Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Fisheries

Good morning. Our first item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-1548, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on fisheries, and two amendments to that motion.

This morning, Scotland's fishing industry stands on the brink of a crisis unlike anything that it has seen in living memory and possibly ever. This is a grave week for Scotland—a week when the future of hundreds of our fishermen, and thousands of others who work in the industry, is bleak indeed. Today's debate may seem to be about fish, but it is actually about the plight of people who are reliant on the fishing industry. Fishermen, fish processors and their families are the ones who will suffer.

I highlight the fact that the present situation could spell disaster for people in fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland, from Fraserburgh to Mallaig. A bleak future awaits them, with devastation for their communities—a bleak future that can be lessened only if the Scottish Executive, for once, will stand up and fight for Scottish fishermen.

Why has this situation been allowed to develop? Why should Scotland not have the clout that it deserves as the biggest player in the North sea? It is because the fishermen are not properly supported by Labour in London and—worse—are not supported by Liberals and new Labour on the Mound.

In December, MEPs from different countries were putting forward their ideas for a cod recovery plan. Everyone in fishing circles has known for at least a year that the cod stock was in a parlous state and that a cod recovery plan would almost certainly be necessary. So where was the Scottish Executive's plan? Why did the Executive not lead with a well thought out plan, which could have been submitted by the United Kingdom? By taking the lead, the Executive would have pre-empted any plan such as the current one from Franz Fischler, which will be disastrous for Scottish interests. The Executive should be leading the way and fighting Scotland's corner. The fact that it has done nothing except dawdle and procrastinate makes a mockery of devolution.

This should have been the Executive's moment to shine, showing that the Scottish Parliament really represented the interests of Scottish people. However, yet again it has let down the Parliament and the people of Scotland. No wonder there is disillusionment with our political process.

Why, during 18 years of Tory Government and more than 20 years of my lonely sojourn on the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, did Tory MEPs vote with Spain on crucial matters that were against the Scottish interest? Why did they fail to take action against Spain's flagrant rule breaking—from politically motivated poaching to the use of double holds and the marketing of illegal fish, while keeping its inspectors carefully in Madrid?

I defer to Winnie Ewing's knowledge of what happened in the past. I will say only that, today, we are talking about the present.

Why should Scotland bear all the pain when the Scottish fleet's record on conservation is the best in Europe? It is scandalous that our representatives in the Scottish Executive did not say or do anything in advance. That would have put us on the front foot instead of having to defend. The best method of defence is toujours l'attaque, but this bunch's motto is toujours les platitudes. Policies of attrition have a history of not working in Europe.

It is especially galling that Scotland's fishing fleet, the only one in Europe to have adopted conservation measures—such as square-mesh panels aimed at protecting the 1999 class of fish—should pay the biggest penalty for the failure of other Governments to persuade their fishing fleets to do the same. Has the Scottish Executive thought of making that point?

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry.

As usual, the Executive showed blinding arrogance in not consulting Scottish fishermen and their representatives—the people at the sharp end, who are capable of giving well-informed advice. As a result, we are faced with mass devastation of the Scottish fishing fleet and the communities that it sustains.

The worst element of Franz Fischler's plan is the proposed use of the 140mm mesh size in vast areas of the North sea. That would be catastrophic for fishermen who depend on haddock and other species that would not be caught in such a net. The only fish that would be caught is the cod. The plan would end up targeting the very species that it is meant to protect. We need a cod recovery plan that has a chance of working quickly.

A far better plan than the one proposed would be, first, to close all the key cod spawning areas throughout the North sea between February and April. That would maximise egg production. Secondly, juvenile fish must be protected. That could be done by making the square-mesh panel and accompanying twine size reductions mandatory in all national fleets operating bottom trawls. In addition, the current Norwegian practice known as "moving on" should be adopted, whereby vessels finding areas with heavy concentrations of juvenile fish stop fishing, move on and alert other boats to avoid the area. Thirdly, the food chain for cod and other species must be protected. That would mean a drastic cut in industrial fishing, which currently takes 1.2 million tonnes, greatly exceeding the catch required for human consumption.

At a time when conservation is so important, it seems ridiculous that the only bottom trawl fishery not to have quota cuts was the industrial fishing sector, which has the worst by-catch of juveniles of species such as haddock and cod. That fishery uses a 20mm mesh and indiscriminately catches everything in its path. The main industrial fishers are the Danes, who use gill nets and who fish 24 hours a day, catching adult fish off the Danish coast and the shelf edge. It is ludicrous that industrial fishing does not contribute more towards conservation. That is one of the first issues that must be addressed. It is absolutely essential that every country makes sacrifices and plays its part in conservation.

Other speakers today will mention decommissioning, which is obviously a vital part of any cod recovery plan. The core of the Scottish fleet and dependent fishing communities must be protected.

As we speak, the unelected bureaucrats in the European Commission are threatening to reduce our fishing fleet to a shadow of its former self. Worse, I have just received news from one of our MEPs, Struan Stevenson—who continually fights for Scottish fishing interests—that, in a debate yesterday on the future of the common fisheries policy, the southern European states united to vote against the continuation of six-mile and 12-mile limits when derogation ends in 2002. They also voted to allow equal access to the North sea, the west coast and—even worse—the conservation areas of the Shetland and Irish boxes. I put it to the Scottish minister that such a situation cannot be allowed.

We have talked about the North sea, but we must not forget the west coast fishery, part of which already comes under the Irish sea cod recovery programme. What plan does the Executive have for that area? How will it deal with pressure on the west coast if vessels divert to that area? Has it done anything to bring back the full prawn quota? Where is the solution to the scallop problem that the minister said she would give to the chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association before Christmas? It is now mid-January and nothing has happened.

Any future plan must cover the conservation of other stocks, which will be important to fishermen in the future, especially if they cannot fish for cod. I refer to the deep water species that are exploited by other fleets. Some of those species take 10 years to reach spawning maturity, but reach catchable size long before that. Obviously, if the fishery is to be sustainable, conservation measures must be implemented soon, so that those species do not go the same way as the cod.

My message is simple. By not proposing its own plan, the Scottish Executive has left the Scottish fishery in jeopardy. It got us into this mess and now it will have to get us out of it. Thousands of people will suffer if this plan goes ahead. The Executive must think of the people who will suffer, and make constructive arguments to help them.

Any solution to the problems that face the Scottish fishing industry relies on the Scottish Executive taking the lead for once and leading the United Kingdom in European Union talks at a ministerial level. A big battle looms for the Scottish fishing industry and I ask our minister for once to stand up and fight for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to take the lead in producing an appropriate cod recovery plan for presentation as a United Kingdom submission to the European Commission; believes that this failure has led to European proposals for the North Sea which would seriously disadvantage the Scottish fishing fleet; notes that the plan, unless altered, will cause tremendous economic damage to Scotland's fishing communities, and calls for an alternative plan, devised in co-operation with the Scottish fishing industry, to be promoted immediately, which will lead to the revival of fish stocks and ensure a long-term future for Scotland's fishing industry.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. Before I begin my speech, I will make a couple of comments about Mr McGrigor's rather hysterical outburst. His claim that we are not working with the Scottish fishermen is arrant nonsense. Let me read to him the comments of Hamish Morrison, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, who said:

"We have a fight on our hands but there is cause for optimism . . . I think it is very important that the country which is the biggest player in the cod fishery has, amongst its own, a common view. That must be tremendously influential."

At every stage of the game, we have worked closely with Scottish fishermen. Members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are out in Brussels now and we intend to continue to work closely with them.

Let me tell members about the state of play with the cod recovery plan. The real plan is being worked up today, as we speak, in Brussels. The Executive and the industry have agreed a joint line for those negotiations. What was discussed last December is history and is not relevant—things have moved on.

The minister says that the meetings in December are irrelevant. Can she tell us when she found out about the discussion that took place on 19 December and what involvement the industry had in that discussion?

