Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Official Report 600KB pdf

---

Fisheries

Item 3 is an update from the cabinet secretary on his participation at the recent European Union agriculture and fisheries council. Mr Ewing is joined by Allan Gibb, who is acting deputy director, fisheries, at the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary will make a brief opening statement.

Every autumn, the Government participates in a suite of international negotiations to agree fishing quotas for the Scottish fishing fleet in the coming year. Our negotiating approach continues to place a key emphasis on behaving as a responsible fishing nation by respecting scientific advice and driving towards sustainable fishing levels for all stocks to protect that precious resource for future generations. At the same time, we need to balance that with the socioeconomic impacts and the risk of choke problems that would be created under the landing obligation by excessively sharp cuts in quota.

This was the third December council at which fishing opportunities were set under the rules of the reformed common fisheries policy, which aims to have all stocks fished at sustainable levels by 2020 at the latest. The overall package concluded at the council was very positive indeed. There are increases in the catching opportunities for 16 out of 23 key Scottish stocks, which will potentially be worth an extra £47 million to the industry in 2017. Notable outcomes for the North Sea included increases of 17 per cent for cod, 17 per cent for whiting, 53 per cent for saith, 20 per cent for monkfish and 46 per cent for prawns. Each increase is hugely important to those fishing sectors.

Particular reference should be made to the outcomes for North Sea cod and whiting. Due to the Scottish Government’s direct involvement in the EU-Norway talks, we were able to turn around the difficult advice for those stocks into more reasonable outcomes that still fully respect the science and continue to move them forward to sustainable fishing levels but provide a bit more time for the industry to adjust to the phasing of those stocks into the landing obligation in 2017.

For the west coast, important outcomes were increases of 59 per cent for saith, 9 per cent for hake and 45 per cent for Rockall haddock and a rollover for whiting. For the pelagic sector, there were increases of 14 per cent for mackerel, 73 per cent for blue whiting and 104 per cent for Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Renewal of the EU-Faroes agreement will continue to provide the Scottish white-fish fleet with important access to around £2 million of additional opportunities in Faroese waters. Thanks to pressure from the Scottish Government, the level of Faroese access to EU waters to fish for mackerel was brought back to the negotiating table for the first time in three years.

Alongside those stock-specific outcomes, we have made significant political gains this year. At the EU level, we have secured a new flexibility arrangement that allows Scottish vessels to fish up to 10 per cent of their quota for west of Scotland haddock in the North Sea. That will reduce both operating costs and the risk of choke for the Scottish fleet.

At home, we have for the first time secured agreement from the UK to top-slice the UK Arctic cod quota, which was purchased primarily with Scottish blue whiting in the quota swaps process at the EU-Norway talks, to create a UK pool of swap currency to bring in additional North Sea quota where there are risks of choke under the landing obligation. That is an extremely welcome development. However, both the Scottish Government and the UK Government still consider that a better balance could have been struck in the agreement with Norway, particularly with regard to securing increased quota for the EU of important North Sea stocks.

Alongside the international negotiations, my officials and I have held a series of meetings with industry representatives about the implications for Scotland if it is no longer part of the common fisheries policy. We are working together very closely and constructively to ensure that we fully understand all the issues and what is required to get the best possible outcome for the fishing sector. I have also called on the UK Government to give the fishing industry a guarantee that it will not trade away access to UK waters as part of negotiations for the exit from the EU.

It is clear that the autumn negotiations are a complex and unpredictable process, with no certainty or guarantees. However, I was very pleased that, through my involvement and that of my officials—it is not an exaggeration to state that our officials are highly respected across the EU and very often take the de facto lead in the negotiations—the Scottish Government has delivered the strongest possible package of outcomes for the Scottish industry in 2017.

12:15  

Thank you for the update, cabinet secretary. My first question was going to be about the outcomes, so I am glad to hear that the meeting was so positive and that so many gains were made. Given the information that you have given us, do you think that it will give a boost to the fishing industry in Scotland? What will be the impact on employment?

The outcome was a very good one. The industry is mostly doing well, although it is hugely disparate. In the week before the fisheries negotiations, Allan Gibb and I visited the Peterhead market and were told by the workforce that the amount of fish at the market was the highest ever. That is just a straw in the wind, perhaps, but it is an indication that the industry is doing well.

The delivery of £47 million worth of extra quota was a tribute to the hard work that is done throughout the year by Allan Gibb and his team and a tremendous result for Scotland. At the same time, the problems of the landing obligation—particularly the choke species—are very serious indeed, and no doubt we will come on to that.

