Sea Fisheries

– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:37 pm on 8 December 1999.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 2:37, 8 December 1999

The next item of business is motion S1M-358, in the name of John Home Robertson, on sea fisheries, and the amendments to that motion.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour 3:15, 8 December 1999

This, at last, is my first opportunity to make a full speech in the Parliament, so let me say how grateful I am to the people of East Lothian for sending me here.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

Like you, Presiding Officer, I have spent a long time campaigning for a Scottish Parliament. I happen to have the odd distinction of being a direct descendant of a member of the previous Scottish Parliament, Patrick Home of Renton. He voted against the incorporating union of 1707, so he has been vindicated at last.

I welcome this opportunity to debate sea fisheries in advance of next week's meeting of the Fisheries Council. I hope that we will have regular opportunities to discuss this important Scottish industry in the Parliament. The main business of the December council is to set total allowable catches and quotas for next year. I will come to that important matter later, but I should like to take this opportunity to reflect on my first five months as fisheries minister and to touch on a number of sea fisheries issues.

The Executive fully understands the importance of fisheries to the Scottish economy, particularly in the north-east and in the Highlands and Islands. Scotland has the lion's share of the UK fishing industry and so it is only natural that devolution has pushed fisheries to the forefront of the political agenda. I welcome that change.

It is worth reflecting on the economic and political significance of the Scottish sea fishing industry. Landings into Scotland by all vessels in 1998 were valued at more than £320 million. Scottish boats also landed more than £100 million-worth of fish abroad. More than 7,000 people are employed in the catching sector, with similar numbers involved in processing and other downstream activities. Many of those jobs bring substantial benefits to remote rural economies.

The Scottish Executive and, I am sure, the Parliament recognise the importance of fishing. It is no coincidence that the first substantive debate in the Parliament was about fisheries, albeit about the vexed and rather contrived issue of the adjacent waters boundary. [MEMBERS: "Shame."]

I was pleased when I went to the October Fisheries Council to be the first Scottish Executive minister to attend and speak at a European Council of Ministers meeting. As a member of the UK team, I was involved in casting 10 votes in the council. In that circumstance, I can apply real influence on behalf of Scottish fishing communities and I intend to continue to do that.

Having heard the reaction to my comment a few seconds ago, I hope that we will not waste valuable time today on the boundary question. I know—because I come from that part of the country—that Scottish boats have recently had a profitable time fishing for prawns off the Northumberland coast. I reached an agreed position with my counterpart in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week to provide greater flexibility for Scottish pelagic boats to fish for sea bass off Cornwall—a long way south of any line that there might be in the North sea. What really matters to the Scottish fishing industry is the right to work in fishing grounds right round the coast of the UK and elsewhere. That is far more relevant to our fishermen than a theoretical debate about the maritime boundary of the jurisdiction of Duns sheriff court.

It is a great privilege to be the fisheries minister in this first Scottish Executive. My approach to the job has been to work with the fishing industry, so I am grateful to those in the industry, particularly the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for their advice and co-operation. I am determined to be as open and inclusive as possible. I am especially pleased to have been able to set up the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group to give the fishing industry direct input to policy formulation and to help us to deliver policy that is workable and practical. Early indications are that SIFAG is working well. We have brought together a wide range of interests, including fishermen, scientists and people from environmental and economic development agencies, all of whom are pulling in the same direction.

The Executive has demonstrated commitment to local management. I know that that is a priority for all parties, as well as for the fishing industry. I have given approval to the Shetland regulating order and hope to see it implemented shortly. An application from Orkney for a regulating order has been received and is now being discussed and refined. Similar proposals are being worked up for Solway, the western isles, Highlands and Fife. It is evident that there is growing interest in that way forward. My aim is to encourage local management leading to lighter control and regulation from the centre. I hope that there will be consensus on that.

We have begun to fulfil the partnership commitment to local management of fisheries after just five months in office. I know that there are a number of difficult issues to be resolved in the fisheries field and I will come to some of those later. However, the general picture is a positive one. The revenues of Scottish vessels last year were at their highest since 1987. Since 1992, total revenues have increased by around 28 per cent in real terms. White fish prices remain high and the pelagic sector continues to develop new markets.

We should bear in mind the fact that the financial benefits of fishing do not come without a heavy price. We must never forget the hazards that fishermen experience and the tragic loss of life and serious injuries that can occur in this industry. This year has been no exception—six Scottish fishermen have lost their lives working in this dangerous industry. We owe it to fishermen's families and to fishing communities to do everything possible to reduce the risk of such tragedies.

I have written today to invite the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to meet me to discuss a new approach to safety. I intend to establish a new Scottish sea fishing safety scheme, based on the fisheries structural funds available to me now that the new financial instrument for fisheries guidance regulation is in place. I will discuss the detail of the scheme with the industry and with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. We will not be bound by precedent and we will wish to deliver a scheme tailored to Scottish needs.

I want the scheme to focus on the delivery of a safety culture in the fishing industry. It is all very well to have a list of safety items that can be funded, but the need is to raise awareness of safety and to improve training to prevent accidents and to save lives. One important area where the safety record is of particular concern—the under 12 m boats—was excluded from the previous scheme operated by MAFF. I am determined that our new Scottish safety scheme will cover the whole fleet, including smaller boats.

In consultation with the industry, we will consider the priorities and, subject to the availability of resources, I hope to be able to begin to implement the new Scottish sea fishing safety scheme before the end of the coming financial year.

On a wider front, there is still much to be done to maximise the potential of the fishing industry. We have already achieved a great deal in the few months since the Parliament took responsibility for Scotland's fisheries. I cite five examples.

First, I have mentioned the inshore fisheries advisory group and the Shetland regulating order. Secondly, we have undertaken a substantial review of pelagic management arrangements and we have proposed relaxations in the regulatory burden to increase the flexibility and competitiveness of our pelagic fleet. We have agreed to return to that subject next year. I am determined to find the right balance between deregulation and necessary controls.

Thirdly, we have secured a good deal for the Scottish industry, especially on herring, in negotiating the new European Union marketing regulation. I was able to secure that deal because I spoke as a member of the UK delegation with 10 votes at the council. Fourthly, while the new FIFG regulation is not perfect, it will help to support key sectors without adding to fishing capacity—that is important. Crucially, we have insisted on measures to stop other European fleets increasing their catching capacity. That is a matter of great concern throughout the industry.

Finally, I have been able to secure additional North sea prawn quota for the current year. That has now been agreed by the European Union and will enable us to keep the under 10 m fishery open and to enhance the opportunities for others in the crucial pre-Christmas period. As constituency member for Port Seton and Dunbar, I am particularly pleased to have been able to secure that package.

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative

The minister mentioned the North sea fishing situation; could he also mention the Clyde fishing area, where prawns are very important?

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

The same will apply there. I recognise that there is particular pressure on the Clyde as a result of the scallop fishery closure further north. I will return to that.

For the future, we have a challenging agenda. There are some very difficult issues to deal with, such as amnesic shellfish poisoning—I have just referred to scallops—engine power regulation and the impact on the processing industry of the urban waste water treatment directive. There are no easy answers to those questions but I have sought to approach them all by involving the industry in the consideration of options.

On ASP, for example, I have asked officials to convene a meeting involving all the stakeholders to identify the most effective way forward. I had a meeting on Monday with representatives of scallop fishing interests—that is in line with one of the recommendations contained in the helpful report published recently by the Rural Affairs Committee. The aim is to support the industry in developing a long-term strategy to deal with the problems, should they arise again in future.

Photo of Duncan Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Scottish National Party

Is the minister aware that the representatives left that meeting absolutely downcast and despondent at the Executive's lack of strategic vision? Is not it symptomatic of the Executive's failure that the minister must call in everybody else, because he is not capable of doing his job in putting forward the vision for the industry?

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

I am not sure that I was at the same meeting as Mr Hamilton. I felt that the meeting was constructive. Everyone concerned will recognise that we are considering the options that are available to us. In SIFAG, we have raised the issue of the need to find flexibility for boats that do not have access to prawn fishing. We have undertaken to consider ways of helping with diversification under the FIFG regulation in the future. We are engaged in the issues.

At a more strategic level, we need to turn our mind to two key tasks: the future development of the Scottish fishing industry and the review of the common fisheries policy in 2002.

We need to develop a shared vision of how we want the industry to develop. There are a number of key factors within that, of which I will list three. First, we need to strike a balance between the need to sustain the remotest coastal communities and the interests of economic efficiency. Secondly, we need to involve local communities in the management of fisheries, which is an issue that strikes a chord all round the Parliament. Thirdly, we need to build a culture of quality in Scottish seafood to increase the market value of our fish for the benefit of those who work in this important industry. I want to make progress on that agenda over the next few months. I would welcome constructive input from both the Rural Affairs Committee and the industry and I am confident that I will get it.

Photo of Dr Winnie Ewing Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party

Why did the minister not mention the need to protect the principle of relative stability? I would have thought that that was vital.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

That certainly is vital. It can be taken as read that we support the principle of relative stability and the six and 12-mile limits. I am grateful to Dr Ewing for raising that point, as there should be no doubt in any quarter about our position on that.

