live there.

I tell that story not because the closure of the fishing industry would not have enormous effects in Peterhead or Fraserburgh—where two thirds of the working population of a town whose population is not far short of 20,000 depend on the fishing industry—but to illustrate to the committee that the effects of closure would run deep in my constituency. The pattern would be repeated across Scotland—in communities close to the coast and communities that we might not expect to be affected by a rundown of the fishing industry.

I close with one piece of information that illustrates the difficulties that fishermen face. Larger fishing boats use a great deal of fuel to go to sea each year. In 1998, the largest of our boats paid £1.25 million for its fuel. The cost of fuel has doubled in the past year, so the largest boats are now paying £2.5 million. Fishermen, the owners of fishing boats and the industries that depend on them have been hit hard. We must find a way forward that protects jobs while protecting stocks in the North sea and giving the industry a long-term future.

I support everything that Stewart Stevenson has said. The situation that he described is replicated right around the coast of Scotland; it is not confined to the north-east. That is a matter of concern.

At the rally that took place last week in Edinburgh, it was pointed out that there are 44,000 signatures on the petition—one for every job that is dependent on the white-fish fisheries. That is why I am here to support the petition. If this situation affected one factory somewhere in the central belt, there would be a huge response. We are determined that the 44,000 people whose jobs depend on the white-fish industry should receive strong support from elected parliamentarians.

I have a simple question for the petitioners. As we know, Elliot Morley is the main United Kingdom negotiator in the talks on the common fisheries policy. Both petitioners emphasised the issues for our communities. How many communities has the Westminster fishing minister visited? How often has he discussed the matter with local representatives such as you?

To my knowledge, he has not done so. That speaks volumes.

I invite Richard Lochhead to speak, but to save questions for later.

I congratulate the committee on fast-tracking the petition ahead of next Monday's crucial talks. I also congratulate the organisers of the petition and those who have spoken to it today on collecting so many signatures in such a short time. That indicates the strength of feeling on the issue.

I make it clear to the committee that we are talking about a way of life—an industry that has existed in Scotland since time immemorial and that has forged the identity of communities right around Scotland's coasts. That way of life is under threat—a heritage may be destroyed.

The industry is worth about a third of a billion pounds to the Scottish economy each year, which is a significant amount of cash. As has been indicated, it employs more than 40,000 people in fragile economies where there are no other jobs to replace the jobs in the fishing industry should they be lost.

The proposals are being made at a time when fish stocks are at healthy levels, according to the figures of the scientists who are giving management advice to the European Commission. Cod stocks have increased by 25 per cent over the past year. Of course there is an issue around saving the cod, but the amount of haddock, which is perhaps the most vital Scottish white fish, is at a higher level now than it has been over the past 30 years. The same is true for whiting. The number of prawns, which are the most valuable stock for Scotland, is at a robust level. Prawn stocks are extremely healthy right around Scotland's coasts.

The European Commission has underestimated the grit and determination of our fishing communities, which will not stand by and allow their heritage to be destroyed. No one in Europe, including the Scottish Government and the UK Government, should underestimate the strength of feeling in fishing communities.

The common fisheries policy has failed. The last thing that we want to do is to adopt another failed policy, just as the CFP is about to be reformed, simply because of past failures. The Spanish fishing fleet has increased since the CFP came into being; the Scottish fleet has decreased, as has the level of employment in fishing in Scotland.

Margaret Ewing's comments about Elliot Morley can, I believe, also be applied to Franz Fischler, the architect of the proposals. Since he put them on the table, I do not think that he has visited Scotland. He has visited London, but he has not visited this country or Scottish fishing communities.

I urge the committee to support the petition.

The petition is about the survival of the fishing industry throughout Scotland. The industry is united, and it is fighting to survive, not to win compensation after it dies.

We must not forget the particular problems that face the west-coast fisheries and their needs. I am sure that all fishermen would agree with that. There is no shortage of prawns; they are in plentiful supply. When I visited Mallaig some weeks ago, I was told by Robert Stevenson of the West of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation that, among the 1,200 tonnes of prawns landed, there were only 4 tonnes of cod. The cod bycatch is virtually zero.