The outcome of the negotiations was very good. Do not take it from me—one of the leaders of the fishing industry who were present at the talks said just after their conclusion that there is not a better-served industry than Scotland’s in any of the EU nations so far as working with the industry and representing its interests is concerned. That was fairly positive.

My question is about the UK concordat and fisheries management. The concordat is an agreement between the UK Administrations. There seems to be some conflict—I wonder what status the concordat has, given that there is consultation on-going in England but there appears to be no consultation in Scotland. We hear that the English fishermen are concerned that some 1,500 tonnes of English quota has been taken out of the Humberside area and given to Scotland. I do not understand what is going on. Can we have some clarity on where the concordat is?

I will bring in Mr Gibb in a moment. The concordat is an agreement between the UK fisheries Administrations. It is not legislation and does not establish legal obligations. Members will be familiar with such concordats, because there are various of them.

The new concordat provides for enhanced controls over transfers of fishing vessels between UK countries and for greater devolved control over shares of UK quota. Once those powers are established—and only then—the Scottish Government will put in place new rules that will allow fixed quota allocation units to move from a Scottish to a non-Scottish licence, but only when a Scottish vessel moves to operate permanently in another part of the UK.

We published a consultation on the quota allocation in 2014; the quota allocation is the substantial issue that falls to be determined after—and only after—the concordat is finalised. We had, in effect, agreed the terms of the concordat some considerable time ago and therefore did not think it was necessary for the UK Government to enter into that consultation. We did not have a consultation because we did not consider that there was any purpose in having one; it was something that had been agreed.

It is fair to say that its finalisation was delayed by the UK Government because of the referendum and possibly the Scottish parliamentary elections. In mid-year, after they were over, we sought to have the matter finalised, and it was then that the UK Government said that consultation was necessary, although it was not. However, we are very keen to get on with formally announcing the decisions in relation to the fixed quota allocation system, because they are essential to further investment in the industry; that is one of the consequences.

Mr Gibb might want to add something in relation to the 1,500 tonnes issue.

The cabinet secretary has been very comprehensive on the concordat. It is a revision of the first concordat, on which none of the Administrations consulted. Carrying out a consultation is a new choice by England—by DEFRA officials and Mr Eustice—and that is fine, as it is in their gift. The consultation concludes at the end of February and we will take it from there. We do not expect any change, as the concordat has been agreed at ministerial and official level.

The concordat allows greater control and allows the certainty that the cabinet secretary needs over Scotland’s quota shares. It would be unacceptable for the cabinet secretary to make a decision or a recommendation—or to take forward a proposal—on protecting and delivering economic growth for the Scottish fishing industry, only for somebody else in the UK to undermine that work. He needs that certainty before going forward and, primarily, that is its purpose.

The issue of the 1,500 tonnes is completely separate. It relates to a National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations news release from just before Christmas that was picked up in January. It demonstrates that the NFFO is not particularly happy with some decisions that were made—I will not make a judgment about whether it should be happy or otherwise. As the cabinet secretary indicated, the 1,500 tonnes is the result of a top-slice and, in our opinion, that results from an extremely well-evidenced and logical case that it should not go to one company and that it should be kept centrally to appease and to help with potential choke species under the landing obligation. That was the right thing to do and it was right for Scotland to get some benefit.

Why should Scotland get some benefit? Scotland—not the UK, but Scotland—is the second largest contributor of all member states to the EU-Norway negotiations and agreement. The Arctic cod that comes into the EU is primarily purchased by blue whiting. Scotland holds 99.3 per cent of the entire blue whiting quota for the UK, so we could say that Scottish blue whiting purchases Arctic cod. Not a single kilogram of Arctic cod goes to a Scottish fisherman; every single fish goes down to England. That is why it was right that we redressed the balance.

This was the subject of discussions between me and George Eustice on two or three occasions prior to the December negotiations. In other words, it was largely an infra-UK issue. The Scottish fishermen involved felt that they had had a very unfair deal in which fish that they believed should have been fished by Scottish fishermen were being top-sliced and applied to a company in England.

Far from Scottish fishermen complaining about this deal, it is a success story for the Scottish industry and I was very pleased—I have to say this and I want to be reasonable—that Mr Eustice made the deal. I worked very hard with him to get the deal for Scotland and, eventually, he was persuaded that it was the right thing to do. I can assure members that there are no fishermen complaining about it in Scotland.

What species are involved in the 1,500 tonnes? Is that specified or is it just a tonnage of fish?

It is 1,500 tonnes of Arctic cod and, as it all went to a single company, we do not fish it in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary suggested, in partnership with the UK and with the support of the UK fisheries minister, we will look to swap the 1,500 tonnes with other European countries that fish that fishery in order to bring in fish that will benefit the Scottish and the wider UK fishing fleets that focus on choke species. Target species would be, for example, North Sea cod, haddock, saith and monkfish.

