Official Report 318KB pdf
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Aberdeen. Fergus Ewing, Irene Oldfather and Elaine Smith send their apologies for not attending the meeting. However, I welcome visiting members Margaret Ewing and Tavish Scott and local member Nora Radcliffe, who is a committee substitute. I also welcome witnesses and members of the public. I thank Aberdeen City Council for laying on a lunch that has put paid to the strict diet that I have been on for the past few months.
The important part of today's business will be dealing with the committee's questions, so I will not take too long to rehearse the history. Suffice it to say that the wrong-headed regulation that was passed on 20 December last in Brussels in the Council of Ministers, with outrageous connivance from the Commission, has been well reported and is well known. I am anxious to assure the committee that, for the SFF, how we reached the current position is not forgotten and the process is not at an end. We continue to seek ways of ensuring that such a stitch-up—if I may use the vernacular—does not happen again.
Thank you for that statement and for its brevity.
Like Hamish Morrison, I will be brief. Our written submission spells out the problems that we foresee in the forthcoming period. Like Mr Morrison, I would say that the industry is once again at the wrong end of a bad deal from the Commission. It seems to be a regular occurrence for us to come back with the worst deal of anyone around the North sea.
Last but certainly not least is Hansen Black.
I echo the views that my two colleagues have expressed but I will add something from the Shetland perspective. Shetland is very much a fish-dependent area. About 17 per cent of our productive economy is directly linked to the white-fish industry and about 530 jobs in Shetland are directly linked to it. It is hard to describe what took place before Christmas as real negotiations, because there was not a lot of negotiating, but the terrible deal that we ended up having imposed on us will have a devastating effect on our economy. We are at a loss to see a way out of the situation.
Thank you all very much. I now invite questions from members.
Let me quote a couple of sentences from a document that I have with me:
Do you direct that to anyone in particular?
Well, Mike Park's light has come on. Let us hear from him.
The industrial fishery is split into two sections. One is the pout industry, which takes 200,000 tonnes. The pout that are taken are small, immature fish and, on that basis, we can put up a credible argument that the fishery is being wiped out. The other section is the sand-eel fishery. The argument against it is that it takes the food stock from the cod. If we are to have any chance of saving stock in the North sea, it is essential that the food stock is available for the resource. The large haddock stock in the North sea is starving to death without that food resource.
Last year, the Danes caught something in the order of 1.5 million tonnes in their industrial fishery—pout, sand eel and a variety of other small fish. What is your estimate of the white-fish bycatch that the Danes are sweeping up when they catch those small fish, allegedly for industrial fisheries?
There was an interesting article on the front page of the Fishing News last week by David Smith, I think. He wrote about the huge disappearance of haddock stocks in 1966, I think, although I stand to be corrected. If you relate that to the sand-eel or industrial landings at the time, you can see where the haddock went. The Danish total allowable catch for their industrial fishery is 1 million tonnes, for which the accepted bycatch is 15,000 tonnes. Fifteen thousand tonnes of fish of the size that the Danes are catching could be promoted to 90,000 or 100,000 tonnes, which is double our current quota.
My first question is to Hamish Morrison on the SFF's policy priorities. In your submission, you state:
I guess that it proceeds from a total misunderstanding of the scale and nature of the white fishery in the North sea and the west of Scotland. The Commission is under the impression that far more vessels have been targeting the stock than is the case. It is possible to believe that the same failing in understanding afflicts the Executive. How else do we explain a decommissioning scheme of the size that has been proposed to take out 15 to 20 per cent of the effort on white fish?
That brings me on to my second question. In your submission, you state:
You have the better of me on that issue—I cannot speak about the provenance of the Executive's figures. The figure of 170 for vessels that are 95 per cent white-fish dependent is probably okay. However, that leaves us with the conundrum that I set out in my submission. We are dealing with only 170 vessels, most of which are the same size—although I know that there are some very big and some very small vessels. Even if we are generous, taking out 15 per cent of the effort would account for only 30 or 35 vessels. An awful lot of money is being set aside to decommission that number of vessels.
A £50 million package is being offered by the Scottish Executive, of which £40 million appears to be for decommissioning. Last year £25 million took out 100 vessels. On that basis, £40 million would take out in the region of 160 vessels. What will be left? Will we be left with a Scottish white-fish fleet that can provide the processors with a means of continuing?
Perhaps the calculation is not like for like, but the point that you are making is still valid. There are a few peripheral differences between the previous situation and today's situation. One is that there is an emergency scrapping arrangement—although the Executive has not said that it exists—that allows for an uplift of 20 per cent in the maximum scrapping limit compared with the financial instrument for fisheries guidance figures that applied for the previous scheme. Another difference is that the vessels that are being decommissioned now will be more valuable than the ones that were decommissioned last time. During the last decommissioning, which was a Dutch auction, people obviously, in the interests of value for money, took out the vessels that could be taken out most cheaply.