The advice that the Commission received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was that, if the bycatch is minimal, there is no justification whatever for any cut in the prawn quota. In fact, the existing prawn quota for the west of Scotland was based on the precautionary principle without any real evidence. In my view, it should be increased. At the very least, the 10 per cent reduction should be lifted.

When I visited Mallaig, I spoke to one skipper who showed me his income for last year. It was about a third less than the lowest salary for a fireman, yet the fisherman's job is the most dangerous of jobs in Britain. If Fischler gets his way, Mallaig—its history, its culture, its heritage—will be finished. We are fighting for the survival of Mallaig, and we are going to win.

Did Agnes Strachan and the skipper, James Cardno, attend the rally that was held in Edinburgh? I also have some questions for them on the science. Am I right in saying that the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation seems to treat the science from the Commission as sacrosanct? The expert who spoke at the rally, Brian Philp from Amazon Seafoods, totally destroyed that point of view. Is the science that we are being told about from Brussels correct and justifiable?

It is entirely wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. People at sea know the fishermen's position. My son told me recently that he has seen more cod in the sea than has been the case for the past four or five years. The stocks are on the increase. Do not get me wrong: we believe that we have to conserve and be conservative, but the message that has been put across about the scientific data is total lies and fabrication.

Am I right also in thinking that, because of global warming, the cod are going north and are not in the areas where our fleets tend to fish for prawns, haddock and whiting? Are the cod going north?

People say that, yes. They say that global warming is one factor in the decrease but—

Do the cod like cold water?

Yes. The number of cod is increasing. Many years ago the number was down, but in the past year or two, it has been on the up. There is no justification for any cuts at all. We cannot survive without cod, because they are the expensive fish. Haddock alone will not meet our commitments. We need the cod. If we have small quotas, one option is to land fish illegally, which we do not do. We have not landed a black fish for five years. In Peterhead it is the same. On most boats there are no black fish or, if there are any, there are very few. The black fish have gone.

My last question is to both petitioners, who have done so well before us. How do you feel about the British Government allowing industrial fishing for pig feed to continue—without objection—given that such fishing takes a far greater amount of fish than is taken for human consumption? How do fishermen and fishing communities feel about that?

It goes completely against the grain. There is something abhorrent about industrial fishing. Anyone who is interested in conservation must feel that. The issue is that people are being allowed to catch fish that could be used for human consumption—I am speaking about the by-product. Fish are predatory and pout is a feedstock for the larger fish. If the feedstock is caught, the fish will move away and will diminish in number, because there is nothing for them to feed on. Something about the industrial fishing of fish for fertiliser and animal feed is disgusting.

Aberdeenshire has interests in agriculture and beef farming, as well as in fish. Did the farming community experience similar feelings about the illegal beef ban by the French in recent years?

Yes. How can we be in a union and not be treated equally? The French Government is very supportive of its farmers and fishermen. I wish that our Government were half as supportive of our fishermen and farmers.

Have not the French demonstrated that even though the European Commission makes a decision that sets a policy, that policy can be ignored until the European courts give it validity?

That is the message that is coming across, is it not?

Yes. Is it possible that fishermen will reach that interpretation and that they will expect the backing of the British Government if they take such a line?

They have every reason to expect the backing of the British Government. Their backs are against the wall; they have nothing to lose. If their industry is wrecked, they will lose their homes and their livelihoods. They will have nothing else to lose.

I think that it was Richard Lochhead—or it might have been Margaret Ewing—who made the point that the loss of 40,000 jobs is equivalent to the loss of 40 Motorolas in the central belt. What do you think would have been the Government's attitude to the loss of 40 Motorolas at a stroke?

I imagine that it would have been completely different. We in the north-east and in Scottish fishing communities feel that we are of no consequence to the Government. We feel as if we have been written off.

So you expect the Public Petitions Committee to make the strongest possible representation to our Government that, irrespective of any decision taken in Europe—which to a degree is out of our Government's hands—you expect the Government to back the Scottish fishermen to ensure that many of those 40,000 jobs are saved?

Most certainly. You are our voice. You are speaking for us and you are our only hope of changing the ridiculous legislation that will come out of Europe.

