Fishing
The next item of business is—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Is it germane to the debate?
Yes. Presiding Officer, this is a serious point of order, and it is in respect of your duties under the Scotland Act 1998 to define the difference between what is and is not devolved. In this case, it is in respect of representation of the Scottish Executive at the Council of Ministers in Europe.
I ask for clarification from the chair in respect of the application of article 146 of the Maastricht treaty, which defines representation at the Council of Ministers as consisting
"of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State."
Yesterday, we heard that Ross Finnie said he sometimes could and sometimes would not lead the delegation to Europe. Last night, we heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the English department—said that only a UK minister can lead the delegation; a position that was repeated on radio this morning by Mr Finnie. How can that be the position, given Mr Finnie's colleague Mr Jim Wallace's reply to me on 10 September to a parliamentary question? In that question, I asked
"the Scottish Executive at which European Council meetings its ministers have led the UK delegation"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 10 September 2002; p 1519.]
in terms of article 146. According to the Executive, it has led, under the terms of that article, three times. Who is right—Mr Wallace, who says we can lead, or Mr Finnie and the English department, who say we cannot?
Thank you. I may say that comments in my ear from members do not help in such situations.
We went round this mulberry tree in Aberdeen. I refer Mr Neil to the definitive answer that the First Minister gave there on 30 May, which is at column 12489 of the Official Report. Any unintentional misleading of the Parliament by ministers is primarily a matter not for the chair, but for the First Minister, as the ministerial code of conduct outlines.
Mr Neil talked about article 146 of the Maastricht treaty. I am not in the habit of carrying that treaty and its explanatory notes around with me, so I will look at that and return to Mr Neil. I suggest that we proceed with the debate.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr McConnell made his reply in Aberdeen after he apparently misled the chamber and had to explain himself as a result of a question from my colleague, Dr Ewing. He distinguished leading the UK delegation from leading discussions on a topic. My question relates to leading the UK delegation and is a simple constitutional question on which we need a ruling. Can a minister in the Scottish Executive lead the delegation to the Council of Ministers of the European Union? According to Mr Wallace, a minister can; but according to Mr Finnie, a minister cannot.
As I said, that is a matter not for the chair, but for the First Minister and the Executive. All I can do from the chair is refer Mr Neil to the long and substantial answer the First Minister gave in Aberdeen on 30 May. That is my position. I suggest that we get on with the debate.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Is it on the same point?
No. My point of order is about behaviour in the chamber. Do not our procedures say that only one person should stand in the chamber at any time? The former fisheries minister's lack of respect for members who are raising points of order is grossly discourteous to the chamber.
I advise all members that their behaviour is expected to be courteous and respectful throughout our proceedings.
This week, Scotland's fishing communities were left reeling from yet another blow dealt by the bureaucrats in Europe and by Government offices in Scotland and London. Although many stocks continue to thrive in Scottish fishing grounds, the valuable white-fish sector faces several weeks of unprecedented anxiety in the run-up to December's quota negotiations. The fishing industry was warned this month that all Scotland's white-fish grounds may have to close in eight weeks' time to protect cod. If ever there was a perfect example of why the common fisheries policy and the management regime are not working, that is it.
It is a disgrace for Franz Fischler of the European Commission to blame Scotland's fishing communities for the current state of affairs when he, his officials and their predecessors have over the past 20 years created the mess in which we now find ourselves. He is the Commission official who recently betrayed Scotland over its deepwater fishery. When he ignored the science and handed a victory to France, Scotland lost.
Last year, politicians in the Executive and in London helped to sow the seeds of today's crisis by ruling out tie-up schemes as a conservation method. Their refusal to support the fishing industry's voluntary tie-up last year and their defiance of democracy after the Parliament supported the industry's dignified protest have come back to haunt them. We are again steeped in crisis management and trying to deflect knee-jerk and panic policies from officials and scientists.
A blanket closure or anything remotely like it would destroy many fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Overnight, it would throw tens of thousands of hard-working individuals out of a job and end a way of life that has survived since time immemorial. If a closure took place, Scotland's waters would be brimming with fish in a matter of years, but no industry would be left in Scotland to take advantage of that. Fishermen from other EU member states who have feasted their eyes on Scottish fish stocks for years must be rubbing their hands in glee.
How on earth can any scientist or bureaucrat tell a prawn fisherman in Pittenweem, Eyemouth, Mallaig or Fraserburgh whose cod bycatch is virtually zero that he cannot go to sea because we want to protect cod? The news that fishermen expected was that nephrop quotas would increase, not be stopped. How can we tell fishermen in Peterhead, Aberdeen, Shetland or any of the islands who target haddock or whiting that they cannot return to sea in eight weeks' time? How can we tell the thousands of workers in fish processing factories throughout the nation that factories will have no deliveries of haddock or prawns because cod stocks are low? If severe restrictions were imposed, even the Arbroath smokie would become a thing of the past. Let us think about the impact on employment at our ports and harbours around Scotland, which ranges from people who work there down to the local newsagent or cafe at the quayside. It would be lunacy to close all or a large section of Scotland's fishing grounds to respond to difficulties with one species.
There is no doubt that the science is worrying. If cod stocks are in danger of extinction and can be saved, fishermen—more than anyone—will want to save them. The industry is keen to support any proven and effective steps to achieve that. Members are not fisheries scientists, but we do and should respect their work. However, even scientists get matters wrong or their work can be incomplete. Most important, the existing science must be put into context. Even the scientists say that the current advice has a 40 per cent margin of error.
Given his condemnation of the European Union, why does Mr Lochhead's party support extended membership of the EU? Does he acknowledge that southern European states, perhaps with the added voices of eastern European states, will make the common fisheries policy situation worse?
I am happy to tell Phil Gallie that one reason for the industry's state today is that it was misrepresented by 18 years of Tory government.
The most striking aspect of the scientific advice is that it is not up to date. It is galling for fishermen to know that they have bent over backwards in recent years to adopt new technical measures such as a bigger mesh size and new panels. The industry has undergone the pain of a decommissioning scheme only to find more bad news on the horizon that is based on a scientific analysis that takes little or virtually no account of its sacrifices.
The Scots industry has been at the forefront of white-fish conservation in Europe. It even fishes in the North sea alongside other vessels that use smaller mesh. Is it any wonder that the industry is angry and frustrated? The fact that 100 boats were decommissioned in the past year has not been taken into account. One hundred and seventy boats were decommissioned throughout the UK. Even Denmark decommissioned 70 cod catchers, but none of that was taken into account in connection with the North sea.
The scientists' advice is that the implementation and enforcement of these measures has not yet been evaluated. The haddock and whiting advice is that
"Several technical conservation measures have been or will be implemented from 2000 onwards ... No complete evaluation of their likely impacts has yet been undertaken".
Mr Lochhead is right to outline the many initiatives that the industry has undertaken, but I am becoming a little confused by his line. Is he saying that nothing more needs to be done?
I am not saying that. I am about to deal with that issue.
The measures that are in place are working. That is shown by the fishing fleet's statistics that only 49 per cent of the haddock quota and 34 per cent of the whiting quota have been caught this year. The technical measures are working and the scientists should take them into account. Last year's cod total allowable catch was even increased, yet this year complete closure is proposed.
The scientists' advice is that in recent years, the growth rate of North sea cod has declined. The reasons are not known. The scientists and the decision makers in Europe must take all the other factors into account, such as climate change and warmer waters, and the distribution of the food supply in the North sea.
A couple of days ago, I spoke to the scientists who take the decisions. They told me that they undertake much scientific analysis of cod stocks, but little on the location of the cod stocks' food supply. No correlation is made between the location of cod and their food stocks. That is ludicrous. Scotland's fishing industry depends on the outcome of the work of the 300 scientists who work for Fisheries Research Services, only a handful of whom are working on the future of fish stocks. That has to change.
