Common Fisheries Policy
The next item of business is the European Committee debate on motion S1M-2006, in the name of Hugh Henry, on reform of the common fisheries policy.
I start by paying tribute to Stephen Imrie and his clerking team, who supported the committee and have once again done a first-class job in producing this report.
I also thank my colleagues on the European Committee for the constructive way in which they approached this important subject. I am pleased to inform members that our report was agreed without division. Given that the subject is contentious and that it was discussed at a fairly lively time in the Parliament, I think the report shows how effective committees can be at working to achieve consensus. We have produced what I consider to be a balanced and fair report. I am also pleased that our colleagues on the Rural Development Committee have had time to assess our findings and have also endorsed them.
I thank all the witnesses who came to give evidence to the committee or provided a written submission. We received more evidence on this subject than we received in any of our other inquiries over the past two years. Much of it was very detailed and all of it was passionate. I make special mention of John Goodlad's thoughtful and analytical presentation on behalf of the Shetland fishermen. John has now resigned as their chief executive to concentrate on his salmon fishing business. I wish him well.
Such passion highlights the importance of the industry to the Scottish economy, and to local communities in particular, and fishing's resonance across Scotland. Like shipbuilding and coal mining in previous times, the fishing industry has played an important part in developing Scotland's character.
I will pull out one set of statistics from the report. Whereas for the UK the fishing industry represents only 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product, the figure for Scotland is 3 per cent and for the wider Highlands and Islands region it is 6 per cent. Indeed, in some localities employment in the industry can be as high as 33 per cent of the economically active population. Although the industry as a whole might not be large in UK terms, it is as much of a lifeline for many communities across Scotland as coal mining used to be.
On 20 March, the European Commission published a green paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy. It has long been apparent to many that the CFP in its current form is failing on two main fronts: it fails to preserve fish stocks and it fails to safeguard the livelihoods of people involved in the fishing industry.
The committee heard a number of calls for the outright abolition of the CFP or, failing that, for the UK to cede from its requirements. I can report that all committee members rejected that view, which is legally difficult, politically impossible and has no logic when we consider the fact that fish do not respect artificial boundaries or lines in the sea. We simply must co-operate in the management of stocks. The argument for unilateral withdrawal is—if members will forgive the pun—a red herring.
The committee felt that the CFP should be reformed. The driver for that view is that we wholeheartedly believe that, in its current format, it fails to deliver in protecting stocks and in safeguarding a viable fishing industry. As Cathy Jamieson said during the debate in the Rural Development Committee—and as we say in our report—now is not the time for blame. I simply note that political will in the Council of Ministers is going to be vital.
If my colleagues permit me, I will quote a former Conservative minister, John Gummer, who was more famous for hamburgers than for fish. At a recent conference, he said:
"If you are a fisheries minister you sit around the table arguing about fishermen—not about fish. You're there to represent your fishermen. You're there to ensure that if there are ten fish you get your share and if possible a bit more. The arguments aren't about conservation, unless of course you are arguing about another country."
Such an approach is simply not sustainable.
Although this is not the time to question whether the industry itself has contributed to the problems that face the fishing sector, I note that at least some of the senior representatives of fishing bodies are putting up their hands and saying mea culpa. There is a recognition in some quarters that a more responsible approach is required. Although I welcome that, we now need to move on.
Will the member pay tribute to the fact that, in the Scottish fishing fleet, many people who have been directly involved have been in the van of measures to protect the fishing stocks of Scotland and the North sea as a whole? That should be put on record.
Although I acknowledge the member's comments, I should point out that people in the industry have also indicated that the industry itself must take some—not sole—responsibility for what has happened.
The committee felt strongly that it is critical to take a long, hard look at reforming the CFP, even if that means taking uncomfortable decisions. The EC's green paper provides the obvious backdrop to the options for reforming the industry. Although that has been broadly welcomed by many in Scotland, the issue that faces us is what exactly will be agreed by ministers over the next year. For that reason, we wanted to consider as a committee and as a Parliament the general principles that must underpin any reform.
The overriding principle is that a regime must be created that protects stocks and creates a viable industry. Within that, fishing representatives must have their say. There is no point in excluding the industry from decisions about its members' livelihoods if we want it to buy into those decisions. Fishing representatives must be more than simply consulted; they must help to take the decisions in certain areas, such as the management of stocks. That must not be limited to emergencies, as the Commission suggests; it must take place over the longer term.
I would like to draw on my upbringing and background and paraphrase a well-known advert about buying pets that appears at Christmas time: fish is not only for Friday, but for all the year round. We must manage stocks better. For that reason, the committee endorsed unanimously proposals for more localised zonal management, with fishermen, scientists and key organisations taking decisions together. Legal advice on this matter is clear: provided we remain within the framework of the powers the Council has, certain responsibilities can be devolved and delegated to newly established and inclusive management committees. Our committee does not underestimate the political obstacles to putting that framework in place, but we agree wholeheartedly that it is the future for the industry. Perhaps such a regime needs further analysis; it may need to be phased in, but it must happen.
With a new regime of the type I have outlined comes responsibility. It is clear to everyone that there are too many fishermen chasing not enough fish. That cannot go on. As Commissioner Fischler announced on Tuesday, a 40 to 50 per cent reduction in fishing activity may be required. The committee did not comment on those figures, but we noted that some long-term equitable decommissioning and restructuring of the fleet is absolutely necessary.
As Mr Henry noted, on Tuesday Franz Fischler said that there might need to be 40 to 50 per cent cuts in the fishing of certain stocks, including hake. Does he accept that in fisheries management we do not need commissioners making grand statements without the logical extension of what they are saying being worked through in detail—in fishing regulations that affect all parts of the European Union, particularly Scottish waters? That does not help.
I agree, but Commissioner Fischler has drawn attention to a problem that needs to be addressed. That should happen in the way Tavish Scott suggests.
I know that decommissioning and restructuring will cause problems in certain areas. That is why the European Committee called for immediate action from the Executive and for the creation of a task force now—not later—to help communities diversify. We also noted that some areas may be hit harder than others. That may mean that a differentiated approach is needed that takes into account local circumstances. Any decommissioning moneys must be spread wider than to just the boat or licence holder. We want ordinary fishermen and their families to share in any support that is given to the industry.
We also want a level playing field to be created for our fishermen. We heard anecdotal evidence that they are treated more harshly than others. We are not able to prove that one way or the other, so we argue for a more open and transparent system of recording enforcement and infraction, to highlight to all whether Scottish fishermen are treated unfavourably. We are very strong on the fact that, even if matters could be better co-ordinated, enforcement should remain a competence of the member states.
Finally, we made a number of recommendations on quota setting, licences, access rights, the protection of inshore fishing and such basic matters as the continuation of historic fishing rights.
I conclude by noting that nearly 10 years ago the fishing industry in the grand banks of Newfoundland collapsed. Something similar is close to happening in the North sea and other areas where Scottish boats fish. More than five years ago a House of Lords report stated:
"In their heart of hearts scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home. The question is, will they take it?"
I urge the Scottish Executive to take heed of our findings. I welcome the positive and constructive feedback that we have received prior to today. I hope that in her discussions at the fisheries council the minister will succeed in having some of our recommendations accepted. I know that the Executive will work hard to achieve the best deal possible.
