Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:05 pm on 26 April 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour 4:05, 26 April 2000

While I firmly believe that the fishing boundary is not the most important issue facing the fishing industry, I believe that lessons need to be learned—and have been learned—from this matter.

While the Rural Affairs Committee was taking evidence, I was struck by the fact that most arguments came down to potential problems. What if the Scottish Parliament legislated for different net sizes from the rest of the UK? Would the fishermen have to change their gear when fishing in that area? What if the fishing crew was arrested and taken to an English court? Would they have to instruct an English lawyer to deal with their case? While such problems may never happen, one complaint that was not hypothetical was that of the lack of consultation with the industry on the boundary. That complaint stood up to scrutiny, which is why lessons must be learned and, I believe, why they have been learned.

Organisations now complain to me about the mass of consultation documents they receive. That is good, as it shows that the Executive is willing to listen. The Executive has established the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, which enables the fishing industry to have an on-going dialogue with the Executive.

The committee also dealt with the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999, which enables Shetland fishermen to manage locally their industry, to plan ahead and to protect their livelihood and that of their children. Such regulations are also being implemented in Orkney, and I hope that they will be extended to the Highlands.

We are also in the process of considering Tavish Scott's Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill, which makes a simple but effective amendment to current legislation and which has important implications for fishermen.

Much of the economy of the area where I was brought up depends on inshore fisheries. Because of the lack of local control and management of those fisheries, problems have arisen, with different fishing methods not being implemented sympathetically. When I was a child, many of the creelers caught lobsters and crabs, and some of them even caught prawns. Now prawns are all that is left in that area.

The situation threatens the economy of that fragile area. All creelers have to make their living out of the prawn fishery now, as there is nothing left to diversify into. Along with the community, I was pleased when the minister arranged to visit the area, to see for himself the problems that local fishermen face. That was the first time that a politician with the power to do something about the problem had listened to the fishermen's concerns. He strengthened the liaison group set up to deal with their problems and, if that does not solve a problem, I will have no hesitation in returning to him to ask for other measures to be taken.

We must listen to the industry and work closely with it to ensure that livelihoods are protected. I am glad that that is happening. We must ensure that we protect the rights of fishermen to fish in areas where, historically, they have made their livings, by working with partners in the north-east Atlantic, Westminster and the European Union.

We have jurisdiction over such issues. We can do something about them and we must spend the time available tackling them. They are extremely important to the fishing industry, more important than a boundary that does not alter the rights of our fishermen to fish and that has no effect on their livelihood.