Plenary, 08 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2001

Official Report 649KB pdf

---

Fishing Industry

Good morning. Our first item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-1725, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on the fishing industry, and two amendments to that motion.

Before speaking to the motion, I should like to say that we find the Scottish National Party amendment to be acceptable as it adds to the motion.

Yesterday afternoon, I listened to Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, praising his Labour party for having achieved low rates of inflation and low interest rates, but I must point out that that party has caused the lowest morale among people in rural communities, especially those in the fishing industry, that has ever been experienced.

Scottish fishermen take great risks to bring in their valuable harvest, which contributes much to our economy. That deserves recognition and our party recognises the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland to the lives and incomes of those who live in fishing communities. That is why this party is using, for the second time in succession, valuable debating time on this issue.

The Executive has so far refused to make any statement on the new crisis facing fishing and we hope that this debate will give it the opportunity to produce some good news for those people making an enormous sacrifice to protect fishing for Scotland's future generations. Of course, unless the Executive supports the industry through this vital period, it may have no future. Will the Government now put its money where its mouth is and bring in the essential ingredient that the cod recovery plan lacks—emergency financial compensation—which, as we have said before, is essential if the plan is to have any hope of success?

Last week, Edinburgh saw a massive protest not just by fishing boat owners or fishermen's representatives, but by the rank and file of the industry, whose jobs, lives and future depend on the Executive's actions. On Tuesday, a flotilla of fishing boats sailed up the Firth of Forth, emphasising that protest. Yesterday, fishermen's representatives met with the Minister for Rural Development and his deputy to put their case again. There has been no result so far. The fishermen ask for emergency help in this crisis. They do not ask for a long-term solution because, without short-term help, there may well be no long term. Fishing as we know it in Scotland may be destroyed; fish and chips, the staple diet of many, might become the luxury of those who can afford it or find it.

Yesterday, after the fishing meeting, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development issued a press release in which she said:

"I had another helpful meeting with the industry … I underlined that the Executive is fully committed to the industry.

Ministers are now working with officials as a matter of urgency on what we discussed. I will be in a position to make an announcement in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Thursday."

Here we are, in the Scottish Parliament, waiting for an announcement confirming the Executive's commitment to Scotland's fishing industry. I hope that we hear more than toujours les platitudes all over again but, after Elliot Morley's performance in the House of Commons yesterday, I do not hold out much hope of that happening. However, fishing is more important to Scotland than it is to England, and perhaps the minister will recognise that by confirming emergency financial support for those in the fishing sector.

Does the member recall that, during the time of the Conservative Government, the fishing industry was in crisis? Is he proud of the record that that party now holds? I remember seeing in my constituency burning effigies of Conservative ministers with responsibility for fisheries. If the Conservative party is now saying that it has an alternative policy, can it clearly tell us what that alternative policy is?

As I have said before, our policy is spelled out in our manifesto. I am proud of this Government's record—[Laughter.] I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer, I mean that I am proud of my party's record. We spent a lot of money in 1993-94 on decommissioning.

Had it not been for the determination and the united front shown by the fishermen, the crisis would have been overshadowed by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Let me assure the minister that the loss of income to fishing communities from the fishing crisis is every bit as bad as the loss of income to farmers from the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The farmers are being supported to some extent but our fishermen, who have taken a responsible stance, deserve support in their aim to conserve stocks.

The Executive was warned time and again that the closure of cod spawning grounds would result in a displacement of fishing effort elsewhere. What is the point of protecting one stock—cod—if the 1999 class of haddock is to be decimated as a direct result? That is what has been happening. There is filmed evidence of fishermen throwing back nine out of 10 fish dead. That is not conservation; it is destruction. Surely it is not beyond the Executive to realise that some money invested now might save far greater expenditure at a later date.

In yesterday's press release, the minister also said that

"the Scottish Executive is committed to securing a long-term sustainable future for the fishing industry".

In that case, will the minister tell us her plan for annual tie-up payments during the minimum five-year period that the cod recovery plan is set to last? Will she explain to the Scottish Parliament the commitment, if there is one, to the decommissioning of vessels to allow the fishing industry to match the fleet to future catch expectancy? Only by coupling that initiative with a sensible effort limitation policy and capacity reduction can fishermen hope that fishing will become and remain sustainable once again.

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has spelled out what will happen if restrictions on effort and capacity do not run alongside the cod recovery plan. Stocks of haddock, whiting and prawns will come under great pressure and there will continue to be wasteful and damaging discards. Although the cod recovery programme might regenerate the cod species in a few years, without corresponding restrictions on effort and capacity, too many boats will be chasing too few fish. Boats that used to fish for white fish will start to fish for prawns, which will cause severe difficulties for the small prawn boats off the west coast, which rely on a good price and good catches of nephrops to sustain their livelihoods. Scallop fishermen on the west coast have been deprived of their livelihoods for the past two years without any compensation.

We want to have a united fishing industry of which Scotland can be proud and a sustainable fishing industry that supports rural communities and gives a lead to the rest of Europe. I hope that the Scottish Executive agrees with that and I hope that the minister will tell us her plans for the short-term sustainability and the long-term future of the Scottish fishing industry.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the aims of the cod recovery plan; acknowledges the financial sacrifices made by the Scottish fishing fleet towards that end, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to utilise Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance funding to provide financial support to our fishermen during the twelve week closure period and to outline its plans for the protection of other stocks such as haddock and programme for vessel decommissioning at the earliest opportunity.

I am glad to see that Jamie McGrigor is proud of this Government's record. I am grateful also to have the opportunity to speak about the issues facing the Scottish fishing industry. The Executive is committed to ensuring that what is a key industry for Scotland has a sustainable and prosperous future, and I will demonstrate the extent of that commitment this morning.

As has been said already, over recent weeks—in fact, for much longer than that—we have been in discussion with industry representatives about the problems that they face. It has sometimes seemed that I have spent my whole time as Deputy Minister for Rural Development in discussion with the fishing industry; however, I recognise the severity of the situation, which is why I am happy to have done so.

There is no doubt that the industry is in difficulties because of the poor state of some key fish stocks, over-investment in catching capacity and a range of other reasons. The situation has been exacerbated by the prevalence of small haddock on the fishing ground. They are below marketable size, and fishermen are unable to land them. Some people have, mischievously and wrongly, sought to blame that on the emergency measures that were introduced at European Community level—and with the Scottish industry's support—to protect cod stocks in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland.

The abundance of small fish was anticipated and was recognised when quotas were set for the current year. It is a result of fish biology, not of poor fisheries management. The Executive is in the lead in the EC in introducing measures to protect young fish. Our initiative on square-mesh panels was a groundbreaking move.

We have worked closely with the industry and with our European partners to put together a cod recovery plan, the first elements of which have been put in place. Closures in the North sea and off the west of Scotland will protect spawning cod, improving the chances of better recruitment. We are working with our European partners to develop further conservation measures, and we aim to have a comprehensive recovery programme in place across the European Community by the end of the year.

We had to withstand some pressures from interests in the industry, which argued that the constraints that the plan placed on fishing activity were excessive. We had to persuade the European Commission and other member states that, with proper technical conservation measures—including square-mesh panels, which we introduced unilaterally to protect young haddock—we could keep the haddock and whiting fisheries open. We and the industry knew that there would be a large number of immature haddock in the North sea this year and that discard levels would inevitably be high. It is absurd that some fishing interests, supported by some Opposition members, are now criticising the Executive for putting the future of those stocks at risk.

I would now like to talk about sustainability.

Will the minister give way?

Not just now. I have a number of important announcements that I want to make.