 

The landing obligation has been mentioned. What progress is being made to allow it to work properly, with reference to choke species and the like?

The landing obligation policy was introduced to tackle a problem that most—if not all—of us found to be pretty repellent: the practice of discarding, which meant dead fish being thrown over the side rather than being landed and used. That was perhaps the consequence of EU policy that caused the most concern among not just fishing communities but the wider public, because it seemed to everybody to be a waste. The landing obligation is a well-intentioned policy that is designed to tackle that and bring it to an end, and I think that everybody, including fishermen, supports that.

The problem is that the way in which the obligation is implemented causes a risk of choke. That refers to species that can prevent the full prosecution of quota for one species because of the risk of fishermen catching another species for which the quota has been exhausted. If someone runs out of quota for haddock and cod and they are fishing for other species, but they have a bycatch of haddock and cod, that can stop the prosecution of their main fishing effort. The consequences are potentially catastrophic because, if they cannot go out and fish, they have to tie up and cease operating. It is a bit like asking Marks and Spencer to shut its shop premises in February—it is not much more complicated than that. The landing obligation issue concerns the way in which the European Commission seeks to implement the obligation.

I could say lots of things about the landing obligation but, to cut to the chase, it seemed to me from attending the November Council of Ministers and listening to the Commission’s response to just about all the member states that took part in that council debate—they all, to a greater or lesser extent, expressed concern about the consequences of the implementation of the choke species arrangements as planned—that the big problem was inflexibility. The time in which implementation is sought is perhaps not practicable, yet the Commission did not appear to be willing to extend the timescale.

Much good work has been going on, and we have referred to work that we have done to try to address the situation. The Arctic cod deal, which has enabled quota swaps to take place, will relieve pressure on some quota species in the North Sea, which is good, and other methods are allowing quota to be transferred between the west and the north. The Commission is also allowing de minimis exemptions and carry-forward of quota. There is a plethora of devices or policy tools—I have a list here.

I have reached the conclusion, subject to discussions with the industry, that the policy is being introduced too quickly and too inflexibly, and the consequences of that speed and lack of flexibility could be extremely serious for those who are involved. The results and outcome of December’s negotiations perhaps allayed some of the concerns that exist, but I know that the likes of the Shetland fishermen, for example, are extremely exercised about the issue, as Tavish Scott has reminded us from time to time.

I do not know whether Allan Gibb wants to add anything.

The outcome of the negotiations included help going forward. We have taken a transitional approach to avoid what is commonly known as the big bang—that is, everything coming in on day 1 in January 2019. For example, big increases in saith quota will be helpful, as that comes under the landing obligation in the North Sea and potentially elsewhere. We will see what the regional groups have to say on that. Scotland, as well as the UK, has a full seat on the groups that I attend.

I reiterate that there are probably answers to every potential choke species, and there are not as many choke species as you might imagine. As the cabinet secretary said, the problem is the inflexibility of the system and the timescale, and some of the answers are not particularly attractive—I will not say whether they are unattractive to us or to other member states. That could mean changing things that have been fixed in statute for several decades, such as relative stability. I do not think that that could be done in a few months or a year, and there lies the challenge.

The cabinet secretary referred to the most significant development. Other member states, the UK and Scotland recognised the issue and raised it above the regional groups, which are dealt with by officials such as me, to the Council of Ministers arena, where it can be properly discussed and the complexities can be recognised, although the Commission seemed more to note it than to do anything else.

12:30  

The situation seems a bit strange. In past years, it was fine to throw dead fish over the side of vessels, but they could not be landed without penalty. The cart seems to be going before the horse. We should have had in place policies to deal with people who deliberately went to fish choke species and to allow choke species to be landed and used. Everyone signed up to the new policy, but it seems to have been taken in without looking at the implications of how it would be implemented. Will there be more time to allow the policy initiatives that deal with the issues to be implemented, or should we be really worried about that?

That is fair comment. That is a consequence of the codecision process, in which the Council and the European Parliament work together. There was strong public demand to deal primarily with the waste issue and the food element as opposed to necessarily science, although the two aspects obviously go hand in hand.

Senior Commission officials reflected to me that the view was, “Yes, we know we don’t have the answer, but there are four years, and surely we’ll have the answer before that all comes in.” That has proven to be highly optimistic and unrealistic, but that was the view that was taken at the time.

We are now getting to the point at which people will have to reflect. It will not be for me to suggest that there should be a delay, that the Commission or the European Parliament will condone anything or that there will be adjustments, but they will certainly have to reflect on the fact that the available time to deal with horrendously complicated issues does not appear to have been enough.

