Scottish Parliament, 31 October 2002

401 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Introduction

Broadcasting and the Print Media

David (None, Lothians)

This morning we have two short debates, the first of which is on motion S1M-3507, in the name of Michael Russell, on broadcasting and the media in Scotland, and two amendments to that motion. I invite members who want to take part in the debate to press their request buttons, and I call Michael Russell to speak.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

At the outset, I declare an interest in journalism and broadcasting, as outlined in my entry in the register of members' interests. That includes working for The Herald newspaper.

This morning's debate gives an unusual opportunity for the chamber to consider media and broadcasting issues. I anticipate that, once again, there will be the regular complaints from members on the variety of unionist benches that are always arrayed against us that the SNP is concentrating on matters that do not and should not concern us. Indeed, that is part of the burden of the ideological amendment lodged by Mr Monteith. However, it is worth noting that there has not been a full-scale debate on media and broadcasting issues in the chamber since the Parliament was established.

Taken together, those industries employ tens of thousands of people in Scotland, and they are key forces in shaping our society. They inform and influence everyone who lives in the nation, and they carry forward many aspects of our shared cultures. They are, in short, central to our economic, cultural and social well-being as a nation. Not only is it appropriate that we discuss those issues in the chamber; it is essential. It is particularly essential at the moment, because a variety of problems and possibilities need resolution and can be helped to a resolution by the intelligent interest of this chamber.

The SNP motion expresses a frustration that we in this Parliament cannot yet legislate to help and support our media industries. I say "yet" because it will come. Although we are deprived of power— [Interruption.] I can see that Mr Monteith is excited already.

Although we are deprived of power, quite deliberately, we can use our influence. Accordingly, I hope that this morning's debate will influence in the interests of Scottish culture, Scottish society and the Scottish economy.

I want to address three specific issues that require resolution. The first is the present situation concerning the Scottish Media Group. We are all familiar with the bidding process, which is now under way, but we may not be familiar with the rules in relation to the public interest under which the process will be conducted. Those rules are laid out in fair trading legislation, but unless a total circulation of 500,000 newspapers is involved in any bid—on the side of the bidder and the purchaser—there is no automatic referral under the newspapers section of the legislation. However, under normal competition powers there can be a referral if there is an issue of overdominance in the market. As anyone who purchases The Herald, the Evening Times and the Sunday Herald will have a considerable slice of the quality market in Scotland, there would be considerable overdominance if the final purchaser already had a strong stake in that market.

The Herald has justifiable claims to be the oldest continuously published daily newspaper in the English-speaking world. It carries the date 1783 on its masthead. The claim is historical, but the paper has strong present-day claims to be a distinctive and authoritative voice on Scottish and international affairs. Anything that is done to weaken or distort that voice must be avoided.

The responsibility for avoiding that lies in several places. It lies, first of all, with the present owners. They cannot just abrogate their responsibilities in return for the largest, fattest cheque that they can attract. They must realise that they have a duty of care to the papers, the staff, the readers and the respective future of all those groupings. That duty of care extends to ensuring that the papers are sold not to an organisation that will asset strip and run them down, but to an organisation that will build them up. Responsibility also lies with the purchasers. We need to know what they intend and how they intend to operate. Responsibility lies with the United Kingdom Government, which can inquire into that purchase and, if it chooses to do so, block it.

Responsibility also lies here. The people of Scotland expect us to show an interest. I renew my call for an inquiry by a Scottish Parliament committee, preferably the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, to take place as soon as the shortlist of the three final candidates is known. I commend the work that Karen Gillon and others have done on the issue. I know that a lot of work has been done, particularly in making it clear to Westminster that there must be an inquiry. I hope that Karen and other members of the committee— several of whom are here this morning, including me—will go the extra mile to allow the committee to act on behalf of the people of Scotland. We must allow the people to hear in open session from those who are selling the titles and those who want to buy them. We must hear the reality of the situation, so that, even though the people of Scotland may not decide, they may judge.

We have rules about the care of precious national assets and we forbid demolition of parts of our heritage that are valuable. How much more important to us are assets such as The Herald? We need to show equal care and extend our effort equally for their future.

The second issue that I want to touch on is the Scottish Six, about which there is a new urgency. We know that the BBC is considering the future of its news and current affairs plans in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election. We also now know that, when the issue was considered before, Scotland was lied to. We know that, because John Birt has confirmed it in his memoirs. I take that personally, because the then chairman of the BBC board of governors, Sir Christopher Bland, told Alex Salmond and me at a meeting in London in October 1998, without any doubt or equivocation, that the decision on the Scottish Six would be taken for broadcasting reasons and broadcasting reasons alone.

Sir Christopher may have been a dupe. He may have known nothing about what was going on behind the scenes, although I would find that surprising. However, we now know that John Birt was working with Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and others to stop the Scottish Six. That fact has tarnished the BBC, just as it has tarnished the new Labour Government. As usual, the less subtle members of the Parliament have put it in less subtle ways. In a radio interview, Kenneth Macintosh described the Scottish Six as a nationalist plot.

We need action on the matter. A Scottish Six is overdue. In fact, all news and current affairs for Scotland that reflect on the world should come from Scotland. That is the norm in every other country and it should be the norm here. The BBC has it in its hands to rectify the situation. It could apologise for what has taken place and for the actions of its former director general, and it could announce the intention to repatriate the scheduling powers for news and current affairs that should exist and to create the production abilities. To introduce with early effect a Scottish news service that comes from Scotland but covers the world would be a fine act in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections. We have an influence on that and we should make that influence felt.

Finally, I want to turn to a third issue: the communications bill. Scotland's powerlessness in the face of the changes that the world is undergoing in media and communications is shown by the Westminster communications bill. That issue will not even be addressed in this chamber by the much-loved device of a Sewel motion, which the Executive uses at the drop of a hat. The whole matter of broadcasting and media ownership and regulation will be decided at Westminster without reference to this Parliament. Unlike the situation in Wales, where the National Assembly for Wales has already spoken on the issue, it looks as if the Scottish Executive does not even intend to consult the members of this Parliament.

The communications bill as drafted is, to put it simply, an inappropriate approach to broadcasting and media regulation for a small nation of 5 million people that has a distinctive culture and media ecology. As even the joint Westminster committee under Lord Puttnam saw, the communications bill is a naked attempt to allow the big business media friends of new Labour to dominate the increasingly profitable communications market. It will lead to a dumbing down of broadcasting in Scotland and to the pursuit of short-term profit at the expense of long-term cultural development, and it will damage attempts to build production and media skills in our country.

Worst of all, it will take away from Scotland the ability to be heard at the top level of the regulatory process. The sops of a presence on the content and consumer boards of the Office of Communications are meaningless if they are not accompanied by membership of the main board itself. They are ex post facto positions, commenting on what has happened rather than making things happen.

No Scottish Government, even one of Mr Monteith's hue—fortunately we shall all be spared that—would choose to regulate the media in the way that the communications bill proposes. No Scottish Government would want to regulate in such a way that cultural issues are ignored and the Scottish media is sold to the highest bidder. However, that is what the communications bill will mean and so it will damage Scotland.

Key decisions are about to be made about newspaper ownership, television news and current affairs and regulation of the media and such decisions should be taken in the chamber. Until the chamber has the right to make such decisions, they will be made for reasons that do not take into account Scotland's interests and they will have effects that can only be harmful to Scotland. All of us should support the transfer of full media and broadcasting regulatory powers to the chamber rather than the mealy-mouthed, second-best solution that is repeated in the Executive's amendment.

We should not support the rampant ideology in Brian Monteith's amendment. I am glad to see that he is enjoying what I am saying—I did not enjoy reading his amendment. Both amendments are based on the know-your-place attitude of the unionist parties. The attitude is that there are matters about which Scots cannot speak. However, it is vital that we discuss our media and the way in which our media works for us.

Without a transfer of powers, all that we will be able to do is to pick up the pieces after every difficulty and job loss and bemoan what is happening from the sidelines. If there is a transfer, we can make a difference. Pending that transfer, we should be active in opening up the secrecy and potential damage that could be caused by the sale of the Scottish Media Group titles. For the avoidance of doubt, the Barclay brothers and their destructive Svengali, Andrew Neil, are some of the wrong bidders—in fact, they are the really wrong bidders. We should campaign for BBC news and current affairs in Scotland to be controlled and run by BBC Scotland and we should expose the disgraceful actions of Labour figures and the former director general, which have made progress so difficult. We should be steadfast in our determination to ensure that any communications bill in the immediate future includes rather than excludes Scotland.

The motion expresses the majority view of Scots on such matters. I commend it to the chamber and to those who are not too blind to see its truth.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the vital importance of broadcasting and the print media to the cultural, social and economic life of Scotland and expresses its concern that the present devolution settlement prevents it from legislating in order to secure diversity of ownership and appropriate modern broadcasting regulation in Scotland.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

My amendment basically seeks to remove the rather downbeat outlook that we have heard Mr Russell espouse and replace it with a more positive outlook. It seeks to highlight what we can do and what we are doing.

The debate takes place at a crucial stage in the development of broadcasting in the UK. The many aspects of our cultural, social, economic and political lives, in which broadcasting and the print media play an important part, are self-evident. We are discussing reserved matters, but they impinge on our lives in so many ways that it is understandable that members—and not only SNP members—should be concerned with the debate around current issues.

Broadcasting and other forms of media provide an infrastructure and cultural and information networks that form the core knowledge that we need and use daily. From the Executive's point of view, they are the major channel for communicating our progress in delivering on the key priorities of education, health, crime, transport and jobs. Therefore, we appreciate their value and the need to be aware of and influence developments.

The sector's contribution to our economy is significant in a number of ways. It contributes quality jobs, develops creative talent and tourism and sustains specialist suppliers of services. It is no exaggeration to say that the democratic process itself is dependent on a healthy, diverse and appropriately regulated media sector and I have no doubt that that matter will be prominent in the debate. I strongly believe that ensuring editorial independence and diversity of opinion as well as diversity of ownership in Scotland's media are important.

Therefore, the forthcoming communications bill, which will introduce changes to reinvigorate the sector and equip it better for the future, is important for Scotland, as it is for other countries and regions of the UK. That is why the Executive has actively promoted Scotland's interests in respect of the bill, which is expected to go before the Westminster Parliament shortly.

Protecting the interests of the Scottish communications industry and securing a strong influence for Scotland within the structure of the new regulator were central to the Executive's response to the consultation on the draft bill. To maximise Scotland's influence within the new framework, our preference has been for a distinctive Scottish committee within the Ofcom structure, as an alternative to securing a single Scottish seat on the main board. We made that point in our submission to the consultation process, but the First Minister also made it directly to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, in the summer.

Mike Russell referred to our "powerlessness", but I am pleased to say that our proposals have been accepted in principle and, as a result, there will be a Scottish committee, which will support the Scottish representative who will be appointed to the consumer panel. It is interesting that when we obtain more influence, there are sniggers and sneers from the SNP benches. It would be nice if, just once, the SNP welcomed progress on an issue, even if that progress does not go as far as it wants to go. However, that seems to be beyond SNP members.

The appointment of a Scottish representative to the consumer panel will be made by Ofcom following consultation with Scottish ministers. Indeed, there may be a further strengthening of Scotland's influence when Ofcom, when it is established, agrees the mechanisms that it will need to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly represented and articulated. Scottish ministers are seeking an early meeting with the chair of Ofcom to take that matter forward.

The new measure that I have been able to confirm today will increase the number of people who will have a direct role on behalf of Scotland within the new Ofcom structure from the number that was originally proposed. That major concession shows the efficacy of our representations at UK level and demonstrates that, where we make our case convincingly, it is listened to and, most important, acted on. The concession is additional to the measures that we had already secured through our negotiations, which include the establishment of an office in Scotland and a section on Scottish interests in the Ofcom annual report.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister make it clear whether the position that he has described gives us more or less influence than there was in the Independent Television Commission structure? How can there be more influence with no presence on the main board? By definition, there must be less influence.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I mentioned more influence than was originally proposed. We are moving to a new regulatory structure and it is important that there is a strong Scottish influence and presence—we have argued for that, the First Minister has argued for it and it has been agreed. It has not been agreed without strongly stating the Scottish case. We have had some success and that should not be looked upon lightly.

I mentioned the section on Scottish interests in the Ofcom annual report. There will also be a statutory requirement for Ofcom's content board—which, with the consumer panel, will be an important regulatory mechanism—to reserve membership for Scottish representation.

Those are important indicators of the Westminster Government's recognition of the importance of the communications bill's provisions for Scotland and of Scotland's distinctiveness—other ministers and I regularly stress that in our contacts with Westminster ministers. The record must be examined before dismissing such recognition. I will not be drawn into the trap of trying to satisfy the SNP's demands. Apart from anything else, it would be utterly impossible to satisfy them. If one demand is met, another demand will immediately come behind it. We must look upon things in a positive vein. We know what the devolution settlement is and the people of Scotland know what it is. They, like most parties in the chamber, want that settlement to work, which is what the Executive, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do.

In the time that is left to me, I want briefly to discuss the implications of the communications bill for the Gaelic language. I am pleased to say that discussions on the future of Gaelic broadcasting are taking place in conjunction with the Scotland Office. Recently, I met Anne McGuire MP, who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, to discuss various issues. A Gaelic working group has been established, which involves the Scotland Office, the Executive, broadcasters, the ITC and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The group will prepare an amendment to the communications bill, including a provision to enable a Gaelic television service to be set up on digital television. Further work will be needed once the bill is passed to develop new arrangements, and the aim is to build on the strengths and experience of the Gaelic broadcasting committee to create a secure basis for the future of Gaelic broadcasting.

I ask members to take what I have said as reassurance that the Executive is fully committed to ensuring that Scotland's interests will be secured in respect of changes to communications and media structures throughout the UK. In the context of such a commitment, I invite members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S1M-3507.1, to leave out from "and expresses" to end and insert:

"; recognises the importance to Scotland of UK, Scottish and regional television programming and production; believes that these interests are enhanced by diversity in media ownership, and believes that it is vital that the relevant regulatory bodies reflect those Scottish interests in respect of UK broadcasting regulations and other media matters."

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to participate in the debate. I declare my interest as a columnist for The Scotsman Publications Ltd and a past columnist with The Herald newspaper.

It is interesting that the SNP has called for the recall of the Parliament three times, but when it has the opportunity to secure a debate, it does not choose to debate Iraq, the recession or the First Minister's interest in expenses in his constituency; it chooses fishing and broadcasting. That highlights the type of opposition—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I have just started. I am happy to outline what I think of the SNP.

There were opportunities to talk about fishing in the statement on fisheries yesterday, and for the opening debate today the SNP has chosen broadcasting rather than any of the three issues on which it wanted to recall Parliament.

Mike Russell's motion and his speech are revealing. There is an issue of overdominance in relation to the purchase of the Herald newspapers—The Herald, the Sunday Herald, and the Evening Times—but that is what it is: an issue. However, in his speech, Mike Russell made it clear that, for him, it is not so much an issue as a closed issue. He suggested that there should be no possibility of the Barclay brothers or any of their companies owning the Herald newspapers. That reveals that the Scottish National Party does not understand business.

The Herald and The Scotsman both claim to be national Scottish papers and have made attempts to emphasise that. The reality is different. The newspapers have a strong regional bias. The readership of The Herald in Strathclyde is 200,000 and its readership in Lothian and the Borders is about 11,000. The readership of The Scotsman newspaper is about 23,000 in Strathclyde and is 107,000 in Lothian and the Borders. The two newspapers have strong regional sales and readerships. That is reflected in the north. In Grampian and the Highlands, neither paper does as well because of the strength of The Press and Journal. In Tayside, Perthshire and Fife the papers do not do so well because of The Courier and Advertiser. We must also take into account the impact that has been made by the Daily Mail, which is eating not only into tabloid sales but into broadsheet sales. We must also consider the growth in the readerships of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent.

It is a competitive market. No group can say that it has a monopoly position in the broadsheet market. No group, even The Scotsman Publications, would be able to say with any certainty that it would have market dominance if it joined with the Herald group. The issue is certainty. That is why we should have referrals and institutions to make checks and balances. However, that is not what Mike Russell says. He says that the issue is closed.

