Fisheries

– in the Scottish Parliament at 11:13 am on 15 March 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 11:13, 15 March 2001

We move now to the debate on motion S1M-1760, in the name of Ross Finnie, on fisheries. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons now. As this is a very short debate, I will be strict on the timing throughout for every member. I call Rhona Brankin to speak to and move the motion.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour 11:31, 15 March 2001

This is a debate about the kind of coastal communities in which I lived for 25 years and about which I care passionately. The debate is about the future of those communities; it is not just about the needs of today, but about the needs of tomorrow, next year and decades to come. It is not just about the jobs of today, but about the jobs to come in the years ahead. It is about children and making provision to ensure that they have a job in the industry that sustained their fathers and their fathers' fathers.

A week ago, I stood in Parliament and announced a £27 million package—the biggest ever single investment in the Scottish fishing industry. The Executive is committed to a sustainable, prosperous future for this important industry, and I believe that the £27 million package announced last week demonstrates that commitment.

No one in the chamber or in the fishing industry would disagree that serious challenges must be faced in the weeks and months ahead. However, I believe that by working in close partnership with the fishing industry we can meet and master those challenges and face the future with confidence.

Amid the issues that are currently causing us difficulties, there are opportunities for the future. For the time being, there is in the fishing grounds a prevalence of small haddock, many of which are below the minimum landing size. Although it is a challenge to manage a natural resource, that prevalence gives us hope for the future.

As I said last week, the sustainability of fish stocks must be at the heart of our approach. Put simply, there are too many boats chasing too few fish. To achieve sustainable fishing, we must reduce the capacity of our fleet to allow fish stocks to increase. If we achieve sustainable stocks, we achieve a viable industry.

That was the background to last week's announcement of an unprecedented investment in the industry. At the heart of the £27 million package was a £25 million decommissioning scheme, which is intended to remove about 20 per cent of the capacity of the Scottish white fish fleet. That will help not only to balance capacity with fishing effort, but to ensure a more secure economic future for the remainder of the white fish fleet. That investment was requested by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and it has been delivered in full. Hamish Morrison of the SFF has called it "a handsome settlement".

The problem has been about the short term, not the long term. In particular, parts of the industry and the Parliament have expressed their disappointment about the absence of any short-term tie-up assistance. Let me explain the rationale. First, there is confusion about when the £25 million decommissioning package will begin to take effect. It is not some dim and distant prospect; we are already developing the scheme and want to open it up within weeks—in fact, by June. Although its implementation is a short-term matter, I believe that it will have long-term benefits.

Last week, I described the range of adjustments to fishing gear that I thought were necessary to tackle the short-term problem of the killing and discarding of excessive numbers of small haddock. Three cheap and simple measures—banning lifting bags, reducing extension pieces and moving the square-mesh panel—will enable significantly more small fish to escape from nets. On the basis of scientific data drawn from trials conducted with Scottish boats, we estimate that the impact of those measures will be a 70 per cent reduction in discards over the full year. A tie-up scheme inevitably has only a limited impact, but the measures I have outlined will have a sustained effect. Next year, as the fish grow, we will reduce the amount of fish thrown dead over the side by around a third.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

The minister seems to be claiming that she has reached agreement with the SFF. How is that possible when every member of the Parliament has this morning received an e-mail in which the SFF makes it clear that that is not the case? Did the minister reach agreement with the SFF on Tuesday night and, if not, why not?

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

Order. There must be no noise from the galleries during the debate.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

No—Mr Salmond is wrong again. The SFF is happy that we are still in discussion. Does he deny that the federation thinks that decommissioning should be happening? Come on—let us get our facts straight.

The vast majority of fishermen agree that our measures will reduce discards. In fact, at the joint fisheries conservation group meeting earlier this week, the measures were broadly accepted by the industry, subject to some relatively minor derogations. The Executive's short-term approach is to get gear adjustments made as soon as possible—voluntarily for a few weeks, and then through legislation. I know that Shetland fishermen are already implementing some of those gear adjustments, and I welcome that. At the same time, the Executive is urgently developing the longer-term approach of decommissioning.

On that basis, the Executive believes that haddock stock can be protected and that fishermen can earn an income. As a result, we believe that a tie-up scheme does not represent value for money. Last week, the Parliament took a contrary view, which the Executive must of course consider.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

The minister talks about the best and most effective use of money. Will she confirm whether her decision not to deliver a tie-up scheme—for which the Parliament voted—was an economic one, or a matter of conservation?

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

Let me be absolutely clear. The advice is that tie-up schemes do not deliver a conservation outcome. The SNP has been quoting scientists such as Professor McIntyre. Although he is indeed an expert in marine pollution, he is not a stock scientist. The other person quoted—

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

Order. The minister is not giving way, Mr Lochhead. We are very tight for time.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

I will not give way, because Mr Lochhead does not want to hear what I am about to tell the chamber.

Our scientist at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, Robin Cook, has had more than 20 years' experience in fisheries management. He is the former chair of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea consultative committee and is the ICES chief scientist. Furthermore, he is the UK member of the ICES advisory committee on fisheries management and an independent reviewer of the US Government's fisheries programme. I can tell the SNP and the rest of the Opposition parties that our advice comes from the top scientist in fisheries management and fish stocks protection.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

I am sorry if Mr Salmond does not want to hear that—I am going to move on with my speech.

On the basis of that advice, we believe that haddock stocks can be protected and that fishermen can earn an income. No fishermen want the imposition of long-term tie-ups; they want to be able to get back out there and fish. They can do that using enhanced technical measures.