Let me say once and for all that what came out of the discussions on 19 December was not a proposal that had been agreed for anything or by anybody, but simply a proposal to kick off discussions. It had no particular status, as we have said repeatedly. Things have moved on. If Mr Lochhead wants to play that game, that is fine, but I have better things to do.

Let me spell out exactly our line for the negotiations. We are arguing against sweeping, across-the-board measures, including the implementation of 140mm square-mesh panels across one broad area of the North sea. We have never supported that proposal.

Will the minister give way?

I am sorry, but I would like to get on with my speech.

Such a measure would unfairly penalise our white fish fishermen, who would find it hard to catch haddock and almost impossible to catch any whiting. What would make that proposal even more unacceptable is that the Scottish industry is leading the field in technical conservation measures. The industry should be rewarded for that, not punished. We want to introduce further technical conservation measures to protect juvenile fish, but we will do that as part of a longer-term strategy.

We are arguing for targeted measures, seasonal closures to protect spawning fish and the protection of Scotland's fragile rural communities. In the medium term, we are arguing for the implementation of technical conservation measures to protect juvenile fish. The rest of Europe must come into line with our forward-looking policies. In particular, the rest of Europe should adopt 90mm square-mesh panels.

It is interesting to note that what my officials are pushing for in Brussels is remarkably close to the line taken by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. That is no coincidence. While we have been working up our negotiating line over the past four months, we have been talking to the fishermen. We are still talking to the industry, which is why the joint line has evolved this week and will continue to develop today. The industry is uniquely involved in the Commission negotiations. I repeat: industry representatives are with my officials in the thick of the Commission negotiations. We are working together for a common purpose.

We cannot afford to be short-termist; we must balance long-term sustainability with short-term needs. There will be two cod recovery plans. This week, we are debating a short-term emergency Commission regulation, which will last only six months. We will focus on limited area closures during the spawning season and we are seeking to move away from the 140mm big-mesh proposal. In August, we will agree a longer-term plan in a council regulation for the next five years. The industry and the Executive agree that proposals to extend technical measures—notably the extension of the square-mesh panel regulations—and the issue of industrial fisheries are better dealt with as part of the longer-term plan.

The minister has mentioned two cod recovery plans—one that will last for six months and one that is a longer-term strategy. What will she do in the immediate future to address displacement effects resulting from the six-month plan?

Until we have the cod recovery plan in place, there is little point in my speculating about that. As I have said, when we have the cod recovery plan in place, we will consider its potential impacts. There is no question about that.

In August, we will agree a longer-term plan. We have agreed with the industry proposals to extend the technical measures.

Will the minister give way?

I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech.

Of course, some sections of the Parliament have been spinning like tops—they seem to be trying to drive a wedge between the Executive and the industry. That is playing politics with the Scottish fishing industry. Given that some members of the Scottish Parliament will be involved in an election in the next few months, that is perhaps hardly surprising. However, it is the last thing that we need at the moment. I remind the Parliament that the Executive has already fought off a Commission decision to impose a punitive days-at-sea regime as part of the cod recovery plan. We were also successful in arguing that cuts in total allowable catches for associated species, such as haddock and nephrops, should not be as great as the Commission intended.

I want to put the record straight on the latest so-called Commission proposals for a cod recovery plan. As has been said, those first came to light at an EU member states co-ordination meeting on 19 December. In fact, they do not amount to formal proposals; they were a starting point for discussions. In brief, the Commission suggested that a restricted access area should be set up, which would run from the Danish coast, through Norwegian water, across the North sea and over Shetland to the north-west of Scotland. It was suggested that only 140mm mesh nets would be allowed in that area and that the carrying of other nets would not be permitted. Under that model, fishermen would have to make a choice—fish in that area or outside it, but not both. On top of that was the rule that, once the cod quota had been exhausted, it would no longer be permissible to fish in that area for anything.

There has been a rather silly suggestion—it has been repeated today—that the Executive accepted those proposals. I say again: we did no such thing. Any such suggestion is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to see that industry leaders have gone on record to confirm that they fully accept the Executive's position. The Commission made certain suggestions and the Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—as our partners in the UK team—said that we reserved our position and were unwilling to make counter-proposals until we had the opportunity to consult the industry. That was the right course of action.

There are still some important points of detail to be sorted out, but we are working closely with the industry to achieve the best possible outcome, in terms of the benefit to cod stocks and to minimise impacts. We will strive to get the best deal available for the industry, consistent with our shared conservation objectives.

We are also making progress on the Scottish fishing industry initiative, which I announced in my December statement. That initiative will build on the work that is already well under way to develop a strategic framework for the industry. We are working with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and others to undertake a comprehensive economic assessment of the whole fishing sector and its affiliated industries. We intend to launch the initiative formally in the near future. We will draw together data and views from all stakeholders on the future structure of our fishing industry.

Yesterday, the SNP issued a press release claiming that it had "dramatic new figures". Those figures are neither dramatic nor new. To be dramatic, the figures would have to tell us something useful, which they do not. To be new, they would have to relate to more recent information than from 1997. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures for financial transfers to the marine sector show that the UK spends the same as France and more than any other EU member state, apart from Spain, which has a bigger fleet.

Scottish Executive spending on fisheries is at record levels. More than £30 million will be spent on the financial instrument for fisheries guidance over the next three years. In addition to that, we also spend in the region of £30 million per annum on research, management and enforcement in the fishing industry.

The Executive is not basing its choices on hastily put together nonsense, but on a planned approach. I remind members of the Scottish fishing industry initiative, which will look carefully at the Scottish fishing industry as a whole, in economic and social terms, and which is aimed at refocusing the industry and identifying the scope for its possible restructuring. We see a long-term future for the Scottish industry. We will be working rapidly to develop an understanding of our current circumstances and a realistic way forward for our industry. I am confident that the initiative will pave the way for changes that will ensure a healthy long-term future for our fishermen and, in turn, many rural coastal communities. That is what I want, that is what we all want and that is what we have to do for the fishing communities of Scotland.

I do not agree with the Conservative motion or the SNP amendment. The Executive has offered an amended motion.

I move amendment S1M-1548.2, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Executive, as part of the UK delegation, is currently involved in negotiations on a cod recovery plan with the European Commission, is aiming to secure the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen whilst ensuring a sustainable fishing industry, and is fully involving the industry in these discussions."

As Jamie McGrigor indicated in his opening remarks, this is an important debate. Indeed, the fact that we are having another fisheries debate so soon after the debate in December, and so early in the new year, highlights just how crucial this period is for Scotland's fishing communities.

It was completely outrageous that within days of the quota deal in December, which short-changed Scotland, European Union officials and civil servants from Scotland and the rest of the UK agreed behind closed doors in Brussels to a plan that would be utterly devastating for Scotland's fishing industry, delivering a second enormous blow to Scotland's fishing communities in as many weeks.

At no time did we agree to the plan that was put forward on 19 December. Richard Lochhead should get his facts straight.

I refer the minister to the minutes of that meeting, which perhaps she has not read. Her colleague, the Minister for Rural Development, can refer to this matter when he sums up. The minutes say:

"Member States could accept conditions indicated in (i)."

Paragraph (i)(b) refers to

"using towed gear of a high mesh size (140 mm)".

That is in black and white in the official minutes of the meeting.

The proposed plan would not have safeguarded Scotland's fishing communities or fishing stocks. It would have had an enormously disproportionate impact on Scotland's fishing communities while other nations went virtually unscathed. The Shetland and north-east of Scotland fleets in particular would have been hit hard. It was appalling, but perhaps not surprising, that the UK-led civil service team gave consent to that anti-Scottish plan. As a result, the industry has had to go into overdrive, as it is doing this week in Brussels, to change those plans, and it has been on the back foot since the talks began.

No other independent member state of the EU would have given consent to a plan that would be so devastating to its industry. If the officials in the Commission had listened to the industry, they would have learned that the proposal for 140mm square mesh was counterproductive and would lead to nothing more than a directed cod fishery. It would achieve none of the objectives and it would restrict our fleet's access to other important white fish stocks.

