Galloway Fisheries Inshore Exclusion Zone
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-241, in the name of Alex Fergusson, on a Galloway fisheries inshore exclusion zone. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the threat to the fisheries within Luce Bay and Wigtown Bay in Galloway posed by recent exploitation of the fisheries by a "supercrabber" and the consequential threat to the 20 local livelihoods that these fisheries sustain; further notes that any future expeditions by industrial vessels of this nature will inevitably deplete available stocks to unsustainable levels, and therefore believes that the Scottish Executive should introduce a three-mile exclusion zone for all vessels over 40 feet to cover both of these bays thereby safeguarding both the stocks and the jobs that they sustain.
To tell the truth, I had rather given up hope of this motion's ever seeing the light of day. It was the first motion that I lodged after becoming the constituency MSP for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and relates to the first big constituency issue that arose following the election. However, I am delighted that the motion has been selected for debate.
As luck would have it, the debate is very timely, given the subject matter of a briefing on the future management of inshore fisheries in Scotland that Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB Scotland gave jointly at lunch time today. During that briefing, inshore fisheries were described as a priceless national asset that is in desperate need of sympathetic protection and management. Those who attended the briefing were left in no doubt that, where inshore fisheries are concerned, a properly worked out local management structure involving fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders—I put them in that order on purpose—can result only in a win-win situation for all concerned. Furthermore, there is no doubt that inshore fisheries are often worked for hundreds of years by the same families, using equipment that has scarcely changed in that time, and that they are as important to the local culture as they are to the local economy.
That is the exact scenario in the two Galloway bays to which my motion refers. From the waters of Luce bay and Wigtown bay, some 20 marine crofters—as I like to think of them—have for many decades eked out a living in a completely sustainable way that is possible only with an intimate knowledge of local waters. In the five years from 1998 to 2002, the total number of days at sea hardly varied, ranging from a maximum of 1,057 days in 2001 to 920 days in 1999.
Inspection of the monthly figures showed that from October to February, days at sea are minimal. Members might assume that that is due entirely to the adverse weather during those months, but they would be completely wrong. The fishermen lay off the stocks during those months voluntarily, to achieve the sustainability on which their livings depend. It is worth remembering that we are talking about people who scratch a living, rather than people who earn a fortune. As the secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put it at lunch time today:
"There are no fortunes to be made from inshore fisheries."
In short, in Galloway we have a sustainable fishery that is being sustainably fished.
That was the case until June this year, when an event occurred that so alarmed the fishermen that within a very short time they formed the Galloway Static Gear Fishermen's Association. It is worth pointing out that the motion refers only to static gear fishermen.
The association was formed to present a united defence of the fishery in the face of the attack that the fishermen had long dreaded. That attack came in the shape of a supercrabber—a vessel from the nomadic fleet that is made up, in effect, of factory vessels that roam Britain's coastline seeking out likely fisheries, which they harvest before moving on to another site.
One might ask, justifiably, why those vessels should not make a living too. The answer can be found in the Galloway situation and the whelk fishery in particular. The total number of whelk pots fished by members of the local association is 900. They are full-time fishermen, although it is recognised that there are a number of part-time and hobby fishermen. The minimum number of pots that a supercrabber will deploy is 1,000 and some estimates show that it can deploy as many as 3,000. That gives one 80ft boat complete independence from weather constraints, given its size, and a potential catch level per day that is eight times the local fishermen's catch level per week. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that just two or three visits to the waters a year by the nomadic fleet, or even just one vessel of the nomadic fleet, will clean out the stocks. The stocks might never recover and the word "sustainability" might as well be erased from the local dictionary.
The Executive's initial response to the concerns that the association raised was encouraging, and I commend it for sending a senior civil servant to a meeting in Wigtownshire, which I attended. The official intimated that should a 3-mile exclusion zone be deemed necessary for the protection of stocks, such a zone would be introduced, but that a number of consultations needed to take place before that decision could be taken. That is fair enough. However, in reply to my question S2O-483 on 25 September, in which I asked Ross Finnie under what circumstances he would consider a 3-mile exclusion zone, the minister referred only to the review of inshore fisheries management policy. My colleague Ted Brocklebank will comment on that review, but in relation to the situation in Galloway I must press the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development for a fuller response tonight, because time is against my constituents.
