Hansard

I will do my best to address some of the points that have been made very eloquently by many members of all parties in the chamber. I agree with Sarah Boyack and Alex Johnstone that we have had a very good debate with good speeches.

At the outset, I should say that as well as being Scottish Government minister for fisheries, I represent—as do many members in the chamber—a constituency in which many of the communities are defined by their fishing heritage. Today, the level of fishing activity is much less than it was in many previous decades, and fewer livelihoods are dependent on fisheries compared with past years. That is perhaps the real cost to us all of the common fisheries policy.

Many members spoke about the importance of our fishing industry to defining not just our communities but Scotland as a nation. Many also made the point that the future of our fishing communities is a national priority. It is not just an issue for members who represent fishing communities, which is why I was delighted that John Pentland, our representative from Motherwell and Wishaw, spoke in the debate and used the opportunity to remind us of that point.

We are also speaking about food. Dave Thompson raised the fact that we are talking about a top-quality food product, which, as Jean Urquhart said, is also a healthy product. We are therefore talking about a good healthy food, to which many communities add value to the benefit of both our coastal economies and Scotland as a nation.

I welcome the news, which Dave Thompson referred to, that the west coast of Scotland, which has not had its problems to seek in the fishing industry in recent years, has an added-value project that means that consumers the length and breadth of these islands will be able to buy top-quality langoustines from the pristine waters of the west coast. That is good news for the local industry.

Fishing has changed over the decades, and there are several factors behind that. First, the biological and ecological conditions in our seas have changed. That has had an influence on the size and location of our stocks, and we should not lose sight of that. We have also seen technological creep. Our vessels have become bigger and more efficient and can catch fish a lot more quickly and easily than in previous decades. That influences the number of vessels that we can have and the impact that they have on our fragile fish stocks.

Those are important factors, but I think that we can all agree today that the biggest factor that has influenced the fortunes of Scotland’s fishing communities down the years has been the disastrous European common fisheries policy, which is what today’s debate is really about.

I want to address a number of issues that were raised by members. I will start by ensuring that the arguments that we put forward for the future of our fishing communities and fish stocks are based on science. It is important that we present the evidence that makes Scotland’s case. Tavish Scott asked about the science budgets; I can assure him that as part of yesterday’s announcement we have protected the fish science budgets in my portfolio. We recognise the importance of the science in negotiations, not just this year but in subsequent years, including in relation to some of the stocks in Tavish Scott’s constituency. We need more science. We tend to be one of the few member states to have an interest in the stocks, so we have to ensure that we fund the science because no one else will do it. It has been challenging, but we have protected the budgets.

My officials have helpfully passed me a note to remind me that I am appearing before the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to discuss our budget in a couple of weeks. I am looking forward to that.

Many members raised the issue of international tradeable quotas and the prospect that we could have a regime imposed on us that would mean that our current generation of fishing businesses could sell their quotas to foreign-based companies, thereby denying future generations of Scots in fishing communities their birthright and, as Sarah Boyack said, inflicting huge economic damage on our onshore sectors, as well the fleet. We all want to avoid that. We have asked for clarification from the Commission on the legalities of what it proposes and the safeguards it is offering. Clearly, we live in a single market, so if a Scots fisherman can sell to another Scots fishermen, how can he be prevented from selling to Dutch or Spanish fishermen? As I said in my opening remarks, unless we have absolute guarantees, the proposal will spell doom for many of Scotland’s fishing communities.

Discards are a huge public issue. I can exclusively reveal to the chamber that I have had two lengthy conversations with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in recent months. He did not give me any tips for the kitchen, but we did discuss the importance of discards and ensuring that we take the right approach. I used the opportunity to make it clear that we need not only a ban on discards at some point in the future but a plan to get there in the first place. The situation is not quite as simple as some people are making out, particularly in the case of Scotland’s mixed fishery, where the net goes over the side of the boat and various species are caught at the one time. It is not the same in the clean fisheries in the Mediterranean and elsewhere in European waters. We must be very careful, but we all agree that we have to make discards history as soon as possible.

Another proposal from the European Commission is that we ensure that our stocks achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015. We can all agree with that principle, but we have concerns about how we will get there. As I said before, the biological and ecological conditions in our seas can influence the location and size of stocks; therefore, it is not the way forward to set a crude target for 2015 and, if we do not make progress quickly enough in the eyes of the European Commission, to be suddenly denied fishing opportunities for our fleet. We will keep a close watching brief on that.