I met industry representatives on 13 March to receive representations about the £27 million package. I thereby honoured the commitment that was given to the industry by Henry McLeish to meet them and to hear any reservations that they might have. No one will be surprised to learn that the issue of tie-ups was raised. It was one of the first options that was raised by the European Commission in response to the cod recovery plan, but at that time the industry flatly rejected it. However, as minds have changed, our long and detailed meeting explored all the options and included discussions of a tie-up. The industry was able to set out a specific proposal.

The industry representatives proposed a tie-up of up to 150 boats over a four-week period, at a cost of £6,000 per boat per week—a total cost of £3.6 million. However, they were unable to tell me how I should decide who would receive the cash and who would receive nothing.

The Executive's decision is now whether, having regard to the views of Parliament, the expenditure of £3.6 million for a one-month tie-up can be justified as value for money. We are also telling the Parliament that the conservation benefits of that would be minimal. It is a difficult decision and we need to establish what we would get—in relation to the overall questions of resource conservation and fleet viability—in return for that amount of money. We are being asked to provide a short-term economic subsidy rather than support a policy of investment for sustainability.

Having said all that, we made some progress in our meeting with fishermen. We have made £1 million available for a new partnership between scientists and fishermen, and tomorrow observers on fishing boats will be monitoring levels of discards. The industry is already involved in that programme, and I genuinely believe that it is the right way forward. We will engage active fishermen in conservation. We will draw a wide range of industry interests into our conservation efforts, involving them at the earliest possible stage and getting fishermen to buy into the process. I am sure that that is what we should do and I am optimistic that the programme will be welcomed by the industry.

In summary, we have listened very carefully to the views of Parliament. We believe that the £27 million package is a practical one that will, with some minor adjustments, provide support for the industry in the long term and allow fishermen to make a living in the short term. I urge Parliament to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the record £27 million package for the fishing industry announced by the Deputy Minister for Rural Development on 8 March 2001; notes that the joint objective of the Executive and the industry is the conservation of fish stocks and a sustainable long-term future for the fishing industry; further notes that best scientific advice is that these objectives are most effectively achieved through a targeted decommissioning scheme and immediate technical conservation measures; welcomes further research into these practical measures intended to reduce the number of discards and protect stocks of fish, and welcomes the fact that the Executive, taking into account the view expressed by the Parliament on 8 March 2001, is engaged in continuing discussion with the fishing industry to explore a degree of re-balancing of the £27 million package of measures to address the short term needs of the industry by extending that research programme.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party 11:43, 15 March 2001

The minister said that the debate is about the coastal communities of Scotland. Of course it is about the coastal communities of Scotland. Therefore, the minister might have been better served in giving her litany of scientific advice if she had paid some respect to the attitudes of fishermen who believe that a short-term tie-up scheme is what the industry requires.

The debate is not just about coastal communities; it is also about the will of the democratic Scottish Parliament.

Photo of Andy Kerr Andy Kerr Labour

Does Mr Swinney agree that he does not represent the views of all fishermen, as there is division among the west coast fishermen regarding their position on a tie-up?

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

The Labour party obviously knows how to go down the route of divide and rule. There has been unprecedented unity in the fishing industry over the past few weeks. The people who are not listening are the ones who are sitting on the Labour benches, who do not listen to the democratic voice of Parliament.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I have given way already.

Last Thursday, Parliament met and resolved to provide financial support to our fishermen during the 12-week closure period, in the form of an immediate compensated tie-up scheme. We asked for a statement from the First Minister on the way in which he was going to implement that measure, but the First Minister sneaked out of Parliament without giving a statement. On Friday, we asked for all-party talks on the way in which the issue would be resolved, yet we still await a reply from the First Minister on that. On Tuesday, we requested a statement on the subject, but that was refused. On Tuesday evening, the minister met the fishing industry and was unable to secure any agreement with it. The Government still refused to make a statement. On Wednesday, we tried to drag something out of the Government with an emergency question, which resulted in this debate. What does that say about the respect that the Executive has for the democratic Scottish Parliament?

We have had the debate about fishing; we had it last Thursday. Parliament came to a democratic conclusion at a properly constituted meeting at which everybody knew what was going on. The problem was that the Executive could not command a majority in the democratic Scottish Parliament. The minister now tells us that the Executive is "having regard to" and has listened to the Parliament. We are not interested in the Executive's "having regard to" or listening to Parliament; we want the Government to tell us how it will implement the will of Parliament. That is what today should be about.

Photo of Karen Gillon Karen Gillon Labour

John Swinney makes a great deal of cross-party consensus. Can he explain the press release that was issued by the Scottish National Party on behalf of the fishermen's action committee? Can he also confirm that the will of Parliament was 50-50, and then he phoned a friend?

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

That discourteous remark about the Presiding Officer is typical of the Labour party over the past few days, and such comments have been made worse by the shameful behaviour of the Minister for Parliament.

The debate is about ensuring that the will of Parliament prevails. Why is that important? Because it is deeply rooted in the democratic tradition of the people of Scotland. On 7 October 1999, the late First Minister was asked on Scottish Television:

"If the Parliament votes that tuition fees should go, is that it? Do they go?"

The late First Minister said:

"Of course. I can't defy Parliament."

On 25 January, I asked the present First Minister what he would do if Parliament voted at 5 o'clock to agree free personal care for the elderly. He said:

"I must say that the voice of the Parliament cannot and will not be ignored."—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 654.]