On the future of the CFP from 2002, I have a number of objectives in mind, such as the regionalisation of the CFP and quota stability, which is the point that Dr Ewing has just raised. Obviously, those objectives will need detailed consideration and I want the Parliament and the industry to be actively engaged in that process.

That brings me back to the issue of total allowable catches, the quotas proposed for 2000 and the motion that we are debating today. The Executive will not shirk its responsibility to take tough action to protect fish stocks, not least because the future of our fishing fleet depends on the preservation of those stocks. The scientists' assessment of the state of many stocks is very gloomy. However, it is not all bad news. Pelagic stocks remain steady, the north Atlantic mackerel TAC can increase and herring continues to recover from its near collapse in the mid-1990s.

Last week, there was further good news for the pelagic fleet in the negotiations between the EU and Norway. Norwegian demands for an increased share of mackerel stock were again seen off and we secured a 60 per cent increase in the amount of western quota that can be fished in the North sea, as well as an extension to the period of such fishing.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

I have taken a number of interventions. I am making rather a long speech. I have a notion that Mr Lochhead will get his chance to speak, but I will take one intervention from him.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I thank the minister. Given the health of pelagic stocks and the quota, will the minister recommend that we dispense with demands for capacity reductions for the pelagic sector in Scotland? If the sector has to reduce capacity, vessels will have to exit the Scottish industry. The Dutch will be laughing. They will buy up Scottish vessels and fish our stocks.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

I do not accept that scenario. It is essential to bring our pelagic fleet into line with our multi-annual guidance programme targets. If we do not do that, we cannot expect anyone else to do it. I recognise that this is difficult, and Mr Lochhead will appreciate that we have been having some fairly vigorous discussions with the industry on the matter. As I said, we are determined to do our best to get the best possible deal for the industry. I am sure that what I said earlier about the better outlook for and better management of the pelagic fishery will be welcomed by Scottish pelagic fishermen, although I acknowledge that some pain is being inflicted as a result of the engine power regulations and so on.

The picture for the key demersal stocks in the North sea—cod, whiting and haddock—is pretty bad. Those stocks, which are jointly managed by the EU and Norway, were also the subject of negotiations last week. On cod and whiting, my impression is that fishermen recognise the validity of the scientific advice. The fish are simply not there to be caught. This year, we have been able to take only 55 per cent of the UK's cod quota, because the fishermen could not find them.

On haddock, the picture is rather different. This year there is the prospect of a good recruitment to the fishery from a particularly strong year class. That is why we pressed hard this year for an increase in the haddock quota, which is jointly agreed between the EU and Norway.

We must act to protect the small fish from that good year class. Quota reductions in isolation will not suffice. We need technical measures to reduce wasteful discards and to help the small fish to escape from the nets. Measures such as compulsory square-mesh panels and narrower twine would help escapes. I intend to argue for their introduction in Scotland, the UK and throughout the European Union.

I am very encouraged by the positive attitude of Scottish fishermen to those ideas. We have been successful in securing a higher TAC for North sea haddock by giving the assurance that we will introduce such technical conservation measures. That must be helpful.

The initial proposal for the haddock TAC was 65,000 tonnes, covering both the EU and Norway. We have been able to make a case for an increase to 73,000 tonnes and to secure a 7,700-tonne quota transfer from Norway. That is a major success, and I pay tribute to those of my officials who were involved in the negotiations. As a result, the extra UK share for North sea haddock over the initial advice will be some 11,000 tonnes, most of which—probably up to 10,000 tonnes—will go to Scottish boats. That extra catch is worth more than £13 million at current prices to the UK fishing industry.

We need to take a responsible approach if the key fish stocks are to recover. Our approach on haddock has shown that such a strategy can bear fruit. That is good news. It is important to rely on scientific advice when taking decisions on TACs. We need an objective, informed picture of the long-term health of fish stocks. That is the rationale that I will take to the remainder of the TAC process, including the negotiations on the important west of Scotland stocks. The final decisions on those will be taken at the December Fisheries Council, to be held in Brussels next week. I will represent Scotland's interests there.

We must beware of short-term gain in quota that would be incompatible with longer-term conservation of stocks for our fishermen. Our fishermen understand that point, although I am aware of the frustration that is caused by fluctuations in quota. Together with the industry, we will look at options for ironing out such fluctuations, with a view to taking those options to the European Commission. That will be timely, with the 2002 review of the CFP on the horizon.

My key objective at the December Fisheries Council in Brussels will be to do all that I can to maximise the opportunities available to Scottish fishermen, consistent with maintaining sustainable stocks. Our experience in the Norway negotiations shows that that approach can work.

I urge the chamber to reject the nationalists' amendment, which is designed to weaken our negotiating strength in Europe by wrecking our partnership with MAFF, and the bizarre Tory amendment, which seeks to relocate the English fishery department to Banff and Buchan. I invite the Parliament to endorse our negotiating position and to support the Executive's motion.

I move,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to seek the best possible outcome for Scottish fishermen, consistent with sustainable fishing, from the forthcoming negotiations leading up to the December Fisheries Council.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party 3:34, 8 December 1999

I welcome this debate, which is our first real opportunity to address the many concerns of the Scottish fishing industry. Unlike electronics and other modern industries, fishing is a traditional industry that has been around as long as Scotland itself. It is woven into the fabric of many of Scotland's coastal communities and supports important jobs in rural areas.

Fishing communities have high expectations of this Parliament, having been let down time and time again by successive London Administrations. Too often, their interests were used as a bargaining chip in the European Union so that Westminster Governments could achieve their wider European aims. That must end with devolution and the establishment of this Parliament.

The minister must prove that things have changed. His success in achieving his objectives for the Scottish fishing industry will depend on two factors. First, beneficial change must be sought by member states in the negotiations—in this case, the member state is the UK. Secondly, pursuing that change must be a top priority for the Government, which has not been the case in the past.

If we are to believe the minister, there is absolutely no need to worry, because he and the UK fisheries minister are at one on every issue under the sun and there is never any disagreement. However, we must ask what went wrong in November at the Fisheries Council. The UK minister voted against the package that was agreed, but Scotland's fisheries minister, John Home Robertson, issued a press release on his return to Scotland that said:

"There are a range of measures in the final outcome which will have a resonance with the Scottish fishing industry."

The UK minister voted against a package that our minister thought was good for Scotland. Who could blame Hamish Morrison, the eloquent chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, who is in the gallery today, for saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same?

When the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs took office, the first thing that he did was to defend Westminster's theft of Scotland's waters. He has a bad habit of accepting the negative things that come out of MAFF in London and rejecting some of the more positive things. I have mentioned the proposals to cut capacity in the pelagic sector, which is one of the negative proposals that the minister appears to embrace, despite its ramifications for the Scottish fishing industry. As a result of that cut, those in the Dutch fishing industry will be rubbing their hands in glee, as they will have the chance to buy up Scottish vessels that are forced to leave the industry because of those unreasonable capacity reductions. While there is healthy stock and healthy quota, I urge the minister to dispense with those demands, which will damage the Scottish industry.

When a positive scheme from MAFF—the safety improvement vessel grants—was stopped last May, we did not hear a whimper of protest from the Scottish fisheries minister. We still do not know whether that is a London scandal or a Scottish scandal.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

After the withdrawal of that grant, does Mr Lochhead welcome the minister's announcement today of plans to develop a Scottish sea fishing industry scheme? Is not the development of such a scheme a perfect example of how devolution can benefit the Scottish fishing industry?

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I very much welcome the minister's announcement of a new scheme, but why on earth did we have to wait six months for it? Surely the safety of our fishing fleet is a matter of the utmost importance.

Does the safety of Scottish fishermen depend on the ability of MAFF to sell a fruit and vegetable site in Covent Garden? Or is it the case, as Alex Salmond made Elliot Morley admit in the London Parliament this week, that the Scottish Executive had the cash for a new scheme all along but did not access it to implement a new initiative? That is appalling. We do not know whether that is a London scandal or a Scottish scandal, but perhaps the minister can enlighten us.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

I hesitate to accuse Mr Lochhead of carping in a debate on fisheries. He asked why we did not do anything six months ago, but we were not here six months ago. We have moved as quickly as we could to produce a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem through a Scottish Parliament. Surely that is what this Parliament is here for. Would it be too much to ask Mr Lochhead to welcome that?

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I understand that the minister was appointed to his position in May. Despite the fact that this Parliament did not have legislative powers until 1 July, he was in office in May and June—six months ago. He should learn his calendar better.

It seems to be a case of business as usual, here in Scotland and in Brussels. Yet Scotland has 70 per cent of the UK's fishing entitlement and there is £250 million of turnover in the Scottish fishing industry at the quayside. We are the second largest catcher of fish in the whole of the European Union.

In the vital talks in Brussels in a couple of weeks' time, Scotland's fishing industry surely has more of a stake than the industry from any other part of the UK. Therefore, the Scottish minister should have lead ministerial responsibility for the whole of the UK in Europe. What matters is voting for the UK, not just talking. The minister tells us that he leads for Scotland because he speaks at those meetings. He should have the votes, because two thirds of the industry's base is in Scotland. We have more of an interest in the outcome of those talks than anyone else does. The case for lead ministerial responsibility being transferred to Scotland is unassailable. I ask the minister to put that case to the UK minister.

