House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2002 - 03
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Scottish Grand Committee Debates

Scottish Fishing Industry

Scottish Grand Committee

Tuesday 10 December 2002

(Westminster)

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Scottish Fishing Industry

10.39 am

The Chairman: The first item of business this morning is the main debate on the Scottish fishing industry. Although I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, I appeal to Members to make brief contributions.

Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

Miss Begg, it is a pleasure to address the Committee under your chairmanship, even though that was arranged only at the last minute. I was beginning to think that there was some conspiracy and that, when for the first time in six years the Committee was addressing a motion at the behest of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, there was some particular reason for the Chairman not being present. However, I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg, and that we can at last begin. As I will have two cracks at today's debate, I shall restrict my opening remarks to a relatively brief contribution. I will, of course, keep my Back-Bench contributions to a minimum before returning to the Front Bench at the end.

I make no apology for returning to this topic today. There was some suggestion that the success of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) in last week's ballot for the 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall negated the need for this Committee to consider this subject today. However, it cannot be over-discussed in relation to Scotland's future. Communities around Scotland expect nothing less of the Scottish Grand Committee, if it is to remain a significant part of life at Westminster, than that we continue to address the issues at the heart of political debate in Scotland.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Since the Advisory Committee report on 25 October, the future of the fishing industry in Scotland has naturally been at the forefront of minds throughout Scotland. One of the most frustrating things about the subject is that we have an eight-week period to address what amounts to the close-down of one of Scotland's most significant industries. That is, by any perception, a crazy way to proceed in considering such an important industry. Such a decision should be taken in the cold light of day, after careful consideration, over a considerable period, of all the scientific evidence—not just the science of certain experts retained by the Commission. I put it to the Committee that the period from 28 October until the end of this year is a dreadfully pitiful length of time in which to contemplate the close-down of one of Scotland's historic industries.

Column Number: 004

The Committee should be in no doubt that livelihoods are at stake. It is all too easy to concentrate on figures and statistics, but families throughout Scotland are facing bankruptcy at Christmas and the loss of their homes. Their children do not know where their father will find work after the new year. In our considerations this morning, we should not underestimate the fact that we are talking about people. That should mark our debate.

What I find most frustrating about the way in which the debate has progressed since the publication of the Advisory Committee report is that everything has been laid at the door of the fishermen. The whole debate over stocks is being laid at their door but, as the fishermen and the scientists will tell us, the fishermen are not the problem—or not the whole problem. Only 8 per cent. of fish mortality is down to the removal of fish from the sea for human consumption. What attention is the Commission giving to the effect of the discharge from the Ruhr valley into the North sea? Does it examine the effect of pollution, which will inevitably drive fish stocks away from the southern North sea sector into the northern North sea or the Atlantic fisheries? Where is its analysis of global warming? We all know that the North sea is gradually getting warmer, although one might not think so if one had been swimming off Bridlington this morning. That process will inevitably lead to cod and similar species seeking colder waters in which the habitat is naturally more acceptable to them.

Does the Commission pay attention to the dreadful practice of factory fishing? Why is its attention so narrowly focused on the cod stock problem when we all realise that the Danish fishing fleet, which is a great hoover, causes a significant proportion of the problem? The Danish fishing fleet hoovers up all that is untestable from the sea floor and quickly turns it into a soup of which there is little analysis. That practice is very damaging to the biology of the North sea floor, and it is having an effect on cod stocks.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion that I made last week that we ought to seek the complete decommissioning of Norwegian pout fishing, which is largely carried out by Danish fleets? That type of fishing sweeps up large amounts of small fish. Does he agree that we ought to argue for it to be decommissioned altogether?

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The key issue is the disproportion in decommissioning. One particular problem has been singled out, and it has led to a sweeping change to the common fisheries policy. He makes the valid point that other fleets should be subject to close scrutiny by the Commission.

The change to the common fisheries policy will have a damaging effect on our fishing fleet. There are some 2,500 Scottish fishing vessels, and we are facing the loss of the most significant 800 of them. Throughout any fishing fleet there is obviously a graduated scale between the most significant boats and those that undertake smaller fishing activities, but we should have no doubt that decommissioning will take the heart out of Scotland's fishing fleet.

Column Number: 005

The press commonly reports that only offshore fishing will be affected, but there are between four and five onshore jobs for every offshore job on the boats. The processing sector is the lifeblood of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). Fish processing, which dominates employment in that constituency, is facing obliteration. The Scottish processing sector is more dependent on domestic catch than the English sector, which is why Scottish processing is on the line. The English processing sector is perhaps more flexible and able to adapt to imports and is not so reliant on the domestic catch.

To assess the scale of the debate we need to consider the effect on jobs. I debated the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last Wednesday in Westminster Hall, but I shall reflect again on the damaging effect of last week's press statement by the Prime Minister by analysing the job losses the fishing industry is contemplating. The Scottish Executive revised the number of job losses from 20,000 to around 44,000, and it was very worrying when the importance of this issue was undermined by the Prime Minister's statement to the press last week.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The hon. Gentleman is making an impressive speech, and I know that he is anxious to make the strongest possible points, but he should not fall into the trap of playing with figures. We know from the Sea Fish Industry Authority that there are 6,600 fishermen in total and that a further 7,900 people are involved in the processing industry. We can aggregate those figures, as the Scottish Executive has done, and come up with more than 40,000, but in doing so we have to include everyone who handles fish, such as the people in the local Co-op or Tesco and people in restaurants. We are days away from negotiations, and we should not give people figures about which they can argue with us. It is important for the House to be as united as possible, and not give any hostages to fortune.

The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, I apologise to members of the Committee for their being inconvenienced by the delay. The Chairman appointed was taken ill and there was a lacuna in communication, but the position is about to be regularised.

Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Sir Alan, for that clarification. I am sure that the matter was never in doubt.

[Mr. David Taylor in the Chair]

In response to the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that the figure can be defined in many different ways. In the new, devolved, modern Scotland, I thought that we were supposed to take on board the Scottish Executive's figure, and the Labour Administration in Scotland say that the figure in question is 44,000 jobs, which is truly shocking—it is Ravenscraig many times over. In working towards an analysis of the job losses to see how significant they could be, I should like Labour in Scotland to pay the same attention to threatened jobs in rural Scotland as

Column Number: 006

it gave to the loss of jobs at Ravenscraig and elsewhere in heartland Scotland only ten years ago.

Mrs. Liddell: I return to the point that I made earlier to the hon. Gentleman. The figures I am quoting are from both the Scottish Executive and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The 44,000 figure is reached by adding in supply-side multipliers and the consumer element. He can talk about that figure, but he should not give our enemies an opportunity to pick holes in our arguments by exaggerating the situation. The jobs in Tesco will not be lost, and we should also take into account that the 44,000 figure includes, for example, fish farming. I appeal to him not to give our enemies ammunition.

Mr. Duncan: In this Committee, throughout Scotland and elsewhere I shall make the case to the Commission about the potentially devastating effects that the proposals will have on Scotland. I shall not give it the slightest opportunity to underestimate the damaging effect that the proposals will have on Scotland, and I am proud to do so.

 
Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 10 December 2002