Sea Fisheries
We come now to the debate on motion S1M-1433, in the name of Ross Finnie, on sea fisheries. An amendment to the motion has been lodged. I call Rhona Brankin to speak to and move the motion.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate sea fisheries ahead of next week's meeting of the European fisheries council. The debate was traditionally held in London until last year when, thanks to devolution, we had our first chance to discuss fisheries issues here in Scotland. I am sure that members will agree that that is a good example of the benefits of having our own forum for debate in Scotland. We can now set our own priorities, based on what is important for Scotland. That can only be good for the fishing industry and Scotland.
I have been in post for little more than five weeks. Those weeks have been hectic, to say the least, but I relish the chance to be involved in an area that is so crucial for Scotland. I am delighted to be the first fisheries minister and I intend to put all my energy into the job. I intend also to have an open and inclusive approach to making decisions. I have already met representatives of the fishing industry about a dozen times but, more than that, I have listened to what they have said and I intend to respond.
I want to describe to the chamber some of the observations that I have made during the past few weeks and to outline how I view the current state of our fisheries. I will describe how I would like to see matters move forward into the future and discuss how I believe we should approach the December fisheries council negotiations.
We have some difficulties to overcome and the situation might get worse before it gets better. Crucially, some fish stocks are now at an unsustainable level—cod stocks are the worst hit, not only in the North sea but off the west coast of Scotland. When one understands, as the Executive does, the importance of the fishing industry to the Scottish economy, one understands how serious the situation is. In the north-east and in the Highlands and Islands, fragile rural communities depend on the fishing industry. More than 7,000 people are employed in the catching sector and a similar number are employed in processing and other downstream activities.
Furthermore, the industry has great significance in purely economic terms. Landings at Scottish ports by all vessels during 1999 were valued at almost £320 million. Scottish boats landed nearly £70 million-worth of fish abroad.
The Executive is committed to the fishing industry. Since last December's fisheries council, we have achieved a great deal by working with the fishing industry. We have driven forward technical conservation measures to protect fish stocks and I want to see that good work continue. We have announced record levels of financial instrument for fisheries guidance—or FIFG—spending and we have worked up a new safety scheme. We have implemented a Shetland fishery regulating order and more are in the pipeline. We have represented the Scottish fishing industry in Europe through our attendance at every fisheries council since devolution.
In the short time that I have been in post, we have managed to deliver some key objectives. Last week, we managed to secure the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen in negotiations between the European Union and Norway. I shall return to that later. We have obtained a commitment to regulate the Rockall fishery and put an end to Russian over-fishing of haddock stocks. I have asked Scottish Enterprise Grampian to lead a programme to assist the processors in an urgent examination of what might be done for them. The Scottish Fish Merchants Federation and a range of other industry bodies will be invited to join the group in trying to find the best way forward.
The key to success is working together. There is now an overwhelming common sense of purpose that is almost palpable. For example, this year, industry representatives have been invited into discussions with the European Commission on the possibilities for a cod recovery plan. I welcome that development.
I want to talk about the challenges ahead of us in the run-up to the fisheries council. Before I do that, I would like to reflect on the dangers of sea fishing and the price that the seas extract in return for their fish harvest. Anyone who reads the statistics cannot fail to be shocked. In the five years to 1999, 136 UK-registered vessels, 71 of which were Scottish, were lost, and 103 fishermen, 45 of whom were from Scottish vessels, have lost their lives. On average, more than 20 fishermen have died in each of those years as a result of accidents on fishing vessels.
This year has been the worst year for many years. Thirty-three fishermen—15 from Scottish vessels—have died. That includes the seven who, tragically, lost their lives with the sinking of the Solway Harvester. Our thoughts are with all those who have been lost, their families, their friends and their loved ones.
The issue desperately needs to be tackled. I was delighted to make an announcement on 6 November on safety within the industry. That followed helpful and constructive discussions involving the industry and the relevant Government departments in the UK. I am aware that John Home Robertson felt passionately about that. We are making available up to £1.5 million over the next three financial years to promote the delivery of safety training for fishermen in Scotland. Money will also be made available for the testing and trials of innovative or experimental safety equipment on fishing vessels.
The aim is to ensure that all fishermen are aware of the risks involved on their vessels; that they do what they can, and ensure that others do what they can, to mitigate those risks; and that, if an accident occurs, they know what to do to help to ensure the survival of those involved. In short, we want to improve the safety culture in the industry. We cannot simply impose safety on fishermen; experience in recent years has proved that. We need to increase their awareness and help them to ensure their safety and the safety of their colleagues. I am grateful for the efforts of all those who have helped to take forward our thinking on that. We need to implement the measures and make sure that they result in fewer accidents and loss of lives amongst our fishermen.
These are tough times for the fishing industry, a fact which clearly underlines the importance of a strategic approach to fisheries management. That is why I am pleased to have launched a draft Scottish Executive strategic framework for the Scottish fishing industry for consultation. The document provides the basis for a strategic framework for the Scottish sea fishing industry, and sets out a number of aims that the Scottish Executive intends to pursue to help to deliver conditions for the successful operation of the Scottish industry. The paper is not intended to be a detailed and rigid plan. It is intended to provide a coherent context within which action might be pursued over the coming years.
Our strategic framework has the idea of sustainable fish stocks at its core. I am sure that members will all agree that, to secure a future for the fishing industry, we need to do our utmost to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks.
On the matter of the coming difficult year for communities that depend on fishing, does the minister intend to persuade the UK delegation to invoke the Hague preferences at the coming council meeting?
As Mr Salmond knows, we invoked the Hague preferences last year. The matter is under consideration. At this stage, however, I do not want to display our negotiating hand. The matter will be discussed and the Hague preferences will be invoked if necessary.
The recent scientific advice on white fish stocks is grim. Whatever comes out of the current tough round of negotiations on total allowable catches, it is inevitable that the total allowable catch of white fish will be down. We need to think about what we can do for the future.
We are deeply involved in drawing up cod recovery plans for the North sea and the west of Scotland areas. Those plans, which must be drawn up with close industry involvement, might include a range of measures such as restricting access to certain areas and making fishing gear still more selective.
This year, Scotland led the way in the introduction of square-mesh panels. Although the need for panels was highlighted by the desire to protect the large class of juvenile haddock that was due to enter the fishery during 2000, the panels have a positive impact for other species.
The Minister says that Scotland is leading the way in conservation measures such as the use of square-mesh panels, but others who fish in that sea do not have the same regulations. What attempts are being made by the Executive to encourage others to sign up for the same exercise?
Scottish and English vessels that fish in Scottish waters must use the square-mesh panels. Similar technical conservation measures are being considered in many countries. Scotland leads the way in that research. We will be pushing for all countries to be able to use those measures as we believe that it is important that they do so.
Will the minister give way?
Not just now.
The Scottish Executive is pressing the European Commission to introduce 90 mm square-mesh panels and other technical conservation measures, such as twine thickness limits and increased mesh sizes, across the board. Ross Finnie and I made that point strongly to Franz Fischler when he visited the north-east last month. The promotion of the square-mesh panel is one way in which we can use the forthcoming discussions about cod recovery plans to our advantage. There is another argument that we should pursue. The constitution of a working group comprising fishermen, scientists and fisheries managers to consider the measures required to support the recovery of cod stocks provides a blueprint for enhancing the regional dimension of the common fisheries policy. The proposed means of tackling the issue, which kicked off in Brussels on 13 November, is not far removed from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's ideas for zonal management. If we can show that that management approach can work with regard to cod recovery, we have strong grounds for optimism in the context of the review of the common fisheries policy. That remains one of the Executive's priorities for the review, alongside the retention of the six and 12-mile limits, the protection of relative stability and the Hague preference, and the securing of the Shetland box.
The impact of technical measures should have a read-across to the current rounds of negotiations that are under way. At the recent North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission meeting, we were extremely concerned about reports from our fishermen and from the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency about large numbers of Russian vessels fishing for haddock in international waters around Rockall. Left unregulated, their activities would undoubtedly harm the stock in international and UK waters. I was absolutely determined not to let that happen. We have worked hard in partnership with the Scottish industry to raise the profile of this issue at the annual NEAFC meeting and I am delighted that we obtained a positive commitment to regulate the stock next year.
I am also very pleased to confirm that another important Scottish objective was achieved at the meeting, namely, to get Russian agreement to international catch limitations of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic. That is an important stock for Scottish pelagic fishermen and the agreement that was reached last week is a breakthrough that will help to ensure the sustainable management of the stock.
Our objectives have clearly been reflected in the outcome of the NEAFC meeting. I believe that the priority given to those matters demonstrates the advantage of being part of a large, influential member state. That has also been demonstrated by the agreements reached at the recent Norway negotiations, which agreed TACs for the stocks in the North sea that are jointly managed with Norway. The Executive's objective for the negotiations was to get the best available deal for Scottish fishermen consistent with the scientific advice and the need to sustain stocks for the future.
On the subject of being part of a larger member state, will the minister confirm whether there have been any meetings between the UK Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside and fisheries ministers of other member states in the past couple of days to discuss the strategy for next week's EU fisheries council? If so, was the minister party to those discussions?
I am happy to say that I regularly have discussions with Elliot Morley and my officials are regularly in discussion with Mr Morley's officials. I will travel down to London next week for discussions with Mr Morley, and I am satisfied that we are in the lead, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in those discussions. Frankly, if that is all the SNP has to offer from their supposed shadow fisheries minister, this is a sterile debate. We have 10 votes in the EU. I think that that is important.
No, I will not take any more points of information, thank you very much.
The negotiations with Norway proved to be very tough. They were held against the background of bleak scientific advice, particularly on cod, and of a relatively low uptake of 2000 quotas. Our approach was to seek to balance those warning signs on the sustainability of stocks with the socio-economic dimension.
The initial signs were not good. The scientific advice called for the lowest possible TAC on cod, and the Norwegians wanted that to be as close to zero as possible. The Commission's initial proposal was for a 60 per cent cut in cod fishing effort and a corresponding cut for haddock. That would have roughly translated into a 50 per cent TAC reduction. The Executive's view was that that did not adequately balance the economic requirements with the sustainability needs, and we successfully argued for the cod TAC to be set at a figure some 40 per cent below that set for this year. For haddock, we argued down the reduction to a level 16 per cent below that of this year.
I understand that the industry will be disappointed at such cuts but, set against the scientific advice, the initial negotiating outlook and this year's catches, I think that they represent the best possible deal. We have also managed to negotiate a transfer of 6,375 tonnes of haddock from Norway to the European Union. At current prices, that is worth more than £7.5 million, the bulk of which will come to the Scottish fleet. We have also held down the level of transfer of blue whiting to Norway. That is a smaller transfer compared to last year, by 32,000 tonnes, and will be a welcome boost to the Scottish pelagic fleet. It is encouraging to see the pelagic quotas holding relatively steady at this difficult time.