On fisheries management, the annual merry-go-round of the quota negotiations has highlighted many problems. Our fishing representatives are forced to wait outside meeting rooms while others embark on damage limitation. That is not the way in which to work. The fishermen should be involved in setting the quotas and working with the scientists from day 1. There should be more flexibility in the quota system. There should be on-going assessment, not on-going crisis management. Multi-annual, multi-species arrangements must be considered.

There is too much discarding of fish under current arrangements. If the quotas are slashed, the fishermen must land only the best fish, which means that other fish are discarded. Bad catches lead to even more fish being discarded.

I welcome the minister's comments about technical measures. That is the way forward, but we should not forget that policy must conserve our fish stocks. That is not happening under the current arrangements, which could be greatly improved.

I welcome the industry's call for a standing committee, with scientists and fishermen working together. I urge the minister to support that.

Franz Fischler has said that next year will be the brainstorming year on the future and reform of the common fisheries policy. Has our fisheries minister started brainstorming about what is going to happen to the CFP? He has made some welcome comments today, but that is the first that we have heard; the real brainstorming will happen in three weeks' time. We must come back and debate that, because the future of our industry is dependent on those negotiations.

The SNP wants to see zonal management. Dr Allan Macartney, the SNP's late deputy leader, successfully advanced that concept in the European Parliament. The coastal states—to which fishing entitlement belongs—should bring together their scientists and fishermen so that they can build the best possible management plans.

We must protect the historical rights to fishing by protecting the Hague preferences, which the minister should not be shy in forcing at the Fisheries Council in Brussels. What will our minister say if the UK minister tells him, "No, you are not using Hague preferences"?

People who want to enter the fishing industry face many obstacles. Often, a quarter of the investment in a fishing enterprise is on the vessel. The rest of the investment has to go on the cost of licences and track record. That prevents new people from coming into the industry. I urge the minister to call a summit of the industry in Scotland so that we can discuss how to encourage new people to join the industry. I read in the Fishing News last week that 24 young men had embarked on a course in Banff and Buchan College of Further Education. What hope can we give them? We must tell them that fishing entitlement will be available for them and we must address the issue of costs. I welcome important initiatives by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and in Shetland to protect quota for local fishermen.

The choice facing the minister is clear. He can continue to be the over-zealous policeman in Scotland of the UK minister in Europe, or he can tackle the fact that our fishermen do not have a level playing field and give them a helping hand by fighting his utmost for Scotland in Europe. The only way in which he can do that is by demanding that our minister in Scotland, with responsibility for two thirds of the industry, has lead responsibility for EU negotiations.

I move amendment S1M-358.1, to insert at end:

"negotiate the transfer of lead responsibility for European Union fisheries negotiations from Her Majesty's Government to the Scottish Executive, in recognition of Scotland's dominant position within the UK industry; pursue a control regime for the Scottish industry that does not place it at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to other EU fleets, and influence the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy by bringing forward proposals to introduce the concept of zonal management thereby involving the industry itself in the decision-making process, whilst maintaining the founding principles of the original agreement, namely relative stability, the Hague preferences and historic fishing rights, to re-affirm that the Common Fisheries Policy is not a free-for-all."

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative 3:44, 8 December 1999

It was good to see a Scottish fisheries minister leading for the UK at a recent fisheries conference. I believe that the Scottish Parliament can be good for Scotland's fishing, albeit only under new management. In recognition of the importance of Scottish fisheries to Europe, I can reveal that the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries will visit Scottish fishing areas in June 2000 and that the new fisheries commissioner, Franz Fischler, will come on a separate trip in the new year.

Scotland has the most important part of the UK fishing industry, accounting for more than 70 per cent of all fish landed in the UK. The landed value is almost £300 million, which represents almost £1.6 billion when retailed. Two thousand eight hundred vessels employ 6,700 fishermen, which is regrettably fewer than the 8,200 who were employed in 1997. The total number of jobs that are attributed to fishing and aquaculture is between 20,000 and 25,000, many of which are in rural areas, where secure employment is at a premium.

Fishing is a great, traditional, Scottish-owned industry, which demands respect. However, there was not much respect, and absolutely zero consultation, when the new east coast boundary was implemented. A report by the Rural Affairs Committee is due to be published tomorrow, which, I sincerely hope, will recommend a rethink, because the transfer of 6,500 square miles of Scottish fishing territory is not only unnecessary, but insensitive and illogical. The boundary goes straight through the middle of excellent fishing grounds and will cause gross difficulties and irritation. A boundary was set in 1987 to define the offshore jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. We now have an unnecessary second line solely for the Scottish Parliament's legislation.

Better consultation between officialdom and the fishing industry is essential for future policies. Fishing is very heavily regulated within Europe. This Lib-Lab pact is guilty of gold-plating EU regulations and rules to the competitive disadvantage of our fishermen.

One example is the recent farce over amnesic shellfish poisoning. Over the past two years, all king scallops and queenies have been required to undergo tests for ASP at source, but common sense dictates that the time to test the product is the moment at which it enters the market to go into the food chain—end product testing. Our fishermen should have parity on testing with those in the rest of Europe and the world.

The scallop fishermen have suffered, in many cases, from a total loss of income by complying with the ban. I am horrified that the Executive has rejected the principle of compensation for the scallop industry. It is not enough for us to compliment scallop fishermen on their good behaviour during the ban. I suggest that the Executive should reverse its decision and retrospectively compensate the industry for this unforeseeable nightmare. We should remember that there are scallop farmers as well as scallop fishermen. The salmon farming industry has had at least some help—not very much—over infectious salmon anaemia, and the scallop industry should not be forgotten at this crucial time. I press now for a reaction from the Executive to the report on ASP from the Rural Affairs Committee. When will the Executive do something?

The most worrying aspect of the whole affair is not knowing from where the toxic algal blooms have originated. If they are a naturally occurring phenomenon, there is, presumably, not much anyone can do, but it is vital that there be maximum scientific research now. The west coast of Scotland has always had a reputation for class A waters. Indeed, the tourist industry sells the area on its environmental excellence. The lucrative and valuable shellfish export trade is very important to west coast fishermen and aquaculturalists, so any loss of confidence in the products from our sea bed is disastrous and difficult to rectify. We must keep a clean sea. Historically, there is nothing indicative of an algal bloom on our west coast, so why is that happening now? We must discover the source of the domoic acid that is being found in scallops, and we must find out why all the cod have disappeared. That is not due to overfishing.

Another major worry is that following the dioxin fiasco in Belgium, the European Commission might set the safe limit for dioxins in animal feedstuffs at a level that would be lower than the level of dioxin that is found in fish from the North sea and the Baltic—lower than the level that is thought safe for human beings. If that is true, the consequences would be catastrophic. I therefore ask the deputy minister to investigate.

The nephrops—or prawn fishery—are very important to both the small boats of the west coast and many white fish vessels. It has become one of our most important landed catches. The TAC should be enlarged to cover the increased area now being fished.

European markets, especially Spain, have been vital in adding to the species that can be traded by our fishermen. Velvet crabs, green crabs and even razor-fish are now valuable products.

The electronic markets do work, but much of the west coast is not yet equipped to deal in them, due to lack of infrastructure. What is needed there is improved piers and new grading facilities.

I am delighted that the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group—SIFAG—has recently been established. It should be a good forum for fishermen and others to thrash out the local issues and rules, such as a policy on seal management and charging schemes. Something like that is long overdue and should give a greater voice to the independent fishermen. To be effective, however, it must adopt a long-term strategic approach to the management of the inshore industry.

On fleet modernisation, it is ridiculous that the British taxpayer is subsidising other European vessels, not its own fleet. The UK Government must access the available European funds and must put an end to capacity penalties.

We must modernise, especially on factors relating to vessels which enhance the quality of the catch, including refrigeration, grading and gutting facilities. Improving the value of the catch is paramount; at the same time, we must improve safety.

I hate to say this, but the Government is gambling with the lives of our fishermen. It withdrew safety grants because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had overspent. That was due to a combination of BSE compensation and expenditure on the pets quarantine scheme, compounded by a shortfall in the money expected from the sale of the Covent Garden complex. Pets before people: that is not good enough. A new approach is needed.

Conservation of fish stocks is being undermined by the dumping of dead fish. Equipment should include technology that protects undersized and immature stock, such as square-mesh panels. Zonal management would give our fishermen a say in their own future. Each species that is important to Scotland must be managed with forethought, to maximise conservation and catch. Haddock quotas have been reduced to profit cod and whiting, but the discards of small fish will negate any conservation benefit. A single TAC for monkfish will require skilful negotiation to ensure that Scottish fishermen have sufficient quotas, especially in the west. The prawn TAC should be enlarged to cover the extended area in which the species is now fished.