There is considerable suspicion that a further visit from the nomadic fleet in the new year is imminent. Given that the local fleet's effort does not get under way until much later in the spring, that could have devastating consequences, not just on the fishermen, but on the processing jobs that the fishermen in turn sustain.
Given the crossroads that our inshore fisheries are at, with many comparatively new pressures on them from renewable energy projects, displacement of effort from the white-fish fleet, fish farming and the invasive practices of the nomadic fleet—to name but four—the minister is bound, rightly, to take considerable time to get the review of inshore fisheries management right. It was made plain to us at the briefing today that we must get it right. The fishermen of Luce bay and Wigtown bay do not have the luxury of time to spare. I urge the minister to consider implementing the main part of my motion—the introduction of a 3-mile exclusion zone from Corsewall point to Heston island—for vessels over a certain length and/or engine capacity on a temporary basis until a future management structure for all Scotland's inshore fisheries is agreed.
Luce bay is now a candidate for designation as a marine area of conservation. Unless the minister takes immediate steps to protect the ecosystem in the bay, there is a real risk that there will be nothing left to conserve.
I congratulate Alex Fergusson on securing the debate, which covers an issue on which I have had correspondence—he has described accurately the situation that affects the fishermen in Galloway. The problem is that we are dealing with a natural resource, the upper limit of which is fixed. If somebody else starts to fish for whelks, lobsters or crabs in the area, there will be less for everyone involved. If the logic of free enterprise is allowed to run untrammelled in such cases, everyone loses out.
As Alex Fergusson said, the local fishermen cannot afford to lose out, because their boats are incapable of moving elsewhere, even if the sociological circumstances surrounding their activity made it desirable for them to move. The local processors lose out, because clearly the supercrabbers take their catch elsewhere to be processed. The fish stocks are decimated—it is interesting to note that they have survived for centuries under the fisheries regime that applied previously. In general, the local rural economy loses out big style.
The only people who do not lose out are the large-scale fishermen from outwith the area, who simply move on and repeat the process somewhere else. The state and the community have to pick up the bill for that: the state picks it up in payments of unemployment benefit—if the worst comes to the worst—or other kinds of social provision; and the community picks it up in the decline of the community because of the loss of a few more jobs. We are talking about an area where jobs are measured in tens, not thousands.
I am not arguing against progress or innovation; I am arguing for sustainable development. As Alex Fergusson said, the technology in this field has hardly changed for many years—with the exception of safety measures. There is no point in the technology changing. Improving the technology will not increase the number of fish that are available and it will not help the local area or even the total Scottish economy. It will simply end what has been, up till now, a sustainable activity that has gone on for a very long time. It will end that activity for no point whatever and to no benefit to anyone—except a few people who will make a fast buck and move on.
The Scottish Executive must have accepted that argument. The document "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" was launched in 2000—I remember debating it when the Parliament was through in Glasgow. When I criticised the document for being glossy but not having much substance, the minister said that I was being ungenerous. Can I make amends for that now by quoting the document? It says:
"We increasingly acknowledge"
the need
"to extend local control of inshore fisheries by rural communities."
That quote is from May 2000. What has happened since then? Alex Fergusson referred to a response from Ross Finnie in which the minister says that he and his officials hope to reach a resolution within six months—that is, by the end of March 2004.
Nothing has happened since 2000. Ross Finnie is procrastinating.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Only one thing happens quickly in the area. Before the Kosovo attack, some live cluster bombs—unexploded ordnance—were dropped in Luce bay. The Ministry of Defence had no problem in applying a blanket prohibition on fishing around where the cluster bombs fell. That prohibition was applied almost right away. The speed with which the Executive can move compares very unfavourably with the speed with which the MOD—another part of the Government of this country—can move when it suits. People's livelihoods are involved and I urge the minister to get a move on.
I am pleased to be taking part in the debate, which I am sure people will find useful and interesting, and I congratulate Mr Fergusson on securing it.
This long-standing and difficult problem is, unfortunately, common practice, not only in Luce bay and Wigtown bay—as mentioned in the motion—but in many fishing communities around the Scottish coast. Inshore fishing grounds are regularly plundered by the larger deepwater boats, which, I am sorry to say, have little regard for the conservation of any particular fish species or for the damage that they cause to the traditional livelihood and earning capacity of their inshore colleagues and those fishermen's dependent families.