Photo of Henry McLeish Henry McLeish Labour

And that is what happened.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

The First Minister says that that is what happened. He is absolutely right, and I am happy to put that on record. I am appalled that he has not respected the will of Parliament in this case.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

I ask the member to clarify his own position, as he seems to feel strongly about the tie-up scheme. If the casting vote in the 50-50 split in the Parliament had gone the other way, would he have argued that a tie-up scheme was inappropriate?

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I am sorry. I could not hear the last part of that question.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

Mr Swinney thinks that the tie-up scheme is the solution. However, if it had been lost on the casting vote, when the Parliament was split 50-50, would he have stopped pursuing it despite the fact that some fishermen are still arguing that it is the solution?

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

The problem with that argument is that the vote on the tie-up scheme amendment was carried not by a tied vote, but by a straightforward simple majority of Parliament. The final vote was also carried by a majority.

We now know that the real issue is no longer implementation of the will of Parliament. An Executive spokesman last night said that it was about implementing

"the true will of Parliament".

Today, members were to be given the chance to examine the package properly and find out the true will of the Parliament on the issue. It seems that the "true will" is the will that suits the Labour party. Labour members lost the vote last Thursday and have spent the weekend in a pathetic sequence of excuses to explain their failure to deliver a parliamentary majority. We have experienced an absolutely shameful set of events.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I am near the end of my time and must sum up.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

Of course, the issue at the heart of this debate is how we deliver the clear parliamentary consensus in favour of a tie-up scheme, which was clearly expressed in a parliamentary vote after the debate in this Parliament last Thursday.

The minister looks bewildered and asks, "What about fishing?" The Parliament's position on fishing is absolutely clear: there should be a compensated tie-up scheme and the sooner that she gets on with implementing it, the better.

People expect Parliament to decide. I have spent the weekend talking to people who cannot believe that, although the Parliament voted for something last Thursday, the Executive is able to wriggle out of implementing the will of Parliament. When I was in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening, I was struck by the principled remarks of John Home Robertson:

"As someone who has been committed to the principle of a Scottish Parliament for a long time, I say with feeling that the Scottish Executive cannot be allowed to sidestep its accountability to the Parliament."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 March 2001; Vol 364, c 866.]

There we have it: a clear view that Parliament's will should be obeyed.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

My final remark is this: an accusation used to be bandied about that some people were interested in wrecking the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, in The Scotsman of 23 April 1997, an article written by Peter McMahon, who now peddles the Executive's myths around Scotland, quoted Jack McConnell saying:

"We are not ... prepared to allow the Nationalists to wreck Scotland's first parliament in 300 years".

Now we know that Labour wrecks the Scottish Parliament because it does not obey the Scottish Parliament's democratic will.

I move amendment S1M-1760.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"and calls upon the Executive to implement the will of the Parliament as expressed on 8 March 2001 in resolution S1M-1725."

[Applause.]

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

Order. Enthusiastic applause takes time out of the debate.

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

I hope that it will not be about your previous remark.

Photo of Karen Gillon Karen Gillon Labour

Can you clarify whether it is in order for members to name civil servants in the chamber? You have previously ruled on that matter.

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

Actually, I have not ruled on that matter. I will consider it, however.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative 11:52, 15 March 2001

Normally, I would be delighted to be back in the chamber debating fisheries. However, when the public—the people who pay for us to be here—examine the history of this episode, two things will astound them. First, that last Thursday the Scottish Parliament made a decision that the Scottish Executive has ignored. Secondly, that we are back in the chamber to debate the same topic. I doubt whether hearing more words spoken on the issue will be of any comfort to the fishermen who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They want and deserve action. A decision was made to take action and fishermen want that decision acted on now.

Last Thursday, fishermen saw a decision being made in the Scottish Parliament that was a victory for common sense and for the fishing industry. This morning, a week later, they are witnessing a cynical attempt by an embarrassed and smarting Executive to overturn that victory, not in the interests of the fishermen or people's livelihoods but in the interests of propping up the shabby, discredited Lib-Lab coalition that masquerades as the Government in this country.

Should the debate be about the conservation of fish stocks? [MEMBERS: "Yes."] Should it be about the conservation of our fishing communities? [MEMBERS: "Yes."] Should it be about the conservation of the disgraced coalition? [MEMBERS: "No."] I call on the Executive to recognise last week's democratic decision to implement a funded short-term tie-up scheme as an essential part of the cod recovery plan in order to stop the slaughter of immature haddock in the North sea. [Interruption.]

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

Order. Members listened to the other speeches reasonably quietly. We must listen to Mr McGrigor with equal courtesy.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Fishermen and scientists recognise that preventing the decimation of the young stock will hold the key for the future prosperity of the industry. I ask members of the Executive not to attach themselves to an agenda that might wipe out the seed corn of the North sea fishing industry. Who among us will vote for the destruction of young fish?

The Deputy Minister for Rural Development has said repeatedly that she follows the advice of the fishing industry and works with it. However, although the fishing industry has been telling her what it needs and the Scottish Parliament has voted for what the industry says it needs, the minister has ignored the fishermen and the Parliament. Who is she listening to? She is listening to Tony Blair.

The First Minister says that meetings are good. Big deal. They are good only if people are listened to and something is achieved as a result of them. In case he, Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin want to know the latest advice from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, here it is, sent by e-mail this morning:

"The federation maintains its view that a funded effort limitation scheme between now and the end of the cod closure period would yield a substantial conservation gain for the haddock stock ... If the Government rules out, as a matter of principle, the introduction of funded effort limitation, it will be unable to meet its obligations under the EU-Norway five year cod recovery programme ... technical measures to conserve cod are ineffective in a mixed fishery and the welcome decommissioning programme will not be sufficient in itself to deliver the target already set for the cod recovery programme".