Thanks very much. I want to put a point to the skipper. Do you recall the pressures that the scientists have put on the prawn fishing industry in the past 10 years, on the west coast in particular?

I have not been to the prawns, except for a year or two long ago. The prawn men have had a decent living recently, but if the cuts are implemented, even in smaller measure, some of the white-fish boats will be pushed on to the prawns and that will be the end of them, too.

I accept that. I was an MP in Ayr in 1992, so I know that a reasonable fishing fleet fished out of the Clyde estuary. It was decimated on the basis of scientific evidence that suggested that prawn stocks would be eliminated. We have heard Fergus Ewing say today that, if anything, prawn stocks have expanded. That was the fishermen's advice throughout the past 10 years. Does that bear a resemblance to the situation that has been described as facing the cod industry?

Yes. They say that there are plenty of prawns in the North sea, but they are mostly smaller prawns and they are pretty cheap.

I am trying to move on and make a comparison with the current scientific evidence. We were told that the prawn stocks were going to be eliminated. Fleet sizes were decimated and fishing in Dunure and Troon has reduced considerably. All that I am trying to do is to make the comparison. Apparently, the scientists were wrong. Do you think that the situation is similar in the North sea?

Yes. The scientists are definitely wrong, because there is an abundance of prawns.

There are many questions, but I will leave others to pick them up.

Fergus Ewing mentioned the prawn stocks on the west coast. I can confirm that the evidence that he gave this morning is correct, because I have spoken to prawn fishermen and processors up and down the west coast, who say that there is no shortage of prawns and that the quality is increasing. That is satisfactory and it pleases the prawn fishermen.

The evidence that suggests that we should have a reduction in or indeed a closure of the cod fishery is brought into question. Is the evidence credible? According to what the witnesses have told us, it is not. Mr Cardno, you pointed out that your son tells you—and I am sure that other fishermen confirm it—that there is a healthy cod stock in the North sea. The evidence that has been presented to us seems to be a desktop study. There are suggestions that the scientists have made little physical effort to confirm the study.

In your experience, what do you think has caused the decline in the traditional areas where cod have been fished over decades? Has the decline been caused by the water temperature or salinity, or do you believe that there is a healthy and buoyant fishery out there?

The fishery was overfished a few years ago but, with the cut-down fleet and the size of the mesh that is used, there are practically no discards. The fishermen use 120mm mesh at the moment; they used 80mm mesh a few years ago. All the small fish are escaping and cod numbers are increasing now. There is proof. My son just said to me, "I don't know where they are getting the data from."

Are the stocks increasing in the traditional cod areas? It has been suggested to us that the cod might have moved to new ground because of environmental conditions such as water temperature or salinity.

We are told that global warming has led the cod to move further north than Iceland and that there is no want of cod there. That might be one factor, but the number of seals on our coasts is also an extremely big factor in the consumption of our fish.

Phil Gallie made an excellent point: if the threatened job losses were in the central belt of Scotland, there would be a royal commission into the cause and effect of the issue. However, the 40,000 job losses that we have mentioned are not in one particular area. All our coastal communities and communities further inland will be affected. Any responsible Government must take a strong view on that. Do you agree?

Yes. Although the job losses might be small in UK terms, they would be devastating for Scotland.

Thank you very much for travelling here. Has there been any sign of a British Government minister or an EU commissioner or minister in your area? A moment ago, we heard that Herr Fischler had not visited Scotland.

Some officials from the EU went to the Peterhead market early this year. They only went one time, though.

However, while you are in this current predicament, the people who have placed you in that situation have not appeared. Is that correct?

Yes.

Earlier, Councillor Strachan referred to the cuts in crew numbers on Scottish boats—there are now four or five crew members rather than seven or eight. She said that the Spanish are building much larger boats and that there is heavy investment in the Spanish fishing industry. Is it correct that the Spaniards are building boats especially for fishing off Shetland?

That is my understanding. The area from which our boats will be excluded as of 31 December is the area for which the Spanish boats are being prepared. That is a relatively new deepwater fishery and it was deemed that conservation measures should be applied to it because it has cold water and slow-growing fish. Our fishermen argued that they should be allowed to fish that area on a limited number of days, but their Spanish counterparts argued on the basis of their historical access. As they had been fishing those waters for longer, they won the argument. Given the quota that our boats are allowed to catch from those waters, it would not be viable to go all the way out there to get the fish, as that would take a great deal of fuel and time for little return.