I believe that the way to success in Scottish business is to have an open market. The way to success is to accept that if we want the Royal Bank of Scotland to play the game and be able to take over NatWest, we must accept that it might be possible for the Halifax to merge with or possibly take over the Bank of Scotland. That is how the market works in Britain. As a unionist, I defend that, because it allows Scottish business to have the strength and power for our Scottish companies to go forward. The SNP would rather do them down. The SNP does not understand Scottish business one jot.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will Mr Monteith take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I am beginning to enjoy this, so I shall carry on.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I am a journalist.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that Dorothy-Grace Elder is a journalist, but I will carry on.

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Monteith is in his last minute.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the Barclay brothers or any of their companies were to take over the Herald papers, there would be a possibility of creating a strong media group that could begin to progress beyond the Scottish Borders. I like the idea of a Scottish company spreading itself and beginning to have market dominance. I say well done to Freddie Johnston—what a great champion of Scottish business. Not only did he clean up in buying lots of titles in Scotland, but he has gone down south and is buying titles in England. That is the sort of Scottish business that we want. I have no difficulty with that, so long as the companies perform within the competition rules that the House of Commons has set.

I will pose one other question about the purchase of the Herald newspapers. According to Mike Russell's speech, venture capitalists are preferable to the possibility of the rapacious Barclay brothers buying the Herald newspapers. It seems more likely that venture capitalists would asset strip and break up the company than that proven publishers, who have an interest in maintaining the regional diversity that exists between The Herald and The Scotsman, would.

I suspect that there is a lot more behind the SNP's position than a misunderstanding of business in Scotland. The SNP fears Andrew Neil, because it believes that, somehow, that arch-unionist will change the nature of The Herald. I remind members of the sort of people who write for The Scotsman: Joyce Macmillan, that well-known Tory; Kirsty Milne, another well-known Tory; Jimmy Reid, an evacuee from The Herald; and George Kerevan, a well-known supporter of the Scottish National Party.

If there are to be new owners of the Herald newspapers, as there have been many times, it is clear that they must strike their own marketplace. They must show what makes them different. I have no doubt that the future of Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald and The Herald will be assured, because that shows the paper to be different and to have a different editorial tone. That is what makes people want to buy it, not just its regional content.

David (None, Lothians)

I must ask the member to close.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am closing, Presiding Officer.

My colleague, Murdo Fraser, will take up the issues about broadcasting.

What does the SNP's motion say about Scottish business? What does it say to successful Scottish businessmen? What does the SNP want from Scottish business, other than its money and donations? What we have in the debate today is a complete misunderstanding and a denial of all the good work that Andrew Wilson has been doing. The SNP has expressed the belief that Scottish business is there only to be run and organised in a fortress Scotland—that is what independence would mean. I have no confidence in the fortress Scotland that the SNP wants to bring in and I have no confidence in its motion.

I move amendment S1M-3507.2, to leave out from "and expresses" to end and insert:

"; believes that the public interest is best protected by maximising competition and liberalising the current strict laws that apply to the media; supports the principle that such matters are dealt with at a UK level but considers that the current regulatory structure is detrimental to the growth and prosperity of the sector, and supports the right of broadcasters and publishers to make their own commercial decisions with the minimum possible interference from the state."

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I wonder whether it is significant that we are having this debate on Halloween, when the good guys are supposed to get together to ward off evil spirits.

I was in a supermarket the other day and I saw a wee chap trying on Halloween masks. There was one of Homer Simpson, one of Maggie Thatcher and one that looked terribly like Andrew Neil.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That was the scary one.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Absolutely. It gave me quite a turn.

At Halloween, there are shadowy figures in the background who do not want to identify themselves or come out in the open. Those issues surround the SMG sale, which we might come back to later.

The motion is a funny mixture—on the surface it deals with broadcasting and the media, but it has a constitutional element. I worry about that because, although Michael Russell wants to open up the debate in some regards, when the SNP includes such a constitutional element in the debate it always makes the debate more difficult. In addition, issues arise that are about competition law and not really about broadcasting.

The Liberal Democrats have expressed disappointment at the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 with regard to broadcasting regulations and worries remain. However, the issues are complex and it is not helpful for us to indulge in constitutional navel-gazing every time that we come to such debates.

We want the integrity of the Scottish press and broadcasting organisations to be protected. In a policy document that will be presented to our party conference on Saturday, we suggest that there will be a time and place for re-examining the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that need to be amended. We want to engage the Scottish community in that debate. I hope that at that time the SNP will engage in discussions in a constructive and gradualist, instead of in a fundamentally obstructive and destructive, manner. In the meantime, we should work with the grain of the powers that we have under the devolution settlement. We should work together to protect Scottish interests. The important point is not which jurisdiction protects those interests, but the fact that protections exist.

We all agree with the motion's assertion that broadcasting and the media are of vital importance

"to the cultural, social and economic life"

of our nation. It is important that we should be able to discuss matters in those terms, without always being hung up on the constitutional issue. I broadly support the cultural strategy, but because of the constitutional issue it does not deal with broadcasting and the media in their proper place. We ought to be able to discuss such matters constructively and to examine the contribution that broadcasting and the media make to our cultural and social life without having constantly to deal with the claim that constitutional changes are necessary.

The SMG sale is in the minds of all members. We all agree that the sale of the titles to a buyer who would insist on editorial compliance with a particular political bias would diminish the scope for discussion of and debate about our political, social and artistic life. It would be desperately bad for democracy if the pluralism and diversity of opinion that are expressed in our media were to be diminished.

From time to time, the SMG has been criticised in the chamber for some of its policies. However, it is to be commended for its actions as proprietor of The Herald and the Sunday Herald. It has offered those papers editorial freedom, which has allowed them to develop into journals that have strength in both style and substance. Like Michael Russell, I believe that the SMG has a responsibility to consider the merits of those to whom it sells the titles. However, it should be commended on allowing them to develop in the way in which they have.

Much of the Scottish press adopts a jaundiced and potentially destructive attitude to many aspects of Scottish life. It would be sad if further inroads were made into the freedom of expression and diversity of opinion that are available to Scottish readers. It would be particularly sad if some of the titles that have, on the whole, been able to take a balanced and reasonable view of Scottish life were to be hampered.

Members will know that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has written to Melanie Johnson to express its concern about issues surrounding the purchase of the newspapers. We will write again with the aim of ensuring that the arbiters in this case recognise that, although from a United Kingdom perspective the competition issues that it raises are not huge, in Scotland decisions about who owns The Herald and the Sunday Herald are significant and could have a profound effect on our democracy.

We must make representations in every possible way—through the First Minister; through Mike Watson; through the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, as Mike Russell suggested; and through the Secretary of State for Scotland. We must act in every possible way to ensure that the issues are understood by those in Westminster who have the power to make decisions on this matter. The Scottish perspective must be clear and must have a strong influence on their thinking when they make those decisions.

I look forward to a time when we can discuss these matters more regularly. It is not right that broadcasting and the media as they affect the culture and life of Scotland should not be debated in the chamber. We should debate such matters more often, both here and in committee. At the moment there is no need to dwell on the constitutional issue. However, no decision should be made in this case until those who are responsible for making it have a full understanding of how the Parliament feels about the issues that the case raises.

I do not support Mr Monteith's amendment.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome this debate, which is sponsored by the SNP. Mike Russell's opening speech was excellent.

Most people to whom I speak in Scotland are fascinated by the fact that the Parliament does not have responsibility for broadcasting, although we have responsibility for matters such as education, culture and economic development. Members from all parties believe that we should have legislative responsibility for broadcasting and media issues in Scotland. In 2000 we debated the future of Grampian Television and regional identity in Scotland. That debate was well attended by members from all parties, who are keen to make use of any opportunity to discuss broadcasting issues in the Parliament.

The history of Grampian Television, which plays a crucial role in maintaining regional identity in the north and north-east of Scotland, is very pertinent to today's debate. Regulation of the media and broadcasting industry is a key issue for Grampian Television, which plays a distinct role and has produced award-winning programmes. However, the history of Grampian Television illustrates some of the challenges that regional identity in Scotland faces. In the 1960s, the station had 300 employees, but now it has only 100. Unfortunately, the station's regional programming time has been cut again, to seven hours a week. That happened despite the fact that the former Deputy Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture, Allan Wilson, told the chamber that he supported an increase in the regional quota for Scottish television stations. Scottish Executive ministers do not have the power to influence decisions on these important issues.

We live in competitive times, and Scotland faces the challenge of protecting not only its regional identities but its national identity. The media sector plays a crucial role in promoting culture, identity and democracy in Scotland. It helps to hold the Parliament and our other politicians to account. For that reason, it must be protected.

The communications bill is on the horizon. That includes a proposal to relax restrictions on non-European Union ownership of broadcasting companies in the United Kingdom. It also promotes light-touch regulations, which entail a further relaxation of the safeguards that are currently in place. It is no wonder that Philip Schlesinger of the University of Stirling wrote recently:

"Opening the door further to overseas multi-media corporations will not make regulation easier. Any distance between owner and media market is likely to diminish the sensitivity to questions about Scottish content."

That is a very important statement. This debate is all about the issue that Philip Schlesinger raises.

The Parliament needs to do more to address the challenges that face our identity and culture in Scotland. The communications bill raises the prospect of one owner buying the whole ITV network. If Grampian Television had to fight to maintain its identity within the SMG, what will happen to Scottish Television, Grampian Television and the SMG if they have to fight within a large multinational corporation, such as Disney or Microsoft, which may buy the entire ITV network? That is the seriousness of the challenge that we face. Scottish broadcasting needs a strong regulatory framework. For that reason, we should campaign to have a voice on the board of the office of communications.

Twice during First Minister's questions, the First Minister told me that he was fighting to get a place on the board of Ofcom. Unfortunately, he lost that battle. I have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, in which she states:

"OFCOM itself is designed to be a small strategic body ... It is proposed that there should a Contents Board, which would have many of the functions of the existing broadcasting regulators, and a Consumer Panel."

That is backtracking. The Executive is settling for second best, which is not good enough for Scotland. The ministers are telling the Parliament that they fought for Scotland, but failed completely. By accepting this decision, Jack McConnell is admitting that he has lost and has no power or influence to secure a good deal for Scotland.

I challenge members of the other parties represented in the Parliament to contact their Westminster counterparts. MPs do not want to promote Scottish broadcasting, because they think that that will result in their having less time on our TV screens. That is why they are busy setting up all-party groups at Westminster to promote "Coronation Street", rather than fighting for the Scottish broadcasting industry. We remember the Falkirk West MP who said that there is too much Scottish news in Scotland. We know what the MPs' agenda is. I ask MSPs from other parties to fight to get a good deal for Scotland in the communications bill and to persuade their Westminster colleagues to see sense and to fight for Scotland.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Most of the people to whom I speak want to talk about the health service, crime on our streets, jobs and education. They do not want to talk about broadcasting. Richard Lochhead may be speaking to the wrong people.

There are issues of concern relating to broadcasting. I have no problem with making my views known in the Parliament and to the UK Government. I have done that and will continue to do that. I have no problem with raising issues of concern in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I have a record of doing so, to which I will return later.

I welcome the positive progress that the Scottish Executive has made in relation to the draft communications bill, which shows what can be done when the Executive and the Scotland Office work together in pressing such issues. However, there is an opportunity for further progress to be made and I hope that the minister will indicate in summing up that negotiations are continuing and that progress can be made. I believe that a seat on the Ofcom board is not beyond the realms of possibility and that we should continue to press for it.

I also welcome the progress that has been made in relation to Gaelic broadcasting. In particular, I welcome the way in which the draft communications bill has picked up some of the points that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee made in its recent report on Gaelic broadcasting, which are to be considered further.

I will focus my remarks on the takeover of SMG publications. I have made my views on that known in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and I will reiterate them now. I say to Brian Monteith that if the business transaction were open, transparent and above board, I would have no problem with its progressing in the normal manner. However, Scotsman Publications Ltd has not bid to buy the Herald titles; a Barclay brothers subsidiary company—Ellerman Investments—has bid to buy the Herald titles. If the transaction were open, honest and transparent, Scotsman Publications Ltd would have bid openly to buy the SMG's titles, The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times. Everybody in the chamber would then have to accept that that transaction would have to follow the proper procedures.

My view is that something underhand is taking place. I say to Brian Monteith that the bid is predatory.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with the member.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. There should be no sedentary interruptions.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The bid is predatory and it should be dealt with under the special newspaper mergers regime. There is a view in Scotland that the bid can be dealt with outwith that regime, by dealing only with circulation figures. If that happens, it would be detrimental to the plurality and diversity of the Scottish media. There might be regional bases to The Herald and The Scotsman , but the two papers also take different editorial lines, which reflect the diversity and plurality that exist within Scotland. If that editorial difference were to be lost, it would be detrimental to Scottish culture and broadcasting and to the way in which the Parliament is reported.

There are clear economic issues. A merger of two newspapers would have benefits, such as the reduction of costs, which might centre on print works. We know that The Herald has lovely new print works, and that The Scotsman lost its print works through fire and that they will have to be rebuilt. We know that there are more journalists than will be required to support the two newspapers, should they be merged. We know that ancillary staff would lose their jobs. There are real economic issues around the merger that need to be discussed. The right and proper place for those issues to be discussed at this point in time is within the UK Government.

Melanie Johnson is fully aware of the issues, because the Education, Culture and Sport Committee made the points to her. I am not yet convinced that we should undertake a full inquiry. If Mike Russell wishes to bring evidence to the committee at a later date, I would be perfectly prepared to listen to it and the committee would make a decision on that at the appropriate time. However, on the basis of the current evidence, I do not think that holding a full inquiry would do anything to further the case. We can make the points that we need to make in the manner in which we have done already. I will consider that in the future. I conclude on those points and look forward to the minister's response on the issue of the Ofcom board.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I was becoming reluctant to speak, because I have to attend a funeral and I did not wish to seem discourteous by bolting after I had spoken. In my lifetime, which has been spent man and boy in the newspaper and television industry, I have thought many times that I was about to attend the funeral of the media industry, especially the printing side of it. However, each and every time, something happened to lift a group or newspaper out of the fire just in time and no more, although there have been far too many mergers.

I remember the dreadfully sad night of the closure of the Scottish Daily Mail, which was a flourishing newspaper at Tanfield in Edinburgh. Many years later, I was a worker in the first British workers' co-operative newspaper venture, the Scottish Daily News. To this day, I thank Tony Benn for putting up some of the funds, although they were inadequate. We found that the big union bosses and the big proprietors did not want us; they wanted the battle lines still to be drawn. Although we failed, we showed the passion that there is among people in the print industry for newspapers.

One can learn from those mistakes. In the case of the SMG, a management and workers' buyout, backed by the Scottish people and the Parliament, is always possible. Believe me, passion is needed to run newspapers. Running newspapers is not at all like Brian Monteith described it. He talked about newspapers as if they were cans of beans. Brian Monteith is a columnist here and there, but he should take it from one who has been through the heat of the day and night working on newspapers that that is totally different and that the influence of a bad proprietor can seep in like swamp gas. The very best proprietor is an invisible proprietor. I am fortunate to have been blessed with a few invisible proprietors and excellent editors over the years. Indeed, The Herald and the Sunday Herald have editors of excellence.

I am afraid that I am going to break the old style book for The Herald, with which I was told to abide. The style book did not include the word "unique", because, as the staff used to say, nothing is unique in this world. However, it is rather unique for me to agree with Mike Russell. There should indeed be a transfer of all media and broadcasting powers to this Parliament in order for us to defend our newspaper industry. I am afraid that whether we like it or not, that will be inevitable if we are to protect what we like to call the freedom of the press.

There will be a hard struggle ahead for those in the newspaper industry, upon which jobs and livelihoods depend. I remember friends back in the hot metal days who lost their jobs because of mergers. Some died not too long afterwards from the stress and strain. Those who survived are some of my very best friends to this day. I ask Brian Monteith to think of the human angle, for God's sake, as well as of the readers and the so-called general benefit to Scotland. We should continue to keep our press here as free as possible, run with passion for the industry.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the debate on the Scottish media, even though the issue is reserved. As Karen Gillon said, there are more pressing issues within our competence and I would have preferred to discuss those. However, I would like to contribute this morning.

