Rural Development Committee, 18 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001

Official Report 429KB pdf

---

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) (Scotland) Scheme 2001

I welcome Rhona Brankin and her officials, Robin Weatherston and David Cassidy, and thank them for joining us this morning to consider the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) (Scotland) Scheme 2001. Because of the pressure of the rest of our agenda we have agreed to limit the debate to 45 minutes, if possible. However, I want everybody to have a chance to take part in the discussions.

We received the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report on the instrument yesterday. The paragraphs that are marked 20 and 25 are actually paragraphs 24 and 25. Can the minister give us further clarification on that, because the Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Executive to supply further clarification to the lead committee on paragraph 5(2)(a)?

Members will have points that they wish to raise, so I will try to keep my introductory remarks relatively brief.

I hope that the rationale for the decommissioning scheme will be clear. The level of fishing capacity in Scotland and throughout the UK and Europe is well in excess of what is appropriate, given the level of fishing opportunities. As we know, some key white fish stocks—in particular cod and hake—are in poor condition and subject to short-term conservation measures and long-term recovery plans at European level. Fishing at current levels is not sustainable and with the available quotas being very thinly spread, the viability of individual fishing vessels is threatened.

In March, I announced in the Parliament plans to introduce a Scottish decommissioning scheme, funded up to £25 million, to reduce the size of the white fish fleet in Scotland, to aid conservation and to help put the fishing industry back on a sounder economic footing. The statutory instrument, which was made and laid before the parliamentary summer recess and which we are discussing today, provides the enabling legislation for that scheme. The scheme requires the European Commission's stated approval, which I am pleased to tell the committee was received at the end of last month.

It might be helpful at this early stage if I make a general point about the scheme. There has been much debate about other potential fisheries management measures, notably arguments for compensated tie-ups. For what we believe are perfectly sound reasons, we have not been persuaded that such measures would be appropriate. I recognise that others have different views, and debate about that is likely to continue. However, there is widespread support for decommissioning, and there is a desire and need for the scheme to be implemented as soon as possible. I understand that Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation wrote to the convener on 27 August to make that point.

Whatever views exist on other issues, the introduction of a decommissioning scheme is also the will of the Parliament, which is why we decided to push ahead with the scheme's design and documentation and to launch the scheme, inviting decommissioning bids at the end of August. The order that was made and laid before the summer recess gives us powers to do that. However, it is important to say that, in deciding to proceed with the scheme's launch, we did not intend any disrespect in relation to parliamentary consideration of the scheme. Indeed, I wrote to the convener on 28 August to explain our position and our view that the scheme needs to be implemented swiftly. That has been reinforced in the letter from Hamish Morrison.

As well as setting the legislative framework for the decommissioning scheme, the regulations set eligibility criteria for access to the scheme. Those, like the other scheme measures, have been decided while taking account of the requirements and constraints in EC legislation, and following consultation with the industry. The criteria that we have set, following extensive consultation, carry the support of the majority of fishing industry bodies. However, I know that there is disappointment on the part of some people at the decision to restrict eligibility to those with a category A—or pressure stock—fishing licence. It might be helpful to the committee if I explained the rationale behind that.

By far the biggest problem is with white fish stocks. It has been argued that scallops and nephrop stocks are also under pressure and that the Scottish scheme should therefore buy out capacity, targeting those stocks. In many cases, that would mean vessels that have a category B or C licence. Those licences allow fishing for a more restricted range of species, excluding pressure stocks. The scientific advice is clear that there is no comparable case on conservation grounds for reducing capacity, targeting scallops and nephrops, to that of white fish.

All fishermen who hold a category A licence are eligible in principle to fish for the key white fish stocks. Vessels that have that category of licence therefore comprise potential—even if not actual—white fish fishing capacity. We have decided to extend eligibility to category A licence holders, with the exception of fishermen with pelagic licences. Scallops and nephrops fishermen who hold a category A licence are therefore eligible for the scheme and there will be potential benefits for all scallops and nephrops fishermen from the removal, under decommissioning, of vessels that have fished for those stocks.