Rhona Brankin tells us that advanced technical measures will solve the discard problem. It is quite obvious, however, that the technical conservation measures were not working. That is why the fishermen stopped fishing and tied up in the first place. The advanced technical measures that the minister has talked about would not be in place for another month and even the best estimate is that they might reduce the discards by only 60 per cent. The recommended tie-up scheme, by comparison, would yield a 100 per cent reduction of discards at once.

The minister tells us that the west coast fishermen are not behind that plan. She is cynically dividing the fishing industry to suit her interests. Divide and rule is her motto, which is rich, given that the Clyde fishermen and others on the west coast have been affected by the Irish sea cod recovery programme for some time. The minister has done nothing for west coast scallop fishermen whose boats have been tied up because of amnesic shellfish poisoning. She has refused to draw down compensation for them, despite repeated calls, including from me and other members. The result of her current policy will be that white fish boats will divert their activity and fish for prawns, thus causing a glut in prawns and a subsequent fall in the price of a product that provides the livelihood of west coast fishermen. The west coast fishermen need a share of the action, but the minister will not give it to them.

What has the minister achieved? A revolt by fishermen, an armada up the Firth of Forth, a huge protest in Edinburgh, numerous angry demonstrations on the east coast and a democratic defeat in the Scottish Parliament. She should recognise the situation that we are in and she should respect the wishes of the Parliament as expressed last Thursday.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat 11:58, 15 March 2001

On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I would like to support the motion.

This debate is not about the rewriting of history, as the SNP and the Tories claim it is. It is in direct response to the demands made by the Opposition last Thursday in the chamber for the Executive to come to Parliament and respond to the vote. Not only has the Executive responded, but the proposal, as outlined in the motion, clearly demonstrates that the Executive has changed its position quite dramatically since last week. That is important to the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

I will take the point later. I have something to say about Mr Salmond first.

The debate gives us an opportunity to hear the views of all fishermen, especially those on the west coast who, until now, have been ignored. Last week, we heard only one point of view: that of the fishermen's action committee which, according to the press release to which Karen Gillon referred, has now joined the Scottish National Party. Surprise, surprise—there is a coincidence for us.

In last week's debate, Alex Salmond urged us to listen to the fishermen. I agree that we should. The position of the west coast fishermen is clear: that £25 million should be spent on decommissioning, not on a tie-up scheme, and that, if there is to be extra money for a tie-up scheme, the scallop fishermen, who were tied up for months this year and last year, should have the first call on that money. That is the view of the fishermen who have not been listened to by the Parliament.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

I support the West of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation and the Mallaig people—

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

Order. I am sorry, Mr Lyon. Mr Lochhead, you must speak into the microphone. Would you repeat your question into the microphone, please?

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Is the member going on record as supporting tie-up schemes for Scotland's fishing industry?

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

I am supporting exactly the position that was outlined by the west coast fishermen. I had phone calls from them this morning. They said quite categorically that the Executive had better not waver in ensuring that the £25 million goes on decommissioning, not on a tie-up scheme. That is directly from what the fishermen told me this morning.

Today's debate should be clearly focused on the single most important issue facing Scotland's fishing industry: the fact that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. Will a tie-up scheme address that problem? No. If we used the money for tie-up, that would jeopardise the long-term future of the industry. Will a tie-up scheme save the young haddock? No. Young haddock will be exactly the same size in 12 weeks' time as they are now.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Will the tie-up scheme save boats whose owners are on the edge of bankruptcy?

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

The answer to that one is no. If someone is close to bankruptcy—

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

—a short-term fix will not solve the problem.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

I have given way twice already. Sit down and be quiet, Mr Ewing.

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

Mr Lyon— [Interruption.] Order. I have a point of order from Mr Young.

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

Mr Young's point of order is first. [Interruption.] Order. I must hear the point of order.

Photo of John Young John Young Conservative

Presiding Officer, a few moments ago, you rightly addressed Mr Lochhead about his not using his microphone. I have watched Mr Lyon since he got to his feet: his speech has been directed at the Labour benches, not towards you. He is making a speech to the members over there on those benches, instead of to this all-embracing Parliament.

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

I asked Mr Lochhead to repeat what he was saying because I could not hear what he said.

Photo of Lloyd Quinan Lloyd Quinan Scottish National Party

George Lyon is not making a speech; it is a job application.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

Well said—the weatherman, eh?

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

Not much chance of your getting a job, Lloyd.

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

Order. Would members please sit down while I am speaking? Sit down, Mr Lyon. [Interruption.] Sit down. [Interruption.] Sit down, Mr Lyon.

As I was saying, I asked Mr Lochhead to repeat what he was saying because he was not speaking into the microphone, and I could not hear what he was saying. I can hear what Mr Lyon is saying.

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

If Trish Godman has a genuine point of order, I will take it. However, every point of order takes time off the debate, and I cannot extend the debate.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

I am sorry to take time off the debate, but my point of order is that an SNP member has moved seats so that he can get George Lyon's attention to ask a question. That is not acceptable.