I am regularly contacted by local fishermen and residents from areas such as Loch Hourn, which is a sea loch north of Mallaig. They complain about deepwater trawlers and dredgers invading the loch in contravention of local agreements and an annual legal closure period. That closure is designed to protect stocks and to improve opportunities for the local inshore fleet. The regulations seem to be disregarded.
By contrast, Loch Torridon in Wester Ross—a loch that I am sure many members will know—was eventually, after many years of conflict with the deepwater fleet, closed to all except the local creel boats. That was done in the interests of conservation. In fact, the local fishermen went a step further and reduced their catching capacity—they now have a weekend closure. Members will not be surprised to learn that that has proved to be a tremendous success—so much so that a co-operative of 12 local boats now enjoys an excellent and sustainable creel fishery, the catch from which is processed locally and packed and dispatched live, on a daily basis, to dedicated European markets. That is all because of conservation measures.
The Loch Torridon fishery has demonstrated the success of co-operation and conservation measures, which I am sure could be implemented in other coastal areas. That success has recently been recognised by a visit from none other than Prince Charles, who came to present the European award for excellence and conservation to the Loch Torridon fishery.
The Executive must be encouraged to establish a realistic exclusion zone around our coast to protect our inshore fisheries and it must ensure that the zone is policed and enforced with determination and rigour. That will be necessary if we are to have a sustainable and effective inshore fishery. I am pleased to support the motion.
I, too, support Alex Fergusson's motion. In his speech, he set out clearly the issues that are involved.
I am puzzled by the Executive's slowness to act on the matter, given that the last occasion on which I participated in a debate in the chamber on fishing issues in the Solway was when the Rural Development Committee was considering an order to ban the hand gathering of cockles in the Solway. At that point, the Executive expressed its clear wish to press ahead with the ban, because of the damage that gathering by mechanical means—which was seen to amount to hoovering up cockles—was perceived to be doing to stocks. To me, that situation is analogous to the one involving the vessel that Alex Fergusson has described. If the Executive was certain then that the ecological impact of such behaviour was so damaging, it should be consistent now and take a similar approach in relation to the activities in Wigtown bay and Luce bay.
The debate on cockling highlighted the threats that communities around the Solway that practise traditional fishing activities face. Hand gatherers had been confronted with the problem of people swarming in on the Solway from outside the area—people who had picked all the cockles in various locations around the coast of the United Kingdom—to become involved in an almost industrial process of removing cockles, which caused great inconvenience to local residents at the time.
If we are serious about preserving and sustaining such ways of life, we must be more positive about doing more to help the people in those communities. As Alasdair Morgan said, the jobs that we are talking about are important in such small communities. To the people concerned, the Executive seems to be willing to act decisively in a way that has a negative effect on their communities. To those on the Solway who go out fishing for scallops, there is no better example of that than the Executive's determination to drive through its amnesic shellfish poisoning orders. That issue has been debated repeatedly in the Parliament. The people who are involved in such fishing activities see action on the ground when it has a negative effect on them, but they rarely see action that would be positive and would allow them to preserve their communities and way of life. I hope that the minister will assuage those fears by giving a positive response to Mr Fergusson's motion.
I, too, congratulate Alex Fergusson on securing the debate and on the work that he has done with the Galloway Static Gear Fishermen's Association. I give particular thanks to the association. I, too, attended a meeting with it and was extremely impressed by its level of organisation, its determination and the amount of energy that it has put into the campaign. While I am congratulating people, I would dearly love to congratulate the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party on their conversion to the idea of sustainability. I encourage them to extend the idea to the entire range of policy, not just shellfish on the Solway shore.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I have only four minutes.
You can take an intervention, if you wish.
I give way to Alasdair Morrison.
When the Green member has finished preening himself politically, will he reconcile what he has just said in relation to the Conservatives and the SNP with the position that his party adopted at a committee of the Parliament some months ago, when the Green party representative failed to support a measure that would conserve scallop stocks on the west coast of Scotland? The Green member present said that, as there was no crisis yet, the measure should not be implemented. How can he reconcile his political preening with the position adopted by the Green committee member some months ago?
Presiding Officer, I thank you for allowing me a little extra time to answer that, because it seems that Mr Morrison wishes us to repeat something that we have frequently said in the chamber—perhaps when he was not listening. We have no problem with the policy to conserve scallops. We were questioning the ability of the measure to do what the Executive hoped. We were attacking the competence, rather than the concept.
