Born in 1946 and brought up in Cupar, Fife, I was educated at the local school -
4. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will respond to European Union announcements on fishing made on 11 November 2002. (S1F-2262)
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): I will repeat what has been said before. The protection of the industry and fishing communities across Scotland is of paramount importance. As Mr Stevenson will be aware, the European Commission was unable to publish its proposals on 11 November as anticipated. Commissioner Fischler appears to recognise that wholesale closure is not acceptable and efforts continue, in discussions with the industry and others, to identify suitable alternatives. I know that that approach has the overwhelming support of the Parliament.
Stewart Stevenson: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that at this time of crisis we need unity of purpose between fishing communities and the elected politicians of all parties? Will he join me in welcoming the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives' campaign in this regard?
In addition to speaking to the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Deputy First Minister speak to the Prime Minister about having Mr Finnie appointed as a UK minister—I say this in a genuine cross-party spirit—so that the Prime Minister has the benefit of having a minister at his elbow who has at least been out listening to fishermen? That would avoid the Prime Minister, as at column 28 of Hansard yesterday, running up the white flag for fishing in these islands.
Mr Wallace: I agree that the issue should be approached on an all-party basis, as has been the case. The meeting that my colleague Ross Finnie—and, indeed, other colleagues present from all parties in the Parliament—attended in Aberdeen on Monday was indicative of that coming together not only of politicians, but of the community and of the fishing industry on the catching and processing sides.
I would welcome any positive contribution that the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives make. I am getting somewhat used to delegations of and representations from wives of those employed in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Fraserburgh wives are as effective in their campaign as the Peterhead wives were in theirs.
On Stewart Stevenson's other point, it might be taking coalition politics too far to suggest that Mr Finnie might replace Mrs Beckett. The industry and our fishing community need concerted effort to ensure that we get the right answers. They do not need navel gazing about who sits in which chair in the Council of Ministers.
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): Does the Deputy First Minister accept that Franz Fischler's delphic mutterings on Monday were no great progress? Does he accept that the Scottish fishing industry needs a long-term recovery plan for stocks and for fishing communities, which will face considerable crisis if the European Commission's plans are allowed to proceed? Does he accept that that is a better way to approach the matter than is a policy that is based on the political virility of Herr Fischler, who fails to understand the realities of cod in a mixed fishery?
Mr Wallace: I would not want to dismiss gratuitously what Herr Fischler said. There may not have been a road-to-Damascus conversion, but a glint of light is some step towards the blinding flash that might yet come to him.
I agree with Tavish Scott that we need to develop a longer-term strategy for our fisheries. That is important. However, the more pressing need is to ensure a successful outcome for the current round of negotiations. I know that my colleague Ross Finnie is making every effort to that end. He is making extensive representations to try not only to take forward the argument among those at home, but to engage our European partners in that argument.
Tavish Scott is right about the importance of our fishing communities. The sustainability of the stocks and of the fishing communities is far more important than the fate of one European Union commissioner.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Will the Deputy First Minister try to ensure that, in 2003, technical and management measures are uniform in all areas of the North sea and west coast to stop the present discrimination against Scottish fishermen? When he speaks to the Prime Minister, will he tell him that we have 30 days to save our fishing industry and that the clock is now ticking?
Mr Wallace: Proper account should be taken of the steps that have already been taken in Scotland, not least the decommissioning of the white fish fleet and the developments in mesh sizes as technical conservation measures. It is vital that full and proper account is taken of those when discussions take place with regard to the kind of measures that will be introduced. I hope that what Jamie McGrigor said was consistent with the all-party consensus on trying to achieve a successful outcome.
Mr McGrigor indicated agreement.
Mr Wallace: Jamie McGrigor is indicating that it is. That is welcome.
Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, as a matter of urgency, we must strike a balance between fish stocks and catching capacity and that we must reduce the amount of immature fish that are being caught? Do he and his ministerial team believe that we could learn from our Faeroese and Icelandic colleagues, who are not reducing the number of boats that are going to sea, but are ensuring that their fishermen do not use catch-all nets? Does he agree that we must safeguard the west coast prawn fishery in constituencies such as the Western Isles from any mass diversion of effort from areas of the United Kingdom where restrictions are imposed on vessels that have been fishing for cod?