Industrial fishing impacts on bycatches as well as on the food supply. When will the European Union and the Scottish ministers get round to tackling industrial fishings? The quotas for sand eels, Norwegian pout and sprats have either been static in recent years or have increased, yet this year, as a result of scientific advice, the industrial fishing sector is still in line to get hundreds of thousands of tonnes. Why are the European Commission and the politicians threatening the livelihoods of our fishermen and making them jump through hoops when white fish is being caught as a bycatch by the massive fishery that takes valuable white fish and turns it into pig feed?
Surely priority should be given to human consumption. We need ministers who will turn their warm words into action over the industrial fisheries. This has been a huge issue in the Scottish Parliament for more than three and a half years, yet ministers have achieved virtually nothing.
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I have given way twice already.
I want to turn to the fishermen's role in pursuit of their own livelihoods. The science has to be reinforced by the experience and knowledge of the fishermen. They spend more time at sea than anyone else; and they are at sea for longer periods of time than anyone else: they do not simply go out to sea now and again to take samples.
Yesterday, in a joint initiative between the fishermen and the scientists, the industry published the "North Sea Stocks Survey". It reveals that there is no case for massive conservation measures to protect cod. We have to take that finding into account, as fishermen have been utterly ignored so far in terms of the management of their own livelihoods.
The report of the £1 million project that was funded by the Executive last year is still at the printers. That means that it has not been taken into account. We should be seconding fisheries representatives to join the United Kingdom delegation in Europe. That would ensure that Ross Finnie and his counterparts get decent advice for once.
We have to take new funding initiatives. The minister has to clarify today—because he said no yesterday—that European funding is available to help our fishing industry. Is the minister and the Scottish Executive going to access that funding?
I have two final points about the minister's tactics for saving Scotland's fishing industry. First, he has to get going around Europe. He has to start speaking to other fisheries ministers. He should convene a meeting of those ministers in Scotland, which is Europe's most fisheries-dependent nation. He should start to build alliances in northern Europe to save the future of our fishing industry.
The minister's best tactic and the one that would boost the fishing industry's morale would be to seek designation officially to lead the UK delegation at the fisheries council. Yesterday, the minister admitted that Scotland represents more than 70 per cent of the UK industry.
The member has one minute.
We know that Ross Finnie likes to give the impression that he leads the negotiations in Europe. Being in the room to mutter the occasional word is one thing, but commanding the torch of authority as the UK's official representative is another thing completely and that is what Scotland and Scotland's fishing industry demand. There is not one fisherman in the whole of Scotland who does not think that Ross Finnie should lead the negotiations.
Yesterday, Ross Finnie misled the Parliament when he said that he may lead the negotiations or that he has led the negotiations from time to time. We also heard Whitehall briefing yesterday—that in no circumstances will Scotland lead the negotiations.
The member should wind up.
I will conclude by saying that this is not the first time a Liberal has been hung out to dry by Labour. It usually happens in Scotland, but it seems that this time it is happening in London. Ross Finnie is busy telling the Scottish Parliament that he intends to lead, but Whitehall is briefing behind his back. There is no way that Labour ministers in London will let a Liberal minister lead the negotiations. Yet we know what can happen: parliamentary answers have indicated that Scotland has led on education and health at the Council of Ministers, but not on fishing—an industry in which Scotland has a predominant national interest. That is a scandal and the minister has to address it. The minister has to show leadership, determination and political will—
The member must close.
He has to do that by demanding to lead the negotiations and by fighting for Scotland's future.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that sustainable fisheries are essential for the well-being of our fishing communities but rejects any advice to close Scotland's mixed fishery as part of a cod recovery plan given the devastating and unjustifiable impact that such a measure would have on our fishing communities and associated sectors; calls on the Scottish Executive to work in partnership with the fishing industry with a view to drawing up proposals for the future management of all fish stocks; notes that technical conservation measures and the recent decommissioning scheme have not been fully taken into account; further notes that other states that fish Scottish waters, or impact on local stocks, have a duty to adopt similar measures including a reduction in the industrial fishery, and believes that any further measures, for which the necessary funding should be made available, should be delayed given that they would be most effectively generated through the new mechanisms proposed as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy that will be adopted in a matter of weeks and that Scotland should seek to officially lead the UK delegation during forthcoming European negotiations on which the future of the fishing industry depends.
I usually give time when members take interventions. That applies to all speakers in the debate.
For a substantial part of that speech, I thought we were making progress: it seemed that Richard Lochhead had listened carefully to the statement I made yesterday. I thought that I could see an indication that the Scottish National Party was beginning to understand what the debate is all about—that it is all about saving fisheries. Sadly, in the closing stages of his speech, we returned to arguments about semantics. We returned to dancing on the head of a pin.
I want to be clear about the question Richard Lochhead asked me yesterday, about whether we could lead the UK delegation
"at the forthcoming European negotiations".—[Official Report, 30 October 2002, c 14710.]
I want to explain, for the benefit of members, that it is at the Council of Ministers that a substantial element of those negotiations takes place. Only one person speaks for the United Kingdom on any agenda item. I repeat—one person. Even if there is a debate with interventions and the United Kingdom returns to the debate, the person who led the discussion—
No.
It is that person who leads for the United Kingdom in the subsequent discussion. I want to be clear that the position that was put by the secretary of state last night was that the Scottish ministers can and do speak for the United Kingdom at fisheries councils and at meetings—in agreement with UK colleagues—and that Ross Finnie will certainly do so. I have to say to SNP members that if I am speaking for the United Kingdom, I am leading for the United Kingdom on that agenda item.
No. [Interruption.]
Order.
Richard Lochhead can dance on the head of a pin if he wants to. He can say that the person who is technically the head of the delegation is sitting in the room, but they are not speaking in the negotiations. It is quite demonstrable who is leading on the negotiations and who is leading in the constitutional sense. The SNP's constitutional dancing on the head of a pin is a most regrettable distraction from the fundamental issue before us, which is the future of the Scottish fishing industry.
No. [Interruption.]
Order.
I am not going to devote even more time to this dancing on the head of a pin. I want to return to the essential issue that is before us, which is the question of our fisheries.
It is quite clear—indeed we are in the grounds of repeating where we were yesterday—that we all acknowledge that it is politically unacceptable and economically unacceptable for us to be contemplating the closure of our white-fish fisheries. I said that yesterday and I repeat it today. I welcome the agreement of the Scottish National Party and its support for that position. I also welcome the recognition of the fact that we have the support of those who catch haddock and whiting and those in the fish processing sector and the ports and harbours.
I welcome the fact that the SNP is not saying that the science can be ignored.
Will the minister confirm that he includes prawn fisheries in his comments, in addition to the white-fish fisheries?
I made it absolutely clear yesterday that that is ludicrous. I am sure that I am quoting myself when I say that it is ludicrous to contemplate the closure of a nephrops fishery when we advanced evidence to the European Commission last year that made it clear that the way we fish for nephrops does not result in material bycatches.
Will the minister give way?
No.
We have to examine the scientific evidence on the basis of two factors. We have to examine the trends over a period of time and the scientific advice. I said that yesterday. The scientists' advice is given as the view of scientists of how we might reach a reversal of the decline of fish stocks. However I consider the more important issue for us in Scotland and for our fishermen to be the trends that are revealed by the scientific evidence.
I made it clear yesterday that if the scientists' evidence is to be considered fully, one needs to take all the information that we have and that which will be presented by the Scottish fishermen. We have to move forward on the basis of both those pieces of evidence to construct an alternative proposal. We have to do away with the ludicrous notion that the fisheries are going to be closed.
Will the minister clarify what will happen if the European Commission's negotiations with Norway, which are to begin shortly, take a position that is unacceptable to the minister and the Scottish fishing industry? Those negotiations will happen before the Council of Ministers has had any discussions on the issue.