I preface my question with two short quotations from the minutes of evidence of the 22 January 2003 meeting of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which was attended by Elliot Morley. Referring to cod stocks, Elliot Morley said:
The minister says that 60,000 tonnes of cod is a safe biomass and that 150,000 tonnes is the optimum biomass. The problem that we started off with, however, relates to the fact that, after 2000, the scientists readjusted their estimate from 50,000 tonnes to 30,000 tonnes. They downgraded their estimate so far that the recovery plan that we were engaged in, which was securing the recovery of the stocks, was deemed not to be working quickly enough. There is a problem with the notion of rapid recovery.
That is precisely the point that I am making. When I look at the minutes of the House of Lords committee meeting during which Elliot Morley was grilled—not very hard, in my view—it strikes me as a pity that he could not appear here, before this committee, because I have a number of questions that I would like to ask him. It is interesting that you have not had an input into the House of Lords inquiry, because decisions are being made at a UK level. In the House of Lords, the chairman said in his closing remarks to Elliot Morley:
Does that evidence come from sub-committee D, whose chairman is Lord Selborne?
Yes.
The committee is coming to Aberdeen on 26 February for the whole day.
It is worth your having a look at that report, because I think that you would be surprised by some of the comments in it.
I will ask the panel about the Scottish Executive's proposed funding package. My first question relates to the transitional support. I accept the comments that Hamish Morrison made about that support being a work in progress as far as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is concerned. However, I am interested in the perspectives of all three witnesses on the need to ensure that some of that transitional relief—the tie-up money—goes to crews. As Hansen Black is all too well aware, I have had representations from fishermen who no longer have a job in the fishing industry and have been laid off since 1 February. I would be grateful if the witnesses would say whether they think that a condition of grant should be that some of the moneys in the scheme go to the crews.
I shall deal with that point straight away. The quota is a problem and always has been since around 1994. Until then, the practice of decommissioning meant that not only was the vessel's licence cancelled, but so was its fishing entitlement. I understand that, for economic reasons, the Government at the time of the 1995 decommissioning introduced a scheme whereby vessel owners were allowed to retain the quota and sell it, so that the money went further in the decommissioning scheme. That action is now coming home to roost. There is so little liquidity in the industry that the market mechanism that was foreseen at that time simply will not work. It did not work in the 2002 decommissioning to the extent that quite a lot of quota remained unsold or untransferred. The federation is worried that that will happen again with what is being proposed now.
I have one further question. Should the transitional support include a condition that moneys will go to crews?
I shall answer first, then pass that question over to the other witnesses. The federation's submission takes into account a number of costs that we believe could reasonably be underwritten during the transitional period. One of those costs is half a month's pay for a crew.
The Scottish White Fish Producers Association and skippers in general regard crew loyalty as the most important factor for the future of the industry. We need the crews as much as they need us. As Hamish Morrison said, the feed-in from the federation stipulated that any package should include a crew payment. Crew loyalty is needed for the future of the industry, and it must be bought.
The issue of crews being laid off is a sensitive one, but the conditions that have been imposed on the white-fish industry mean that fishermen are going to have to consider ways of sustaining their boats through this difficult period. There will be changes to fishing patterns, as we have seen in Shetland, because boats are no longer able to fish a two-crew system. There is scope for finding ways to support the fishermen who lose their jobs through the reorganisation of the fishing vessels. It must be remembered that, if the fishing vessels fail, there will be no jobs at all in the fishing industry.
I have listened carefully to the witnesses this morning and to the questions that colleagues have asked. I listened especially carefully to the initial points that Mike Park made in relation to pout fishing and the catching of other immature fish.
We have to look back two years to when the Commission laid in place the cod recovery plan. During those two years, we have seen a recovery in the haddock and whiting stocks and, over the past year, an increase of 27 per cent in the cod stock. Given the effort and quota cuts, there is no way that the industry can continue without some form of financial injection.
I can add only that the problem for all of us, including fishery scientists, is that there are very few facts in fishery science, which is all virtual reality. It is relatively straightforward to observe and assess a population of birds, rabbits or whatever—you can see them, count them, observe their behaviour and so forth. The fishery scientist's task is much more difficult: it is to deal with creatures that live at depth, in the dark and in the cold. He or she must work all the time on mathematical models that are based on a number of assumptions and approximations. I am not saying that fishery scientists do their work badly or that they are wicked people. However, we all have to understand that, if somebody says that the biomass is 30,000 tonnes, he or she has no way of demonstrating that that is the position any more than I can demonstrate that the biomass is 100,000 tonnes. Everybody does their best.
It interesting to hear Hamish Morrison throw doubt on the value of scientific evidence. However, we are in a battle. Lord Haskins, the former minister whom I quoted earlier from a House of Lords select committee, and others including the minister are looking at the matter from the other point of view. I reiterate Elliot Morley's words:
I hope that I did not give the impression that I was in a fight with the scientists. I hope that I said very clearly that our industry is more than willing and ready to work with the scientific community to improve on what we acknowledge is an extremely difficult task. They are working literally in the dark all the time.