I do not underestimate the difficulties in this process, but it is now time for all to demonstrate that there is a will to ensure that the Scottish fishing industry and Scottish fishing communities have a future.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report, 2001 of the European Committee, Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy: A Blueprint for Negotiations (SP Paper 330) and commends the Report's recommendations to the Scottish Executive.
I congratulate the committee on its excellent, first-class report. I hope that the Scottish Government recognises the role that the committees are playing in the Parliament by taking on board many of the recommendations that I am about to discuss.
The SNP believes that this year and next year present a long-overdue opportunity radically to overhaul the common fisheries policy and to renew and embed the provisions that are crucial for the protection of fish stocks. The coming years will be a make-or-break time for many of Scotland's fishermen and processors, and the success of the Parliament in influencing the CFP will determine which road the industry will take. Thankfully, the report that we are debating points the way.
This cross-party report and the green paper from the European Commission highlight the fact that, for the first time in the past 20 years, the fishermen, the politicians and even the European bureaucrats are all singing from a similar—if not the same—hymn sheet. We all agree that, over the past 20 years, the CFP has largely failed Scotland, which is the home of Europe's richest fisheries. To many fishermen, the CFP is simply a crazy fisheries policy. Change is inevitable, as EU enlargement calls for a radical re-think of the way we operate European fisheries policy. We cannot have landlocked states or new EU entrants dictating to Scottish fishermen what they can catch off their own shores.
Does Richard Lochhead accept the fact that the former eastern European countries that are entering the EU have no historic rights and simply will not have access to North sea fisheries or other areas?
I could not agree more with Tavish Scott. I shall touch on the subject of protecting our historic fishing rights.
The continuous expansion of the EU makes a centralised, inflexible fisheries policy unworkable. It is not only about EU enlargement, however; the fact is that we cannot continue with a policy that forces fishermen to throw two thirds of their catch overboard. Only one in three fish that is caught at sea ends up on the table. We cannot continue with a policy that allows industrial fishing to proceed unabated and destroy juvenile fish stocks and the livelihoods of our people. Nor can we continue with a policy in which the rules are applied forcefully in some countries but not in others, thereby creating an unlevel playing field.
Fisheries-related employment in Scotland has declined and fish stocks are at dangerously low levels. Fishing ports such as Lossiemouth, Pittenweem, Whitehills and many others around Scotland's east and west coasts and in the islands are shadows of their former selves. The key—as is highlighted in the report—is to protect Scotland's historic fishing rights in our own waters. Many people agree that the common management of fish stocks is sensible, but we must guarantee that Scotland will get its fair share.
That is why it is essential that, in the CFP review—as the committee highlighted—we retain relative stability as a founding principle of the CFP. That must be cast in stone. The Hague preference must be retained. The six and 12-mile limits, which help us to protect our inshore sector, must also be retained as a founding principle. The existing restrictions on access to the North sea must be retained—we cannot allow the North sea to become a free-for-all—and we must retain the Shetland box. We do not want more derogations: as long as we have the CFP, we should have a lifetime guarantee that those principles will be at the policy's heart.
The SNP is at one with the committee on those points, and we join the committee in demanding that the EU remove any ambiguity or question marks over the principles that are in the green paper before it reaches its conclusions. Also, the introduction of individual transferable quotas must not be allowed. Unfortunately, the report highlights that spectre as well. If ITQs were introduced, they would allow relative stability to be undermined by the back door.
The only way in which the common fisheries policy can move forward in the 21st century is through the introduction of subsidiarity and the establishment of meaningful zonal management committees. Fishermen should be at the heart of the policy-making and decision-making process, along with the scientists, fisheries managers and environmentalists. Conservation has to be the No 1 priority for the CFP.
Total allowable catches are a useful tool in maintaining relative stability but they are not effective in protecting stocks as they control only the amount of fish landed rather than the stocks. We have to get away from the annual TAC bunfight, which is why we welcome, as does the committee, the promotion of multi-annual, multi-species TACs that are far more suited to Scotland's mixed fisheries and help us move away from constant crisis management.
We have to put more emphasis on technical measures at sea, as well as on the amount of fish landed. Like the committee, the SNP wants seasonal closures, no-take zones and real-time closures higher up Europe's agenda. We have to cut fishing effort as well as capacity. If the Government cannot see beyond decommissioning over the next few years, we will have no fleet left in 10, 15 or 20 years' time and all our processors, which employ tens of thousands of people, will close—as is highlighted by the report, 40,000 jobs are at stake. That is why tie-up schemes are essential.
If the minister paints herself into a corner every time there is a closure in Scotland's mixed fishery, the boats will either go bankrupt or they will divert their attention to other areas of the sea, thereby increasing pressure on them. It may be cheaper in the short term to decommission boats, but in the long term it is the most expensive policy possible, as it will result in the disappearance of the industry.
Ministers have to acknowledge the social role of fisheries in Scotland. Conservation measures such as tie-up schemes are an investment in rural and remote communities. This country invests £500 million a year in our farming communities because they supply food to the country and offer employment in areas in which there is no alternative. We have to adopt a similar approach to fisheries-dependent communities in Scotland.
The report concludes by calling on the minister to show political will. The SNP echoes that call. The minister has to lead from the front. Scotland is a fisheries-dependent nation and the Scottish Parliament is the custodian of Europe's richest fishing grounds. The minister has to lead for the UK in the CFP negotiations. We have 70 per cent of the UK's landings. Fishing is 15 times more important to Scotland than it is to the UK, as is highlighted by the report.
If the Scottish Government fails to rise to the challenge, there will be the gravest imaginable consequences for the economic situation of our fishing communities and this Administration will be forever associated with the demise of one of Scotland's most traditional industries.
On behalf of the SNP, I commend this report to the Parliament.
I congratulate the European Committee on producing the report.
The issue is simple: fewer fish mean fewer jobs. One job at sea creates five jobs on land. The recently announced further cuts to our long-suffering fishing industry will seriously jeopardise the future of that industry and of the people who depend on the income generated from fishing.
Will the Executive follow the stated will of the Parliament, and the advice of Franz Fischler, to draw down the money that is available for a limited tie-up scheme or will it ignore the most obvious way of conserving fish stocks and retaining a sustainable Scottish fishing industry?
The Press and Journal today highlights Franz Fischler's warning that fishermen face a great deal more pain before North sea cod stocks begin to recover. Apparently, more measures to cut fishing effort are vital, but EU funds would be available to help fishermen weather the storm. Franz Fischler stated:
"EU funds to cushion negative effects are available under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. It is therefore up to individual member states to review their priorities in the light of the cod and hake recovery plans".
Further cuts will have huge implications for Scotland. Scotland's fishing industry employs 7,000 people and up to 40,000 people are employed in the wider industry. In Shetland, in 1998, the total turnover of the fisheries industry accounted for one third of the Shetland economy. The fisheries industry employs 20 per cent of Shetland's work force and can employ as much as 31 per cent of the active local population in Banff and Buchan. Its value to Scotland must not be underestimated.
The fishermen of the Western Isles rely so heavily on shellfish that there must be a case for local management not only of the six and 12-mile limits but further out as well, to ensure consistency of conservation policy.
Now that Belgium, with its numerous regional Parliaments, has taken over the EU presidency and its regional ministers will be able to lead European meetings and debates on fisheries, perhaps we might see the Scottish Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development leading on fisheries matters in Europe—rather than relying on Elliot Morley to do it for her. That is what happened during the Conservative Administration and it is a measure of true and honest devolution. Scotland should lead the way on fishing in Europe.