Given the circumstances that we are in, that issue becomes more important. Historically, negotiations have always been conducted at Commission and official level. I can answer Mr Scott's question directly by saying that that situation could delay the process. So much has never been at stake before, and the fact that the negotiations between the EU and Norway have to come back to the Council of Ministers makes the prospect of a serious refusal by ministers likely or possible if the matter is simply ceded by ministers who are not prepared to accept the outcome. After all, any outcome has to be endorsed by the Council of Ministers. As a result, the Commission is not going into discussions with an entirely open hand; any result has to be confirmed by the Council.
I am glad that Richard Lochhead agrees that although certain issues need further confirmation and more information, allowing for possible pluses and minuses within the science, we cannot ignore the long-term trend when considering any proposals. We must take such a trend into account if we are serious about putting the fishing industry on a long-term footing and ensuring that whatever decision we take today does not come back and bite us in four or five years' time and cause a crisis.
The minister has alluded to whatever we do in future, which clearly refers to new technical measures that might require funding and investment in the industry to secure its future. However, he told Mike Rumbles yesterday that European cash would not be available for such measures. Will the minister confirm that, for the coming year, Europe has set aside hundreds of millions in cash under the new common fisheries policy for this very purpose? Is it not his opinion that Westminster will block Scotland's fishing industry from accessing that cash, which will go to other member states instead?
It is very unfortunate and a matter of great regret that, in the current negotiations, the southern states are still holding out and saying that any funding allocations should go substantially to new build. I completely oppose that position. Although a substantial number of member states are prepared to change that stance, we do not yet have a majority and the issue is still a very fraught part of the CFP.
Yesterday, the Executive set out the fundamental task, which is to work hand in glove with the Scottish fishermen to find out whether we can put together a credible alternative that takes account of the drift in science and all the evidence that the fishermen have produced. Our job is to find such a proposal that respects the whole issue of sustainability and fundamentally ensures that we have a sustainable Scottish fishing industry.
I move amendment S1M-3511.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:
"rejects the wholesale closure of Scottish fishing grounds as politically unacceptable and economically ruinous for Scotland's fishing communities; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive is working in close collaboration with the Scottish fishing industry to identify alternative approaches, and urges all concerned to pursue a longer-term strategy that will reverse the historic decline in key fish stocks and secure a sustainable basis for our fisheries-dependent communities."
The loss of 20,000 jobs would be bad enough in the UK, but for Scotland, and particularly the north-east, job losses on such a scale would be nothing short of calamitous. Although it seems extraordinary that the Scottish fishing industry could ever face such a situation, the possibility is staring us in the face. The Conservative party will never agree to a wholesale closure of Scottish fishing.
Although Herr Fischler might be flying the flag of fishery closures to achieve his aim of a draconian, one-size-fits-all effort limitation as part 3 of the cod recovery plan, someone should tell him that he should not play politics with people's lives and livelihoods. His only contribution to fisheries as a footnote to agriculture is his famous cod recovery plan, which he is determined to implement fully. Indeed, he has based his reputation on it. However, if the cost of his reputation means the destruction of the Scottish fishing industry, he must have another think. It is not his, but Scotland's, industry we are talking about. In whose interest is the EU managing our seas?
The blow comes on the back of the Commission's about-face over deepwater species, which has left Scottish fishermen with hardly any quota at all for such species. It is a scandal.
Will the member give way?
Not now.
Yesterday, Alex Smith, the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, told us that it was unusual that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea should have to break the bad news and to browbeat our fishing industry on behalf of the Commission. Usually, the Commission would do that itself. However, we now have a situation in which the managers are hiding behind the scientists and are at the same time blaming the work force.
It is logical to ask any manager who is going down that road what they have done to improve the situation. Hamish Morrison, the secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, says that it is a management failure of cataclysmic proportions. In any other industry, the management would face the sack. P45s would be showering down, but who sacks Brussels bureaucrats? Who is in charge of this sorry show?
It is unbelievable that Scottish fishermen, who to the detriment of their own incomes have done more to adopt conservation measures than any other fleet in Europe, should be blamed for the decrease in cod stocks and penalised by not being allowed to fish for haddock, which, barring prawns, is by far the most important fish to the industry. The fishermen, who know the waters, have been saying for a long time that the rise in sea temperature, the north Atlantic drift and industrial pollution are the main reasons why cod have moved further north. Cod do not like warm water or pollution from major European river systems such as the Ruhr and the Rhine.
Last year, 700,000 tonnes of cod were caught in the north-east Atlantic. That is hardly an indication of a species in decline. There are plenty of cod around the Faeroes and Iceland. Added to that is the fact that seals take at least as much fish as our fishermen, seabirds take twice as much, cetaceans take four times as much and other fish 200 times the quantity. No one is suggesting the mass destruction of any of those creatures, so why destroy the people in the Scottish fishing industry?
There is no reason to throw 20,000 Scottish and United Kingdom fishery workers on the dole to stop the migration of cod northwards. All that will happen is that Britain will have to rely on fish imports to feed its people, thus enriching other nations at the expense of British jobs. I have never suggested that the UK should leave the EU. I am suggesting that management and control of fishery management should be repatriated to a local level. That falls in line with the concept of subsidiarity, which itself is European.
The proposition that national and local control will provide sustainability makes sound sense to me. People will want their fishery to survive for future generations. The present system of collective harvesting of a common resource simply does not provide conservation or protection for fish stocks. The CFP has not worked. It has been a failure for all Europe. We have a responsibility to protect Scottish and UK waters, which should be the richest in Europe, from being decimated by management tools that have not worked and do not work. Our fishing industry needs strong local management of its different regions based on fisheries knowledge and good science. It should not be a political parcel to be opened at random.
Above all, the industry needs powerful leadership from our politicians. Mr Finnie says that he wants to lead the UK delegation, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that he cannot. That is a pathetic and confusing situation. What matters is that our fishing industry gets a fair deal. If they cannot decide between them who leads, we have a secretary of state with time on her hands, so why can she not help? We have a British Prime Minister who spends most of his time abroad, so can he not do something on behalf of the fishing industry? It has never been more important that our Government representatives stand up for Scottish fishing. They must be seen and heard to do so now.
I move amendment S1M-3511.1, to leave out from "and believes" to end and insert:
"regrets that this latest crisis comes on the back of the announcement that Scotland is to receive only 2% of the total allowable catch for deep water species on the west coast of Scotland, and believes that we need to restore national and local control and management of our waters to ensure sensible conservation measures and to protect the interests of Scotland's fishermen."
It appears that every year about this time we debate another crisis in the fishing industry. Last year, we took drastic action—a ban on cod fishing for a period of time and a decommissioning scheme—to reduce permanently our fishing effort. Those actions were unpopular and met resistance from Opposition parties, who said that a tie-up programme would have been better. The money invested in decommissioning would have had no long-term effects, and any benefits would have now passed. The reduction in effort would not have been a bargaining tool that we can now use in negotiations.
Will the member give way?
No.
It is surprising, therefore, that those parties cry that the Commission has not taken into account the effects of the decommissioning scheme. I agree that the Commission must take that scheme into account, but it is a bit rich for the nationalists to push that line when, if they had had their way, there would have been no decommissioning scheme.
The crucial point is that the Commission is basing its argument on the wrong starting point. Scotland has already accepted that there is a problem with cod stocks and put measures in place to ensure that the industry has a future. Those measures include a reduction in effort by 10 per cent due to decommissioning and a short-term ban to allow stocks to regenerate. The fact that those measures have not even been taken into account will undoubtedly lead many people to believe that Franz Fischler's proposals are not based on reality. That causes frustration for those people who took and implemented some tough decisions.
I was particularly struck by what Franz Fischler said in a press statement. He said:
"it was particularly galling after repeatedly warning of the dire consequences of inaction, to see our worst fears realised."
Then he said:
"in the absence of effective conservation and control measures these stocks are being persistently over fished."