It is no good deciding a fishing policy annually; continuous reassessment, at least every quarter, is the way ahead. We believe that the advice of the Cullen blueprint report to locate the fisheries ministry in the north-east, close to the major part of the UK fishing industry, would bring that Government department closer to those most affected by it, and would fulfil the ideal of true devolution.

I move amendment S1M-358.2, to delete from "calls" to end and insert:

"recognises that the current Common Fisheries Policy arrangements are failing our fishermen and calls upon the Scottish Executive to advocate reform of the CFP that devolves power to regional and zonal levels which would give our fishermen better control over the stocks of fish whilst recognising the traditional rights of other countries, and further calls for the fishing section of MAFF to be relocated to the North East of Scotland, the UK's main fishing centre, and that continuous assessment should replace the current practice of annual negotiation."

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat 3:53, 8 December 1999

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I would like to welcome the fact that we have this fisheries debate today. We believe that the partnership Executive is effectively representing fishermen's interests, and has given fisheries a much higher profile. Having said that, I would like to make an appeal to the party business managers. We do not have long enough on these debates. It is an important issue, and I know that many speakers want to contribute.

The Executive motion before us should be supported by everyone in the chamber. It is a lever, allowing us to debate the industry and enabling us to support the negotiating hand of the minister as he goes into the annual round of negotiations with our partners in Europe to gain the best possible outcome for Scottish fishermen.

There has been much discussion in the press in the run-up to the negotiations. I like to think that the Scottish Liberal Democrats take a commonsense approach to promoting the interests of our fishermen. I will take the example of the issue of total allowable catches, TACs. We want there to be a real movement towards regional or zonal fisheries management, as many members have already mentioned, because we recognise the need for effective stock conservation, and also because of the need to reform the common fisheries policy.

It is heartening to see that there is a remarkable singularity of view on that matter in the chamber, which is to be entirely welcomed. I am convinced, however, that the only way to secure those aims and protect Scottish fishermen is by engaging in positive co-operation with our European partners, not by competing with them.

Turning to the Conservative amendment, I know that the Conservatives are a bit slow on the uptake, but I would like to inform Jamie McGrigor that, although he announced, in dramatic tones, that Franz Fischler is coming to see Scottish fishermen, the European Committee announced the same thing more than a month ago. He should get a bit more up to date.

The Conservatives are the party of negativity and opposition for opposition's sake, as we have just heard. Their amendment removes the positive and inserts the negative. I would have hoped that they could have at least recognised the positive advantages to our fishermen of European co-operation.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

As Mr Rumbles is looking for the positive, I take it that he will be supporting the SNP amendment. If not, will he point out the bits with which he disagrees?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I will do that.

Some astonishing claims are doing the rounds in advance of the negotiations. Some people would have us withdraw from co-operation with our European partners. That is the subject of a large amount of correspondence, in the north, in The Press and Journal.

I would like to quote one of my constituents from Stonehaven, Mr Mike Park, the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. In a letter to The Press and Journal he says:

"The only real possibility in the near future of the industry being allowed to catch more fish is if we allow the stocks to recover. So let's start speaking about technical measures and other possible step, such as moving away from quotas, to enable this year's big brood of haddock to survive. So let's adopt a strategy that can have a long-term objective."

Mr Park is right: sorting out the problems of the fishing industry cannot be achieved by walking away from co-operation with our neighbours in Europe. Part of the solution lies with using the strength of the UK in our negotiations to reform the common fisheries policy in 2002. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is being particularly helpful and constructive in its willingness, even unilaterally, to adopt additional conservation measures.

I will now turn to the SNP amendment. Without doubt, Scotland is better off in Europe by using the weighted voting system at the Council of Ministers, which provides us with 10 votes, as the minister pointed out, as opposed to the three votes that we would be entitled to as a small nation, like Ireland, Denmark or Finland.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

The member will remember that his party is in opposition at Westminster. I was present at a debate on fisheries at Westminster—there were nine members in total—when a Liberal Democrat spokesman had a policy agenda that, in certain aspects, was different from that of the Labour minister. Can Mr Rumbles conceive of a situation where an English fisheries minister and a Scottish fisheries minister might have different views? In such a case, whose voice would be heard in European negotiations?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

It is quite clear that we are part of the United Kingdom and part of a team. When the United Kingdom team goes to negotiations, that is the voice that is heard. The argument that Scotland, as the principal fishing nation of the UK, should always take the lead in the negotiations is not logically sustainable. On the one hand, the SNP is prepared to exploit membership of the Union; on the other hand, it wants to abolish it. That is not consistent. On that basis, the SNP amendment is unacceptable.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

No, the member will have to wait.

Arguing that the Scottish Executive has only a limited role in negotiations undermines Scotland's position. Surely the whole Parliament should be giving its negotiators a ringing endorsement.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

In a moment.

Members will have received a copy of the publication by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, "Scottish Fishing Industry: Current Concerns", which it produced to give members preparation for today's debate. It makes several excellent points, some of which I want to draw to the members' attention.

On the back of the document, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation outlines the principal issues on which it will carry out research, with a view to mounting campaigns in the coming year. It identifies issues such as working for a sustainable fishing plan, zonal management, and quota trading and capacity regulations. It has produced an excellent document. The commitment of the Scottish Executive, as published in the partnership agreement between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, is

"to encourage the development of sustainable and locally managed fisheries to support local fishing communities."

There is a certain resonance between those two documents.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

I am sorry that I reminded everyone that Franz Fischler is coming, but, as not all members are on the European Committee, some members may not have known.

Talking of committees, when is some sort of response going to be given to the report of the Rural Affairs Committee on ASP? The poor scallop fishermen are getting poorer—they have nothing left. Does Mr Rumbles agree that they should not be given any compensation?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

Jamie McGrigor has illustrated the point that I made previously about the Conservatives. Everything that he mentioned—was it positive? No. It was entirely negative.

Photo of Mary Scanlon Mary Scanlon Conservative

Will Mr Rumbles answer the question?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

Other issues are exercising the minds of our fishermen, not least of which—

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Is the Executive trying to do something positive?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I remind Mr McGrigor that I am not the minister who is in charge of that department.

Other issues are exercising the minds of our fishermen, not least of which is the Scottish adjacent waters fishing boundary, an issue that was raised by the minister. That important issue is also highlighted in the federation's document, and I believe that I should emphasise our views on it.

As members may know, the Rural Affairs Committee has taken evidence from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the minister, and the committee's report is to be launched tomorrow. I will not confirm leaked press reports that were published in The Scotsman concerning the view that was taken by the committee. I can confirm, prior to tomorrow's launch, that the Liberal Democrats are fully supportive of the efforts of Archy Kirkwood, the local MP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who is trying to change that new and unwelcome boundary.

I return to the main issues at hand.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

Very briefly, please, Mr Rumbles.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

The focus should be on fisheries, not on generating anti-European or nationalistic rhetoric. The Liberal Democrats are not trying to justify the short-term and piecemeal way in which fisheries policies develop. Our priority is to find a constructive way forward that will deliver the goals that are shared by the fishing industry and all of us. That is why we should focus on the terms of the Executive motion that is before us today. All members should call on the Executive to seek the best possible outcome for Scottish fishermen that is consistent with sustainable fishing. We owe it to our fishermen to be positive and constructive, by supporting the motion.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

We now move into the open part of this debate. Several members want to speak in what will be a relatively short debate. I therefore ask members to keep their speeches to no longer than four minutes.

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour 4:02, 8 December 1999

I am a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, and we appear to be firefighting all the time when it comes to the traditional industries of the Highlands and Islands. It is with a sense of relief that I welcome the opportunity to step back and consider the direction that the sea fishing industry might take to ensure a more stable future.

In the sea fishing industry, there are potential problems. One that worries me is the future allocation of quotas to fishing boats. At present, quotas are traded for large amounts of money. That means that young people who want a career in the industry will be unable to have one. To become a fisherman, not only does someone have to spend a large amount of capital on buying a boat, but they must also buy a quota. If that continues, there will be no young people in the industry, and quotas will increasingly be bought by large organisations. There is no easy solution to that problem. To prohibit the sale of quotas would drive the market underground, perhaps, or mean that those who had already laid out large amounts of money for their quota would be unable to recoup that outlay.

However, the trade in quotas is a risky business, as quotas can be cut, meaning that that investment is lost. We need to find another way in which to allocate quotas, so that the gamble is taken out of the equation and young people will be allowed to join the industry. A few weeks ago, we debated community ownership of the land. Perhaps we should consider community ownership of the sea. A scheme is running in Shetland, for example, whereby the community buys quotas that are then allocated to local fishermen. Under the current quota regime, they must buy those quotas at market value. That may not be regarded as the best use of public money, when the risks that are involved are taken into account. That said, if we are in the business of protecting fragile economies, that is the best way forward in the current climate.

The Executive has made much progress in including the fishing industry in decision making that affects it, and in involving the industry in policy making. I welcome the minister's announcement about the local management of fisheries. I ask the minister to involve the industry and communities that are dependent on fishing in the finding of ways to allocate quotas. Perhaps quotas could be allocated to the local management groups. The initiative taken by Shetland shows that communities are already aware of the problem and are beginning to deal with it. We do not want to end up debating a crisis in the fishing industry due to the allocation of quotas. We have to work together to find ways to protect the industry and ensure that young people from all parts of the Scottish coast are able to find a career in sea fishing.