I will return to the Solway, as that is the subject of the motion. I call on the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department to implement the 3-mile exclusion zone not just within the bay itself, but 3 miles out from the headland. I ask the minister to expedite that matter so that we can make a case for the exclusion zone by Christmas and implement it by the end of January. If we do not do that, it will be too late. There is no point in having an exclusion zone after everything has been sucked up.
The situation is clear proof that growth for its own sake can damage and destroy communities. I add to what Alasdair Morgan said: large-scale fishermen themselves gain little from the situation. The supercrabber sailors have low wages and the boat is forced to work long hours to pay off the bank loan. It is a lose-lose situation. Nobody, except possibly the bank, gains from the economic growth.
Sustainability is at the heart of green thinking—ecological sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. If we allow the supercrabber to fish the waters of the Solway without limit, without control and without regard to anything but some anonymous accountant's bottom line, we risk all three. The supercrabber is the modern equivalent of a plague of locusts. It consumes everything in its path, leaving only devastation and misery in its wake as it moves on to new feeding fields. We cannot allow the fisheries of the Solway to be its victim and we cannot allow the livelihoods of the 15 Galloway fishermen and the 12 associated processing jobs to be destroyed. We cannot and we must not allow the social fabric of those already fragile communities to be further damaged by destroying a tradition that has been part of their culture and identity for centuries.
What is happening in Galloway is a microcosm of what is happening across the globe. In the relentless pursuit of corporate profit and economic growth at any price, we have trashed entire ecosystems and often the way of life and culture of entire communities into the bargain—sometimes, as Alex Fergusson warned, permanently.
We cannot continue down that road. It is time to abandon the values of the economic madhouse and instead to embrace green economic values and principles of sustainable growth, with economic development that serves the needs of local communities, that is—as far as possible—under the control of local communities, that is in harmony with our environment and that does not come at the price of degradation and destruction. We must live within our own and the planet's means. Banks do overdrafts, but nature does not. We must act to ensure that the supercrabbers do not empty the Solway account.
I congratulate Alex Fergusson on securing this timely debate on preserving the livelihoods of fishermen in the Luce bay and Wigtown bay areas. I accept our Green colleague's view that what we have seen in that area is simply a microcosm of the complex problems of finding just solutions to the management and well-being of all the species that co-exist in the inshore waters around Scotland's coasts.
We have been told that Ross Finnie's strategic review of Scotland's inshore fisheries is due to report in January. It certainly will not come a minute too soon, for this vital fisheries sector, which until now has been a neglected cinderella, is in danger of becoming a tired and over-used woman of easy virtue as more efforts are switched from the deep sea to the inshore sector.
I attended the meeting today that was organised by RSPB Scotland and SNH. I am attracted to their concept of regional inshore management committees, which should be at the heart of the policy that the Scottish Executive is working towards. I agree, in particular, with the conclusion of the report that was presented at that meeting:
"There may be no more opportune time for a fundamental reform of the system of inshore fisheries management in Scotland."
As politicians, we must play our part in those reforms. A long-term vision of the management of our inshore waters is required. All the local stakeholders, including fishermen, environmentalists and wildlife authorities, should be involved in thrashing out a system for the locally integrated management of inshore waters within the 12-mile limit.
Scotland's inshore waters support almost 2,000 fishing vessels and fishing is at the economic and social heart of communities. However, as an amateur ornithologist, I am equally aware that our coastal seabird colonies support more than 5 million breeding seabirds each summer and that many of our firths support internationally recognised concentrations of sea duck, geese and shorebirds over the winter. Those birds, too, deserve our consideration, not only because they are cohabitees of our environment, but because they attract tourism.
It seems sensible that there should be a national inshore advisory committee, which would advise ministers, through SEERAD, on matters relating to the management of inshore waters. In addition to providing advice on fisheries and the environment, such a committee would offer the Executive the principal advice on issues that affect inshore waters, such as wind farm proposals, cable laying and aquaculture. One of the committee's first tasks would be to work out financial plans for the development of integrated fisheries management, which I hope would include the provision of financial incentives to the fishing industry to develop new fishery opportunities, as well as accelerating the process of environmental integration that has already been mentioned.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's strategic review of how we should manage inshore fisheries. That is a fishing sector that we control, albeit under the present common fisheries policy legislation, until 31 December 2012. There could scarcely be a better opportunity to show how we would begin the task of managing our wider marine environment until—and after—a future Conservative Government fulfils its pledge to withdraw from the CFP. I support the motion.