I hope that he was not speaking about Scotland because cod stocks increased in 2001 and 2002. I recognise that overall trends are alarming, but I hope that that increase is an indication that our action is working. It shows that if there was a time when the closure proposal should have been introduced and would have made sense, it was last year and not this year. If the proposals are based on science, why were they not proposed last year? There can be no doubt that if those proposals go ahead and the closure of the Scottish trawl fishery takes place, it will leave fishermen, their families and their communities in an impossible economic situation.
If the closure had an effect on cod stocks and the ban was lifted, does anyone think that the Scottish fishing industry would be there to take up the challenge? Closure would have forced the fishermen out of the industry. As the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has warned, the infrastructure simply would not be there.
However, we cannot afford to be complacent. As a result of the negotiations, it is expected that different sides will take up different bargaining positions. It is important that the fishing industry and the minister work together closely to identify additional measures to avoid the wholesale closure of fishing in the North sea.
Yesterday, I mentioned the importance of technical measures that have been put in place, including increased mesh sizes. I hope that the minister will impress on his European colleagues the need for the rest of Europe to come up to Scotland's high standards on mesh sizes.
We must consider further technical measures, such as separation panels, that can cut cod mortality by 90 per cent. We must examine the local management of fisheries, involving people in all sectors of the industry and also in communities.
No one wants the destruction of the industry, either through total closure or through the collapse of cod stocks. People who make their living from fisheries have most to lose from the collapse of those stocks. Therefore, it follows that they should be at the forefront of conservation. They have led the way and I hope that they continue to do so. However, the European Union must follow—fish do not respect boundaries. We must all sign up to the technical measures that our industry has put in place.
Another aspect of the debacle is how the Commission takes decisions on such important issues. Every year, the cry for major cuts comes out of the blue and every country takes up negotiating positions. The tight time scale allows for little meaningful discussion to take place. That must change. We need continuing dialogue, the exchange of best practice, an evolving policy and not just a knee-jerk reaction followed by a lot of horse-trading.
I welcome the debate, but I am disappointed that the SNP is more interested in who leads the negotiations in Europe than the outcome of those negotiations.
Carrying on as normal is not an option. As the minister said yesterday: the day of reckoning will simply come later. I hope that the minister will do all that he can to ensure that alternatives are found.
When I was elected to the Parliament some 500 days ago, my first speech was about fishing. When I returned from my first week in Parliament, my first constituency engagement was at the fishermen's mission in Peterhead. The Royal Humane Society presented a medal and a certificate to a fisherman who had selflessly gone over the side of his boat in January at something like 62 deg north to rescue a man who had gone overboard.
That neatly illustrates the danger of the fishing industry. It also illustrates the interdependence of people in that industry. All the fishing communities of Scotland depend on fishing offshore, inshore and deep into the countryside. Theirs is a shared interest and a shared past and it must be a shared future.
In their summing up, I ask the Tories to apologise to fishermen for the disgraceful remarks made by Brian Monteith, who suggested that the proposed closure of cod fisheries is not an important topic. However, I acknowledge that Jamie McGrigor's remarks have done much to offset those suggestions.
The future of communities is at the core of the debate. It is not an arid, sterile debate about European, Westminster or Scottish Parliament processes. The debate is about people. If 20,000 people were to lose their jobs as a result of the closure of the white fisheries, it would represent the biggest job losses in recent Scottish history. That is unacceptable, and that view is shared throughout the chamber.
Fishing is an historic industry and we require it to have a future. By its actions, the fishing industry makes a contribution to our understanding of community. It makes a contribution to health, through the delivery of a first-class food. Through times of difficulty, it has shown many others in Scotland how to manage.
Our approach is based on practicality and not on sentiment. Fishermen want a future for their industry and they want fish to be in the sea in the future. I ask the minister to break rules—
But not the one-minute rule, as that is all that remains of your speaking time.
I do not ask the minister to break laws—although I would do that, were it necessary—but certainly to break rules. It is fine to debate whether the minister is leading a negotiating team. I have my views and members know what they are. However, I want the minister to get out of the chamber and over to Brussels to build alliances not just at meetings, but before meetings. Decisions are not taken at meetings; they are predicated by what happens before meetings. It is important that we do not leave everything to officials. If the minister offends people in Westminster or Brussels by networking, persuading and twisting arms, I ask the minister please to do so.
We will only win if we have a common purpose and determination. The consensus that is beginning to emerge in the chamber will help the minister in his progress. Let us not descend into trying to score petty party points. We are not making constitutional points, we are making practical points about ministers breaking the rules and taking the initiative and that is the only way to save the Scottish fishing industry.
It should come as no surprise to members that my contribution comes from a west coast perspective. I identify myself with the picture of the fishing community painted by Stewart Stevenson—it is true of all coastal communities in Scotland. At the beginning of his speech, he rightly said that the debate should not be a sterile one about constitutional niceties—we should focus on the issues. That contrasts starkly with the approach taken by the official Scottish nationalist spokesman on fishing.
We must ensure that the west coast prawn fishery is exempted from any catch restrictions designed to save the cod stocks. Landings of cod in the Western Isles accounted for only £38,000 during 2001—most of it caught by netters fishing west of the Hebrides where no prawns can be caught. In 2001, the value of prawns landed in the Western Isles was £5.5 million. That clearly indicates that there is no link between west coast prawn fishing and cod fishing.
This year, the catches in the Western Isles lobster fishery were the best for the past 30 years. That did not happen by accident; it was down to fishermen and their leaders, who had the courage and foresight to take tough decisions. They implemented seasonal closures and stock enhancement schemes through the v-notch programme. A similar account can be relayed about the prawn fishery, in which prawn sizes and catches are the best for the past 20 years.
I firmly believe that we can achieve similar long-term benefits for the white-fish sector. That will involve implementing sensible and sustainable working measures that must be agreed with the industry. For Scotland, the closure of the cod fishery is not the answer. The European Union and Herr Fischler must appreciate and learn from similar situations in other parts of the world. For example, in the Grand Banks in Newfoundland, cod have not returned after 10 years. Lessons can and must be learned from studying fishing activities in Iceland and the Faeroes, where cod stocks have completely recovered after long periods of decline. The Faeroese and the Icelanders did not close the fishery; they introduced robust and sensible technical and conservation measures that had the backing of the fishing industry. Fishing in Iceland and the Faeroes continues to thrive and the industry is firmly rooted in the school of conservation and sustainability.
To return briefly to the west coast, we must safeguard the west coast prawn fishery from any mass diversion of effort to it from other areas of the UK in which restrictions are imposed on vessels that fish for cod.
We cannot talk about sustainability while ignoring the difficult issue of black fish. Landings of black fish have contributed to the parlous state of our fishing stocks, but the issue is all too often avoided. I ask skippers from Scotland and other EU states who fish in Scottish waters and who have landed black fish to examine their consciences. They must accept that they have contributed to the decline of Scottish fish stocks.
The Scottish National Party members—particularly Richard Lochhead—have plumbed incredible depths by dwelling on constitutional niceties. They do not accept simple facts. Negotiation with the EU is about teamwork. Our team will consist of Ross Finnie and his counterpart from DEFRA. On occasions, and when appropriate, Ross Finnie will lead and raise the flag for the UK and, by definition, for Scotland. As someone who represents a fishing constituency, I do not care what number is on Ross Finnie's shirt when he negotiates a deal for our fishermen. All right-thinking people should be concerned with the result that Ross Finnie will secure for Scotland's fishing communities. Based on the minister's performance yesterday and today, I have absolute confidence that my constituents will be ably represented at the meetings.
We must put our fishing communities' long-term interests beyond any perceived short-term political gain. That means being robust at the negotiating table and, on occasions, being brutally honest about previous fishing practices. If we do not do that, we will con ourselves and betray the people whom we represent. I wish Ross Finnie the very best in the forthcoming weeks.