The Scottish fishing industry has suffered enormously over the past few years. In line with what successive politicians have required them to do, they have dutifully trimmed their catches, lowered their incomes and even stayed at home in attempts to allow fish stocks to replenish.
The threat of the possible introduction of individual transferable quotas is another problem because 20 per cent of our quota is already in foreign hands and ITQs would undoubtedly lead to a further substantial loss of British quota. They would destroy relative stability. They have been tried in Iceland, to the detriment of Icelandic fishermen.
It is little wonder that fewer young men want to go into an industry whose future looks so bleak and so uncertain. That is why it is so important that the woefully inadequate CFP is reformed coherently and comprehensively to provide a sustainable future for Scottish fishing. Continuing to implement short-term measures that achieve little if anything is completely unacceptable. We need long-term policy that will balance the competing interests of conservation and commercialism. We need our coastal limits, we need zonal management and we need retention of the Hague preference.
The European Committee's report is absolutely right to call the present system "untenable". The CFP cannot be defended. If a lunatic had been asked to design an EU-wide fisheries policy, they would have come up with the CFP. In terms of employment and environment, it is the Titanic of all EU initiatives. I think that we can all agree on that point. The EU can hardly advise the rest of the world on fish conservation unless it puts its own house in order first.
The report recommends a complete overhaul of the current CFP. That is absolutely right. Radical reform is the only way forward, but will the Scottish Executive do anything about the report? Will it listen to Franz Fischler's comments and draw down money for a compensated tie-up scheme, or will it continue to wave two fish fingers at this Parliament and the Scottish fishing industry? Instead, why does it not wave two fish fingers at industrial fishing, which is taking 700,000 tonnes of fish biomass a year? That really would help conservation.
While panic measures have undoubtedly been necessary in the past, there is absolutely no reason for fisheries managers, whether at a national or at a community level, not to arrange for the investment of funds in technical conservation measures trials to establish their level of performance. Fishermen require to be closely involved in such trials, not only in the obvious sense of carrying them out, but in monitoring and evaluating them. I ask the Executive to arrange such trials.
In the end, technical measures can go only so far. Curtailment of effort in biologically correct TACs is likely to be the only sensible way of achieving proper stock conservation. The only definable answer to the problem is restriction in effort. Fisheries managers are usually unwilling to examine a reasonable scheme because while the cost of technical conservation measures require to be met by the industry, it is the duty of Government to fund effort control measures.
Scotland's fishing industry is vital to the social and economic fabric of our rural communities, so relative stability is more important to us than to anyone else. We did not join the CFP to see our fishing industry decimated and our fishermen impoverished, but that is exactly what has happened. That has to change. We need to endorse the policy set out in the committee's report and we need the Scottish Executive to support that policy.
I have talked to many fishermen. I find that there is still great optimism and a belief that this bad cycle will end and good times will return. It is therefore all the more necessary that we show loyalty to the fishing industry by safeguarding fish quotas for the Scottish fishermen of the future so that they can sustain their families in our coastal areas.
I associate myself with Hugh Henry's remarks, in what I thought was an important piece of analysis. I also associate myself with what Richard Lochhead said about the European Committee's report overall. It is an important and a good report, and it does the committee structure of the Parliament proud to have delivered such a serious analysis of a complex area that has many complex issues of fishing and fishing politics around it. The report is a good, solid piece of work.
Last night, the Norway-European Union talks in Oslo collapsed. Josie Simpson, who is the chairman of the Shetland Fishermen's Association telephoned my office last night—in despair, more than anything else. He demonstrated that despair in a clip of an interview with him that I heard on the radio this morning. Those talks are important for the future of fisheries management in the North sea, but they have gone nowhere. I understand that the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department officials share Josie Simpson's frustration. If the EU officials who are negotiating at those talks are not up to the task, it is incumbent on the member states to replace them with people who are.
I want to pick up on a remark that was made by Hugh Henry—he was right to make it—when he asked what was wrong with the CFP. To my mind, it is clear what is wrong with the CFP, when people such as Josie Simpson, who is respected not only in Shetland but throughout Scotland and Europe, sit outside the room, with Mike Park and others, rather than sitting in the room to help with the negotiations and to bring to bear practical experience in the discussions.
As the member is aware, difficult negotiations will continue over the next few months to draw up the cod recovery plans. Does the member think that we should set up the zonal management committees early—that is, in the next few months—rather than wait for the five-year recovery plans to be put in place first?
That proposal has some superficial attractions, but we must still go through the process, in which fishermen must be involved. As Richard Lochhead said, fishermen must be in the room to change policy. My concern about his proposal is that it would not change anything until such time as the zonal management processes have been followed through in relation to CFP policy after 2002.
I start, as does the CFP green paper, from the premise that the CFP has failed. There are few people who would dispute the failure of the CFP to create a sustainable fishing industry and sustainable fishing stocks. In many ways, the policy has been an unmitigated disaster. For example, unmarketable fish have been dumped, over-quota fish have been landed and there is the annual December fisheries council—mentioned by Richard Lochhead—which must be the worst way imaginable of negotiating the future of our fishing industry.
How can the situation be improved? The committee report makes compelling arguments in response to that question. Those arguments were further enunciated in Shetland at the Shetland oceans alliance conference—known as the SHOAL conference—at Scalloway less than a month ago. I was pleased that the Deputy Minister for Rural Development was able to attend that conference and to contribute to its proceedings, as did a number of other members present in the chamber. Christophe Nordmann, who is the head of the fisheries unit within the fisheries directorate-general, also addressed the conference. To my mind, he made one of his most important comments when he stressed the need for vulnerable peripheral fishing communities to benefit most from a reformed CFP. That must be a driving principle behind the Scottish Executive's approach.
I agree with many of the points that were made by Hugh Henry and other members about the principle of relative stability and the Hague preference, and I would like to pick up on two points in particular. First, I see no reason why the six-mile and 12-mile limits should not be encapsulated as permanent features of the CFP. Surely it would be a logical development of the principle of subsidiarity that the 12-mile limit should be enshrined as the management tool for white fish stocks within that area, as they should be managed locally by local management organisations. I hope that that proposal will be taken up.
Secondly, I support members' comments about the Shetland box. I also support the comments that the minister made in Scalloway three weeks ago, when she said that the Executive was considering research in that area and that it might expand the Shetland box if there was a scientific case for doing so. I hope that she will comment further on those points in her speech later in the debate.
The committee made a specific point, which I support, about adequate and transparent enforcement of regulations. I endorse the approach that was proposed by the committee. It is important that the same regime for fish landings at ports should apply throughout Scotland, particularly to the pelagic sector.
I want to highlight briefly the case of my constituent, Jimmy Sinclair, who is being prosecuted over an alleged incident to do with square-mesh panels. My principal concern about Mr Sinclair's case is that the department received copious information that indicated that the regulations on square-mesh panels have a disproportionate effect on low-powered inshore seiners, such as his boat. It is important that, when we consider making regulations, we ensure that they recognise different forms of fishing activity. Blanket regulations do not suit the fishing sector and, in particular, small boats. I hope that the way in which regulations are introduced will be considered in that light.