I have said it before, and it remains the watchword of our fishing policies: sustainability. It is clear that there is currently a mismatch between the fishing vessel capacity and the number of mature fish that are there to support that capacity. Sustainable fishing means having to increase the number of fish in the sea and to reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet.

In order to deliver a better focus on the conservation of stocks and to deliver sustainability in the fisheries, the Executive is willing to make a significant investment in the industry. We intend to introduce a package of measures that will deliver sustainable fishing in the short term, in the medium term and in the longer term.

There can be no doubt that we need to reduce the size of the fleet so that the available stocks can be shared out among fewer boats, which will enjoy better returns. We will commit up to £25 million towards a vessel decommissioning scheme over the coming months. The scheme will remove around 20 per cent of the capacity of the Scottish white fish fleet. Vessel owners will be compensated for surrendering their vessels and licences. That will not only help to balance capacity with fishing opportunity, but should ensure a more secure economic future for the remainder of the white fish fleet.

The cost of the scheme will be met by bringing forward planned spending under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance programme and by making use of end-year flexibilities in the Executive's budget. We will of course consult fully with the industry on the details of the scheme and on how compensation can best be targeted.

Will the minister give way?

No, I really want to get through these announcements, if the member does not mind.

The initiative is very significant, and I expect that it will be warmly welcomed by those who are seriously concerned about the future of the Scottish fishing industry.

At the same time, we intend to continue to take the lead in measures to conserve stocks through improvements to fishing gear. The destruction of juvenile haddock, which has understandably upset our fishermen, can be prevented. Some marketable fish will escape, but that is a small price to pay to secure the long-term future of the industry.

I intend to introduce emergency measures to improve the selectivity in fishing gear. Later today, I will issue proposals for consultation with the industry, together with other fisheries departments in the United Kingdom. Those enhancements to fishing gear will cut discards by up to 70 per cent this year, when coupled with the twine thickness limitations that were introduced by the Executive earlier this month. Even next year, when the fish will have grown larger, discards will fall by about a third.

Those measures will cost little or nothing and will lead to major improvements. I have it in mind to ban lifting bags, to limit the length of extension pieces and to require square-mesh panels to be inserted closer to the cod end. We will use every endeavour to got those measures in place within three to four weeks.

I also intend, as soon as possible, to put an extra £1 million into a new partnership between scientists and the fishing industry to improve selectivity of fishing gear. That will include the chartering of fishing boats and replacement of any lost earnings. We will discuss the programme with the industry as a matter of urgency.

We need to bear it in mind that the impact of recent developments is also felt in the processing sector. We have had some very positive discussions in the working group that I set up recently.

To help deal with those impacts, £1 million will be made available through Scottish Enterprise to implement the recommendations that were set out in the report of the Scottish fish processors working group. I will be issuing a full response to that working group shortly.

Taken together, those measures represent an unprecedented investment in the fishing industry in Scotland.

I am of course aware of the demand from parts of the industry for a funded tie-up scheme. We do not intend to go down that route, and let me explain why not. [Members: "Shame."] No—I suggest that Scottish National Party members listen, because this is important. Let me explain why not: I have just announced—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the minister.

I have just announced the biggest single investment in the Scottish fishing industry ever. I suggest that members on the SNP side of the chamber actually listen to the rest of what I have to say.

First, and most important—

Will the minister give way?

No, I want to be able to get through this. I have a limited amount of time.

We have considerable doubts about whether tying up the fleet for the remainder of the cod recovery programme would have much conservation benefit. That is what we have to consider.

We need to tackle the abundance of small haddock and a very strong 1999 year class, which needs to be protected.

How do you know?

I can tell Mr Salmond, as he shouts out to me, "How do you know?" that I have the benefit of information from scientists at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, and I am taking the up-to-date advice from them. If Mr Salmond is not happy with that, I am sorry. The—

No, I am sorry. I need to carry on with this statement.

The issue that we need to tackle—

She has not given way once. What sort of minister is she?

I am sorry—Mr Salmond shouted out at me. I have responded. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Salmond, you have your time coming.

The issue—

It is pathetic.

Mr Salmond might call the biggest single investment in the Scottish fishing industry pathetic. Frankly, if he thinks so, that is fine.

The minister should give way then.

We need to tackle the abundance of small haddock and a very strong 1999 year class, which needs to be protected. The difficulty may be exacerbated by the diversion of effort that was caused by the cod recovery closures, but the abundance of haddock is widespread and would have been encountered in any event.

The small haddock will still come below the minimum landing size on 1 May, when the closures come to an end. We need a measure to provide a protection for those fish that will extend beyond that date. A tie-up on its own simply delays the inevitable.

A short-term tie-up is a quick-fix approach that does not guarantee long-term benefits. The way to tackle the issue is to maximise the escape of small fish whenever and wherever they are fished. That is best delivered through technical measures. The Executive's initiatives are based on scientific advice. They will work in the short term and provide us with the best available means to safeguard the 1999 year class, which is the seedcorn for a sustainable future.

Neither is a tie-up the cheap option that some people would have us believe. The industry has asked for £1,000 per vessel per day. There are more than 500 boats in the white fish fleet. If we tied up the fleet for the last 50 days of the cod closures, that would come to £25 million, which is far in excess even of the maximum amount that would be available through the FIFG. I would much rather spend £25 million on measures that will have a lasting impact, such as decommissioning, than on a one-off tie-up scheme.

The minister is in injury time.

The key target must be to reduce capacity permanently. That is why we are introducing a decommissioning scheme, coupled with robust conservation measures.

I now look to the industry to embrace the focus on conservation. That will start immediately with the forthcoming discussions on stage 2 of the cod recovery plan. We will need to set out a clear and ambitious programme of further long-term conservation measures. The focus on conservation will also be carried through to implementation of our strategic framework for Scottish sea fisheries, which is under development in consultation with the industry. That focus will also inform the direction that is taken by the Scottish fishing industry initiative, which was recently created to help to refocus the Scottish industry for the future.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. To your knowledge, is there a parliamentary precedent for a minister who is making an important announcement refusing to take a single intervention from people who are concerned about the industry?

The minister is already over time. I ruled some time ago that interventions should not be taken in the closing stages of speeches. I have been listening carefully to the minister. She is making announcements that are of interest to everybody in the chamber.

I will come to a close now. In implementing these measures, we rely critically on industry support. What happens in the fishing grounds is crucial to the health of stocks and the future well-being of our industry. Fishermen can and must take measures to minimise discards. In their own long-term interests, I strongly encourage them to do so.

I hope that the industry and my colleagues will welcome those measures. We are already working closely with the industry, and will continue to do so, towards a sustainable, prosperous future for the Scottish sea fisheries industry.

I move amendment S1M-1725.2, to leave out from "utilise" to end and insert:

"continue to develop a range of measures aimed at returning whitefish stocks to sustainable levels."

I welcome this debate, which is very timely as Scotland's fishing industry is in the middle of a crisis. Although we welcome the long-term measures that the minister has announced to help the industry, the crux of the debate and what the industry is looking for from the debate are the short-term measures that will allow the industry in Scotland to be around to take advantage of long-term measures.

I express the enormous disappointment of SNP members that the Scottish Government has failed to deliver for the industry in its hour of need. In recent days, Government ministers have not hesitated to build up expectations among our fishing communities. Ministers should hang their heads in shame for failing our fishermen at this crucial time. They have failed in their duty to defend our fishing communities and they are failing to save Scottish jobs.

I refer the chamber to last week's First Minister's questions, when the First Minister gave the impression that he would stand up for Scotland's fishing communities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will certainly not take an intervention from Duncan McNeil.