Mr Wallace: I accept that there has been a serious need for some time to address the mismatch between capacity and stocks. That is a structural problem, which we have been discussing within the context of the on-going review of the common fisheries policy. It is important that we get that right. Lessons can and should be learned from the experience of fisheries management not only within the EU, but elsewhere, as Alasdair Morrison indicated. As Ross Finnie has made clear, we believe, based on the health of the stocks, that the nephrops fishery is sustainable. We agree that that fishery needs to be protected from the impact of any cod recovery measures.
14 November 2002
12 November 2002
(S1O-5505) Seaports, Harbours and Jetties
12. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the future development of seaports, harbours and jetties. (S1O-5505)
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The ports policy paper "Modern Ports: A UK Policy", which was produced jointly by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, provides a clear strategy for the future development of ports and harbours in Scotland.
Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that this week's The Buchan Observer contains a worrying indication that the disastrous aggregates tax may result in the loss of nearly half Peterhead Bay Authority's business? Will he note that SNP councillors have been joined by a representative of the parties that make up the coalition Executive in expressing concern about the matter? The sole Liberal Democrat councillor in my constituency said:
"Our key developments centre round the bay. It has always been our economic base."
Will the minister say what action he plans to take to offset the effect of the aggregates tax?
Lewis Macdonald: I am aware of the issues relating to the Peterhead Bay Authority. I am also aware that the authority has a very ambitious investment project. I would not expect that to be delayed or put off by relatively marginal costs. It is for the authority to produce a commercial plan that takes into account the existing tax framework. Like other commercial harbours around the country, Peterhead bay is expected to produce its own surplus for investment. It is not our policy to invest public money in commercial harbours—that position will not change.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): In the light of the successful timber-loading programme at Ardrishaig in Argyll, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to restore more piers throughout the Highlands and Islands? Such restoration would allow more timber to be carried by sea and prevent huge damage being caused to the Scottish road network.
Lewis Macdonald: Jamie McGrigor will be aware that we have a continuing programme for funding piers and harbours in the Highlands and Islands. They are supported differently to commercial harbours elsewhere in the country, because they provide lifeline services to local communities. We will continue to roll out our programme over the coming years.
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The ports policy paper "Modern Ports: A UK Policy", which was produced jointly by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, provides a clear strategy for the future development of ports and harbours in Scotland.
Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that this week's The Buchan Observer contains a worrying indication that the disastrous aggregates tax may result in the loss of nearly half Peterhead Bay Authority's business? Will he note that SNP councillors have been joined by a representative of the parties that make up the coalition Executive in expressing concern about the matter? The sole Liberal Democrat councillor in my constituency said:
"Our key developments centre round the bay. It has always been our economic base."
Will the minister say what action he plans to take to offset the effect of the aggregates tax?
Lewis Macdonald: I am aware of the issues relating to the Peterhead Bay Authority. I am also aware that the authority has a very ambitious investment project. I would not expect that to be delayed or put off by relatively marginal costs. It is for the authority to produce a commercial plan that takes into account the existing tax framework. Like other commercial harbours around the country, Peterhead bay is expected to produce its own surplus for investment. It is not our policy to invest public money in commercial harbours—that position will not change.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): In the light of the successful timber-loading programme at Ardrishaig in Argyll, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to restore more piers throughout the Highlands and Islands? Such restoration would allow more timber to be carried by sea and prevent huge damage being caused to the Scottish road network.
Lewis Macdonald: Jamie McGrigor will be aware that we have a continuing programme for funding piers and harbours in the Highlands and Islands. They are supported differently to commercial harbours elsewhere in the country, because they provide lifeline services to local communities. We will continue to roll out our programme over the coming years.
27 June 2002
(S1O-5411) Fishing Rights
9. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to protect Scotland's historic fishing rights. (S1O-5411)
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): The Scottish Executive engages with the Commission at ministerial and official level and is an integral part of the United Kingdom negotiating team on fisheries. In those respective capacities, we are working to ensure that Scotland's interests are fully represented during the current review of the common fisheries policy.
Stewart Stevenson: Does the minister recall saying in the plenary debate on the CFP on 13 June:
"The Commission is not proposing to disrupt existing relative stability shares." —[Official Report, 13 June 2002; c 12718.]
Is the minister aware that on 19 June, John Farnell, speaking on behalf of the Commission, said at the European Parliament Fisheries Committee that although we have relative stability today, the Commission believes that one day we should not, and that the question was how and how quickly we got there? Is the minister not guilty of breathtaking complacency in not demanding the lead role in Europe on the UK's negotiations on the CFP in order to defend Scottish fishermen?