Many members raised the issue of aquaculture and the need to ensure that the mistakes that we have made over sea fisheries are not made in relation to Scotland’s important aquaculture sector.

Some good things are being proposed by the Commission. For instance, the movement toward long-term multi-annual plans for our fish stocks is a good idea that we all support. We must move away from the constant crisis management that our fishing industry has had to put up with year in, year out. Those plans would be a way of doing that and would give the industry stability to plan its business into the future. The retention of relative stability is also welcomed by us all, because it protects Scotland’s historical fishing rights. The protection of the Hague preferences, which is a mechanism that ensures that fisheries-dependent communities get a minimum threshold of fish stocks and quotas, is also very important for Scotland and Ireland. In addition, the retention of the 6 and 12-mile limits has been confirmed, which we all welcome.

Tavish Scott raised the issue of the Shetland box. We have noticed that it is absent from the European Commission’s proposals and we are discussing with fishing representatives in Shetland and nationally how we can take the debate forward on the future of the Shetland box. I assure Tavish Scott that the matter is on our radar screen.

Sarah Boyack suggested that we must maximise our influence in the negotiations. I agree that we must make every effort to maximise our influence in determining the future of the common fisheries policy and the future of our fishing communities. That is why we are asking for a greater role for Scotland in those negotiations. Surely, we all agree that the current position is unsustainable. Last year, the Labour Government chose to send from the House of Lords a junior minister with responsibility for bee health to an important fisheries meeting, despite the Scottish Government’s request to attend; the UK Government turned down the Scottish Government’s request to have the Scottish fisheries minister present. Surely, any reasonable person recognises that that is wholly unacceptable.

The new Tory-Lib Dem Government in London says that it is relaxed about Scotland attending and speaking at meetings when a predominantly Scottish interest is being discussed or there is another good reason for us to do so. Yet, every time that we have asked to do that, it has said no. The UK Government cannot on the one hand be relaxed about the Scottish Government having the opportunity to put the case for Scotland’s fishing communities, but on the other, when a logical case is put as to why Scotland should take the lead or be able to speak at a meeting, say no every time. The only time that has been allowed to happen was when the First Minister intervened and persuaded the Prime Minister to overturn DEFRA’s decision. That situation must change if Scotland is to maximise its influence as we move forward.

The make-or-break issue in the CFP negotiations will be the extent to which decision making can be decentralised and returned to Scotland and the other member states, to work on a more local and regional level. I am pleased that the Parliament is united in recognising that that is the make-or-break issue and that we can send a clear, loud and united message from Scotland that it must be delivered. At the moment, we are awaiting further information from the Commission—which it has promised to publish soon—on how a regional model might work in a way that is acceptable in terms of the treaties and legal conditions. Our argument is that it is important to knock down the legal obstacles to ensure that such a model is delivered. If we agree that the CFP, under the current arrangements, has failed miserably, we cannot allow that to continue; so, let us knock down any of the obstacles that prevent decision making from being returned to member states and Scotland, in order to give our fish stocks and fishing communities a future.

Members have referred to the importance of our fishing industry in Shetland, Orkney, the west coast, Mallaig, north-east Fife, north-east Scotland, Eyemouth, the Western Isles, Scrabster, Lochinver, Pittenweem, Buckie and elsewhere. Our fishing industry remains crucial to the future of Scotland, which is why I am confident that we can take a team Scotland approach to the negotiations and speak with one voice as we work with our MEPs and other member states. I have had meetings with the Spanish and Irish ministers, and we will continue to do what Sarah Boyack asked for and put our case to other member states and capitals in Europe as well as working with the UK Government. The UK Government will have to work with Scotland and will, I hope, take into account our predominant interest in the UK’s case. Seventy per cent of the UK’s fishing industry is based in Scotland; therefore, it is vital that the UK Government listens to what Scotland has to say.

In closing, Rod Campbell said that he visited the Scottish fisheries museum in Anstruther. I have fond memories of my visit in the past year or so. I recommend making a visit to all members, who will see that the history of fishing is woven into Scotland’s story.

We must get the review of the common fisheries policy right so that we can write a new chapter for Scotland’s fishing communities and save Scotland’s fishing industry.