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

I do not see anything out of order. Will George Lyon please continue? I will allow him another minute.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

The Scottish Executive has a duty to all the fishing industry, not just to some of it. That means that a properly funded decommissioning scheme—not a tie-up scheme— should be our No 1 priority and there should be proper technical measures to stop the slaughter. That means standing up for all our fishermen, not toadying to the big boys with the big muscles.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

That means challenging the fishermen to use the new technical conservation measures today, not waiting for 45 weeks until the legislation comes in.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

If the fishermen fail to use the technical measures, which will reduce the slaughter by up to 70 per cent, their credibility with the public will be completely undermined. They will be seen to be more interested in playing politics than in saving their industry. I urge the Executive to stand firm today, and to take action to save all our fishing industry, not just some of it. [Applause.]

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

I remind members that every point of order takes time from the debate.

Photo of Dorothy-Grace Elder Dorothy-Grace Elder Independent

I think that George Lyon should apologise for using the phrase, "the big boys with the big muscles". He is referring to brave men, who risk their lives every day.

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

That is not a point of order. We have only nine minutes left for the open debate. That means that I can call only three members, if they take three minutes each.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent 12:04, 15 March 2001

In a sense, this debate should not be necessary, as last Thursday we debated the problems facing the industry and reached a firm conclusion. Parliament called on the Executive to implement, among other measures, a compensated tie-up scheme. I do not want to dwell on the arguments for and against a tie-up scheme. The matter was thoroughly debated last Thursday and Parliament came to a decision on it.

Instead of implementing the will of Parliament, the Executive intends to flout the will of Parliament. It is clear from statements that have been made by members of the Executive since last Thursday that it has no intention of implementing the decision of the Parliament. That has caused great anger in the fishing community and, indeed, among the people of Scotland in general.

I do not agree with some of the ways in which that anger has been expressed. In particular, I deplore the burning of the effigy of Rhona Brankin. However, it would be wrong to try to sweep the whole matter under the carpet by blaming the electronic voting system, the Presiding Officer, or the Executive business manager. We all know that Tom McCabe is a man of many talents, but not even his great gifts of persuasion could get enough buttons on the consoles pressed last Thursday to win the day for the Executive.

The Executive lost the vote, and should accept that in good grace rather than try to force a replay. Support for the fishing industry is very important, but the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament is even more important.

My motion, S1M-1745, on adherence to resolutions of the Parliament, now has the support of all the Opposition parties—the SNP, the Tories, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party. If the Executive is allowed to get away with ignoring the will of Parliament, that will be treating Parliament with contempt and will set a very bad precedent indeed. People would understandably ask what the point of having a Scottish Parliament is. The main reason why the Scottish Parliament was set up was to end the democratic deficit, whereby for many years Scotland was ruled by Executive diktat rather than the collective decisions of Scotland's parliamentary representatives.

The time has come for the Parliament to exert its authority over the Executive, in the interests of Scotland's fishing industry and Scottish democracy.

Photo of Elaine Thomson Elaine Thomson Labour 12:08, 15 March 2001

The fishing industry is an important industry for Scotland, and this debate is key to the future of that industry.

Sea fishing is at a turning point. We can carry on as we have done for decades and in effect sign the death warrant for the industry, or we can take tough decisions to conserve fish stocks and create a sustainable industry for the future.

In its £27 million package of support for the fishing industry, the Scottish Executive has demonstrated that it can act swiftly and effectively. It is crucial that we put conservation of fish stocks and a healthy marine environment at the centre of fishing policy. We have an opportunity for a new partnership of the industry, the scientists and the Government so that we have a fishing policy that is made in Scotland for a Scottish industry.

Photo of Elaine Thomson Elaine Thomson Labour

No.

Many issues need to be resolved, such as reform of the common fisheries policy, industrial fishing and improved monitoring at sea. We will not be able to resolve those issues in Parliament today. However, we can ensure that the biggest ever investment in the fishing industry is used to the best advantage of the fishing industry, by allowing 20 per cent of the fishing fleet to be decommissioned and by implementing the enhanced technical measures, which can reduce discards by up to 70 per cent.

I support the long-term future of the fishing industry and will not support a proposal that seeks merely to perpetuate the current problems.

There is often much criticism by the fishermen of the basis of scientific information. I know that offers have been made by fishermen to work with the scientists. That could build confidence on both sides.

It is essential that enhanced technical measures are used and are shown to work. Fishermen and scientists working together could do that most effectively. Fishing—both catching and processing fish—is a traditional industry in many parts of Scotland and in the north-east in particular. I want fishing to be an industry with a future. We saw what happened in Canada, where the cod stocks and the onshore fish processing industry were lost. We know what happened in Scotland when the herring stock collapsed. When the herring recovered, the herring fish processing industry was gone and was lost to Scotland. We cannot let that happen again, because fish processing is too important to Aberdeen.

I suggest that the fishermen's action committee made a mistake when it aligned itself so closely to a single political party, as that action alienated many people. As for the SNP, any self-respecting party that wished to promote the best interests of a group would not seek to politicise that group in such a way. The conduct of some of those involved has stooped to an all-time low. Burning effigies is not the sort of politics in which I wish to participate in Scotland.

I support the motion and I support a sustainable fishing industry.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat 12:11, 15 March 2001

I want to set out the reasons why I believe that effective and adequate short-term aid, as part of the overall package that was announced a week ago by the fisheries minister, is so important. The Government's investment must be balanced: it must target short-term aid to give the industry an opportunity for long-term sustainability.