If the industry collaborated with scientists on scientific evidential fishing rather than straight fishing to produce more evidence-based information, is there any scope for maintaining the skills base, and possibly some of the boats?
Yes. We did that in a very good project under the previous fisheries minister, Rhona Brankin. I asked the committee whether, at budget time, it would be good enough to lend its considerable weight to having that programme continued. Neither the committee nor we were successful, but we should not give up. It is important that fishermen and scientists continue to work in double harness.
Hamish Morrison mentioned that certain Government sectors, whether at Scottish or UK level, do not comprehend the science. Because of my own localised incomprehension, I am just trying to work out who informs the industry as a corporate body? On what does it base its projections? Does it use that bogus science that was referred to earlier? I understand that Hamish Morrison is dismissive of the current scientific regime, saying that the models are flawed, the projections are ferociously skewed, and the margins of error are ludicrous, and that therefore the issue is not being dealt with as it should. What science does the industry rely on, and how does that inform its decisions and projections for the future?
Again, if I have given the impression that I have no respect for the science, that is wrong. I am simply pointing out the serious limitations of the form of science that has been used.
There are two sets of figures. On one hand, there is the real—to our minds—science, which is what fishermen are seeing on the grounds. On the other hand, there is the theory. Which do you believe? If Alasdair Morrison went out the door and it was pouring with rain, yet the Met Office report said that it was dry, would he believe that it was raining or that, because the Met Office said it was dry, it was dry?
I have a question for Hansen Black and Michael Park, who both attended the talks in Brussels in December. Scotland was clearly played off the park at those negotiations, and was utterly defeated. Clearly, politics came before the science, and certainly before the interests of Scotland's fishing communities. How do you think that Scotland can best avoid that farce in December being repeated in the coming weeks, given that we have to negotiate a management plan by the end of March? The plan is supposed to replace the interim measures by 1 July. How can we avoid such a farce happening again? Are you confident that we will do so?
It is true that we were politically outmanoeuvred before Christmas. A situation where the fishermen do not know by the middle of December how many fish they will have to catch—or even whether they have any fish to catch—come 1 January is quite ridiculous. That has to be addressed.
Essentially, we need a fair, equitable and transparent system. Richard Lochhead was also at the talks. As Hansen Black said, the system leads us to be losers all the time. Hamish Morrison mentioned to me two weeks ago that our problem in the United Kingdom is that we wait to see matters on the agenda before we deal with them. Other nations ensure that such matters never go on the agenda. That is an essential point. We must be able to play the European political game. We cannot do it at present.
You alluded to the fact that there are only six weeks before the Council of Ministers has to agree the replacement for the interim measures. Are you aware of any progress being made towards achieving that? What happens to the Scottish industry and fishing communities if we do not have a new system to replace the interim measures by 1 July, given that, as you say, the Government has responded with its package on the premise that the interim measures will be lifted on 1 July?
At present, one of our biggest tasks is to increase the haddock catch in the North sea and other associated catches, such as whiting. Our biggest problem is that the Commission has been unwilling to listen to—or perhaps has not even heard—the arguments that break the link between the cod and other stocks. Work is going on at the marine laboratory to try to break that link, because it is essential that we harvest the haddock stock.
This is a parliamentary committee, which has to report back to Parliament. The Parliament must also respond to the pieces of proposed legislation on days at sea and on the decommissioning scheme, which both still have to come before Parliament. What is your message to the Parliament, which will have to vote on those measures over the next few days? Should the Parliament support the days-at-sea scheme and the decommissioning scheme?
As far as the decommissioning scheme goes, there is unanimous support in the industry for the view that the balance of the package is wholly incorrect. We need more money for transitional aid to the industry and less money for decommissioning. We are cutting back effort as part of a cod recovery plan. The intention is that cod stocks will recover. We need an industry that will be able to exploit that when it happens.
To me, the word transition means moving from a point of embarkation to a point of departure, which is a greater and finer point. After six months, the £50 million will have returned no effort and no fish to the fleet. The plan is in place for only six months. By 1 July we may have taken out 100 vessels. We will have put the fish into private hands and will have no money to allow the boats to remain in port. Where will we go from there? There is a public perception that £50 million will sort out all evils. As far as the industry is concerned, the £50 million will sort out no evils because of the way in which it is distributed. Come 1 July, if we do not get the fish back and get an extended package of transitional aid, the fleet may be abandoned to sink completely.
My question relates to the European system. In his submission, Mike Park indicated that he was very much in favour of the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership. However, bearing in mind what was said earlier about industrial fishing, is it not the case that we will still have to negotiate with the Danes? The Danes will fight all out to retain their industrial fishery. If we are seeking a management mechanism for the North sea, do we not face the hideous dilemma of having to negotiate with people who are prosecuting a fishery that we know is damaging both the biomass and the long-term future of the Scottish industry, because it leads the Commission to target the North sea?