We believe that there is also a need to target decommissioning funds, so the regulations also provide for us to take different factors into account when evaluating and ranking bids for support. Previous UK schemes have been based on accepting the cheapest bids for each unit of vessel capacity that is removed. That has meant decommissioning of generally relatively inactive or inefficient vessels. We have said that we intend to take account of other factors, for example the historic level of catches of white fish and the level of fishing activity by applicant vessels, so that we can remove fishing capacity that affects the stocks that are most under pressure. In that way we aim to ensure that we get short, medium and long-term sustainability gains and best value for money from our decommissioning fund.

We will be best placed to make detailed judgment on applications—including the weight to be given to individual factors in the evaluation and ranking process—when we have individual fishermen's decommissioning bids. The regulations and the detailed scheme documentation and guidance that have been prepared reflect that approach.

Those introductory remarks were intended to set out our broad position on the Scottish decommissioning scheme. I hope that they have helped to explain our approach, which is reflected in the regulations. We and the industry are very keen that the implementation of the scheme proceeds, so that decommissioning of vessels can take place, fishermen can receive their decommissioning grants and we can gain the benefits of a more sustainable fishing capacity in Scotland.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

You raised the issue of the will of Parliament. As you will be well aware, six months ago Parliament rejected the Executive's approach to the issue. One week later, on 15 March, Parliament supported the Executive's new motion, which said that the Executive,

"taking into account the view expressed by the Parliament on 8 March 2001, is engaged in continuing discussion with the fishing industry to explore a degree of re-balancing of the £27 million package".—[Official Report, 15 March 2001; Vol 11, c 589.]

That £27 million comprised £25 million for decommissioning and £2 million for technical measures.

I have two simple questions. First, what rebalancing of the package has taken place since March? I ask because, as I understand it, six months ago Parliament rejected the £25 million for decommissioning. Secondly, after waiting six months, why pre-empt Parliament by publishing the scheme only 19 days before the meeting of this committee?

May I hear your second question again, Mike?

After waiting six months since the debate in Parliament in March—which the Executive lost initially and then won—why did you wait six months and publish the scheme only 19 days before the committee met? If the committee votes to reject the instrument, but fishermen have already lodged their applications, we will be in a very difficult position. In my view, you are tying the hands of the committee.

In a letter to the convener you said:

"In proposing this approach we intend, of course, absolutely no disrespect to the Parliament."

It is difficult to reconcile that statement with your actions. I would like you to clarify that position.

I will first clarify why it has taken so long to lay the instrument. We needed to design a scheme that would not only be effective and provide best value for money, but would also ensure that we make a significant long-term difference in our restructuring of the white fish sector. As I said, one of the issues surrounding an earlier decommissioning scheme was that, although we got value for money, we could have got better value for money through tighter targeting. We wanted to ensure that the scheme would be effective and that it would make the difference to the fishing industry that we set out to make.

The answer to Mr Rumbles's second question, on why we launched the scheme in advance of coming to the committee, is essentially related to that. We wanted to be able to ensure that we could open up the scheme for bids as soon as possible. We received significant representations from the fishing industry to implement the scheme as quickly as possible. First, we wanted to ensure that we had a scheme that would be effective and targeted. Secondly, we needed to do it as quickly as possible. Part of the issue was that the scheme did not need only to come before the committee; it must also go before Parliament. We needed to ensure that we implemented the scheme as quickly as possible.

If we had delayed, we would have come in for criticism from the industry. Given that Parliament agreed earlier in the year that we should spend money on the decommissioning scheme, we were keen—we were also responding to industry pressures—to get the scheme up and running as soon as possible. However, we wanted a good scheme that we were confident would be effective.

Could you respond to my first question, which was about the Parliament rejecting the scheme initially? Along with a majority in Parliament, I was persuaded to vote for it on 15 March because the Executive promised that it would enter negotiations with the fishing industry to rebalance the £25 million and £2 million package. I want a simple answer to a simple, straightforward question. How much was rebalanced?

As Mike Rumbles knows, we went into discussions with the industry; there were no representations from the industry to rebalance any of the £25 million package. The industry requested £25 million for decommissioning; that figure was calculated based on taking out 20 per cent of the white fish sector. There have been no representations from the industry to take money out of the £25 million. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation initially requested a £25 million decommissioning package.

Let me be absolutely clear. Are you saying that the Executive responded fully to the fishermen's organisations and that the fishermen did not want to rebalance that money?

Yes.

I hope that the minister enjoyed her summer and her visits around Scotland's fishing communities, which I read about time and again in the fishing press and in the local press.

Yes—very much.