All our fishermen and all members of Parliament accept the need for tough measures, but those measures must be effective and must keep our industry viable. That means targeting spawning grounds and seasonal closures, which are being discussed this week in Brussels. We have to close the key spawning grounds for cod in the 10 to 12-week period to April. The grounds will have to be closed as soon as possible. That will maximise egg production and reduce mortality. Various maps show the spawning grounds, but we have to work with the industry to identify where the spawning grounds are so that what we do is effective. We have to close spawning grounds no matter where they are, be they in Scottish waters, Norwegian waters, English waters or wherever. We also have to close them at the right times.

We must close the spawning grounds to all fishing vessels, including the industrial fishery. A credible conservation policy cannot live alongside the industrial fishery. We cannot allow the valuable food supply that is so important to the regeneration of white fish stocks to be hoovered up by the industrial fishery. December's decision at the quota talks to transfer thousands of tonnes of whiting to the Danish fishery at the expense of Scotland was an enormous blow, but it rubs salt into the wound to think that our officials agreed to a plan on 19 December that again gave an exemption to the Danish industrial fishery, which runs against the interests of conservation.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

We have to increase the chances of survival for juvenile fish, which means spreading the use of the 90mm square-mesh panel. However, our fishermen cannot be the lone champions of conservation. Westminster has not even found 10 minutes to implement its side of the bargain. Only one part of the UK is showing a commitment to conservation. Our fishermen feel that their reward for adopting these innovative conservation methods is to have a threat hanging over their livelihoods. All fleets must adopt the square-mesh panel and other measures. Scotland cannot bear the pain alone; it cannot be solely responsible for the regeneration of Europe's fish stocks.

All fishermen and, importantly, all environmentalists agree with the measures that have been outlined. The challenge in the short term must be to avoid the displacement of the pressure from the cod spawning grounds to other fisheries, which could have a bad knock-on impact on the prawn fishery in particular in many of our smaller fishing communities on the west coast and elsewhere. Yes, technical measures to avoid that displacement must be implemented as soon as possible, but we also have to consider suggestions such as the funding of temporary tie-ups, which would compensate those skippers who choose to remain in port, to reduce the fishing effort in the short term.

In the longer term, we need to fund a decommissioning scheme. There is no way around that. If we have to reduce fishing effort in the longer term, we must introduce a decommissioning scheme that will allow some fishermen to leave the industry with dignity.

Today, we need the Government to deliver a vote of confidence in the industry. That means new investment. We have to deliver a vote of confidence to maintain crews in the industry, so that they do not look elsewhere for employment. We have to keep the banks on board; if they get nervous, many of our skippers will face bankruptcy. We have to announce new investment for the processing industry, which is responsible for 5,000 jobs in Grampian alone. We have to announce new investment to develop new technical measures and to fund decommissioning.

In its hour of need, the industry requires an injection of support from the Government. Other countries give their fleets generous support. In Scotland, the position is absolutely pathetic. At the moment, the Government's fisheries budget accounts for 0.035 per cent of the total budget. Fisheries account for less than 1 per cent of Ross Finnie's rural development budget. Of the £5 billion that came to Scotland as part of the comprehensive spending review for the next three years, fisheries benefited from an extra £11 million, half of which, as it turned out, was from Europe.

The new Labour Government is prepared to write a blank cheque to protect the jobs of car workers in Sunderland or Longbridge: BMW was offered £127 million to protect jobs at Longbridge and, as we speak, there is an offer on the table to give £40 million to protect jobs at the Nissan plant in Sunderland. However, fishermen who are willing to risk their lives to bring fish to the table, and who sustain an industry that employs 20,000 people in some of Scotland's more fragile communities, do not count. That must change and it must change today. If we do not deliver for our industry in its hour of need, the people of Scotland will not forgive this Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive. The SNP asks for a commitment today that the Scottish Government will deliver for our fishing industry, invest in it and save it.

I move amendment S1M-1548.1, to insert at end:

"; notes that, while other European Member States provide generous financial support for their fishing industries, Scotland's industry receives minimal support, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to announce an appropriate level of new investment in the industry given that such additional support for our fishing communities in their hour of need will ensure that they continue to make an enormous contribution to Scotland."

I am surprised by the motion in Jamie McGrigor's name, and I am even more surprised by the tone in which he got the debate going. The Conservatives should have learned by now that creating divisions at home weakens the position of the UK delegation when negotiating in Europe. In the motion, they have tried to take party political advantage of the problems facing our fishing industry.

Mr Rumbles must agree that the Scottish position could hardly be weaker. That has been brought about by the failure of the Liberal-Labour Executive to produce any form of plan in advance of the discussions.

Mr McGrigor made it clear in his speech that he has complete amnesia about the problems suffered by the fishing industry during 18 years of Conservative rule. I did not know that it was Conservative party policy to have Scotland lead the UK delegation to the European Commission. I wonder whether Mr Hague is aware of Jamie McGrigor's new policy. Is this another example of Jamie simply getting it wrong, or is it a new, UK-wide policy position by the Conservative and Unionist Party? A response on that point, perhaps? Jamie McGrigor was quick to his feet earlier; I notice that he remains in a sedentary position now. If this is a new policy by the Scottish Conservatives, they would seem to have joined the Scottish National Party in an unholy alliance and fully deserve the term that was coined for them in last week's Scotland on Sunday: the Vichy Tories. The Tories have abandoned their claim to a united front in the UK delegation to fight our fishing industry's cause.

Not all Conservatives are like Jamie McGrigor. To his credit, David Davidson has been quoted in The Press and Journal, criticising former SNP leader Alex Salmond for seeking to turn the cod recovery plan into a constitutional issue. Of course the SNP would do that—that is their raison d'être. If David Davidson and Jamie McGrigor talked together more often, perhaps they might get it right.

Another Tory, Struan Stevenson MEP, recently took a sensible line on the issue, saying that

"the fishing industry is far too important to turn into a political football."

How right he is, and how disappointing the debate has been so far, as we have seen the Tories and the SNP doing just that.

I refer to the cod recovery plan. It should be acknowledged that conservation measures are essential to the survival of fish stocks, and hence to the long-term survival of the fishing industry. The Scottish Parliament should back the line that many of our MEPs have taken, which is to reject the draft plan in its current form, as its impact on the Scottish industry would be totally unacceptable. The most important point to make is that the current difficulties are the result of the European Commission's centralist approach, which has made no provision for consultation with the industry. Any successful strategy must be developed and delivered in partnership, to achieve a situation where the industry has some sense of ownership of the strategy. First, that is realistic, because the industry has acknowledged the need for conservation measures; an example of that is the square-panel nets to reduce the catch of immature fish. Secondly, the effectiveness of any strategy will be enhanced if it becomes self-enforcing.

For many years our fishermen have not been consulted properly on various issues. There must be an attitudinal change in Europe, at the UK level and in Scotland, so that everyone works together in an automatic consultation process with our fishing industry. In my view—and that of the Scottish Liberal Democrats—nothing less will do.

In the European Parliament, Elspeth Attwooll, Scotland's Liberal Democrat MEP, has united with other MEPs to condemn the cod recovery plan proposals. Unfortunately, the UK delegation's cautious approach to the Commission's proposals must change, as a vacuum has been created that is being exploited by parties wishing to make mischief here. Is that not what we have seen so far today?

Despite Jamie McGrigor's completely off-the-wall allegation, it is clear that the Scottish Executive is opposed to the plans. The minister has made that clear today. The Scottish Executive is fighting our corner in the UK delegation very well indeed.

So far, Mr Rumbles has gone on about the close relationship in the coalition between the Liberal party and the Executive. How much influence did the Liberals have in ensuring that, before the cod recovery plan debate started, the minister had a game plan? If Mr Rumbles knows of it, will he share it with us now and tell us what the minister said to his party—or is he just fishing about in the dark as usual?

I notice that Mr Davidson is smiling. I am sure that that will be addressed by the minister in his winding-up speech.