How much investment is Spain putting into its fishing industry in comparison with Scotland?

The European Union is putting substantial funding into the development of the Spanish fishing fleet. The Irish fishing fleet has also received assistance to expand. Something like 100 vessels are being brought on stream in those two fleets.

The committee may find it interesting to know that, even if the North sea is closed to all white fishing, it will still be possible for those newly commissioned and newly built Spanish boats to fish in our North sea. Those boats would not be permitted to land white fish, but if they fish for non-quota species—which is what they will do—they will nonetheless continue to catch white fish, which they would discard dead. In other words, the Spaniards would still be here with their new boats, which are funded by the EU, and they would still fish in our waters and kill the stock that we seek to protect.

That is precisely why the common fisheries policy is in disrepute and requires reform. We should wait for the new common fisheries policy, which will make provision for local states to take control of the fisheries in their adjacent waters. That will be an important step forward. The proposals that we are talking about just now have been made in the context of the old CFP. I am sure that the committee will wish to take note of that.

My question is supplementary to the comment that Dorothy-Grace Elder made. It has been said that the Spanish traditionally fished off Shetland, but why have they not fished off their own country's shorelines?

They may well fish off their own country as well as fishing west of Shetland.

Is it the case that the Spanish have fished their own waters dry?

That may well be the case.

Some time ago, there was a question mark over the extent to which the Spanish adhered to the European regulations on the numbers of fishing inspectors in their ports and so on—

No—

Are there difficulties with compliance? I perhaps stand to be corrected by Winifred Ewing.

I cannot speak for the number of fishery officers in Spanish ports, but I know that Peterhead has more fishery officers than policemen. It would be difficult to land fish illegally in Peterhead, even if people wanted to.

The Scottish fishermen work with a much bigger mesh than even their English counterparts. Some conservation measures have been adopted solely by the Scottish fishermen. They have voluntarily and at their own expense invested in nets with a larger mesh size. They have gone for square panels, which keep the net open. A number of vessels have also been decommissioned. The Scottish fishermen have gone a considerable way down the road of keeping conservation in mind because they know that their future lies in doing that. Mr Cardno spoke about being a fisherman and about his sons being fishermen, but I doubt whether his grandsons will be fishermen.

The reason why the Spanish fishermen have gone all over the world is that they have no continental shelf of their own. That is why they have traditionally gone to everyone else's continental shelf. They have been far travellers. That is also why, as Phil Gallie mentioned, the Spaniards had an historic right in Shetland waters. In the old days, they were given fishing rights for only 24 specified and named vessels. They also had historic rights in Canada.

Phil Gallie is right to say that the Spaniards fish waters dry. That is what they are doing now off the west coast of the poor African countries. They would happily do so to any waters to which they gained access. It is in their nature to travel far away and stay away from home.

As for policemen, after much complaining and agonising, Spain appointed 13 inspectors, but do you know where those inspectors live?

Madrid?

Exactly.

Phil Gallie raised the issue of infringements and of who abides by the rules. Last week, the European Commission published a report on that subject that indicated that the UK was involved in 1 per cent of the EU's fisheries infringements. For Spain, I think that the figure was 47 per cent.

James Cardno mentioned the impact of seals on fish stocks. How do he and his colleagues feel about that issue? One of the fishing documents says that fishing accounts for only 10 per cent of the predation of fish. Is that correct? What should be done about the matter?

Seals are a big factor. When I was young, we never saw any seals in our harbours. Today, the sea and the coast are full of them. I do not know how much a seal eats in a year, but it must be a lot. If we multiplied that amount by the number of seals that are out there, we would see that the seals must eat more than the fishermen catch.

Are your colleagues frustrated that no one seems interested in taking on that subject? The environmentalists never stop telling us that the fishing industry has to be sacrificed if we are to save a single species, but they do not seem to mention your view that the seals account for a very substantial part of the problem.

The fishermen will be the species that we will need to safeguard for the future, not the seals.

I know which species I want to protect.

