Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 05 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Official Report 335KB pdf

---

Fisheries Council

Papers have been circulated, including a note from the Scottish Government and a letter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. More recently, a copy of the 20-point plan for improving the UK process in relation to fisheries negotiations was circulated. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is accompanied by his officials David Wilson, Frank Strang and Simon Coote.

I welcome Robin Harper, who is attending for this item. Robin, it is our practice to bring in non-committee members to ask questions only if there is time and all committee members are satisfied that they have asked questions. If you want to ask a question, it will have to be at the end.

Thank you, convener.

I invite the cabinet secretary to introduce his officials in more detail and to make a short opening statement, after which we will move to questions.

You have introduced my officials, convener, so I will proceed with my statement. I am delighted to be here to discuss with the committee the on-going fishing negotiations. I enjoyed the debate in Parliament a fortnight ago and I sense a different, optimistic, tone from the one in the past. I hope that we can discuss the future of the fishing sector in that context.

I should update the committee on one or two developments that have taken place since the debate. The EU-Norway agreement was a satisfactory outcome, especially given the science on some of the key stocks. I will not go through the agreement in detail, but I will highlight the key points.

First, I was pleased with the 11 per cent increase for North Sea cod. We worked hard for that, by persuading the UK, the Commission and then the Norwegians that the increase was justified. The turnaround is significant, given that this is the first increase in cod quota in 10 years, although we recognise that we have a lot more to do to create a sustainable fishery and ensure that that continues in the medium term.

On haddock, we were pleased that we managed to respect the long-term management plan, which has allowed us to make the most of the 1999 year class. We would have preferred to agree this year provisions for banking and borrowing for future years, but the signs are that the Norwegians will be persuaded of the case for next year, which I hope is a good sign.

On the agreement on whiting, we had a much reduced total allowable catch cut, compared with what was on the cards at one stage, and an undertaking on discards, which is a relatively good outcome and the right way to rebuild the stock.

The herring outcome was disappointing, although the cut of 41 per cent was less than the Norwegian position of 50 per cent, and mackerel is the key earner for the pelagic sector. We achieved a good outcome on blue whiting. However, it is disappointing that on herring the unanimous advice of the regional advisory council was not followed. We agreed with the UK Government that that would be raised with the Commission last week.

The EU-Norway process is far from ideal. We will examine it carefully in the new year. However, I was pleased with what we managed to achieve within the constraints.

I will not read out my whole statement. Of course, the next stage is to agree the fishing opportunities for the stocks that are agreed within the EU as opposed to between the EU and Norway, at the fisheries council in mid to late December. Not only will the fishing opportunities for some stocks be agreed, but the days-at-sea issue will be addressed in terms of the management regime for our waters.

Welcome to the second leg of your marathon session today. Convener, I have two questions: one is on the process and the other is specifically on improved gear selectivity. Do you want me to ask both?

Ask both. The cabinet secretary can answer both. If there is a follow-up question, that is fine, but other members want to ask questions, too.

Historically, you have been a keen observer of the fisheries negotiations, but you are a participant this time round. How have you found the process? What are the biggest challenges for you, as a minister of a devolved authority, in participating in a series of negotiations that are led by nations that have full statehood? You mentioned that the outcome was satisfactory, but how close does it come to the best possible outcome of EU-Norway negotiations? Finally, in the previous two evidence sessions we heard a lot about improved gear selectivity and how it works—I think I understand it. How big a role will improved gear selectivity play in future? How can the use of such improved gear be encouraged? Is it being used elsewhere in the EU?

First, the Scottish Government's views are clear and well-known: we do not think that the process is the best way to manage Scotland's fisheries and to decide the fate of thousands of livelihoods in Scotland. For instance, in the December council, over approximately three days a few Commission officials have to reach compromises with member states on scores of stocks across scores of fisheries. The situation is perhaps not as bad as it used to be, because many decisions are now taken, and a lot of the hard work is done, ahead of the December council. However, no rational person on the planet would think that it is the best way to reach decisions on fisheries conservation and on the economic well-being of Scotland's fishing communities. The process is far from ideal, hence our criticisms of the common fisheries policy.