I am the MSP who probably represents the most journalists, actors and newsreaders, in Glasgow Kelvin, given that that the Daily Record headquarters and the BBC and STV studios are in my constituency. The new Scottish soap, which I confess to having watched, is supposedly set in Whiteinch or Partick, which are also in my constituency. I am sure that my colleague Jackie Baillie welcomes the £100,000 investment that the soap has brought to her constituency. I will have a continuing interest in media issues for as long as I represent Glasgow Kelvin.

I can accept either side of the argument about whether the broadcasting media is part of the devolved settlement. However, I object to the dishonesty of the second part of the SNP's motion, which calls for a change in the devolution settlement that the SNP did not support in the first place. Of course, Mr Russell may be a devolutionist infiltrator in the party, which other people would support. The reality of the media and the print and broadcasting industry is that we cannot legislate for the problems that would remain. We cannot legislate for the content of newspaper editorials and we cannot dictate to television stations the content of their news and current affairs programmes. The reality is that there would be a small market in Scotland.

The dumbing down of the BBC, to which Mike Russell referred, is a continuing issue on which I support him and I know that others share his concerns.

I agree that there has been an increase in foreign affairs coverage. We are faced with the problem of the attitudes of viewers and readers who, for some reason, are less interested in politics and current affairs than we are. We must tackle those readership and viewing issues.

Independence cannot wish away the market size of Scotland or any of the associated problems. I support public broadcasting and the benefits of standards that have come from many years of development and experience. I would like to know what the Scottish National Party's position on public broadcasting is, because that is not clear.

On foreign affairs coverage, the BBC is rivalled only by CNN. We should all celebrate the BBC's success in that field.

Mr Russell accuses my colleague Mr Macintosh of believing that the Scottish Six is a nationalist plot. If he did say that, Mr Macintosh credits the SNP with too much imagination. Mike Russell also thinks that the BBC is a new Labour plot.

Many members would not disagree with the desire for diversity of ownership of our print media that is mentioned in motion S1M-3507. Although there is some consensus on the impending sale of The Herald, we must get real about the facts. We cannot change the fact that the industry is run by press barons who will continue to dominate. I do not profess to prefer one press baron to another. The diversity that we so desire might be difficult to achieve. Are we saying that the Barclay brothers should be barred from buying The Herald and that Rupert Murdoch represents a better bet?

I welcome Mike Watson's announcement on the development of a Scottish committee for Ofcom and Karen Gillon's suggestion that ministers should press further for a full seat on the Ofcom board. Whether we have a Scottish Six, a Scottish Seven, a Scottish Eight, a Scottish Nine or a Scottish 10, we must be careful about the decisions that we as politicians seek to influence. We must always do that at a distance, regardless of what the constitutional settlement might be. The nationalists must be careful about the level of intervention for which they argue in a democratic country. In spite of the frustrations that the press and the media cause, their freedom must be preserved. Richard Lochhead was concerned about regional programming. I have a few words of advice—he should take the high road.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The debate is important because the media is so influential in providing information and informing views and opinions. Consultation and research consistently provide evidence of Scotland's need for a distinctive service. In Scotland more than in any other country in the United Kingdom, a majority of people want broadcasting to reflect their interests. Research confirms that in Scotland there is a much stronger sense of identity and a much greater interest in regional and national programming.

Negativity from Executive and Tory members contradicts the evidence on viewing figures and public perceptions that research has provided. The report of the Westminster Select Committee on Scottish Affairs indicated that the BBC felt that there was no technical reason why a news programme mixing international, UK and Scottish news that was made and edited in Scotland could not be produced. It is entirely appropriate for us to maintain pressure for news broadcasting of that nature from a Scottish perspective. It is misleading and confusing to continue to relegate our devolved responsibilities to a regional broadcast, while news that is relevant only to other parts of the UK remains part of the main broadcast.

When Scotland is perceived as a region, the regions of Scotland suffer in consequence. I will illustrate how that disadvantage is manifested. Although Dundee is Scotland's fourth city, only one national paper—the Daily Record—has a journalist based in the city. In my opinion, the worst offender is the BBC, which has allocated only one full-time reporter to work on news and current affairs. In addition to Dundee, that reporter has to cover large areas of the north-east of Scotland. On the ground of its population size alone, not to mention all the interesting developments and news opportunities that it offers, Dundee should justify a far greater number of staff. There has been no investment in staff and local infrastructure for years.

The fact that Dundee is a serious base for news reporting should be reflected in the coverage that the city gets. Some members feel strongly that Dundee's situation compares most unfavourably with Aberdeen, which has a similar population, or Inverness, which has a smaller population. We are seeking an urgent meeting with the controller of BBC Scotland, because far higher numbers of reporters are based in those cities than in Dundee.

If all our news broadcasting originated in Scotland and had a Scottish focus, there would not be a tension between the cities and the regions—all the cities and regions of Scotland would be better served.

Another example illustrates the extent to which our cultural diversity is compromised by the current situation. There are differences and they should be reflected in the media. That state of affairs is not adequately reflected in what we see on television, hear on the radio or read in the papers. The Scottish media behaves as if the Scots language does not exist. Scots is never used in broadsheets or in news and current affairs programmes. It is okay for comedy, but not for serious issues. Scottish newsreaders, announcers and interviewers mostly assume standard English pronunciation, even though a third of their listening and viewing audience speak Scots for at least part of the day.

Although Gaelic speakers are better served—they have local papers and Radio nan Gaidheal and are allocated some television time—they want much more than that, including a dedicated channel. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee identified and endorsed that desire in its report on Gaelic broadcasting.

Greater broadcasting powers in Scotland would reflect and secure those aspects—indeed, all aspects—of our culture much more effectively.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Unlike other members, I receive many representations about broadcasting. Those representations are not about whether the regulatory environment should be a devolved or a reserved matter; they are about access and content.

Access to BBC 2 Scotland is a serious issue for television viewers in the south of Scotland. The lack of such access deprives them of access to the Holyrood programme and prevents them from seeing coverage of the Parliament on Wednesdays and Thursdays. I concede that their main concern is missing Rikki Fulton's annual Christmas address.

On content, the failure of Border Television adequately to cover Queen of the South's glorious second division championship win last season is a matter of great concern. Border Television plays an important role in the south of Scotland. In lodging such a little Scotlander motion, which says that everything must be controlled in Scotland, the SNP forgets the distinctiveness of Scotland and the distinctiveness within Scotland.

Having access to media that cover both sides of the border is extremely important to people in the south of Scotland. What happens in and around Carlisle is highly relevant to people in Dumfriesshire. What happens in southern Scotland is relevant to people in Carlisle, even though I am sure that John Swinney's visit to Dalbeattie was not the high point of their evening.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The SNP's broadcasting policy does not include a proposal to introduce jamming of signals, which would mean that people in Carlisle would be unable to receive Scottish broadcasting and vice versa. On that basis, the member's argument falls.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

My argument does not fall, because the SNP proposals on the regulatory environment would threaten the ability of Border Television to cross the border by operating a regional franchise in Scotland and England. Under the SNP's regime, there would be a wider Scottish franchise, in which the south of Scotland would hardly be mentioned. That is the reality of Mr Russell's proposals.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, we have heard from Mr Russell. I am sure that viewers would like him to be jammed.

People do not come up to me to express their concern about the sale of The Herald and The Scotsman, because those papers rarely cover or mention areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. That is what would happen if our television service did not take into account regional diversity within Scotland. On the wider issue, it is important that we continue to be informed about what is happening in England.

Obviously, there is significant room for improvement in some of the sloppy journalism within the BBC across the UK. For example, the BBC's "Breakfast" programme continually fails to set out that an education measure applies only to England and Wales. There is a serious job still to be done within the BBC and other national organisations before they come to terms with the devolution settlement.

However, given the contributions to today's debate from Mr Russell and his colleagues, the national media are not the only ones who have still to come to terms with the devolution settlement.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is fascinating that David Mundell thinks that the new arrangements, which will see Border Television rebranded as ITV1 and so lose its identity, will be of benefit to his area. The diversity of ownership is one of the things that underpins the diversity of opinion. I suspect that the entire Parliament shares the view that a diversity of opinion should be expressed through our media.

I am fortunate in being able to outbid Pauline McNeill in one sense, as my parliamentary constituency probably has a greater diversity of media than almost any other. We have four weekly newspapers published in the constituency and a further five that are widely distributed. We have three radio stations based in the constituency, one of which broadcasts continually, the others less so. We also have four other broadcasting organisations that beam local news into the constituency.

How does that happen? To use some business language, the reason is that channels to market are available for those media. That is what supports them. However, to use business language again, those people do not have the kind of constructive monopoly that can exist in broadcasting. For example, we cannot magically create the bandwidth that will allow us to have competition in either the Scottish Television or Grampian Television franchise—or, at least, not yet.

Digital broadcasting will provide some opportunities. It is illustrative to consider the difference between Scotland and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales is already carried on digital broadcasting. Despite the constraints of the devolution settlement, the Assembly has taken the initiative to ensure that Wales can access the new media.

One of the new media, to which no reference has been made in the debate so far, is broadband. Broadband will increasingly become one of the delivery mechanisms for new direct-to-home news, information and entertainment channels. Scotland lags so far behind that it barely registers on any world measure of broadband utilisation.

It is a great disappointment that, while we hear colleagues on the Government benches trumpeting the creation of a new committee under the new arrangements, we hear nothing about the abolition of the existing Scottish advisory committee on telecommunications, which has effectively championed the cause of broadband in Scotland. Again, consider the experience in Wales, which has made an investment of £100 million to give access to broadband across the whole of Wales. That contrasts dramatically with what happens here in Scotland.

We are making so little progress because we do not have the powers that would enable us to make more progress. Let me give an illustration of that. Scotland is covered with fibre optic cable, but most of it is in private hands, despite the fact that it uses public wayleaves. The technologies that have been chosen block off public access to that cable, but we cannot do anything about it.

One of the ironies is that my mother spoke no English when she went to school and no Gaelic when she left it, yet today Scottish broadcasting's most effective current affairs programme is in Gaelic. That programme is "Eòrpa". The broadcasters manage to get away with that because the programme is hidden away in what is regarded as a ghetto. In 1966, Radio Scotland started as a pirate station. Today, BBC Scotland is still piratically—like the Executive—abusing its position.

I support the SNP motion.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Wind-up speeches should be of four minutes.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As a member of the Procedures Committee, I find it interesting that today's debate, which has been all about regulation, needed to have some regulation of predatory interruptions, which is an issue that was raised.

Let me deal with the constitutional issue first. I entirely support Ian Jenkins and I have come to sit beside him, instead of in my usual place, to reassert that the Liberal Democrats do not see the present constitutional settlement as final. The settlement was a compromise that was achieved by Donald Dewar, who got it through the House of Commons very well. We should not tinker away with the settlement, but we should study it carefully over the next few years and draw up a sensible list of the changes that need to be made within the United Kingdom to improve the working of this Parliament.

There are two underlying problems, which are perhaps outwith our control. First, despite devolution, the United Kingdom is perhaps the most centralised democratic country that exists. The media reflect that and are totally London-centred. If the second coming happened a few miles north of Watford, it would rate a very few paragraphs on some inner page.

Let me illustrate that point. Some years ago, I tried to help some newsagents who had problems with a wholesaler of magazines who had a virtual monopoly. However, the monopoly people in London said that there was no monopoly, because the newsagents could drive down to Berwick or Carlisle and fill up with magazines from some other wholesaler. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the whole thing. The problem is that we are over-centralised.

There is another problem, which I will try to express delicately. There is a perception that the Labour party in London—in London, I emphasise—is too much in cahoots with unbridled capitalism and especially with people such as Rupert Murdoch. That is an issue—although one that, I am sure, is not shared by my excellent coalition colleagues.

The key issue is how, or whether, we should regulate unfettered market capitalism. Our Tory friends do not think that we should have any regulation at all. They want a free-for-all and they do not accept Ted Heath's remark about the unacceptable face of capitalism. I believe that capitalism does have unacceptable faces.

How then do we regulate to ensure true competition? The Americans and most European countries have much better competition than we do. We have weaker competition laws.

Thanks to the European Union and other things, there is some degree of competition. There is genuine competition between banks, which Brian Monteith mentioned, and between manufacturers of widgets—if people still use widgets—but the press and the media are something different. There can be no real competition if there is a monopoly of control. The question is not whether the owners of The Scotsman are more wicked than Rupert Murdoch. If the same people, whether they are wicked or not, control a great deal of Scotland's media, most people will view that as a bad thing. There must be rules to prevent that from happening.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member agree that monopoly legislation should be decided separately in Scotland, where our press is separate? I think ahead to the danger that our two main newspapers might get together.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Yes, I would support that in the revision of the constitutional settlement, which will happen in a few years' time.

On the question of reduction of staff, it is ludicrous to suggest that if the various organisations joined together, they would still send as many journalists to the Parliament and different journalists out to distant sporting events. There would be a loss of staff and diversity. Many journalists already do an amazing job and—if I can be a sook—the television people do remarkably well. All of us have been interviewed by one man a dog with the dog holding the microphone. They are under-resourced and the issue of the resourcing and quality of our media must be addressed. Mike Watson's amendment is worthy of support.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been an instructive debate because of what it has told us about the Scottish National Party. It is no surprise to anyone in the chamber that the SNP wishes to see broadcasting devolved to Scotland because it wishes to see everything devolved to Scotland. However, that blinkered approach blinds the SNP to the good sense of having matters that affect the whole of the UK dealt with at Westminster.

The media and broadcasting are surely issues that should be dealt with at a UK level because radio waves do not stop at the border. I am sure that Michael Russell wishes that they would, but he has to accept that we have a United Kingdom and that we have that because that is what people in Scotland want and consistently vote for. If we have a United Kingdom, there are certain matters that should properly be dealt with at the UK level and broadcasting is one of those matters.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am most grateful to the member for giving way. Could the member advise the chamber whether it was in a blinkered moment that he supported fiscal autonomy?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My views on fiscal autonomy are on the record, as Mr Ewing well knows. I accept that there are matters that should be dealt with at a Scottish level and others that should be dealt with at a UK level. As I have said, broadcasting is just such a matter.

There are 72 Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament, some of whom make up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is holding an inquiry into broadcasting. There is even a member of the Scottish National Party sitting on that committee. If the nationalists are so against broadcasting being dealt with at Westminster, why do they have a member sitting on that committee? That is sheer hypocrisy.

I shall deal briefly with the question of competition in newspapers, to which a number of members referred. Members from different parts of the chamber made the important point that the Scottish newspaper press is not just The Scotsman and The Herald. To think that shows a central-belt bias.

In different parts of Scotland we have different broadsheet newspapers. We have The Courier and Advertiser in Tayside, Fife and Stirlingshire. Further north, we have The Press and Journal, which has achieved substantial market penetration. It is not just a question of The Scotsman and The Herald.

Should the same company own The Scotsman and The Herald? I see that there might be problems with that, but there might also be certain advantages. It is not for me to make that judgment. That is what the competition authorities are for, as even Michael Russell accepted. To make up scare stories when the mechanisms already exist is just seeking to score political points.

In response to Donald Gorrie's contribution, I say that ownership of newspapers is entirely detached from editorial control. It is quite possible to own a newspaper and have an editor or columnists who represent a contrary point of view. That is why someone such as Jimmy Reid can write a column in The Scotsman. No one could suggest that he holds similar views to those of Andrew Neil.

I turn to broadcasting. David Mundell made a good point about the future of Border Television and I concur with that point. I speak up for Grampian Television, which covers my area, because it is now owned by SMG—the same company that owns Scottish Television—but it still retains its Grampian Television identity. That has not been diminished by the fact that the ownership of the two companies is the same.

Throughout the debate, SNP members have disclosed their fear of the outside world. Richard Lochhead, who has now left the chamber, said that the Disney corporation should not be allowed to own ITV. Why ever not? If it improves output and the quality of programmes improves, what is wrong with it, as long as there are competition rules to protect the public interest?

Twenty years ago we could get only four channels on our televisions. If there was an argument to be made for broadcasting being regulated from Scotland, that might have been the right time to make it. There are now five terrestrial channels, and countless channels available on satellite and digital television that do not just cover the UK but cross national boundaries.