Photo of Duncan Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Scottish National Party 4:05, 8 December 1999

I want to focus on the aspects of this debate that affect the west coast, an area that is often overlooked. I want to consider the impact of the financial climate, particularly the situation with the scallop fishermen, on the communities on the west coast.

As was mentioned earlier, I had a meeting with the minister on Monday. If he came out of that meeting with an impression that it had been positive, it is clear that we are on two different planets. The representatives of the industry were disgusted with the Executive's lack of vision. There needs to be a lot more creative and strategic thinking. It is fine for the Executive to put together a committee to pull together all the interests, but why has it taken so long to do so and what will the Executive bring to it? It is the job of the Executive to provide strategic vision, but that is not what it is doing.

I want to talk about two areas: scallops and monkfish. I see that there is to be a 40 per cent reduction in the west coast quota for monkfish. What is the minister going to do about that? How hard is he going to fight? What representations is he going to make?

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

The reason that the situation is on the agenda is that scientists have discovered a serious fall in monkfish stocks. I understand that the situation presents a problem for people on the west coast and we will consider how to mitigate the problem. Cuts will be phased in, for instance. The fundamental problem is that the stocks have collapsed and something must be done to rectify that situation.

Photo of Duncan Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Scottish National Party

It appears that the Executive will not do a lot. At the very time when the west coast does not need this reduction in quotas, it has got it.

I want to talk about the issue of compensation for scallop farmers. There is an idea that the Government can do nothing about the situation, but that is not true. The regulation that Mr Home Robertson referred to earlier says that member states may grant compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels for the temporary cessation of activities in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, particularly those caused by biological factors. The Executive could compensate the scallop fishermen if it chose to but it has chosen not to. Why does it not have the guts to say that that is the case? The people in the industry know that the Executive is not committed to helping them out.

What imaginative proposals or legislation is the Executive bringing forward? The minister knows that massive capital investment is needed if the industry is to diversify. The case we talked about at the meeting on Monday would need £30,000. The problem is that the enterprise structure requires that 75 per cent of that money be put up by those seeking to diversify. What creative proposal does the Executive have to ensure that the problem is solved?

Photo of Duncan Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Scottish National Party

I will not give way as I have only 30 seconds left.

Much more effort needs to be put into research. Susan Deacon told the Health and Community Care Committee that the new Food Standards Agency would examine the problem as soon as possible. Has that happened? What money is behind the examination? What more will the Executive do to find the root cause of a problem that is crippling the west coast of Scotland?

Photo of Elaine Thomson Elaine Thomson Labour 4:10, 8 December 1999

Fishing has long been an important part of traditional economic life in Scotland, especially in Aberdeen and the north-east. If managed well, it should continue to be one of Scotland's sustainable industries, providing high-quality, healthy food for generations.

However, if it is to continue to be a sustainable industry, managing fish stocks effectively will be crucial. That depends on good science, such as that provided by the marine laboratories. We in the north-east are lucky to have the Aberdeen Marine Laboratory, which plays a vital role in providing accurate and detailed information on marine ecosystems, allowing us to manage fish stocks and to make accurate forecasts for use in quota negotiations. We must continue to learn more about the various species that are important for commercial fisheries, so that the quotas are negotiated and set on the basis of sound science.

Recently, the haddock quota was increased. That was the result of good scientific data showing that haddock had had a record breeding year. That may be connected to the recent discovery by the Oban marine laboratory of coral colonies on some of the older offshore oil and gas installations. It has been suggested that such colonies could provide a better habitat for fish, but gaining such information will depend on good scientific data and the work done by the industry and by the laboratories.

In future, the industry will benefit through working partnerships involving the scientific community, the catchers and processors, and the different levels, national and European, of Government. For instance, some 60 per cent of fish processing is done in Grampian, and that has been very hard hit by the effects of the European Union waste water directive. However, different bodies working together in Aberdeen found a solution that protected the industry and the environment. Solutions for quota problems must ensure, in the same way, the survival of the industry while also protecting the environment.

We need to develop a strategic framework for the fishing industry, as that will be important in securing the long-term viability of the industry. The introduction of square-mesh nets will also be important.

We know that Scottish fish landings represent 68 per cent of United Kingdom landings by volume and 60 per cent by value. However, we need to recognise fish and shellfish as prized luxury products to be treated accordingly. That will help to add value to fish and fish products. Many Aberdeen families tend to regard fish as an everyday food that should be cheap and plentiful. I would argue that we need to prize fish more highly than that if we wish to have an industry that is sustainable in the long term. Fish fits well into modern lifestyles and it should be the ultimate fast food.

The advent of the Scottish Parliament can only be good for the fishing sector. This is the second debate that I have taken part in on the fishing industry, and I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and other fish industry bodies are able to lobby the Parliament easily and regularly, ensuring that I and others are well informed. Fish will have a much higher profile in this Parliament than was ever possible at Westminster, which is correct given the relatively higher importance of fishing in Scotland.

One of the hallmarks of the Labour Government since it was elected in the United Kingdom in 1997—and of the Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament—is a willingness to consult and discuss. That has been shown in the setting up of the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group. For the first time, the fishing industry has been directly involved in policy development. Working together can only be positive; it is a move that is to be welcomed.

Photo of Euan Robson Euan Robson Liberal Democrat 4:14, 8 December 1999

I would like to make three brief points. I especially welcome the new approach on safety. The Scottish sea fishing safety scheme is a good idea.

I congratulate the minister on dispelling some of the confusion that the Deputy Prime Minister might have created some weeks ago. It is important that boats under 12 m in length are included—that is very useful. I agree especially with the point—the minister made it forcefully—about creating a safety culture. I look forward to hearing about progress on that and about his talks with the industry in the coming months.

I am glad that the minister was able to negotiate the extra North sea prawn quota, which allows boats of under 10 m to continue to fish. There was a danger that they would be tied up at the quay for three months. However, it is important that that lesson is taken into the December talks, so that we can get a higher quota. As I understand the scientific evidence, there is extra capacity and I wish the minister success in achieving a higher quota.

I ask the minister to examine engine size and related problems carefully. There must be more flexibility in the approach to this matter, as there are difficulties. He and I have corresponded on some of them. I ask him to take to the European Union the strong view of this Parliament that there should be flexibility in the rules governing engine size, in order to cope with some of the circumstances—misunderstandings and mistakes—that arise. Flexibility would allow for fewer unnecessary penalties on fisherman, which can sometimes be imposed as a result of difficulties with engine capacity.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

As there has been a change to the list of SNP speakers, I call Dr Winifred Ewing.

Photo of Dr Winnie Ewing Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party 4:16, 8 December 1999

When Scotland is once again an independent, normal country, the history books will look for the reasons why. I believe that one of those reasons will be the sell-out over the 6,000 square miles, which will be equated with the sell-out by those who signed the Treaty of Union.

I have been asking for the true reasons behind that extraordinary sleight-of-hand, dead-of-night, stealthy theft. One reason we were given was that the median line had to be tidied up. The expert on the subject, who advised the Government on the petroleum boundary, which gave Scotland the boundaries we always thought we had, examined all international fishing boundary disputes for decades and found that two thirds were not settled by the median line. That is not in dispute, nor is it in dispute that the Treaty of Union gave Scotland total control over criminal law—I regard that theft as a breach of the Treaty of Union.

It is not in dispute that there was no international demand for the boundary change—which, apparently, came at the initiative of the Scottish Executive—nor is it in dispute that there was no consultation with the fishing associations of Scotland or England, all of which were absolutely astonished and furious that they had not been consulted. What about consensus politics? Fishing experts from non-Executive parties were not even given the courtesy of being told about such a major change.

Photo of Dr Winnie Ewing Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party

I am sorry—I want to finish this point and then I will give way to Alex Fergusson.

I meet diplomats who are horrified by what has been done to us. Could the real reason behind the change be the propping up of English tonnage? Could it be that there is mineral wealth under the sea bed? Could it be to show Scotland up: "You've got your devolved Parliament, but don't think that Westminster doesn't rule, even on devolved matters."

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I am grateful to Dr Ewing for giving way.

In the minister's introductory speech, he spoke with great pride of making his first speech in the Scottish Parliament, for which he had always campaigned, and of being the fisheries minister. Does Dr Ewing agree that it is almost disgraceful that he should choose to denigrate the desire of this Parliament to discuss that fishing boundary early in its history and that it was out of place for a minister of this Executive to do so?

Photo of Dr Winnie Ewing Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party

The member will not be surprised to learn that I thoroughly agree with him.

I was a member of the European Parliament for 24 years, during which time I served almost continuously on the fishery committee. During that time I saw many sell-outs, but I will mention only two that stand out—they involved sell-outs to Spain.

The first was the 10-year revision of the common fisheries policy, during which only three issues could properly be revised: the Shetland box and two non-controversial issues. Instead of revising those issues, a total revision of the common fisheries policy took place which suited Spain but not the Scots or, probably, the English. In law, there needed to be an intergovernmental conference to agree those alterations, but there was none. I was the only member of that Parliament to object. The UK did not.