Last week, I met fishermen at Sullom Voe. Fishing accounts for a quarter of Shetland's economic output and employs more people directly and indirectly than any other primary industry. The Shetland fleet led the way in pioneering conservation measures, and the industry in Shetland is progressive, positive and determined. Fishermen tell me that, on the grounds of conservation, financial viability and the protection of future stocks, a targeted, short-term aid package is needed. I know that that is true and I support that objective.

I am not convinced by the arguments made against tie-up, but I want to push ministers on the alternatives.

The North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland has been trialling fishing gear for many years. I want the expertise of fishermen to be used—with that of scientists—on boats in order to expand trialling. In that way, fishermen could be employed to carry out scientific studies, which would benefit the industry, the crew and their families. For me, that would be better than tie-up, but I recognise that it is a limited solution and could not apply to the entire white fish fleet. However, it could be part of an overall tie-up package. It is about reducing fishing effort, which is, of course, the aim of a tie-up scheme. Trialling, by using fishermen and scientists, achieves many objectives. It reduces fishing effort, gets financial assistance to fishermen quickly and provides research for the future.

I resigned last Friday because I sought to convince ministerial colleagues of those arguments for more short-term aid, but I failed. I was not able to change colleagues' minds last week and then I witnessed a determined line against tie-up. As I was not able to support Government policy on fisheries, I had no alternative but to resign. Let me be clear: when one is a minister, one supports the Government. If one cannot support the Government, one resigns.

There has been positive movement, and I urge ministers to continue the dialogue with fishing leaders. I believe that the proposed short-term measures are still inadequate and, on that basis, I cannot support the Government. Therefore, I will vote for a tie-up scheme at decision time.

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

I am afraid that seven members who wanted to speak will be disappointed, as we must move to the winding-up speeches.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour 12:13, 15 March 2001

The Scottish fishing industry has reached a moment of truth and must choose now which course it wants to follow. The Parliament must also make a decisive choice. Those who believe that that choice was made last week fail to understand or acknowledge the nature of the choices that are before us. The choice between tie-up and decommissioning is not just between the long term and the short term, important though that is, but between two different points of view: how the fishing industry got to where it is now and where it should go from here.

I have talked to those involved in the protests in recent weeks and it is quite clear that some still do not accept that decommissioning is the way forward. Some reject decommissioning as merely a redundancy package for the fishing fleet. That rejection is based on the false hope that the fish can never really run out and that all the shortages, quotas and closures are the fault of meddling scientists and Brussels bureaucrats. If that was the case, there would be no need to cut capacity and fishermen could carry on fishing without change until kingdom come. There is another view, however, within the industry. Back in 1990, Danny Couper of the Scottish Fish Merchants Federation told an industry conference in Glasgow that if fishermen did not change the way they fished, they would end up wiping out fish stocks, which would deny future generations a livelihood. That warning rings only too true today.

The simple truth, which is recognised by many fishermen and processors alike, is that there are too few fish being chased by too many boats, because fishermen over the years have taken too many fish out of the sea. It is always tempting to blame someone else, but an industry that does not recognise that reality can have no long-term future.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Will Lewis Macdonald take on board the fact that we are delighted with decommissioning, but that we want a short-term tie-up as well? It is not a choice between the two.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

That is an interesting proposition, and Mr Swinney was clear that he knew what the will of Parliament was. Reading about what was decided last week, I believe that it is not clear whether we were talking about a tie-up instead of decommissioning, a tie-up paid for out of decommissioning or a tie-up as well as decommissioning.

Let me say that fishermen on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: they are fed up with the minority of skippers who cheat on technical conservation measures. Those are people who place a small-mesh net inside a large one and who wedge a car tyre in the cod end. Those are the tricks of the trade of a minority that does not believe in conservation or which does not care about conservation.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

No, I will not.

The message from Parliament must be as clear today as the message last week was confused and contradictory. That message must be: yes, to the fleet taking responsibility for its own actions; yes, to decommissioning and a cut in capacity; yes, to new and effective technical measures; and yes, to proper enforcement, so that every penny of public money that is spent on the industry is spent as it should be, to secure a sustainable future for Scottish fishing.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative 12:17, 15 March 2001

The debate has been short and heated, but a short debate is all that we need if all that we are going to do is to rehash what we said last week. The truth is that the Parliament discussed the issue in great detail last week and a decision was taken, then the Executive decided to ignore that decision. Last week, we welcomed the £27 million, but we also expected that the Executive would listen to the Parliament. Unfortunately, that was not done.

We have been told today that we are confused and that technical measures will achieve what we believe they will not. We have also heard the minister rubbish Professor Alistair McIntyre and suggest that he is not qualified or able to give scientific opinion on the technical measures. That is one of the most cynical things—but possibly not the most cynical thing—that I have heard in the debate. Above all else, we have heard an attempt to drive a wedge into the heart of the fishing industry.

Divide and rule is an old political gag. Today, we have seen that policy exploited mercilessly by more than one member on the Executive benches. The Scottish fishing industry and its many representative organisations will not be pleased at their treatment today. They have difficulty in finding unity, but unity has been achieved in Parliament and in the Opposition in support of the fishermen. Unity continues to exist in the fishing community.

The motion is designed to confuse. It is long, complex and fudges the issue. It takes us back to previous discussions about tuition fees and free personal care, when accommodation was reached that suited the Liberal Democrats. It is designed specifically to confuse the matter that was clearly and decisively decided in the vote last Thursday.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

I thank the member. Will he address the motion? Will he urge fishermen to use the technical measures that were outlined by Rhona Brankin this morning—yes or no?