I will finish with two technical points. To some extent, the first was picked up the other day in the helpful briefing that officials gave to members of the Rural Development Committee. The technical conservation proposals must accept that there is a huge difference between an inshore low-powered seiner and a twin-rig trawler. I do not apologise for repeating that, because it is important for the overall approach that the commission takes.
Secondly, on effort limitation, recovery plans and closed areas—whatever description is used—I want to consider what Franz Fischler has said. On 27 May, he picked up the allegation that the European Commission had completely ignored the points about displacement of effort and the effect that that would have. He said that vessel lay-ups were the only way to avoid other stocks being hit by the displacement of effort. Policy must change to take account of that fact. Tie-ups must be in that package of measures. Otherwise—particularly given the current talk of individual transferable quotas—I will be concerned that the fishing industry will wither on a free-market vine, having been surrounded by red tape that is created in Brussels. I passionately wish to avoid that.
When the European Committee first embarked on its inquiry, some members who were not from traditional fishing communities—I include myself in that category—felt that we would be on a bit of a learning curve. We spent many useful hours taking evidence and listening to what the fishermen had to say—listening is the key word. I am pleased that the report has been welcomed by the fishing organisations and the wider community, who have, generally, been receptive to it.
It is important to put on the record that the purpose of the report was not simply to gather information—although that was important—but to influence the European debate on the common fisheries policy and to ensure that, in the weeks and months to come, Scotland's voice is heard.
Today, the Parliament is once again demonstrating its worth in a practical way by giving a fair airing to the European Committee's report. From an early stage, all committee members were agreed on the need for reform. The status quo is simply not an option. Tavish Scott outlined eloquently many of the problems with the current policy.
The committee embarked on its inquiry before the green paper was produced, so it was welcome to note that the Commission had undertaken what fishing organisations have referred to as a candid analysis. The green paper was helpful to the committee's deliberations, because it coincided with some of our early thoughts on such things as the inadequate stakeholder involvement and the ineffective control and enforcement measures.
From the mountain of evidence that we took, it is clear that many in the industry are also prepared to be candid. There is a clear commitment to finding a route whereby conservation and fishing can go hand in hand. On all sides, there was recognition that progress can be made only by working together and that there must be a fishing heritage for our children and our children's children. That honest approach led me to believe that zonal management committees, which give power to those who are best placed to understand the issues, are the best way forward.
The enforcement regime must be part and parcel of any progress. One of the key difficulties that has dogged the common fisheries policy—it was recognised by almost everyone who gave evidence to the committee—is the need to ensure transparency and a level playing field. The committee felt strongly that annual, verifiable statistics should be provided by the European Commission. Central monitoring should be complemented by the role of zonal management committees in the member states in inspection and in compliance with the regulations. Resources will need to be allocated for that. Further discussions may need to take place at European level on how all those things will be funded. It is important—we considered this when taking evidence—that the industry should not have to bear the brunt of financing the inspection regime.
I am running out of time, but it would be remiss of me not to thank the European Committee clerks, who undertook the formal drafting of the report in partnership with the committee. They did that work without the assistance of an adviser, on what is, for many of us, a very complex area. I also thank colleagues on the committee. In the main, discussions were conducted in a good-humoured way. I commend the committee's report to the Parliament and I trust that the minister will ensure that it makes a significant contribution to the debate that will take place in Europe in the weeks to come.
I call Stewart Stevenson.—[Applause.]
Presiding Officer, and my new colleagues in all parties, thank you very much for the warmth of your welcome. It is much appreciated. I am sure that Brian Fitzpatrick will feel exactly the same. It has been a particular pleasure to see a number of familiar faces round the chamber. I thank, especially, Richard Lochhead for paving the way for me by bringing my home village of Whitehills into his opening remarks.
Let me turn to fishing and the common fisheries policy. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Alex Salmond, whose success in raising fishing to the top of two Parliaments' agendas for the first time in a generation is something of which we should take note. One of the key achievements of the Scottish Parliament has been to provide a platform for precisely such important Scottish issues, which have previously been neglected by Westminster. It is my job to ensure that the fishing industry, in all its diversity, feels as well supported by me as it was by Alex Salmond.
I see another parliamentarian's work today in the European Committee's report. It was some time ago that Allan Macartney, the much-missed member of the European Parliament, proposed locality management of our natural fishing stock. There could be no finer tribute to him than the adoption of zonal management as a key part of the reform of the common fisheries policy. He would have been very proud of this Parliament's support in the committee's report.
What does the fishing industry think of the report? The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association told me yesterday that there is wide agreement in the industry that the common fisheries policy has fallen well short of its objectives in many areas. Looking forward to zonal management, the association said that bringing fishermen to the table, along with fisheries managers and scientists, should result in better-informed, realistic and pragmatic management measures. I say to Tavish Scott that that will allow Mike Park to sit at the top table. I did not hear Tavish Scott say that Scotland's minister with responsibility for fisheries should sit at the top table in Europe, representing Britain, but I look forward to hearing him say that in future.
I am happy to agree with Jamie McGrigor, who spoke yesterday of the need for more local control. We have advocated that for many years. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation's focus is on the need to maintain relative stability; it believes that that should be embedded in European law. Roddy McColl of the Fishermen's Association Ltd—and, of course, the ever-combative Tom Hay—gave evidence to the European Committee. Roddy McColl said:
"It is extremely difficult to get"
everyone
"to agree and to speak with one voice … There are tensions that should be buried for the common good."—[Official Report, European Committee, 30 January 2001; c 946.]
I have every reason to believe that the European Committee's report presents the best opportunity for many years to bring the fishing industry together to be of one mind.
I note that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development is looking rather lonely—I hope that she is not isolated in the debate. I make a plea to her and to the Executive that, in responding to consultations on the £27 million that is being made available, they give due regard to the need to have a strong fleet available to catch the class of haddocks that are currently swimming in the sea and that we should be catching in 2003. Taking too many boats out of the industry now will benefit only other countries' fishing industries. We have to ensure that we do not fish out the young haddock before then. Against that background, I ask that the door be left open to compensated tie-ups. Keep listening to the fishermen.
To end on a sombre note, we forget sometimes that fishing is not just another industry. It is a way of life and a staple for many communities, and it is a cruel mistress for many of those who put to sea. Today's news that the wreck of the Peterhead-based Trident has been found after 27 years is a poignant reminder of the price that can be paid. All in the industry should be assured that I and my SNP colleagues will fight just as hard as Alex Salmond has always done to represent the fishermen's interests.
May I be the first to congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his maiden speech in Parliament. While we are on the subject of congratulations, I thank the European Committee for producing its report. An examination of the issues leading up to the renegotiation of the CFP was one of the Rural Affairs Committee's identified priorities at the outset. Unfortunately, as a result of pressure of work, we did not arrive at a point when we could begin that process, so we were delighted when the European Committee took up the issue at an opportune moment and proceeded to produce its report.
The report is significant, not only because it mirrors the views that were expressed by the Rural Development Committee—we have discussed the report and backed it 100 per cent—but because it was prepared while John Home Robertson, the former fisheries minister, was on the committee. His contribution was important and his experience was of great benefit. Most significant, however, is the title of the report—"Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy: a Blueprint for negotiations"—because it is a blueprint for negotiations. We have all heard that the common fisheries policy has damaged the fishing industry, and that damage shows most clearly in Scotland, because—as we have heard—Scotland's fishing industry is significant in our most peripheral areas. It has long been the will of every political group in this Parliament to reform the common fisheries policy.