With the internationalisation of broadcasting, the SNP's typically parochial approach is completely out of step with the modern world. Yet again, the SNP has missed the point. In the modern world, we should not be talking about more controls or which Parliament regulates what; we should be removing controls, allowing free choice and letting the consumer decide. That is what our amendment proposes and I commend it to the chamber.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

It is a pity that the motion focuses on the constitution because there is much in the motion on which we could get a fair consensus of agreement across the chamber.

As Ian Jenkins said, it is true that the devolution settlement had difficulty with aspects of broadcasting and the media. It is no surprise that some aspects of the devolution settlement were clearer than others. In terms of broadcasting in particular, there were competition issues with competition policy being reserved. There were also the issues of devolved responsibility for the contribution to economic development and social justice. Those issues have made the devolution settlement more difficult.

I am one of those who believe that devolution is an evolutionary process. I might not be proved right in future, but I do not imagine that everything is set in stone. However, we have a devolution settlement in the Scotland Act 1998 and there is little point in continually returning to discuss that settlement.

I share the concerns about the SMG situation. I believe that a newspaper owner or editor has every right to a particular political position. They have every right to be against the Scottish Parliament if they wish to be so. I do not agree with Andrew Neil's politics, but I do like "Despatch Box" and will be sorry if that programme ceases to exist. However, I would be worried if the SMG broadsheet coverage was the only position available to the vast majority of people in Scotland.

A merger would restrict opportunities for quality journalists who want to remain and work in Scotland. I know that the National Union of Journalists has recently expressed its concern about the possible merger. However, if we refer back to Tavish Scott's question to the First Minister on 3 October, members will recall that the First Minister has pledged to make representations to the ministers responsible for competition policy at the appropriate time. I am certain that he will do so.

I am afraid that, unlike the Conservatives' motion, I do not think that broadcasting is identical to banking. I do not believe that a free market would safeguard regional broadcasting. We need the public sector obligation and the commitment to independent regional, educational and quality programmes. Those are part of the so-called second tier of regulation that will be applied flexibly and after consultation with the broadcaster. However, it is necessary to have such regulation in order to ensure the quality of the service.

Whether there is a Scottish Six is a decision for the BBC and not politicians to make. I do not necessarily believe the stories that are circulating in the newspapers that Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or whoever is somehow stymieing the BBC and preventing it from making that decision.

David Mundell made an important point about Border Television. The issue is not that the SNP would be blocking the airwaves to prevent Border Television coming into Scotland. The question is why Border Television should continue to operate a Scottish opt-out when it has been taken over by Granada and will form part of the ITV channel. What is the point of that? There is a potential that if the regulations covering the operation in Scotland are different from those in England, those companies that have cross-border operations will not want to continue with the Scottish side. As someone who represents the south of Scotland, that is my concern and I suspect that it is shared by others who represent the south of Scotland.

I reassure all members that the Executive will continue to take a strong interest in the issue. I say to Karen Gillon that we will continue to have on-going discussions about the communications bill and representation within Ofcom. It is on record that the First Minister requested a seat on the central board. The DCMS feels strongly that it should not be a representative board, but that it should be a board of individuals and that there will not be representation for any particular part of the UK. However, the DCMS has conceded—as Mike Watson described—on issues to do with a Scottish committee and Scottish representation on the content board and consumer panel. That demonstrates that the interventions of the First Minister and the proposals of the Executive have been taken on board by the DCMS in the draft communications bill. Those discussions will continue.

We are continuing, as Mike Watson said, to try to secure a better place for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. We recognise the importance of digital broadcasting and in particular whether any progress can be made on digital broadcasting and regional interests. That issue will form the subject of an important series of discussions. I reassure the chamber that the Executive is concerned about the effects on the media and broadcasting in Scotland. Those are reserved, but we fully recognise that they have important interactions with many of our devolved responsibilities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives in the UK, as will Scottish MPs. We return 72 members of Parliament to the UK Parliament, and they have a responsibility to represent Scotland's interests there also.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This has been an interesting debate for a variety of reasons, not all of them positive. It is always entertaining to see the other parties doing their head-of-a-pin dancing, which they require to do to justify the unjustifiable. We have seen it in three particular ways today. The most entertaining way is the Tory way. There has been a lot of debate about the possibility of the Disney corporation buying into Scottish television. It is clear that the Disney corporation has bought the Scottish Tory party, because it is a Mickey Mouse party. It has Mickey Mouse arguments and it puts itself in a completely indefensible position in terms of Scottish culture and the Scottish economy. I will come back to that position in a moment, because although it does not deserve to be taken seriously, there are points that Mr Monteith in particular made that require a rebuttal.

The Liberal position is, as usual, refreshing—or it would be refreshing if we had not heard it so many times before. The reality is that the Liberals will not rock the boat; they are, after all, part of the Executive. At some unspecified date in the future they may return to the issue of whether the devolution settlement is good for Scotland. I am reminded of the remark:

"They make a desert and they call it peace."

There will be nothing left in Scotland. Everything will have been finished. We will have no media, because they will have been taken over, our culture will have been destroyed and there will be no economy, but the Liberals will be scratching their heads saying, "I wonder whether the moment has arrived to reconsider the devolution settlement." The Labour position is profoundly depressing, because Labour members know perfectly well that some of the things that they are trying to defend today are indefensible.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. Rhona Brankin has only just entered the chamber and already she wishes to denounce the SNP. She will no doubt be doing it in the High Street shortly, so enthusiastic is she about her mission, but she will not do it in my time.

The reality is that ministers have secured a position—on which I congratulate them, although it is very little—that is, as I said in my opening speech, ex post facto with regard to regulation. The consumer panel and the content board will comment on what has happened; they will not take part in the decision-making process of regulation. That is the problem.

At the moment, Scotland is represented on the ITC. The core of the problem, which the minister indicated in her summing up, is that the position of the DCMS in London is solid because it has chosen, and is pushing through, a model of regulation that it has imported from the United States, which is based on a federal state and which deliberately excludes representations from other parts. That is what the American structure does.

The trouble is that that structure cannot be imported into the type of country that we live in at present. We live in a country where our regulatory structure has to represent the other parts, because we have a broadcasting structure that exists distinctly in other parts of the United Kingdom. The wrong model was chosen, the wrong model is being defended and the wrong model will exclude Scotland. That is the problem. Although the Executive has achieved something, it has achieved little and, unless it achieves a presence on the board, it will have virtually no effect. A Scottish committee, supporting individuals on the consumer panel and content board, is also largely—although not entirely—irrelevant.

I want to talk about two Labour speeches in particular. First, I was disappointed by Pauline McNeill's speech, because she defended the absolutely indefensible in terms of the Scottish Six. We know from John Birt's autobiography that he worked with senior members of the Labour party to prevent the Scottish Six from happening. There is no doubt about that; he made that admission. In those circumstances, if she is defending what happened with the Scottish Six, she is defending an absolutely abnormal use of powers by the director-general of the BBC and Government ministers.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I want to finish this point. Pauline McNeill had her opportunity to debate the matter and she misrepresented it profoundly. There has been an abnormal use of powers by the director-general of the BBC and by senior Labour ministers, and that is utterly wrong. Such things used to take place in Ceausescu's Romania; now they take place in Tony Blair's Britain—and there are other similarities.

Finally, I return to the question of the Tories' position.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not protocol in this chamber that if a member misquotes another member, they should at least be given the opportunity to intervene?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid not.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I turn to the Tory position. Brian Monteith's opening speech was remarkable, because the argument was that monopolies are good, competition is bad. If he had ever attended a first-year economics class, he would have heard of antitrust legislation. He would have learned of the need for competitive markets. People are arguing, and Karen Gillon argued—I commend her speech, although I know that that will not help her—that the proper position in Scotland is, rightly, to oppose anticompetitive, monopolistic, predatory business practices. If any member believes that any of the current bids for SMG fall into that category, they have a duty to oppose those bids; therefore we have a duty to oppose what appears to me and to many others in this chamber to be such a bid from a company that is owned by the Barclay brothers.

Finally, I have been disappointed by parts of this debate, because there is a great deal about the media that needs to be discussed intelligently and with knowledge of the media. To take the head-of-a-pin position that the unionist parties have taken denies the reality of what is happening and, unfortunately, makes the situation worse.

Fishing

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is it germane to the debate?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes. Presiding Officer, this is a serious point of order, and it is in respect of your duties under the Scotland Act 1998 to define the difference between what is and is not devolved. In this case, it is in respect of representation of the Scottish Executive at the Council of Ministers in Europe.

I ask for clarification from the chair in respect of the application of article 146 of the Maastricht treaty, which defines representation at the Council of Ministers as consisting

"of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State."

Yesterday, we heard that Ross Finnie said he sometimes could and sometimes would not lead the delegation to Europe. Last night, we heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the English department—said that only a UK minister can lead the delegation; a position that was repeated on radio this morning by Mr Finnie. How can that be the position, given Mr Finnie's colleague Mr Jim Wallace's reply to me on 10 September to a parliamentary question? In that question, I asked

"the Scottish Executive at which European Council meetings its ministers have led the UK delegation"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 10 September 2002; p 1519.]

in terms of article 146. According to the Executive, it has led, under the terms of that article, three times. Who is right—Mr Wallace, who says we can lead, or Mr Finnie and the English department, who say we cannot?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you. I may say that comments in my ear from members do not help in such situations.

We went round this mulberry tree in Aberdeen. I refer Mr Neil to the definitive answer that the First Minister gave there on 30 May, which is at column 12489 of the Official Report. Any unintentional misleading of the Parliament by ministers is primarily a matter not for the chair, but for the First Minister, as the ministerial code of conduct outlines.

Mr Neil talked about article 146 of the Maastricht treaty. I am not in the habit of carrying that treaty and its explanatory notes around with me, so I will look at that and return to Mr Neil. I suggest that we proceed with the debate.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr McConnell made his reply in Aberdeen after he apparently misled the chamber and had to explain himself as a result of a question from my colleague, Dr Ewing. He distinguished leading the UK delegation from leading discussions on a topic. My question relates to leading the UK delegation and is a simple constitutional question on which we need a ruling. Can a minister in the Scottish Executive lead the delegation to the Council of Ministers of the European Union? According to Mr Wallace, a minister can; but according to Mr Finnie, a minister cannot.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As I said, that is a matter not for the chair, but for the First Minister and the Executive. All I can do from the chair is refer Mr Neil to the long and substantial answer the First Minister gave in Aberdeen on 30 May. That is my position. I suggest that we get on with the debate.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is it on the same point?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No. My point of order is about behaviour in the chamber. Do not our procedures say that only one person should stand in the chamber at any time? The former fisheries minister's lack of respect for members who are raising points of order is grossly discourteous to the chamber.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I advise all members that their behaviour is expected to be courteous and respectful throughout our proceedings.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This week, Scotland's fishing communities were left reeling from yet another blow dealt by the bureaucrats in Europe and by Government offices in Scotland and London. Although many stocks continue to thrive in Scottish fishing grounds, the valuable white-fish sector faces several weeks of unprecedented anxiety in the run-up to December's quota negotiations. The fishing industry was warned this month that all Scotland's white-fish grounds may have to close in eight weeks' time to protect cod. If ever there was a perfect example of why the common fisheries policy and the management regime are not working, that is it.

It is a disgrace for Franz Fischler of the European Commission to blame Scotland's fishing communities for the current state of affairs when he, his officials and their predecessors have over the past 20 years created the mess in which we now find ourselves. He is the Commission official who recently betrayed Scotland over its deepwater fishery. When he ignored the science and handed a victory to France, Scotland lost.

Last year, politicians in the Executive and in London helped to sow the seeds of today's crisis by ruling out tie-up schemes as a conservation method. Their refusal to support the fishing industry's voluntary tie-up last year and their defiance of democracy after the Parliament supported the industry's dignified protest has come back to haunt them. We are again steeped in crisis management and trying to deflect knee-jerk and panic policies from officials and scientists.

A blanket closure or anything remotely like it would destroy many fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Overnight, it would throw tens of thousands of hard-working individuals out of a job and end a way of life that has survived since time immemorial. If a closure took place, Scotland's waters would be brimming with fish in a matter of years, but no industry would be left in Scotland to take advantage of that. Fishermen from other EU member states who have feasted their eyes on Scottish fish stocks for years must be rubbing their hands in glee.

How on earth can any scientist or bureaucrat tell a prawn fisherman in Pittenweem, Eyemouth, Mallaig or Fraserburgh whose cod bycatch is virtually zero that he cannot go to sea because we want to protect cod? The news that fishermen expected was that nephrop quotas would increase, not be stopped. How can we tell fishermen in Peterhead, Aberdeen, Shetland or any of the islands who target haddock or whiting that they cannot return to sea in eight weeks' time? How can we tell the thousands of workers in fish processing factories throughout the nation that factories will have no deliveries of haddock or prawns because cod stocks are low? If severe restrictions were imposed, even the Arbroath smokie would become a thing of the past. Let us think about the impact on employment at our ports and harbours around Scotland, which ranges from people who work there down to the local newsagent or cafe at the quayside. It would be lunacy to close all or a large section of Scotland's fishing grounds to respond to difficulties with one species.

There is no doubt that the science is worrying. If cod stocks are in danger of extinction and can be saved, fishermen—more than anyone—will want to save them. The industry is keen to support any proven and effective steps to achieve that. Members are not fisheries scientists, but we do and should respect their work. However, even scientists get matters wrong or their work can be incomplete. Most important, the existing science must be put into context. Even the scientists say that the current advice has a 40 per cent margin of error.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Given his condemnation of the European Union, why does Mr Lochhead's party support extended membership of the EU? Does he acknowledge that southern European states, perhaps with the added voices of eastern European states, will make the common fisheries policy situation worse?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am happy to tell Phil Gallie that one reason for the industry's state today is that it was misrepresented by 18 years of Tory government.

The most striking aspect of the scientific advice is that it is not up to date. It is galling for fishermen to know that they have bent over backwards in recent years to adopt new technical measures such as a bigger mesh size and new panels. The industry has undergone the pain of a decommissioning scheme only to find more bad news on the horizon that is based on a scientific analysis that takes little or virtually no account of its sacrifices.

The Scots industry has been at the forefront of white-fish conservation in Europe. It even fishes in the North sea alongside other vessels that use smaller mesh. Is it any wonder that the industry is angry and frustrated? The fact that 100 boats were decommissioned in the past year has not been taken into account. One hundred and seventy boats were decommissioned throughout the UK. Even Denmark decommissioned 70 cod catchers, but none of that was taken into account in connection with the North sea.

The scientists' advice is that the implementation and enforcement of these measures has not yet been evaluated. The haddock and whiting advice is that

"Several technical conservation measures have been or will be implemented from 2000 onwards ... No complete evaluation of their likely impacts has yet been undertaken".

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr Lochhead is right to outline the many initiatives that the industry has undertaken, but I am becoming a little confused by his line. Is he saying that nothing more needs to be done?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am not saying that. I am about to deal with that issue.

The measures that are in place are working. That is shown by the fishing fleet's statistics that only 49 per cent of the haddock quota and 34 per cent of the whiting quota have been caught this year. The technical measures are working and the scientists should take them into account. Last year's cod total allowable catch was even increased, yet this year complete closure is proposed.

The scientists' advice is that in recent years, the growth rate of North sea cod has declined. The reasons are not known. The scientists and the decision makers in Europe must take all the other factors into account, such as climate change and warmer waters, and the distribution of the food supply in the North sea.

A couple of days ago, I spoke to the scientists who take the decisions. They told me that they undertake much scientific analysis of cod stocks, but little on the location of the cod stocks' food supply. No correlation is made between the location of cod and their food stocks. That is ludicrous. Scotland's fishing industry depends on the outcome of the work of the 300 scientists who work for Fisheries Research Services, only a handful of whom are working on the future of fish stocks. That has to change.

Industrial fishing impacts on bycatches as well as on the food supply. When will the European Union and the Scottish ministers get round to tackling industrial fishings? The quotas for sand eels, Norwegian pout and sprats have either been static in recent years or have increased, yet this year, as a result of scientific advice, the industrial fishing sector is still in line to get hundreds of thousands of tonnes. Why are the European Commission and the politicians threatening the livelihoods of our fishermen and making them jump through hoops when white fish is being caught as a bycatch by the massive fishery that takes valuable white fish and turns it into pig feed?