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

I refer the member to my closing speech in last week's debate. At great length, I supported everything that had been proposed but pointed out that the industry believed that a short-term tie-up was necessary. That is what we debated last week and that is what we have debated this week.

Because of public confusion, Opposition members in this Parliament have often had to go round Scotland being accused of the ills of the Executive. If this whole debacle has had any practical function, it has been to ensure that the people of Scotland now know the difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We have stood up for the interests of a group that needed to be defended. We have been opposed by the Executive—but not in a fair and above-board manner. We won the vote last week fair and square. We have had to come back today to go through the process of briefly debating the same issue and then being subjected to a whipped vote that will defeat the Opposition and defeat the Scottish fishing industry. I suggest that it will also defeat democracy.

Photo of Karen Gillon Karen Gillon Labour

Where is the fisheries spokesman?

Photo of Mike Watson Mike Watson Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the fisheries spokesperson to be brushed aside at the last minute, to be replaced by a back bencher? [Interruption.]

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

Order. The member has long experience in two chambers and he knows that who is called is a matter for the Presiding Officer.

Photo of Duncan McNeil Duncan McNeil Labour

You can rule whether it is a point of order or not. [Interruption.]

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

Order. Members should let me hear the point. Mr McNeil, is it on the same point as the previous point of order?

Photo of Duncan McNeil Duncan McNeil Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Have you changed the list of speakers at the insistence of the SNP whip?

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I will not have this nonsense peddled in the chamber about my party. [Interruption.]

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

Order. There are no such things as party lists. Who is called in a debate is a matter for the chair—full stop. There is no debate about it.

I call Alex Salmond.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party 12:22, 15 March 2001

For the benefit of Labour members, I was always down to sum up this debate—as I did last week. The conversation that I had with our fisheries spokesman was about me offering the spot to him. Having heard that, Mr McNeil will perhaps have the grace to apologise.

We now have a new explanation for what happened last week. Apparently it is no longer that people were on the road to Inverness; it is no longer that some consoles were mysteriously not working; and it is no longer the perfidy of the Presiding Officer as claimed by the Minister for Parliament. We now hear from Mr Lewis Macdonald that the motion last week was confused and contradictory. This is the motion from last week:

"That the Parliament supports the aims of the cod recovery plan; acknowledges the financial sacrifices made by the Scottish fishing fleet ... calls upon the Scottish Executive to utilise funding from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance or other appropriate financial resources to provide financial support to our fishermen ... in the form of an immediate compensated tie-up scheme ... and to outline its plans for the protection of other stocks such as haddock and a programme for vessel decommissioning".

What is contradictory or confusing about that motion?

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

Lewis looks as if he is on the bow of the Titanic, but I will give way.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Does Mr Salmond agree with commentators who took the view that the vote on that motion last week was a rejection of the decommissioning scheme that was offered by the minister, or not?

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

The only commentator who could possibly have said that is the Minister for Parliament, because he has thought up every other excuse for his incompetence last week.

I want to read to the Parliament a letter that has been sent to the minister with responsibility for fisheries. It is from Marisa Bruce, aged 13. She recently visited the Scottish Parliament to debate a young persons health bill. She writes:

"I had a lot of fun and it made me understand the way the Scottish Parliament functions ... When debating the amendments there were a lot I did not agree with but they were voted for so I just had to go along with them."

If a 13-year old from Peterhead can understand the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy, why cannot the fisheries minister?

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

Does Alex Salmond accept that the motion before us today specifically recognises last week's vote, and that the Executive is now engaged with the fishing industry to reorientate some of the £27 million package to help the short-term needs of the industry? That is the very point that Liberal Democrat colleagues and I who voted against the Executive last week wanted and got.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

I noticed that Mr Rumbles, very correctly, did not applaud the speech by his colleague George Lyon. It will do enormous damage. If Mr Rumbles actually believes that the Deputy Minister for Rural Development will do what the Parliament says, he must be the only person in Scotland, apart from his other gullible colleagues, who believes that there has been a substantial shift.

I note from the Berwickshire News & East Lothian Herald that David Shiel, chairman of the Anglo-Scottish Fishermen's Association, who had a meeting with the new Liberal whip on Saturday, said:

"Our MSP voted with the Executive but he came to see us on Saturday and explained why he had voted that way which was to get the money on the table. But he has said he will vote with us when it comes up again."

Euan Robson should go back to that association in Eyemouth and explain his vote later today. The only consolation is that Euan Robson's likely successor, George Lyon, who has been angling for Euan Robson's position in this debate, is sitting on his left.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

No, I will not.

I want to turn to the substantive issue—

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Are we going to get a summing-up from the SNP spokesperson, or are we going to get what the papers said?

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

I have said many times that the content of speeches is not a point of order.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

That was an inappropriate point of order from someone who did not even bother to attend the vote last week.

Professor Alistair McIntyre, who, according to the minister, is somehow not equipped to give us advice on fisheries research, is the professor of fisheries at the University of Aberdeen and the immediate former director of Fisheries Research Services, the very organisation that the Deputy Minister for Rural Development is relying upon for advice. I will tell the minister the difference between Professor McIntyre and Dr Robin Cook, whom she cites—Professor McIntyre is no longer paid by the Government, but the expert whom she cites is under her pay and under her control.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

That is an absolutely disgraceful slur, and I hope that Mr Salmond will retract it. Does he agree that Professor McIntyre is an acknowledged expert on marine pollution, and not an acknowledged expert on stock management?

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

But he is not paid by the Government, and therefore is free to speak his mind.