It is increasingly the case that we also support the need to devolve the management of our fisheries stocks to the lowest possible level, so that ultimately we gain proper local control. As is clear from the report, we have gathered round the view that the correct level for that management is one that includes all the countries that have an interest in a given fishery. That is why the principle of zonal management has become established and embedded in the report, as the declared will and desire of everyone in this Parliament. We need the Executive to take up that view and go forward with it. I have no doubt that the minister agrees broadly with the principles of the report, but I urge her to take on board its details and to express that view in international negotiations.
That brings me to the most important and significant point, which has been repeated several times during the debate—the fishing industry is far more important to Scotland than it is to the rest of the United Kingdom, or to virtually any other country in Europe. It is therefore essential that Scotland's ministers are in a position to represent Scotland's interests. For that reason, I urge the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to take every possible opportunity to ensure that, when negotiations take place, she and her colleague the Minister for Environment and Rural Development are at the forefront. Only then will Scotland's interests be represented above all else.
It is my pleasure to commend the European Committee's report to Parliament. When we come to a unanimous conclusion at the end of today's debate, I hope that what is set out in the report's pages is the true future for the Scottish fishing industry, so that we can go forward hand in hand, Parliament and Executive, to begin to impose Scotland's will and Scotland's needs on the common fisheries policy.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his first speech in the Parliament. I am not a member of the European Committee. Like others, I congratulate it on delivering a well-considered and thoughtful report on reform of the CFP. I am sure that the minister will welcome the report and that it will achieve its objective by being an effective base for further discussions in the EU.
I think that we all agree that the fishing industry is undergoing one of the most difficult periods in its history, particularly the white fish sector. The next three years will without doubt be extremely hard for fishermen, fish processors and others who provide support services to the fishing industry.
It is vital that the CFP is reformed in a way that offers the industry a good future throughout Europe and, of course, in Scotland. The North sea was, and could be again, one of the world's richest fishing grounds. Overfishing and the failures of the present CFP have resulted in the figures for about 40 of the 80 commercially exploitable species being below safe biological limits. I understand that only about three in 10 cod manage to reach their fourth birthday. Some 60 per cent of their biomass is fished out every year.
I was pleased that the report focused on recognising the importance, in reforming the CFP, of rebuilding healthy and sustainable fish stocks. The coming together of fishermen, scientists, environmental groups and the Government on the issue—particularly fishermen's recognition that they must protect and sustain fish stocks—can only be welcomed. As Hugh Henry said, no one wants a repeat of the Canadian catastrophe. Canadians lost their cod and, after nine and a half years, no signs of recovery have appeared.
As members have said, the European Commission's green paper on the CFP contains many radical proposals that concentrate on zonal management, fish conservation and management and better compliance and enforcement. On policing, it has been said that many Scottish fishermen feel that they are picked on, but that judgment depends on whom they are compared with. Others would say that policing is much stricter in Norway than it is in the EU.
The CFP raises the question of restructuring the fishing industry. I am pleased that many of the ideas in the CFP green paper have been widely supported by organisations such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and by many in the fish processing sector.
Richard Lochhead talked about tie-up costs. In written evidence to the European Committee, the Commission's director general of fisheries gave the cost of tie-up schemes and said:
"The cost of compensating for one year all of the vessels concerned to fish 50% of their normal time at sea would be twice the cost of permanently decommissioning 50% of the vessels."
In the longer term, the investment that was made earlier this year will be considerably better than tie-ups.
The member mentions the cost of tie-up schemes. The SNP accepts that decommissioning is an unfortunate necessity, but we make the point that if the Executive continues to decommission the fleet, the long-term cost will be the loss of the fishing industry—catching and processing. Surely economic criteria should not be the only criteria.
If the reform of the CFP is to be effective, it must rebuild fish stocks so that decommissioning of the fleet is not required to continue for ever. We want to return to having healthy fish stocks that will sustain an economically viable fishing industry, without the requirement for decommissioning. In the short term, there is no question but that we must decommission.
It is important that the fishing industry is engaged and involved. Many members referred to that. One result of that is the report that was published recently by the fish processors working group. That is an example of the industry working successfully with Government and the enterprise agencies.
I ask Elaine Thomson to come to an end.
The fish processors working group report produced a raft of recommendations that were accepted by the minister. I hope that those recommendations will allow the fish processors to restructure and so survive the current difficulties in the fishing industry, which is so important to Aberdeen.
The report is effective and I wish it well.
I call Nora Radcliffe and ask her please to keep her comments to under four minutes.
I will do my best.
I commend the report for the coherent way in which it presents the background, the evidence that was taken by the committee and our deliberations. I add my congratulations to the clerking team, who worked hard, long and to good effect to pull the report together and to frame our recommendations.
The EU green paper is refreshingly honest about the shortcomings of the CFP. It is generally accepted that the common fisheries policy has been, in many ways, a disaster. It needs, and is about to get, a radical overhaul. However, we should not disregard the fact that things would have been immeasurably worse without it and that some of the failings of the original CFP are rooted in the way that it has been operated by member states. That they did not always make full use of the flexibility and opportunities that the CFP offered is now water under the bridge, but useful lessons could be learned from having a good look at the current rules to see where opportunities were missed.
There is a horrible saying, that bad laws are made to be broken. That is untenable: bad laws should be changed or, better still, not made in the first place. The current CFP has fallen foul of the bad-laws-are-made-to-be-broken attitude. The new CFP must be acceptable and enforceable. In the last resort, policing can be done only by consent.
We must get the new CFP right. It is important that we pay attention to how we monitor it and how, once it is agreed and in place, we police it effectively. We need an EU-wide agreement on the management of fisheries. It is essential that that fulfils the twin requirements of maintaining fish stocks at sustainable levels and protecting fishing communities.
If we look at fishing from the top down, we see that it equals 0.2 per cent of UK gross domestic product. However, if we move the perspective and look from the bottom up, we see that fishing can account for 100 per cent of gross local product in some coastal communities. That is one reason why it is essential to get the new CFP right. We have seen elsewhere that a fishery can be depleted beyond the point of recovery and can collapse completely. It is unthinkable, but only too possible, that that should happen in the fisheries on which our communities depend. That is the other reason why we must get the new CFP right.
It is up to us to work with the other member states to devise a better policy that is informed by what we have learned from experience. The green paper recognises that we need to involve fishermen fully in developing policy for their industry. It is fair to say that, in the past, the fishing industry has been inclined to pooh-pooh what the scientists have tried to tell them. The industry is now coming round to accepting that the scientists were perhaps not too far adrift. Scientists must also recognise and respect the fishermen's knowledge and experience. Equally, we politicians and our officials must be prepared to listen to and respect such sources of expertise and good advice.
Whatever the shape of the new CFP, it will work only if all the parties that contribute to it feel that their contribution has been properly valued and taken into account in the final outcome and that the final outcome has been arrived at fairly and is workable. Those are easy sentiments to articulate, but achieving them requires a long process that will involve a lot of hard work and hard talking.
Our ministers and officers must apply themselves now to making contacts in all the other member states that have fishing interests to make the case for and argue the merits of what we want in the new CFP. The committee's report offers, as the title says, "a Blueprint for negotiations". It is not an end point, but—I believe and hope—a well-informed, well-founded and robust starting point. To borrow a phrase from "Masterchef", "Let's get talking."