Surely priority should be given to human consumption. We need ministers who will turn their warm words into action over the industrial fisheries. This has been a huge issue in the Scottish Parliament for more than three and a half years, yet ministers have achieved virtually nothing.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but I have given way twice already.

I want to turn to the fishermen's role in pursuit of their own livelihoods. The science has to be reinforced by the experience and knowledge of the fishermen. They spend more time at sea than anyone else and they are at sea for longer periods of time than anyone else: they do not simply go out to sea now and again to take samples.

Yesterday, in a joint initiative between the fishermen and the scientists, the industry published the "North Sea Stocks Survey". It reveals that there is no case for massive conservation measures to protect cod. We have to take that finding into account, as fishermen have been utterly ignored so far in terms of the management of their own livelihoods.

The report of the £1 million project that was funded by the Executive last year is still at the printers. That means that it has not been taken into account. We should be seconding fisheries representatives to join the United Kingdom delegation in Europe. That would ensure that Ross Finnie and his counterparts get decent advice for once.

We have to take new funding initiatives. The minister has to clarify today—because he said no yesterday—that European funding is available to help our fishing industry. Is the minister and the Scottish Executive going to access that funding?

I have two final points about the minister's tactics for saving Scotland's fishing industry. First, he has to get going around Europe. He has to start speaking to other fisheries ministers. He should convene a meeting of those ministers in Scotland, which is Europe's most fisheries-dependent nation. He should start to build alliances in northern Europe to save the future of our fishing industry.

The minister's best tactic and the one that would boost the fishing industry's morale would be to seek designation officially to lead the UK delegation at the fisheries council. Yesterday, the minister admitted that Scotland represents more than 70 per cent of the UK industry.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member has one minute.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We know that Ross Finnie likes to give the impression that he leads the negotiations in Europe. Being in the room to mutter the occasional word is one thing, but commanding the torch of authority as the UK's official representative is another thing completely and that is what Scotland and Scotland's fishing industry demands. There is not one fisherman in the whole of Scotland who does not think that Ross Finnie should lead the negotiations.

Yesterday, Ross Finnie misled the Parliament when he said that he may lead the negotiations or that he has led the negotiations from time to time. We also heard Whitehall briefing yesterday—that in no circumstances will Scotland lead the negotiations.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member should wind up.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will conclude by saying that this is not the first time a Liberal has been hung out to dry by Labour. It usually happens in Scotland, but it seems that this time it is happening in London. Ross Finnie is busy telling the Scottish Parliament that he intends to lead, but Whitehall is briefing behind his back. There is no way that Labour ministers in London will let a Liberal minister lead the negotiations. Yet we know what can happen: parliamentary answers have indicated that Scotland has led on education and health at the Council of Ministers, but not on fishing—an industry in which Scotland has a predominant national interest. That is a scandal and the minister has to address it. The minister has to show leadership, determination and political will—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member must close.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

He has to do that by demanding to lead the negotiations and by fighting for Scotland's future.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that sustainable fisheries are essential for the well-being of our fishing communities but rejects any advice to close Scotland's mixed fishery as part of a cod recovery plan given the devastating and unjustifiable impact that such a measure would have on our fishing communities and associated sectors; calls on the Scottish Executive to work in partnership with the fishing industry with a view to drawing up proposals for the future management of all fish stocks; notes that technical conservation measures and the recent decommissioning scheme have not been fully taken into account; further notes that other states that fish Scottish waters, or impact on local stocks, have a duty to adopt similar measures including a reduction in the industrial fishery, and believes that any further measures, for which the necessary funding should be made available, should be delayed given that they would be most effectively generated through the new mechanisms proposed as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy that will be adopted in a matter of weeks and that Scotland should seek to officially lead the UK delegation during forthcoming European negotiations on which the future of the fishing industry depends.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I usually give time when members take interventions. That applies to all speakers in the debate.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

For a substantial part of that speech, I thought we were making progress: it seemed that Richard Lochhead had listened carefully to the statement I made yesterday. I thought that I could see an indication that the Scottish National Party was beginning to understand what the debate is all about—that it is all about saving fisheries. Sadly, in the closing stages of his speech, we returned to arguments about semantics. We returned to dancing on the head of a pin.

I want to be clear about the question Richard Lochhead asked me yesterday, about whether we could lead the UK delegation

"at the forthcoming European negotiations".—[Official Report, 30 October 2002, c 14710.]

I want to explain, for the benefit of members, that it is at the Council of Ministers that a substantial element of those negotiations takes place. Only one person speaks for the United Kingdom on any agenda item. I repeat—one person. Even if there is a debate with interventions and the United Kingdom returns to the debate, the person who led the discussion—

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No.

It is that person who leads for the United Kingdom in the subsequent discussion. I want to be clear that the position that was put by the secretary of state last night was that the Scottish ministers can and do speak for the United Kingdom at fisheries councils and at meetings—in agreement with UK colleagues—and that Ross Finnie will certainly do so. I have to say to SNP members that if I am speaking for the United Kingdom, I am leading for the United Kingdom on that agenda item.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No. [Interruption.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Richard Lochhead can dance on the head of a pin if he wants to. He can say that the person who is technically the head of the delegation is sitting in the room, but they are not speaking in the negotiations. It is quite demonstrable who is leading on the negotiations and who is leading in the constitutional sense. The SNP's constitutional dancing on the head of a pin is a most regrettable distraction from the fundamental issue before us, which is the future of the Scottish fishing industry.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No. [Interruption.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not going to devote even more time to this dancing on the head of a pin. I want to return to the essential issue that is before us, which is the question of our fisheries.

It is quite clear—indeed we are in the grounds of repeating where we were yesterday—that we all acknowledge that it is politically unacceptable and economically unacceptable for us to be contemplating the closure of our white-fish fisheries. I said that yesterday and I repeat it today. I welcome the agreement of the Scottish National Party and its support for that position. I also welcome the recognition of the fact that we have the support of those who catch haddock and whiting and those in the fish processing sector and the ports and harbours.

I welcome the fact that the SNP is not saying that the science can be ignored.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that he includes prawn fisheries in his comments, in addition to the white-fish fisheries?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I made it absolutely clear yesterday that that is ludicrous. I am sure that I am quoting myself when I say that it is ludicrous to contemplate the closure of a nephrops fishery when we advanced evidence to the European Commission last year that made clear that the way we fish for nephrops does not result in material bycatches.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No.

We have to examine the scientific evidence on the basis of two factors. We have to examine the trends over a period of time and the scientific advice. I said that yesterday. The scientists' advice is given as the view of scientists of how we might reach a reversal of the decline of fish stocks. However I consider the more important issue for us in Scotland and for our fishermen to be the trends that are revealed by the scientific evidence.

I made clear yesterday that if the scientists' evidence is to be considered fully, one needs to take all the information that we have and that which will be presented by the Scottish fishermen. We have to move forward on the basis of both those pieces of evidence to construct an alternative proposal. We have to do away with the ludicrous notion that the fisheries are going to be closed.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the minister clarify what will happen if the European Commission's negotiations with Norway, which are to begin shortly, take a position that is unacceptable to the minister and the Scottish fishing industry? Those negotiations will happen before the Council of Ministers has had any discussions on the issue.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Given the circumstances that we are in, that issue becomes more important. Historically, negotiations have always been conducted at Commission and official level. I can answer Mr Scott's question directly by saying that that situation could delay the process. So much has never been at stake before, and the fact that the negotiations between the EU and Norway have to come back to the Council of Ministers makes the prospect of a serious refusal by ministers likely or possible if the matter is simply ceded by ministers who are not prepared to accept the outcome. After all, any outcome has to be endorsed by the Council of Ministers. As a result, the Commission is not going into discussions with an entirely open hand; any result has to be confirmed by the Council.

I am glad that Richard Lochhead agrees that although certain issues need further confirmation and more information, allowing for possible pluses and minuses within the science we cannot ignore the long-term trend when considering any proposals. We must take such a trend into account if we are serious about putting the fishing industry on a long-term footing and ensuring that whatever decision we take today does not come back and bite us in four or five years' time and cause a crisis.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister has alluded to whatever we do in future, which clearly refers to new technical measures that might require funding and investment in the industry to secure its future. However, he told Mike Rumbles yesterday that European cash would not be available for such measures. Will the minister confirm that, for the coming year, Europe has set aside hundreds of millions in cash under the new common fisheries policy for this very purpose? Is it not his opinion that Westminster will block Scotland's fishing industry from accessing that cash, which will go to other member states instead?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

It is very unfortunate and a matter of great regret that, in the current negotiations, the southern states are still holding out and saying that any funding allocations should go substantially to new build. I completely oppose that position. Although a substantial number of member states are prepared to change that stance, we do not yet have a majority and the issue is still a very fraught part of the CFP.

Yesterday, the Executive set out the fundamental task, which is to work hand in glove with the Scottish fishermen to find out whether we can put together a credible alternative that takes account of the drift in science and all the evidence that the fishermen have produced. Our job is to find such a proposal that respects the whole issue of sustainability and fundamentally ensures that we have a sustainable Scottish fishing industry.

I move amendment S1M-3511.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"rejects the wholesale closure of Scottish fishing grounds as politically unacceptable and economically ruinous for Scotland's fishing communities; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive is working in close collaboration with the Scottish fishing industry to identify alternative approaches, and urges all concerned to pursue a longer-term strategy that will reverse the historic decline in key fish stocks and secure a sustainable basis for our fisheries-dependent communities."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The loss of 20,000 jobs would be bad enough in the UK, but for Scotland, and particularly the north-east, job losses on such a scale would be nothing short of calamitous. Although it seems extraordinary that the Scottish fishing industry could ever face such a situation, the possibility is staring us in the face. The Conservative party will never agree to a wholesale closure of Scottish fishing.

Although Herr Fischler might be flying the flag of fishery closures to achieve his aim of a draconian, one-size-fits-all effort limitation as part three of the cod recovery plan, someone should tell him that he should not play politics with people's lives and livelihoods. His only contribution to fisheries as a footnote to agriculture is his famous cod recovery plan, which he is determined to implement fully. Indeed, he has based his reputation on it. However, if the cost of his reputation means the destruction of the Scottish fishing industry, he must have another think. It is not his, but Scotland's, industry we are talking about. In whose interest is the EU managing our seas?

The blow comes on the back of the Commission's about-face over deep water species, which has left Scottish fishermen with hardly any quota at all for such species. It is a scandal.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not now.

Yesterday, Alex Smith, the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, told us that it was unusual that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea should have to break the bad news and to browbeat our fishing industry on behalf of the Commission. Usually, the Commission would do that itself. However, we now have a situation in which the managers are hiding behind the scientists and are at the same time blaming the work force.

It is logical to ask any manager who is going down that road what they have done to improve the situation. Hamish Morrison, the secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, says that it is a management failure of cataclysmic proportions. In any other industry, the management would face the sack. P45s would be showering down, but who sacks Brussels bureaucrats? Who is in charge of this sorry show?

It is unbelievable that Scottish fishermen, who to the detriment of their own incomes have done more to adopt conservation measures than any other fleet in Europe, should be blamed for the decrease in cod stocks and penalised by not being allowed to fish for haddock, which, barring prawns, is by far the most important fish to the industry. The fishermen, who know the waters, have been saying for a long time that the rise in sea temperature, the north Atlantic drift and industrial pollution are the main reasons why cod have moved further north. Cod do not like warm water or pollution from major European river systems such as the Ruhr and the Rhine.

Last year, 700,000 tonnes of cod were caught in the north-east Atlantic. That is hardly an indication of a species in decline. There are plenty of cod around the Faeroes and Iceland. Added to that is the fact that seals take at least as much fish as our fishermen, seabirds take twice as much, cetaceans take four times as much and other fish 200 times the quantity. No one is suggesting the mass destruction of any of those creatures, so why destroy the people in the Scottish fishing industry?

There is no reason to throw 20,000 Scottish and United Kingdom fishery workers on the dole to stop the migration of cod northwards. All that will happen is that Britain will have to rely on fish imports to feed its people, thus enriching other nations at the expense of British jobs. I have never suggested that the UK should leave the EU. I am suggesting that management and control of fishery management should be repatriated to a local level. That falls in line with the concept of subsidiarity, which itself is European.

The proposition that national and local control will provide sustainability makes sound sense to me. People will want their fishery to survive for future generations. The present system of collective harvesting of a common resource simply does not provide conservation or protection for fish stocks. The CFP has not worked. It has been a failure for all Europe. We have a responsibility to protect Scottish and UK waters, which should be the richest in Europe, from being decimated by management tools that have not worked and do not work. Our fishing industry needs strong local management of its different regions based on fisheries knowledge and good science. It should not be a political parcel to be opened at random.

Above all, the industry needs powerful leadership from our politicians. Mr Finnie says that he wants to lead the UK delegation, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that he cannot. That is a pathetic and confusing situation. What matters is that our fishing industry gets a fair deal. If they cannot decide between them who leads, we have a secretary of state with time on her hands, so why can she not help? We have a British Prime Minister who spends most of his time abroad, so can he not do something on behalf of the fishing industry? It has never been more important that our Government representatives stand up for Scottish fishing. They must be seen and heard to do so now.

I move amendment S1M-3511.1, to leave out from "and believes" to end and insert:

"regrets that this latest crisis comes on the back of the announcement that Scotland is to receive only 2% of the total allowable catch for deep water species on the west coast of Scotland, and believes that we need to restore national and local control and management of our waters to ensure sensible conservation measures and to protect the interests of Scotland's fishermen."

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It appears that every year about this time we debate another crisis in the fishing industry. Last year, we took drastic action—a ban on cod fishing for a period of time and a decommissioning scheme—to reduce permanently our fishing effort. Those actions were unpopular and met resistance from Opposition parties, who said that a tie-up programme would have been better. The money invested in decommissioning would have had no long-term effects, and any benefits would have now passed. The reduction in effort would not have been a bargaining tool that we can now use in negotiations.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No.

It is surprising, therefore, that those parties cry that the Commission has not taken into account the effects of the decommissioning scheme. I agree that the Commission must take that scheme into account, but it is a bit rich for the nationalists to push that line when, if they had had their way, there would have been no decommissioning scheme.

The crucial point is that the Commission is basing its argument on the wrong starting point. Scotland has already accepted that there is a problem with cod stocks and put measures in place to ensure that the industry has a future. Those measures include a reduction in effort by 10 per cent due to decommissioning and a short-term ban to allow stocks to regenerate. The fact that those measures have not even been taken into account will undoubtedly lead many people to believe that Franz Fischler's proposals are not based on reality. That causes frustration for those people who took and implemented some tough decisions.

I was particularly struck by what Franz Fischler said in a press statement. He said:

"it was particularly galling after repeatedly warning of the dire consequences of inaction, to see our worst fears realised."

Then he said:

"in the absence of effective conservation and control measures these stocks are being persistently over fished."

I hope that he was not speaking about Scotland because cod stocks increased in 2001 and 2002. I recognise that overall trends are alarming, but I hope that that increase is an indication that our action is working. It shows that if there had been a time when the closure proposal should have been introduced and would have made sense, it would have been last year and not this year. If the proposals are based on science, why were they not proposed last year? There can be no doubt that if those proposals go ahead and the closure of the Scottish trawl fishery takes place, it will leave fishermen, their families and their communities in an impossible economic situation.

If the closure had an effect on cod stocks and the ban was lifted, does anyone think that the Scottish fishing industry would be there to take up the challenge? Closure would have forced the fishermen out of the industry. As the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has warned, the infrastructure simply would not be there.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent. As a result of the negotiations, it is expected that different sides will take up different bargaining positions. It is important that the fishing industry and the minister work together closely to identify additional measures to avoid the wholesale closure of fishing in the North sea.

Yesterday, I mentioned the importance of technical measures that have been put in place, including increased mesh sizes. I hope that the minister will impress on his European colleagues the need for the rest of Europe to come up to Scotland's high standards on mesh sizes.

We must consider further technical measures, such as separation panels, that can cut cod mortality by 90 per cent. We must examine the local management of fisheries, involving people in all sectors of the industry and also in communities.

No one wants the destruction of the industry, either through total closure or through the collapse of cod stocks. People who make their living from fisheries have most to lose from the collapse of those stocks. Therefore, it follows that they should be at the forefront of conservation. They have led the way and I hope that they continue to do so. However, the European Union must follow—fish do not respect boundaries. We must all sign up to the technical measures that our industry has put in place.