Ross Finnie: There was a lot of sound and fury there, but I do not know whether it added up to much. Mr Stevenson will recall that in that plenary fisheries debate I made clear the Executive's position, which I will repeat. We will defend relative stability, just as we will defend the interests of the Shetland box and the Hague preference. Those matters are all fundamental to Scotland's historical fishing rights. I made that clear during the debate and I repeat it. What John Farnell, the commissioner and others say is important. I do not dismiss it. However, the crucial issue is what the Commission finally decides on the document that will revise the CFP.
I cannot be clearer about where I and the Scottish Executive stand on those matters. We are absolutely committed to protecting Scotland's fishing interests.
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I agree with the minister's comments. However, will the minister reflect further on the deep frustration that local fishermen feel at the Commission's handling of deepwater species—particularly at the lack of science to back up the deal that the Commission negotiated with the Spanish presidency? Will he undertake to ensure that, in future negotiations on CFP reform, it will be at the heart of his agenda that science will underpin stock assessment details?
Ross Finnie: I could not agree more with what Tavish Scott said. One of the fundamental reasons why we voted against the compromise that the presidency suggested and that the Commission—regrettably—supported was that it was wholly unsupported by science. I say to Tavish Scott that I made that position very clear to the commissioner and his cabinet. I find it unacceptable that, when we are trying to have a rational debate on proceeding with CFP reform and on how we deal with the conservation of stocks, we do so other than on the basis of good scientific advice. Such advice must be at the heart of any CFP review proposals on how to deal with conservation.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the minister agree that total allowable catches and quotas are not the right tools with which to manage deepwater species? What is his comment on the fact that Scottish fishermen are left with 2 per cent of the quotas, whereas French fishermen apparently have 80 per cent of the quotas for those species?
Ross Finnie: As Jamie McGrigor ought to know, the Scottish Executive's position, which was endorsed by the UK, was that we were opposed to using TACs in deepwater fisheries. We made that position very clear to the Commission when the proposal was first debated. I can only repeat that I find the final settlement highly unacceptable and that that is why we voted against it.
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West): Will the Executive protect Scotland's historical freshwater fishing rights by setting up a democratically constituted Scottish anglers trust to administer all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland and to ensure more opportunities for ordinary anglers instead of protecting the privileges of the big landowners?
Ross Finnie: I am not entirely sure that that forms part of the common fisheries policy review, Presiding Officer, and I am not entirely sure that Mr Canavan would wish the European Union's common fisheries policy review to extend that far.
Dennis Canavan: No.
Ross Finnie: I thought that we might be agreed on that at least.
I take Mr Canavan's point on the need to protect the freshwater fisheries. That is what the strategies that we are implementing seek to do and also what the legislation that we are promoting seeks to do. I assure Mr Canavan that the Executive is as concerned to protect our rights in freshwater fishing as it is concerned about sea fisheries.
The Presiding Officer: The question was about historical fishing rights. It was not confined to Europe. [Applause.] Order.
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I believe that, for the first time, aquaculture will be included in the revised CFP. There is some anxiety among fish farmers about the amount of support that they can expect and the amount of protection from non-European Union producers that they will have. Will the minister make a commitment that all the stakeholders in the industry will be consulted on the aquaculture section of the revised CFP so that we can achieve an outcome that allows us to continue to develop that high quality industry of ours, but do so in an environmentally responsible manner?
Ross Finnie: While the Presiding Officer is contemplating whether aquaculture is a historical fishing right, I will leap in to answer the question. I assure Maureen Macmillan that the Commission's draft proposals contain an important section that highlights the significant and integrated role that aquaculture will play in the future of our fisheries policy. I assure her that, as the Scottish Executive will consult all fishing sectors before we come to a view on how to respond to the definite proposals on CFP reform, the aquaculture sector will be included in that wide consultation.
The Presiding Officer: The minister got his own back—aquaculture cannot be a historic fishing right.
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): The Scottish Executive engages with the Commission at ministerial and official level and is an integral part of the United Kingdom negotiating team on fisheries. In those respective capacities, we are working to ensure that Scotland's interests are fully represented during the current review of the common fisheries policy.
Stewart Stevenson: Does the minister recall saying in the plenary debate on the CFP on 13 June:
"The Commission is not proposing to disrupt existing relative stability shares." —[Official Report, 13 June 2002; c 12718.]