However, the new Scottish Government has taken many steps to try to improve the process. My officials are expert in their areas, and they have spent morning, noon and night in the months in the run-up to the talks—with considerable input from me as cabinet secretary—working extremely hard to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard, both within the UK and in the Commission. Despite the fact that Scotland has 70 per cent of the UK's fishing industry, the Scottish Government has to spend a lot of time and energy lobbying and reaching compromises with the UK Government. After that, the UK Government, with Scotland, has to lobby and reach compromises with the other member states, the European Union and the European Commission.

As you can imagine, that is a challenging process, and we would much prefer it to be different, but we think that the way in which we are handling matters has made a difference. We have had a considerable number of meetings with UK ministers—which have been productive and open most of the time—and with the other devolved Administrations. We have had many meetings involving the other ministers and the industry, which have been helpful in exchanging views and ideas and agreeing a strategy for the way forward. We have had a positive influence on the process, but it remains far from ideal, and it is not in Scotland's interests.

We would much rather that instead of the UK representing Scotland at the top table at the fisheries negotiations, with Malta on one side and Estonia on the other, Scotland was there in its own right. We have the biggest stake in the outcome of the negotiations, therefore we should have a much bigger input to the talks in the first place. It is ironic that the UK sits between Malta and Estonia—countries that are smaller than or the same size as Scotland.

Jamie Hepburn spoke about fisheries management—

Could we speed this up a wee bit, cabinet secretary?

Jamie Hepburn spoke about gear selectivity. It is important as a technical conservation measure. We support the trials that are taking place. The industry in Scotland has voluntarily adopted selective gear in recent years, with good success, and we are keen to encourage its use as a fisheries conservation measure, for example to reduce discards. We want to provide the fleet with incentives to add selective gear in the future. I hope that we will be able to build it into this year's negotiations, but we recognise that such gear also has a big role to play in the long-term game plan for fisheries conservation in Scotland.

I have a quick supplementary.

Make it brief; we will try to get a quick answer.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned incentives for the use of improved gear. Can you expand briefly on that point?

There are two ways of approaching the issue. The big picture is that I would like fisheries management to move towards incentives, rather than penalties. Too often, fishing organisations and fishermen have felt divorced from fisheries management, because it is all about penalties. If we move towards a system of incentives and rewards, there will be much better co-operation in the future, which will help fisheries conservation.

In the short term, we are seeking ways of building incentives into December's fishing negotiations. However, there is also a longer-term challenge in overall fisheries management. In 2008, we will give a great deal of attention to how we can incentivise better fisheries conservation methods, which will include the use of selective gear.

I have three questions, but I suspect that the cabinet secretary will answer the first two of them quickly by saying that he will refer to his scientific advisers. For the sake of brevity, on which the convener is keen, I will combine those two questions.

As you know, there is a great deal of evidence of neoteny—the shrinking of adults under evolutionary pressure from fishing—in Canadian cod stocks. There is some evidence of the same phenomenon in British cod stocks. If it is happening, there is a risk not only that the cod stock may collapse, but that it may never be able to recover. Can you reassure me that there is monitoring of that specific evolutionary issue—the shrinkage of adults as a result of fishery pressures?

There is also evidence for spatial subdivisions of cod stocks within the 12-mile limit. Can you reassure me that the Government or its advisers are considering the possibility of managing the conservation of cod stocks within that limit in relation to the spatial subdivisions of the population?

Both of my questions are relevant. The Canadian cod stock may not recover, or it may do so only over a geological time span, because of the evolutionary pressure to which I referred in my first question. I would like to be reassured that the issue is being examined.

I assure the member that the important issues that he raises are being examined. In Scotland, we are lucky enough to have Fisheries Research Services, which includes many of the world's leading fisheries scientists, many of whom spend a great deal of time examining cod stocks.