Another aspect of the debacle is how the Commission takes decisions on such important issues. Every year, the cry for major cuts comes out of the blue and every country takes up negotiating positions. The tight time scale allows for little meaningful discussion to take place. That must change. We need continuing dialogue, the exchange of best practice, an evolving policy and not just a knee-jerk reaction followed by a lot of horse-trading.

I welcome the debate, but I am disappointed that the SNP is more interested in who leads the negotiations in Europe than the outcome of those negotiations.

Carrying on as normal is not an option. As the minister said yesterday: the day of reckoning will simply come later. I hope that the minister will do all that he can to ensure that alternatives are found.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

When I was elected to the Parliament some 500 days ago, my first speech was about fishing. When I returned from my first week in Parliament, my first constituency engagement was at the fishermen's mission in Peterhead. The Royal Humane Society presented a medal and a certificate to a fisherman who had selflessly gone over the side of his boat in January at something like 62 deg north to rescue a man who had gone overboard.

That neatly illustrates the danger of the fishing industry. It also illustrates the interdependence of people in that industry. All the fishing communities of Scotland depend on fishing offshore, inshore and deep into the countryside. Theirs is a shared interest and a shared past and it must be a shared future.

In their summing up, I ask the Tories to apologise to fishermen for the disgraceful remarks made by Brian Monteith, who suggested that the proposed closure of cod fisheries is not an important topic. However, I acknowledge that Jamie McGrigor's remarks have done much to offset those suggestions.

The future of communities is at the core of the debate. It is not an arid, sterile debate about European, Westminster or Scottish Parliament processes. The debate is about people. If 20,000 people were to lose their jobs as a result of the closure of the white fisheries, it would represent the biggest job losses in recent Scottish history. That is unacceptable, and that view is shared throughout the chamber.

Fishing is an historic industry and we require it to have a future. By its actions, the fishing industry makes a contribution to our understanding of community. It makes a contribution to health, through the delivery of a first-class food. Through times of difficulty, it has shown many others in Scotland how to manage.

Our approach is based on practicality and not on sentiment. Fishermen want a future for their industry and they want fish to be in the sea in the future. I ask the minister to break rules—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

But not the one-minute rule, as that is all that remains of your speaking time.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not ask the minister to break laws—although I would do that, were it necessary—but certainly to break rules. It is fine to debate whether the minister is leading a negotiating team. I have my views and members know what they are. However, I want the minister to get out of the chamber and over to Brussels to build alliances not just at meetings, but before meetings. Decisions are not taken at meetings; they are predicated by what happens before meetings. It is important that we do not leave everything to officials. If the minister offends people in Westminster or Brussels by networking, persuading and twisting arms, I ask the minister please to do so.

We will only win if we have a common purpose and determination. The consensus that is beginning to emerge in the chamber will help the minister in his progress. Let us not descend into trying to score petty party points. We are not making constitutional points, we are making practical points about ministers breaking the rules and taking the initiative and that is the only way to save the Scottish fishing industry.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

It should come as no surprise to members that my contribution comes from a west coast perspective. I identify myself with the picture of the fishing community painted by Stewart Stevenson—it is true of all coastal communities in Scotland. At the beginning of his speech, he rightly said that the debate should not be a sterile one about constitutional niceties—we should focus on the issues. That contrasts starkly with the approach taken by the official Scottish nationalist spokesman on fishing.

We must ensure that the west coast prawn fishery is exempted from any catch restrictions designed to save the cod stocks. Landings of cod in the Western Isles accounted for only £38,000 during 2001—most of it caught by netters fishing west of the Hebrides where no prawns can be caught. In 2001, the value of prawns landed in the Western isles was £5.5 million. That clearly indicates that there is no link between west coast prawn fishing and cod fishing.

This year, the catches in the Western Isles lobster fishery were the best for the past 30 years. That did not happen by accident; it was down to fishermen and their leaders, who had the courage and foresight to take tough decisions. They implemented seasonal closures and stock enhancement schemes through the v-notch programme. A similar account can be relayed about the prawn fishery, in which prawn sizes and catches are the best for the past 20 years.

I firmly believe that we can achieve similar long-term benefits for the white-fish sector. That will involve implementing sensible and sustainable working measures that must be agreed with the industry. For Scotland, the closure of the cod fishery is not the answer. The European Union and Herr Fischler must appreciate and learn from similar situations in other parts of the world. For example, in the Grand Banks in Newfoundland, cod have not returned after 10 years. Lessons can and must be learned from studying fishing activities in Iceland and the Faeroes, where cod stocks have completely recovered after long periods of decline. The Faeroese and the Icelanders did not close the fishery; they introduced robust and sensible technical and conservation measures that had the backing of the fishing industry. Fishing in Iceland and the Faeroes continues to thrive and the industry is firmly rooted in the school of conservation and sustainability.

To return briefly to the west coast, we must safeguard the west coast prawn fishery from any mass diversion of effort to it from other areas of the UK in which restrictions are imposed on vessels that fish for cod.

We cannot talk about sustainability while ignoring the difficult issue of black fish. Landings of black fish have contributed to the parlous state of our fishing stocks, but the issue is all too often avoided. I ask skippers from Scotland and other EU states who fish in Scottish waters and who have landed black fish to examine their consciences. They must accept that they have contributed to the decline of Scottish fish stocks.

The Scottish National Party members—particularly Richard Lochhead—have plumbed incredible depths by dwelling on constitutional niceties. They do not accept simple facts. Negotiation with the EU is about teamwork. Our team will consist of Ross Finnie and his counterpart from DEFRA. On occasions, and when appropriate, Ross Finnie will lead and raise the flag for the UK and, by definition, for Scotland. As someone who represents a fishing constituency, I do not care what number is on Ross Finnie's shirt when he negotiates a deal for our fishermen. All right-thinking people should be concerned with the result that Ross Finnie will secure for Scotland's fishing communities. Based on the minister's performance yesterday and today, I have absolute confidence that my constituents will be ably represented at the meetings.

We must put our fishing communities' long-term interests beyond any perceived short-term political gain. That means being robust at the negotiating table and, on occasions, being brutally honest about previous fishing practices. If we do not do that, we will con ourselves and betray the people whom we represent. I wish Ross Finnie the very best in the forthcoming weeks.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The debate is serious and, in the main, the speeches have reflected that. I say to my colleague Alasdair Morrison that one of the reasons why there is an issue about black fish, which he was right to mention, is the manifest failure of the common fisheries policy. One point on which I agree with Jamie McGrigor is that the failure of the common fisheries policy must be addressed in the coming negotiations on the issue. I am deeply concerned that the Commission has used the cod proposals as a smokescreen to move away from the difficult decisions that must be taken on the common fisheries policy. That makes me, much as it makes fishermen, extremely cynical about the way in which the Commission has behaved in recent weeks.

The minister made it clear yesterday—although, to speak bluntly, I wish that he had done so earlier—that there cannot be a closure of the cod fishery in the North sea. Commissioner Fischler's total closure proposals are a negotiation. Fischler has already contradicted himself by saying on the one hand that there is no alternative to closure and on the other that there might be another way. Every position in Brussels is a negotiation. However, the present position is a disgraceful way in which to treat an industry. People out there depend on the industry and to operate in that way is contemptible.

As members have mentioned, the scientific advice that has been much discussed in recent days predates the changes that have been introduced in Scotland. Scottish decommissioning has reduced effort, larger mesh sizes have increased the biomass of cod and area closures and further technical gear changes have worked. Richard Lochhead was right about the percentage of the Scottish haddock and whiting quotas that have been caught already this year.

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has raised important questions about the ICES scientific advice. The minister should give a commitment to pursue rigorously those legitimate questions. The evidence about stocks in the northern North sea rather than the southern North sea should be considered seriously before a final decision is taken. The Commission's credibility on science was utterly compromised by the deepwater species fiasco earlier this year.

I have an important example from my constituency. The monkfish fishery is particularly important to the industry in Shetland. There is no basis in science for the current proposals on monks from the Commission. It has not surveyed that fishery. The proposals are based on a precautionary principle, not on science. The minister must stand up and argue for fair science and he should ensure that the Commission follows that science.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member agree that TACs and quotas are the wrong management tools for a deep-sea species industry?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is important that a mechanism for deepwater species is found, but the debate is not about that.

I want to concentrate on the politics of the debate. We are dealing with European politics. The minister must fight Scotland's corner and make it crystal clear that he was not appointed Scotland's fisheries minister to do the European Commission's bidding. I am not wedded to constitutional politics, so the point is not a constitutional one. The UK position in the discussions should not be the Whitehall position, but the Scottish one. If necessary, the First Minister should clear that with the Prime Minister. The matter is too important for that not to happen. That is what fishermen in my constituency are most concerned about.

The worst aspect of the situation is the EU-Norway talks. I am extremely concerned that they will not be in our interests. How can it be right that the Commission, which is prepared to destroy the Scottish fishing industry, should be allowed to negotiate with Norway before a position on which to negotiate has been agreed? That must change.

These are desperate times. My constituency will bleed jobs and investment and there will be massive economic and social disruption if the changes are allowed to proceed. Financial support is important. This is a defining moment for the Parliament and the Government and they must succeed. I advocate action.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the first two years of the Parliament, we took the opportunity at this time of year to send our fisheries minister, whoever he or she was at the time, to negotiations with a resounding vote of confidence and expectation from members. I hope that, at tonight's vote, we can at least do what we did in those first two years and send our minister off with the hopes, expectations and confidence of members that he will deliver for the Scottish fishing industry.

We must take account of the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. Stocks of fish in the North sea fluctuate yearly and are monitored by scientists. The problems that we must address are caused by the interpretation of the scientific evidence. I intend to cover a general point and two specific points on which I would like answers from the minister, either today or subsequently.

The general point is that too many of the measures that Scottish fishermen have taken to preserve their livelihoods are not being taken into account in the current round of negotiations. We must accept that Scotland's fishermen have already gone beyond many others. The Executive has introduced a decommissioning scheme, which has been taken up, and the fishermen have conformed to the regulations on increased mesh sizes and square-mesh panels. They are considering further measures to protect stocks, such as separation panels.

Our fishermen have long maintained that the effects of global warming on the North sea and the Atlantic drift, as well as industrial pollution, are behind the fall in cod stocks in the North sea. However, the relationship between predator, competitor and prey is a complex one. The idea that we should close every fishery in which there is even a limited cod bycatch is, at best, naive, as that may result only in greater competition.

Ultimately, it is the common fisheries policy that has failed. It has failed to conserve fish stocks and it has failed Britain's fishing communities. We must find a way to restore national or local control of our waters, to ensure sensible conservation measures and to protect the interests of Britain's fishermen. That was said yesterday by my colleague Jamie McGrigor, when he replied to the minister's statement. I want to ensure that we understand what that means. We have spoken at great length about the need for zonal and regional management. A year and a half ago, we were delighted with the contents of the European green paper, which appeared to indicate that movement in that direction was possible. Yet, regardless of what we have said on the matter, we now find ourselves with an alternative scenario. It may be that Franz Fischler is simply flying a kite; however, we must not be intimidated by this kite-flying exercise. We must be prepared to put our fishermen first and to work together to ensure that their future is our priority.

Finally, I turn to the industrial fishery. When this issue was raised at a briefing yesterday, I was fascinated to hear representatives of our Scottish fishing industry saying that they, too, are opposed to the continuation of the industrial fishery in the North sea. However, as the Danes and the Swedes are our only allies in our main fishing areas, our fishermen are afraid to complain too loudly about the fishery. I will happily complain for them. Can the minister tell us what all the fish-meal is being used for? As Richard Lochhead said, its use for the feeding of pigs has been banned in this country, under a European directive. Is it simply being poured back into the sea to feed fish? Sadly, that appears to be the case. The industrial fishery must be a target for us in negotiations. We must reduce the number of white fish that are being taken as a bycatch and the amount of food for white fish that is being taken by that fishery. The industrial fishery in the North sea is unacceptable in this day.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In the decades over which I have fought for the Scottish fishermen, my heart has been broken many times. However, all that will fade into total insignificance if this ban is allowed to take place. I hope that I can give Mr Finnie a strong argument to take to Europe, in addition to all the others.

The timing of the ban is outrageous, as the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries is currently debating the revision of the common fisheries policy, which will take place at the end of the year. The timing of the ban is ridiculous, given that the talks between the EU and Norway are about to take place. The timing of the ban is also outrageous because, as members have said, the Commission seems to have made no assessment of the effects of the tremendous conservation efforts that the fishermen have already made. During 2001-02, biomass increased and fish catches decreased.

In The Scotsman yesterday, skipper Peter Bruce appeared in a photograph with a lot of cod boxes and said:

"I'll admit that the stocks aren't as good as we would want, but they certainly aren't at the stage where the cod is going to become extinct. This year, we have had the best fishing of cod we have seen in these waters for two or three years. There are a lot more cod east of Shetland and the good thing is we are seeing cod of all different sizes".

We are told:

"it was clear that most of the cod were moving further north as the temperature of the southern sector of the North Sea continued to rise."

Mr Bruce added that there are fewer and fewer boats to be seen when he goes out fishing. Does that not go some way towards destroying the myth perpetuated in press articles that there are too many boats catching too few fish? The fishermen are saying that, out in the North sea, they are hardly seeing another boat. A hundred and twenty boats are out, with the decommissioning that we approved—contrary to what was said by a Labour member.

In all my years of fighting on the fisheries committee, I was alone in speaking up for the Scottish fleet. The four other UK members on the committee, who represented the Labour party and the Conservatives—there were no Liberals at that time—voted for Spain whenever it came to a choice between the interests of Spain and those of Scotland. It is not surprising that the two Labour and two Conservative members lost their seats—their constituencies found them out. Nevertheless, we have heard many references to the UK clout as the great thing for us to use. What kind of clout was it when Edward Heath gave away our waters although the rest of the world was claiming 200-mile exclusion zones? What kind of clout was it when Harold Wilson renegotiated Britain's membership of the Common Market and flatly refused to include fishing in his negotiation terms?

What about the further betrayals in the Executive's giving away 2,000 square miles of our waters to England, the recent deepwater fishing fiasco and last year's tie-up fiasco? The Lib-Labs voted against the tie-up plan, although EU money was available. Will Mr Finnie comment on the issue of EU funding? He did not do so in his opening speech, but perhaps he will do so in his closing speech. If we are going to fall back on the tie-up scheme, it is important to know whether we are going to get the money that Belgium, for instance, was able to get.

Tavish Scott summed up my position when he said that the UK should adopt the Scottish policy. When the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, of which I was a member, last visited Edinburgh, Mr McLeish promised that a Scottish minister would lead whenever the Scottish interest dominated—and he instanced fishing. That was a solemn promise that I believe Mr McLeish meant to be honoured. I believe that he was sincere. Unfortunately, that has not come about.

Our fishermen are controlled totally by the Commission. They are told when to fish, where to fish, how to fish, what kind of boats to use and what kind of gear to use, yet the Commission is trying to blame the fishermen. The blame lies at the door of Mr Fischler and his predecessors. It lies at the door of Mr Fischler for daring to accept two portfolios when one would be sufficient. We are facing the destruction of our fishing industry. Are we going to see bonnie boats for sale, bonnie licences for sale and bonnie porters for sale? If we find ourselves in that situation, who will have the money to buy those boats? I suggest that it will be the Spanish, aided by their Government.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The nationalist leadership is doing no favours to fishing communities by questioning the role of the Scottish fisheries minister in the European Council. Fishermen, their families, fish processors and fishing communities throughout Scotland expect us to set aside our natural instinct for political and constitutional point scoring and to work together to get the best possible resolution of a serious crisis.

Back in 1999, I was the first Scottish Executive minister to speak in the Council, representing Scottish interests with the full authority of the United Kingdom. The UK delegation discussed issues beforehand and the Scottish minister took responsibility for making the case in the Council on issues in which Scotland had the main interest. That was a fair and sensible arrangement. It worked well and still works well, as Ross Finnie has explained. It is broadly equivalent to the arrangement whereby Richard Lochhead has responsibility for leading on behalf of the Scottish National Party in this debate. He is not the leader of the party, but he is taking the lead on behalf of the party this morning. The issue is as simple as that.