We now move to the winding-up speeches. I apologise to the three members whom I have not been able to call.
I start by endorsing the sentiments expressed by most members in congratulating Hugh Henry and the European Committee on an excellent report. I read it for the first time yesterday. It lays out in logical sequence the problems that the industry faces.
The most important quotation that we heard from Hugh Henry was from page 38 of the report. It is from a House of Lords report and relates to evidence that my friends in the Clyde Fishermen's Association gave. It reads:
"In their heart of hearts … fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home. The question is, will they take it?"
That is a sign that the industry recognises how severe the problem is. The Canadian Grand Banks fishing grounds were closed in 1992. A recent television programme showed that there was still no obvious sign of cod returning there. That shows us how high the stakes are.
Jamie McGrigor complained in his speech about 20 per cent of the quota being owned by other countries. He should remember that his party was in power when that measure was introduced. If he really believed that it was a serious problem, why did not he do something about it? Too often, he complains in the chamber without remembering that his Government was responsible.
I take on board what George Lyon says, but too often he goes on about 18 years of Tory misrule. He has sat there for four years and done absolutely nothing.
Four years?
Jamie McGrigor may have been here for four years, but I have been here for only two. He has obviously lost track of time in some hostelry somewhere.
I will move on from the four years of Jamie McGrigor's rule in the Parliament. My colleague Tavish Scott made an important point. He stated—I think he quoted a European official who was at a conference in Shetland—that the vulnerable peripheral communities should benefit from the reform of the CFP. We must keep that to the forefront of our minds in renegotiating the CFP.
Another important point, which also comes through in the common agricultural policy, is the need for adequate and transparent enforcement regimes—there must be a level playing field for the enforcement of European regimes in different countries. Too often there are complaints that there is over-regulation and over-enforcement in the UK compared with the situation in other countries.
Irene Oldfather said that Scotland's voice must be heard and that there is a need for reform. The most important issue she raised was the need to involve the stakeholders. In that context, it is clear that zonal management—a policy that the Liberal Democrats have pursued for many years at Westminster—is the only way to make progress. Unless we empower the fishermen and give them responsibility—
Will the member give way?
I was nearing the end of my speech, but I will give way briefly.
Will Mr Lyon outline for us the structure of the Liberal Democrat concept of zonal management?
The point that I am making on zonal management is the important principle of empowering fishermen to take control of and responsibility for their own destiny. That is fundamentally important if we are to tackle some of the conservation issues and rebalance the catching fleet and the amount of fish in the sea.
I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his maiden speech—it must have been quite a challenge on his first day; Mr Salmond is a hard act to follow. Stewart Stevenson made the easy political point about bringing other countries into the EU and about how widening access would suddenly swamp Scottish fishing grounds. However, he overlooked a fundamental point: unless a country has a quota and a historical track record, it cannot fish in European waters. That is important. People try to make a political point without realising that it is utter rubbish.
Hugh Henry and his committee should be congratulated on the report, which lays out a clear position for the Scottish Government when negotiations begin on reform of the common fisheries policy. I hope that the minister will heed this excellent document in formulating the Scottish Government's position, before it goes into negotiations.
I call Ben Wallace to close for the Conservative party.
He's awake!
Aye. In the Conservative party we have to sleep with one eye open and with our backs against the wall so that we can watch for the impending knives.
I begin by expressing my appreciation to Stephen Imrie and David Simpson, the clerks to the European Committee and to Christine Boch, from the legal office, who have worked extremely hard to produce a first-class report, at the same time as dealing with a heavy work load in other subjects. I also place on record my thanks to the European Commission and its office in Edinburgh for the assistance provided throughout the inquiry, which went a considerable way to ensuring that we reached good conclusions.
During the weeks that we spent investigating the proposals for the future of the CFP, it became increasingly clear to us—and to me, and I am no expert on fishing—that the current system is untenable. The EU's green paper admits that the CFP
"has not delivered sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources."
That is a major regret, as the British taxpayer is contributing €1.1 billion annually towards the present policy. If the existence of such an untenable regime is not motivation enough for the member states seriously to reform how Europe deals with its fishing stocks, I do not know what is.
I am pleased to say that, throughout our deliberations, we reached a consensus on the recommendations. In general, we recognised—as my party does—that reform is necessary and that the previous policy left fishermen and communities feeling isolated from policy and decisions. We unanimously support the concept of zonal management committees. We believe that only when those who use and protect fishing grounds are empowered to manage them will the right balance between conservation and industry be struck.
Understandably, as George Lyon said, enforcement regimes have weakened the element of trust among fishing nations. I was especially pleased when some members of the committee had a chance to cross-examine the chairman of the Galician Parliament's fishing committee and ask him whether his region would be prepared for an element of cross-enforcement among member states or regions. It was refreshing that he had no problem with that. I hope that our reforms would go some way to managing that, so that we rebuild the element of trust that clearly does not exist among many member states.
The further issue of the protection of coastline and fishing limits was discussed in some depth. Although the Conservatives would have been keen to push the six and 12-mile limits out to 12 and 24 miles, we were acutely aware that what must be achievable is the maintenance of the status quo. Concerns remain following the green paper. The Commission's proposals are not clear enough about ruling out the possibility of individual transferable quotas, which pose the threat of removing the link between communities, fishing grounds and boats. As has happened in Iceland—and as my colleague Jamie McGrigor showed all too well—the ITQs can lead to the concentration of fishing rights in the hands of the very few. I urge the minister to make clear her position on ITQs and the line that she will take in Brussels.
The committee report raises the subject of technical measures. Scotland can be proud of the measures that it has taken until now, but it is of some concern that other member states and the green paper still seem to pay only lip service to them. I urge the minister and the Executive to ensure that the EU makes certain that in future the measures are introduced by all member states—I hope at the same time—throughout the fishing grounds.
As for the long term, we saw yesterday another example of the pressure that is being put on our fishing stocks. We need to clarify that the Commission's response to the reports of Franz Fischler was that those were not extra cuts in quota; they were, in effect, a reinstatement. Everyone on the committee felt that the way in which discussions on the total allowable catches are held is untenable. The annual December regime must be changed.
I urge the Executive to re-examine tie-ups if further pressures on our stock come about. Spain and Belgium still pursue tie-ups optimistically and I believe that they have a role to play. The report is clear and comes with all-party backing. I am pleased that, as a bonus, nearly all those in the industry back it, too.
I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his maiden speech. I am informed that it would be wrong and bad form to make comment on it, but I should perhaps remind him that maiden speeches are supposed not to be contentious.
If George Lyon's past precludes him from contributing to the future, the Liberal party must still be back in 1919 or in the 1970s. One cannot prevent parties from trying to contribute to the future, and I shall certainly not stop purely because of Mr Lyon.
Enlargement raises an issue. If ITQs are introduced, they could well be traded by the new member states and the larger fleets. We must consider that possibility.
The report is excellent. I hope that the Executive takes it forward and fights for Scotland's fish, Scotland's fishermen and Scotland's communities, to ensure that the CFP has a future and that we can all help to sustain our fishing industry.
I have to tell Ben Wallace that I did not find anything remotely contentious in Stewart Stevenson's speech.