That concludes our questions to the petitioners. You are very welcome to stay and listen while we consider the action that we should take based on your evidence this morning. However, I ask you not to participate in this section of our deliberations.

I should refresh members' memories about the proposals that we are considering. Approval of the proposals could see substantial reductions in the levels of mortality due to fishing by 80 per cent for cod and haddock, 75 per cent for whiting, 40 per cent for plaice and 30 per cent for sole, as well as smaller reductions for nephrops and industrial fisheries. Those fishing quota reductions would apply in the North sea, the west of Scotland and the Irish sea from 1 January 2003. European ministers will make a final decision on the proposals at the fisheries council, which takes place in Brussels on 16 to 19 December.

In a press release issued on 27 November, Ross Finnie confirmed that he was working

"closely with industry leaders to find practical and workable solutions, that underpin a robust case in response to Commission proposals".

He also reported that it was essential that any final decisions

"include a fair burden sharing among all member states, and … reflect the real problems among whitefish stocks that the science has identified. These decisions must also take into account the social, economic and political realities".

The Executive will hold a debate on fisheries in the Parliament on Thursday 12 December.

Members will be aware that, given the potential impact that the introduction of the proposals would have on the Scottish economy, there have been calls for Mr Finnie to lead the UK delegation at the fisheries council. However, it is likely that his UK counterpart will lead the negotiations on 16 to 19 December.

The Parliament is clearly restricted regarding the action that it is able to take on this petition, particularly given that a decision on the matter is soon to be taken by European ministers at the fisheries council. The committee could agree to refer the petition formally to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development as a demonstration of the strength of feeling against the proposed quota reductions and ask him to take that into account within the context of the European negotiations. I also suggest that we send a full copy of the Official Report to the minister, because some helpful questions have been raised and information given this morning.

I would like the minister to be sent a copy of a speech that Brian Philp of Amazon Seafoods made at the rally, which was supported by hundreds who attended. He talks about the attitude, which I have heard even from the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, that because the scientists say something, they must be listened to. I am not prepared to listen to the scientists, who have been wrong before—Phil Gallie gave an example of that. They are wrong this time and they have got the measurements wrong. The SFF's chairman says that, in a lifetime as a skipper, he has seen only one scientist at sea. The scientists have got wrong the basic measurements that relate to age and size on which they base everything. Because the basic measurements are wrong, everything is wrong.

Industrial fishing lands 10 times more fish than does fishing for human consumption. Industrial fishing kills not only the feed, as Councillor Strachan said, but the potential for fish to breed. No British Government objected to industrial fishing in my 24 years in Europe. We just accept that Denmark can do what it likes and kill off fish in the North sea. No one objects. It is time that we expressed our strong view that that must stop.

Seals have been mentioned. According to the scientist who spoke at the Edinburgh rally with the whole industry's support, seals, salmon and seagulls eat more than humans catch—and that is without mentioning industrial fishing, which is killing the feed stock and the breeding ground of the future.

I would like those comments to accompany whatever we send. Perhaps we should mention the point that arose in relation to a comment made by Richard Lochhead. A recent report, which the Commission authorised, says that Britain committed 1 per cent of infringements and Spain committed 47 per cent of infringements. We should also emphasise that the exercise that the fisheries council is conducting is pointless, because the CFP will be revised soon.

Perhaps one frustration of being a member of the Public Petitions Committee is that we do not have the powers that we would like to have to act in emergencies such as the one that we are discussing. The suggestion that the petition should go to Ross Finnie is all very well. Perhaps he can use it, but if he has not got the message—although I am sure that he has—from the Parliament and the fishing industry today, the petition will not get that through to him. However, if he can use the petition, that is great.

The petition must go further. We must forward it to Elliot Morley, to underline to him the fact that anything that Ross Finnie says about the strength of feeling in Scotland is emphasised by MSPs. We should send it to the political group leaders in the European Parliament, whose members suggest that the closure should be delayed until further scientific evidence is obtained. I understand that Mr Fischler comes from a land-locked country, where little is traditionally known about fishing. He said that the Commission would proceed with its policy irrespective of MEPs' views. The European Parliament must get its act together.