The EU-Norway negotiations represent some progress. We have shifted the initial positions in the direction that was sought by the fishing industry, but in a manner that is consistent with the scientific advice and with the long-term needs of the industry. We must always be careful not to sacrifice longer-term conservation benefits for short-term quota gain. The fishing industry well understands that point.
Our success in the EU-Norway negotiations demonstrates that the approach proposed by the Executive is the right one. We need to protect the interests of the Scottish fleet in the short term and, just as important, in the longer term by ensuring sustainable fishing. That is the approach that the Executive intends to take to the December council. We accept that something significant needs to be done to protect the west of Scotland cod stocks, but we shall oppose any attempts to have the same TAC reductions applied to haddock, by deploying the arguments used successfully in the EU-Norway talks for the North sea. We think it realistic to target recovery action for cod in a way that will allow some reasonable haddock fishery. Similarly, we will fight the Commission's proposal to cut the TAC for nephrops—prawns to the lay people among members—by 20 per cent, in order to protect cod, which is taken as a bycatch in the nephrops fishery.
The financial impact of the negotiations is as yet uncertain, but the progress that we have made on the situation in the North sea demonstrates the extent of lost income that can be reined back. We shall seek to achieve the same again. We need to get through the December council and then get some feel for the shape of any recovery plan before we can take any realistic view of the likely impact and of what the Executive might do to address these matters. I have already had preliminary discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and I intend that we should further consider the issues in the new year. The way forward for the December council is clear. We must continue to secure the best deal for Scottish fishermen while ensuring a sustainable fishing industry.
I urge members to reject the nationalist amendment. The Executive has better things to do than enter into a sterile debate about who leads at the fisheries council. The agreed UK position takes Scottish requirements fully into account, and we get the benefit of the UK's 10 votes. I ask the Parliament to endorse our negotiating position and to support the Executive's motion.
I move,
That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to seek from the negotiations leading up to the December Fisheries Council the best available outcome for the Scottish fishing industry consistent with sustainability of fish stocks.
I congratulate the Deputy Minister for Rural Development on her first speech on sea fisheries, and I pay tribute to her predecessor, John Home Robertson, for his contribution to the fishery sector in Scotland over the past year and a half.
Next week's fisheries council will be the most important for many years. Thousands of Scottish jobs depend on its outcome. To say that the European Commission's proposals make grim reading would be an understatement. We are used to the worst-case scenario being painted by the Commission officials, but we know that major cuts are on their way, and that the Norwegian agreement will impose cuts of 40 per cent on cod and 16 per cent on haddock in the North sea.
So far this year, 80 per cent of the cod landed in the UK has been landed in Scotland, as has 96 per cent of the haddock and 92 per cent of the whiting. That highlights just how important those white fish stocks are to the Scottish economy and to the Scottish fishing industry. Next week's European fisheries council will be more important for Scotland than for just about any other country. This morning, the SNP intends to convey to ministers what we think their priorities for next week's council and for their return to Scotland ought to be, to ensure that the industry can cope with the challenges ahead.
We all recognise the urgent requirement to regenerate the stocks, especially those of cod, that are important to the Scottish fishing fleet. However, we have to get the catching levels right for the other vital stocks, as well as seeking the best deal for cod at next week's fisheries council. It will be a key priority for our minister to minimise the link between cod conservation measures and the TACs that will be set for other stocks. The Norwegians managed that last week, as the minister indicated.
The Norwegians managed to set TACs without using the crude approach that was adopted by the Commission. They linked the need to conserve cod with the catch figures set for the stocks of other white fish. The Norwegians also took into account the enormous strides that have been made with the 90 mm square-mesh panel, which has been adopted by the Scottish industry—again, as mentioned by the minister. The Commission appears to have overlooked that when making its calculations. The Commission also appears to have exceeded some of the scientific advice with regard to certain stocks.
I will turn to a number of the Commission's proposals that caused particular concern. First, there is the proposal for a 20 per cent cut in west coast and North sea stocks of nephrops. The minister must argue for that link with cod to be broken. There is no science to back up a 20 per cent cut in that valuable stock for the Scottish fishery, as the nephrops fishery sustains many of Scotland's smaller ports, as well as some of the bigger ports, such as Fraserburgh in Alex Salmond's constituency. Cod is rarely caught as a bycatch in the prawn fishery; indeed creels, which are often used, do not catch any white fish. That cut therefore has to be taken out of the equation at next week's council.
Monkfish is another valuable fish under threat. The Commission proposes a 25 per cent reduction. The industry tells me that that is worth £2.5 million to Scotland. Again, there is little science to justify that cut, and the minister must commit to ensuring that that matter is revisited at next week's council. A 25 per cent cut is proposed for west coast herring, despite the rollover in the North sea. That is the subject of much confusion and debate, and must also be revisited and eliminated at next week's council. One fish stock that does not appear to be under threat with regard to the allowable limits for catches is sand eels.
The Danish and Norwegian fisheries are hoovering up much of the juvenile fish in our seas, and have a legal bycatch of 50,000 tonnes of fish stock, including a lot of the white fish that are currently under threat. It is not just the bycatch that threatens Scottish stocks: that fishery also removes much of the food supply for young haddock and other white fish that are so important to Scotland. We must pursue either a ban on such industrial fishing at next week's council or the decommissioning of the boats. We cannot seriously talk about conservation measures and sustainability and allow that rapacious fishery to continue.
I come now to technical conservation measures. Closing down the industrial fishery is one such measure, but we must embark on a major recovery plan. Quotas are a blunt instrument. They are there for sharing out fishing rights among member states. They control the fish landed, not the fish caught. That is why technical conservation measures are so important. However, the EU and our own Government here in this country, and previous Governments in Westminster, have completely failed to implement many conservation measures in recent years. As a result, stocks are now under threat. I welcome the fact that the European Council will consider that point following the fisheries council next week.
We must build on the adoption of the 90 mm square-mesh panel by the industry, and we should congratulate the industry on its initiative. Selective fishing gear is one of the crucial ways forward, but the amount of work done in recent years by Fisheries Research Services on selective gear is quite pathetic. Of the 240 members of staff who work at the marine laboratory at Torry in Aberdeen, there are eight who sometimes work on developing selective gear to conserve fish stocks, and 40 who work on stock assessment. That means that there are 40 people who tell us how low stocks are, but only eight who are trying to do something about it. We need to re-examine the research that the Executive is conducting and set up a stock regeneration unit with adequate resources and personnel in the Fisheries Research Services.
We have to consider other technical measures. The closure of spawning and nursery areas, particularly for cod, should be top of the agenda at the fisheries council meeting next week. We should be closing for the spawning season between January and March to give our juvenile fish the chance of survival. We have to consider introducing a days-at-sea scheme. That idea is controversial in the industry, but it must be examined if we are seriously to restrict fishing efforts. We do not want a scheme that is not sensible and will not work. The commissioner is suggesting that under such a scheme our fishermen would not be allowed at sea for more than 130 days a year. That is unacceptable, as it would not leave many boats viable. We cannot have other boats fishing in our waters while our boats are tied up. Other countries have to impose similar conservation measures. I would be grateful if, in closing, the minister would confirm that compensation will be payable to Scottish boats, should they have to tie up temporarily.
We have to consider restructuring the Scottish fleet, which will involve decommissioning some of our boats. We need new cash for a scheme to do that, which should be introduced as a matter of priority. Indeed, we need new cash for all the measures that I have outlined, and we need all countries on board as soon as possible.
On her return from Europe, the minister should introduce general economic and social measures to help the Scottish fishing industry. We all realise that there will be short-term pain for long-term gain. We need help for fish processors. When we remember that 33 per cent of employment in Alex Salmond's constituency, Banff and Buchan, and 20 per cent of employment in places such as Berwickshire, the Western Isles and Shetland is dependent on fisheries, we realise how important the sector is. We cannot afford a decline in fisheries in those areas.
If the minister really wants to deliver a good deal for Scotland at the fisheries council next week, she has to request that Scotland take the lead in negotiations for the whole of the UK. Labour and Liberal ministers have been thoroughly disappointing since the Parliament was established, with their couldn't-care-less attitude to Scotland's fishing communities. It is time that they got the bit between their teeth and started fighting for our fishermen both in Europe and in Scotland. Given that two thirds of the UK industry is based in Scotland, it is absurd that the Scottish minister does not lead for the UK. Our minister is semi-detached from all the major decisions that are taken on fish stocks in Europe—that is absurd and has to change.
I am trying to tally up how much the member is promising to spend on supporting fishing communities, over and above what the Executive, which has promised to double funding for the FIFG, is spending. On the question of representing the fishing industry at the council, I know from experience, and Rhona Brankin is about to discover from painful experience in the wee small hours in Brussels, that Scotland takes the lead in negotiations on vital Scottish interests. That is what we are there for.
I understand that the UK fisheries minister was in Dublin yesterday to discuss with the Irish fisheries minister the strategy for the meeting of the fisheries council next week, at which the future of Scotland's fishing industry will be decided, but our ministers were absent. Scotland has to take the lead because we cannot trust Westminster. Westminster is the Parliament that took 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters and that transferred the Rockall waters from EU to international jurisdiction and told us that that transfer would have no detrimental impact on Scottish stocks.
Westminster cannot find 10 minutes to put through the statutory instrument to apply the 90 mm square-mesh panel to the English fleet, despite the fact that the UK promised the Norwegians last year that we could get our act together in introducing conservation measures. Only one part of the UK—Scotland—is fulfilling its side of the bargain. Westminster pulled the plug on UK fish media advertising earlier this year, without even telling the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, in fishing debates at Westminster, Scottish MPs quite often outnumber English MPs. The Government in London has never treated our fishing industry as a priority and never will do. Scotland can no longer afford to have the Government turn a blind eye to the challenges facing our fishing industry.
The member talks about Scottish ministers not being involved. Will he accept that Franz Fischler, the European commissioner for fisheries, was in Peterhead a few weeks ago, where he met Ross Finnie and me but did not meet Elliot Morley?
I accept that. It is just a pity that our minister did not go over to Brussels to meet Franz Fischler. Why did he have to come to Scotland to speak to our ministers? Surely our minister should be in Brussels to fight and put the case for Scotland's fishing industry.
Fishermen are used to being ignored by ministers. They could be forgiven for thinking that devolution never happened. On the fuel issue, the Government turned a blind eye to everything that happened and was no help at all. Our scallop fishermen are still waiting for help from the Government. We have to move away from a situation in which the Government just responds to events, leaving our industry to deal with constant crisis management. We have to change the concept of fisheries management in Scotland. We have to introduce zonal management soon, so that our fishermen are at the heart of negotiations from day one, and are not brought in late in the day.