I hope that the minister managed to rebuild some of the bridges that were burned earlier this year in relation to the fishing communities. However, I doubt that that happened, because, as Mike Rumbles said, the Executive's package was rejected by the fishing industry and by the Scottish Parliament.

The decommissioning element of the policy, which was required, is all that is on the table. The industry wants that element to go ahead and I am sure the committee will agree to the scheme today, as it is all that we have—it is the only show in town. Decommissioning is an unfortunate necessity. The fact that we have reached this position is a sign that fisheries policy over the years has failed. We must cut the size of the fleet because there are not enough fish stocks to sustain the industry.

As the minister is aware, the £25 million that is on the table is peanuts in comparison with the amounts that other EU member states give to their fishing fleets. The Spanish and Portuguese have just been given an additional €197 million to distribute among 4,200 fishermen. That puts the Executive's package into perspective.

Does the minister agree that, to ensure the viability of the industry, the only way forward is a comprehensive package including not only decommissioning but a compensated tie-up scheme, as the Parliament and the industry requested earlier this year? The cod recovery plan, which relates to that issue, extends over five years. Is the minister saying that she has a closed mind to compensated tie-up schemes as part of any future overall package to ensure the sustainability of the industry?

My second point—

Please make your second point slightly briefer than your first, Mr Lochhead.

Will the minister clarify the prospects of, or possibilities for, a days-at-sea scheme? If such a scheme is possible, will compensation be attached to it? Would not that be just another name for a compensated tie-up scheme? Will she rule out implementing such a scheme, even if Europe were to propose it?

I refute Mr Lochhead's comment on the industry's rejection of the decommissioning scheme. On the contrary, we have delivered the decommissioning scheme that the industry asked for.

I am afraid that Mr Lochhead's comment on the Spanish and Portuguese deal was rather opportunistic. As many members know, the Moroccan Government closed its fishing grounds and the Commission gave a significant amount of money to compensate the Spanish and the Portuguese for that massive closure. To be frank, I do not think that that situation is comparable.

Your Government closed 40,000 square miles.

Sorry?

I said that your Government closed 40,000 square miles.

I thought that it was the convener who interrupted me.

It was not me. Please carry on.

My answer to Richard Lochhead's question about tie-up schemes is simple and it is one that I have given before. We do not think that such schemes would be effective or that they would represent value for taxpayers' money. They would cost a lot of money and we cannot commit vast amounts of expenditure to schemes that, at this stage, we do not think would work. The £25 million for decommissioning is the biggest single investment in the Scottish fishing industry ever. That money, which was committed from the Scottish Executive budget, could have been spent on education or the health service and was a huge financial commitment. Our judgment was that that amount of money was best directed at the restructuring of the white fish sector—that is our position.

I know that a days-at-sea scheme is being considered as part of the review of the common fisheries policy. We are involved in that review, but we do not have a position on a days-at-sea scheme. We will monitor the situation and discuss the scheme with Commission officials.

I thank the convener for inviting me to attend today's meeting. I have absolutely no desire to revisit the debate that took place in March and will ask three specific questions on decommissioning, given that that is the issue before the committee today.

I think that I read the regulations correctly, but would the minister clarify the requirement for a vessel to have fished for 75 days a year? I have been made aware of an example from my constituency, where a vessel undertook oil charter work last year. She converted to gill netting and has been targeting cod. That, of course, is in line with the minister's approach to the cod recovery plan. In the circumstances in which the vessel fished for more than 75 days in 1999 but not in 2000, would it be possible for the Executive to be flexible and to consider an application from that vessel, as her actions have been consistent with the Government's overall approach to the cod recovery plan?

My second question is about what will happen to quotas. If I have read the regulations correctly, it will be up to individual fishermen or fishing companies to decide what they will do with their quotas. In principle, is there anything to prevent Scottish fishermen from selling their quota to a Spanish or Dutch fishing company? Would not it be a better policy option for the Government to seek to retain that quota or to reallocate it to producer organisations in those areas of Scotland that are most dependent on fisheries? Presumably, we are all seeking a Scottish fishing industry that is more financially viable. Retaining fishing entitlement within Scotland and, in particular, within those areas that are most dependent on fisheries is an important part of that policy.

The 75-day limit comes from an EC regulation. Robin Weatherston is responsible for EC regulations in this area and may wish to comment further on Tavish Scott's first question.