You are right. The North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership might include seven or eight countries, including Norway, which is not part of the EU but jointly manages North sea stocks. The point of any committee is to generate good debate and sensible opinion. Denmark has a fishery that contrasts with other nations' fisheries. We would have to debate that issue with it, and the fishery may need to be phased out. However, a small item of that sort should not be allowed to prevent a system being set up. We should embark on doing that rapidly, because the industry does not have much time. The issue of the sand eel and of industrial fishing in general will have to be addressed within that context. I am sure that it can be addressed. No sensible nation such as Denmark, which wants sustainable stocks, can balance that objective with industrial fishing.
I would like to ask a brief question about decommissioning and quota. Do you think that we should revert to the historical position that Hamish Morrison described—of quota being included in the package when a boat is decommissioned, instead of being put on the market?
We must return the fish to the fleet and to the communities that rely on fish. A pound in Fraserburgh is spent 10 times before it leaves the community. It does not matter how we redistribute the fish to the fishermen, but it is imperative that that should happen. Human nature dictates that, if fishermen are to lose their fish by decommissioning and they do not receive sufficient financial return for their vessels, they will not opt for decommissioning. This is a complicated issue, but at all costs we must return fish to communities. If we do not, come 1 July the Executive will have spent £50 million for no gain.
If the quota is left on the market, presumably it is liable to go to foreign interests.
Although upper scrapping limits are prescribed in European legislation, those limits apply only to FIFG money. Here we are dealing not with FIFG money, but with the Executive's money. To accommodate the point that Mike Park made, there is no reason for a bid price that reflects a fair return for the licence and the fish not to be accepted.
Can you address Nora Radcliffe's point about spare quota being taken up by other countries?
The inevitable outcome of quota not being fished is that it will be either transferred or reallocated.
The sad addition to that point is that other nations that buy up quota have received subsidies for a raft of years. For as long as I can remember, the UK has received no subsidies from Europe.
I want to pursue the issue of quotas. All the industry representatives have outlined the complexities in that area. I would like the committee to hear some ideas for resolving the problem of quotas if there is decommissioning. About five different ideas have been put to me—including the suggestion that the Executive should buy up quotas and bank them for future allocation, once we have sustained the fleet. It would be helpful for us to hear ideas from industry representatives, given the debates that lie ahead of us.
We are halfway through working out the administration of the days-at-sea scheme, to which the member refers. Last week, I spoke to representatives of the Commission, who—surprisingly—were anxious to receive sensible proposals for improving the administration of this awful scheme. The Commission accepted the proposal that it should be possible for people to work in half days or smaller fractions of days, so that they do not lose out. I expect that proposal to be put to the Council of Ministers at the end of the month. I will provide the clerk with full details of our proposals for the administration of the days-at-sea scheme.
When people ask how the fish can be given back to us, given that boats have been taken out to reduce the fishing effort, they proceed on the basis of a misconception. We must state clearly that decommissioning is about fleet viability rather than stock sustainability. If fish are returned from decommissioned boats to the fleet, the stock is not harmed, as the fish were allocated under a sustainable programme. Decommissioning is about fleet viability. Quotas are about stock sustainability. We must make people aware that those are two different things.
My question also relates to quotas. Earlier it was said that quotas are pretty worthless and that there is always an argument about whether they should be traded. At the moment, no one is queuing up to buy quota, because of the days-at-sea scheme and the state of the industry. Would the industry be willing to consider banking quota with communities? I know that the community in Shetland owns a fair amount of quota. The folk who possess quota could form community trusts. If the situation improved, the quota would be available to rent out to people who are entering the industry. Such a system would give communities—especially communities that are very dependent on fishing—ownership of quota.
I have no objection at all to communities buying quota, but would it not be so much easier if Scotland bought the quota, simply through the Government offering a differential scheme for decommissioning? That way, it could be supposed either that the quota entitlement was cancelled or that it was not, and the quota would go back into the pool for the whole of the fishing industry.
A change of ownership, whereby the user still has to lease the quota, will not solve the industry's problems. We reckon that the industry will spend between £8 million and £10 million this year to lease the resource to land on to the market. It does not matter whom we pay that money to; we cannot afford it.
There is no market for the quota at the moment, so it is basically worthless. Nobody will buy it. However, if it was banked by the fishermen and their communities, when it became marketable and sought after, that could bring funding not only to the communities that have gone through the tough times but to the fishermen.
I do not have a problem with that argument, but the industry cannot afford to fund the quota; it needs to use it. Taking it and sticking it in a bank so that no one else gets it does not solve the short-term problem, which is the lack of resource. We have to get the fish back so that they are available to fishermen in the meantime.
Mr Black mentioned the effect that the proposals would have on communities in Shetland, given Shetland's particular dependency on the white-fish industry. Can you put a financial figure on the impact of the current proposals on Shetland? Is that asking for too much detail at this point?