The First Minister told the chamber that he accepted that urgency was required. In response to Alex Salmond, he said:

"I understand the serious consequences that lie ahead for the industry."—[Official Report, 1 March 2001; Vol 11, c 164.]

Now we know that the First Minister and his sidekick, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, have betrayed Scotland's fishing industry.

Today will be seen as a black day for Scotland's fishing communities. The minister laughs, but the reality is that her speech did not announce the short-term aid that is desperately required by the industry. Instead, in effect, she has announced redundancy notices for hundreds of people in our fishing communities in the short term. In the long term, thousands of jobs are on the line due to the Government's failure to stand up for our fishermen at this most crucial time.

Time and again, the Government was warned that the cod recovery plan must not be allowed to become a haddock destruction plan. Our fishermen have faced a heart-breaking dilemma in recent weeks. They can go to sea and destroy their futures by catching billions of juvenile haddock in the only fishing grounds to which they are allowed to go. They have had to discard 90 per cent of those fish dead over the side of the boat, because they cannot bring them to shore.

Will the minister listen to what the SNP is saying? The fishermen face the choice of going to sea and wiping out their future or staying at home and letting the bills pile up and bankruptcy creep closer each day. The Government had the power to announce today a compensatory tie-up scheme to remove that dilemma, but it has not taken that route. Our fishermen now face the straight choice of staying at home and going bankrupt in the coming weeks or going to sea and wiping out their future.

Is the minister unaware of all the dangers that the industry faces or of what the whole idea of displacement means? I will read from the letter that we have all received from the Macduff branch of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. It says:

"If Fishermen adapt from one type of fishing to another (eg. move from haddock, cod, etc to prawns) or move to other areas for which they have quota then other species and other areas will come under undue and in all probability unsustainable pressure."

The minister is putting many smaller fishing communities around Scotland's coasts at particular risk from displacement of effort and the knock-on effect of her policy.

I remind the minister of the safety implications for the industry. Earlier this week, there was a tragic reminder of the dangers that are inherent in the fishing industry when Spanish fishermen were lost off our shores. Our fishermen are under economic pressure to go to sea to find fish to make a living. They will have to seek out deeper waters, go to places to which they would rather not go, and go out in conditions in which they would rather not sail, because they have to make a living and the minister has not answered their call for help.

The Government is completely isolated. All our fishing communities were looking to the Government for a tie-up scheme, and so too were the environmental organisations. Scotland's members of the European Parliament support the case for a tie-up scheme, as do three out of the four main political parties in the Scottish Parliament, including, apparently, the Liberals. The cross-party Rural Development Committee wrote to the First Minister urging that a tie-up scheme be considered as a matter of priority. However, one of Europe's most ancient fishing nations has to fight tooth and nail to get its Government to help its industry in its hour of need.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is factually inaccurate to say that the Rural Development Committee asked for a tie-up scheme.

I am sorry, but the content of speeches is not a point of order.

But it is factually inaccurate information, Presiding Officer.

I know, but that is not a point of order.

In conclusion, the fishing industry and our fishing communities, which in recent weeks have led dignified, responsible and well-conducted campaigns to highlight the threat to their livelihoods, have been betrayed by the Labour Government today. My message to the Parliament is that if the Government will not stand up for Scotland's fishing communities, it is down to the Parliament to do so, to save 25,000 livelihoods in fragile coastal communities. Parliament can do that if it puts the Scottish Government in its place, stands up for fishing communities and supports the SNP amendment and the Tory motion at 5 pm.

I move amendment S1M-1725.1, to leave out from "Financial Instrument" to "period" and insert:

"funding from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance or other appropriate financial resources to provide financial support to our fishermen during the twelve week closure period in the form of an immediate compensated tie-up scheme and other suitable measures".

When I think about the handful of jobs that are involved in the fishing industry in my constituency, it is easy not to take proper account of their importance. However, one can imagine that in communities such as Kinlochbervie and Lochinver those jobs are vital, as the loss of any jobs at all would threaten those communities.

Richard Lochhead has, rightly, referred to the role of the Rural Development Committee. None of us should misunderstand the fact that the minister, who is in a very difficult situation, has announced no less than £25 million for decommissioning. That is hugely important and it is something for which the fishing industry has been crying out for long enough—I see Hamish Morrison in the public gallery. I hope that all members of all parties welcome that announcement.

However, I cannot see the way forward for communities such as Kinlochbervie and Lochinver in the short term. The minister's position has been difficult, so I will make three constructive suggestions. First, the Rural Development Committee played an important role this week and—despite our huge work load—I believe that, with Alex Johnstone's permission, we should conduct a short, sharp, urgent inquiry into the short-term future of the industry.

Secondly, the matter should be raised at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in April. In some ways, one could say that the problem is of the European Community's making. There is an opportunity in April to take a wider view, given that the problem will be faced by other EC states.

Will Jamie Stone give way?

I will, with great pleasure, take an intervention from Richard Lochhead later, but I want to make these points.

Thirdly, the stark reality is that the industry does not want a permanent subsidy. However, like me, the industry wants to see a way into the future. We are talking about the cost of one battle tank or one fighter plane—not much in the scheme of things. While much was to be welcomed in yesterday's budget statement, it is a little unfortunate that it did not mention fishing. The quest must be taken to the Treasury as well as to Europe. We should face up to the fact that this is not simply a Scottish issue—trawlermen in Grimsby and Hull will face similar problems. When the minister is able to, she and the Executive should take the matter to the Treasury to see what it can do.

Will Jamie Stone give way?

I will give way in due course.

It may be an old cliché, but fishermen are brave men who literally risk their lives. I had the misfortune to sail through a storm during the late 1970s and although I was on a container ship, I saw with my own eyes just how dreadful sea conditions can be. Fishermen risk their lives to help to feed the nation.

We have heard about the £25 million, which is welcome. We have also heard about the consultation with the industry, which will be key in making decommissioning work and in trying to work out a way forward for the short-term future. We have heard about selectivity in fishing gear, and I particularly welcome the announcement of £1 million for the fish processors. I suppose one could say that, thus far, we are taking steps in the right direction, and I welcome those steps. They are an example of how the Parliament can make a difference.

I thank Jamie Stone, who is the Liberals' fisheries spokesperson, for giving way. Does not he appreciate that this is not the time for inquiries? The fishing industry is meeting today. Fishermen face a choice of staying at home and becoming bankrupt or going to sea to try to make a living, which will threaten their future.

Jamie Stone is a fisheries spokesperson who is on record as supporting a tie-up scheme for the industry. He is a member of the same party as Tavish Scott, who joined the Shetland fleet—he was in the leading vessel—to support the calls for a tie-up scheme. Does not Jamie Stone agree that Parliament should vote today to save Scotland's fishing industry and that the Liberals should vote with the other parties to do just that at 5 pm?

Richard Lochhead is quite right, in so far as I cannot see a way forward in the short term. However, I put it to him that this is not the time to make party-political points.

Oh, come on.

No. I will be quite frank. Many fishermen who attended the meeting are not SNP supporters, and it behoves us all to make progress in finding a way through this situation. This is not the time for cheap political points.

Churchill said:

"this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end."

However, I think that it is

"the end of the beginning."

We have much more to do, but all of us should welcome what the minister has done so far. Richard Lochhead is right—this is a matter of urgency. We must use every means at our disposal, in whatever way we can—whether through the Rural Development Committee, the Council of Ministers, or the Treasury—to try to help our fishermen in the short term.

I stand here saddened, because the minister has failed to realise that two distinct issues are involved. We all agree about long-term decommissioning. We all agree with Jamie Stone's suggestion about taking up matters with Europe, but that will take months. How will fishermen survive that long? The banking industry is watching with great interest what is going on. It needed a confident move from the Government, as that would have given it the confidence to extend bank loans. Many fishermen have upgraded their vessels, leaving them in deep trouble with debts, and have no income.