The Liberal Democrats feel that the Scottish Executive is doing a grand job fighting our corner. I urge the fisheries ministers in Edinburgh and London jointly to state their opposition to the Commission's plans. I say to David Davidson that that is the key. I thought that the Conservative and Unionist Party was just that, but it seems to be hiding its unionist credentials, especially today. I am rather surprised by the tone that it has adopted.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I will give way to Jamie McGrigor, as I was attacking him.

This party believes in sensible devolution. We know perfectly well that the hub of the UK fishing industry is in Scotland, which is why we are saying that the Scottish Executive—and that includes the Liberal party—ought to stand up for it.

Perhaps the Conservatives could make clear their policy position in their summing-up speech. Has Jamie McGrigor just invented a new policy, off the cuff?

Will the member give way?

The member is on his last minute.

To conclude, it is essential that we back the UK delegation in taking alternative plans to the Commission. At this stage in the process it is not helpful to attack the UK negotiating machinery—as the Conservatives have done—or to engage in constitutional politics, as the SNP has done. If we are to have any hope of preventing this unfair plan—which, if enacted, would devastate Scotland's fishing fleet—we must send a clear and united message to Europe.

We move to back-bench speeches. We want to try to conclude the debate by about five minutes past 11. Seven members want to speak, including no fewer than three Ewings. If members take four minutes apiece, we will be on time.

It is always a pleasure to be able to support, from the Conservative benches, what the fisheries minister says. The first thing that she said was that she was glad that the debate is taking place. Since it is a debate in Conservative time, I am delighted to back her on that.

We have spoken in the past about where the Parliament fits into the structure and activities of the Executive. In the minds of some, it is questionable whether the debate should have taken place while negotiations are on-going in Europe. It is essential that the Parliament takes the opportunity to express its views at a time when there is still a chance to influence thinking and to contribute to the debate.

I was delighted to hear the minister explain what happened to the cod recovery plan and previous proposals, and to hear her say that there was no intention of accepting the original plan that was discussed on 19 December. Our fishermen were quick to let us know that they had no intention of approving anything in that proposal.

I am therefore delighted to hear that further negotiation is taking place. I am also pleased to hear that a two-tier plan is being developed. It is essential that the cod is protected in the short term, but also that it is protected in the long term, and I welcome the plan for a cod recovery plan with a five-year structure.

Recovery in cod alone is not enough for our industry, however. We have heard about the importance of reducing the capacity of the fleet. It is essential that, as the cod stocks recover in the North sea, the fishing industry is scaled to be appropriate to that recovery. For that reason, we must look ahead, in tune with that five-year plan, to find ways to ensure that, at the end of those five years, our industry is in the perfect position—in terms of size, capacity and the type of boats that it contains—to match its catch to the productivity of the sea.

We must work together—not through the kind of argument that we have heard so far today—to get a decommissioning scheme in place. The benefits of a decommissioning scheme are obvious, but I shall run through one or two of them. Such a scheme would give us the opportunity to tune the industry to the catch and to ensure that, at the end of the five years, the boats are the most modern, the safest and the best suited to the continuation of a successful industry. To achieve that, we need money. To get that money, we must be prepared to work together. European money is available, but, as we have heard before, the extent of European support for any decommissioning scheme will be limited—as are any match funding schemes from Europe—by the agreement that was entered into at Fontainebleau many years ago. I raise that subject specifically because I know that it will be cited to us, whether I raise it or not.

I shall close by saying something about the Fontainebleau arrangements. As a result of the Fontainebleau agreement, the additional cost of any scheme will represent only 21 per cent of the total cost, whereas 50:50 funding would be the order of the day were we not party to that agreement. I also remind members that the benefits that we have received from the Fontainebleau agreement—which the current Government continues to receive as a result of that agreement—exceed that funding by a massive proportion. It is therefore inappropriate for the Fontainebleau agreement to be used as an excuse for failure adequately to fund partly European-funded schemes that require UK money to attract that funding.

I urge the minister to make efforts, as part of a longer-term strategy, to ensure that UK money is available to attract the additional European money that may be available to match that funding, to get the recovery plan and the decommissioning scheme going hand in hand.

I, too, welcome the debate. For decades, we have spoken of crisis in the fishing industry, but there is no doubt that this is the worst. This is the bobby-dazzler crisis of them all. According to the industry, it puts half our fleet at risk. It raises bankruptcy as a reality on the near horizon of the dependent communities that I have spent decades touring and which I know intimately.

I ask the minister to reflect on the terrible confusion in this crisis. Commission experts admit that the measures that they have suggested will not work. Fischler is saying that there is no hurry and that we can wait until March or April, although the fishing industry is telling us of the imminence of the spawning season. That is an example of the serious confusion that the Scottish Executive faces when it deals with the Commission.

Mike Rumbles spoke of the need for a strong UK delegation. I have a long memory, and I was a member of the European Parliament Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee that visited Edinburgh. Mr McLeish assured us verbally—I noted his words and warned him that I was doing so—that, when the Scottish interest dominated, such as in fishing, we would take the lead in the delegations with Europe. I put that on record.

I spent 20 years on the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, which contained Labour members, Tory members and myself, but no Liberal members from the UK. My heart was broken by the way in which both Labour members and Tory members voted with Spain. Crucial matters such as the 1983 reform—which we cannot now undo—were voted for. I warned those members that they would lose their seats, and they did: the members of the Fisheries Committee who voted with Spain lost their seats to other parties, and no wonder.

My heart goes out to the minister, as she has arrived at the debate in very stormy seas. Will she please rule something in? I am asking her to rule in proper decommissioning, covering boats, quotas and licences. We do not want a repeat of the disaster when we gave all the money to Hull trawlers—a subject on which we need not dwell, but which was an example of the UK delegation not doing a very good job.

We also need zonal management—a subject that was dear to the heart of my late colleague Allan Macartney, who got zonal management agreed to unanimously in the Fisheries Committee and even got the Spaniards to vote for it—which is saying something. Will the minister tell us what she rules in and what she rules out?

Finally, I cannot understand why the UK Government and the Scottish Executive cannot simply support a ban on industrial fishing. There is not enough fish for human consumption—that is a fact. There have been inquiries galore into industrial fishing, and no one disputes that fact. Why, then, should Denmark get extra tonnage? So that there is fish soup for pigs, although there is not enough fish to go round the tables of other European countries.

The unionist parties of the three colours keep assuring the public and the fishermen that there is enough clout in being part of the UK. In the case of fishing, that is clearly not true. Big Brother keeps letting us down. In contrast, Denmark—a small country with its own Government—gets what it wants. The sooner Scotland has a Government that can give the fishermen the answers that they want, the better that will be for everyone.

The debate is badly timed: it is too late to influence discussions on a cod recovery programme and it is too early to address the actual plans. Discussion between the Commission, the Government and industry representatives is continuing as we speak, and we will not know the outcome of that until tomorrow at the earliest. The important debate on what will happen as a consequence of the finalised plans will have to take place after that. I am pleased that Rhona Brankin has been able to accept an invitation to attend the Rural Development Committee at the end of this month, and I look forward to having meaningful discussions at that time. The minister will then be better placed to describe to us how the Government can

"secure the best deal for Scottish fishermen while ensuring a sustainable fishing industry."—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol 9, c 716.]

That commitment to a sustainable Scottish fishing industry was reiterated by Ross Finnie, the Minister for Rural Development. I do not understand the confusion, concerning the way in which the Liberals and Labour are working together on that, as there is a coalition partnership within the department.

I must question why the Tories brought this ill-timed debate to the chamber today. The talk of an imminent general election makes me suspicious.

We do not choose when we are allocated non-Executive time. In December, we thought that it was appropriate—given what was going on at the time—that we used our parliamentary time to ensure that the Executive explained to Parliament exactly what has been going on and to express to the ministerial team the anxieties of our fishing communities. That is why this debate was chosen. Perhaps if people in Europe had taken a closer look and the Executive had allowed us to change the date of the debate, things might have been different. However, that is the thinking behind the debate.

The Conservative party selected the topic for discussion, but we are not able to discuss the matter with full information at the current time.