We undertook some studies before Christmas on the value of the industry to the local economy, and it was in the region of £43 million. I think that 17 per cent of the productive economy in Shetland was directly linked to white fish. We have not reassessed that; we are in the process of examining the effects of the current regulations on the industry. However, there are still unknowns: it is unknown how many boats will be decommissioned from the Shetland fleet and how much money in transitional aid will come into Shetland. There are too many variables at the moment for us to be able to put a figure on it now.
That is useful.
The position of the Shetland box is by no means secure, although we gather that the Commission will review it in 2003. What would happen if the Shetland box were to discontinue?
We can look at the review in many ways. We could look at it as an opportunity to enhance the conservation benefits of having the box, and we in Shetland will work hard to secure that.
Gentlemen, that brings us to the end of a very worthwhile meeting. Thank you for your time and for the evidence that you have given us.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I am chairman of the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership, which is a forum of all sectors of the industry, the three local authorities in the north-east, the local enterprise company, the scientists and, indeed, from time to time, MSPs and MEPs. The partnership comes together to try to provide a collective, unified representation on the industry's behalf and a forum for discussion, to work within the European Union framework, to develop transnational co-operation with other bodies—the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership has been mentioned today—and to consider the socioeconomic effects of fishing on our area as a whole, which is important.
We have heard about the conflict between scientists and fishermen. The North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership, which I have chaired for the past two years, was set up to deal with that conflict. My evidence will not be about the state of the fish stocks or the impact of the current harsh measures, nor do I want to talk about how we got into this position. I want to stress that we must learn from what has happened and manage fisheries better in the future.
Jim Watson's paper paints an even bleaker picture than many of us suspected of the economic impact of the December deal. The Government calls its £50 million package an aid package, although many of us think that it will aid the demise of the industry rather than provide positive aid. Have you done an impact assessment of the package? Will it have a positive impact in preventing the cuts that you talk about in your paper? If you have not carried out such a study, will you be able to do so?
We have not carried out such a study. To pick up on a point that was made earlier, I believe that the balance of the package needs further consideration. Under the last £25 million decommissioning scheme, approximately 100 vessels were removed. A straight proration shows that, with £40 million, 160 vessels may be removed. If the scheme is targeted at the white-fish fleet, that is basically the entire white-fish fleet in Scotland. The matter needs further consideration.
That is helpful. You are an economist for a Government-sponsored agency, but you say that the Government's £50 million package will exacerbate rather than help the economic situation.
First, we are not a Government-sponsored agency; we are funded essentially by the industry.
Sorry, I meant that the agency was set up by the Government.
The matter needs further consideration. The package should not be rushed through, but should be considered carefully. Raymond Bisset mentioned the work on the local impact, which must be continued in the coming weeks, not only in the north-east, but in Shetland and the Borders. I know that work is under way. I do not see the need to rush the package through to try to meet externally set deadlines.
I ask Raymond Bisset to clarify whether the Government has offered direct assistance for onshore businesses in the current crisis.
To my knowledge, there has been no assistance, but money might well be in the pipeline. My understanding was that some of the £10 million of transitional aid would be used to help the onshore industry, but I discovered yesterday that the money is likely to be used exclusively for the catching side. Other moneys might come through. In 2000 or 2001, we received £1 million for the fish-processing action plan, so other moneys might come from that direction.
My final question is for Tony Hawkins. I appreciate that he does not want to give evidence on the overall deal's conservation impact, but it would be helpful if he did so given his scientific background and the fact that he represents the North Sea Commission. Will he say whether the deal from Brussels is pro-conservation for the North sea? How should we plot the way forward for the cod recovery plan, particularly in relation to the separation of cod stocks from haddock and whiting stocks?
The problem is that the decisions that were taken in December concentrated too heavily on cod. In general, fishermen and scientists agree that cod stocks are not in a good state and that haddock are plentiful. The difficulty is that the Commission pushed through the idea that cod had to be saved, and that was done at the expense of a wide range of fisheries. It is interesting that the fishermen in the beam-trawl fishery for flat fish and the industrial fishery think that they were hard done by in the deal because their days at sea were cut back too.
There is not enough time for every member to ask all three witnesses individual questions. I ask members to focus their questions and to say at whom they are directed. If the question is for the whole panel, that is fine.
I have some questions for the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I do not want Mr Watson to take this personally, but he said that processors are on low margins—or something along those lines. Does not the authority levy the processors?
Yes.
So there is a correlation between your levy and the processors' low margins.
That is true.
Given the low margins, what proposals do you have to reduce the levy or to put it into abeyance?
Levies were frozen last year and the situation is being considered. I am sure that you are aware that our board members are, by and large, prominent members of the industry and that the process will be carried out in full consultation with the industry.
Yes, but the board members will not vote themselves out of a job.
I am sure that they will not.
I question the point of the Sea Fish Industry Authority at such a time of huge stress and financial pressure on the industry. The authority levies processors and the processing industry is telling MSPs across the spectrum about how damaging these times are—we hear it in our constituencies. However, you do not propose to put the levy in abeyance. It will continue and it pays for the research that you mentioned, which we can get from other sources. What is the point of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in times such as this? I do not see what you add to the sum of our knowledge in such a difficult time of financial pressure.