I am encouraged that David Wilson, who is sitting on my left, has said that he can answer the question on spatial subdivisions. I was expecting to have to ask my scientists to get in touch with the committee on the issue, but David may be able to add something.

I am not sure that I can address the detail of the science, but FRS and some of the colleagues whom the committee met at its previous meeting are running two specific research programmes on the issues that Bill Wilson raises.

The first programme is analysing evolutionary change in stocks, especially cod stocks, which is critical if we are to understand what level of overall cod stocks we should try to re-attain over time. The point of the cod recovery measures is to allow cod to recover to a stable long-term level. The critical question in the research is, given the change in the nature of cod stocks that is taking place, what can we expect the target population to be?

The second programme, on spatial subdivisions, is asking whether cod in the North Sea consist of separate stocks. That goes to the heart of issues relating to cod recovery and it is important in assessing the impact of climate change on the sea. Many people talk about cod stocks moving north. The emerging evidence is that the fish do not move north, but that their relative abundance in different areas is varying because of the impact of climate change on the sea. I will ask colleagues at FRS to provide the committee with a formal note on that critical research.

My third question is nice and simple. Other measures have been suggested for the preservation of cod fosh—

Is that a technical term?

No, it was just a mispronunciation; I meant to say cod stock. The suggested measures include the use of temporary area closures to protect spawning fish and the use of real-time closures to protect aggregations of juveniles. Will those measures come up in next year's cod stock negotiations?

That is a fundamental question, which I am not sure I can answer briefly.

December's negotiations will decide on the limitations on effort that will apply to the fishing fleet in our waters—in other words, they will determine the number of days at sea that will be allocated to Scotland's fleet. That is an extremely important decision, because there is no point in giving our fleet fishing opportunities without giving it time at sea to use them. However, given that the number of days at sea that the fleet gets can influence fishing effort, it is a conservation tool in the eyes of the European Commission. Those two demands must be balanced.

To return to my original comments about the need to have incentives and rewards rather than just penalties, our view is that we should look for alternatives to simply cutting the number of days at sea as a way of conserving fish stocks. I cannot overemphasise the fact that Scotland is leading the way in Europe on conservation. Other EU member states tell me that they are extremely impressed with what is happening in Scotland.

We are leading the way through the adoption of real-time closures, whereby if the fleet comes across juvenile cod stocks, the area is closed. There is a formula for achieving that. The success of the measure has been less to do with the areas that have been closed and more to do with a change of behaviour. The fleet now avoids juvenile cod stocks because it knows that if it finds them, the area will close. That approach—of which there is evidence—has been most welcome. Other measures include the presence on board vessels of independent observers, to monitor what happens and to keep records. Other member states are impressed with that.

Measures such as the voluntary closing of areas are being adopted in Scotland and will form part of the case that we make to Europe in negotiations. We will ask for recognition of the fact that we have the co-operation of our fishing fleet, which is leading the way in Europe, and we will argue that that approach should be encouraged as an alternative to the blunt instrument of cutting the number of days at sea.

Part of our negotiating position at the December council will be to seek recognition at council level of what we are doing on real-time closures, but it will also be about seeking provision that encourages other member states to opt in to what we are doing.

Are the boats of other countries that use our waters abiding by the Scottish rules?

Not the voluntary measures. However, I have met fisheries ministers from other member states and they are extremely enthusiastic about what is happening in Scottish waters. The important point is that voluntary closures are a measure on which the Scottish fleet is leading. We want to spread out its deployment among other fleets. Although the majority of vessels in most of Scotland's waters are Scottish, you are right that vessels of other nations fish our waters. That is why we are keen to get the European Commission to support the voluntary measures that we have taken and to encourage other member states to adopt them; it is also why we are having bilateral conversations with other member states.