I do not deny that the initial cod recovery plan put forward by the Commission was far from satisfactory. However, it was the Commission's plan, not the Executive's or the UK Government's, and the Executive has made it quite clear that it does not accept the Commission's approach. To suggest otherwise is misleading—I think, Mr Lochhead, that I am being generous in describing it in that way.

Will the member give way?

Yes, briefly.

Will the member confirm—

Order. Only one member may stand. Dr Murray will need to sit down if she is giving way. I call Mr Lochhead.

Will the member confirm whether she has read the minutes of the meeting on 19 December—yes or no?

I am advised by the minister that the minutes are not a record of the meeting, that the Executive has not agreed the minutes and that it has made that position clear to the Commission official concerned.

As we have heard, cod stocks have been in decline for 20 years. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of UK fishing vessels declined by 29 per cent—that is 3,167 vessels. Admittedly, that decline does not equate directly to a decline in fishing effort, but Conservative members can perhaps enlighten us as to what exactly the Tory Government did during its 18 years in power to reverse that position. Mr Johnstone reminded us of one of the things that it did: Mrs Thatcher signed the Fontainebleau agreement, which is now creating problems in funding the decommissioning of vessels, although I feel strongly that that is a problem that we must face.

I am grateful to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for the briefings that they have provided to members. I was impressed by their arguments for the protection of spawning grounds through the establishment of closed areas and the extension of technical conservation measures such as the use of square-mesh panels—which, I was advised by fishermen yesterday, fat fish such as cod escape more easily than they do traditional diamond-mesh panels—and thinner twine. I was perturbed to learn from the fishermen last night that the square mesh-legislation has not yet been introduced south of the border. I hope that our Westminster colleagues will follow that up. Perhaps that is a job for Mr Salmond. It will give him something to do, given that the SNP believes that Scottish MPs should not vote at Westminster.

This is an important issue for Scotland, and for many rural communities in particular. I hope that a sensible cod recovery plan will be agreed. I note the Executive's commitment to involve the industry in all discussions. I trust that we can move forward to provide what, despite our differences, we all want—a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry.

In relation to Denmark's position and how pleased that country is, I want to tell the chamber that I read an article from the news service in Vietnam, which yesterday gaily announced that Denmark has given it £40 million to assist its fisheries. Denmark is obviously so pleased with what its Government did for its fishermen that it is giving money away to help fisheries on the other side of the world.

I want to talk about reform within the European Union and changes to the common fisheries policy. The European Committee is beginning an inquiry into the common fisheries policy and will, I hope, have some good results later in the year. I ask Mike Rumbles how he thinks that the Liberal Democrats' position, which is to give away the veto, would protect our fishermen against the ambitions of Iberia's fishermen. He talks about our being divisive in Europe; he would simply give everything away and ensure that the Spanish fishermen dictate to us.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I want to finish setting out my position.

The member mentioned me by name.

The member should sit down. We have heard enough from him.

The member is not giving way.

He is feart.

No means no. I am sure that Mike Rumbles learned that in the Army education corps or wherever.

When we come to future European negotiations, we should look at how the German Länder operate. Germany has a much better system for negotiating, which relates to its regions. Scotland House should perhaps take that as an example for the future. That would give us more clout on issues such as fishing.

EU enlargement will soon be a reality—perhaps in the next 10 years. Poland and Estonia have particularly large fleets and have made it clear that they will make full use of the FIFG to update their fleets. They will pose serious competition to our fishermen and we must ensure that our fishermen are in a position to survive those changes. However, we will not be allowed to know what those changes are, because the Foreign Office will not release the documentation that would tell us what Poland and Estonia envisage for their fishermen in negotiations. That means that Scotland cannot take a view and influence the position. However, if one goes to the applicant countries, their Governments are much more open and will happily give the details.

It is patently obvious that Ben Wallace refers to independent countries and to the secretiveness of the British state. I thank him for his earlier reference to Denmark, which, of course, makes her own decisions because she is independent.

To achieve success in negotiations, it does not matter whether a country is independent or not. Denmark has only three votes on the council, compared with Britain's 10. Independence would condemn us to being overruled at every corner by Spain, which has considerably more votes than we could ever wish for. Our view is that it is competence in negotiations that matters.

Will the member give way?

No.

Give way.

Presiding Officer, if the member has something wrong with his hearing, he should make an appointment to see the doctor. He has been told no on a considerable number of occasions.

That is enough of this military cross-talk. Let us get back to the fishing.

I have a final question on the £30 million, which the minister mentioned, that is to be awarded under the FIFG, which replaced PESCA in December 1999. Is the £30 million being used, or will it be used, to match structural funds under objective 1 and objective 3 programmes, or will it be used to access additional European money for the restructuring programme or the rebuilding and replacement programme? I hope that the FIFG money that the minister talked about is not being double-accounted in structural funds that have already been granted—it could be argued—for a very different reason. I hope that it is additional money that will be used to get extra money from the EU.

To respond to Elaine Murray's point, since the Fontainebleau agreement, and as a result of the rebate that Margaret Thatcher secured for us, we have received more than £36 billion. The amount that would be needed to decommission or replace vessels is tiny compared with that. That shows that the Fontainebleau agreement was a success, not a failure. As her Government has done nothing to apply for any of the green money, the member should withdraw her comments.

I note that the expression "political football"—in relation to fisheries policy—has cropped up from time to time during the debate. I want to make it clear that the SNP has at no stage seen the issue as a party political football. We regard fishing as a crucial industry, which is vital to the Scottish economy and to our coastal communities. All the comments that we make are directed towards ensuring the future of the industry and we will continue to direct them in that way.

To the Conservative party in particular, I say that people such as Alex Salmond, John Home Robertson, I and others who have served in the Westminster Parliament have lived through many debates in the House of Commons on the common fisheries policy. The Conservatives especially have turned the issue into a political football. Conservative MPs would suddenly discover that there was a fishing industry and they would use it to build up Euroscepticsm, rather than to argue a case for the industry. I want that on the record, because I feel very strongly about it.

Our fishing communities know that every year, major negotiations take place before Christmas. Every fisherman, every fisherman's wife, every fisherman's family and every village and community out of which the fishermen operate wait to see what there might be in their Christmas stocking, but every year it seems to become emptier. We want a long-term strategy and I wish Rhona Brankin well in that.

The debate is taking place in a vacuum, because we do not know the details of the discussions and negotiations. I understand that representations are being made by civil servants, including a civil servant from the Scottish Executive. It would be helpful if the recommendations that were made to that civil servant for the discussions were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. We would then know what recommendations were made.

I read articles such as that in today's The Press and Journal; the headline is: "Confusion reigns at fish talks". The article says:

"consider how yesterday's discussions in Brussels developed. There were so many shifts of principle, position and statement within the meeting, and the messages emerging were so garbled and contradictory that visiting media were run ragged. Many were aghast that a top-level discussion should descend into the realms of Keystone Koppery."

That is why it is vital that we know the exact nature of the Scottish Executive's negotiating position. We have a fear of coastal clearances. Many members can be emotional about the Highland clearances but, if the measures go through unamended, we will have coastal clearances.

We talk about valuable species of fish, but our fishermen are also a valuable species. We ask them to risk their lives to bring home the harvest of the sea. Will a minister tell us—I do not know whether Rhona Brankin or Ross Finnie will reply—what the Executive's long-term strategy is? Is there a commitment to maintain the fishing industry in Scotland? It is vital to our economy and I do not want anybody to stand by and watch it sink. Almost half our fleet is threatened with redundancy. I say to members of all parties that, if other industries were threatened with a 50 per cent reduction in their potential, the chamber might be busier. We have a responsibility to have regard to the impact of the problem.

I ask the minister to respond on displacement. If the closures during spawning are agreed, what will be the impact on the fisheries effort that is displaced from the closed areas? That is very important in areas such as Moray and around the north-east of Scotland.

Finally—there is so much to say and so little time to say it—I want to talk about decommissioning, which has been mentioned. If 100 to 150 vessels must be taken out of the fishing fleet—those figures are from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—what representations will Rhona Brankin make to ensure that our fishermen can leave the industry with dignity? Winnie Ewing mentioned the previous decommissioning scheme in Hull, which has left a lot of sensitive nerves exposed at Westminster.