In conclusion, 20,000 jobs in the industry depend on the outcome of the fisheries council meeting next week. Our industry will have a bright future, if the right decisions are taken and the Government starts fighting tooth and nail for our fishing communities. The world authorities tell us that there will be a 40 per cent increase in demand for fish products in the next 10 years. We must ensure that our industry is fit, and is still around, to meet that demand. Down the centuries, the industry has made an enormous contribution to Scotland. Indeed, some fishermen have made the ultimate contribution to bring fish to our tables. Now it is time for the Government to give something back.
I move amendment S1M-1433.1, to insert at end:
", and to negotiate the transfer of lead responsibility for European Union fisheries negotiations from Her Majesty's Government to the Scottish Executive in recognition of Scotland's dominant position within the UK industry; questions the basis on which many of the proposals tabled by the EU Commission for the December Fisheries Council were formulated; calls for the urgent implementation of a recovery plan for fish stocks comprising a range of technical measures to achieve the aim of sustainability; further recognises that adequately funded economic and social measures will also be required to ensure the viability of our fishing communities and achieve a restructuring of the fishing fleet; calls for an early introduction of zonal management to ensure that the unacceptable decision-making process that prevents stability in the fishing industry is not repeated, and notes that the Labour-Liberal coalition's policies have left the Scottish fishing industry at a competitive disadvantage."
I congratulate the minister on her first speech on fisheries. I welcome the thrust of the motion, which is to seek the best available settlement for the Scottish fishery.
The situation that confronts the Scottish fishing industry is more serious than any other that it has faced in its history. The most recent proposed quotas have added fuel to the fire that has been destroying the industry ever since the common fisheries policy was established. There is no doubt that the core objectives of the CFP have failed. Declining fleet numbers, lost jobs and rapidly dwindling stocks—especially of cod—show that the system has been a disaster for our fishermen.
The quota system, which was designed to conserve fish stocks, has led to the dumping at sea of huge numbers of dead fish. Twenty-five per cent of all the fish that are caught in the EU annually are thrown back over the side, dead. That represents more than 2 million tonnes. Surely that statistic alone shows the need for drastic reform of the CFP. Since we joined the EU, the British fleet has lost 3,000 vessels and the European Commission is calling now for a further cut of 800 boats—10 per cent of the UK fleet. Why should we make such a cut when the Spanish fleet, which is much larger, is being asked to make only a 4 per cent cut?
We Scottish Conservatives are saying that reform of the CFP is vital and that conservation measures to help stocks and other measures to bring immediate help to our beleaguered fishermen are necessary.
The member talks of reforming the CFP. Will he clarify what the Conservative policy is, given that some elected parliamentarians in his party think that we should withdraw from the CFP?
We have a flexible policy, which includes zonal management. Richard Lochhead knows very well what our policy is—it is in our manifesto.
An embryonic zonal management plan for the North sea already exists. Sixty regions from the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden have formed the North Sea Commission, which is a model of how a zonal management structure could operate. It is chaired by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, a Conservative who has a great deal of fisheries experience. That organisation could show the way forward for future true devolution of the CFP. The organisation is popular with the industry because ideas come from it and scientists and politicians take the back seats for once. By bringing together fishermen and scientists and all the partners that take fish from the North sea, an effective conservation plan and cod recovery programme can be achieved.
Any cod recovery plan would have to last for at least five years. It must introduce conservation measures such as square-mesh panels that use thin twine. Is a 3 m square-mesh panel long enough? Perhaps it should be 6 m or even 9 m. Why is the Scottish fleet the only one to have fitted the panels? Every fleet should adopt them. Conservation methods should negate the need for the proposed swingeing cuts in haddock and nephrops quotas. Our fishermen say that there is an abundance of haddock and that they can be caught in areas where hardly any damage would be done to cod stocks.
The Conservatives support a 12-week closure of the cod spawning ground in the Norwegian deep, but it is vital that our fisheries minister does not give way to demands from the Norwegians for extra quota on mackerel and blue whiting in return for that act of conservation. Norway must admit that it requires the conservation measures as well. Net mesh sizes are very important. It may be that to an increase to 120 mm would help to bring about a really rapid revival of stocks.
The Scottish fishing fleet is important enough to take the lead on conservation, but doing that will be of no use unless all member countries agree to and adopt the same measures. However, the industry needs help now. The Conservatives strongly support a decommissioning programme, but not only for old vessels—some new vessels and licenses should be taken out of the North sea fleet. That would be a good conservation measure, but it should be funded by the European Commission and not be a drain on the FIFG. New money must be made available. The European Commission must finance socio-economic measures to alleviate hardship and poverty in the fishing industry. To do otherwise would be socially unjust. Why should our fleet be victims of the CFP? We should take a leaf out of the Spanish book and use the CFP for gain and the betterment of our fishermen.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's zones would correspond to the zonal areas that would have to be chaired by commission officials from the fisheries directorate-general. That would stop the dislocation of zonal management from the CFP and hopefully negate the need for treaty changes.
Our fleet must be aware of other opportunities during these difficult times. Could not it make more use of the rich fishing grounds of the Falklands, which our country fought so hard to protect? The west coast grounds and the Irish sea need protection and management as well. Prawn stocks are vital to remote island communities and the smaller west coast boats. The proposed 20 per cent cut in prawn quotas is unnecessary, especially on the west coast. There is very little bycatch of cod and scientific advice on the stock is unaltered.
I have been continually pressing the Executive for compensation for our scallop fishermen and for measures that would allow them to continue to sell only white meat during an amnesic shellfish poisoning ban. Other EU fleets receive compensation—ours should as well, especially when there has been a complete loss of fishermen's livelihoods. I asked the Deputy Minister for Rural Development recently about a new testing method and her reply was that a statement would be made in January. I urge her not to forget about that.
As we move towards 2002, when the derogation that protects our six and twelve-mile limits ends, the Executive must fight to maintain the limits. The strong likelihood is that the limits will be retained, as almost every EU member state seems to want to protect their inshore fishermen and local fishing communities. We go further and call for an extension to 24 miles; that position must be emphasised in the council.
Enlargement of the EU exacerbates the need for urgent CFP reform. It is likely that Poland and Estonia will both be full members within five years and both have large fishing fleets. The Polish fishing industry employs 40,000 people, but the fleet is very old. The Poles will not hang about—they will take full advantage of the EU scrap and build programme and, although that would reduce the size of their fleet, the replacements would be modern vessels that are capable of going anywhere and hoovering up huge catches.
The fact that stocks of cod, herring and sprat have diminished in the Baltic is likely to push central and east European fishermen back to the North sea. Many fishermen in the northern isles remember Lerwick being used as base by Polish fishing boats 30 years ago. Extra fishermen are hardly going to help conservation, so zonal policy must include only nations that have traditionally fished in those zones. Effort limitation must be a consideration, but only if it is equitable. In any effort limitation or days-at-sea scheme, it should be possible to employ the fishermen to test technical conservation measures.
Conservation zones such as the Shetland and Irish boxes must continue to be protected and we must stop the immoral dumping of dead fish. A way of doing that might be for fishermen to log each haul they bring in. If they have landed many undersized fish or a species for which they have no quota they should immediately stop fishing in that area and give notice of their findings so that others can also avoid the area. At the end of the day, he who throws the net controls conservation.
Zonal management offers a positive alternative to the current over-centralised management by the CFP. The self-interest of countries in a zonal management group is the key to successful conservation if measures are applied equally by all.
Please wind up.
A complete fishing ban does not necessarily conserve or revive stocks, because an over-abundant stock of some species will prey on the young of a dwindling stock and also on the available food resource. Conservation is about balance; that is why fishermen are often sceptical about scientific advice. Fishermen see an abundance of stock such as haddock and many think there are too many saith, which eat a lot of sand eels. That is why fishermen must be included at every level when conservation measures that affect them are discussed.
Please come to a close.
Time.
I am just winding up.
The next Conservative Government will fight to evolve a policy that sustains our fishing industry and secures its future. The CFP must be reformed. We must be pragmatic and sensible and lead our European partners to a better arrangement.
I, too, compliment the minister on her first speech on fisheries. It was much enjoyed. I also enjoyed listening to the other speakers.
Communities such as Kinlochbervie and Lochinver in my constituency rely to a very large extent on fishing—it is hugely important to my constituency. Come the future Conservative Government that Mr McGrigor looks forward to, some of the Kinlochbervie fishermen will be alarmed at the prospect of having to sail to the Falklands for their catch.
The nephrops, or prawn, fishery is extremely important. I trust that the minister will pursue its interests vigorously at the council meeting. On the west coast, some communities rely on it and there has been overkill. The situation regarding monkfish is similar. There is a lack of scientific evidence to back the position on nephrops and monkfish. We would all agree that there is a case for further scientific examination of the situation. I make a plea to the Executive to undertake a review of marine research expenditure, not with a view to cutting it but to examining where it is targeted and spent. I also plead that fishermen be involved in any research, because they know the industry better than anybody. That could be useful employment for people who are coming out of fishing—skippers could go out and test-trawl, or do whatever else is needed.
In recent years, consultation with fishermen has been much improved. That must continue and be further improved. Fishermen are more concerned than anybody with ensuring a sustainable fishery. If we take them on board and build on previous good work, that can only be to the good. It is sometimes easy to forget that.
The industrial fishing of sand eels has been mentioned. There is a 5 per cent bycatch of small white fish, as Mr Lochhead mentioned. Apart from, as has been pointed out, reduction of the sand eel stock's possible effect on other fisheries, the 1999 brood of haddock is not as good as expected. There might be evidence that that is due to small haddock being caught by big boats as part of their sand eel catch, which cannot be policed. Once it has been in the tank for a day or two, it has turned into fish soup and one cannot tell whether the amount of haddock in the catch is 5 per cent or well above that. The suggestion that some vessels should be decommissioned is very good and I hope that it that will be taken up.
I know that the price of fish-meal has fallen in recent times and I would be surprised if some of the industrial boys were not killing each other in the rush to get out of that business. We might therefore be knocking at a very open door.
I spoke to Richard Lochhead yesterday, and he told me that today Mr Fergus Ewing might mention seals, which are the great unmentionable. Nevertheless, seals should be considered. In doing so, we should take the green lobby with us in considering the matter and coming up with recommendations. Those people will, after all, take a responsible attitude. It would not be sensible to turn our back on the problem of seals.
I turn now to my main point. The Scottish fleet is the biggest player in the North sea. We have heard about square mesh and about the size of twine, on which we have led the way. We must maintain and build on that leadership. How do we do that? How do we match capacity reduction with a reduction in effort? We have already heard the answer—decommissioning. We must be courageous and upfront about this: if we do not take that hard route, we will lose our fleet and our stocks and that will leave us with the worst of both worlds.