It is vital for the minister to understand that today's motion is primarily about short-term aid. Yesterday, the chancellor gave millions of pounds of taxpayers' money back to the taxpayer in whatever form he fancied. This morning, the announcement is that the Scottish Executive is getting an additional £200 million. Surely the minister could afford to spend £5 million to £10 million of that amount on the tie-up scheme. By doing so, the minister would buy time and take one further step towards the First Minister's apparent intention to save the fishing industry.

On Monday last week, Richard Lochhead and I were at a meeting in Peterhead with 400 fishermen who were fighting to keep themselves united, despite the divisions in the industry. Last Wednesday, 500 or 600 fishermen came to the Parliament, and many of us spoke to them. Jamie Stone promised the Liberals' support for their short-term needs. On Friday, I went to Peterhead and met 550 fishermen, who were still fighting to keep their unity and their dignity. The fishing leaders asked their members, "Shall we carry on, now that we have started?" The answer was, "Yes." For once, the industry is united, and all the divisions between the different sectors have been totally buried. The minister should realise that this unique occasion is an opportunity.

The minister has forgotten that this debate is not just about boats—it is about communities and onshore jobs. One million pounds will do nothing for the small fish processors—that money will be gobbled up by this year's increase in water charges. I accept that the minister has a target for taking steps for the industry. I also accept the proposal for long-term decommissioning. We all know that technical measures will work, but there is no doubt that the other countries that fish in the same pond must also adopt them.

Today's debate is about what happens now and what will happen over the next six to 10 weeks. It is about the survival of the industry. I am disappointed that the minister did not deal with those issues. She was dismissive of a tie-up scheme, but her figures do not add up. The SFF breakdown gives a figure of between £5 million and £10 million, depending on which sectors and efforts are removed from the equation. At present, prawn boats and inshore boats are tying up. Although they are not directly affected yet, they will be, because the minister is displacing efforts that are being made elsewhere.

The short-term situation is in the hands of the Executive. I want the minister to tell us today what she has asked Westminster for. What has been demanded for Scottish boats from Elliot Morley and Gordon Brown? Has the minister asked them for anything? Has anyone gone to Westminster to argue with them? That argument must be had eventually with the UK Government, through which we must involve Europe. There are no ifs and buts—I see Mr Finnie shaking his head, but that is how these things work and it is about time that he acknowledged that.

Please wind up, Mr Davidson.

I am sorry, Sir David, if I sound angry, but I am very angry today; like other members in the chamber—including members of your own party—and people throughout the country, I know the fishing community well. We all accept longer-term decommissioning—there are no arguments about that. However, we cannot accept the refusal to provide short-term aid. Along with others, I call upon the Liberal Democrats, who have been honest and open in their recognition of the problems, to support the motion at decision time. That would demonstrate that the Parliament is able to act and work for Scotland.

It is a matter of some satisfaction to those of us who have worked with the fisheries industry over the years that it continues to attract the attention of Scotland's Parliament and of members of all parties. Today's announcement of support from Scotland's ministers is welcome, particularly as it was made in the Scottish Parliament. Queries were raised earlier about whether the announcement was made by means of a novel procedure, but I do not think that that was the case. Statements of such importance certainly ought to made in the chamber, and we should all welcome that procedure.

What the minister announced today is exactly what Lewis Macdonald announced to the fishermen at last Thursday's rally. Given the reception that he received last Thursday, what reception does he think the minister will receive from the fishing industry?

I like to discuss matters closely with ministers, when I get the opportunity to do so, but I did not announce last week that a decommissioning scheme would be set up. There has been a campaign for a decommissioning scheme for the Scottish fisheries industry for many years. Rhona Brankin made history today when she announced that scheme to the chamber. Had I been able to stand up last Thursday at the Hub and announce a £25 million decommissioning scheme to 300 or 400 Scottish fishermen, I would have received a positive response. I look forward to the industry's response to Rhona Brankin's positive message.

The decommissioning initiative creates the possibility of a sustainable, long-term future for Scotland's fisheries industry and Scotland's fishing communities. Surely, above all, that is what we are here to debate and to achieve. There has been a sea change over recent years in the Scottish fisheries industry: a growing recognition of the need to match capacity to available stocks of the fish that are there to be caught. That recognition means that it is Scottish fishermen and their organisations that have campaigned for a decommissioning scheme that would allow a planned and funded reduction in the capacity, in particular, of the white fish sector. That restructuring is essential.

Does not the member recognise that the Scottish fishing fleet has been in the vanguard of fishing conservation measures? If those measures had been adopted elsewhere in the European Community, we might not be following this crisis at this stage.

I absolutely accept Mrs Ewing's point. I support and applaud the fact that the Scottish fisheries industry, and Scottish ministers, have taken the lead together in working up technical measures to promote conservation that the rest of Europe would do well to follow. I urge ministers to continue to press that point.

We all recognise that restructuring is essential, not just in the long term but as early as possible. The fact that ministers have identified £25 million to make that happen is something, I believe, that all those who are committed to the future of the industry should welcome.

Lewis Macdonald is waxing eloquent on the subject, but perhaps he could tell us whether the fishermen need support now. It is a yes or no question: if the answer is yes, how would he go about it?

What fishermen need is a sustainable future for their industry: the scheme will make that happen.

Before I finish, I want to put on record my welcome for the minister's announcement that £1 million will be found to implement the recommendations of the action group on fish processing. That group has produced a coherent and sensible set of proposals that are based on the processing sector's recognition that, in the long term, only restructuring can secure a future for fish processing businesses and the many thousands of people who work in them. I urge the minister to ensure that that funding, which is modest in comparison with the funding found for the catching sector—[Interruption.]

The member is on his last sentence.

To ensure that the industry has a sustainable long-term future, I urge the minister to ensure that funding for the processing sector includes support for restructuring. What we need for both sectors of the fishing industry are long-term solutions for long-term problems. I welcome today's announcements.

I am a sad person today. I was a member of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee for over 20 years, at a time when the committee included Labour and Tory members, but no British Liberals. Time after time, I was the only one who fought against the unfair advantages that were proposed by Spanish members. Time after time, all the other British members voted with Spain. For members of every political party in Spain, fishing is the top priority, and they went to the European Parliament to fight their corner. I kept being told by unionists of three colours that we benefited from Britain's 30-vote clout. It is a strange clout that does not treat the fishing industry—a vital part of the Scottish economy—with the priority that it deserves.

Are the fishermen who are sitting up there in the public gallery exaggerating the crisis? Are they wrong when they claim that 25,000 jobs are at risk, as well as the communities that are totally dependent on fishing—one of which is my adopted home of Lossiemouth? Are the fishermen exaggerating when they say that half their boats are liable to go bankrupt unless they can return to sea and try to catch something, probably in waters that are too dangerous and without enough crews left, as the crews are leaving the boats? Do we want the deaths of fishermen to stain the hands of the Scottish Parliament? The acid test for the Scottish Parliament is whether it is able to solve a problem that is in front of it.

I welcome all the positive things that the minister said, but the fishermen cannot have a future unless they have a present, and the present is at risk. That is what the fishermen in their hundreds, and in their solidarity, are telling members. Members are almost playing into the hands of those of us who say that the Scottish Parliament does not have enough powers. If the Parliament will not create a short-term solution, that is all the evidence that we need.