I will certainly not be drawn to argue for the existence of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which has carried out much relevant work that is being used by the industry to help to fight its case.
Can you give me some examples of that relevant work?
Examples in my own area are detailed in the written submission that we circulated to members.
Will you refresh my memory?
We have done a financial survey of the catching and processing sectors, for example, and towards the end of last year, we published a report that estimated the economic impact of the measures.
Forgive me, Mr Watson, but Shetland Islands Council and the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership are doing economic surveys into the areas that are affected. I do not see what you are adding to the party.
Indeed they are, but their studies are being conducted at local level. Our studies have been conducted at both UK and Scottish level.
I would like to clarify the matter and leave it there. Currently, you have no plans whatever to put the levy into abeyance, despite the fact that processors are absolutely up against the wall.
I am certainly not in a position to comment on that.
When will you be in a position to comment?
That is a matter for our board.
Is the board discussing it?
Again, I am not in a position to comment on that.
So you do not know.
I do not know.
Thank you.
You got a fair crack of the whip there, Mr Scott.
That was an interesting exchange—it was the most entertaining part of the day.
The situation is fairly unusual. Every December, a group of scientists gives advice to the European Commission that determines how those people involved in the industry will operate over the coming year, how much they will earn and the difficulties that they will be in. In a sense, such a system overrates the ability of scientists, who are just normal human beings, like everybody else. It is a mistake for the Commission to rely so closely only on advice from scientists. Occasionally, it takes economic advice, but that is pretty limited.
At constituency level, the European Union protects by directive internationally renowned bird stocks on the isles of Benbecula, North Uist and elsewhere, but it would be unthinkable to have discussion about that without involving crofters and those who are involved in management of the land.
When our partnership was set up—it was chaired initially by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—the first objective that was set was to get the scientific advice right and to have that peer-reviewed and overseen by fishermen. That is what we have concentrated on in our first two years. We have sat in on meetings with the scientists and we have brought in outside experts to monitor the advice that is being given. We have, along with Europêche, set up the survey of the fleets to which Hamish Morrison referred. It came up with evidence that very much supported the scientific point of view.
I was encouraged by what Professor Hawkins said about cod stocks and haddock stocks not necessarily being linked. Is it odd that, in the old cod recovery plan, the area of 40,000 sq km that was closed to protect the cod spawning grounds—or what we were told were the cod spawning grounds—now appears, when one examines the map, to be the main area of the North sea where no limit on fishing days will apply? Given that the French will prosecute their saithe fishery, is there any guarantee that it will produce a zero cod bycatch?
First, the southern border of the exempt area corresponds to the northern border of the area that was closed because it was a cod spawning ground. Although there is a close association between the two areas—they are next door to one another—they are not the same areas. However, one would not need to move very far from the exempt area to reach the area in which cod are plentiful.
Do not you think that it is slightly peculiar that French fishermen are allowed to fish for saithe, whereas Scottish fishermen are not allowed to fish for haddock because they might catch cod?
The question of who can fish for what is complicated. The fisheries that got away with the least restriction are those that the Commission says have the least impact on cod; the saithe fishery is one. The Commission also says that the beam-trawl fishery for flat fish does not catch many cod, although that is probably because the fishery has already caught all the cod in the areas in which it operates. It is enormously complicated to work out which fisheries have the greatest impact on cod. Some fisheries have already had an impact and cod are almost extinct in those areas. The judgment was a difficult one to make and very little scientific advice was available to the Commission to rank the fisheries, although that did not stop the Commission from ranking them.
How dreadful.
In the UK and Scotland, we have not done that; we have been pretty honest about the way in which scientific data are collected, as a result of which we were penalised in the decisions that were taken in December. The Commission knew well that we were no worse than other countries—for example, in relation to discarding—and that we were the only country that collects data. However, rather than say that everyone had to collect such data, the Commission took the view that the Scots are the worst, which is completely wrong.
I have one more question—if that is all right, convener.
If you are quick.
I agree with Councillor Bisset on the imbalance of the £50 million package. He mentioned the possibility that the Executive might return to the previous cod recovery plan. However, given that that plan failed on several occasions to gain the support of the Council of Ministers, does Councillor Bisset consider that there is any chance that the interim measures might not be in place for a long time to come?
I do not have the knowledge to answer that question. The money to which I referred was the £1 million that the Scottish Executive gave to the fish processing industry.
Did that come out of the £50 million package?
No. The £1 million was given a few years ago to help the fish processing industry. I am sorry if I misled you.
My apologies.
Which member states do not come clean about the data on discards? Would a land-all policy be preferential and what would be its implications?
Those questions are linked, although they deal with different subjects.
It is all the same to me. I have never understood why it is a conservation measure to chuck dead fish back into the sea.