I am not sure whether the Commission or the Council of Ministers takes the final decision. If that is the Council's task, we should expect our fisheries minister to be there to lay down the law from the point of view of the UK and Scottish fishing scene.

Perhaps other members can think of other people to whom we should relay the petition. The people whom I suggested would be a reasonable start. Another referral could be to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, which has more powers than we have. Perhaps it could prevent any precipitate action that Mr Fischler wishes to take. I do not know about that. Could the convener ask for the clerk's advice? Can we formally submit the petition on behalf of the petitioners to the European Parliament's committee?

David Lowe is the clerk to that committee and he is a very nice man.

There is nothing to prevent us.

Two issues arise from that, which is not to say that it is not a good suggestion. Timing is a problem. It would be after Christmas before the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions could consider the petition.

We should be able to get it there more quickly than that. Once the petition has been registered by that committee, it is that committee's problem. The petition could be used as a slow-down message to Mr Fischler.

We could send the petition electronically today to David Lowe, who is clerk to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. I suggest that we do that, because the committee can hear cases very quickly, as it did in relation to the Sangatte detention centre. As the circumstances are unusual, I also suggest that, when we forward the petition to any entity that we have mentioned, we show the support of this statutory committee. We should go further than merely writing a letter and passing on the petition, because we are seeing a threat to one of Scotland's greatest and most ancient industries.

Winnie Ewing and I would like to add that the petition should perhaps be forwarded to the two UK commissioners and the Prime Minister.

Indeed, why not?

As history has shown during the past 30 years or so, there have been several attempts to defend cod stocks vigorously. The two petitioners will perhaps remember when Britain twice conducted cod wars against Iceland. I am not saying that that was right, and it led to violence, which was appalling.

That was Hull.

Yes, trawlers were manned up from Hull, costing £50,000 a week, to fire on the Icelanders. That was not right, but it showed how far Britain was prepared to go to defend cod stocks and the British fishing industry, as the UK Government would call it. Now, the Government completely keels over and does nothing.

I will start the summing up by dealing with Phil Gallie's suggestion. The difficulty of taking the route that he recommends is that we cannot refer the petition to two places; we can refer it only to one place. If we refer the petition formally to the minister, which is possible, we could only forward it to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions for information. I ask Phil to accept that ruling.

I will run through the other suggestions. One is to send a copy of the Official Report of this debate to the minister. We could also send the evidence that Winnie Ewing spoke about, which was from the scientists who spoke at the public meeting last week. It is also suggested that we send a copy of the report that Richard Lochhead mentioned, which came from the European Commission last week, to Elliot Morley and the group leaders in the European Parliament. We will send it to the Prime Minister and the two UK commissioners as well. I hope that members agree that that reflects the views of all committee members.

Can we establish whether the committee officially supports the petition? We should put that on record.

Each committee member has expressed extreme concern and support for the fishing industry, and we will reflect that in the letters that we send.

The fact that we support the petition?

Yes.

I want to query one point. Can the clerk contact Ross Finnie to ask him from his negotiating viewpoint to whom it would be best formally to send the petition? If Ross Finnie says that he is well aware of our feelings and that it would be better for the petition to go to a certain location, we should allow the clerk to send the petition to that place.

We will contact the minister's staff and take advice from them. Phil Gallie has made a helpful suggestion. We must be sensitive to the negotiations that are taking place—we want to strengthen the minister's hand and do not want to do anything that would derail those negotiations. This morning the committee has aired well a very serious topic. The petitioners can rest assured that every effort will be made. I remind everyone present that this Thursday there will be a debate on fisheries in the chamber. Members will have the opportunity to underline the importance of this matter.

I agree with all the recommendations that members have made. When conveying the message to those who have been mentioned, can we emphasise that the priority for the industry is survival? This is not about getting the fancy financial compensation package that is being discussed in some circles—rather ominously—after the industry has been killed off. Does the committee agree to that suggestion unanimously?

None of us has a problem with that. I do not come from a fishing area, but I understand the issues. We will reflect the point that Fergus Ewing has made in our correspondence.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance this morning. I hope that they are satisfied that the committee is taking this issue seriously. In line with our standard process, we will keep them informed of the outcome of the petition.