The position is quite simple. The relevant EC regulation—2792/1999—requires vessels that are eligible for decommissioning money, which is partly funded through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, to have fished for at least 75 days in each of the preceding two years. I am afraid that the regulation does not allow for any exemptions from that requirement.

Is there no room for a way round that requirement, given the clear circumstances in which the vessel is in no way seeking to get around the rules by foul means?

The regulation makes no explicit provision for such circumstances. Off the top of my head, my only suggestion is that we ask the Commission whether it would be prepared to accept a non-regular approach, if the case was exceptional and we thought that it was worth it. I would have to be persuaded that such an approach was appropriate.

I will respond to Tavish Scott's further questions. The aim of the decommissioning scheme is to take out vessel capacity and to redistribute quota entitlements around the existing white fish sector, thereby creating fishing opportunities for fishermen and, I hope, making that sector viable again. We believe that the Scottish white fish sector is best placed to take up those opportunities. We have allowed a period of up to three years for the reallocation of those quotas. That important step will allow white fish skippers to consider their finances and to plan to take on additional quotas. The scheme was designed to return the white fish sector to viability and we believe that redistribution of quota will achieve that. There is nothing to prevent vessels—such as Dutch vessels that are registered in the UK—from obtaining quotas, but it is clear that such vessels would have to have an allocation of the UK quota.

I appreciate the constraints, including the time constraints, under which the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department operates. However, in principle, I would be concerned if quota were to be lost to the Scottish fishing industry, especially given the value of quota, which is a tradeable asset. Will the Executive consider constructively with the fishing industry the possibilities of either the Government or producer organisations retaining the quota?

On a slightly different point, is the minister convinced that the scheme is properly targeted? She mentioned ranking in her opening presentation but I am concerned that we will end up targeting vessels that do not carry outstanding or long-term debt problems. Given her constituency visits during the summer, she will appreciate that many vessels carry long-term debt.

I appreciate that the amount of money available is capped by the EU and that the department cannot change the level of payments under the decommissioning grant scheme, but that money simply will not meet the outstanding debt constraints under which the vessels operate. Will the ranking take account of that?

The scheme is targeted at taking out 20 per cent of capacity, on the basis that the redistribution of quota will make the industry more viable. That is the express intention of the scheme.

I understand that.

Robin Weatherston can give more information on how we will do that, but taking out that 20 per cent of capacity is key. We must be careful about saying that we will consider other issues, such as the difficult financial positions facing individual fishermen who over-capitalised. Although we are concerned about such individuals, we must make a difference in the long term and return the fleet to viability in the best way possible and in a way that represents best value for money.

Inevitably, it is up to individual fishermen to determine the level of their decommissioning bid within the parameters set by the European legislation and under the terms of the scheme. It is difficult for us, as we do not know the financial position of those individuals, but no doubt they will take account of their circumstances when they formulate their bids. All we can do is ensure that those bids are considered consistently, transparently and equitably, within the terms of the limits that are set by the EC regulations and so on. I am not sure whether that answers Mr Scott's question, but we can consider bids only on the basis on which they are entered to the department.

I understand why you said that.

Tavish Scott knows that we had discussions with the banks when the decommissioning scheme was introduced in the Parliament. We thought that it was important to inform them of the level of investment that was being made, as we were conscious of the fact that some skippers were in difficult financial circumstances. We have continued to liaise with the banks.

I have listened to the minister's comments on the decommissioning scheme's benefits for white fish stocks. Does she agree that the scheme should also help fishermen, their families and fishing communities? She talked about reserving the scheme specifically for category A licences. However, on compassionate grounds alone, could category C licences with scallop entitlement be considered too? There are few such boats and some have been put out of business completely, unable to fish because of amnesic shellfish poisoning.

We must ensure that the £25 million is targeted in the most effective way and it is clear that the primary area that we are targeting is the white fish sector. Restricting the scheme to category A licences gives those scallop fishermen who fish for scallop under category A licences an opportunity to apply. Therefore, scallop fishermen are not excluded from the scheme. However, the scheme's primary aim is to reduce capacity in the white fish sector and we must ensure that the scheme meets that aim.

I was talking about category C boats with scallop entitlement, which are in a pretty bad way.