The debate is serious and, in the main, the speeches have reflected that. I say to my colleague Alasdair Morrison that one of the reasons why there is an issue about black fish, which he was right to mention, is the manifest failure of the common fisheries policy. One point on which I agree with Jamie McGrigor is that the failure of the common fisheries policy must be addressed in the coming negotiations on the issue. I am deeply concerned that the Commission has used the cod proposals as a smokescreen to move away from the difficult decisions that must be taken on the common fisheries policy. That makes me, much as it makes fishermen, extremely cynical about the way in which the Commission has behaved in recent weeks.
The minister made it clear yesterday—although, to speak bluntly, I wish that he had done so earlier—that there cannot be a closure of the cod fishery in the North sea. Commissioner Fischler's total closure proposals are a negotiation. Fischler has already contradicted himself by saying on the one hand that there is no alternative to closure and on the other that there might be another way. Every position in Brussels is a negotiation. However, the present position is a disgraceful way in which to treat an industry. People out there depend on the industry and to operate in that way is contemptible.
As members have mentioned, the scientific advice that has been much discussed in recent days predates the changes that have been introduced in Scotland. Scottish decommissioning has reduced effort, larger mesh sizes have increased the biomass of cod and area closures and further technical gear changes have worked. Richard Lochhead was right about the percentage of the Scottish haddock and whiting quotas that have been caught already this year.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has raised important questions about the ICES scientific advice. The minister should give a commitment to pursue rigorously those legitimate questions. The evidence about stocks in the northern North sea rather than the southern North sea should be considered seriously before a final decision is taken. The Commission's credibility on science was utterly compromised by the deepwater species fiasco earlier this year.
I have an important example from my constituency. The monkfish fishery is particularly important to the industry in Shetland. There is no basis in science for the current proposals on monks from the Commission. It has not surveyed that fishery. The proposals are based on a precautionary principle, not on science. The minister must stand up and argue for fair science and he should ensure that the Commission follows that science.
Does the member agree that TACs and quotas are the wrong management tools for a deep-sea species industry?
It is important that a mechanism for deepwater species is found, but the debate is not about that.
I want to concentrate on the politics of the debate. We are dealing with European politics. The minister must fight Scotland's corner and make it crystal clear that he was not appointed Scotland's fisheries minister to do the European Commission's bidding. I am not wedded to constitutional politics, so the point is not a constitutional one. The UK position in the discussions should not be the Whitehall position, but the Scottish one. If necessary, the First Minister should clear that with the Prime Minister. The matter is too important for that not to happen. That is what fishermen in my constituency are most concerned about.
The worst aspect of the situation is the EU-Norway talks. I am extremely concerned that they will not be in our interests. How can it be right that the Commission, which is prepared to destroy the Scottish fishing industry, should be allowed to negotiate with Norway before a position on which to negotiate has been agreed? That must change.
These are desperate times. My constituency will bleed jobs and investment and there will be massive economic and social disruption if the changes are allowed to proceed. Financial support is important. This is a defining moment for the Parliament and the Government and they must succeed. I advocate action.
In the first two years of the Parliament, we took the opportunity at this time of year to send our fisheries minister, whoever he or she was at the time, to negotiations with a resounding vote of confidence and expectation from members. I hope that, at tonight's vote, we can at least do what we did in those first two years and send our minister off with the hopes, expectations and confidence of members that he will deliver for the Scottish fishing industry.
We must take account of the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. Stocks of fish in the North sea fluctuate yearly and are monitored by scientists. The problems that we must address are caused by the interpretation of the scientific evidence. I intend to cover a general point and two specific points on which I would like answers from the minister, either today or subsequently.
The general point is that too many of the measures that Scottish fishermen have taken to preserve their livelihoods are not being taken into account in the current round of negotiations. We must accept that Scotland's fishermen have already gone beyond many others. The Executive has introduced a decommissioning scheme, which has been taken up, and the fishermen have conformed to the regulations on increased mesh sizes and square-mesh panels. They are considering further measures to protect stocks, such as separation panels.
Our fishermen have long maintained that the effects of global warming on the North sea and the Atlantic drift, as well as industrial pollution, are behind the fall in cod stocks in the North sea. However, the relationship between predator, competitor and prey is a complex one. The idea that we should close every fishery in which there is even a limited cod bycatch is, at best, naive, as that may result only in greater competition.
Ultimately, it is the common fisheries policy that has failed. It has failed to conserve fish stocks and it has failed Britain's fishing communities. We must find a way to restore national or local control of our waters, to ensure sensible conservation measures and to protect the interests of Britain's fishermen. That was said yesterday by my colleague Jamie McGrigor, when he replied to the minister's statement. I want to ensure that we understand what that means. We have spoken at great length about the need for zonal and regional management. A year and a half ago, we were delighted with the contents of the European green paper, which appeared to indicate that movement in that direction was possible. Yet, regardless of what we have said on the matter, we now find ourselves with an alternative scenario. It may be that Franz Fischler is simply flying a kite; however, we must not be intimidated by this kite-flying exercise. We must be prepared to put our fishermen first and to work together to ensure that their future is our priority.
Finally, I turn to the industrial fishery. When this issue was raised at a briefing yesterday, I was fascinated to hear representatives of our Scottish fishing industry saying that they, too, are opposed to the continuation of the industrial fishery in the North sea. However, as the Danes and the Swedes are our only allies in our main fishing areas, our fishermen are afraid to complain too loudly about the fishery. I will happily complain for them. Can the minister tell us what all the fish-meal is being used for? As Richard Lochhead said, its use for the feeding of pigs has been banned in this country, under a European directive. Is it simply being poured back into the sea to feed fish? Sadly, that appears to be the case. The industrial fishery must be a target for us in negotiations. We must reduce the number of white fish that are being taken as a bycatch and the amount of food for white fish that is being taken by that fishery. The industrial fishery in the North sea is unacceptable in this day.
In the decades over which I have fought for the Scottish fishermen, my heart has been broken many times. However, all that will fade into total insignificance if this ban is allowed to take place. I hope that I can give Mr Finnie a strong argument to take to Europe, in addition to all the others.
The timing of the ban is outrageous, as the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries is currently debating the revision of the common fisheries policy, which will take place at the end of the year. The timing of the ban is ridiculous, given that the talks between the EU and Norway are about to take place. The timing of the ban is also outrageous because, as members have said, the Commission seems to have made no assessment of the effects of the tremendous conservation efforts that the fishermen have already made. During 2001-02, biomass increased and fish catches decreased.
In The Scotsman yesterday, skipper Peter Bruce appeared in a photograph with a lot of cod boxes and said:
"I'll admit that the stocks aren't as good as we would want, but they certainly aren't at the stage where the cod is going to become extinct. This year, we have had the best fishing of cod we have seen in these waters for two or three years. There are a lot more cod east of Shetland and the good thing is we are seeing cod of all different sizes".
We are told:
"it was clear that most of the cod were moving further north as the temperature of the southern sector of the North Sea continued to rise."
Mr Bruce added that there are fewer and fewer boats to be seen when he goes out fishing. Does that not go some way towards destroying the myth perpetuated in press articles that there are too many boats catching too few fish? The fishermen are saying that, out in the North sea, they are hardly seeing another boat. A hundred and twenty boats are out, with the decommissioning that we approved—contrary to what was said by a Labour member.
In all my years of fighting on the fisheries committee, I was alone in speaking up for the Scottish fleet. The four other UK members on the committee, who represented the Labour party and the Conservatives—there were no Liberals at that time—voted for Spain whenever it came to a choice between the interests of Spain and those of Scotland. It is not surprising that the two Labour and two Conservative members lost their seats—their constituencies found them out. Nevertheless, we have heard many references to the UK clout as the great thing for us to use. What kind of clout was it when Edward Heath gave away our waters although the rest of the world was claiming 200-mile exclusion zones? What kind of clout was it when Harold Wilson renegotiated Britain's membership of the Common Market and flatly refused to include fishing in his negotiation terms?