The cabinet secretary will forgive me, because I am new to all this fishing stuff. He said that the outcome of the discussions with Norway was satisfactory. Much has been made of the increase in the cod TAC of less than 1,000 tonnes. Looking at the outcome of the Norway negotiations from a distance, it seems to be an unmitigated disaster for commercial fishermen. The haddock TAC has gone down from 32,000 tonnes to 27,000 tonnes—a drop of 15 per cent; the whiting TAC has gone down from 11,000 tonnes to 8,000 tonnes—a drop of 25 per cent; the herring TAC has gone down from 50,000 tonnes to 29,000 tonnes—a drop of 41 per cent; and the blue whiting TAC has gone down from 91,000 tonnes to 61,000 tonnes—a drop of 32 per cent. He said that that was a successful outcome.

As I said in my speech in last month's parliamentary debate on sea fisheries, the cabinet secretary has set the bar extremely high. He said that he would do much better for Scottish fishermen than previous Governments had done. Will he do better in the forthcoming discussions with Europe? Whichever way one cuts it, the discussions with Norway were not a success. At less than 1,000 tonnes, the improvement in the cod TAC is symbolic—my understanding is that it is irrelevant to the commercial fisheries. However, I am sure that if there is a logical explanation, the cabinet secretary doubtless will give it to me.

The increase in the cod quota that was secured in the EU-Norway negotiations—with enormous direct input from Scotland, given the importance of the stock here—was the first increase in cod quota in 10 years. That has been warmly welcomed.

And I welcome it too, of course.

I could not call that "an unmitigated disaster". As for my comments about the overall deal being satisfactory, we must take two things into account. First, we must pay heed to what the science is telling us. Stocks fluctuate. In past years, there have been significant increases in some stocks, such as haddock, because of the 1999 year class. We cannot repeat such massive increases. The 1999 year class will last only so long. We must consider the context of the science.

In the EU-Norway discussions, the EU holds most of the cards, and this small country of 5 million people holds most of the cards in negotiations with the rest of the EU. We need to consider the situation in that context. The UK, which is lobbied by Scotland, is one of the many states with an interest in the negotiations. Once the fishing opportunities are agreed between the EU and Norway, we must, in turn, get a fair share for Scotland out of the overall share. We are addressing the issue on two fronts—paying heed to the science and to the need to get the best deal for Scotland out of the fishing opportunities that have been secured. Under those circumstances, the outcome was satisfactory.

The Norwegians pushed for much greater reductions in the quotas for species such as herring. They were looking for a 50 per cent reduction; the final deal was 41 per cent. We felt that that was disappointing, as I said earlier, as the regional advisory council that covers herring felt that a 35 per cent reduction was justified, and there was unanimous agreement among the EU member states that that should have been the cut, in line with the science and the precautionary principle—while ensuring that the reduction was not unreasonable.

The outcome was a mixed bag, but it was satisfactory in terms of the alternatives that were being offered to Scotland. Could it have been better? Yes, it could have been better if, over the past 30 years or so, we had managed our fisheries differently, in which case we would have much bigger stocks today, and perhaps a bigger industry. However, in the context of the negotiations this and last month, the outcome was satisfactory.

Thank you for that—although I await with bated breath the outcome of the European negotiations.

You have made quite a lot of the on-board observers. How many on-board observers are actually on board Scottish fishery vessels? Is it one or two?

So far, there have been 10 trips by fishing vessels with observers on board. Those have all been piloted in Scotland. Please bear in mind that this initiative is relatively new. I think that about 20 vessels in the white-fish fleet are signed up to the initiative. It is a big step forward. However, it is one of many initiatives, and the real-time closures affect the whole fleet. The observer scheme is a pilot initiative that applies to some vessels.

Do you expect to increase the number of observers? How many observers are actually involved?

Four individuals are contracted from an outside agency, and we financially contribute towards creating new, innovative measures for fisheries management. To summarise, four individuals are contracted, 10 trips have been made so far and about 20 vessels are signed up to the initiative.

That is in addition to the on-going observed trips that FRS undertakes for data collection anyway. The observer scheme is a new initiative, but observed trips are continuing anyway, as they did in the past.