Mr Jamie McGrigor appealed eloquently for European funding. As we consider decommissioning, we must remember that, when a Spanish boat and a Scottish boat are next to each other on the sea, the Scottish skipper looks over at the Spanish skipper and thinks, "I am losing on almost every front—he gets a subsidy to build his boat. He even gets a subsidy for satellite positioning apparatus." The subsidy regime is not at all fair to Scottish fishermen. Why is that? When Jamie McGrigor appeals for European funding, he should remember that one Margaret Hilda Thatcher signed that away at Fontainebleau some years ago—not just on agri-compensation, but on the fisheries. We have been reaping the whirlwind ever since.
I will take an intervention.
Jamie?
Alex?
Can I choose? [Laughter.]
Alex.
Does the gentleman acknowledge that the Fontainebleau agreement has produced a net benefit for the United Kingdom economy? It has produced a massive return against the small amount it cost to fulfil our commitments under that agreement in agriculture and fishing.
It was said that when the great lady swung her handbag she came back with a cheque—but some would argue that it was rather a short-term cheque.
Labour is cashing it to this day.
Yes—and that brings me to my final point. It could be said that the Treasury has banked money, but when we examine decommissioning and subsidies, we must remember why the present situation has come about: it was because of the stroke of a pen all those years ago.
No, I am sorry, Jamie.
Alex Johnstone's point was well made, and I agree with him. The Treasury has, it can be argued, reaped a certain financial benefit. With respect, I urge our ministers to make representations to the Treasury when the time is right, to try to claw back some funding. The Tories possibly did take some back; but did they spend it wisely? I doubt it. I make a plea for ministers to go to the Treasury and argue for funding. I believe that both ministers are with us on that one.
I ought to touch on the SNP's argument, but I have not really got anything to say about it, other than to point out that it is not especially encouraging for our guests in the public gallery to watch SNP members carping about who sits in the front chair and who sits in the back chair. When Mr Salmond decides whether he will stand for the unionist Parliament in Westminster or the Scottish Parliament, that will be something that the fishermen will remember.
Today, the fishing industry faces what is probably one of its most serious crises in several decades. White fish stocks, particularly cod, are in serious decline and their numbers are below safe biological limits.
The white fish fisheries are especially important to Scotland. They support many communities, particularly in Aberdeen and the north-east. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation estimates that one fisherman at sea supports about four jobs on shore. In Aberdeen, the council believes that some 2,000 people work in the fish processing sector. The sector provides employment to many people in the less well-off areas of Aberdeen, such as Mastrick and Northfield in my constituency. Many of those people are single parents, so the sector is very important. Therefore, I welcome the minister's swift action in creating the working group—led by Scottish Enterprise Grampian—to assist the fish processing sector.
Fishing is a traditional industry that is woven into the fabric and history of Aberdeen and the north-east. It is essential that it continue as a living industry that has a positive future. Crises are not new to the industry. During the past few months, my office—like that of my Westminster counterpart—has been contacted by many former deep-sea fishermen who lost their livelihoods during the changes to the fishing boundaries around Iceland. Today we face new challenges. The continuing discussions about this year's quotas are crucial. We must recognise the successes that have been achieved and that will be achieved. There have been welcome positive moves in bringing together all the fish-catching organisations with scientists and with Government at all levels—Scottish, UK and European—to work together to ensure that the industry has a future. Each of those groups recognises the contribution and expertise that the others can bring. The commitment of all fish-catching organisations to sustainable fisheries, both in the North sea and in the west of Scotland, is especially important.
We have seen some real successes—for example, the introduction of the square-mesh nets that are now in use in Scottish waters. Those nets reduce the number of juvenile fish that are caught. That sort of conservation measure needs to be built on and I am especially pleased that the minister will be urging other countries to follow Scotland's lead.
I visited the marine laboratory in Aberdeen last year and was shown a typical net that was used before the square-mesh net came in. What struck me was the thickness of the twine, which looked as if it was big enough to stop anything bigger than the average goldfish from getting away. The introduction of a maximum twine width from next April is another positive move.
Conservation of the health and well-being of the sea and its inhabitants, together with all the communities around the shores of Scotland, is the way forward. We do not want to go down the road of the Canadians, who have probably lost their cod fisheries for ever. It has been suggested that young cod in the North sea are not growing as well as they should and we need to understand why. Is it because of a lack of food? The many impacts of global warming are beginning to be felt. Sea temperatures are unusually high. Does that impact on the cod food chain in ways that are not understood? We need to take action in many areas.
Intergenerational equity is a phrase that I came across recently. It means simply that we do not have the right to deprive future generations of healthy fisheries because of our failure to implement sustainable policies. We must work towards that. It is what our ministers—past and present—have been delivering in their many initiatives during the past 18 months, whether in the fisheries strategic framework, in the positive results of the EU and Norway negotiations or in the current commitment to achieving the best possible deal for Scotland's fisheries.
I would like—in my hoarse voice—to add my congratulations to Rhona Brankin. I liked what seemed to me to be her sincere attitude. I wish her well at the fisheries council.
However, I support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Mr Lochhead, on the question of the transfer of lead responsibility to the Scottish minister, given that two thirds of the weight of fish that is caught by the UK is caught by Scottish fishermen. I heard Mr Stone say that such a transfer was not important. However, when the legal affairs committee of the EU, of which I was a member, last visited Edinburgh, the Scottish minister—Mr McLeish—who was then a London minister, gave a categorical assurance on that. I noted his words, and told him that I had done so. He said that such a transfer would happen where Scottish interests dominated. Apparently, that is not regarded as important by the Lib-Lab coalition—at least by some of the Liberals—but I think that it is. It should be clearly on the record that Mr Elliot Morley said that he led the UK fisheries and that he led for the UK at fisheries councils. That is the current position and the SNP does not think that that is satisfactory. A promise was given, but it has not been kept.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I will not give way until I have got further into my speech. The weakness of my voice is making things rather difficult.
The Deputy Minister for Rural Development seemed to be taken aback by the SNP's disclosure of the fact that yesterday in Dublin, Frank Fahey—the Irish equivalent to the fisheries minister—met Elliot Morley to discuss the fisheries council. They covered subjects that are of vital interest to Scotland, including the cod recovery programme and the deep-water-species hake recovery plan. If nobody from the Scottish Executive attended that meeting and—worse—if it was not known about, we must attend to Richard Lochhead's proposal that the promise that was made on legal affairs and the internal market must be implemented.
I understand Dr Ewing's concern. However, I assure her that we knew about the meeting and that we have arranged a separate bilateral meeting with Frank Fahey at which we will discuss our position.
I thank Mr Finnie for that answer—he has had time to think one up since Mr Lochhead first put the question. Nevertheless, I am glad of that answer—it is an improvement on the earlier situation.
I spent decades on the European Parliament committee on fisheries. Why is there an uneven playing field? Why cannot we get rid of it, given that we have so much clout? I am thinking about building subsidies, light due payments, installation and operation of satellites, highest fuel costs and fuel subsidies. Yesterday, Ireland gave out IR£4 million to help to defray fuel costs. Why is it that Scottish fishermen obey the rules about 90 mm mesh and square-mesh panels? The rest of the UK has not even made time for a 10-minute statutory instrument to make such measures enforceable in respect of fishermen from the rest of the UK. Why is Scotland always disadvantaged in such matters, which are in the interests of all fishermen in Europe? Conservation interests are served by the way in which our responsible fishing industry reacts.
In the decades that I spent in the European Parliament, time and again the groups that included UK Labour and Conservative members—there were no Liberals from the UK, although there was a Liberal group—gave in to the Spanish members in their group. That was to the disadvantage of the whole UK and to Scotland in particular. That happened over and over again. It is time to use whatever clout we have to get rid of unfairness.
We do not even seem to object to industrial fishing, which should be banned. Are we fighting for that ban? As Jamie Stone said, skippers of industrial boats are dying to get the money to get out of the industry. I support all references to zonal management. That is an approach for which—before he died—my distinguished colleague Allan McCartney obtained the unanimous approval of the fisheries committee.
I, too, congratulate the minister. The Conservative party welcomes the sincerity and general thrust of her opening speech.
I will confine my speech to the conservation aspect of sea fisheries and the fish stocks without which the fisheries would not exist. In researching for the debate, I was struck by how often the subject of conservation is raised in the Scottish Parliament. That is to be welcomed. However, conservation always comes down to two basic points—habitat and harvest. We must accept that the balance of species becomes altered largely because of the interference of mankind, so it is up to mankind to do everything in its power to correct that balance. That is why some of the measures that are actively promoted by some environmentalist groups, such as no-take zones, are not quite as good as they might sound on first hearing. Merely saying that we have a problem in an area and that we must back off and leave it alone is no answer to any problem, let alone one that involves fish stocks. I understand that some of the scientific work behind that concept was carried out in the tropics—hardly the same conditions as the north Atlantic—and that the evidence by no means suggests that a no-take zone necessarily leads to the automatic recovery of the at-risk species.
We cannot simply back away from the problem—we must stay involved. If we accept that leaving well alone is not an option, it follows automatically that we must look closely at what can and must be done. It is equally logical, when we consider species recovery, to address each stage of the life cycle of a threatened species. We must start with the spawning grounds where the life cycle begins and we must find out whether the scientists, in tandem with the fishermen—their involvement is vital—can strike a balance between the needs of the spawning grounds and the economic interests of fishermen. A mixture of science and common sense should mean that a rapid improvement in spawning rates could be achieved quickly.
We must then turn to conserving greater numbers of juvenile fish. The Scottish Parliament and the fishing industry—as the minister pointed out—can hold their heads high, having introduced square-mesh panels. Other nations must—not should—follow our lead, because the benefits of those panels are both instantaneous and measurable. The use of square-mesh panels, coupled with a maximum twine thickness, means that Scottish fishermen are leading the way in demonstrating how technical measures can play their part in the conservation process.
If we are successful in increasing spawning numbers and juvenile stocks, we must then ensure that there is an adequate food supply for the increased stocks. That means that we must tackle some thorny issues. Seals—a word that only the bravest members ever mention—share with foxes and raptors the dubious honour of having no predators. We recognise that there is a need to control foxes, but we need to address the control of seal numbers sooner rather than later. I repeat the Conservative call for the establishment of a seal commission. After all, seal numbers have trebled in the past 20 years. That would be fine if the food stocks had trebled at the same time, but the opposite is the case. It is an emotive subject, for obvious reasons, but it is also a perfect example of what can happen when man stands back and does nothing.
Industrial fishing for sand eels—a vital food source for demersal stocks—must come under tighter control. We should bear it in mind that a huge percentage of that catch is simply recycled as food for fish farms. There is an urgent need to investigate the role that saith stocks play, given that saith is a dominant predator on the sand eel. I am told that it is possible that heavier fishing of saith could have a beneficial effect on other species, because that would protect and preserve their food source.
An abundance of options is open to us as we begin to address the regeneration of fish stocks and that can only be good news. To their credit, the fishermen have shown that they are willing and ready to help. The Executive must back that commitment by fully resourcing the science to help the fishermen to find the solution that will benefit us all.