Not a lot of money would be required to fund a short-term solution, when one thinks of Tridents and domes and all the money that the chancellor has in his big box. Not a lot of money would be required to try to ensure that the fishing industry has a present. What will happen if the banks get fed up waiting? If the boats are sold, who but my old friends, the Spaniards, will buy them?

All the fishing communities look to the Parliament for help. The minister has talked about the long term, which is fine. I welcome everything that the minister has said. She mentioned the new twine arrangements, which I welcome. When I met those hundreds of fishermen, they had nothing but good will for the minister; they called her, rather affectionately, a wifie who listened. The minister, the wifie who listened, is not listening to the crux of the problem. As one skipper said, she does not seem to be able to make a decision. Skippers have to make decisions every minute that they are at sea. They have no difficulty in making decisions. That is their job.

This issue will be the acid test of the Parliament.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

The member is on her last minute. I am sorry, but we cannot have an intervention.

I wish that Mike Rumbles had got up sooner, as I am very willing to give way.

The Commission, which did not consult the industry on the measures, must accept a lot of blame, but so must the UK Government, which allowed the Danes to catch 6,000 tonnes of fish to feed to pigs, so that the Danes could compete more effectively with our pig industry. Where is the clout that I keep being told about? The UK has no clout for the fishing industry. It is time that Scotland was independent and had its own clout like the Danes, the Dutch and all the others.

No one in the chamber, or in the country at large, underestimates the seriousness of the crisis that faces the Scottish fishing industry today. However, we must also recognise the fact that there are no easy answers. There are no simple solutions. There are no political slogans that can be stuck on poster boards for the election. Long-term thinking is required to protect the future of our fishing industry. Long-term solutions are needed to bring long-term sustainability.

That is why I welcome today's announcements from the minister on the decommissioning scheme that she intends to introduce after consultation with the fishing industry. The industry has been calling for such a scheme for a considerable time. I am delighted that the minister has this morning announced £25 million for that scheme. That is welcome news.

Not at the moment, I am sorry.

Will the member give way?

I said not at the moment. Please sit down.

The news is welcome, because it will help to reduce the capacity in the fishing industry and will result in long-term sustainability. Long-term sustainability requires a balance, as the minister rightly said, between the fish stocks in our seas and the catching capacity. At present, the balance does not exist; there is too little stock and too much catching capacity. That is where the Conservatives' decommissioning scheme went wrong.

Will the member give way?

In a moment. Let me finish this point.

The Tories' decommissioning scheme failed because it decommissioned boats, not capacity. The fishing industry simply became more modern and more efficient as a result of the Tory decommissioning scheme, which did not deal with the long-term problem.

I thank the member for giving way.

Ronnie Hughes—a distinguished fisherman whose vessel is based in Iain Smith's constituency and who is in the public gallery today—has spoken from the heart and has called, time and again, for a tie-up scheme to save his livelihood. Does Iain Smith support his cause? Yes or no?

I do not believe that there are simple short-term answers to the crisis. The matter must be considered in detail.

A number of points that were made by the minister require further consideration. There is, clearly, a difference of view between the scientists and the fishermen on whether the technical conservation measures that have been introduced recently—and the proposed improvements to those measures—are adequate to protect the fish stocks. It is best that ministers and the fishermen discuss those matters between them to find out the correct position.

Obviously, there is an immediate concern: fishermen have difficulty in maintaining a livelihood. I was concerned about the proposals for the cod recovery plan because they introduced the closure of fishing areas without dealing with capacity. Ultimately, capacity is the problem. If we close off large areas of the fisheries without reducing the capacity of fishermen to fish, there will be displacement. That is a concern not only in relation to the 1999 class of haddock, but in relation to people in areas such as north-east Fife, most of whose fishing now takes place in the prawn area. We do not want displacement that results in fishermen of white fish catching nephrops, which would put fishermen in the East Neuk at risk.

Will the member give way?

I am in my last minute.

There is an immediate financial crisis. I hope that the Government will look beyond the decommissioning scheme to ways in which it can provide support to ensure that our fishermen can get through this short-term problem without going bankrupt, without having to sell their boats and without their boats being seized by the banks. I believe that there may be measures that would ensure that none of those things happened and I hope that the Government will take an imaginative look at alternative proposals to help fund the industry through this difficult time.

A tie-up scheme may be one answer, but it is not the only answer. Technical conservation measures need to be examined fully. Perhaps the three to four weeks that has been suggested is too long. We need to get technical conservation measures in place as quickly as possible to protect our fleets. I hope that the minister will take that on board. However, overall, I welcome the minister's statement this morning.

I welcome—as I am sure every member welcomes—the announcements that have been made this morning. A significant sum of money has been announced; the objective of a sustainable policy is worth while; the intention to pursue technical measures will be applauded by everyone; and the commitment to reduce capacity as a means of finding a long-term solution must command support.

However, the point of the debate today, and the point of the demonstrations and the lobbying of the past couple of weeks, has been to focus attention on the immediate crisis. Iain Smith has just said that a tie-up scheme may not be the answer. It may not be, but as has been argued by several members, there is a strong belief—not least in the fishing community—that such a scheme is part of the answer and that it is an essential part of dealing with the intermediate problem about which Winnie Ewing spoke forcefully.

I was disappointed with the minister's handling of the tie-up scheme. She got to the point of dismissing it only at the very end of her speech; she did not take any interventions; and there was no opportunity for any member to question her in any detail on why the Executive did not propose to pursue a tie-up scheme. That was not only discourteous to members, but disappointing to the people in the gallery and the people outside. Those people want answers.

As Iain Smith suggested, there may well be good scientific arguments for dismissing the tie-up period of 10 weeks. It may well be that 10 weeks of intensive fishing among juvenile haddock stocks would not have affected the long-term supply of fish. I do not know, but I know that the fishermen do not agree, because they are all tied up so that they do not damage their long-term future. However, if the scientists know better, it is a pity that the Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs who went to all the meetings last week did not tell the fishermen that they were wrong. They had the opportunity, face to face, to tell them that the scientists knew better. It is a pity that nobody here today has told us what the scientists have said and why they know better.

I would genuinely like to know why a tie-up scheme is not felt to be appropriate. All the fishermen who spoke last week, with despair and anger in their voices, believe that a tie-up scheme is an important part of their future. We are not talking about a long-term commitment, a massive subsidy for the industry, or the bankrolling of a loss-making industry for ever and a day. We are talking about a temporary fix to get people through what they believe to be a temporary problem.

Iain Smith said that there are no easy answers. We all appreciate that. I do not think that anyone is looking for easy answers. We are, however, looking for responses. As has been said, the funding package is coming from end-year flexibility. The sum of money that would be required for a tie-up scheme is rather small in relation to the amounts that the Administration's end-year flexibility would allow. The fishermen have been talking about a package costing an estimated £7 million to £10 million; but the minister has indicated that the figure would be higher. Okay—let us hear the arguments. There are many things that we could argue about and many things that we could explore, but from the Executive we have heard about the long-term solution, the long-term solution and the long-term solution. We agree with what the Executive is saying about the long-term solution; but let us have a response on the concerns that have been raised and let us have a proper argument. Let us know what the Executive's reasoning is. Otherwise, we will not have had a debate and we will have no answers to take back to the people who have contacted us.

Will the member take an intervention?

Am I allowed to?

No.

I would have been delighted to take an intervention, but I am in my last minute.

The people who listened gratefully to what John Home Robertson said last week at the Quaker House meeting, and who appreciated the work that he did to advance the long-term solution for the industry, would like to hear him explain—in this debate or on some future occasion—the Executive's reasoning. The minister did not do so and, so far, no one speaking from the Labour benches has done so. We need that to happen before we finish today.