What about the further betrayals in the Executive's giving away 2,000 square miles of our waters to England, the recent deepwater fishing fiasco and last year's tie-up fiasco? The Lib-Labs voted against the tie-up plan, although EU money was available. Will Mr Finnie comment on the issue of EU funding? He did not do so in his opening speech, but perhaps he will do so in his closing speech. If we are going to fall back on the tie-up scheme, it is important to know whether we are going to get the money that Belgium, for instance, was able to get.
Tavish Scott summed up my position when he said that the UK should adopt the Scottish policy. When the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, of which I was a member, last visited Edinburgh, Mr McLeish promised that a Scottish minister would lead whenever the Scottish interest dominated—and he instanced fishing. That was a solemn promise that I believe Mr McLeish meant to be honoured. I believe that he was sincere. Unfortunately, that has not come about.
Our fishermen are controlled totally by the Commission. They are told when to fish, where to fish, how to fish, what kind of boats to use and what kind of gear to use, yet the Commission is trying to blame the fishermen. The blame lies at the door of Mr Fischler and his predecessors. It lies at the door of Mr Fischler for daring to accept two portfolios when one would be sufficient. We are facing the destruction of our fishing industry. Are we going to see bonnie boats for sale, bonnie licences for sale and bonnie porters for sale? If we find ourselves in that situation, who will have the money to buy those boats? I suggest that it will be the Spanish, aided by their Government.
The nationalist leadership is doing no favours to fishing communities by questioning the role of the Scottish fisheries minister in the European Council. Fishermen, their families, fish processors and fishing communities throughout Scotland expect us to set aside our natural instinct for political and constitutional point scoring and to work together to get the best possible resolution of a serious crisis.
Back in 1999, I was the first Scottish Executive minister to speak in the Council, representing Scottish interests with the full authority of the United Kingdom. The UK delegation discussed issues beforehand and the Scottish minister took responsibility for making the case in the Council on issues in which Scotland had the main interest. That was a fair and sensible arrangement. It worked well and still works well, as Ross Finnie has explained. It is broadly equivalent to the arrangement whereby Richard Lochhead has responsibility for leading on behalf of the Scottish National Party in this debate. He is not the leader of the party, but he is taking the lead on behalf of the party this morning. The issue is as simple as that.
I pay tribute to Ross Finnie for the statement that he has made. He is not a member of the Labour party, but I hope that Scots of all parties and no party will give him the support that he needs at this critical time for our fishing communities. The issue affects communities throughout Scotland, including those in little ports such as Dunbar and Port Seton in my constituency. As our minister, he will have to stack up enough votes in the Council to support a settlement that will make sense for our fish stocks and our fishing fleet. It will be very rough going—thank God that we start with the advantage of the UK's 10 votes, rather than the three votes that a smaller country would have. That is an arithmetical fact.
The battle can be won only on the basis of hard science and serious politics and economics. It would be stupid and wrong to turn a blind eye to scientific evidence about the decline of important fish stocks. Little is to be gained from trying to dismiss the issue as a wicked foreign political conspiracy. It is not as simple as that.
Franz Fischler has not been taking cod, haddock or anything else from the North sea. He happens to be an Austrian and it is a long time since Austria had an empire with coastal fishing interests. What has happened is that the Commission and the ICES scientists have identified a serious problem and are challenging us as politicians and the fishermen who work the North sea to face up to that problem.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for recognising the threat to the livelihoods of its members and for working with the scientists and the Government to protect spawning grounds, restrict catches, use gear that is more selective and even decommission part of the fleet. I endorse the point that Jamie McGrigor and others made about industrial fishing, which is done almost entirely by foreign fleets. However, I also endorse the important point that my colleague Alasdair Morrison made, which is that we cannot escape the fact that some of our fishermen are not blameless. The landing of black fish has been a scandal. We should all support the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency's efforts to deal with that kind of problem.
As the minister said, stocks of nephrops are healthy. We have demonstrated that technical measures can help to safeguard whiting and haddock stocks. The Scottish fleet does not generally target cod, so there can be a way through the crisis. The solution will have to be based on rigorous science and tough politics. I fear that the Opposition motion is little more than a gimmick and a distraction that will not take us much further forward. I strongly support Ross Finnie's proposed line and wish him well in the upcoming negotiations.
Much has been said about the part that the European Commission has played over the past 20 or 30 years in the fisheries problem. However, the fact is that the Commission has based all that it has said and proposed for fisheries on science. The problem is compounded by politicians of all countries and parties representing their fishing communities and negotiating with the Commission for derogations and reductions in the targets. That historical situation has meant that for the past 20 years there has been little real reduction in fishing effort in the North sea. That fishing effort year on year has kept all stocks dangerously close to the point where they might disappear.
I am alarmed by the fact that during the debate we have been looking forward, albeit in some ways sensibly, to ways of changing how we manage our fish stocks and how we work the common fisheries policy. Those are not the issue. The issue that has brought us into the chamber today is that a thorough scientific survey of our cod stocks has concluded that they are about to collapse.
Members from all parties have pointed to the increase in last year's year class of cod. However, that is irrelevant, because the science is based on the spawning biomass, which has reduced to at least 40,000 tonnes below the point at which the cod stocks would be able to reproduce and recover. That is what we face: a reduction in the spawning biomass. We must face the fact that the argument is between a total closure and the suggestions on which the minister and his team are working. The argument lies between those two positions.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, no. I want to get on.
On the depiction of the Commission as wanting to destroy Scottish fishermen, I will quote from a Franz Fischler speech in which he pledged that extra cash would be provided:
"The commission is determined not to leave the fishermen affected by potential hardship to cope on their own."
Mr Fischler realises the enormity of what would happen to Scottish fishermen if the cod fishery had to be closed for a limited time.
I plead for the minister to keep an open mind. We must start thinking out of the box. Fishermen, politicians and, to a certain extent, the Commission have not thought out of the box for 20 years and that is why we are in the state that we are in. The situation is not a tragedy. In a Greek tragedy, people stick within their individual boxes of thinking and that is why, at the end, the stage is littered with bodies. We are capable of thinking our way out of the situation.
In Newfoundland, people took no notice of the scientists. Newfoundland's fishery stocks have never recovered and will never recover, because it is almost certain that other species will fill the ecological niche left by the cod. Members should bear that in mind when they think about the North sea. There are three elements in the equation: the fishermen, the economy and the environment.
Like my colleague Alasdair Morrison, I will start with a west coast perspective. As the minister rightly said yesterday, the Commission's proposals on prawns are ludicrous given the scientific evidence that the Executive presented to the Commission on the subject last year. I want to make it clear, on behalf of my fishermen, that there must be no cut in prawn quotas. Fischler must be told to think again, accept his science and the Executive's science that was presented to him last year and leave prawn fisheries out of the equation.
I want to deal with several points that have been raised in the debate. The first and most important one—although we should not really be discussing it—is the pointless squabbling and the political bun-fight about who sits in the chair in Brussels. There are 20,000 jobs at stake. Entire fishing communities face meltdown and the long-term future of one of Scotland's key industries is at stake, but we are engaging in pointless constitutional wrangling that will not prevent that catastrophe. Indeed, we may well play into the hands of those who wish to see the wholesale closure of our fishing grounds. I ask SNP members to reflect on that point.
Cannot we all unite behind the position that Tavish Scott proposed, which is that Scottish ministers should lead the Brussels delegation because the issue is primarily a Scottish one? The issue is about the exercise of power in Europe, not for constitutional purposes, but to save an industry that is vital to Scotland.
The most important point, as my colleague Tavish Scott made crystal clear, is to ensure that the Scottish position is adopted as the UK position and that we use our 10 votes to ensure that it is delivered. That is the key point and it is time that the SNP lot wakened up to that idea. [Interruption.]
Order.
We should also be focusing on what proposals we will come up with in Scotland to head off the proposals that the Commission has tabled. As my colleague Tavish Scott rightly pointed out, time is not on our side. The Norwegian talks begin in three weeks and the December Council of Ministers meeting is only seven weeks away. Therefore, there is no time for constitutional wrangling or other distractions.