It is interesting to note, cabinet secretary, that the language of government is somewhat different from your language in opposition.

And vice versa.

I think you will find that it is not.

I understand that the cabinet secretary has demanded that he lead the UK negotiations at the December council. Given that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has indicated to the committee that its position is broadly in line with that being adopted by the UK Government, can the cabinet secretary indicate what specific policy differences he would advocate at the December council, if he were leading for the UK?

I thought that Karen Gillon was going to start off by saying that the language of the current Government is dramatically different from the language of the previous Government—it certainly is.

On the initial question, if the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is relatively happy with the UK Government's stance, that vindicates the Scottish Government's approach and confirms the difference that the Scottish Government is making to the negotiations. I am sure that the member has a long memory and knows that, in previous years, our fishing organisations took a wildly different view from the UK's view on fishing issues. However, suddenly, with the arrival of a Scottish National Party Government in Scotland, the UK Government appears to have the same agenda as Scotland's fishermen. If that is the difference that we can make when we are not leading the delegation for the UK, just think of the difference that we could make if we were.

That was the question, minister: can you identify the specific policy differences that you would advocate if you led the UK delegation?

First, let me say that we have made a positive impact, influencing—

That was not my question.

You cannot ask me, prior to negotiations, to show all my cards and to pre-empt the agreement that we have made with the UK Government over the UK negotiating line. That is the position—

So the UK Government is advocating, as a member of the European Union, what you believe is the right position for the Scottish fleet. Is that the case—yes or no?

The Scottish Government has made a positive impression on the UK Government, which, at the instigation of the Scottish Government, has taken on board many of Scotland's needs in the negotiations.

So it is—

You cannot ask me, prior to the negotiations in December, where we disagree with the UK Government. I cannot give away our negotiating position.

The question is, do you disagree with the position that is being advocated by the UK Government?

I am meeting the UK minister in London on Monday, then going with him to meet Commissioner Borg on Thursday. I also have the December fisheries council in Brussels. Perhaps then would be the best time to ask me that question. You cannot ask me, prior—

But minister, it is you, not anyone here—apart from those two guys over there, who are in your party—

You are demanding a fight with the UK, not us.

Exactly.

Minister, you are demanding to lead the negotiations. I am trying to ascertain whether your position is in line with that of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which is to advocate the UK Government's position, as outlined to it and to us by your officials. It is quite a simple question. Is that the case—yes or no?

It is not a simple question, because I will not know exactly what the UK is going to advocate until the December fisheries council. We are two weeks away from the negotiations and you are asking me whether there is any disagreement with the UK Government over the negotiations. I cannot answer that question.

The paper that was given by your officials—

I am saying to you that, so far, we have largely influenced the UK's agenda and negotiating positions. For example, our line to the UK Government at the moment is that avoiding unreasonable or unjustified cuts in days at sea must be a priority. That is the position that I will put to the UK minister on Monday in London and it is the position that I will take to the fisheries council, with the UK delegation, in two weeks' time. I do not know how you can ask me whether, in two weeks' time, I will disagree with the UK's negotiating line.

I am trying to clarify what tangible difference—

I am saying to you that, so far—

This is now becoming just a political exchange; it is not about seeking information in respect of the fisheries council.

He is not answering the question.

Karen, do you have a specific question about what is coming up? You are not going to get the answer that you think you want, because it is not really about the detail. Peter Peacock is waiting to ask what I assume are specific questions, and Des McNulty is waiting as well. We do not have much time.

Minister, can you clarify your position on proposed European Commission quotas? What would represent the best possible outcome for Scotland?

At the December council, negotiations will take place in relation to a number of species. The EU-Norway negotiations will not impact on that. The second most viable species in Scottish waters is langoustines. The position on them will be a roll-over, but we have an agreement on that, as decisions are made on that only every two years. We would like there to be a roll-over in relation to the northern shelf monkfish, which is an extremely valuable stock, particularly to the west of Scotland and Orkney. We would like the cut in west of Scotland haddock to be minimised to 15 per cent, which we believe represents a better way forward than the 42 per cent cut that is proposed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the European authorities.