The minister is to be congratulated on her announcement of the biggest package of measures to support the industry that we have heard about in this Parliament. We have discussed many aspects of fisheries over the past two years, especially the cod recovery plan, which has been developed to meet the crisis in the fish catching and fish processing sectors that came about because of low fish stocks.

We all recognise that the underlying problem is overcapacity in the fleet. We have too many boats and not enough fish. We need a fishing policy that will be sustainable, in terms of fish stocks and the size of the fleet.

Will the member give way?

If the member does not mind, I am really not up to interventions today.

I was delighted that the First Minister and Rhona Brankin, the minister with responsibility for fisheries, were able to respond so quickly to requests from the fish catching sector for urgent meetings. I know that they met industry representatives yesterday and that they have moved quickly and effectively to put together the package of measures that were announced today. It is vital for the future of the fishing industry that the Scottish Executive and industry representatives—whether they are catchers or processors—can work together to ensure that fishing in Scotland has the sustainable future that we want.

Will the member give way?

No, I am not taking any interventions.

I welcome the minister's commitment that the fishing industry will be consulted on any further actions and on the development of the decommissioning that she has announced. Many positive steps are being taken. I commend the swift establishment of the Scottish fish processing action group in Aberdeen, which has reported recently. I welcome the £1 million that the minister has announced to support the fish processors. That industry is very important for jobs in Aberdeen.

We need to put conservation and sustainability at the heart of fishing policy. We all know that restructuring the industry is essential. I look forward to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation working with the Scottish Executive in building the decommissioning scheme and utilising the welcome £25 million, which will allow some 20 per cent of the white fish fleet to be decommissioned.

Some members this morning have said that we need to take action now and that decommissioning will take a number of months. They are right: decommissioning will take a number of months. However, what can be put in place now are conservation measures—in particular, technical conservation measures.

Will the member give way?

She is on her last minute.

The fact that the fishing industry has been willing to work with the Scottish Executive in developing leading technical conservation measures is welcome. I look forward to the implementation of the measures that the minister has mentioned—for example, moving the square-mesh panels closer to the cod end to allow more fish to escape. I especially welcome the reduction in twine thickness and the further development of technical measures. Those measures can be implemented and have an impact right now, allowing fish to escape. I hope that the measures will reduce discard levels by some 76 per cent. We are all appalled by discards, which have led to the current tie-up. I have never forgotten seeing the twine thickness of net at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen and I have always wondered how any fish could escape.

Will the member close, please?

I welcome the measures, which will have an impact in the short, medium and long term.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you reflect on the ludicrous nature of this morning's debate in terms of interventions? Some members will not take them and those who want to take them are being prevented from doing so by you.

No—

Well, I think that the rule needs to be reconsidered.

Order. I am sorry Mr Russell, but you are quite wrong. We have made it clear that there will be no interventions during the last minute of speeches—that was announced some time ago—for the obvious reason that, if members take interventions in the last minute, their speeches overrun and other members are cut out. That was agreed some time ago. I do not stop interventions during speeches. It is up to the member to decide.

With respect—

If the member chooses not to take an intervention, that it is her choice.

With respect, she was not in the last minute of her speech when you stopped the intervention, as she carried on speaking for more than a minute afterwards.

Well, yes, but she would have spoken for even longer if I had allowed an intervention in the last minute. Technically, she was in the last minute. Let us move on, otherwise members will be excluded from the debate.

Like many members today, I am angry and sad that the minister has failed to understand and has failed to act. Action is needed now; without it, there will be no long-term future for the fishing industry.

I will concentrate on the fishing industry in the East Neuk of Fife and on the communities throughout Scotland that are dependent on the fishing industry. Richard Lochhead and David Davidson spoke about the effect of displacement. I am disappointed that Iain Smith has looked to his long-term future as a minister instead of speaking up for his constituents in the East Neuk of Fife. I thought that his remarks were appalling. If there is displacement, it will mean that the East Neuk fishermen who need to fish for prawns will find that others are coming in and fishing them. He fails to understand and fails to act. I am extremely disappointed with his remarks.

The dignified way in which the whole fishing industry has conducted itself deserves to be recognised. The Government has ignored the industry's representatives, who have fought not for higher wages but for the future of their industry and their communities. Theirs is a just case. A relatively modest amount of money to support them through a tie-up scheme would have assured a future. In some communities, up to 60 per cent of all employment is fishing related—there is no other employment. Whether it is the delivery vans that deliver fresh fish from the East Neuk to the rest of Fife and beyond, the fish processing industry or the shops that serve the communities, all are dependent on the men who fish our waters.

There used to be two great industries in Fife: one was mining, the other is fishing. If action is not taken now, the First Minister and I will have witnessed in our lifetime the demise of both of them. Henry McLeish and I are both Fifers, born and brought up in mining communities. We have seen the destruction of the mining industry and of the communities that went with it. We know the effect of the pit closures on the strong, independent and proud mining communities. We see the effects today on communities that were dependent on the pits: high unemployment, loss of amenities such as shops and, most critical, loss of hope. Henry McLeish may not have been in a position to save our mining communities, but he is in a position to save our fishing communities and our fishing industry. I urge him to act and to act now—it is obvious that the fisheries minister will not.

Tomorrow, my colleague Mike Russell and I will visit the wonderful Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther, which is dedicated to an industry that is the life-blood of so many of our coastal communities. Museums help us to understand the past. It is the job of the Parliament to ensure that the fishing industry has not only a present, but a future. Little in what the minister said today gives fishermen in the East Neuk and throughout Scotland confidence that they have a present, let alone a future.

I congratulate the minister on her announcement of the decommissioning scheme that the industry has for so long demanded.

I want to think about how we got ourselves into a position where stocks are so low. Bigger and more sophisticated boats have increased efficiency, fishing is a competitive business and, in the past, catches have been indiscriminate—one ex-skipper described it as "fishing for Chappie"; another talked of "hoovering up the sea".

Thank goodness that such attitudes are in the past; they were part of the start of our problems. If we add to them the disastrous common fisheries policy, which the Tories took us into and which the present Government must negotiate to change, disagreements in the not-too-distant past between fishermen and scientists about the best way forward, and regulations that did not work or were circumvented, we can see why we are left with dangerously low stocks. We must find ways of balancing the need to give fishermen and those who work in the fish processing industry a livelihood with the need to do as little damage as possible to remaining stocks. We are having to choose not the best option, but the least bad one, and to decide where resources are best targeted for the industry's future.

It is in the industry's interest to preserve stocks. Closing the cod spawning areas is the only option to preserve cod. I note the announcement of closures on the west coast. There were concerns from fishermen on the west coast that there would be displacement fishing in their waters. The fact that young haddock are caught in some areas where cod fishing is allowable is the problem that confronts us now. Is the least bad option to tie up boats or to find ways of lessening the bycatch of small haddock?

If Spanish and Portuguese vessels can be compensated for tying up, why cannot Scottish vessels?

That is a strange question from a Tory.

Answer the question.

Will the member give way?

I am happy—

Answer.

My inclination is that the best way forward is through technical measures to lessen the bycatch and the discards. I welcome the proposed compulsory technical measures that the minister announced. What other measures could be used to limit the bycatch? What about the speed of the vessels as they trawl? I am told that lessening the speed could lessen the bycatch. I welcome discussions between the industry and the Executive about the technical measures that can be used to protect the young haddock. Where the bycatch is exceptionally large, as it is around Fair isle, could the minister consider closing specific areas?

If we are to have a fishing industry, we must take a long-term view. In the past, a good living was made out of the sea, although it was hard and dangerous. I know that, because my family worked in the fishing industry. That living is now precarious. The Executive must support the fishing industry at this difficult time, but not through short-term measures; it must look to the long term.