I pay tribute to Ross Finnie for the statement that he has made. He is not a member of the Labour party, but I hope that Scots of all parties and no party will give him the support that he needs at this critical time for our fishing communities. The issue affects communities throughout Scotland, including those in little ports such as Dunbar and Port Seton in my constituency. As our minister, he will have to stack up enough votes in the Council to support a settlement that will make sense for our fish stocks and our fishing fleet. It will be very rough going—thank God that we start with the advantage of the UK's 10 votes, rather than the three votes that a smaller country would have. That is an arithmetical fact.

The battle can be won only on the basis of hard science and serious politics and economics. It would be stupid and wrong to turn a blind eye to scientific evidence about the decline of important fish stocks. Little is to be gained from trying to dismiss the issue as a wicked foreign political conspiracy. It is not as simple as that.

Franz Fischler has not been taking cod, haddock or anything else from the North sea. He happens to be an Austrian and it is a long time since Austria had an empire with coastal fishing interests. What has happened is that the Commission and the ICES scientists have identified a serious problem and are challenging us as politicians and the fishermen who work the North sea to face up to that problem.

I pay tribute to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for recognising the threat to the livelihoods of its members and for working with the scientists and the Government to protect spawning grounds, restrict catches, use gear that is more selective and even decommission part of the fleet. I endorse the point that Jamie McGrigor and others made about industrial fishing, which is done almost entirely by foreign fleets. However, I also endorse the important point that my colleague Alasdair Morrison made, which is that we cannot escape the fact that some of our fishermen are not blameless. The landing of black fish has been a scandal. We should all support the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency's efforts to deal with that kind of problem.

As the minister said, stocks of nephrops are healthy. We have demonstrated that technical measures can help to safeguard whiting and haddock stocks. The Scottish fleet does not generally target cod, so there can be a way through the crisis. The solution will have to be based on rigorous science and tough politics. I fear that the Opposition motion is little more than a gimmick and a distraction that will not take us much further forward. I strongly support Ross Finnie's proposed line and wish him well in the upcoming negotiations.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Much has been said about the part that the European Commission has played over the past 20 or 30 years in the fisheries problem. However, the fact is that the Commission has based all that it has said and proposed for fisheries on science. The problem is compounded by politicians of all countries and parties representing their fishing communities and negotiating with the Commission for derogations and reductions in the targets. That historical situation has meant that for the past 20 years there has been little real reduction in fishing effort in the North sea. That fishing effort year on year has kept all stocks dangerously close to the point where they might disappear.

I am alarmed by the fact that during the debate we have been looking forward, albeit in some ways sensibly, to ways of changing how we manage our fish stocks and how we work the common fisheries policy. Those are not the issue. The issue that has brought us into the chamber today is that a thorough scientific survey of our cod stocks has concluded that they are about to collapse.

Members from all parties have pointed to the increase in last year's year class of cod. However, that is irrelevant, because the science is based on the spawning biomass, which has reduced to at least 40,000 tonnes below the point at which the cod stocks would be able to reproduce and recover. That is what we face: a reduction in the spawning biomass. We must face the fact that the argument is between a total closure and the suggestions on which the minister and his team are working. The argument lies between those two positions.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I am sorry, no. I want to get on.

On the depiction of the Commission as wanting to destroy Scottish fishermen, I will quote from a Franz Fischler speech in which he pledged that extra cash would be provided:

"The commission is determined not to leave the fishermen affected by potential hardship to cope on their own."

Mr Fischler realises the enormity of what would happen to Scottish fishermen if the cod fishery had to be closed for a limited time.

I plead for the minister to keep an open mind. We must start thinking out of the box. Fishermen, politicians and, to a certain extent, the Commission have not thought out of the box for 20 years and that is why we are in the state that we are in. The situation is not a tragedy. In a Greek tragedy, people stick within their individual boxes of thinking and that is why, at the end, the stage is littered with bodies. We are capable of thinking our way out of the situation.

In Newfoundland, people took no notice of the scientists. Newfoundland's fishery stocks have never recovered and will never recover, because it is almost certain that other species will fill the ecological niche left by the cod. Members should bear that in mind when they think about the North sea. There are three elements in the equation: the fishermen, the economy and the environment.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Like my colleague Alasdair Morrison, I will start with a west coast perspective. As the minister rightly said yesterday, the Commission's proposals on prawns are ludicrous given the scientific evidence that the Executive presented to the Commission on the subject last year. I want to make it clear, on behalf of my fishermen, that there must be no cut in prawn quotas. Fischler must be told to think again, accept his science and the Executive's science that was presented to him last year and leave prawn fisheries out of the equation.

I want to deal with several points that have been raised in the debate. The first and most important one—although we should not really be discussing it—is the pointless squabbling and the political bun-fight about who sits in the chair in Brussels. There are 20,000 jobs at stake. Entire fishing communities face meltdown and the long-term future of one of Scotland's key industries is at stake, but we are engaging in pointless constitutional wrangling that will not prevent that catastrophe. Indeed, we may well play into the hands of those who wish to see the wholesale closure of our fishing grounds. I ask SNP members to reflect on that point.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Cannot we all unite behind the position that Tavish Scott proposed, which is that Scottish ministers should lead the Brussels delegation because the issue is primarily a Scottish one? The issue is about the exercise of power in Europe, not for constitutional purposes, but to save an industry that is vital to Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The most important point, as my colleague Tavish Scott made crystal clear, is to ensure that the Scottish position is adopted as the UK position and that we use our 10 votes to ensure that it is delivered. That is the key point and it is time that the SNP lot wakened up to that idea. [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We should also be focusing on what proposals we will come up with in Scotland to head off the proposals that the Commission has tabled. As my colleague Tavish Scott rightly pointed out, time is not on our side. The Norwegian talks begin in three weeks and the December Council of Ministers meeting is only seven weeks away. Therefore, there is no time for constitutional wrangling or other distractions.

What we need—right now—is for the minister and industry leaders to get round the table and hammer out a Scottish position that can be put on the table for negotiation. As several members said, that position must take into account the decommissioning scheme that was introduced in Scotland last year and the Scottish fleet's use of 110mm nets. Those must be factored into any proposal.

The minister must then ensure that that negotiating position becomes the UK position. He must put everything else to one side over the coming weeks and spend his time in Brussels and every other European capital necessary to ensure that we get the support that we need from other countries to deliver a sensible way forward for the Scottish fishing fleet.

Let us make no mistake about it. A deal will be done and the ministers and fishing leaders must put the groundwork in now. That means hard politics and good science, as John Home Robertson rightly pointed out, to ensure that the Scottish fishermen and Scotland's communities are given hope that they have a future.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have listened carefully to the debate, which, as we would all agree, is an important one. The white-fish stocks, not the pelagic stocks, are near to collapse and we all know how important the fishing industry is to Scotland. Many communities are virtually fisheries dependent and there are many jobs in the fish processing sector.

I genuinely believe that now, more than ever before, we must work together constructively—the fishing industry, the scientists, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. It will be difficult to pick our way through the crisis and there are many tough negotiations to be had. Any politician who says that there are simple solutions is, quite frankly, lying.

That is why I have found this debate—with some notable exceptions—profoundly depressing. It is coming up to the end of the year, so it must be time for the old worn-out tactic of bringing up the constitution. When the SNP is adrift in the polls and when two thirds of voters still reject separation, SNP members clutch at straws—hence the annual charade. Winnie Ewing is walking out of the chamber because she does not like to hear the truth. The SNP does not have a policy on fish; it has a policy on the constitution. At a time when the fishing industry is facing a massive challenge—perhaps its most serious yet—that is all that Richard Lochhead, the SNP's fisheries spokesman, has to offer.

I make a distinction between what Richard Lochhead has said and what Stewart Stevenson has said. Richard Lochhead has offered no solutions. All that he has done is rubbish the minister with responsibility for fisheries, rubbish the scientists and attack what happens in the EU. Frankly, that is an insult to the fishing industry. The fishermen want us to develop a sustainable fishing industry for the future and to work with the fishermen's organisations and the scientists.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Rhona Brankin give way?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will Rhona Brankin give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I shall give way to Mr Stone.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I received an e-mail the day before yesterday from a member of the fishing industry in Sutherland pointing out that, although it is laudable and right that we do all that we can for the fishermen, the talk is often almost too much about the fishermen. Rhona Brankin referred to communities and we have heard reference to the fish processing industry. When the minister goes to Europe, of course we are all behind him, but must not there be a wider solution, incorporating the enterprise network and many other services, to take on board the other vital workers in the industry?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I absolutely agree with that. The fishing industry is an important part of the Scottish economy. Indeed, a group that was set up when I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries is now examining the fishing industry in the context of the wider Scottish economy.

We have seen what the SNP has to offer and specifically what the so-called shadow fisheries minister has to offer. We must develop a sustainable fishing industry. The crisis that is facing the white-fish sector is too serious for party politics. The fishermen believe that. The SNP should ask the fishermen's representatives who are sitting up in the gallery what they think. They do not want to spend the day discussing party politics.

Yesterday, Richard Lochhead gave what I might describe as a rather sinister warning when he said what might happen if negotiations became tough. Let me remind the chamber what happened when I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries. The SNP will not like this—SNP members will become very angry and will shout a lot when I remind them of this. When I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries, the SNP press office organised the burning of my effigy.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Withdraw!

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have the SNP press release here. It called people to that occurrence. I say to the SNP that that did the fishermen no favours.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. The member is already over time.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The majority of Scottish fishermen and the majority of the Scottish public were horrified.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When a member blatantly lies to the chamber, should not the Opposition have the opportunity to set the record straight through an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is a matter for the member who has the floor. The member is considerably over time and I would be grateful if she brought her speech to a speedy conclusion.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Like John Home Robertson, who also used to be minister with responsibility for fisheries, I pay tribute to the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry, despite the party-political heckling that is going on. Over the years, they have worked tirelessly with ministers and scientists to seek a sustainable future for their industry.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I also pay tribute to Ross Finnie. It is absolutely right that he will lead for Scotland in the negotiations. He did a great job for Scotland during the foot-and-mouth crisis and I have absolute confidence in him. I wish him all the best in the forthcoming negotiations.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

David Davidson has four minutes. I would be grateful if he kept his contribution to that time.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There are times when I am not proud to be in the chamber and, sadly, this is becoming one of them. We came here to discuss the future of a vital industry. Coastal communities are in crisis, boats that are two and three years old are bringing in no income and heavy boats cannot be taken from the deep sea and used coastally. People must realise that huge investment has been made in fish markets, harbour landings, fish processing jobs, carriage and so on. We should focus on what we are supposed to be doing. I hope that the Parliament will send the minister out with a clear message that, regardless of his political persuasion or how the system works, he must go and fight for a sustainable fishing industry. I agree with others that UK policy should be based on the priorities and requirements of the Scottish fishing fleet—I have said so since 1999. That fleet is the serious centre of fishing in the UK. However, if we are to use all the votes that are available to us, we need to ensure that the minister takes away the right message and understands what we must fight for.

I will not go through everything that members have said. To put the matter simply, we should consider the science and the fishermen. In 1999, when there were poor communications between scientists and fishermen, a conference was held at which everyone got on board. For example, the scientists got on board to have discussions with the fishing organisations, to which I pay tribute as they have done a marvellous job for their industry in providing information.

Why are we not using the Fisheries Research Services marine laboratory in Aberdeen to quantify in real terms what has been done in respect of conservation and what our fishermen have agreed to do and the measures that they have taken? We need hard science from this side of the pond about what has been done to preserve fish stocks.

We must ensure that the rest of the UK and everyone who operates in the North sea where the fishing is shared uses the same measures and standards. That takes us back to the level playing field argument.

Everybody knows that cod have been drifting north for years—that is well documented. I accept Robin Harper's comments on the spawning mass but, even so, is the science accurate?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will continue, if I may.

Richard Lochhead said that the science must be accurate and confirmed, but there is variance. I am a trained scientist and I know that there is no such thing as 100 per cent accuracy on anything, but we must listen to others who have knowledge and who fish the sea. Their experience must be brought to bear on such issues.

Politicians must act as a vehicle to assist the scientists and the fishermen to come to a sensible understanding of what has to be done. The minister's responsibility is to take the result of that work and sell it to everyone in the fishing negotiations. There is no point in us doing something if the Norwegians or the fishermen from Humberside are not doing it too. Far too much playing with politics is being done at a critical time for the fishing industry. We have seen damage in the farming community, but the fishing community is a different animal. Fishermen want a sustainable industry. The decommissioning scheme has worked and it has had some safety benefits. We must ensure that we send out a clear message to the press and to the world that we take fishing and the benefit that it brings to our coastal communities seriously and that we are united in ensuring that Ross Finnie comes back with a good survival package that is seen, and believed, to be fair.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not think that anyone who was in the chamber yesterday could have been left in any doubt as to where the Scottish Executive and I, as the minister responsible for fishing, stood on the matter. During the statement and the questions after it, I did not discern that anyone took a contrary view. I remind members that I closed my statement by saying that what we wanted throughout the country was a sustainable Scottish fishing industry. I went on to say:

"I know that it is a goal that all parties and all members will share. I look forward to their constructive support as we progress in the coming weeks."—[Official Report, 30 October 2002; c 14710.]

I want to take the chamber back to that proposition by asking them to focus on the main issues. The threat has been put in place by the European Commission, which appears to conduct diplomacy by megaphone. I do not think that that approach is helpful. Many members have pointed out that the science cannot be ignored—Robin Harper spent some time on that issue yesterday. They have also said that the statistics and evidence that are before us—not necessarily the recommendations but the trends that exist—are matters that we must address.

I am grateful to members who made constructive contributions and suggestions in response to the statement. Although we are still debating the matter in the chamber, there is no question but that I have embarked—and my officials are embarking—on discussions with the fishing industry on the points that many members have made. We recognise that we must understand better the apparently contradictory scientific advice. We must take on board all that is being done by the Scottish fishermen that is has not been factored into any of the advice that Commissioner Fischler is talking about. As Tavish Scott said, we must also recognise that in this important matter we must take account of the CFP. We all deeply regret the fact that, unless some different arrangement of the CFP is arrived at, it may not be radical enough to deal with some of the problems. The main issue is that greater regional management ought to be addressed, which is a proposal that all members have supported. I intend to ensure that our fishermen will have a fair say in what goes on and in how we arrive at the alternative proposals that we are to agree, whether or not the Commission agrees that proposal in time.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the minister's indication that the industry should be at the heart of negotiations. Is there potential to second representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland to the civil service for the next few weeks and months of crucial negotiations, so that expert advice is at the heart of the civil service process?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

There is no need for that. I have indicated as clearly as I can that we will meet representatives of the fishing industry—I gave an undertaking to do so to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation when we were in Luxembourg two weeks ago. Meetings have been arranged and representatives of the fishing industry must be brought together to come to a view. I will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation next week for a progress report on the detailed technical discussions. Let us not have an argument about the detail of process. Let us understand that the Executive and the fishermen will work together to achieve our aim.

We must take account of the point that Alasdair Morrison made—that the diversion of fish from their current locations could have an adverse effect on nephrops. We have already undertaken not to close the nephrops fishery. A number of members have referred to industrial fishing, which is a key issue. In my response to a question yesterday, I queried the way in which industrial fishing for herring, which is a feed stock for cod, is being treated.

The issue of timing is crucial.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister is coming to the end of his speech.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I say to all members who have made constructive suggestions that we should put out one simple, plain message. We reject as politically unacceptable and financially disastrous any suggestion that there should be a wholesale closure of the Scottish fisheries. However, members recognise that they cannot ignore totally the trend that the scientists have identified. Politicians, the civil service, everyone involved in all aspects of the fishing industry—not just the catching sector—and fishermen must work together to develop an alternative proposal that is credible not just here, but in Europe, and that the Commission will accept as viable. We need a proposal that both saves our fishing industry and—crucially—provides it with a sustainable future for all of Scotland.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I rise conscious of the fact that at stake in this debate is the survival of the Scottish fishing industry. During the debate members who feel very strongly about the problems faced by the communities that they represent have expressed—rightly—high passion. However, if I concentrate on those speeches that shed light rather than heat on the issue, I will make a better contribution to our common purpose.