As the constituency MSP for Shetland, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. I would like to add my congratulations to Rhona Brankin on her first speech to the chamber as Deputy Minister for Rural Development. Other members have referred to the visitors in the public gallery. I would like to welcome the chairman and the chief executive of the Shetland Fishermen's Association. We face particular difficulties in Shetland. It has been recognised over the years that the fishing industry pays close attention to both Westminster and Scottish Parliament debates on relevant matters; I hope that this morning's debate reflects their concerns.
I met the Shetland Fishermen's Association on Friday to discuss a range of issues, not least of which was the white fish crisis. On Monday night I was in Whalsay. Whalsay is an island of 1,000 people, all of whom—man, woman and child—are connected to the sea in one way or another. The Parliament will not be surprised to hear that in our discussion about the island in general, the dominant issue was the current situation in the white fish industry.
I welcome the minister's commitment to the Shetland box and her announcement on blue whiting and pelagic quotas. Those are helpful points. The current position on stocks and quota remains extremely difficult. It was to some extent mitigated by last week's European Union-Norway negotiations, but that does change the importance—several members have rightly raised this point—of getting the science right, of involving fishermen and of building a consensus on science for sensible change and reform.
The SFA policy, which I was able to discuss last week, is in favour of a stock regeneration programme. It could include many of the measures that have already been outlined this morning, such as closed spawning areas including the areas in the Irish sea that, crucially, have been identified by fishermen and scientists; technical conservation measures—square-mesh panels and progress on the thickness of twine—and days at sea, but most important is a decommissioning scheme to take capacity out of the fleet. I cannot think of any other measure that would have a more profound effect on what needs to happen over the coming years.
Both Jamie Stone and Jamie McGrigor made a good point about using fishermen's skills as one of the options in an integrated package of measures to investigate the most effective methods of achieving change.
Shetland has been at the forefront of thinking on conservation. The approach—inshore fisheries management and the promotion of technical methods of conservation—needs to become mainstream thinking, not just in Scotland but around Europe. However, the financial impact on the industry will be great. In my view, an integrated five-year programme that ties the conservation measures that I have mentioned to financial assistance, so that there is a sustainable fishery and a sustainable fishing industry, is what the industry and the Government must develop together over the coming weeks and years.
The figures for Shetland are worrying. The SFA gave me an economic analysis of the white fish fleet for the past three years. It shows, for example, that for 87 ft boats, crew share, which is the amount of money the crew take home, has fallen by 36 per cent and gross earnings are falling while running expenses are increasing. Less money is available for crew share and loan servicing and, if the trends continue, boats will simply be unable to service their loan repayments. I met skippers last Friday, one of whom illustrated the situation by saying that his boat's gross for the previous fortnight was down £20,000 and the expenses for the same period were £14,000, of which marine diesel was £7,000. The situation is extremely difficult.
I will conclude with the thought that it is important, as others have rightly mentioned, that the Minister for Rural Development and the Executive take a strong case to Brussels next week and fight for the industry. However, we need to think beyond next week. We need to think into the next year and the next five years and come up with a realistic, radical and strategic five-year plan for the future of the industry that achieves not only a sustainable fishery, but a sustainable future for fishermen.
Until this morning, I had not recognised the connection between John Home Robertson, the former Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, and Leon Trotsky, but when I heard the new Deputy Minister for Rural Development declare herself the first fisheries minister in Scotland, I thought that the airbrushing that Trotsky suffered had affected John Home Robertson.
I wish to make a number of comments on the situation on the west coast, particularly about fuel, but before I do I will pick up on the rumbling debate on two matters. The first is whether the debate about who leads for the UK delegation is, as the minister described it, sterile. According to Jamie Stone, that is not important.
I take the minister back to her speech, in which she said that it is a sign of the progress that we have made that this Parliament has been established and that we can discuss distinctively Scottish fishing issues, particularly given the massive relevance of the industry to Scotland. If it is true that it is important to have that Scottish focus in a Scottish debate in a Scottish Parliament, why, given that we have two thirds of the industry, is it the case that in the European delegation the Scottish interest does not lead from the front? Surely there must be a Scottish focus. Clearly there is not.
That takes me to my second point, which is the mystery of the meeting in Ireland, which it is clear ministers knew nothing about. There was hurried activity at the back of the room on the part of the ministers' officials, then the ministers came up with the idea that they were going to their own meeting.
On a point of information.
No thank you. Perhaps the ministers can respond to this point; apparently, they did not know about the first meeting because they are having their own meeting. If we are part of the UK delegation, why were they not at the first meeting, where the strategy was being discussed?
Will the member give way?
No thank you.
Frank Fahey, the Irish Minister of Marine and Natural Resources, said that that meeting was probably the most crucial meeting that any Irish fisheries minister had attended in recent years, and neither of our ministers was at it. That is a fact.
I wish to make a number of observations about the proportion of the cuts being borne by the west coast, because it seems, for example for cod stocks, that the cuts will be deeper on the west coast than elsewhere. I think that I am right in saying that there will be a 56 per cent drop. That has caused enormous concern on the west coast. The same applies in respect of whiting; the total catch will be 2,800 tonnes instead of 4,200 tonnes, on the basis of scientific advice. I would welcome from the minister—whenever she stops dotting around the chamber—an answer to why 2,800 tonnes was accepted, as opposed to 4,200 tonnes. The figures suggest a disproportionate cut on the west coast.
I support what Jamie McGrigor said about scallop farmers. Jamie and I have been working together closely on this matter and it is important to note that what we are discussing today cannot be viewed in isolation from the other problems that exist on the west coast. Certainly the relative inactivity of research into why we continually have bans on the farming of scallops is a matter of profound concern. There is also the matter of compensation, which I will come back to. Until we can say that bans will not happen year on year, the sustainability of affected communities will be under threat.
The fuel issue continues to rumble on and is a matter of some importance in this debate. Dr Ewing referred to the Irish Government's announcement yesterday of a IR£4 million package to help with rocketing fuel prices. That highlights yet again the point that there is inactivity in this Government, and in the Westminster Government, compared with some of our European colleagues.
I have a quotation from Hugh Allan, the secretary of the Mallaig and North-West Fisheries Association, which, better than any other, conveys the impact of fuel costs, which are often assumed not to affect the fishing industry:
"Maintaining fishing gear rose 21%; the cost of the crew bus was up 40%; fuelling the boat was up 53%, and earnings dropped, caused by higher road transport costs of 15%. That was a rise in operating costs of more than £24,000 and a cut in gross income of £52,500, giving a total loss to the business of £76,500."
Does not that show the grim reality of the position that is faced in the Scottish industry? Is it not important that if wages are cut, and therefore recruitment to the fishing industry becomes more difficult, there will be safety considerations, which must always be paramount? On the grounds of safety and sustainability in the fishing industry, I suggest to the ministers that today is not a day for self-congratulation, but an opportunity to look again at some of the serious problems in the industry.
I welcome the Deputy Minister for Rural Development. As she said, the issues that are being addressed today are of great importance to rural Scotland, but I contend that they are important not only to rural Scotland. My concern is about an urban fish processing industry in Scotland's third city. It employs several thousand manual workers, some in highly skilled and highly demanding jobs, and others in less skilled jobs. Some are full-time jobs and others are part time. Some people are working in large, modern factories for multinational firms, others are in small, family-owned fish houses. They are all threatened by the potential impact of falling fish stocks on the fish processing industry.
These issues are not of concern only to fishermen and their communities, important though those concerns are, nor are they significant only to owners and managers in the fish processing sector. In my constituency, and across Aberdeen, as Elaine Thomson said, fish processing jobs are concentrated in the communities that need them most. For example, the community of Tillydrone in my constituency has one of the highest proportions of working single parents anywhere in the United Kingdom, which is due in no small part to the availability of flexible and part-time employment in the fish processing sector. Securing the future of Scottish fisheries, therefore, is not only a matter of conserving stocks, or even business survival; it is also, in urban and rural Scotland, close to the heart of the social inclusion and social justice agendas.
I welcome the steps that have been taken by the ministers in bringing together the expertise of Scottish Enterprise Grampian and the interests of the fish processing industry to plan how best to protect businesses and jobs, whatever the outcome of the fisheries council. I urge the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, in her on-going discussions with that working party, to pay particular attention to the social priorities: to protecting jobs in the long term and short term; to enabling employers to keep jobs in being in the event of a downturn in the early part of next year; and to ensuring that the Scottish industry is in a position to take advantage of a future recovery in supply, particularly in cod and haddock.
Protecting those jobs depends on successful negotiation at the fisheries council. The opportunity exists to build on the achievements of recent weeks at the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and at the talks between the EU and Norway. In both sets of talks, Scottish interests were advanced because our ministers successfully argued their case to fisheries ministers from elsewhere in the UK and because UK ministers succeeded collectively in arguing that case and winning the support of the EU as a whole when conducting negotiations with other fishery countries outside the EU.
I know that ministers will not be too distracted by some of the SNP's byzantine obsessions with who leads on what. Most bizarrely, SNP members are unable to recognise that the status of Irish bilateral talks with Scottish fisheries ministers is equal to that of Irish bilateral talks with English fisheries ministers. It is sad that SNP members do not recognise that.
I agree with all members who said that a drastic cut in sand eel fisheries would be greatly in the interest of the Scottish white fish industry. That point was made by Jamie Stone, as well as SNP members. I hope that the UK delegation will press that case. If it is resisted by Denmark—which has three votes on the fisheries council—I hope that our representatives will not hesitate to use Britain's 10 votes to vote that country down.
The freedom to promote Scotland's interests and the political clout to achieve them is what Scotland's fishermen, fish processors and fish factory workers expect from the Parliament. That is what the Executive continues to deliver.
I welcome the minister to her place and particularly welcome her remarks about the ultimate sacrifice that is paid by so many of our fishermen. I am holding the front page of this week's Buchan Observer, which notes that the fishing memorial—the bronze memorial built by public subscription following the loss of the Sapphire—is ready to be unveiled in the town of Peterhead. I mention that because it reminds members that we are talking about a special industry that involves special people to whom we owe a special moral obligation. That applies to every fishing MSP and every fishing minister.
The situation that faces the industry is as serious as any that I can remember as a fishing MSP. I doubt whether even those sitting in the public gallery who have great experience in the industry can remember a time when the situation was more serious. I asked the minister a question about Hague preferences for a reason. The Hague preferences were negotiated at a conference in 1976, at the initiative of Garett FitzGerald, the then Irish foreign minister. As a result of FitzGerald's initiative, Denmark moved to protect Greenland and the UK Foreign Office moved to protect what were described as the northern parts of Britain.
The Hague preference means that in decision making special account should be taken of the vital needs of fishing-dependent communities when applying the common fisheries policy. The minister should reflect on the fact that that was agreed on the initiative of the then Irish foreign minister. That provision has been crucial in defending the Scottish fishing industry at times of great difficulty.