Scientists have proposed a 56 per cent cut in the west of Scotland herring catch. The Commission may go for a cut of up to 25 per cent, but we believe that a 20 per cent cut is justified. North Sea megrim, on which there has been no advice from ICES, will be a key stock in the negotiations later this month. The Commission has proposed a roll-over, but we believe that there is a good case for a 15 per cent increase in the catch. There has been no advice from the scientists on ling and tusk, but we believe that there should be a roll-over. Currently, the Commission is proposing a 10 to 15 per cent cut. Scientists are advocating a 51 per cent cut in the west of Scotland megrim catch, but we believe that a roll-over is an option to put to the European Commission, which is going for a 15 per cent cut.

Rockall haddock and North Sea megrim are two of the most important species. The ICES advice is that there could be a 55 per cent increase in the Rockall haddock catch, but we think that there is potential for an increase of up to 65 per cent. The Commission has proposed a 15 per cent increase. The final stock that I can mention in the context of the negotiations is west of Scotland cod, of which ICES advises there should be no catch. We advise a roll-over and the Commission has proposed a 25 per cent cut.

That is where we are with our opening negotiation stances. I now revert to Karen Gillon's other question.

Briefly.

Karen Gillon asked unreasonable questions ahead of the negotiations. I cannot, for example, tell members about the UK's position on the stocks, therefore I cannot say whether I disagree with it.

A few weeks ago at the Scottish National Party conference, you made big play of being gagged during the negotiations but, last week, the First Minister said to Parliament that we would have the best outcome for a decade from them. It seems that he believes that we will get the best outcome while you are gagged. Assuming that the gag comes off before next week or that your skills as a ventriloquist improve, I think that the west coast prawn fisheries and days at sea are particular issues that will have to be dealt with.

I noticed in the media that you appeared to be relatively laid back—perhaps that is the wrong expression; rather, you appeared to be reasonably relaxed—when you commented on the proposals. You appeared to be reasonably relaxed that the Commission had simply taken an opening stance that was likely to shift significantly.

You will recall that, during a parliamentary debate a couple of weeks ago, I referred to an error in the number of days at sea available to west coast prawn fishing boats that was made in the previous negotiations. Was that error corrected before the reductions were suggested, or are the suggested reductions to be made to the current erroneous level?

In the negotiations, should a relationship be discussed that means that people will get more days at sea if they improve their gear? Should such an incentive be discussed, notwithstanding the fact that you may disagree with the total figures? Is tying days-at-sea improvements to improving gear and conservation measures the right kind of incentive?

I will deal with Peter Peacock's final points first. I agree that such things should be built into the negotiations. That takes us back to what I said initially about giving rewards to fleets that use more technical measures that assist conservation. It would be good to build such things into the negotiations, so we will certainly put together proposals on that. A lot of work has already been done to present alternatives to simply cutting days at sea.

You mentioned the error that was made last year under the previous Administration whereby the west coast fleets lost 28 days at sea. We have an initial agreement from European officials that the error could be reversed. We are not there yet, but the initial signs are that we will get those 28 days for the west of Scotland fleets reinstated.

As I understand it, ICES's proposal is for a 25 per cent cut in the number of days at sea after the error is corrected, rather than for a 25 per cent reduction in the incorrect figure.

It is a very complex issue. Both my officials want to comment on it—who shall I pick?

I will go first, and Frank Strang can correct me if I am wrong. The 28 days "error" has not been adjusted in the numbers—it has still to be taken into account. However, as the minister has said, the Commission has indicated that it will address the error. The key point is that the 25 per cent headline reduction that is being talked about for some of the gear categories does not apply to the one to which you refer. There is, basically, a rollover for that gear category. There was an error, but we do not think that it has had a significant—if any—impact on fishing activity. The 25 per cent reduction is a headline figure, and the 120 or so west coast fishermen in that gear category will not be affected by the headline reduction in numbers.