Will the member give way?

Yes.

The member is in her last minute. I ask Maureen Macmillan to continue.

Sorry, Margaret.

We must look to the long term so that the prosperity that fishing brought to the Scottish coast can return. However, as the minister said, that cannot be done by too large a fleet competing for a diminished catch. I welcome the minister's proposals for decommissioning—£25 million is the best offer that the fishermen have ever had.

I will call Brian Adam if he can confine his remarks to one minute.

I am in my last minute already.

Welcome though the research into seal activity and the potential increase in technical measures in the next three or four weeks are, will the minister tell us why the tie-up scheme, which would act now to remove fishing effort, is not worthy of consideration? I gather that the working party has reported on a wide range of matters. Will she give us some idea of her plans and of the efforts that are being made to provide alternative supplies of fish to our fish processing plants?

This has been an interesting debate. First, I apologise to Jamie McGrigor; because of traffic problems, I was not able to hear all his opening remarks.

I welcome the £25 million decommissioning scheme announced by the minister. It is a Scotland-only measure, which shows that this Parliament responds to Scottish issues and problems. I noted that the intention is to reduce capacity by 20 per cent and not to reduce the number of boats by 20 per cent—that is interesting, as capacity is the issue. With ever-increasing technical improvements to boats, the target is ambitious for £25 million, but let us see how things go.

I stress to the minister the importance of officials making the strongest possible case in Brussels for the return of the remaining half of the 20 per cent cut in the prawn quota, which would do much for a number of boats in my constituency and on the east coast.

Given that Euan Robson and the rest of the Liberal group have just heard the minister's announcement and so could not have known before what was in it, and given the support that a number of Liberal members have expressed for a tie-up scheme, can I take it that the Liberal group will be meeting before decision time to consider how it should make its votes count in this vital matter?

Mr Salmond can be assured that there will be on-going discussions. I will make a suggestion in due course on how we might proceed.

The conservation measures are extremely welcome. I noted a number of points about, for example, square-mesh panels, twine and banning lifting bags, which are fine. A 76 per cent cut in discards is welcome, if it is achievable. I am not in a position to say whether it is realistic. I suspect that the level of discards will fall as a result of the introduction of conservation measures, but of course the figure applies only to this year. The conservation measures that the minister announced for next year will mean that the level of discards will fall to a third of the catch, because of the growth of the haddock.

Although the measures are welcome and helpful, I am not sure whether it is being suggested that, once they are introduced in three to four weeks' time, fishermen can go back to sea because most of the haddock catch will swim through their nets. If that is the case, that is welcome, but I would need scientific and fishing advice before I put too much store in the conservation measures that the minister has outlined, welcome and helpful though they are.

In my constituency, prawn and haddock fishing out of Eyemouth are particularly important. There is concern among line fishermen that their future livelihood is being fished out by colleagues who are displaced because of the cod recovery programme.

Does the member agree that the fishing industry is not one with a dependency culture? Our fishermen are fiercely proud and fiercely independent. Are the Liberal Democrats going to support a package of only £10 million, which is small fry in the big economic pool, to see fishermen through this immediate crisis?

You are in your last minute, Mr Robson.

Can I say—

Yes or no?

The important point is this: if we are saying that the conservation measures will help in three to four weeks' time, what is to happen during those three to four weeks? I seriously suggest to the minister that we look at that period. Measures, including the tie-up scheme, could be introduced for that period, so we may not be talking about £10 million—the figure may be less. I would like the minister to address that in her closing remarks.

As Margaret Ewing rightly says, the fishing industry is made up of proud and independent people. On a number of occasions, I have heard fishermen contrast the support that is given to the agricultural community with what is given to the fishing industry. Support to the agricultural community is welcome and vital, but there are times when the fishing industry feels that it could be given more support. Although I welcome the decommissioning scheme, I believe that more thought needs to be given to the period before the conservation measures are introduced.

We have just heard a shift in position, I hope, from the Liberals on pursuing short-term measures for the industry. I hope that their votes will follow that declaration.

This situation has been a tragedy, in terms of the extent of the missed opportunity for the industry. The fisheries minister had the opportunity to bring about a totally new attitude in fishing communities. All she had to do was offer some short-term support to the industry to see it through an extremely difficult period.

As an aside to one of the other announcements that the minister made, let me say that nobody can seriously believe that £1 million will address the problems of the processing sector, which is so vital to Scotland. The minister had better say a lot more about that over the coming weeks.

I will concentrate my remarks on the catching sector and the short term.

Will the member give way?

No. I will give way in a few minutes.

Over the past weeks, we have seen the most extraordinarily dignified protest by fishermen. The minister said that some fishermen wanted the tie-up scheme. The point is that all fishermen wanted the tie-up scheme. For the first time in my political career representing a fishing community, I saw the whole of the fishing industry—north, south, east and west—united behind a demand for short-term assistance. The protest was supported by the prawn boats and by the large boats, which are not immediately affected. People who see the consequences of the white fish sector going down support the protest. From Lossiemouth to Eyemouth and from Shetland in the north, 200 vessels demonstrated, forming a flotilla 11 miles long that went up the Forth, taking two hours to go under the Forth bridges. However, did the minister understand the most basic point that those men were making? Obviously not, given what she has announced today.

I tell the minister that displacement is not a surprise. The SFF warned about it in December. We have not seen the end of displacement, unless the minister acts today. After the slaughter of the juvenile haddock over the next four weeks, which the minister has no answer to, we will see displacement affecting the prawn boats—we will see chaos in that sector of the industry. The minister is leading the industry in a downward spiral of despair, which is an extremely foolish thing to do.

The minister cannot impose on and dragoon the fishing industry, which is a proud industry with proud people. The way to proceed is to co-operate. The opportunity existed in the offers that the industry made to secure that co-operation, not just for the short term, but for the medium and long term, and to go on to a different future.

Does Mr Salmond agree that it is the fishing industry that has pressed for a long-term decommissioning scheme and long-term restructuring? Will he take this opportunity to welcome that and the fact that it is a Scottish scheme that has been introduced by the Scottish Executive?

I will come to decommissioning in a second. Lewis Macdonald made exactly the same point to fishermen last Thursday, when he said, "We have got a long-term plan." However, he was told by Peter Bruce that, unless the short term is addressed, the industry will have no long term.

Yes, I welcome decommissioning, but members have to understand that decommissioning is a redundancy package for the industry. The fishermen who are demonstrating want a future for the industry. They want a growing industry. They want an industry for the future, not one that is decommissioned. Decommissioning is an unfortunate necessity, not something to be trumpeted. We need something to secure the industry for the future.

I heard the Minister for Rural Development on television last Thursday talk about the mass of young haddock as a problem. The conglomeration of young haddock is not a problem. It is an opportunity; it is the future of the industry. If the right decisions are made—and we still have the opportunity to make them today—that future can be protected. The Deputy Minister for Rural Development said that there is no evidence for that, but 1,000 fishermen demonstrated that evidence. Who is she, a minister who has been in office for four months, to believe? Is she to believe the evidence of 1,000 working fishermen who have spent their lives and careers on the sea, or her officials, who seem intent on dragooning the industry into submission, which is not possible?

My final point is an appeal to the Liberal Democrats. I have here a picture of Tavish Scott on the flotilla going up Sullom Voe on Tuesday—it is quite proper that he was there. He is quoted as saying:

"Whatever else I might be in life, the most important thing that I am, is to be the Shetland MSP."