I thought that new Labour said that it would deal with quota hopping. Alex Salmond in the House of Commons and I in the European Parliament warned that the proposed legislation would be discriminatory because it was based on nationality. We asked for the legislation to be based on residence, which would not have been discriminatory. We are now seeing massive claims for compensation.

Is there a hidden agenda in selling out to Spain? Was it Madame Thatcher's juste-retour in getting back a lump of money, or has it something to do with Gibraltar?

Writing of the union, Benjamin Franklin said that England has caught Scotland fast and has treated her with utter contumely. I do not blame the English people, who are full of good will towards Scotland, but the politicians of the unionist parties in successive Governments who have sold out our fishing interests. Although not all Scots have fishing relatives, every Scot is deeply sympathetic to fishermen, who bravely put the fish on their tables. The Scots will not forget this series of sell-outs.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour 4:21, 8 December 1999

Like other members, I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to focus on the current issues facing the fishing industry in advance of the December Fisheries Council. A couple of practices that have been inherited from Westminster should continue: one is this debate on such an important Scottish industry.

It has been pointed out that thousands of jobs, often in vulnerable communities, depend on the catching sector, but there are thousands more in fish processing, the fish trade and fishing industry supply in my constituency and other urban areas. The problems facing the fishing industry concern the whole of Scotland.

Devolution should make a difference in this part of the economy. The minister reminded us of the setting up of the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, which is an important step in itself, and of other steps that have been taken to promote coastal management of fisheries around the Scottish coasts. I welcome today's announcement of a Scottish sea fish industry safety scheme and the fact that that might be extended to smaller inshore fishing vessels as well as vessels covered by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scheme.

What will not change in the fisheries industry—at least not this side of 2002—is the need to get the best possible deal for the Scottish industry in annual negotiations with the EU and Norway. I commend the minister's efforts in those two areas.

The minister spoke of technical measures that might help the problem of the haddock quota. A marginal reduction in the permissible size of haddock landed and in the levels of discards of young fish might help to achieve an effective balance between conservation and sustainable levels of catch.

My concern is not with what ministers should do if there is resistance to taking advantage of the Hague preferences, but with how to take full advantage of them. I ask ministers for an assurance that, when they go to Brussels to negotiate at the Fisheries Council, they will make maximum use of the available protection in cases where total allowable catch has been driven down for scientific reasons.

Other matters dealt with by Europe that are less directly related to the Fisheries Council are still of concern to ministers and the industry. The urban waste water directive has been mentioned. I welcome the steps that have been taken in that respect by the processing industry and by Aberdeen City Council. I hope that similar steps can be taken elsewhere.

Ministers should also consider control regulations on the landing of fish and make a case with their colleagues for promoting more rather than less flexibility in regulating the landing and transportation of fish. I realise that environment ministers deal with such matters, but the industry will be interested in getting a result in this area.

I support the motion and wish the minister well in a few days' time. I believe that devolution of the Scottish fisheries sector will work to the industry's benefit and will provide a basis for the negotiations that will have to take place in 2002 for the new fisheries policy. We should seek neither to displace UK ministers in leading for the UK industry in European negotiations nor to supervise English fisheries from Peterhead or Aberdeen, attractive though that idea might be. Instead, Parliament should unite to support our industry.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

I am afraid that I cannot give way during my summing-up.

We should unite to wish the minister well and to seek the best possible outcome of the Fisheries Council later this month.

Photo of John Farquhar Munro John Farquhar Munro Liberal Democrat 4:26, 8 December 1999

I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate on fisheries: it is an opportunity that may not be afforded to us for much longer, given that in the first few months of this Parliament's existence we lost 6,000 square miles of our fishing territory. I wonder what is next.

I have listened to the arguments between the various fishing interests over many years. Much of what we are debating today concerns conservation. I have heard the arguments between the trawlermen and the creel men. There is constant conflict. Attempts have been made to rationalise and harmonise, with conservation in mind. Way up in some of the inland lochs on the west coast of Scotland, closure orders have worked well while still in place, but the lochs have been plundered on the day the orders were lifted and the situation has been made worse than ever. Conservation did not work there.

We hear much about quotas. They have been the answer to everybody's prayer, provided they have been implemented and organised properly. However, everyone knows that the aim of the quota system has been defeated because mesh sizes and the fish that are landed are small and fish are returned to the sea bed dead. There is not much conservation there.

Vessels were decommissioned to help conservation. That was fine, except that smaller vessels were decommissioned—usually those below 10 m long and of less than 150 bhp. The result was that six smaller vessels were taken out of a fleet and replaced with one much larger vessel with a catching capacity far in excess of the six vessels that were decommissioned and with far greater horsepower. That system did not work.

New vessels are fishing inshore almost to the high water mark. I was told that they are fitted with wheels to enable them to do that. Where will this stop? We must ensure that we enforce a larger mesh size. Much has been said about that, but we have come to the stage where we must enforce it, and preferably enforce a square mesh so that smaller fish are able to escape and enhance the stocks that we are trying to retain.

I wish to promote the concept of coastal sole management, whereby communities are given a marine zone to manage and control out to the 25 mile limit, which gives them the opportunity to sustain their communities and their fish stocks. A priority must be to find a constructive way forward, involving all the political parties, that will satisfy the aims and objectives of conservationists, fishermen and communities.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 4:29, 8 December 1999

It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this topic, as it is one on which many members are better informed than I am. However, regional members must learn about the issues that affect the areas they represent and I have spent some time during the past few months trying to get a hold on fishing issues. In the briefing material that fishermen send to members of Parliament, they make a number of cogent points, some of which the minister touched on today, and some of which he did not.

For example, I am sure everyone welcomes the point the minister made about pursuing the issue of smaller square-mesh panels. I did not quite grasp what will be done about that or what the time scale for it will be; neither did I grasp whether this initiative will, if necessary, be introduced only in Scotland. The minister said that he will pursue its introduction in the UK and Europe, but if he cannot persuade the UK Government or Europe to implement the proposal, will it be introduced in Scotland? The fishing industry would like more detail on that.

Fishermen to whom I have spoken have not disputed the principle of sustainability. Their concerns have been about how sustainability can be established and about specific quotas. There was great concern about the haddock quota, which has—as the minister said—been amended as a result of talks with Norway. Does the amendment of the quota mean that the criticisms of how the fishing industry assesses quotas and of the science that applies to the establishment of quotas are justified? Is it valid that decisions that stand for a year are taken in November and December, and that no on-going measurement is used? Are we measuring such things properly? How scientific are the quotas? The minister did not address those points.

One thing that struck me from the press coverage of the talks with Norway was that our fishermen did not look for any increase in their cod quotas. They recognise the difficulty that cod fishing is in. During the talks, however, the Norwegians' cod quota was tripled. That left Scottish fishermen wondering whether there is a marine equivalent of the fabled and legendary level playing field; they got nothing extra and the Norwegians' allocation was tripled.

There are many other related matters, such as funding for modernisation and renewal of the fleet. The fishermen do not say that they necessarily want massive subsidies, but they want the same treatment as their competitors in other countries. There is no level playing field for that, either.

I return to whether there should be separate Scottish regulations and conservation measures. The minister touched on the issue about Berwickshire.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I will not make a facetious point about the sheriff court in Duns being 11 miles from Berwick, although I welcome the ministerial assurance that there will continue to be a sheriff court in Duns.

If there are different regulations in what are now English and Scottish waters, how will the industry be affected? Even at this stage, is not the minister prepared to envisage the possibility of difficulties in future—difficulties that non-political and non-excitable men in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation continue to emphasise? The Liberals were quoted in the press last week as saying that the mood in the chamber is that that issue should be re-examined by Parliament. I hope that, even now, the minister will dig himself out of the hole into which he has dug himself over the matter—a matter on which his dogged refusal to address the industry's and the Parliament's concerns seems unnecessarily abrasive and confrontational. It would be pertinent for the Parliament to go back to Westminster and ask that the matter be re-examined.

When the report comes out tomorrow, I hope that the minister will agree that Parliament can discuss the matter and that it can set about undoing what is undoubtedly a mistake made initially at Westminster, but compounded by the error that this Parliament made in June. Parliament can remedy that error if the minister will agree to co-operate with Parliament. I trust that he will take the opportunity to do that.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat 4:33, 8 December 1999

I know that you, Presiding Officer, have some personal interest in fisheries and that you know some of the leading lights in Shetland—my part of the world. I was reflecting on that last night as I went through fisheries papers. The fishing industry in Shetland is crucial and is worth some £160 million. The December Fisheries Council is seen by many people in Shetland as a necessary and anticipated evil.

The secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association is on local radio more than the local MSP—which is, of course, a great relief to the people of Shetland. The council is an important time and we should go forward in the constructive manner that has, on the whole, been suggested by what we have heard today. I wish that people had concentrated on the fact that we are debating the Fisheries Council, rather than some of the other—more necessary, as some would see it—political items.