I noticed that boats have to be at least 10 years old. Are you certain that that is the most sensible way of taking forward the decommissioning scheme, as a lot of the newer boats—ones that are less than 10 years old—are catching most of the fish? If fishermen want to apply for decommissioning on newer boats, why is it impossible for them to do so? Is it because of regulations?

Yes. An EC regulation states that the boats must be 10 years old.

Is that regulation not a bit of an ass?

I could not possibly comment.

We must consider what is best value for money. Vast sums of money would be involved in taking out some of the newer boats. We are confident that we can deliver a scheme within the EC framework that will be value for money.

Jamie McGrigor is right that there would be a social benefit in taking out some of the scallop fishing boats, which have suffered longer closures than the white fishing fleet. There would also be a conservation benefit because, when large sections of the fishery are closed, those boxes that are open tend to be overfished. I ask the minister to give further consideration to the category B and C licences, especially in relation to the scallop fishery.

We were at pains to take advice on the conservation grounds for the scheme. The clear advice that we received was that there was no comparable conservation value in taking out the other licences. The scheme must be targeted. It is primarily a white fish decommissioning scheme. As I have said, taking out category A licences will allow some scallop fishermen to benefit. We must be clear about the primary function of the decommissioning scheme.

Minister, I welcome the flexibility that you indicated in your opening remarks when you spoke about determining the way in which you would apply weighting to the criteria for rankings. I direct your attention to the letter from the European Committee, which raises the issue of crews' interests in relation to boats that are proposed for decommissioning. The invitation that you issued at the end of August and the instrument make no reference to the interest of crews. Will you consult the owners who have put forward bids about what arrangements they have made for compensating the crews in the boats that are being decommissioned? Will you be able to take account of the results of that consultation in determining the final ranking of vessels that you propose for decommissioning?

We hope that, as part of the decommissioning scheme and the resultant restructuring, some of the problems that skippers face in finding crews might be solved. When I was recently in the north-east of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland, the fishermen's organisations constantly raised the problems that skippers face in finding crews. The hope is that, if we return the white fish sector to viability, skippers will find it easier to attract crews, because there will be more crew members to go round and the crews will be able to make a better living from fishing in that sector.

We have had some discussions, notably with Scottish Enterprise Grampian. It is unlikely that there will be a large problem. We will keep in close touch with the enterprise networks to monitor the situation. In discussions, Banff and Buchan College of Further Education has told me that it is finding it difficult to fill some of its places. I recognise that we must keep a close watch on this issue. Our judgment is that many of the crews could be redeployed within the fishing industry. We will watch developments closely.

Does the minister recognise that although there is a shortage of crews—that is certainly true—one of the reasons why young men are not attracted into the industry may be that in that industry there is not the kind of compensation when employment ceases that there is in other industries? By not formally recognising that aspect of decommissioning at this stage, we are unlikely to attract people into the industry in future.

As Stewart Stevenson knows, the way in which the industry is currently structured means that it is up to the skippers to decide what they do with their decommissioning money. It is the skippers who, in most cases, have made the capital investment. As we know, many skippers are over-capitalised. That is an issue for the skipper, but it is an issue for the Executive when there are significant problems owing to crews being made redundant. We will keep an eye on the situation.

In my recent discussions with fishermen in different parts of Scotland, a clear demand was that we should not talk the industry down. The white fish sector has faced considerable difficulties recently, which is why we are making this investment in it. As Stewart Stevenson will also know, the pelagic sector is currently doing very well.

We must be careful not to talk as if everything in the fishing industry was doom and gloom. The fishermen have said to me that they are worried that youngsters do not see a future in the industry because of the publicity that there has been in the press, primarily about the white fish sector. We must be careful not to talk the industry down. I have said to fishermen that I would be interested to talk with them about the options that are available to attract youngsters into the industry. I recognise that there is a significant problem and I am keen to address it.

Am I correct in understanding that there is no comparable scheme south of the border? I note that one of the qualifications for being eligible for a grant is that the vessel should be a Scottish-based one, not a Scottish-registered one. Is that sufficiently robust to ensure that the decommissioning scheme applies to Scottish fishermen?

A £6 million decommissioning scheme will come forward in England. You are right to say that we have targeted the scheme on Scottish-based vessels. We thought that that was right and proper, given that the £25 million is coming from the Scottish Executive.

How does the £6 million scheme in England and Wales compare, given the number of fishermen affected, with the £25 million scheme in Scotland?