I would like to crack on. Ben Wallace's speech overran by a minute and a half.
The real strength of the Scottish Parliament lies in its willingness to consult, listen, filter, absorb and then arrive at well-informed conclusions that reflect what it has heard. The committee report does just that.
Almost all the organisations that we heard from were unanimous in the view that the CFP, as it is currently constituted, does not work. There was near-total agreement on the need to retain and improve it. There was a recognition that fishing moves from one white-knuckle crisis to another with the annual fixing of TACs and that stocks were perilously low. All the organisations recognised the need to reform the system and reform some old habits.
The major part of the CFP's problem is that it has been seen as a remote imposition by scientists and politicians, who have been perceived as having no knowledge of, or interest in, fishing. It has led to the alienation of the fishing industry from the European Commission, the European Union, the UK Government and now, in part, the Scottish Executive. The annual pattern of fixing quotas in the small hours of the morning, when people's resistance is low, is no way to run the industry. A multi-annual approach is to be recommended. I suppose that that answers Tavish Scott's question and his point about Franz Fischler's sudden announcement this week.
The fishing industry now recognises that its view that there was a bottomless bank of fish resources has often been over-optimistic. I sense that not only is there more tolerance of each other between conservation experts and the fishing industry than there once was, but they are working together to the same ends—to have fishable stocks and to avoid the awesome warning of the Grand Banks fiasco of 1992. The bottom line is that there are currently too few fish to meet the catch capabilities of all who want to fish.
I will focus on zonal management committees. The Commission's green paper suggests
"participation in the pre-decision phase of CFP policy-making"
and
"establishing a network of regional advisory committees",
as well as providing advice for the Commission to consider. That seems to be underambitious and to represent a reluctance to cede power.
Zonal management without power, however limited, will atrophy, be seen to be meaningless, and continue the resentment towards the Commission that already exists in fishing communities. Zonal management committees must have as much power devolved to them as is legally possible and must include every legitimate interest. Zonal management committees with real power will make subsidiarity a reality. We must recognise that that may mean a variety of differing solutions in different parts of the EU, but it will give back some measure of ownership and control of fishing to the people who are most dependent on it. It is crucial that the UK fisheries minister be persuaded of that and do everything that can be done to attain maximum powers for ZMCs. When the debate is over, I hope he will transmit that message—and the contents of the report—as strongly as possible to the UK.
As Richard Lochhead said, it is even more crucial that the Scottish Parliament's fisheries representative heads up delegations to Europe, on the basis of the greater importance of fisheries to Scotland than to the UK. I am sure that Rhona Brankin might enjoy that personally, although politically she may be a little restricted. I seek assurances from the minister in summing up that she concurs with that and will call Elliot Morley this weekend, in time for next week's European fisheries council.
I start by welcoming the new member for Banff and Buchan to the Parliament. I look forward to many opportunities for discourse with him in debates about the fishing industry.
The European Committee's inquiry into reforming the common fisheries policy had one stated objective:
"to provide the Scottish Executive with a clear and unequivocal statement of what we regard as the optimal outcome of the negotiations with counterparts in the UK and in the EU."
I believe that the committee has achieved that objective. I thank Hugh Henry and the rest of the committee for producing a thorough and thought-provoking report.
Today's debate highlights the importance that is placed on the CFP in Scotland and further afield and the importance that is placed on Scotland's role in the review process. I have listened with interest to the points that have been raised. The view that the Parliament expresses today will assist our preparation for the fisheries council on Monday, when the Commission's green paper will be debated.
No one could dispute that, after 20 years, the CFP is confronted with major challenges and is in profound need of reform. We are all agreed on that, but I welcome the European Committee's view that the CFP needs to be reformed, not scrapped. I agree with the committee's analysis that the CFP has failed to meet all its objectives, but I emphasise—as I have done before—that the Executive is firmly committed to the continuation of the CFP beyond 2002. Although the CFP needs reform, we need a common fisheries policy.
I make no secret of the fact that we view the Commission's green paper as helpful. It has picked up many issues that are priorities for Scotland and the UK, such as the need for a more regional approach and for greater involvement of stakeholders. I will deal with that in more detail later in my speech.
The green paper reflects the hard work that we have done in putting the Scottish view forward, but much more work remains to be done. The poor state of many stocks also highlights the need to plan strategically for a long-term future for the fishing industry. As I have said throughout recent months, we must secure a better balance between fishing capacity and fish stocks. Unfortunately, not all member states share that view. We must work hard to ensure that that objective is agreed.
Does the minister agree that the remarks of Franz Fischler have underlined the fact that everything we have discussed this afternoon—I agree with much of what has been said—will be totally meaningless without a reduction in the total size and fishing capacity of the European fleet and a parallel reduction in the size of the Scottish fleet?
I agree that we need a reduction in capacity. That is important and why the Scottish Executive has produced a plan for decommissioning. As has been said already—we must keep saying it—too many boats are chasing too few fish.
On the points that have been raised by various members, including Richard Lochhead, Jamie McGrigor and Tavish Scott, we have had much debate about tie-ups in recent months and we have made our views clear. Tie-ups are one means of contributing towards reductions in fishing activity or mortality.
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
No thanks. I will finish this point, but I will give way to Stewart Stevenson later.
It is important—[Interruption.] It would be good if Richard Lochhead listened to this, because I am responding to one of the points that he made. Tie-ups fail to address the underlying structural problem of too much capacity. Franz Fischler is focused on that. We will fail to build a sustainable Scottish fleet if we disregard that problem. Tie-ups fail to address the underlying problem; that is why we are committed to taking out a proportion of the Scottish fleet.
Members will recall that when Steffen Smidt spoke to the European Committee earlier this year he said, in effect, that permanent capacity reductions were a more cost-effective approach to tackling excess fishing activity. I remain to be persuaded that the use of tie-ups is a more appropriate approach to tackling the sustainability issues that face the Scottish industry.
I am simply responding to the minister's invitation to participate fully in debate, for which I thank her. Will she make it clear whether she is now permanently closing off the idea of tie-offs? If so, she will have united the fishing industry—which I welcome—just as she worked so hard in recent months to divide it.
Well, goodness me; that is not a great surprise. Following hard on the heels of Mr Salmond, the SNP member for Banff and Buchan fails to recognise that the Scottish Executive has made the biggest ever single investment in the Scottish fishing industry in history. He is just like his colleagues. His first ever intervention in the Scottish Parliament is overwhelmingly negative. I tell him that unless we address the problem of excess capacity, the Scottish fishing industry will have no future. I would very much welcome Mr Stevenson's support for the biggest ever single investment in the Scottish fishing industry, but I fear that we will not be receiving that endorsement—what a surprise.
Will the minister give way?
Richard Lochhead must let me carry on. I have rather a lot to say, and I will be covering some of the points that he has already made in his speech. I am sure that he will welcome that.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is not taking an intervention.
We have heard the old chestnut: should not the Scottish minister lead UK delegations at EU meetings? How often do we have to go over this ground? We are part of a team in Europe. Whoever leads does so on the basis of agreed lines to take. If the particular topic for discussion refers to Scotland, of course I lead as part of the UK delegation and will continue to do so. In fact, we are very lucky. All of us—except the SNP—support the fact that we have the full weight of the UK's 10 votes behind us. That is how we ensure that Scottish priorities are properly represented in all EU discussions. I will continue to play my full part.