I would like to pick up on a number of points that have been raised. When the European Committee discussed fisheries briefly yesterday, the view that was expressed—a view that comes across strongly in the representations that we receive from the industry—was that an annual ritualistic cycle is no way to run a business.

Fishing and fishermen with their boats are a business and should be seen as such. They must plan and invest year to year, but trying to do that when it is not clear what will happen and when there are rises and falls in planning quotas is not an appropriate way to run an industry. I agree with what Richard Lochhead and others have said about continuous assessment of quotas. I hope the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs will support that.

The principle that fishermen should be involved in industry decision-making processes leading to stock assessments is crucial. I encourage the minister to take that forward in every way he can. Elaine Thomson mentioned the relationship between scientists and fishermen. The way in which the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland works is an excellent example of that.

I read the Hansard report of the recent Westminster debate that Alex Salmond mentioned and noticed that the MP for Great Grimsby, Mr Mitchell, suggested Grimsby as the location for the national institute of fisheries, recommended by a recent House of Commons select committee report. Andrew George, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, pointed out that in an age of information technology a national institute could be spread round institutes and sites of scientific skills around the whole of the UK. The North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland is the premier example in Scotland and I hope that all parties will support a role for it in such a concept.

Important points were made today about measures to conserve fish. They should be supported by all parties. Lewis Macdonald made those points well. I tried to demonstrate to the European Committee yesterday—rather badly, I may say—the benefits of different styles of net. I will not go into that again. The Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs knows the arguments; there is a real mood for conservation changes in the haddock fishery. Murray Tosh did not seem quite to pick up that point—we are talking about haddock, not all species. If he had read the Scottish Fishermen's Federation brief, he would have seen, on haddock:

"The Federation's objective is to restore the quota by adopting, unilaterally, additional technical conservation measures."

That is a legitimate and very important point for the future of sustainable fishing of that species.

The minister's announcement on safety was good. Since he mentioned horsepower, will he in his winding-up speech consider that the really important issue there is dealing with the different regimes that apply across Europe? Our fishermen must not be disadvantaged by a horsepower regime that is different from that in the rest of Europe.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

That is a point I have taken up personally with Commissioner Fischler. It is imperative that the regulations should be applied fairly and right across the European Union. I have that assurance from him.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Thank you. Fishing is a hugely important Scottish industry, it is right for us to have a debate on it now, and I hope the Parliament will support the motion in the name of the minister.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative 4:38, 8 December 1999

Today's debate is about a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry and I welcome it—and, Dr Ewing, my family was heavily involved in the fishing industry until quite recently.

The fishing sector is not just about catching fish: it is about all the other jobs that back it up, such as boat repairs and servicing; bunkering; catering; net manufacture and repair; harbour and market staff; and the training, which Richard Lochhead mentioned, in Banff and Buchan College, Aberdeen College and others. The haulage industry is also a key part of it. Unfortunately, the Labour Government has not assisted it, so the fish processing industry is now being run more or less from France and not by indigenous operators.

The minister fleetingly mentioned the fish processing industry and the European waste water directive. Sarah Boyack was in this chamber when I had the honour of the first member's debate. She came here without any real understanding of what we were talking about. She thought that it was a green argument; we were talking about industrial survival and the need for the Government to use its powers. We just got a rejection.

What the minister can do now is take the message back to the various departments, in Edinburgh and in the south, and say: "Look, we have got regional funds. What do we need to do to help the fish processors stay alive?" Through the directive, they have to go into the new treatment schemes; many cannot afford it.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

In a moment, Lewis.

Years 1 and 2 will probably be dealt with. A wonderful scheme in Aberdeen has been mentioned already. In other areas, that may not be affordable. We need a little bit of intervention, because in the past other indigenous industries have received direct support, in capital form, to enable them to carry on and provide jobs. If processing goes, market landings will die, our ports will wither and fishermen will go abroad. We are talking about massive damage to Scottish fishing communities. I hope that the minister will take that message away.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

I thank the member for giving way. Does he accept that the initiative of local government and the industry, and the support and flexibility shown by the Scottish Executive in dealing with the waste water treatment directive, has allowed Aberdeen to make proposals that will meet those problems?

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

I am sorry, but Lewis was winning until he mentioned the co-operation and flexibility of the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive, in the form of Sarah Boyack, threw our concerns back in our faces in this very chamber several months ago. She was not for moving.

Consider regulation; people have talked today about over-regulation—

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

Let me finish this point.

People have talked about over-regulation at sea. There are many aspects to that, such as radio controls. What about the control regulations that Lewis Macdonald touched on? If the Executive is really trying to help—it must agree to this regulation—it should monitor the fish as it comes off the boat, not involve merchants and everybody else in a paper-chase of pieces of paper attached to every box of fish they buy.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

I agree with David Davidson on the waste water issue. However, on the Tory amendment, why did the Tories not move MAFF to the north-east of Scotland in their 18 years of office, instead of selling out the industry? Would it not be a good idea to move the Scottish department to the north-east of Scotland before we move the English department?

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

We did not suggest that the ministry should move. We are suggesting that the operating front of the industry should be relocated to the north-east, which is the base for the bulk of British fish landings and most of the Scottish organisations. We are saying, "Yes, let us look at it." That is what we propose.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

Why should we look back? If he is going to look back, Mr Scott should suggest to his colleagues on the Labour benches that it is inadmissible for them to come here today, two and a half years into a Labour Government, to talk about these issues. When did fishing receive help from them? Does the Labour Government recognise the industry?

By the way, Mr Rumbles, this is up to date. In this afternoon's press release from the minister's department, there is talk of safety. I do not see anything in it about quota management, regional management, common fisheries policy reform, capacity penalties or the problems of the west coast. There is nothing in it about horsepower, or about why the minister rejected the idea of processors being able to man the Scottish inshore fishery advisory group. There is certainly nothing about inactivity over the past few months. I admit that one or two of the minister's comments were valuable and I look forward to seeing them come out.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

It is a shame that Mike Rumbles picked on one little aspect, instead of going for the jugular and coming up with something sensible.

I will touch briefly on the Liberal contribution—at least, I think that is what it was meant to be. Once again we saw Mike Rumbles fishing for ideas. He was asked time and again whether his party agrees totally with the Labour group. Or is it only him? Even Mr Scott was quite honest about his approach. I thank John Farquhar Munro for his wonderful speech, which was delivered with gusto, feeling and realism, on the crisis facing the different aspects of the fishing community in Scotland. There is cross-party agreement. I hope that we can work together, but that very much depends on the minister coming back to the chamber and telling us what he is doing.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I am afraid that the member has already sat down, Mr Rumbles.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party 4:45, 8 December 1999

The debate is welcome; some good points have been made in all parts of the chamber, of which I will refer to a few.

Fishing is indeed a very important industry, and David Davidson was quite right to refer to the downstream aspects of the industry, which create so many jobs.

The minister started off, bizarrely, with a reference to one of his ancestors and the vote on the Treaty of Union. We must wonder whether the minister's ancestor would have approved of his successor's stance.

The minister also urged us to ignore the boundary issue and then proceeded to spend the next couple of minutes talking about it. I was glad that, in her speech, Winnie Ewing managed to link that issue back to the Treaty of Union.

Why is the minister so sensitive and defensive about the boundary issue? I know from experience that Scottish National party members always bring out the worst in the minister, but he should be big enough to recognise that the redrawing of the boundaries has been a colossal mistake on the part of the Administration, or at least of his colleagues at Westminster.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

Does the member acknowledge that the important thing is to ensure that our fishermen continue to have access to their fishing grounds? Does he welcome the fact, as I pointed out earlier, that Berwickshire fishermen were fishing recently off the Northumbrian coast and that people from the north-east of Scotland were fishing off Cornwall? That is what matters.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

I agree that that is an important issue. However, I draw the minister's attention to the representatives of the fishing industry, who believe, like us, that the boundary issue is important. If the minister would sort out the matter quickly, as he could if he made the proper representations to his colleagues at Westminster, we could put the boundary issue to one side once and for all and get on with dealing with other issues. Otherwise, I fear that we will begin to regard the boundary issue as symptomatic of the minister's position.

The minister referred to local management being developed in Scotland. I agree that we need that, but we also need its counterpart, zonal management within the European Union framework, as recommended by the European Committee. I am aware that the minister referred to that issue later on, as did Richard Lochhead.

The European Committee's other recommendations are also important. It is certainly important that we scrap annual renegotiations, to which many members referred, and consider some kind of continuous assessment, which would be more in line with a medium-term strategy.

I am glad that the minister brought the argument for further technical conservation measures into his speech.

The minister referred, I think, to ironing out quota fluctuations, but we must go further than that. We need a longer-term management strategy.

Richard Lochhead referred to the fact that the UK minister voted against the November settlement, which the minister then did his best to defend. I look forward to the response from the Minister for Rural Affairs. Mr Home Robertson also referred to the Hague preferences, as did Lewis Macdonald, and to the need for them to be invoked if necessary. I invite the minister, in his summing up, to say whether the UK minister would invoke them, or would at least give Mr Home Robertson permission to do so.