What we need—right now—is for the minister and industry leaders to get round the table and hammer out a Scottish position that can be put on the table for negotiation. As several members said, that position must take into account the decommissioning scheme that was introduced in Scotland last year and the Scottish fleet's use of 110mm nets. Those must be factored into any proposal.
The minister must then ensure that that negotiating position becomes the UK position. He must put everything else to one side over the coming weeks and spend his time in Brussels and every other European capital necessary to ensure that we get the support that we need from other countries to deliver a sensible way forward for the Scottish fishing fleet.
Let us make no mistake about it. A deal will be done and the ministers and fishing leaders must put the groundwork in now. That means hard politics and good science, as John Home Robertson rightly pointed out, to ensure that the Scottish fishermen and Scotland's communities are given hope that they have a future.
I have listened carefully to the debate, which, as we would all agree, is an important one. The white-fish stocks, not the pelagic stocks, are near to collapse and we all know how important the fishing industry is to Scotland. Many communities are virtually fisheries dependent and there are many jobs in the fish processing sector.
I genuinely believe that now, more than ever before, we must work together constructively—the fishing industry, the scientists, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. It will be difficult to pick our way through the crisis and there are many tough negotiations to be had. Any politician who says that there are simple solutions is, quite frankly, lying.
That is why I have found this debate—with some notable exceptions—profoundly depressing. It is coming up to the end of the year, so it must be time for the old worn-out tactic of bringing up the constitution. When the SNP is adrift in the polls and when two thirds of voters still reject separation, SNP members clutch at straws—hence the annual charade. Winnie Ewing is walking out of the chamber because she does not like to hear the truth. The SNP does not have a policy on fish; it has a policy on the constitution. At a time when the fishing industry is facing a massive challenge—perhaps its most serious yet—that is all that Richard Lochhead, the SNP's fisheries spokesman, has to offer.
I make a distinction between what Richard Lochhead has said and what Stewart Stevenson has said. Richard Lochhead has offered no solutions. All that he has done is rubbish the minister with responsibility for fisheries, rubbish the scientists and attack what happens in the EU. Frankly, that is an insult to the fishing industry. The fishermen want us to develop a sustainable fishing industry for the future and to work with the fishermen's organisations and the scientists.
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
I shall give way to Mr Stone.
I received an e-mail the day before yesterday from a member of the fishing industry in Sutherland pointing out that, although it is laudable and right that we do all that we can for the fishermen, the talk is often almost too much about the fishermen. Rhona Brankin referred to communities and we have heard reference to the fish processing industry. When the minister goes to Europe, of course we are all behind him, but must not there be a wider solution, incorporating the enterprise network and many other services, to take on board the other vital workers in the industry?
I absolutely agree with that. The fishing industry is an important part of the Scottish economy. Indeed, a group that was set up when I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries is now examining the fishing industry in the context of the wider Scottish economy.
We have seen what the SNP has to offer and specifically what the so-called shadow fisheries minister has to offer. We must develop a sustainable fishing industry. The crisis that is facing the white-fish sector is too serious for party politics. The fishermen believe that. The SNP should ask the fishermen's representatives who are sitting up in the gallery what they think. They do not want to spend the day discussing party politics.
Yesterday, Richard Lochhead gave what I might describe as a rather sinister warning when he said what might happen if negotiations became tough. Let me remind the chamber what happened when I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries. The SNP will not like this—SNP members will become very angry and will shout a lot when I remind them of this. When I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries, the SNP press office organised the burning of my effigy.
Withdraw!
Order.
I have the SNP press release here. It called people to that occurrence. I say to the SNP that that did the fishermen no favours.
Will the member give way?
No. The member is already over time.
The majority of Scottish fishermen and the majority of the Scottish public were horrified.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When a member blatantly lies to the chamber, should not the Opposition have the opportunity to set the record straight through an intervention?
That is a matter for the member who has the floor. The member is considerably over time and I would be grateful if she brought her speech to a speedy conclusion.
Like John Home Robertson, who also used to be minister with responsibility for fisheries, I pay tribute to the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry, despite the party-political heckling that is going on. Over the years, they have worked tirelessly with ministers and scientists to seek a sustainable future for their industry.
The member should wind up.
I also pay tribute to Ross Finnie. It is absolutely right that he will lead for Scotland in the negotiations. He did a great job for Scotland during the foot-and-mouth crisis and I have absolute confidence in him. I wish him all the best in the forthcoming negotiations.
David Davidson has four minutes. I would be grateful if he kept his contribution to that time.
There are times when I am not proud to be in the chamber and, sadly, this is becoming one of them. We came here to discuss the future of a vital industry. Coastal communities are in crisis, boats that are two and three years old are bringing in no income and heavy boats cannot be taken from the deep sea and used coastally. People must realise that huge investment has been made in fish markets, harbour landings, fish processing jobs, carriage and so on. We should focus on what we are supposed to be doing. I hope that the Parliament will send the minister out with a clear message that, regardless of his political persuasion or how the system works, he must go and fight for a sustainable fishing industry. I agree with others that UK policy should be based on the priorities and requirements of the Scottish fishing fleet—I have said so since 1999. That fleet is the serious centre of fishing in the UK. However, if we are to use all the votes that are available to us, we need to ensure that the minister takes away the right message and understands what we must fight for.
I will not go through everything that members have said. To put the matter simply, we should consider the science and the fishermen. In 1999, when there were poor communications between scientists and fishermen, a conference was held at which everyone got on board. For example, the scientists got on board to have discussions with the fishing organisations, to which I pay tribute as they have done a marvellous job for their industry in providing information.
Why are we not using the Fisheries Research Services marine laboratory in Aberdeen to quantify in real terms what has been done in respect of conservation and what our fishermen have agreed to do and the measures that they have taken? We need hard science from this side of the pond about what has been done to preserve fish stocks.
We must ensure that the rest of the UK and everyone who operates in the North sea where the fishing is shared uses the same measures and standards. That takes us back to the level playing field argument.
Everybody knows that cod have been drifting north for years—that is well documented. I accept Robin Harper's comments on the spawning mass but, even so, is the science accurate?
Will the member give way?
I will continue, if I may.
Richard Lochhead said that the science must be accurate and confirmed, but there is variance. I am a trained scientist and I know that there is no such thing as 100 per cent accuracy on anything, but we must listen to others who have knowledge and who fish the sea. Their experience must be brought to bear on such issues.
Politicians must act as a vehicle to assist the scientists and the fishermen to come to a sensible understanding of what has to be done. The minister's responsibility is to take the result of that work and sell it to everyone in the fishing negotiations. There is no point in us doing something if the Norwegians or the fishermen from Humberside are not doing it too. Far too much playing with politics is being done at a critical time for the fishing industry. We have seen damage in the farming community, but the fishing community is a different animal. Fishermen want a sustainable industry. The decommissioning scheme has worked and it has had some safety benefits. We must ensure that we send out a clear message to the press and to the world that we take fishing and the benefit that it brings to our coastal communities seriously and that we are united in ensuring that Ross Finnie comes back with a good survival package that is seen, and believed, to be fair.
I do not think that anyone who was in the chamber yesterday could have been left in any doubt as to where the Scottish Executive and I, as the minister responsible for fishing, stood on the matter. During the statement and the questions after it, I did not discern that anyone took a contrary view. I remind members that I closed my statement by saying that what we wanted throughout the country was a sustainable Scottish fishing industry. I went on to say:
"I know that it is a goal that all parties and all members will share. I look forward to their constructive support as we progress in the coming weeks."—[Official Report, 30 October 2002; c 14710.]
I want to take the chamber back to that proposition by asking them to focus on the main issues. The threat has been put in place by the European Commission, which appears to conduct diplomacy by megaphone. I do not think that that approach is helpful. Many members have pointed out that the science cannot be ignored—Robin Harper spent some time on that issue yesterday. They have also said that the statistics and evidence that are before us—not necessarily the recommendations but the trends that exist—are matters that we must address.