I will not list how many initiatives the key fishing states of Europe have taken, because I do not have enough time. The Spanish and the Danes have obtained special protection for their fishermen. The Norwegians—outside the Community—have also obtained such protection. I say to the minister that her belief that who leads a delegation at the Council of Ministers is not important is fatuous.
Lewis Macdonald should understand that although I think Elliot Morley would make a fine English fisheries minister, he does not, unfortunately, regard himself as the English fisheries minister; he regards himself as the fisheries minister for the United Kingdom and is absolutely sure that he leads the UK delegation in the Council of Ministers. It is an incredible idea that that leadership role can be substituted by slipping in a Scot when a subject that is of particular importance to Scotland arises. Scotland's fishing industry is 30 times as significant to the Scottish economy as the fishing industry is to the UK as a whole. There is no fishing issue that is not vital to the Scottish national interest. We should have a fisheries minister who has the same status as those of other countries at the Council of Ministers.
Will the member take a point of information?
No, I do not want information. I will rephrase that—I do not want information from Lewis Macdonald, at least.
My next point is crucial. The Hague preference obligations have usually been represented in tonnes of fish. The Hague preference bottom line for haddock is 60,000 tonnes. The minister said that the Executive would invoke the Hague preference if it were necessary. I say to her that the idea that 1,000 tonnes of haddock will be distributed among the rest of the European Union to meet the Hague preference limit strikes me as hopeful. I will hold her to her undertaking, but I am not convinced that the rest of the EU will accept her argument.
What, therefore, can the minister do to discharge her obligation? She could fund a tie-up of the Scottish fishing fleet, particularly during the spawning period. She could fund the decommissioning scheme—which was stopped for five years during the 1980s and 1990s by the UK minister who was responsible for it. We could have a fuel subsidy, as the Irish have. We could provide help with water charges for the processing sector. We could try to increase supplies, rather than stop international supplies, as Aberdeen City Council has. We could also help with transport costs.
My final point is simple. The minister mentioned the stability of the pelagic fleet. It would be of enormous service to my constituents who work in fish processing if there were an initiative to secure more pelagic landings in Scotland. That would generate more jobs in Scotland and give employment opportunities to people in fishing-dependent areas.
I will try to be brief, because I know that many members wish to speak. I take this opportunity to make a plea for the small village fishing industry. I represent Pittenweem, in north-east Fife—the east neuk of Fife—which is a relatively small prawn in the fishing sector in Scotland but is an important part of the employment picture in that area. Almost 20 per cent of the population there depends in some way on the fishing industry. The number of fishermen has declined from more than 300 in 1991 to only 162 going out to sea at the end of last year, but fishing is still important to the economy of the east neuk of Fife.
The community is not as directly affected by next week's negotiations as are some others, because it has had largely to withdraw from the white fish sector. The negotiations are still important, however. The knock-on effects of the discussions in the European Union will affect the fishing industry in the east neuk of Fife. The impact on nephrops will be great, because that is what the fishing industry in that area has had to withdraw to. There are no white fish within 100 miles of Pittenweem. Our boats can no longer fish for white fish. The last two deep vessel boats were sold this year because the value of their licences and track record was greater than what they could earn catching from Pittenweem.
Prawns have now become important because they are the only stock available to our local fishermen. As other catches are withdrawn and quotas are reduced in other areas, the value of the licences for prawns will be pushed up, as other fishermen will seek to enter a market in which they are not yet present. That will have an impact on our fishermen too, so it is important that we try to maintain the prawn quotas, to protect those small fishermen in my area who work in the under- 10 m boat sector.
There is more that needs to be done. We should consider the reform of the common fisheries policy. As Liberal Democrats, we fully support proposals to move towards a zonal policy. We must consider whether we can find a way of decommissioning and of helping to subsidise fishermen so that they do not have to go out to sea to earn a living at times when it is perhaps best for them not to do so—especially during the breeding seasons. It would be nice to consider those issues as part of the discussions on the future of fishing.
I hope to be able to participate in future fishing debates in the chamber, but the situation is becoming so desperate in the east neuk of Fife that there may not be a fishing industry in a few years' time. Fife Council has been supportive of the fishing industry over the years, investing some years ago in a new fish market and a new breakwater. Unfortunately, the future of the fish market is in doubt because, due to the loss of white fish, there is simply nothing to sell.
The east neuk of Fife needs a good deal out of the discussions. I am confident that our ministers will help to deliver that good deal, but in the longer term we need to get more sustainable fish stocks back into the North sea so that our fishermen in the east neuk of Fife can start to fish again for white fish locally.
At the start of the debate, I was surprised to hear how many members congratulated the new Deputy Minister for Rural Development, who is responsible for fisheries, on her first speech on deep sea fisheries. I had forgotten that today is her first speech on the subject because members of the Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am convener, have quickly become familiar with the new deputy minister—and I am sure that she has tired quickly of us.
It is the nature of the relationship between the Rural Affairs Committee and the deputy minister that we will see a lot of each other in future. In fact, it is surprising how much of the committee's time is spent on issues that are directly connected to Scotland's fishing industry, but it is right that that is the case. The fishing industry is important because, while it is not an enormous industry in relation to the Scottish economy as a whole, it is an absolutely essential industry in many of the peripheral areas, where it is right up there as the No 1 employer.
It is important that we form a cross-party opinion today that is supportive of the minister, because it is essential that she has the full and unanimous backing of the Scottish Parliament as she prepares to go to the fisheries council meeting. That is why today the Conservatives will support the motion in the name of Ross Finnie. I hope that the SNP will also be able to support that motion when we come to vote on it this evening. The SNP's amendment is a step too far, as it attempts to tie the hands of the minister and to drive a wedge into the unanimous support that is undoubtedly required before the minister leaves for the council meeting.
I am sure that, when the Minister for Rural Development winds up, he will be able to defend the Executive's record against Richard Lochhead's attacks. However, it is probably my responsibility to deal with the attacks that were made on the Conservative party and its policy, and I propose to do so.
The question is fairly simple: where do the Tories stand in the debate about the future devolution of fisheries management? In the UK in particular, the widespread feeling is that Brussels bureaucrats have been running the common fisheries policy for far too long. Everyone recognises that fishermen and scientists who live and work in specific fishing zones should be involved in the management of fisheries.
Conservatives believe in the continuation of the common fisheries policy, but that policy must work on behalf of those in Scotland whose livelihood depends on it. The preferred option would be to devolve fisheries management away from Brussels to national, local or, above all, zonal management structures. Many in the chamber and in the fishing industry favour the nomination of zones across international boundaries, embracing countries where the waters have been fished for centuries, as one way in which that devolution could be achieved. Such areas would include the North sea, the western approaches, the Bay of Biscay, the west of Scotland and the Irish sea. Management committees in each zone would take decisions on total allowable catches, quotas, discards, subsidies, technical conservation measures and enforcement. The European Commission would chair and provide the secretariat for those communities and would continue to act as an international referee. I will not read out our whole manifesto for the benefit of Richard Lochhead, but I hope that I have clarified the Conservative party's position.
I again urge the SNP to take the opportunity to join the rest of the chamber in sending the Deputy Minister for Rural Development to the negotiations that will take place in the December round of the fisheries council with the unanimous backing and encouragement of all members in the chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss sea fishing before the meeting of the European council of fisheries ministers.
We are all aware of the problems with white fish stocks, which we must deal with now if we want a fishery for our children. I am encouraged by the steps that have been taken to regulate the Rockall fishery, which will lead to sustainability in that area, but we must find ways of managing fisheries in other areas in order to create a sustainable industry.
We must involve fishermen in that work. Conservation methods are not worth the paper on which they are written unless those working in the area are signed up to them. We must use the knowledge that fishermen have. Many have fished those areas for years and know their fishing grounds; they know where fish spawn, where young fish are and where they can make good quality catches.
We must take an holistic approach to the problem, rather than simply target one fishery, which is an approach that leads to missed opportunities for conservation. We must consider the marine environment as a whole and address pollution and bad practice. To coin a phrase, we need a joined-up policy on fishing. Zonal management would go a long way to achieving such a policy, but we must ensure that all involved are working towards the same goals. There is little point making an effort towards conservation in one area if that effort is being undermined in another area. Fish do not recognise boundaries.
We must also examine the systems that we use to manage fisheries. I am unsure if the right approach is that of total allowable catches, because it creates bycatches—dead fish that cannot be landed because the fishing boat is over quota for that species or because the fish are too immature. Throwing dead fish back into the sea is an incredible waste. We must consider implementing a system that allows people to buy extra quotas to enable them to land fish that they have caught but for which they have no quota. That system would reduce waste.
This year, it looks unlikely that we will use our total allowable catch for haddock and cod. Therefore, there must be a way of making quotas available at ports where fishermen could buy extra quota to land those species of fish. While that might be less profitable, it would not encourage overfishing.
Fishermen recognise the problems of bycatches and I acknowledge the steps that they have taken to lead the way in conserving fish stocks by fitting square-mesh panels. However, there will always be a bycatch; the challenge is to reduce it while ensuring that we find ways in which to avoid the practice of throwing dead fish back into the sea. Bycatches encourage predators by creating a ready food supply for seabirds and seals, which also feed on live fish, putting more pressure on the fishery.
We are told that there is overfishing of sand eels, which means that the food source of haddock and cod is being exploited. Many of those catches are being used to feed fish in fish farms, and I wonder whether thought has been given to using the bycatch of immature fish for feeding fish in fish farms. We would need to examine that approach in order to ensure that it did not encourage bycatches, but it would be less wasteful than throwing fish over the side.
We must also consider alternative fisheries, such as the pelagic fisheries, which have been mentioned. We all know what happened to the herring fishery during the 1970s; we must consider whether there are ways of adding value to it by encouraging consumers to buy herring.
Many of the points that I have made are relevant to the review of the common fisheries policy and must be considered. The total allowable catch approach is a blunt instrument and we must consider ways in which it can be refined. We should aim for sustainability and conservation, instead of starving our fish and feeding their predators, which is what we are doing at present.
In the few minutes available to me, I will talk about the fish processing industry in the north-east, which is where that industry is mainly located. It employs 5,000 people in the Grampian region alone.
The dire situation that the industry faces has a number of causes, including increased waste water and veterinary costs and rising fuel costs. There has been a dearth of landings, with 40 per cent fewer landings this year alone. All those factors lead to plummeting profits.
The high-quality companies in Aberdeen are vulnerable, as they have invested heavily in their businesses and require considerable throughput to meet their overheads. However, in recent weeks and months, they have been faced with shortages of fresh fish at the quayside. There is a great deal of concern in the north-east following the measures on catch quotas that the European Commission recently unveiled.