When it comes to the vote this afternoon, the Liberal Democrats will find out that, for political credibility, they cannot sail up Sullom Voe on Tuesday and sell the industry down the river on Thursday. Later today, the Parliament will have the opportunity to take the step that the Executive did not. If the Parliament votes to secure the future of one of Scotland's great industries, it will gain enormous credibility and respect.

It is absolutely unbelievable that the biggest single investment in the Scottish industry, which will ensure its long-term future, has not been welcomed by the Opposition.

Except for Winnie Ewing. The Opposition's position is incomprehensible. I am talking about short-term measures. It is not possible to create a short-term tie-up scheme. Alex Salmond knows that the Executive's position is covered by European Union state-aid rules. Our FIFG does not make provision for a tie-up scheme. We are talking about short-term measures that can be implemented before there is any possibility of a tie-up scheme. That must be put on the record.

Mr Salmond Will the minister give way?

No. I would like to have my say, thank you very much.

Give way.

Unbelievable.

Order.

I will not be bullied by someone such as Mr Salmond. If he cared about the Scottish fishing industry, he would not be returning to Westminster at the general election.

The Executive has produced a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem. [Interruption.]

Order. Please continue, minister. I ask for order from other members.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is helpful.

The Government thinks constructively about the fishing industry. The Opposition can shout and bawl. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. Governments must take action. We are telling Parliament that the advice from scientists is that we can take short-term action. We can deliver a reduction of up to 70 per cent in discards long before any tie-up scheme could be developed and implemented. We have announced a comprehensive package for the industry that focuses on the short, medium and long terms.

Will the minister give way?

No, I am sorry, but I will not give way. I will respond to the points that Dr Ewing made in her speech.

We recognise the fishing industry's contribution to Scotland. I lived in a fisheries-dependent community for 25 years, so Alex Salmond need not tell me anything about the fishing industry.

Will the minister give way?

No.

We need short, medium and long-term solutions to the problems. This is the biggest-ever investment in the industry, covering the onshore and offshore sectors. It puts conservation and economic sustainability at the heart of our policy. Decommissioning delivers long-term structural change.

Will the minister give way?

No. I am sorry, but Mr Lochhead did not give way during his speech.

The minister did not give way earlier.

Order. The minister said that she is not giving way, Mr Lochhead. [Interruption.] Order.

On a point of order.

May I continue please, Mr Ewing?

Please sit down, minister. I am about to take a point of order from Mr Ewing. It is difficult for me to hear his point of order, as members are continuing to talk while I try to acknowledge him. Please proceed, Mr Ewing.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Do not standing orders provide an opportunity for members to ask questions about a ministerial statement? The events this morning are unprecedented. The minister has refused to allow any questions to be asked, despite the importance of the matter.

Mr Ewing's point is not a point of order. We are not hearing a ministerial statement. This is a Conservative party debate. [Interruption.] I ask members to observe some order as we reach the close of the debate. Continue, minister.

I am astounded by the reaction—especially from the SNP—to today's news. I will respond to Winnie Ewing's points. I recognise her interest in fisheries. I lived in the Highlands for 25 years, during the time when Dr Ewing represented the area. She talked about the Spanish taking over the North sea. Spain does not fish in the North sea and has no relative stability share of the North sea total allowable catch.

Will the minister give way?

No. I must get through the rest of my speech and respond to other points. That is the reason for a winding-up speech.

I repeat that a short-term tie-up scheme would be not only expensive, but—most important—ineffective. People might not like to hear that, but that is the advice of the scientists, which I am following. The most efficient way of making a difference is to take technical conservation measures. At the end of April, the young fish will still be there, which is the result that the Opposition calls for in proposing a tie-up scheme. The problem is not short term.

I am committed to working with the industry and to making the strategy work. We have developed a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem. I say to Mr Davidson that that is what the Scottish Parliament is all about; that is what devolution, which the Conservative party opposed, is all about. I am confident that we can deliver a successful, viable and sustainable industry and vibrant fishing communities for the future.

A disgrace.

I advise members that I am taking note of their comments. Some of the comments verge on being unparliamentary.

Which comments?

Mr Salmond, I am not conducting a conversation with you across the chamber. I am making the point that some members' behaviour and language verge on being unparliamentary.

Mine?

I said some members, Mr Salmond.

I speak with the sound ringing in my ears of the door slamming firmly in the face of the Scottish fishing industry. I begin on a sad note. The debate has been heated and, as the final speaker in it, it is my responsibility to pay tribute to Mr David McPherson, who was in Edinburgh last week with the fishermen's action group, which he helped to organise. Unfortunately, he died at the weekend. His death is a sad loss to the fishing industry, of which I think he could have been a future leader.

In all fairness, I welcome the minister's announcement. The £25 million that has been made available for a decommissioning scheme is vital to the future of the Scottish fishing industry and many of us have called for it for some time. It is perhaps unfortunate that the package was announced today. As far as I am aware, our motion was designed to enable discussion on something else entirely.

It is disappointing that the old attack has been reused of saying that the Conservative party's record renders its members incapable of making any constructive comments.

Is the member aware that confidential Cabinet records that the Public Record Office has released under the 30-year rule show that the Tory Scottish Office produced a memo that described the Scottish fishing industry as expendable?

Mr Rumbles talks about information that was released under the 30-year rule. That almost brings us to the point of discussing events that took place before I was born. We are here to discuss the issues that face the Scottish fishing industry today.

The Conservatives have a proud record in recent times. We can hold up the example of James Provan, who forced the proposal for a 24-mile limit through the European Parliament. On any day of the week, we can hold up the example of Struan Stevenson, who is an outspoken supporter of the Scottish fishing industry in the structure of Europe.

Members have sought today to find as many ways as possible to defend the interests of the fishing industry at this time of need.

To take up the point that David Davidson made on consensus, does the member agree that, with the Scottish Green Party and even some of Scotland's environmental organisations perhaps coming in behind the fishermen, it is incumbent upon the minister to take the proposal more seriously than she appears to have done?

That is indeed the case. I support Robin Harper. He has highlighted the fact that today the minister and the Executive have failed to recognise that we are talking specifically about a short-term crisis.

The 90 per cent discards that were thrown back into the North sea are an example of how the fishermen themselves were destroying their future. However, the fishermen were the first people to spot the problem. I want to highlight the fact that the fishing industry, through its voluntary tie-up, has proved itself to be the only true conservationist of fish stocks in the North sea.

I pay tribute to the industry and to the unity that it has achieved. Others have mentioned that already. At the meeting at the Hub last week, I was moved to see who had come to defend the interests of the fishing industry.

Will the member give way?

Very briefly.

Through a question to Alex Johnstone, I would like to address the point that the minister was trying to make. Is it not the case that the industry has asked for a commitment to a tie-up scheme? A commitment is required. She does not have to produce the scheme tomorrow. All that she has to do is show commitment.

That is indeed what the industry is asking for. At the meeting in the Quaker meeting house last week, at which even many Labour back benchers were present, the industry made it clear that it sought that commitment and that the money could come in the longer term.

At the Hub, not only did we meet owners of the boats, skippers and leaders of the major organisations, but we were for the first time lobbied by the industry itself, right down to the men who work on the decks of the boats. They are genuinely concerned about where their pay cheques for next week and the week after will come from. We made it clear that we sought something that not only guaranteed the future of the boats but guaranteed the income of those men, who had come to listen to what politicians had to say. I said that the meeting stuck in my memory. I suspect that the reaction that we saw that day will stick in Lewis Macdonald's memory rather longer than is the case for any of the rest of us.

The fishermen asked for something to help them over the short term; they have been offered the decommissioning scheme that they have been asking for for many years. The minister has today tried to sell the industry a red herring. The truth is that she has missed the boat entirely.