Richard Lochhead also suggested that zonal management committees should be set up now. At the moment, we have what could be described as zonal management in the form of our cod recovery policy. There are now regionally based decision-making bodies that are composed of fishermen, scientists, member states, officials and the EC. We can learn from the development of the cod recovery plan, which has been a positive experience in the way in which it has involved the industry. We are very much committed to such involvement.
Will the member give way?
I will continue, if I may.
I should now mention the cod recovery plan talks. Tavish Scott said that they have collapsed. In fact, they have not collapsed; they have adjourned and will reconvene next week. Tavish—and every other member—understands the complex and difficult nature of those discussions.
Will the minister give way?
Let me assure Tavish—
Give way.
Order.
Let me assure Tavish that the industry is involved in the sessions and is constantly updated by officials on any progress.
Will the minister give way?
I will continue, if I may.
Elaine Thomson's comments were well made. It is not surprising that Richard Lochhead asked her to disregard the issue of value for money, as she compared value for money between tie-ups and decommissioning. When Steffen Smidt gave evidence, he made it absolutely clear that tie-ups offer poor value for money. On that point, I agree with Elaine Thomson. Furthermore, Mr Lochhead also refuses to understand that one of the main objectives of decommissioning is to return the fleet to viability, and I very much welcome Elaine Thomson's acknowledgement of that.
I will now turn to Ben Wallace's speech. It was nice to hear that he had managed to stay awake for the debate—I promise that I will not mention that again. I have made my position on ITQs clear.
If the minister keeps on talking, I will soon be asleep again.
I have made my position on ITQs clear—did Mr Wallace hear that? I will continue to advocate relative stability and the Hague preferences; I do not support ITQs as an alternative to relative stability.
The committee offers support on a number of key issues, such as the retention of the six and 12-mile access restrictions, the Shetland box and the Hague preferences. I welcome that support.
We must also deal with the important question of governance. The Commission recognises the need for greater stakeholder involvement and less centralised management. There has been considerable support for that approach this afternoon, which will allow the CFP to be more responsive to local needs and to react more quickly and appropriately to stock crises.
The committee underlines the need for a decentralised approach based on some form of zonal or regional management committees. I support that. I am particularly keen to continue involving the fishing industry, along with scientists, managers and other relevant experts, in formulating fisheries policy.
Will the minister give way?
No.
Fishermen have a special understanding of their fisheries. The information that they provide may not always have been regarded as entirely reliable, but times and circumstances are changing.
Will the minister give way?
I must move on—I still have a lot to get through.
During my seven months as Scottish fisheries minister, I have experienced first hand negotiations where industry representatives were at the table. Their knowledge and experience greatly enhanced the process. The majority of fishermen are genuinely concerned about conservation and securing a sustainable future. I would like to take advantage of sound advice from those responsible fishermen.
The committee called for the setting up of zonal management committees and for those committees to have designated decision-making powers after an appropriate transition period. I do not have an argument with that as an ideal.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is winding up.
However, to develop a regional element to the CFP, we must bring other member states along with us. Some view proposals for any form of regional bodies—advisory or otherwise—with deep suspicion. They see them as the first steps towards national control. We must proceed with caution and pragmatism.
We need to have more openness and involvement of the stakeholders. It is crucial that fishermen and other stakeholders are at the table, actively formulating ideas and developing policy.
I know that there is great interest in the progress of decommissioning and the detail of how the Scottish scheme will operate. A great deal of preparatory work has been done. There have been initial consultations with industry and a range of issues has been considered—for example, issues relating to scheme eligibility and targeting of decommissioning funding. The dialogue continues with the industry and the other fisheries departments in the UK to ensure complementarity of approach with the English and Northern Irish schemes. We want to ensure that the Scottish scheme is effective and achieves best value for money.
Before the Parliament rises for the summer, we intend to introduce legislation. That will ensure that the legal framework is in place to allow work on implementation to continue over the summer months. Parliament will, of course, have an opportunity to debate that legislation, which will be subject to affirmative resolution.
The minister is about to close.
The committee recommended the setting up of a task force
"to develop alternative industries and training opportunities for any communities to be affected"
by decommissioning. Members will recall that in December I committed myself to
"an initiative to examine the Scottish fishing industry as a whole ... aimed at refocusing the industry and identifying the scope for restructuring that key industry."—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol 9, c 1153.]
Thus the Scottish fishing industry project was born. The project's objectives are to refocus the industry and to identify the scope for restructuring, in order to promote a competitive and sustainable fishing industry in Scotland.
The key Scottish and UK objectives for the common fisheries policy review are well represented both in the European Committee's report and in the green paper. However, there is no denying that further work must be done. I welcome the Parliament's input in helping to develop the UK position on the common fisheries policy review.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister refused to give way during much of the latter part of her speech. You then intervened and said that she did not have to give way because she was in the last minute of her speech. However, that was four minutes ago.
That is not a point of order. It is up to the speaker to decide whether they want to take interventions. The minister took interventions in the first part of her speech, but not towards the end. That is her decision.
I offer my thanks to colleagues on the committee and to the committee's staff for their hard work on the report. I also thank colleagues from all parties for their constructive contributions to this important debate. In particular, I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his maiden speech. His measured and reasonable speech was in stark contrast to what we have come to expect from the representative of Banff and Buchan. I am sure that he will be an effective advocate for fishing interests in his constituency. Many of us have always suspected that Alex Salmond is really a Brit at heart and he has now returned to the imperial Parliament.
Mr Stevenson and other members sought to reopen the rather old debate about tie-up schemes and decommissioning. I draw his attention and that of other members to the evidence that the committee took during its inquiry, which could not have been more conclusive. The evidence that we took from the director general of fisheries in the European Commission, Steffen Smidt, made it quite clear that a subsidised tie-up scheme could not be a sensible substitute for an effective and fair decommissioning programme.
It is abundantly clear that the fishing industry must change to take account of the need to sustain fish stocks. It is incumbent on the Parliament and the Scottish Executive to take the lead in considering that process of change in the context of the Commission's green paper on the future of the CFP, and I hope that the committee's report is a constructive contribution to that process. The committee strongly endorses the overwhelming case for the fundamental principle of relative stability, for the entrenchment of the six and 12-mile limits and the Hague preferences—that is our Hague, not the Tories' Hague, who is now gone—and for the retention of the Shetland box. We pay tribute to the industry and the Scottish Executive for taking the lead on the square-mesh panel technical conservation initiative. The use of more selective fishing gear is obviously an important way in which to reduce discards of immature fish. The committee also makes important points about the Scottish Executive's contribution towards enforcement.
However, the most important part of the report is its clear endorsement of the case for zonal management in the common fisheries policy. The report recommends that strategic decision-making powers should remain with the Council of Ministers, but that responsibility should be devolved to the nations that fish in zones such as the North sea and to inclusive management teams with strong input from stakeholders such as fishing interests and environmental bodies.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am already over time.
The Scottish Executive is taking the lead in negotiating the case for zonal management. Those negotiations will be difficult. I know from personal experience just how grim European fisheries council sessions can be. However, following the debate, Rhona Brankin will be able to go to Whitehall and onwards to Brussels with the unanimous support of the Parliament and the committee and the overwhelming support of fishing communities all round the coast of Scotland. We wish her well and we hope that she is successful.