Of most concern is the fact that not only jobs but the essential skills for future generations will be lost. Robert Milne of the Scottish Fish Merchants Federation is on record as saying that the Government must learn from the terrible mistakes that were made in the 1970s, when the North sea was closed for herring fishing and no account was taken of the onshore sector—when the herring returned, there was nobody left to process it. He suggested that the north-east is the only place in the world where people have the skills to handle the type of fish that are landed. Those jobs must be preserved.
The problems facing the processors in the north-east are unique, because the industry has always relied on the indigenous fishing fleet to supply it with its raw material. Indeed, all the machinery, equipment and skills are geared to processing smaller fish than are traditionally landed in Norway and Iceland. Processors in the Aberdeen area have always been dependent on the 300 to 400 fishing boats in the North sea. Therefore, if the number of those boats is going to be halved, there will be difficulties. We trust that stocks will eventually recover and that local fishermen will be able to supply the processing sector, but help is needed in the short term.
Fish processing firms are looking to the minister to initiate the short-term measures that will help processors to survive, despite the declining stocks. If processing staff are forced to seek employment elsewhere in the meantime, there will be a loss of skill to the industry that may never be retrieved. As if to underline the urgency of the problems, members will note that Abacus Seafoods of Mintlaw recently went into receivership. I suggest that that company will not be alone; many companies have borrowed heavily to meet the new hygiene regulations and other requirements that have been mentioned.
I welcome the fact that a working group has been set up to consider the problems facing the processing industry. I understand that the group will report its findings soon—that is also to be welcomed. However, the fundamental issue will be retaining the skills while demand for them drastically reduces in the next few years. Without doubt, the Scottish Executive will need to remain committed to addressing those issues effectively. Restructuring of the industry is now an urgent necessity. What the fish processors need most is the prospect of a climate within which the industry can operate with confidence and the assurance that fishing-related employment will remain an important factor in the Scottish economy, particularly in the rural areas of the north-east.
My constituency includes the port of Eyemouth in Berwickshire, where the Anglo-Scottish Fishermen's Association is based. Its membership is currently 61 boats, including nearly all the vessels between Dunbar in East Lothian and Craster in Northumberland. About 20 of the boats are white fish boats and the rest are prawn, crab and lobster boats. There are fish processing jobs onshore in Eyemouth and elsewhere in Berwickshire. The Berwickshire coastal economy is brittle and we can ill afford the loss of income that the quota reductions would entail if they were introduced. About 20 per cent of local jobs are fisheries dependent. The multiplier of four jobs onshore for one man at sea applies in Berwickshire, so we are facing what can only be described as the sort of crisis that, as Alex Salmond said, has probably never been seen before—certainly not in my part of the world.
What are the potential solutions? As other members have said, we must get the square-mesh panels and the maximum twine thickness introduced across Europe. We could consider the days-at-sea scheme but, as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has said, it is difficult to cope with the different types of boats and monitor which ones are at sea. I do not think that such a scheme is a particularly strong candidate.
The decommissioning scheme with joint UK and EU funding is another solution that should be considered. However, I understand from the Anglo-Scottish Fishermen's Association that the only sector in the UK fleet with large overcapacity is the pelagic fleet. We could consider closures of specific areas. There is some local support for closed areas around the Farne islands.
I agree with what a number of members said about the sand eel fishery. It is high time that that issue was addressed. The environmental damage that is done by industrial fishing is obvious. So far no one has quoted the figure for the sand eel fishery bycatch of cod and haddock, which stands at 5 per cent. That equates to a tonnage greater than the quotas for some nations.
Iain Smith spoke about the nephrops fishery. The proposed 20 per cent cut in the nephrops quota is a serious problem. I cannot understand it. Last September, when there was a serious prospect of tie-ups in the nephrops fleet, the Executive obtained a further quota. I give John Home Robertson full credit for that. Why are we now considering reducing that quota? I do not understand the logic of that. Of course when people fish for nephrops there is a bycatch of cod and haddock, but it is nothing like the size of the bycatch in the sand eel fishery.
Ministers will do well to talk to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—I am sure that they will do so before they attend the forthcoming meetings. Parliament should support their efforts. I ask them to consider all the points that have been raised. As Iain Smith said, the nephrops fishery is particularly important, especially to my constituents. Action on the other proposed quota reductions would greatly benefit an industry that is vital to Scotland.
We now move to closing speeches. I call Dr Elaine Murray to wind up on behalf of the Labour party.
This is an important debate about a sad situation. The SNP's rather carping amendment is designed to disguise the fact that it approves of some of the actions that the Executive is taking but would rather choke than admit it.
I was extremely surprised that Richard Lochhead objected to Franz Fischler coming to Peterborough to discuss the fishing situation with our ministers. That is extraordinary.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time. The member should sit down.
The Tories were rather more generous, although at times Jamie McGrigor seemed to be casting his net rather wide and trying to bring in issues that are close to his heart but are not up for debate today. Alex Johnstone was right to recognise the importance of the Parliament's support at such a crucial stage in the negotiations that our ministers will be undertaking.
The first main issue relates to total allowable catches. We must give credit to the Scottish Executive and to the fishing industry for the measures that they have taken, which are one reason why the settlement is not as bad as expected. I say to my SNP colleagues that that is not being self-congratulatory—it is giving credit where credit is due.
Jamie Stone, Alex Fergusson and some other members raised doubts about some of the scientific evidence in relation to quotas. The issue of bycatches must also be addressed. Some important points were made about the knock-on effects on the TACs of other species, such as nephrops. Richard Lochhead did not seem to have listened to what the minister said about the action that the Executive intends to take in concert with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Rhoda Grant made an important point about the waste created by bycatches and the fact that it may attract predators.
The second important issue is conservation. It is heartening to note the policy agreement that has been struck between the industry and environment agencies such as the World Wide Fund for Nature. I was a little surprised by what Dr Winnie Ewing had to say, although I commiserate with her on her sore throat; I hope that I am not responsible for the outbreak of sore throats that we have in the Parliament at the moment. Dr Ewing seemed to imply that we should do nothing because other people were dragging their feet. I regard that as an irresponsible suggestion.
A number of speakers noted the successes that we have had with square-mesh panels. It was suggested that we should also consider zonal management, the closure of spawning grounds and the protection of juvenile fish.
Richard Lochhead made an important point about the improvement necessary in food supplies and the fact that the haddock cohort is small for its age at the moment. Industrial fishing of sand eels by the Danish and, to a lesser extent, the Norwegian fleet—I am told that sand eels are being processed and fed to pigs, which is yet another reason why I buy Scottish bacon rather than Danish bacon—is unnecessary and must be addressed, as must the problem with saith.
On the general issue of predation, Alex Fergusson renewed the call for a seal commission. I remind him that there is already a special commission on seals, which reports to the UK Government with scientific advice. The Executive is advised by research carried out at the University of St Andrews sea mammal research unit. I am sure that Fergus Ewing will want to major on seals, because his dislike of wild animals is legendary. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.
We must face the thorny issue of restructuring, which several speakers mentioned, including Jamie McGrigor, Tavish Scott, Jamie Stone and Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond had a long wish list, but as usual with the SNP, there was no price tag. As we heard, some money is available through the FIFG.
Members from all parties pointed out that we must reflect on the sacrifices made, in lives, by fishing communities in bringing fish to us. Moreover, we must recognise the great importance of the fishing industry to many other industries. Elaine Thomson, Lewis Macdonald, Irene McGugan, Tavish Scott, Iain Smith and Euan Robson pointed out the importance of those industries in many rural communities, especially in the provision of flexible and part-time employment.
I welcome the sensitivity of the minister to the perils of the sea. My family fished out of the north-east of Scotland and we lost family at sea. That is not to be wished on anybody, but it obviously still happens. We therefore welcome the emphasis on safety. We would like the minister to do more to help to fund the satellite monitoring systems, which have a vital role in monitoring—and not only fish stocks.
I hoped that there would have been more passion and urgency. I listened to Richard Lochhead's speech today with some amazement. The xenophobic point about not allowing Franz Fischler to come to Peterhead was above my head. I could not understand what that was about.
Will Mr Davidson give way?
Not just now, thanks.
I never said that.
It came across that way. That is the message that the SNP is putting out.
Many members have demonstrated the importance of the Scottish fishing industry. Our coastal communities, in particular, need assistance at a time when they are under stress from other factors. I hope that the minister will do her best to be creative and have an input into the objective 2 system that is coming into place—we have not yet heard all the announcements about what will happen.
We have distance-from-market problems, which are accentuated by the cost of fuel to the haulage industry. Fish processors throughout the country suffer from waste water charges and the difficulty of getting trained staff. All sorts of costs are piling up. The SFF suggests that there are four jobs on land for every one at sea. I would put that figure higher, as there are a lot of ancillary industries. As people in those industries earn money and spend it in the community, the service industries are hit as well.
It is vital to get the message across that parts of Scotland are bleeding because of these problems. We must ensure that prompt action is taken. The best way to do that is to come to agreement with the people who fish the seas with us. We must move towards some form of zonal management. The North Sea Commission, which is chaired by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has been mentioned. The commission is a start, because it has representatives from countries other than EU member states; it includes Norway and all the other countries that fish.
Mesh sizes were mentioned. There must be agreement on that among all the parties that fish in our waters. We must have a level playing field for Scotland's fishing. That would take us on to the next stage, which we must get right.
Two years ago, I went to the Haddo House conference. That conference represented a start—its title at least mentioned scientists and fishermen, who until then had been the poor relations, as there was no trust. We must build on that development. Things are happening, but we must go further. There is evidence that some of the TACs information is based on landing statistics. That merely measures effort; it does not measure fish stocks.
We must get down to brass tacks. The Executive must play a role in doing so by putting more resources into the scientific effort, which could be shared throughout the fishing community. For example, fishing boats that are tied up could be hired to undertake sampling. However, although there are many things that we could do, the information must be right. Much of the information on TACs was speculative and opinion forming, to say the least, and would be hard to justify. That is just not good enough. If we can do the job in Scotland, we will demonstrate that we know what to do in the fishing industry and we can sell that work. We should apply that model of best practice to all the seas in which our fishermen fish. Although I do not blame the minister for the situation, I beg her to stiffen her resolve to take those messages back, to talk to the scientists and fishermen and to pull everyone together. That is the only way in which we can go.
Perhaps the minister will also consider the licence system, which results in our boats being tied up. As Duncan Hamilton pointed out, because fishermen can go out with only one licence, they have to face the huge fuel costs of returning to pick up another. It is a nonsense and has to be stopped. I hope that the minister will comment on that point in his summing-up.
Decommissioning, which many members have mentioned, must be carried out with sensitivity. There must be measured outcomes, which means that hard choices will have to be made. As a result, there must be safety nets—if members will pardon the pun—for people and communities who will suffer from that programme. However, in the long term, decommissioning is a requirement if we are to have sustainable fisheries.