I want to ensure that, if there is a decommissioning scheme, the Executive will match the money that is available from the European Union to ensure that our men can with dignity leave the industry to which they have committed their lives. I ask the minister to rule the decommissioning system in, please.

No member should underestimate the importance of the debate or the difficulties that face the Scottish fishing industry. The future is uncertain for our fishermen. We all knew how difficult the situation was going to be from the quota discussions, which were debated in the chamber in December.

Although the Scottish Executive must be congratulated on the efforts of our ministers in ensuring the best available deal for our fishermen in the quota discussions, no one pretends that the quotas are a good deal in respect of the impact that they will have on our fishermen. They mean that many boats will face the difficulty of not being able to land sufficient fish to meet their running costs, which is a great concern for skippers and crews.

We all understand the anger of the Scottish fishermen that the Commission has introduced the cod recovery plans without bothering to consult the industry directly. I welcome Rhona Brankin's assurances that the Scottish Executive does not support the cod recovery plan, but is in clear opposition to it. I wish that some other parties in the chamber would recognise that the Scottish Executive has not given its support to any cod recovery plan that has been produced by the Commission and that it is in active discussion with the Commission on improving the proposals and introducing alternative plans.

I hope that in summing up, the SNP will acknowledge the Scottish Executive's opposition to the proposed cod recovery plan.

Has Iain Smith read the minute?

I have read the note of the meeting. It does not indicate that the Executive supports the cod recovery plan. If any member can give me a factual statement that shows that the Executive supports the cod recovery plan that has been produced by the European Commission, they may feel free to do so. The fact is that such a statement can be found nowhere. The minister has given us assurances this morning that the Executive does not support the plan.

A Scottish Executive official was at the meeting, admittedly in a junior capacity. Page 2 of the minute states:

"Member states could accept conditions indicated in (i)."

That is about the one-net rule and 140mm mesh. Iain Smith says that he has read the minutes. Why cannot he acknowledge that that is stated on page 2?

It is not a formal minute of a meeting; it is a note from an official on that official's understanding of the meeting. The minister has indicated clearly this morning that the minute is not accurate and that it does not reflect the position of the Scottish Executive. Is Mr Salmond calling the minister a liar? Is he?

If an official who represents the Scottish Executive accepts, as the minutes indicate, the conditions in (i), is not it reasonable for members, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the SFF to conclude either that the minutes misrepresent the position of the Scottish Executive—the minister's claim—or that the officials of the Scottish Executive and its members were sleeping on the job?

Before we go back to Iain Smith, I must make two points. Iain Smith should not invite interventions from other members and interventions should be brief.

Sorry, I was not aware that I invited an intervention.

You did.

I did not invite an intervention. I asked the SNP to accept, in its summing-up speech, that Scottish ministers and the Executive do not support the cod recovery plan and never have. Our fishermen deserve better than they are getting from the SNP and the Conservatives. Our fishermen recognise that we are in a difficult situation and they recognise the efforts that the Scottish Executive is making to involve them in discussions—it is important that the Scottish Executive involves them in the discussions on producing an effective cod recovery plan.

Some issues must be addressed. Decommissioning is important, but we cannot afford a decommissioning scheme that repeats the errors of the past. The previous scheme only modernised the fleet, but did nothing to reduce its catching capacity. Closure of spawning grounds is preferred to the proposal in the cod recovery plan that there should be a blanket closure of fishing grounds.

Many other issues must be addressed. I hope that the Scottish Executive will, in discussions with the Commission and Denmark, take seriously the issue of how we address the problem of industrial fishing. We must work together on this.

The Scottish Executive must be commended for working with the fishermen in producing proposals for the discussions. We must learn from the cross-party efforts of members of the European Parliament who got together to lobby the commissioner. As a result, the commissioner has accepted that there will be proper consultation with fishermen before any emergency plan is introduced

Today, we have heard Richard Lochhead and Alex Salmond refuse to accept the fact that the Scottish Executive opposes the cod recovery plan. We have also heard Jamie McGrigor's disgraceful opening remarks, in which he accused the Scottish Executive of not even being in consultation with the SFF. The Scottish Executive is standing up for Scottish fishermen. The fishermen demand that the Scottish Parliament unite behind them. I hope that the Conservatives and SNP will consider that point and that they will unite behind Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Executive by voting for the Executive amendment.

Let us try to make progress. Every reasonable member would acknowledge that the minister is well intentioned. I hope that my remarks will invite the minister to address a number of points that have not been mentioned in the debate.

The inevitable focus on the so-called cod recovery plan—which is really a plan to terminate rather than to conserve either stocks or fishing communities—has perhaps distracted attention from the impact that the plans will have on the west coast.

Any measures will result in more fishermen leaving the North sea to fish off that coast. I invite the minister to address three questions that the Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association asked to be raised in the debate. First, are there any plans for a cod recovery plan for the west coast? Secondly, what progress has been made on the work on log book data to make the case for a minimal bycatch of cod by prawn fishermen, with a view to rolling over the reduction in the prawn quota, which many of us feel was never justified? Finally, for more than 18 months, the industry has been promised sight of a draft statutory instrument that will address technical scallop conservation measures. We have been told that the draft instrument has been held up, first by the Scottish Executive's legal department and now by MAFF. What is the current position and when will the delay end and progress be made?

The question that we face today is whether the Scottish Government wants a fishing industry in Scotland. Is there a future for fishermen in our country? I do not believe that that is putting the question too baldly, nor have I put the question that way to create a sense of false drama. It is a statement of fact. I hope that the debate will give rise to a common purpose about the need for investment. Commitment to the future of the fishing industry will be demonstrated only by a commitment to invest. In that regard, proper investment will recognise that the size of the fishing fleet in Europe and Scotland is too large for the fishing stocks. Restructuring is required and a properly funded decommissioning scheme is the only way to achieve that.

An immediate benefit of announcing such a policy would be to reassure the banks. In defence of the Royal Bank of Scotland—which has, perhaps undeservedly, experienced a hard time in the past couple of days—I should say that fishermen recognise that many banks have shown their commitment to the fishing industry by extending the period of repayment on the massive loans that are the norm for Scottish fishermen.

I also urge the minister to address seriously a question that will not go away: who speaks for Scotland? Is not there a case for decommissioning one of the three sets of civil servants with whom our fishermen must negotiate year after year? That cannot be right, as other speakers have pointed out, and it is hardly surprising that there is confusion.

Finally, perhaps the most sombre fact of all is that, although the Scottish fishing industry is like all other industries in most respects, it differs from them in one: day and daily, fishermen imperil their lives at sea. In the past four years, 43 Scottish and 103 UK lives have been lost and last year's figures demonstrate an alarming trend in which the risk is increasing. Last year, 14 lives were lost from Scottish fishing communities.

I suggest to the minister that that is happening because of the increased financial pressures that face fishermen. Many boats are going to sea—and have been going to sea in the past year—with insufficient crews because many fishermen are leaving fishing to go to the oil industry. That situation is placing many lives at risk. A decommissioning scheme would provide reassurance, commitment and confidence and I believe that all parties are united in their aim to back such a policy.

I listened with interest to Jamie McGrigor's explanation of the thinking behind bringing today's debate to the chamber. It is unfortunate that he seemed to be unaware of the fact that Scottish fishermen's representatives are—even as we speak—working together with representatives of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government in Brussels to achieve an emergency cod recovery programme that is compatible with a sustainable future for the Scottish fisheries industry.

Does not the member agree that it would have been better to have had a cod recovery programme in place, rather than waiting to discuss one now, when it is too late?

Scottish fishermen will be bemused at the suggestion that the important question about cod recovery plans is who gets in first instead of who gets it right with the support of the industry. Ministers have worked to achieve the latter—we should welcome that.