I would like to direct my questions principally at Raymond Bisset. Two years ago the Scottish Executive announced funding of £25 million for a decommissioning scheme for the fleet, and by the second vote in the Parliament we had also managed to get £1 million for the fish processors and £1 million for research and so on. This time round, the Scottish Executive has come up with another scheme for £50 million. You said that the balance of that sum is not correct. Forty million pounds has been allocated to the decommissioning scheme and I see that we have £10 million for what is, in effect, a tie-up scheme—two years ago, I wanted a tie-up scheme. Are you aware that just as the meeting began we received a letter from the Scottish Executive about the fisheries transitional support scheme, namely that £10 million? The minister has written to 56 organisations to say that the £10 million scheme is to be made available by way of transitional support. It reads:
To answer the first question, we will certainly make a submission before midday on Thursday.
I know that you have not seen the minister's letter. It seems to be clear that the £40 million is not up for discussion; the letter is about a sum of up to £10 million. It states:
That is difficult to answer. As I said, we do not have to hand all of the information on the likely effects on the processing and other sectors. We are still waiting for a report on our socioeconomic study, and for some information to come back from the processing sector. I honestly would not like to hazard a guess in answer to the question. We need to wait and see.
I clarify that the minister sent the letter to the consultees on 7 February.
Mike Rumbles is perhaps clutching at straws. According to the outline that is attached to the letter to which Mike Rumbles refers, the aim of the scheme is to
I read out the letter of 7 February to which Richard Lochhead refers, but I also referred to the undated covering letter, which I assume is also dated 7 February.
The letter says "fishermen".
I will not get into a debate. Please continue with your question, Mr Rumbles.
The first paragraph of the letter says that
The first paragraph says "fishermen".
Richard, would you mind not interrupting me?
Stop misleading the committee.
With the greatest respect, I will handle this. Mr Rumbles, please ask your question.
I do not know why the comment was made that I am clutching at straws when I am genuinely trying to find out what the issue is. However, I will reiterate my point. I quote:
As I said, we will make representation by the date that is mentioned in the letter.
We will clarify that date with the minister next Tuesday.
I will ask three—one of each witness—concise questions.
We are aware that Macduff is currently an undesignated port and that the four-hour advance warning seemed to disappear in the negotiations in December. We have written to the Scottish Executive and explained the problem that Macduff faces. Local boats that would normally have landed at Macduff will now possibly land at Peterhead or Fraserburgh. When they landed at Macduff, they would normally have taken the opportunity to have repairs done. Now, if they want to go back to their local port for repairs, it means that their steaming time between Fraserburgh or Peterhead and Macduff will be counted against the 15 days at sea.
I have been told that Macduff has more landings than a number of currently designated ports. Can you confirm that?
No. I do not know whether that is the case.
I think that it is true.
I was asked to compare and contrast the management regimes in Faroese waters and Icelandic waters.
You should do so in as short a time as possible, please.
I shall be very brief. The Faroes and Iceland have one thing in common—they are in charge of their own waters. In that respect, they differ from countries around the North sea that have to share fish stocks and waters. It is not surprising that the Faroes and Iceland have gone their own ways in respect of fisheries management. Iceland pioneered the idea of individual transferable quotas whereby quotas could be sold back and forth between fishermen. I gather that there were snags with that process, because the industry tended to become consolidated in very few hands. The Faroes tends to go to town on effort control and days at sea. There is extensive effort limitation—for example, there are closed areas, closed seasons and gear restrictions.
Nonetheless, the people who should therefore be involved are those who have a direct interest in the protection and exploitation of the stocks in the North sea, which are shared by a limited number of countries compared with the 15 that are involved in the current decision-making process.
It is essential that fishermen are part of the process of deciding on how things are managed. They have expert knowledge and fishing is part of their lives. Why should men in grey suits who do not have particular expertise decide how the fishermen should operate?
We will forgive Professor Hawkins his grey suit today.
I agree that the time scales are a source of one of the main difficulties; I alluded to that earlier.
That wraps up this evidence-taking session. I thank all the witnesses very much for the way in which they have answered members' questions; it has been a good and interesting session. The witnesses are welcome to stay with us for the rest of the meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I thank everyone who took part in the informal session, and I hope that they feel that it was worth while. I assure them that the committee feels it was worth while.
Convener and committee members, for the past four months, we the Cod Crusaders have been trying to highlight the severity of the crisis that is facing our fishing industry and how its devastating impacts will seriously affect our communities. Our main concern is the unnecessary strain and stress that our fishermen are suffering because of the conditions that they are forced to work under. It is almost inevitable that such a scenario will have disastrous effects. God forbid, but with the weather that they have to endure, a vessel and its crew might fall prey to unexpected storms at sea. However, they would have no time to dodge such a storm because of days-at-sea restrictions.
I thank the committee for inviting us to this afternoon's meeting. A lot of subjects have been covered, and I do not want to duplicate some of the comments that others have made about the situation that is affecting us. For example, the Sea Fish Industry Authority mentioned the economic state of the processors and cited various statistics. Raymond Bisset outlined the social and economic consequences of a downturn for people in Aberdeen.