You say that incentives should be built into the negotiations. Will other things such as by-catch quotas, days at sea, real-time closures and observers—the point that John Scott made—be part of that? Is that what you mean when you talk about building incentives into the negotiations?

Yes, it is. A number of those measures have been piloted in the North Sea and, in the west of Scotland, we are examining the potential for building such measures into alternatives to a straight cut in days at sea. Of course, the cut in days at sea that is proposed for the west coast is 25 per cent, and we will have a big battle to reduce that to a lower level irrespective of whether we propose alternatives. Nevertheless, we think that proposing alternatives is the right way in which to go.

I met the west coast fishing organisations in Glasgow on Monday and we had a very productive session. There were some technical sessions with officials in the morning, as well. A lot of work is going on to see what measures we can build in.

I want us to finish this item by 12.30. I ask Des McNulty and Mike Rumbles to keep their questions as tight as possible, so that Robin Harper has the chance to ask a question.

In the negotiations between the EU and Norway, the Norwegian position seems to be that there should be lower takes—less mortality—of several species. Is the Norwegian science different from ours? Is our science closer to their proposal than to the EU position, or is the EU position in line with the scientific evidence that is available to you? Could you give us that information in a table, once you have given us an oral response?

We will send you a note about the science. The Scottish science largely feeds into the European science, so I am not sure that there will be any major discrepancy between the Scottish and European science on cod.

A great deal is made of the excellence of the Scottish science, so I am interested in knowing whether it supports the Norwegian position or the EU position.

We must be realistic and acknowledge that the EU-Norway negotiations are not all carried out on the basis of science. It all comes down to raw politics. The Norwegians want the best deal that they can get for Norwegian fishermen, and the EU has to reach a compromise with the Norwegians to ensure that we get fishing opportunities for joint stocks in the EU and, in turn, Scotland.

At the EU-Norway negotiations, the Norwegians linked stocks that had no biological relationship with each other. In other words, they said, "We'll give you more fishing opportunities for that stock if you take less of this stock," although there was no biological relationship between the two stocks that they were speaking about. That is the atmosphere in which the negotiations take place. The negotiations are essentially led by officials, not politicians, but there is politics among officials and linkages are made between unrelated stocks—it is complicated and science is not always the guiding principle.

Most of the science that is looked at as part of the negotiations, whether it is from Scotland, Denmark, Holland or Norway, has gone through the ICES process and then been drawn together. Therefore, the scientific negotiations are usually informed by a single body of science that has gone through an international process.

As the minister said, the negotiations are about politics and science, but they are also about relative interests and concerns and reflect the importance of vessels and fleets to individual countries. The Norwegians pressed for a reduction in the TAC on cod because cod is relatively less important to them—that might have been part of their tactics. However, they argued for a much smaller reduction in mackerel quotas because they wanted more fishing opportunities for mackerel. That has implications for what you said about Norway being more conservation oriented than us; it varies significantly depending on the science, the country's tactics and the wider context.

The committee has heard evidence that up to 60 per cent of a catch is thrown overboard because of the quota system. Many people feel that that is obscene. How successful have you been and will you be in negotiating for the end of the discard regime?

Thank you for raising an important issue that many people rightly care about. The issue of discards has been around for a long time and previous Administrations failed to get to grip with it.

I am trying not to be party political.

We are trying to find new ways of tackling discards.

I have several things to inform the committee about. The cod quota increase that was secured in negotiations between the EU and Norway was accompanied by a statement that, while not binding in any way, says that we should try to reduce discards to 10 per cent of cod. It is estimated that discards in Scottish waters could be anything up to 40 per cent. The Commission quotes the figure of 60 per cent across Europe. I guess that no one really knows, but we have to estimate such figures; 40 per cent is the estimate for Scottish waters.