Having heard Jamie McGrigor last week denounce the principle of salmon conservation in a debate on legislation that was before the chamber, I expected the worst this morning. However, at least he did not go as far as to say that cod conservation was unnecessary. Perhaps we should welcome small mercies.

I also listened closely to Richard Lochhead's speech in support of his amendment. Although the speech started with the usual ritual glorification of civil service minutes, I should be fair and say that it largely supported the Scottish Executive's current negotiating position in Brussels. That position supports the limited-area proposition and seasonal closures to protect spawning, but it opposes the suggested requirement for 160mm mesh nets. It ensures that the map of key areas of the North sea reflects conservation needs instead of placing all the burdens of conservation on one member state. Those sensible propositions attract widespread cross-party and cross-industry support. As has been said, it is important that the common position that has been taken by the Government and the industry in the negotiations is sustained and that ministers are able to act with the support of the whole industry.

I welcome Alex Johnstone's acknowledgement of the minister's explanation of the need for a two-stage cod recovery programme. This week's negotiations centre on essential emergency measures for the short term and do not in themselves form an adequate future for the industry or a base on which we can build in the longer term. After this week's emergency measures have been agreed, it will be important to continue such a partnership approach to develop a long-term strategy.

I agree with members who said that any strategy should contain a radical reduction in industrial fishing and I welcome the minister's clear recognition of that. However, members should be aware that a closure order that covers the east coast of Scotland has already been put in place by the Executive, which has recognised the fact that industrial fishing affects white fishing and that there is a need to limit industrial fisheries to protect North sea cod.

As has been said—and as was said in the debate in December—our negotiating position in the EU in the argument with Denmark over the catch of industrial fisheries has been much assisted by the fact that we have 10 votes to Denmark's three. We must protect that position.

Margaret Ewing—who has, unfortunately, left the chamber—had some wise words about the importance of not treating the issue as a political football. We must recognise that fishermen are, like some of the fish they catch—as the SFF has pointed out—an endangered species.

Does the member agree that the Danes have done very well in the negotiations? They do much of the industrial fishing and there has been absolutely no reduction in the industrial fishing quota. Why has the Scottish Executive brought about that situation?

That is not the case. There has been a reduction in the industrial fisheries quota. As I said, a closure order on industrial fishing is in place on the east coast of Scotland.

From where I sit, the jobs of fish factory workers in Aberdeen are no more and no less important than the jobs of car workers in the north-east of England. All parties must recognise that Government has a responsibility towards people in that kind of industrial employment, which is why ministers are working actively on long-term strategies for both the fishing and fish processing industries. We must welcome such strategic approaches and the building of a strategic partnership. They deserve the chamber's support.

I start with a quotation from The Press and Journal, which members will accept is a newspaper that has a substantial interest in the fishing industry and fishing communities. This morning's editorial states:

"Events in Brussels yesterday displayed nothing so much as the fact that virtually nobody in the European Commission or the Westminster Government has a grasp of even the industry practicals, never mind the principles."

Why should The Press and Journal, leaders of the fishing industry, fishermen or fish processing workers be disillusioned by what has been happening over the past few weeks? It is because we have a cod recovery plan, which is actually a cod extermination plan. Ministers and members on the Liberal benches say that it does not really matter that that is the proposal that is on the table. However, in any negotiations, it is better not to have as a starting point an absolutely disastrous suggestion. Rhona Brankin is very upset that we have got a hold of the note of a meeting—so much for the commitment to open government—which rather weakens the negotiating position that the Commission's compromise—

Will Mr Salmond give way?

Will Mr Salmond give way?

Perhaps I should give way to the senior minister first.

With regard to the note—written by an official at the Commission—of the meeting, will Mr Salmond accept as a matter of record that officials of the Scottish Executive have intimated to the Commission that they do not accept the record that is set out in that note, in so far as it purports to suggest that there was no opposition to the plan?

Secondly, will Mr Salmond accept that that proposal was also put forward by Commissioner Fischler using his emergency powers, under which he is not required to consult, and that we therefore both agree that the position is very unsatisfactory?

I am grateful to the minister for putting that on the record. However, he will accept that the report shows that the officials who were present at that meeting indicated assent to the Commission plan. More important—perhaps this is the point that we should be worried about—the report also says that no counter-statement to the Commission compromise was offered. Even if Mr Armstrong misrepresents a meeting and sends out a note to all the people he was misrepresenting, why was no counterstatement offered? That might have shifted the negotiating position at the outset.

Fishermen are angry about that. Instead of being upset because fishermen are angry, Rhona Brankin should acknowledge that the public debate that has been generated during the past two weeks has galvanised officials and ministers, here and in London, to adopt a more sensible position. I pay tribute to the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, whose members are prepared to engage in that debate and to get politicians doing the job that they are meant to do.

I see Ross Finnie shaking his head, but I spoke to Elliot Morley on 9 January. Unusually for a UK fisheries minister, Elliot Morley knows a lot about fishing and is a very decent person. He admitted freely to me that he had no knowledge of the meeting, no knowledge of the issue and no knowledge of the minute. To his credit, he made sure that he had that knowledge by the next day. Given that UK officials are leading the delegations, does not Rhona Brankin find that slightly worrying? Perhaps she should engage in the same honest admissions as her London colleague.

That document had no official status—we did not agree to it. Alex Salmond should check with his colleagues in the SFF, which accepts unreservedly that the UK never signed up to that plan.

It remains the case that the Commission compromise that is on the table is undermining the negotiations. It is incredible that the minister does not realise that, in European negotiations, the point of initial discussion can affect the point of agreement.

The Tories have collective amnesia about what happened when they were in government. I just wish that I had had Alex Johnstone with me when I was arguing with John Selwyn Gummer about the Fontainebleau agreement and the problems that it would cause for support for the fishing industry. Under that agreement, 71 per cent of the cost of decommissioning would be borne by the UK Government. In my view, that still means that there is a 29 per cent net gain. I want Ross Finnie to acknowledge, as Rhona Brankin will not, that the level of support for our fishing communities is deplorably low.

Rhona Brankin said that there was politicking in the speeches that were being made today. I have spoken in every fisheries debate in the House of Commons since 1987 and in every fisheries debate in the Scottish Parliament, but her interest in fisheries is of somewhat more recent vintage. Those of us who are fishing MPs represent our communities in fisheries debates because we believe in the industry. Thirty-three per cent of people in my constituency work in activities that are related to fishing. I am proud to be a fishing MP and my colleagues are proud to be fishing MPs. When we debate such issues, it is because we care about our communities and about the industry.

We want, above all, to hear in Ross Finnie's closing speech an acknowledgement that we must come out of the European talks with measures that will conserve fish, rather than destroying livelihoods in our communities. We must have a plan that people can rally round and support. Even if we get such a plan, aid will still have to be provided for the fishing sector—onshore and offshore—to make that plan sustainable.

Margaret Ewing made a fundamental point about displacement on to other fisheries. The minister—less than 1 per cent of whose rural development budget is for fisheries support—must surely acknowledge that there must be a step change in aid and support for the fishing communities in their hour of need.

This is a serious issue and, by and large, it has been a serious debate. I want to state right at the outset that we are engaged in a process which, as Jamie McGrigor said, did not arise today but has been building up for some time. The Scottish Executive is negotiating with one objective in mind: to ensure that there is a future for the Scottish fishing industry. In that context, I found the opening speech from Jamie McGrigor, bearing all the hallmarks of a pall-bearer, just too much. He tried to reduce this serious debate to gloom and doom, as if the whole industry was going to collapse, when what we are actually about is seeking to negotiate a cod recovery plan that will ensure the future of the industry.

I repeat for the benefit of Richard Lochhead and Jamie McGrigor that at no point did the Scottish Executive accept the draft proposal that was put on the table by the European Commission. I emphasise that point with all the power that I have. As Rhona Brankin said just a few minutes ago, even the Scottish Fishermen's Federation accepts that the Scottish Executive never accepted that proposition and that we are trying to negotiate a cod recovery plan for the benefit of the industry.