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s remark in his opening statement that he is seeking to ensure that we do not trade away permanent access to UK waters when we leave the CFP. That is exactly the commitment that we want to hear.

Mr Gibb just said that some things cannot be done in a year or a few months, but there is a degree of urgency if the UK Government’s timetable is that we are 25 months away from leaving the CFP.

I will pick up the issue of access. Eight days ago, the UK Prime Minister said that her objective is a proposed free-trade agreement between Britain and the European Union. I do not think that anybody in the Parliament is likely to object to that objective. She went on to say:

“I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen ... that they want to make them poorer”.

That is a worrying indication, if not confirmation, that fishing interests in Spain seem to be on the Prime Minister’s list of things in which she has an interest. She has said nothing about fishing interests in the UK and in Scotland in particular.

How are discussions on that issue proceeding? Can we get the point across that fishermen in Scotland and, I suspect, in the rest of the UK are looking to the new fishing opportunities as a key way of underpinning the long-term future of their industry and therefore that what happens in the next 25 months—and, indeed, rather earlier than the end of that period—is vital?

On what I have done, I have of course met Andrea Leadsom and George Eustice; indeed, I have met Mr Eustice on many occasions. As I have said before, I have a good working relationship with him and I respect him. There is no doubt that he is a clever individual. I have specifically asked—at every formal meeting, I think—the very simple question, “Can you please give a guarantee that in the wider Brexit negotiations you will not trade away rights to permanent access to Scotland and the UK’s waters?” I have not yet got an answer to that question.

Like Mr Stevenson, who has long represented fishermen and fishing interests, I do not think that that question will go away. This is not a politician’s question or something that is relevant only to the chattering classes; this is something that our fishermen feel strongly about—they feel it in their bones. Our fishermen, most of whom probably voted for Brexit, see enormous opportunities—Bertie Armstrong calls it a sea of opportunities—because they envisage having the ability to fish for the fish in our waters and UK waters. That is simple, and if those fish are to be traded on a permanent basis, that will cause a lot of anger. The assumption at the moment is that that will not happen. I think that, as far as fishermen are concerned, the whole point of Brexit is the ability to fish all the fish in our waters, not just the relatively modest proportion of the stocks that they currently fish.

I have specifically asked Andrea Leadsom and George Eustice about this on several occasions—and answer comes there none. The answers that I get include, “Well, there are always negotiations between member states.” Yes, there are, but they are annual negotiations on quota swaps and the fixing of total allowable catches, as we have just described. They are not about the permanent trading away of access. There is a clear distinction to be made between the two.

I will not launch into a political tirade about the matter. All that I will say is that it is a serious issue that is not going away, and I will continue to press the question. Until we get an answer, we cannot go about the serious task of devising a fisheries policy that will operate in these islands.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to answer Mr Stevenson’s question, and I hope that one day George Eustice might—I do not know—come to Scotland and take the opportunity to answer it himself in his own words, rather than my answering it in mine. That would be a good thing.

Are you suggesting that it would be useful to the general proposition of taking the question forward—it might also be the case in relation to agricultural issues, which we have been discussing in relation to our coming out of the common agricultural policy—if Andrea Leadsom and/or George Eustice appeared in front of the committee, to see whether we could achieve success on an issue where, thus far, your success has been deferred?

It is really for the committee to decide what it does and whom it asks to attend but, in the interests of good dialogue—I note, convener, that members of your party have exhorted me to get round the table with the UK Government but, sadly, the meeting with Andrea Leadsom that we planned weeks ago and at which we would have done so was cancelled—I think that I would turn the argument round and say that we should have a dialogue with parliamentarians, too. I would be surprised if they did not relish the opportunity but, as I am sure members will agree, the question of who is invited to a committee is a matter for Parliament, not the Government.

I am sure that the committee will decide who it is appropriate to invite and will cast its net wide. Do you have any final comments before I close the agenda item?

I am pleased to have had what I think is the first opportunity to discuss at length the interests of fishing. As members know, the topic is highly complex and really important. I have welcomed the opportunity to have this initial discussion, but I hope that, although the committee has many responsibilities and topics to cover, it will come back to the important issue of fishing. It is a vital part of our rural economy and society, and it is right for us to continue to give it a lot of attention and to have a lot of discussion about it, particularly if we are to come up with our own fisheries policy.

Thank you for giving your time and providing two updates today, cabinet secretary. I also thank Allan Gibb for his attendance and for the information that he gave. You are right, cabinet secretary, that we will be looking at fisheries during the year.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the cabinet secretary and Mr Gibb to depart.

12:40 Meeting suspended.  

12:41 On resuming—