I welcome this debate. That the issue is local to Galloway was eloquently illustrated by the motion's sponsor, Alex Fergusson, and my colleague Alasdair Morgan, both of whom are, among others, members for the area.
The issue highlights the importance of ensuring that the inshore fisheries issue moves further up the political agenda. A strategy from the Scottish Executive is long overdue. The inshore fishing community was excited by the prospect of the Scottish Parliament and thought that it was an opportunity to start to address some of the unique and distinctive issues that the community faces. However, we are now four and a half years into the Scottish Parliament and we are still waiting. There have been at least two rounds of consultation on the proposed strategy for inshore fishing. There was not a huge response from Executive ministers to the first consultation. The recent consultation closed in August and we now await the publication of the resulting draft strategy in early 2004. Producing that sooner rather than later is imperative.
One difficulty is that the inshore fisheries sector has been overlooked to an extent, because ministers and other politicians have been distracted by the crisis that faces our distant-water and deepwater fleets—particularly the white-fish fleet. As a result, we have taken our eyes off the ball.
As has been said, the inshore fisheries sector involves 2,000 vessels in Scotland.
I welcome Mr Lochhead's encouragement for those of us who are involved in inshore fisheries. Will he use the debate as an opportunity to urge fishermen in his part of the country—the north-east—to use sensible, conservation-minded measures when they fish on the west coast? I am sure that the member knows well that north-east fishermen do not enjoy the best of reputations in the west of Scotland.
I never fail to be amazed that Alasdair Morrison can bring his divide-and-rule tactics even into a members' business debate, which is supposed to be consensual. All SNP members advocate sensible measures for all fleets—the inshore, distant-water and deepwater fleets. Of course we support sensible measures.
I understand what Richard Lochhead says. Ministers must take account of all sections of the fishing industry. Does he agree with what was said about prohibiting nomadic vessels in inshore waters?
I am about to talk briefly about the importance of protecting communities, which is the crux of the debate.
Inshore fisheries sustain many smaller coastal communities whose boats cannot go further afield to make a living, as has been said. Protecting the inshore fishery is imperative because, in many places, no alternative source of employment is available.
The Parliament and the Government must learn from mistakes. I will not go into a long debate on the common fisheries policy, but it has been a disaster. We must ensure that local communities are at the heart of the decision-making process on the inshore fishery. We must depoliticise the matter as much as possible. The problem with the other fleets has been politicisation of the issue among politicians in Europe, which is destroying fishing opportunities for Scotland.
We must depoliticise the inshore fishery and put local communities at the heart of decision making. If we achieve that in the foreseeable future, situations such as the one that has arisen in Galloway will not be created. That would be a huge step forward. I urge the minister to give us an idea of the time scale for producing the strategy for inshore fisheries; to explain the delay, because many people are scratching their heads and trying to work out why we have taken four and a half years to reach the current position; and to describe his vision for inshore fisheries, so that we can help fishermen in Galloway and the rest of Scotland.
I, too, congratulate Alex Fergusson on obtaining the debate. One success of the Parliament is the fact that the voices of small communities can be heard in the chamber on this matter and others. I am grateful to Alex Fergusson for maintaining the issue's profile and for his constructive liaison with my department, to which he referred.
As others have said, another success of the Parliament is the fact that we do not always have to be adversarial. The danger is that consensus could break out on the subject that we are discussing. The exception is a couple of misplaced remarks from Alex Fergusson's colleague David Mundell. I see no correlation between developments on Solway cockles and the situation that we are discussing. In fact, concerns were expressed about the cockle stock for several years before the order to ban all fishing for cockles was introduced. On mature reflection, Mr Mundell will agree that some of his criticisms about the Executive's lack of alacrity were misplaced.
I acknowledge fully the concerns that Alex Fergusson expressed on behalf of his constituents in Galloway. It is wise to consider the issue sooner rather than later and I suggest that we have been doing that, as the matter was raised less than six months ago.