Jamie McGrigor started off his speech with the important matter of scallops. He referred to the need for end product testing, instead of the current regime. There is a good case for that. There is a considerable market for scallops with the gonads removed. In Kirkcudbright, in my constituency, there is a considerable industry around that product, which is sold to France. However, currently the industry is excluded—along with all the others—even though those scallops pass all the tests. I wrote to the minister on the subject some two months ago, but I am still waiting for a response.

Jamie McGrigor also referred to the need for further scientific information and for the industry to have confidence in such information. There is a suspicion that research in many areas is underfunded. That is another matter which the minister could examine.

As other members said, the Tory amendment is a bit of a joke.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

All that is suggested is that we do what the party campaigned on. We campaigned on the Cullen blueprint, which suggested moving the Government department for fisheries to Aberdeen, for health to Dundee and for agriculture to Perth. I am surprised that the SNP wants to keep things at Westminster, but I am delighted to hear that that is the case.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

I get the point. I know that the Tories are allegedly convinced about devolution, although when I hear their English colleagues at Westminster, I am not so sure of that. However, when fishing is already devolved, I do not know what is served by moving the fishing section of the English and Welsh ministry up to Aberdeen. What we should be doing is moving the responsibility, not the building.

Mike Rumbles spoke about who should take the lead position in the EU negotiation, but his vision of a UK team, including the Liberal Democrats, does not square with what I have seen at Westminster. The key word when dealing with fishing in Europe is not votes, but priority. Norway is outside the EU, and Denmark and Spain are inside the EU, but all have secured good deals because they see the fishing industry as a priority. There is evidence of that in the way in which the Spaniards accelerated their access to western waters. The UK, by contrast, has traded away fishing rights. During a four-year period in the 1990s, for example, the Scottish department was in favour of a decommissioning scheme but MAFF was against, which meant that we did not get one. It is not votes that are most important, but the priority that we give to the fishing industry.

Mike Rumbles felt that he had to make the ritual condemnation of the SNP, but if he had read our amendment, he would have noticed that it is about transferring the UK responsibility. The amendment is not about breaking up the UK or losing its precious 10 votes, but about recognising the pre-eminent position of the Scottish fishing industry. I wonder why Mike Rumbles cannot support that.

John Home Robertson spoke about being at the front of the UK delegation—I think that those were his words. The question is, will he be the puppet at the front of that delegation, with MAFF behind him pulling the strings? That is a judgment that we and the industry will have to make in due course. Let us hope, for the sake of this very important industry, that the minister will be speaking and winning for Scotland.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat 4:51, 8 December 1999

I am pleased to have the opportunity to wind up the debate. I apologise for my extraordinary nasal tone—I am afraid that something has afflicted me.

I share Alasdair Morgan's view that this has been a constructive debate. At times it has ranged into other matters, but never mind. For the most part, this important subject has had the attention that it deserves.

I want to take up and respond to some of the important points that were made by members, but I want to make one or two general points by way of introduction.

Like my colleague the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, I acknowledge the importance of fisheries to the rural economy in Scotland and the hazardous nature of the industry. I am delighted that over the past six months we have made good progress towards three key objectives: effective conservation of fish stocks, because that is the long-term future; the creation of a modern forward-thinking industry, geared towards satisfying market demand for high-quality fish, because that is how profitability will be assured and maximised; and a fishing industry that supports coastal communities, particularly in the remoter parts of Scotland. I endorse the view—and it is our view—that we can achieve those goals only by an inclusive approach and by involving the industry. That is exemplified by the creation of the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group.

I was somewhat surprised by Jamie McGrigor's comments—I hope that we all welcome my colleague's announcement of the introduction of a safety scheme for fishing vessels in Scotland, which will give us an opportunity to tackle that difficult problem in a way that is suited to Scotland.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

If it becomes this Parliament's view that the transfer of 6,000 square miles of coastal waters is not satisfactory and that the original boundary should be restored, will that become the policy of the Executive and will the Executive seek to renegotiate the boundary with the Westminster Parliament on that basis?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

If the Parliament came to such a view, the Executive would have to pay some attention to that.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

Indeed. However, let us get this into perspective. The issue was raised during the debate by a number of members—Dr Ewing, Jamie McGrigor and Murray Tosh. Murray Tosh's point would not, of course, be dealt with simply by moving the boundary, because it concerned disputes. Wherever there is a boundary and different jurisdictions, it is not possible to avoid disputes.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

The argument about the 6,000 square miles would be far more convincing if someone had succeeded in demonstrating to us that a single penny had been lost by Scottish fishermen as a result of the measure.

Photo of Des McNulty Des McNulty Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that what the minister is saying is extremely interesting, but I am having severe difficulty hearing him. Could you invite him to stand closer to the microphone?

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Thank you, Mr McNulty. The minister should do that.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

That is more a point of position than a point of order, but I shall take Mr McNulty's suggestion on board.

In his opening remarks, Richard Lochhead mentioned the alleged dispute between UK ministers and Scottish ministers at the last Fisheries Council meeting. That is simply not the case. The UK minister abstained on one small issue relating to FIFG administration. No other points were disputed and John Home Robertson was quite right to say that he regarded that settlement as entirely satisfactory.

The point about the Scottish minister being the lead minister has also been raised. I can understand why the Scottish National party would prefer—independence or not—that the Scottish minister should always lead.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

No, I will finish this point.

To take that view is to misunderstand completely the way in which the devolved settlement operates. We are now in a position in which there must be consensus at UK level as to how we operate. I can assure Richard Lochhead that on the question of fisheries, where the pre-eminent position of Scottish fisheries is well known, Scotland's position in arguing what the UK line should be is a strong one.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Does the minister accept that it is not only the SNP's opinion that the Scottish fisheries minister should have lead responsibility for the whole of the UK in European negotiations, but the view of the industry?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I can assure Mr Lochhead that the views of Scottish ministers are taken on board in promoting the interests of Scotland. He also asked whether we would invoke our Hague preference rights if it was in the best interests of Scotland, and I can confirm that we would undoubtedly do so.

Mr Lochhead asked about reform of the common fisheries policy. The Executive was rather disappointed to learn that the Commission's current view is that the comprehensive review that we had hoped for might not take place, and it is a matter of regret that we do not foresee it happening. Nevertheless, we support the retention of six and 12-mile limits, and the question of relative stability is key to that. We want to feed in the views of the Scottish industry on the issues that many members have raised—regionalisation of the CFP, quota stability and the retention of the Shetland box.

Jamie McGrigor mentioned amnesic shellfish poisoning. His call for a different form of testing is one that Alasdair Morgan raised again in his remarks. At present, testing is being conducted according to the terms of council directive 97/61/EC, and we think that that is proper. If clear scientific evidence were produced that that was wrong, my department would be keen to consider it.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Does the minister agree that, as the test result takes 14 days to produce, there is a period during which people will be at great risk? However, if the end product were tested, we would know that the thing that was going into the food chain was safe.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

Mr McGrigor advances that opinion, but it is a matter that ought to be debated with the Minister for Health and Community Care, as food safety is her responsibility.

Duncan Hamilton and Jamie McGrigor both mentioned compensation. Many people in the industry have been able to avail themselves of alternative fisheries. I accept that a small number of fishermen have been unable to do that, and John Home Robertson is therefore examining the situation again.

I shall address some of the other questions that were raised. I note Jamie McGrigor's points about safety.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

No.

I share Alex Salmond's view about the Tories' rather quaint notion that devolution has nothing to do with the powers of this Parliament and everything to do with the distribution of English ministries throughout the United Kingdom. That is not devolution as anyone else in the chamber understands it.

Duncan Hamilton made a point about monkfish. I must say to him directly that we cannot just make fish appear. If the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea report is telling us that the stocks are so depleted that we should take action, I hope that he is not suggesting that that scientific evidence should be ignored. That would not be desirable.

Euan Robson made valuable points about our ability to increase the nephrops stock. That will be pursued.

I will take up Murray Tosh's second point, on the issue of using square mesh. We have been able to get the European Union to do more in relation to the UK haddock stock—not just the Scottish stock—because we persuaded our UK colleagues and the UK industry that it should be a UK approach. That approach persuaded the European Union to reconsider the haddock quota that will be made available to us.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The point that follows on from that also follows on from what Mr Home Robertson said at the Rural Affairs Committee on 2 November, when he acknowledged the likelihood—one statutory instrument already exists—that there will be a series of regulations that will affect the Berwickshire bank on only one side of the boundary line. Does it not make sense for the entire Berwickshire bank to be covered by one set of regulations, across every area of the industry? Would it not be sensible for that boundary to be redrawn, so that the whole Berwickshire bank comes under one set of conservation gear regulations and other regulations?

Mr Hamish Morrison made that point at the committee.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

In this instance, we have done exactly what Mr Tosh asked, and have secured an agreement on haddock, which will not give rise to such a problem.

I believe that we are clear that this is a most important industry. We are clear that Mr John Home Robertson will represent Scotland's interests in this important matter. At the forthcoming Fisheries Council, he will have one objective and one objective only, to obtain the best possible settlement for the Scottish fishing industry and its future.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

That concludes the debate. There are no Parliamentary Bureau motions to be considered.