There must be some form of control on industrial fishing; we cannot allow it to go on willy-nilly, because it is a tremendous force against sustainability. I will not go through the litany of members who have brought up the subject, but the point has been well made. However, industrial fishing cannot be banned outright because other industries would be affected.
Members mentioned the seal commission. Some of the evidence from the current arrangements does not stand up and better work must be undertaken on this major problem. We need clear evaluation of the effect of the seal population on Scotland's fisheries.
I have argued for zonal management in one form or another for three years and happily endorse Alex Johnstone's comments on the subject. We must move to a more positive position that involves the fishermen and scientists and that reinforces the confidence of people in our coastal communities. I hope that the deputy minister has listened well to what we have said today; she is our shining hope and a lot rests on her shoulders.
I thought it both fitting and appropriate that, in her speech, the deputy minister referred to the unique nature of fishing. It is a highly dangerous profession and activity in which lives are lost. We should remember that, in the fishing industry, the past year has been extremely difficult and representatives of the industry have expressed concerns that the financial pressures that they have faced this year—even before they face the difficulties that are ahead—threaten safety at sea. Because the pressures of simply surviving affect the level of wages that skippers can pay, it has been difficult for them to find enough crew to man their boats.
The debate has been useful. Members of all parties have recognised that as well as conserving fish, we must address our attention to conserving fishing communities in Scotland. Those communities are at stake if we do not act on the range of measures that members from all parties have highlighted. Alex Salmond—who, as far as I know, is the MSP for Peterhead, not Peterborough—made an impassioned and eloquent speech born of years of experience of the fishing industry. I suggest that we have a good read at what he had to say about the way ahead for a recovery plan.
It has been predicted that the whitefish industry will this year lose up to a third of its income after what has been a very difficult year for many fishermen. How can that happen without jeopardising safety at sea? We must be gravely concerned about that.
We also know that the Executive is spending only 0.03 per cent of its total budget on fishing—only 1.1 per cent of its rural affairs budget. When members whinge and moan about the SNP, saying that we must act for the fishing communities, they should search their conscience and the Executive's balance sheets. Perhaps a little less should be spent on spin doctors and a little more on our fishing communities.
We heard eloquent and impassioned arguments from Duncan Hamilton on, for example, the cost of fuel. What is not appreciated is the fact that catches must be hauled three times: from the harbour to the market, from the market to the processor and from the processor to the consumer. Haulage costs must be paid three times, in the context of the iniquitous fuel taxes on which I shall not dwell further today.
Irene McGugan made the only speech that dealt solely with the problems that are faced by processors—other members touched on the issue, but she devoted her whole speech to it. She highlighted the fact—and this is also my view—that increased water charges and expenditure on health and safety measures are bringing the fish processing business close to extinction. The minister will remember from his previous career that accountancy is not so complicated: if more money is going out than is coming in, the business ends. That is called bankruptcy, and I know a bit about that. In my former employment I was—and I still am—an accredited specialist in insolvency law.
Richard Lochhead showed his years of experience in this subject when he suggested specific measures that need to be taken. Many other members talked of specific measures and all parties put forward good ideas, which I do not have time to deal with one by one. It is evident from the debate that a recovery plan for our fishing industry must be brought to the Parliament next month. If it is not, we will seriously let down all those who work in the industry.
Lest anyone think that I am overdramatising the issue, I point out that the leading active conservation measure that the SFF, in its excellent briefing paper, said should take place relates to spawning and nursery closures. When does the spawning of cod take place? Between January and March—so we have only weeks in which to act. I hope that the minister will act on my suggestion and issue a statement. It is appalling that we have only one debate a year—and not even a half-day's debate, but a couple of hours—in which to discuss the fishing industry. That is unacceptable.
I know that members would not wish me to neglect the issue of who speaks for Scotland. I was interested in the MAFF concordat document, which tells the truth that some members of the unionist parties are coy about. It says that Westminster takes the lead in EU matters, as I assume all members know. Under the heading, "Pre-Fisheries Council Meetings", it states:
"Before each meeting of the Fisheries Council the MAFF Minister acting as leader of the UK delegation will meet industry representatives".
Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiation knows that the important period in negotiation is right at the start—before all one's negotiating partners have adopted lines from which they will not move. That document says that Mr Morley is speaking up for Scotland, and that has been proven in the debate by the references to the important meeting with Mr Fahey, in Ireland, at which Scotland's interests were discussed.
In conclusion, it seems to me that on the European stage, Scotland's role is not that of a player, but of a prompter; not that of a leader, but of a passenger. Instead of producing a carefully worked out package of measures to ensure that our industry survives, we are the bystander at the councils of Europe.
I am pleased to make the winding-up speech for this debate. As is common on such occasions, it might be described as having been a broad discussion, ranging, by and large, across the important issues that affect sea fishing. The debate has, by and large, focused on what we all regard as the key issues. I endorse everything that the Deputy Minister for Rural Development said about where we stand on the negotiations and I believe that the Scottish Executive in the past 12 months has demonstrated categorically its commitment and determination to get the best for the Scottish fishing industry. Members need only look at our latest successes at the NEAFC and Norway negotiations to see that.
When I woke this morning, I had two interesting little thoughts. One was that, given the length of Richard Lochhead's amendment, he might forgo his right to an opening speech. My second hope was that Fergus Ewing would leave his toothbrush at home.
That must be an in-joke.
It was Fergus Ewing's joke. It was awful the last time and we are glad that he did not repeat it.
I am pleased that Richard Lochhead did not forgo his opening speech, because it was very interesting indeed. He stressed the concern that we all have about the difficulties with our cod stocks and the imperative need for us to do something about cod recovery plans. That was exactly the position of the Executive that Rhona Brankin set out. He also made the point that we must be careful not to use scientific evidence relating to the state of cod stocks to set the TACs for other stocks. I am glad that he made that point, because that is exactly the policy of the Executive on the catches that he listed—haddock, nephrops, monkfish and herring, to name some that he mentioned. He also referred to sand eels, which are another concern for the Executive. We are encouraging Norway, in particular, to agree that we need a TAC reduction. That is essential, as a minimum, because we know that the sand eel fishery causes considerable concern.
Richard Lochhead went slightly off track when he talked about our position on the more detailed aspects of the common fisheries policy. That is important, but the discussion that will take place next week will centre on the TACs. Let me make it clear, in case there is any doubt about our policy, that as well as the continuation, as a minimum, of the six and 12-mile limits, there will be no changes to the system of relative stability and the Shetland box will be retained. Those will be key elements for the Executive in future discussions. I assure the member for Shetland, Tavish Scott, that although the Shetland box is a permanent part of the CFP, we know that there are nation states that would want to challenge that. We have commissioned research to give additional backing should we be challenged. Many members also mentioned the need for greater regional and zonal management, which is exactly the Executive's stance.
Those are vital issues, but we must not confuse them with the key issue of how we take forward our position on the TACs to be negotiated next week. We are quite clear that we have to have those technical measures and that the proposals set out by the Commission are not yet agreed.
Duncan Hamilton correctly raised a point about why there were differences in the Commission's proposals between the east and west coasts. He asked where we stood on that issue. We will stick to the scientific advice. Duncan Hamilton will be aware that the west coast cod stocks are, according to the evidence, in a much worse state than those in the east. That is the reason for the proposals. On the other hand, the level at which it has been proposed that whiting catches be set is lower than that suggested by the scientific advice. That is a Commission proposal that the Executive does not wish to support.
On the matter of investment in technical measures, I take issue with Richard Lochhead. Our single largest investment in that is at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. It has the most significant gear research capability in Europe; it has shown the way forward on that issue and has led the way on square-mesh panels. We are wholly supportive of technical conservation measures. Let us not suggest—as Mr Davidson appeared to—that simply because we have failed so far in our policy of getting square-mesh panels accepted across Europe, we should wait for other countries to start using them before we do. The panels have been of huge benefit to Scottish fishing in monetary terms and in demonstrating that such technical conservation measures work. The question of closing fishery zones at certain times and of not having a dogmatic stance that would not reflect patterns of spawning is an issue on which the Executive is quite clear.
Alex Salmond mentioned the Hague preference. He will know better than anyone that the Hague mechanism is a trigger, not an automatic right. As part of our negotiation, we want to ensure that we are clear about where the negotiations are leading before we invoke a mechanism that we would have to justify at a later stage. However, it was used last year and we will use it again if it has to be used. We must bear it in mind that we should not go into the negotiations stating that we intend to use it. We are seeking an outcome that would be better than the use of that trigger.
I thank the minister for that statement, which reinforces the words of the deputy minister. I was thinking of other ways in which the commitment that the minister has given on the Hague preference could be honoured. When the minister meets Frank Fahey, the Irish fisheries minister, will he ask him about the IR£4 million emergency package for the fishing industry that the Irish Government has just announced? Will he try to match that in Scotland or will he try to block the Irish package—a move that would be of no benefit to Scottish fishermen?
I am grateful for those two points. I am glad that Mr Salmond accepts the way in which we intend to approach the Hague preference. I am sure that Mr Salmond will be aware—he always is when he asks that sort of question—that the IR£4 million is officially described as IR£3 million for quality assurance schemes and IR£1 million for efficiency measures. Rhona Brankin and I would be willing to consider such measures as part of the commitment that we have given and as part of the additional funds—an additional £11 million—that we have committed to FIFG over the next three years. However, if those measures were to be described as Duncan Hamilton described them, as fuel subsidy and operating support, we would be right to raise that matter with the Commission as an abuse of EU legislation.
Many members talked about the processing industry. We understand perfectly that any further serious reduction in our catches will put enormous pressure on that sector. That is why, as an interim measure, my colleague Rhona Brankin has already announced a task force in Grampian to examine the fish processing industry and to come up with proposals on what can be done about it.
As a former fish gutter, I take some interest in this matter. The deputy minister touched on the local enterprise network's involvement in tackling the problem. Can the minister confirm that the network will specifically target the fish processing industry?
I ask the minister to wind up now, please.
Jamie Stone refers to exactly the commitment that I have just given. However, we do not wish to go too far on that matter just yet, because we have not yet concluded those negotiations. The appropriate time to come up with forward, more thought-out plans on that is when we know the outcome of the negotiations on TACs.
Like Tavish Scott, whose constituency perhaps has the highest proportion of gross domestic product from fishing, I understand that the measures are not just short term, but long term. The outcome of the negotiations has to set a process in train for this year; the negotiations must also put in place—if we can achieve it—measures to assist with the long-term sustainability of fishing and of our fishing industry.
I state for the final time that the objective for the forthcoming negotiations is to aim for the best possible fishing opportunities for Scottish fishermen, consistent with scientific advice and with the need to sustain stocks for the future. That is what matters and is what we aim to deliver. Let me tell members: Rhona Brankin will lead for the United Kingdom in those negotiations at the points when it is relevant and important to the future of the Scottish fishing industry. That is our commitment, and I invite the Parliament to support the motion at decision time, and to reject the amendment.