There are two issues before us. The first is the democratic vote of the Parliament. The second is the future of the fishing industry. A future is possible for the industry. I have never seen the industry more united than it has been over the past few weeks. I have never seen the industry more willing to engage in dialogue with the Government. If the Government would just allow the fishermen to get through the next six vital weeks, it would be amazed by the amount of co-operation on technical measures and a range of other issues.

Men have been on strike for three weeks with no income whatsoever. Would they have done that unless something important was at stake? If the solution was as simple as a technical fix, would not they have implemented it by now, at no cost to themselves? For goodness' sake, listen to the voices of the working fishermen—the people who work the sea and care desperately about the future of their communities.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat 12:30, 15 March 2001

The debate has shed more heat than light on two important matters. Many members have talked about clear decisions of the Parliament—those decisions have been read out to us—but we must be clear about two things. First, Parliament did not vote for any more money. Secondly, Parliament did not vote to change the Executive's current position on the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. I do not say those things to disrupt the will of Parliament. They are two important facts. When the Executive gave due consideration to Parliament's vote, those two facts had to be taken into account.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I want to make this point.

We therefore believed that we were considering the £26 million package. We had to face the fact that our financial instrument for fisheries guidance contains no provision for a tie-up scheme. Such a scheme would have required a change, which could take three to four weeks. That is not to suggest that we could not do that, but it is an important consideration when discussing the period that is in immediate contemplation.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Scottish National Party

I have the details of the tie-up scheme that was introduced in Belgium on 1 March. It provides money for the crews and boats to sustain them in the period that the cod recovery plan covers. The European Commission approved that scheme on 22 February, because the cod closure was an unforeseen requirement. If that can be done in Belgium, why cannot it be done in Scotland?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I am well aware of the Belgian position. I am sorry to tell Mr Salmond—but maybe not sorry about the fact—that that scheme has not received final approval. I checked with the European Commission this morning. We are on the same wavelength. The Commission has not approved the scheme.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I am moving on. I will not give way on that point.

When we met the fishing industry, it was clear to us—taking account of all that had been said in Parliament, and given that we believed that we had a £26 million package—that we were talking about whether the way in which the package had been announced could in any way be rebalanced to meet some of those requirements.

Of course, the fishermen's representatives wanted to explore tie-up schemes in great depth. That was a difficult discussion. There are difficulties with implementing such a scheme and its timing. The Executive did not seek to divide and rule, but it was clear that there were differences of opinion between representatives of the east and west of Scotland. When they were pressed on who required the more immediate aid, there were differences of opinion about whether such aid would most appropriately be given to larger or smaller vessels.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

In discussing the principles of effort reduction, it emerged that a strong body of opinion held to the position that effort reduction was required not only in the immediate period, but in the next year and the year after that. Given the envelope of money that we had, that fact made the discussion more confused than it had been. No one disagreed—as I think all members have acknowledged—about the need for a decommissioning package. If we are to deliver an effective package within that financial envelope, the Executive would need to consider a reduction in capacity of about 20 per cent.

We did, however, look at other means by which we might assist the industry. Rhona Brankin and I looked at that even before last week's debate. Indeed, given the industry's commitment to adopting technical measures, we had rather hoped that, within that package, there might have been ways of, for example, making some contribution towards the purchase of technical measures gear. We also looked at other efforts that might assist the industry financially and that might help to point the industry in the right direction. I regret to say that the financial instrument does not permit that kind of thing.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I thank the minister for giving way. The number of excuses that are coming from the minister for not delivering the will of Parliament is embarrassing and absolutely pathetic.

The First Minister is on record in January as saying that the Government would abide by the will of Parliament. He said that as First Minister he would do that. Will the Minister for Rural Development tell us his position? Does he believe that Government should abide by the will of Parliament, which is the voice of the people of Scotland?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I have been at pains to explain to Mr Lochhead—I am sorry that he is not listening—that Parliament did not vote for any extra funds. This Government was entitled to consider that motion in its terms and within the financial envelope—which is a larger package of investment in the fishing industry than any Government provided in the past.

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat

To make it absolutely clear to the Parliament, I think that it would be helpful if the minister reaffirmed that the Executive absolutely accepts the will of Parliament when the Parliament votes for something. In this case, the Parliament was voting for short-term assistance for the fishermen.

Will the minister give us an absolute assurance that he and his colleagues have done, and are doing, their best to try to deliver that and that they will continue to do so, not only by extending the research programme, but in every other possible way?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I am grateful to Donald Gorrie for that intervention. I was just moving on in my final minute to explain where we have reached.

The measure that we are examining is about the short term and about expanding the scientific element, in which fishermen would be taken on to provide further fleet-wide experimentation on the technical conservation measures that are essential to the industry.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

When our discussions concluded, both sides went away to examine by what means we might do that.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

No.

In that spirit, I say to Donald Gorrie that we are looking to see whether there are means within the financial envelope, or whether there are legal means provided by the FIFG, through which we might assist in the short term, and I mean the short term. That is the spirit in which the discussions took place.

The Executive understands well that a vote of Parliament is important, but it is also important that we take account of restrictions. Government is about examining difficult choices and making harsh decisions. The only harsh decision that we have made is one of which I am particularly proud; we have allocated £26 million to the fishing industry.

The difficult decision is on how, under the regulations as they stand, we will produce a package that will deliver short-term means of support to the industry. That is what the fisheries minister and I are trying to work at. That is the undertaking that we are giving. That is the subject of the motion, and I urge the Parliament to support the Executive in its efforts.