We should focus not on the problems of the past—very serious though those have been—and the failings of the CFP, which we all acknowledge, but on the challenges that we face in the immediate future and the problems that confront the minister and his deputy, who in this session of Parliament represent and speak for Scotland. As I have said in each yearly debate on this issue, we would like the Scottish representative on the UK delegation to speak for Scotland and to lead in the debate. To say that that is an issue of controversy is to miss the point.

I would like to make six points that are constructive and that are based on the SNP motion. First, Scottish fishermen have led the way on conservation. As the minister admitted yesterday, they have been in the van. They have introduced larger meshes that others—including English fishermen—have not yet adopted. The minister should take up that issue—when I raised it with him yesterday, he did not respond to my point. Scottish fishermen have introduced escape panels and finer twine. There has been decommissioning. Has the effect of those steps been measured? It has not.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I will not give way.

Secondly, fishermen have supplied a detailed corpus of evidence, which is to be published by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. From a briefing that fishing representatives gave yesterday, I understand that that evidence will show that the measures that were introduced last year are beginning to work. Surely, if our approach is not to ignore the science but to analyse it properly, the scientific evidence to which I refer should be considered by Mr Fischler and everyone else before we decide what line should be taken in negotiations.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Not at this point—I want to move on.

The correct approach to take to science is not to ignore it. When this crisis reared its head, the minister's first reaction was to say that we could not ignore the scientific evidence. No one suggests that information should be ignored. However, I suggest to the minister with great seriousness that we should analyse the scientific data very carefully. We agree with the major premise that the trends are worrying. However, Tavish Scott raised the point that the precautionary approach is not necessarily based on science. We know from the briefings that we received that individual features of the science might not be entirely right and, of course, there is a margin of error of 40 per cent.

Thirdly, Richard Lochhead has made constructive and positive contributions and it is puerile to dismiss them entirely, as has been done. His suggestion that the fishing representatives be part of the negotiating team goes to the root of the matter. As I understand it, there will, quite rightly, be meetings between the minister and the fishing representatives, but if the fishing representatives are not part of the team, they will not be present during the negotiations; they will be outside in an antechamber or in another room.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am sorry that I cannot take interventions at this stage, because I want to cover a lot of ground.

There might be many ways of including fishing representatives in the team. One simple way of doing that would be to second to the civil service for the negotiations representatives of the SFF who have expertise so that they can be in the room in which the negotiations are conducted. There might be other technical ways of including the fishing representatives and I ask the minister to explore such methods.

Richard Lochhead argued quite rightly that our task from now until the conclusion of the negotiations is to ensure that Scotland's minister spends his time not in Scotland but travelling throughout Europe seeking alliances and negotiations with his counterparts in other countries. That is a serious suggestion and it is so obviously born of common sense that I hope that it is taken up.

Fourthly, we argued last year for a tie-up scheme as well as decommissioning, rather than just for a tie-up scheme, as has been stated.

Fifthly, members such as George Lyon and Alasdair Morrison are quite right to speak in favour of the retention of the existing quotas on prawns, but that is not sufficient. Yesterday, I was pleased that the minister acknowledged that the Executive is committed to the reinstatement of the 10 per cent reduction in the nephrops quota. Prawns are in plentiful supply, as not just Jamie McGrigor but all of us know. Given that there is no significant bycatch, as everybody accepts, there is no reason why prawn fishermen should lose out as they have done. I believe that that measure is also in keeping with sound conservation principles.

Sixthly, the CFP has perhaps not been mentioned as often as it should have been. Until last week, we were all united in arguing that we need to protect Scotland's historic fishing rights. That was our united position until Mr Fischler made his calculated outburst and it must remain our position.

There are concerns, because there are threats to relative stability. One of those threats is that our quotas will be lost if the capacity for internationally tradeable quotas is introduced. If our quotas can be sold off, as the new system of internationally tradeable quotas suggests, what will happen to our quotas? They will be sold. To whom will they be sold? It will not be to people from Scotland. Did Mr Elliot Morley rule out internationally tradeable quotas? He said that we have to look at the options. That is an example of a clear difference between the position that we should adopt as Scotland's voice, and which the minister should adopt as Scotland's negotiator, and Mr Morley's position on a key point.

I agree entirely with Tavish Scott that the issue is far too important for our fishing industry to allow anyone other than Scotland's minister, who must necessarily have—and who does have—a better understanding of Scotland's fishing industry problems, to speak for Scotland. That is not a mere constitutional point, it is not dancing on the head of a pin and it is not metaphysics—it is sound, practical common sense. In the days ahead, I hope that there will be a clear statement that that is what will happen.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There is an unfinished piece of business—the point of order that Alex Neil raised earlier this morning. The Presiding Officer has now had the opportunity to review article 146 of the Maastricht treaty and he considers that the matters contained therein are for the UK Government and the Scottish Executive rather than for the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. In addition, Mr Finnie has explained his position at some length. The ruling is that if Mr Neil remains dissatisfied, he will have to take up the matter with the minister rather than with the chair.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin this afternoon's business with question time, I welcome the Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, the right hon Jonathan Hunt, who is in the gallery with some of his parliamentary colleagues.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what is being done to address any lack of affordable private housing for first-time buyers, particularly in rural areas. (S1O-5790)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Scottish Executive, through Communities Scotland's housing investment programme, provides assistance for a number of low-cost home ownership schemes. In the former crofting communities, the crofting building grants and loan scheme, funded by the Scottish Executive, provides grants and loans to build and improve croft houses.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I appreciate that the minister understands the situation in relation to the difficulties that are created by the high cost of housing in rural areas. Will the minister encourage local authorities to procure land banks where suitable sites could be provided for first-time buyers and offered, as an incentive, at a discounted price?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased that John Farquhar Munro recognises my interest in rural housing and my awareness of the need to provide a range of housing options for rural communities. I have visited a number of those communities in my tenure as the minister with responsibility for housing and I think that Communities Scotland is engaged in an imaginative programme.

I would not wish to respond to a specific issue at this point, but I am happy to ensure that Communities Scotland considers all possible options. We are aware of the need to provide affordable housing in rural areas and are committed to doing so. We are determined to make progress in that regard.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the problems that are faced by local people who have to compete with people who are buying second homes? Will the minister consider a review of the council tax relief scheme for second homes as one of the tools by which the problem might be addressed?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As Rhoda Grant might be aware, the Executive is committed to consulting on this issue because it recognises that the purchasing of second homes might provide an impediment to the supply of affordable housing, particularly in rural areas. I assure members that the Executive is committed to a programme of investment and reform throughout all of our housing policies and we will do all that we can to ensure that there is choice and quality for all Scottish tenants.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

How will the minister address the problem of homelessness and lack of housing in Edinburgh? Although the situation is quite different from that in the crofting counties, the minister will agree that the average price of a house in Edinburgh is £130,000. The problem is so bad that the police are suggesting that there needs to be a weighting system to allow policemen to live in the city. The minister needs to address this problem.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have just returned from a constructive meeting with the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council and housing officials. The council told me that it was the best meeting that it has had with the Scottish Executive. We are fundamentally addressing the issues of housing in Edinburgh. I guarantee that we will continue to do so and I look forward to a productive experience in relation to housing issues in Edinburgh.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the initiatives it announced on 18 October 2002 will assist with the implementation of the youth crime action plan. (S1O-5804)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Scottish Executive is determined to reduce youth crime. The initiatives will put in place programmes to reduce persistent offending, improve our youth justice services and make communities safer.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome the three initiatives that were announced on 18 October, because they show that the Executive recognises the importance of tackling persistent youth offenders in communities across Scotland, including my constituency.

Does the minister agree that those are the right priorities for the Scottish Executive to be following? Will she comment on how those priorities contrast with the constitutional obsessions of the nationalists?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Our priorities are correct. The £5 million youth crime prevention fund will enable national voluntary organisations to widen the range of crime prevention projects for young offenders. The youth justice teams fund will ensure that multi-agency youth justice teams are able to put in place local action plans. The intensive support fund will enable local authorities and voluntary organisations to increase the level of community-based supervision of young people. Those are the priorities that our communities want and the priorities on which the Executive wants to deliver.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The minister no doubt agrees that the number of secure-unit places available in Scotland is integral to any programme on tackling youth crime. On 18 September, she announced 25 extra secure accommodation places, which, as we already know from the Executive's own admission, will be taken up immediately. However, on 8 October, she replied to a written parliamentary question from me, saying that she knew neither where nor when those places would become available. Can the minister give us any further details today, or can we expect a repeat announcement, coincidentally just before the election?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

That is not the case. If Roseanna Cunningham had followed the debate—some of her colleagues have written to me on those matters and I have answered questions—she would know that we have a team in place in the Executive that has met the potential providers of those places and that we will make an announcement in due course.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that, on 3 October, when the First Minister was asked whether he would support a policy of reducing crime by increasing the number of police officers, he replied "Yes"? Will the minister support the First Minister's statement?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am always delighted to support the First Minister. I am sure that that will come as no surprise to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. I am also delighted to be able to support the recently launched safer Scotland campaign, which seeks to involve young people actively in promoting better life chances for other young people in their communities.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on recent research that suggests a link between fluoridation of water and bone disease in children. (S1O-5771)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The University of York's "A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation" took account of 254 relevant studies on fluoridation. No conclusive evidence was produced linking water fluoridation and bone disease. If there had been conclusive evidence, the Executive would not have included fluoridation as an option in its consultation document "Towards Better Oral Health in Children: A Consultation Document on Children's Oral Health in Scotland".

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The minister is no doubt aware that, last month, a Medical Research Council working group on fluoride recommended further research into the health effects of water fluoridation. The group is concerned about the fact that research from Mexico has shown that fluoride can cause bone disease in children, but we do not know whether adding fluoride to our water will cause similar bone disease. Does the minister agree that, given that unknown, it is vital that proposals to fluoridate water should not go ahead until research into the health effects of fluoride has at least been completed, and will she guarantee that?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

In Mexico, the example that Mr Harper uses, fluoride is found naturally. In those instances, there have been examples of fluoride causing health problems because of the high concentration. However, when fluoride is added to water supplies, it is added at much lower levels. None of those levels has shown instances of health problems. However, the Executive is willing, as ever, to listen to the relevant information that is provided and to consider the research. We will continue to do that.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The current consultation document on fluoridation of the water supply states that the Executive is impartial on the issue. How does the minister square that statement with a contribution of £26,000 to the British Fluoridation Society—a society that exists solely to promote fluoridation of the water supply?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive has said consistently that it remains open minded on fluoridation of the water supply. The consultation document on children's oral health includes a number of aspects, and Mary Scanlon should ensure that the debate on children's oral health is not only on fluoridation, but covers all the other measures that would be needed to improve a poor record of oral health throughout Scotland.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Education and Young People will next meet the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. (S1O-5767)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I have no immediate plans to meet the new secretary of state.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is such a disappointment. The minister may like to know that, in a speech given yesterday in Oxford, Charles Clarke said:

"we will energetically promote earned autonomy for schools that are well run and managed so that those schools will have greater freedom"

Will the minister consider such an enlightened approach in Scotland, using direct grant status—or any other process—and starting with St Mary's Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The short answer to that, which will come as no surprise to Mr Monteith, is no. In Scotland, we will continue to make reforms in education that will best meet the needs of our young people and close the opportunity gap for those who have, in the past, not succeeded.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister will be aware of the academic research that was done recently by Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh, which showed that pupil attainment levels in comprehensive schools are the same as those in private schools. Does the minister agree that that is a significant and independent endorsement of comprehensive education in Scotland?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Of course I looked with interest at the comments made by Lindsay Paterson. I was pleased to note that the research showed that the comprehensive system could produce very good results indeed. There were some lessons for us, too. As I mentioned to Mr Monteith, those are about closing the opportunity gap, which we take very seriously indeed.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

When the minister meets the new Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will she ask him whether he has made any assessment of the impact of raising the starting age for primary education from five to six and lowering the leaving age for secondary education from 16 to 14, and whether he thinks that implementing such a policy at this time, when there is so much else happening in education, would be a sane and sensible thing to do?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I suspect that I do not need to ask the new secretary of state what his views on that are. Although he, like me, wants to drive forward reforms, I do not want a situation in which young people end up leaving school earlier, without the necessary qualifications and skills to go on and get decent jobs and get into higher education.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Can the minister give the chamber any insight into the recent report about the lack of skills available to the construction industry? I think that the same concerns could be echoed by other industries. Will she indicate what steps the Executive might take to encourage more young people to take up appropriate skills training regimes and to interest them in such employment?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

It is vital that we can encourage young people to take up the opportunities that are available. There are already 5,000 modern apprenticeships, but I want there to be closer links between schools and industry. I am sure that, when the report that my colleague Nicol Stephen is in the process of completing, which deals with enterprise education, comes out with its recommendations, we will be able to make further moves in that regard.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the minister tell Charles Clarke that the system of student finance that was introduced by the Scottish Parliament, although it is not perfect, is more generous than that introduced by Westminster, which abolished student grants and imposed tuition fees? Will the Scottish Executive reject any suggestion of top-up tuition fees of up to £15,000 per year, whether that suggestion has come from the principal of the University of St Andrews or from U-turning politicians such as Tony Blair, who once gave a firm commitment not to introduce top-up fees, or indeed such as Brian Monteith, who used to be—or claimed to be—against tuition fees, but who is now in favour of top-up fees?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am sure that, when I meet the new secretary of state, I will seek to ensure that we continue to maximise the uptake of university and further education places among our young people. That will be the focus of my attention during discussions with him.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to develop best practice for local authorities and others in dealing with nuisance caused by seagulls in towns and cities. (S1O-5784)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As I have made clear in reply to previous questions on the issue, local authorities already have full discretionary powers to control seagulls through their environmental and public health responsibilities. But, and this is an important but, colleagues— [Laughter.] —the Scottish Executive will now be considering the possibility of issuing best practice guidance on problems caused by seagulls.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I welcome the initiative that the minister is taking. If members had a seagull on their roof, they would not find that funny. This is a serious issue. I hope that the minister will use next week's members' business debate to allow us to review the options that are available to local authorities to tackle a serious problem for members of the public who are affected by it.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Joking aside, I agree that this is a serious issue. Representations have been made to me by David Mundell, Dr Murray and other members whose constituents have experienced problems with dive-bombing seagulls that prevent them from leaving their homes and prevent children from playing outside. That is why I am considering issuing new guidance to complement the massive planned investment in waste management, which will have a major impact on scavenging seagulls. I look forward to debating the issue next week.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the minister undertake to study the nuisance that is caused by politicians who harass seagulls, which at least perform the democratic function of splattering the statues of dead politicians? Does the minister accept that seagulls are being discussed here only because they are an unreserved issue? We should be discussing war, but are prevented from doing so because it is a reserved issue.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am speechless. [Laughter.]

David (None, Lothians)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I declare that I am a member of the court of the University of Strathclyde.

To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of funds from the comprehensive spending review will be allocated to university veterinary teaching and research over the next three years. (S1O-5777)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Decisions have not yet been made on the use of the new funding announced for veterinary teaching and research in the UK Government's comprehensive spending review. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Executive are members of the Great Britain-wide group that is considering the optimum use of those funds.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister's answer is redolent with complacency that is quite breathtaking. Scotland has two legendary veterinary schools, at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh. Because of a lack of adequate funding that may be made available to the rest of the United Kingdom, those two schools face a very grave risk. The minister will be aware that the schools have a high proportion of undergraduates, staff and research staff. Will the minister explain why he is prepared to preside over the diminution of two legendary Scottish faculties?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Miss Goldie's supplementary question demonstrated that she had not listened to my answer to her previous question. I fully expect that our two vet schools will receive their fair share of funds. Indeed, I suspect that they will receive a disproportionate share, because they contribute disproportionately to veterinary teaching and research in the UK. Their funding must be seen in the context of a budget settlement under which funding for higher education generally will rise to more than £800 million a year by 2005-06. Those funds will be available to SHEFC for higher education, including the vet schools. SHEFC has clearly demonstrated that it recognises the importance of veterinary science by increasing by 29 per cent in 2002-03 the veterinary science part of the block grant for research. I do not recognise the situation that Miss Goldie describes.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to disperse jobs to south-west Scotland. (S1O-5782)