Is the minister aware that on 19 June, John Farnell, speaking on behalf of the Commission, said at the European Parliament Fisheries Committee that although we have relative stability today, the Commission believes that one day we should not, and that the question was how and how quickly we got there? Is the minister not guilty of breathtaking complacency in not demanding the lead role in Europe on the UK's negotiations on the CFP in order to defend Scottish fishermen?
Ross Finnie: There was a lot of sound and fury there, but I do not know whether it added up to much. Mr Stevenson will recall that in that plenary fisheries debate I made clear the Executive's position, which I will repeat. We will defend relative stability, just as we will defend the interests of the Shetland box and the Hague preference. Those matters are all fundamental to Scotland's historical fishing rights. I made that clear during the debate and I repeat it. What John Farnell, the commissioner and others say is important. I do not dismiss it. However, the crucial issue is what the Commission finally decides on the document that will revise the CFP.
I cannot be clearer about where I and the Scottish Executive stand on those matters. We are absolutely committed to protecting Scotland's fishing interests.
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I agree with the minister's comments. However, will the minister reflect further on the deep frustration that local fishermen feel at the Commission's handling of deepwater species—particularly at the lack of science to back up the deal that the Commission negotiated with the Spanish presidency? Will he undertake to ensure that, in future negotiations on CFP reform, it will be at the heart of his agenda that science will underpin stock assessment details?
Ross Finnie: I could not agree more with what Tavish Scott said. One of the fundamental reasons why we voted against the compromise that the presidency suggested and that the Commission—regrettably—supported was that it was wholly unsupported by science. I say to Tavish Scott that I made that position very clear to the commissioner and his cabinet. I find it unacceptable that, when we are trying to have a rational debate on proceeding with CFP reform and on how we deal with the conservation of stocks, we do so other than on the basis of good scientific advice. Such advice must be at the heart of any CFP review proposals on how to deal with conservation.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the minister agree that total allowable catches and quotas are not the right tools with which to manage deepwater species? What is his comment on the fact that Scottish fishermen are left with 2 per cent of the quotas, whereas French fishermen apparently have 80 per cent of the quotas for those species?
Ross Finnie: As Jamie McGrigor ought to know, the Scottish Executive's position, which was endorsed by the UK, was that we were opposed to using TACs in deepwater fisheries. We made that position very clear to the Commission when the proposal was first debated. I can only repeat that I find the final settlement highly unacceptable and that that is why we voted against it.
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West): Will the Executive protect Scotland's historical freshwater fishing rights by setting up a democratically constituted Scottish anglers trust to administer all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland and to ensure more opportunities for ordinary anglers instead of protecting the privileges of the big landowners?
Ross Finnie: I am not entirely sure that that forms part of the common fisheries policy review, Presiding Officer, and I am not entirely sure that Mr Canavan would wish the European Union's common fisheries policy review to extend that far.
Dennis Canavan: No.
Ross Finnie: I thought that we might be agreed on that at least.
I take Mr Canavan's point on the need to protect the freshwater fisheries. That is what the strategies that we are implementing seek to do and also what the legislation that we are promoting seeks to do. I assure Mr Canavan that the Executive is as concerned to protect our rights in freshwater fishing as it is concerned about sea fisheries.
The Presiding Officer: The question was about historical fishing rights. It was not confined to Europe. [Applause.] Order.
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I believe that, for the first time, aquaculture will be included in the revised CFP. There is some anxiety among fish farmers about the amount of support that they can expect and the amount of protection from non-European Union producers that they will have. Will the minister make a commitment that all the stakeholders in the industry will be consulted on the aquaculture section of the revised CFP so that we can achieve an outcome that allows us to continue to develop that high quality industry of ours, but do so in an environmentally responsible manner?
Ross Finnie: While the Presiding Officer is contemplating whether aquaculture is a historical fishing right, I will leap in to answer the question. I assure Maureen Macmillan that the Commission's draft proposals contain an important section that highlights the significant and integrated role that aquaculture will play in the future of our fisheries policy. I assure her that, as the Scottish Executive will consult all fishing sectors before we come to a view on how to respond to the definite proposals on CFP reform, the aquaculture sector will be included in that wide consultation.
The Presiding Officer: The minister got his own back—aquaculture cannot be a historic fishing right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