Both static and mobile sectors reflect a rich tradition in Scottish fishing activities. Ross Finnie and I receive many representations from both sectors. The fishermen in each sector are concerned about the threats that are posed to their way of life and, more important, their livelihood.
There may well be enough fish in Luce bay and Wigtown bay to support both local fishermen and visiting nomadic vessels. Although I do not know that, I do not propose to sit back and wait for time to tell if that is the case. In the absence of formal stock assessments for the areas in question, I believe that it is wise to take a precautionary approach.
Indeed, one of the messages to emerge from the strategic review of inshore fisheries is that a proactive approach to management is preferable to a reaction after the event. The Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, which is working on the strategic review of inshore fisheries, has told us that the fishing industry would prefer regulation by active management, rather than by prohibition.
In the past few weeks, fishermen's organisations have been drafting options for a new inshore management structure, where fishermen can become directly involved in managing the fisheries in their area. That, and an accompanying draft strategy for inshore fisheries, will be open for consultation in the new year.
I thought that John Farquhar Munro hit the nail on the head in his speech. I for one would not want to see the inshore grounds being managed as a series of back yards. The sea is a common resource. Naturally, some communities are more dependent on a specific fishery than others are, which is a point that I made at some length to Alex Salmond in a recent newspaper correspondence exchange.
I believe that a balance can be preserved by taking an approach that is more constructive than simply excluding a particular sector from exploiting a particular fishery—unless, of course, that is what the nationalists are suggesting. I posed the question I did to Richard Lochhead because I was unclear about whether the nationalists are arguing something different about Luce bay and Wigtown bay from what they are saying about the north-east fishery.
With the responsibility of managing fisheries comes the responsibility of looking more widely than at the immediate issue. An initiative in my constituency brings together the people who are involved in protecting the Arran and inshore waters and members of the fishing industry. The aim of the initiative is to explore how the sectors can work together to improve fisheries and the marine environment more generally.
We need to assess the wider impact of our actions, whether that be in Arran, Luce bay, the north-east or elsewhere. I recognise the threat that visiting vessels pose to the Galloway fishermen. However, I do not want to take a short-sighted approach to the problem that would simply displace the activity to other vulnerable inshore grounds.
A vessel-length limit is different from the "exclusion zone" that is referred to in the motion. However, I do not want to start from the position of categorising people as good guys and bad guys. We agreed on a plan of action in August with the Galloway fishermen to tackle the issue. The plan is well on track. In the past few weeks, the fishermen sent us some practical information that will help us to decide on how best to resolve the issue, perhaps by means of a voluntary agreement, a restriction on vessel length or some other measure under inshore legislation.
I would hate to think that, because we had run out of time, the minister had not had the opportunity to address the fundamental question that I put to him in my opening speech. I accept what he says about the need for proactive management and for proactive steps to be taken. However, will he grant the sustainable fisheries temporary protection until the measures to which he referred are thought out and brought before the Parliament?
We will work with the fishermen to ensure that they are involved in determining their future. I think that Alex Fergusson would agree that there has been good co-operation between the fishermen and the Government in tackling the issue. I assure him that that will continue. Whatever solution is arrived at, it will be done in consultation and with the interests of the fishermen in mind. I am glad to have had the opportunity of hearing about the concerns of inshore fishermen—this is the second such occasion in a matter of weeks—but I am convinced that we are approaching the issue in the right way, and that we will resolve it in the next few months.
Will the minister give way?
I have a final point to make, but I will take the intervention.
There are fears in the fishing industry that the common fisheries policy is about to encroach further into inshore fishing grounds. Such a move would frustrate the Parliament's ability to issue in a few years' time some of the regulations that the minister has suggested. Are those fears with or without foundation?
We are working on the basis that we will implement whatever flows from the review of inshore fisheries management for as long as any of us can foresee.
I say to Alex Fergusson that I welcome the formation of the Galloway Static Gear Fishermen's Association to represent the interests of Galloway creel fishermen. I recognise that the inshore fishing sector is based in locations distant from Edinburgh, Glasgow and other Executive offices. As he knows, my officials have been proactive in travelling round the country to meet inshore fishermen at times and in places that suit the industry. I am very happy for that commitment to continue. I am also confident that we can find a satisfactory conclusion to the issue and that, within the next few months, we will resolve it through dialogue and co-operation with the fishing industry in Mr Fergusson's part of the world and elsewhere.
Meeting closed at 17:51.