I welcomed Margaret Ewing's speech, in which she reminded us that we should not treat the fishing industry like a political football. British members of the European Parliament have come together in a non-partisan way to recognise the importance of the industry, and that co-operation has been a model in recent days. She raised the issue of displacement, and the Executive is alert to that issue. I cannot give her a definitive policy because, of course, there is no plan. The phrase used in the chamber this morning has been the cod recovery plan, but there is no plan and there will be no plan until the conclusion of the Commission's meeting. We are certainly alert to the problems that could arise from displacement, and officials are considering how those problems could be addressed.

Winnie Ewing made a valuable point about decommissioning. Alex Johnstone should understand that decommissioning is not a question of getting to the point at which the best vessels are what is left. We must also examine capacity, and Winnie Ewing made a clear point about the need to examine capacity, quotas and licences. That is a complex matter, but it is one that will have to be addressed.

There are fishing representatives in the gallery today. Every time they come to fishing debates in the Parliament, ministers say that they cannot make commitments because there is a further set of talks round the corner. Whatever the outcome of this week's talks, action by the Executive will be needed in response. Will the minister take the opportunity today once and for all to give a fresh commitment that new money will be made available to help implement whatever measures come out of this week's talks?

I am not about to make such a commitment. When the time comes, I will be prepared to make commitments on quite specific proposals. As I was in the middle of saying, we are absolutely clear about the fact that, if we are in a situation that does not appear to have an immediate recovery point, we must examine clearly a decommissioning plan. That cannot simply be any old plan—Winnie Ewing reminded us about the problem with the Hull situation. We must consider the linkage between licences, quotas and vessels and also the condition of vessels. That is not simple, but we are not closing our mind to facing that problem.

Does the minister appreciate that, in my constituency of Banff and Buchan, one of our best white fish ports was laid up by the banks in the past few days and that one of our best fish processing factories is in administration? Richard Lochhead pointed out that support for fisheries is just less than 1 per cent of the rural affairs department's budget. Although it is soon to rise to just over 1 per cent, does the minister concede that, given the extent of the crisis, that seems a low percentage from the point of view of our fishing communities?

I understand that. I do not want to get into a debate about the difficulties of people who might be in receivership or bankruptcy, but I think that even Mr Salmond would agree that their being in that situation would not necessarily mean that they were candidates for inclusion in a decommissioning scheme. I do not know whether that is what Mr Salmond was suggesting, but he chose to mention such people. The important point is that, in the past few years, we have raised the level of expenditure that is committed. I do not rule out the provision of further finance for measures that will emerge from the cod recovery plan or the longer-term plan—we must remember that we are talking about a short-term measure and that the longer-term measure is probably just as important.

I say to Winnie Ewing that one should be careful about saying that one wants absolutely to rule out industrial fishing. She might like to have a discussion with the fishermen in Shetland who know quite a bit about industrial fishing. The absolute ruling out of industrial fishing is something that we might not want to pursue.

The important point is that the Executive is trying to ensure that the short-term plan meets Scottish requirements. More important, we have to continue to work with the Scottish fishing industry to ensure that the longer-term plan also meets the requirements of the industry. We are quite clear that we have to agree the technical measures that are required to deal with the long term.

I repeat—and this is the commitment of the Executive—that our objective in the negotiations on the short-term and long-term measures is to ensure a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry. I urge members to accept our amendment and to reject the Conservative motion and the SNP amendment.

This has been an important day. I welcome the little bits of clarity that we have had. As Alex Salmond rightly said, there was total confusion in the country and people did not know what was going on. I do not dispute the fact that the Executive has been heavily involved with the fishermen recently, but I must point out that people saw the crisis coming for a long time. Mr Salmond obviously backs the Conservatives' notion that, when one goes to a negotiation, one should have a game plan worked out and a position from which one would have to be displaced; one should enter into the negotiation with conviction. That said, I welcome Richard Lochhead's opening comments.

In view of the spirit that I think is evolving in the debate, we accept the SNP amendment, which expresses support for our motion. We do so not to score brownie points but to show Scotland's fishermen that there are areas of agreement and that we recognise the problems. Recognising the problem is only one part of the solution, however.

I welcome the fact that Ross Finnie spoke about some of the definitions relating to displacement issues. I realise that I am not allowed to ask the minister to intervene, but it would be helpful if he could place on record today a definition of the limited spawning ground closure areas that Rhona Brankin mentioned. That might aid understanding.

We have covered many items today. It is obvious that the proposed total ban is neither practical nor sustainable and that we have to deal with spawning ground closure in the period that has been recommended. We have to deal with juvenile escape and technical measures. We must ensure that the Executive gets across to the UK Government the fact that measures must be applied across the UK and that we need to sell the measures to our colleagues who share the fishing grounds with us. It is unfair to have the Scottish fishermen giving up a lot and investing a lot to get far ahead on a measure and not to have support for that across the fisheries. I recommend the Norwegian move-on policy, which would involve our scientists and protection services in ensuring that we could look after our stocks—fish do not stand still and stay within a little box that someone has drawn on a map. We must be aware that we need to have more flexible management.

On the issue of industrial fishing, the protection of the food chain is vital. There are no ifs and buts about that. If that means that a few of our boats have some difficulty in order to ensure the preservation of the industry in the long term, it is incumbent on the Executive to assist those people, as Margaret Ewing said, and ensure that they keep their dignity. We have to manage that sensitively. In the previous debate, I also called for sensitivity. We sent the minister off the last time around with the support of the chamber. However, we are now in another round and we want to send the minister away today with a clearly focused idea of what we think he needs to do. I am sure that the fisheries organisations have also made their views clear.

Although there has been today a lot of talk about what would be ruled in, most of the talk has been about what would be ruled out. It would be helpful and would give confidence to fishing people if the Executive could make it clear what type of support—not necessarily what amount of support—will be ruled in.

I see that Mr Rumbles has deigned to join us again. In answer to his question about a new policy coming from the Conservatives, I instruct him to read our proposal this morning. It talks about a United Kingdom submission and suggests that Scotland should go as part of a UK delegation. The interesting point is that some of us have said that, because the hub of fishing is in the north-east of Scotland and the rural affairs department and the fishermen are streets ahead of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in terms of their thinking on issues of sustainability, it might be helpful if the MAFF offices or officials were located closer to what is going on.

That remark about my deigning to return to the chamber was strange as I missed only one of the speeches this morning.

Mr Davidson's approach is also strange as his party's fisheries spokesman, Mr McGrigor, talked about how well Denmark does despite having three votes in the negotiations to the UK's 10; he seemed to suggest that we would be better off if we had our own votes. He seemed to be taking a nationalist position, and I cannot understand why.

I am sorry, but I am trying to wind up the debate at this point.

The crux of the matter is that the fishing communities—and we should bear in mind the accepted fact that there are up to six or seven jobs behind every man who risks his life at sea—are in deep trouble. I welcome the minister's comments about a plan. Presumably that is why Wendy Alexander, in agreeing to meet me to discuss the problems of those communities, has held off a little. I look forward to the meeting with her.

On the issue of the possibility of Scotland taking the lead in the delegation, under the Conservative party's proposals, if the Scottish department were supporting the use of the square-mesh panel and the English department were not, would we have the square-mesh panel?

The sensible point is that any sustainable measures should be carried out across the UK fleet. It is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that it wins the case by using scientific evidence and by having the fishing organisations on its side. That is what we need of the minister. There is no dispute about the issue that Mr Salmond raises.

I welcome comments that have been made about the involvement of the fishermen and the scientists. However, if we are to have a sustainable fishery, we cannot think only about closing spawning grounds. What is needed is a longer-term restructuring of the fleet and attention to safety in that process.

We must ensure that the quotas that are currently held, and perhaps sold on, by somebody who has decommissioned a boat are maintained in the regions where they were originally owned. There will be tremendous pressure from the nations that will be coming into the European Union to try to buy those quotas. We must look after Scotland's fishery, which is what this morning's debate is about. The quotas should be maintained in Scotland, even if at a reduced level. We must ensure that our fishermen have a future, and that the people of our fishing communities have a life to look forward to.