We all agree that discards are abhorrent. To a certain extent, they are unavoidable in a mixed fishery such as that in Scotland's waters in the North Sea, so there will always be an element of discards, unless we ban them, which it would be difficult to do in a mixed fishery. The Government has agreed to bring forward a strategy in 2008 to work with the industry to tackle discards. We will have a discards action plan in early 2008 and we will work on that. People have been struggling with the issue of discards for decades. Notwithstanding the measures that we propose to bring forward as quickly as we can as part of the December negotiations, we want to take a discards action plan forward in a much bigger way in 2008 by involving industry, Government and the scientists.

We hope that the measures that have been adopted already will play a role in tackling discards. The increase in our quota will also play a role, because the fishermen will be able to land what they catch. We have discards not just because we have a mixed fishery but because the stocks in the fishing grounds can be out of line with the quota and fishermen are not allowed to land the fish that they catch. Quotas need to be aligned with stocks to a greater degree or discards will continue.

I am glad to hear what you are saying; it is going in the right direction. However, banning discards would not be very useful. I know that the Norwegian fishery is different from ours as we have a more mixed fishery, but we should look at what the Norwegians have been doing. We should adopt the principle of incentivising—to use a horrible word—our fishermen. If the fish are landed, it is simply obscene to tip them over the side. If the fishermen were given some sort of incentive to bring those fish back, even if it were at a reduced value to the fishermen, at least it would be worth it to them not to tip the fish over the side. The scientific information about stocks would be much more accurate and we would end what many people consider an obscene situation.

We can always use the word "reward" instead of "incentivise" if we are uncomfortable with the latter—I agree that we have to change the language. As we put together an action plan on discards in the times ahead, our emphasis will be on avoiding the stocks that we do not want to catch in the first place, such as juvenile cod. The best way forward will be to give incentives or rewards to the fleet for avoiding the areas in which we do not want to catch those fish.

As I said, we have a mixed fishery in Scotland's waters, so the problem is that when a fisherman throws a net over the side, he does not know what will come back up. He has a quota only for certain species and is not allowed to land other species—he might be taken to court if he did so—so he throws fish back into the water dead, even though they were healthy. Sometimes the quotas are out of line with the science or with the stocks in the grounds and it would have been sustainable to take the fish home. In a mixed fishery such as the North Sea, where we cannot ban discards without great pain, avoiding cod and other stocks that we do not want to catch is perhaps the best way forward.

Do you agree that rewarding rather than penalising people is the way forward?

I fully support the concept of rewards.

What is new about the outcome of the EU-Norway negotiations is that we are defining outcomes on discards. The minister mentioned the 10 per cent target for cod. For whiting, the target is to reduce discards by 30 per cent. The outcome of 0 per cent, which the Commission is talking about, is unrealistic. However, we will have outcomes to aim for, which will be determined through a fishery-by-fishery analysis.

Robin Harper has a very few minutes into which to squeeze his question.

Thank you—I will try to make my introduction as short as possible.

We want a question, please, not an introduction.

All right, but I would have liked to have presented the argument behind my question.

We have only four observers. I hope that the minister agrees that it is crucial that we observe during the next year, because the policy has many gaps. Does he intend urgently to recruit more observers and persuade fisheries organisations to put more observers on boats? I believe that organisations are now quite well disposed towards having observers on board.

We are not yet in a position in which we can say exactly what our alternative proposals will be on the number of observers. I cannot say whether the number will increase, which it might well do. One option that we are considering, which has pros and cons, is a reference fleet, whereby a certain number of vessels participate in the regimes and measures that we have been talking about. Observers might be involved and if the reference fleet contained so many vessels that we had to increase the number of observers, we would do so. I assure you that we are seriously considering the role of observers. I am optimistic that observers will be part of the package that we offer—that is the right road to go down.

I thank the witnesses for attending. Cabinet secretary, thank you for your evidence. You undertook to write to the committee with further information; when you return from Brussels, will you also write to us with an account of the negotiations and your observations on whether the outcome was satisfactory and if not, why not? It would be useful to have that information.