We are confident that the scheme that we have set out is the best one to meet the needs of the white fish sector in Scotland. I assume that equivalent thinking has been going on in England.

The first and most important objective of the scheme is to reduce effort to ensure that we have a sustainable fishing industry, but surely the second key objective is to strengthen the position of those left in the industry. I go back to the point that my colleague Tavish Scott made about ensuring reallocation of quota to the Scottish fleet. What powers do you have to ensure that the reallocation strengthens the Scottish fleet and not vessels that are registered in Scotland but owned overseas?

We have said that, to be eligible, vessels must be based in Scotland. That is important. Vessels must have a UK licence to be able to buy up quota allocations. You are correct in saying that the primary intention is twofold: to reduce effort and to redistribute the quotas. Our position is clear. The white fish sector in Scotland is much the larger and it is currently best placed to buy up the quota entitlements. The primary intention of the scheme is to reallocate the quota entitlements. If somebody has got UK quota entitlement and is based in Scotland, it is up to them to purchase the entitlements.

So apart from that restriction, this will be done through the marketplace.

That is right.

I understand that the minister had a pleasant visit to Mallaig over the summer. I understand the reasons she has adduced today why categories B and C licensed vessels are excluded. Nonetheless, I hope that she will accept that the fact that the majority of the Mallaig fleet will be excluded from the scheme will be met with disappointment.

The minister did not mention in her introductory remarks that, as well as being ineligible for the decommissioning scheme, the Mallaig fleet has suffered because of the 10 per cent reduction in the nephrops quota. An undertaking was given in December last year and January this year that that reduction would be reviewed if evidence could be submitted that there was minimal cod bycatch. Does the minister accept that the best fishing months for nephrops are in late summer and early autumn and that it is unfortunate that the quota has not been reinstated? Could she say whether an application has been made to the EU for reinstatement of that quota and whether any unused element of this year's quota could be added to next year's quota? There is a case for increasing next year's quota of nephrops in next year's negotiations.

As I have said to other members, the primary purpose of the scheme is to return the white fish sector to viability. That must be the focus of the scheme. I repeat that there are no comparable conservation grounds for allocating more to the nephrops or scallops sector. We have argued strongly for the reinstatement of the nephrops quota. The research guidelines and the advice that we received from scientists show that there was a low cod bycatch when fishing for nephrops. We have submitted a strong case and strong evidence to the Commission and hope to receive advice about the issue at the end of September.

Do you accept that, by that time, it may be too late to make full use of this year's quota because the best months of fishing will have passed? Do you agree that there is a case for adding to next year's quota any unused element of this year's quota—if there is any?

In making an application to the Commission, we believed that it was important to be able to demonstrate on the basis of the best scientific advice that there was a low cod bycatch in the nephrops catch. To ensure that we had the best opportunity to reinstate the quota, we needed such scientific advice. We had to make sure that our submission to the Commission was of very high quality. I believe that we have achieved that and we are making every effort to ensure that the quota is reinstated. We hope to hear about the issue by the end of September.

I shall take a final, brief question from Mike Rumbles.

The note that we received from the clerk to the committee stated:

"the Executive have decided to use their power to implement the scheme on the assumption that it will be approved."

Will you re-examine the Executive's practice when it brings forward such controversial issues? Will you give a commitment to the committee that you will not pre-empt the decisions of the committee on a regular basis?

I had to make a difficult judgment about what to do. Given the express feelings of members of the Scottish Parliament and fishermen's organisations that we do something soon, we felt that it was best to launch the scheme as quickly as possible. If we had waited longer to come to the committee and Parliament and to make an application to the EU, the process could have taken us months. Instead, we made a carefully worked-out decision to act as quickly as possible.

We were keen that the Scottish fishing industry had access to the scheme as soon as possible. That was the position. I cannot give the committee a guarantee that I will not decide that it is right to take such action in the future. We have responded very much to what the Scottish fishing industry has asked us to do.

On that note, minister, let me say that all members who indicated to me that they wished to ask questions have done so. I am sure that you will have noted the points that have been made and the genuine concerns of members. I thank you for answering questions and I ask you to move the motion formally.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Development Committee recommends that the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) (Scotland) Scheme 2001 be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]

Motion agreed to.

We shall now have a three-minute comfort break.

Meeting adjourned at 11:48.

On resuming—