I am grateful to members who made constructive contributions and suggestions in response to the statement. Although we are still debating the matter in the chamber, there is no question but that I have embarked—and my officials are embarking—on discussions with the fishing industry on the points that many members have made. We recognise that we must understand better the apparently contradictory scientific advice. We must take on board all that is being done by the Scottish fishermen that has not been factored into any of the advice that Commissioner Fischler is talking about. As Tavish Scott said, we must also recognise that in this important matter we must take account of the CFP. We all deeply regret the fact that, unless some different arrangement of the CFP is arrived at, it may not be radical enough to deal with some of the problems. The main issue is that greater regional management ought to be addressed, which is a proposal that all members have supported. I intend to ensure that our fishermen will have a fair say in what goes on and in how we arrive at the alternative proposals that we are to agree, whether or not the Commission agrees that proposal in time.
I welcome the minister's indication that the industry should be at the heart of negotiations. Is there potential to second representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland to the civil service for the next few weeks and months of crucial negotiations, so that expert advice is at the heart of the civil service process?
There is no need for that. I have indicated as clearly as I can that we will meet representatives of the fishing industry—I gave an undertaking to do so to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation when we were in Luxembourg two weeks ago. Meetings have been arranged and representatives of the fishing industry must be brought together to come to a view. I will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation next week for a progress report on the detailed technical discussions. Let us not have an argument about the detail of process. Let us understand that the Executive and the fishermen will work together to achieve our aim.
We must take account of the point that Alasdair Morrison made—that the diversion of fish from their current locations could have an adverse effect on nephrops. We have already undertaken not to close the nephrops fishery. A number of members have referred to industrial fishing, which is a key issue. In my response to a question yesterday, I queried the way in which industrial fishing for herring, which is a feed stock for cod, is being treated.
The issue of timing is crucial.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is coming to the end of his speech.
I say to all members who have made constructive suggestions that we should put out one simple, plain message. We reject as politically unacceptable and financially disastrous any suggestion that there should be a wholesale closure of the Scottish fisheries. However, members recognise that they cannot ignore totally the trend that the scientists have identified. Politicians, the civil service, everyone involved in all aspects of the fishing industry—not just the catching sector—and fishermen must work together to develop an alternative proposal that is credible not just here, but in Europe, and that the Commission will accept as viable. We need a proposal that both saves our fishing industry and—crucially—provides it with a sustainable future for all of Scotland.
I rise conscious of the fact that at stake in this debate is the survival of the Scottish fishing industry. During the debate members who feel very strongly about the problems faced by the communities that they represent have expressed—rightly—high passion. However, if I concentrate on those speeches that shed light rather than heat on the issue, I will make a better contribution to our common purpose.
We should focus not on the problems of the past—very serious though those have been—and the failings of the CFP, which we all acknowledge, but on the challenges that we face in the immediate future and the problems that confront the minister and his deputy, who in this session of Parliament represent and speak for Scotland. As I have said in each yearly debate on this issue, we would like the Scottish representative on the UK delegation to speak for Scotland and to lead in the debate. To say that that is an issue of controversy is to miss the point.
I would like to make six points that are constructive and that are based on the SNP motion. First, Scottish fishermen have led the way on conservation. As the minister admitted yesterday, they have been in the van. They have introduced larger meshes that others—including English fishermen—have not yet adopted. The minister should take up that issue—when I raised it with him yesterday, he did not respond to my point. Scottish fishermen have introduced escape panels and finer twine. There has been decommissioning. Has the effect of those steps been measured? It has not.
I will not give way.
Secondly, fishermen have supplied a detailed corpus of evidence, which is to be published by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. From a briefing that fishing representatives gave yesterday, I understand that that evidence will show that the measures that were introduced last year are beginning to work. Surely, if our approach is not to ignore the science but to analyse it properly, the scientific evidence to which I refer should be considered by Mr Fischler and everyone else before we decide what line should be taken in negotiations.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at this point—I want to move on.
The correct approach to take to science is not to ignore it. When this crisis reared its head, the minister's first reaction was to say that we could not ignore the scientific evidence. No one suggests that information should be ignored. However, I suggest to the minister with great seriousness that we should analyse the scientific data very carefully. We agree with the major premise that the trends are worrying. However, Tavish Scott raised the point that the precautionary approach is not necessarily based on science. We know from the briefings that we received that individual features of the science might not be entirely right and, of course, there is a margin of error of 40 per cent.
Thirdly, Richard Lochhead has made constructive and positive contributions and it is puerile to dismiss them entirely, as has been done. His suggestion that the fishing representatives be part of the negotiating team goes to the root of the matter. As I understand it, there will, quite rightly, be meetings between the minister and the fishing representatives, but if the fishing representatives are not part of the team, they will not be present during the negotiations; they will be outside in an antechamber or in another room.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry that I cannot take interventions at this stage, because I want to cover a lot of ground.
There might be many ways of including fishing representatives in the team. One simple way of doing that would be to second to the civil service for the negotiations representatives of the SFF who have expertise so that they can be in the room in which the negotiations are conducted. There might be other technical ways of including the fishing representatives and I ask the minister to explore such methods.
Richard Lochhead argued quite rightly that our task from now until the conclusion of the negotiations is to ensure that Scotland's minister spends his time not in Scotland but travelling throughout Europe seeking alliances and negotiations with his counterparts in other countries. That is a serious suggestion and it is so obviously born of common sense that I hope that it is taken up.
Fourthly, we argued last year for a tie-up scheme as well as decommissioning, rather than just for a tie-up scheme, as has been stated.
Fifthly, members such as George Lyon and Alasdair Morrison are quite right to speak in favour of the retention of the existing quotas on prawns, but that is not sufficient. Yesterday, I was pleased that the minister acknowledged that the Executive is committed to the reinstatement of the 10 per cent reduction in the nephrops quota. Prawns are in plentiful supply, as not just Jamie McGrigor but all of us know. Given that there is no significant bycatch, as everybody accepts, there is no reason why prawn fishermen should lose out as they have done. I believe that that measure is also in keeping with sound conservation principles.
Sixthly, the CFP has perhaps not been mentioned as often as it should have been. Until last week, we were all united in arguing that we need to protect Scotland's historic fishing rights. That was our united position until Mr Fischler made his calculated outburst and it must remain our position.
There are concerns, because there are threats to relative stability. One of those threats is that our quotas will be lost if the capacity for internationally tradeable quotas is introduced. If our quotas can be sold off, as the new system of internationally tradeable quotas suggests, what will happen to our quotas? They will be sold. To whom will they be sold? It will not be to people from Scotland. Did Mr Elliot Morley rule out internationally tradeable quotas? He said that we have to look at the options. That is an example of a clear difference between the position that we should adopt as Scotland's voice, and which the minister should adopt as Scotland's negotiator, and Mr Morley's position on a key point.
I agree entirely with Tavish Scott that the issue is far too important for our fishing industry to allow anyone other than Scotland's minister, who must necessarily have—and who does have—a better understanding of Scotland's fishing industry problems, to speak for Scotland. That is not a mere constitutional point, it is not dancing on the head of a pin and it is not metaphysics—it is sound, practical common sense. In the days ahead, I hope that there will be a clear statement that that is what will happen.
There is an unfinished piece of business—the point of order that Alex Neil raised earlier this morning. The Presiding Officer has now had the opportunity to review article 146 of the Maastricht treaty and he considers that the matters contained therein are for the UK Government and the Scottish Executive rather than for the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. In addition, Mr Finnie has explained his position at some length. The ruling is that if Mr Neil remains dissatisfied, he will have to take up the matter with the minister rather than with the chair.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Before we begin this afternoon's business with question time, I welcome the Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, the right hon Jonathan Hunt, who is in the gallery with some of his parliamentary colleagues.