Fisheries Council
Item 2 on the agenda is a discussion of the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council meeting. I think that we were all present when the minister, John Home Robertson, gave a statement in the chamber last Thursday. It was mentioned at the time that, in future, it might be appropriate for such statements to be given to the committee rather than to the full chamber.
This item was included on the agenda to give us the opportunity to address any issues that we felt should be developed more than they were last week. It would be inappropriate to ask John to repeat last week's statement, but I invite him to make any additional comments that he feels are necessary.
Thank you, convener. I think that everyone here was present for last week's statement. It was a great privilege to be at the European Council as the first minister responsible for Scottish fisheries. Although it was an inconclusive agenda—someone, somewhere described it as boring—some important preliminary points were made.
If we can take as read last week's statement and exchanges, I understand that members would like me to expand a little more on one or two specific points. The first is the Commission's proposal for improved dialogue with the fishing industry. We regard that as very important indeed. We are keen on dialogue with the fishing industry here in Scotland, and it is obviously all the more important that there should be good dialogue between the fishing industry and the European Commission. The Commission made an initial presentation on the issue, but there is a lot more work to be done on that.
This Parliament's European Committee was particularly helpful, in accordance with the United Kingdom's agreed line; I had a paper from Hugh Henry before I went to the council. The important thing is that future discussions on the nature of the advisory committee on fisheries do not compromise what we want in relation to regional meetings. We are keen on getting a more regional approach to the management of fisheries, for example, in the North sea. Some progress has been made in that direction and there has been some discussion with ministers on that issue, which has been remitted for further consideration. I intend to ensure that Scottish interests are taken into account.
I referred to the major issue of herring tariffs in last week's statement. I was pleased to represent Scottish interests on that issue in the council; I recognise the sensitivity of that species for Scottish interests. The initial proposal for a tariff suspension was not acceptable from a Scottish perspective. There will, I am afraid, be imports of herring from outside the Community, but they need to be properly managed and, as far as I am concerned, minimised. The alternative of an autonomous tariff quota is acceptable, as long as the amount is not significantly above that of the current year. I suggested a threshold of 10,000 tonnes. That is obviously a matter for negotiation and the council will come back to that at the November meeting.
I am aware of the outcome of the consultation exercise on Agenda 2000 and the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which is part of structural funds. There were no great surprises. In fact, the current FIFG proposal sits fairly comfortably alongside the outcome of the consultation exercise—there is some overlap, which is helpful. The final text of the FIFG regulation has yet to be agreed, so it is difficult to be specific about how the money will be spent and how it will be distributed within the industry. However, we want to go ahead with the prioritisation, within available resources, and we will consult the industry on that We have successfully bid for extra resources for FIFG in the objective 1 plan.
Those are the main points that I want to cover at this stage, but if any member wants to raise specific points with regard either to the previous or to the next council meeting, I will take those on board. As I said last week, when substantive decisions are taken or major issues raised at the council, I will take every opportunity to report to the Parliament. On other occasions, it might be more convenient for me to report back to this committee, although there might be some overlap in responsibilities between this committee and the European Committee, which will need to be thrashed out.
Would anyone like to ask questions about the minister's report?
I welcome the minister's commitment to regionalisation of the advisory committee structure and the structure of our committees. I am sure that this committee will support that and wish the minister well with his efforts.
I have two brief questions. First, what is the source of the figure of 10,000 tonnes that was cited in connection with herring imports? Secondly, does the minister anticipate any measures that will allow the Scottish industry to take advantage of fleet renewal and modernisation programmes? Will he support such measures, and Scottish fishermen getting access to EU funds, given that state aid will be required for that?
I am grateful to Mr Lochhead for his comments on our approach to regional management. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am absolutely certain that he will be totally committed to supporting Scottish fishing interests and Scottish fishing communities. It would be helpful if he acknowledged that I am similarly committed. There is not much to be gained from issuing press statements alleging that colleagues from any party are hostile to Scottish fishing interests. Mr Lochhead might want to come back on that.
The figure of 10,000 quoted for herring imports is a negotiating figure. As the member probably knows, the current level of imports into the Community is about 20,000 tonnes. I wanted to put down a strong marker that we do not want that to increase, but we want it to be reduced. If the Danish, Dutch or other processing industries want more herring, we want them to buy it from within the European Union and, indeed, from Scotland—our catching fleet can supply us with substantial amounts of herring—rather than to import it from elsewhere.
The main difficulty with fleet renewal is that other member states may take advantage of public funding to increase the catching capacity of their fleets. That would fly in the face of all our efforts to restrict catching capacity and bring it into line with the sustainability of stocks. Our main concern is to ensure that other member states—I will leave it to colleagues on the committee to identify which states we have in mind—do not try to increase their capacity. Having enunciated that principle and argued that we want any funding that is made available for fleet renewal to be subject to a 30 per cent reduction in capacity elsewhere, we would have to apply it to ourselves. When we know what the FIFG scheme entails and what the resources are, we will address—in consultation with our friends in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—how best to use those resources.
To avoid importing party politics to the committee, I will keep my final comment brief. Given the industry's current unacceptable age profile, many other issues connected with fleet renewal and modernisation, such as safety, are crucial.
I accept that point, and my colleague Elliot Morley made that point in the Fisheries Council. The UK negotiating position is that there should be no inhibition against the use of appropriate FIFG schemes to increase vessel safety. However, some borderline cases exist in which something that is done nominally for safety purposes might in fact be directed towards increasing the vessel's catching capacity. We need to keep a close eye on that, not so much from our point of view, but from that of certain other member states.
The matter did not appear in your statement, minister, but did you discuss the problems that our fish processing industry will face in light of the proposed directive that will impose very low dioxin limits in fish meal?
The Fisheries Council agenda covered structures, markets, industry consultation and statistics, therefore your point would not have been appropriate or in order. However, I assure you that representations have been made, directly and indirectly, to the Commission about that problem. You are quite right. If the original proposals were to be implemented, the use of fish meal for feeding on fish farms would, in effect, be banned and that would be rather absurd.
Do members have any further questions relating to the minister's statement? If not, the clerk has suggested that we consider the matter of the minister reporting back to this committee and to the European Committee. Do we need to consider the demarcation lines between the committees' responsibilities? Or do we need to ensure that the committees can meet jointly to receive reports when that is appropriate?
Members indicated agreement.
I will approach the convener of the European Committee to secure his agreement.
As was evidenced by the minister's statement, a number of members did not have time to participate. I encourage the minister to consider continuing to make statements to the full chamber. Fisheries is of great interest to a number of members and it would be helpful if he was prepared to make such statements when significant issues are involved.
I am enthusiastic about doing so. Of course, statements to the Parliament have to be dealt with through the Edinburgh equivalent of the usual channels. There are competing bids to make statements and time is limited.
I will say, in passing, that two important Fisheries Councils are coming up. The one in November will wrap up the business that was started last month, while the one in December will deal with total allowable catches and other important issues. I hope that it will be possible before then to have a full debate on fisheries in Parliament, so that I can listen to what colleagues from all quarters are saying and take account of that before fixing the UK negotiating position and, indeed, before going to the council.
Okay. If we have covered the issue as required in the agenda, it is my pleasure to thank the fisheries minister, John Home Robertson, for helping us with a number of issues today. Furthermore, I thank Derek Feeley and David Ford for accompanying the minister.
We shall now proceed with our long agenda.