Thank you for giving me the chance to put my case on behalf of the Scottish Fishing Services Association. We are the new kids on the block of industry representation. The onshore sector, which has been neglected in recent years, needs representation more than ever. The association has about 60 member companies from throughout Scotland, although the nucleus is in the north-east corner. The SFSA membership creates many hundreds of jobs, with a high proportion in fragile coastal communities. Many and various trades are represented in the association, from engineers and shipyards to accountants and information technology companies—we are working on candlestick makers.
Carol MacDonald spoke, understandably, of her fear for the safety of the crews that go to sea and the extra pressure of bad weather. Will she confirm my understanding that any days that are lost in one month because of bad weather can be carried over to the next month? If so, does that allay the fears to which she referred? If not, why not?
That does not allay the fears, because many skippers face much logging in and logging out if they work on the available days. The paperwork to which they are being subjected is horrific and unnecessary. Why apply more pressure to them? They are under extreme pressure, without having to log in and log out. That is unnecessary and contributes to those men's stress levels.
Am I right in saying that if the fishermen were allowed 15 days at sea in February and they used only 10, they would be allowed 20 days in March?
The days can be carried over, but slight uncertainty still looms over that. No facts and figures have been put down in our terms to explain the situation simply. Even the federations do not have a clue what they are supposed to do.
The public participation session was valuable. I was struck by the passion of several people who brought their arguments to us. Gary Masson spoke particularly passionately about the CFP and its evils and I am happy to associate myself with the idea that the CFP's death would be much welcomed.
I would greatly welcome questions to the current panel of witnesses.
Is Carol MacDonald aware of any fishing family with a son or daughter who is contemplating entering the industry?
My daughter, who left school in January, is contemplating doing that. What else is there in Fraserburgh or Peterhead? Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I think that Fraserburgh is highly dependent on the fishing industry. Members can look for themselves. Fish yards are all round our town. What other job could she find? However, she is finding it hard to obtain a job.
So, the state of the fishing industry means that kids who would like to go into the industry have little, if any, opportunity to do so. What are they likely to end up doing?
The situation that we face just now is enough to put anyone off entering the industry. The level of youth unemployment here is higher than the Scottish average, with fewer young people in Buchan entering further education; that is the case even when the fishing industry is not taken into account. We are faced with the same situation year in, year out. It really is enough to put our up-and-coming youth off entering the industry.
Would it be useful if part of any short-term support were directed to the young folk in our community as well as to the people who are directly or indirectly employed in fishing, so that those young folk will be there when we finally get back to fishing properly?
Definitely, but I do not think that support should be targeted only at the young folk. It should also be targeted at the people who are already in the industry. Give them some incentive to stay in the industry.
Let me develop a point that the convener was discussing with you. Do you fear that, if there are storms in the North sea and our fishermen are out there in their boats, they will wish to leave the areas that are controlled because they cannot fish due to the storms, thereby putting themselves at risk because the storms could be worse in uncontrolled waters? Is that part of the equation as well as the paperwork issues and the wasted steaming time that is associated with coming in?
That is part of the problem. Some men also have to fish further afield—further into the belly of the North sea—so it is a catch-22 situation. We are talking about a day-and-a-half's steaming time, because it sometimes takes up to 36 hours. The fishermen are in the middle of the sea—where can they run? They could battle against the storm on their way home, but that would be more dangerous than anything else.
I want to ask a question of John Hermse. I understand that, in the last round of decommissioning, quite a lot of bad debt was left with suppliers and support industries. What specific steps should the Scottish Executive take to prevent that from happening again if there is a further round of decommissioning?
It is correct to say that, in the last round of decommissioning, the secure creditors—the banks—took the majority of the money, leaving the service sector with vast debts running to many hundreds of thousands of pounds in the north-east. We believe that any vessel that goes for decommissioning should have its debts settled before it is allowed to participate in any scheme.
Would the owners have to undertake that or should the Scottish Executive provide the funds directly to the creditors of a boat that is about to be decommissioned? Or is there another way of achieving that?
It would be difficult to ask for that money to come from the industry; the catching sector does not have any more to give and you cannot get blood out of a stone. The money must come from the Scottish Executive. It is willing to give some £40 million to a decommissioning scheme that no one seems to want.
I, too, have a question for John Hermse. At the end of your statement, you asked for measures to help you through the next few years. You are obviously not optimistic about the chances of the interim measures lasting for six months. Do you see them running on for longer than that?
Introducing interim measures is an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes. Using their own figures, scientists have stated that anything from eight to 12 years are needed for the cod recovery programme, so goodness only knows what the six-month transitional aid package will do. The paper on transitional aid says that that package will fund only the catching sector. Worryingly, no aid has been made available to the shore sector.
I take your point. It is unlikely that the stock biomass of cod will increase from 30,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes in one year, which it would have to do.
I agree, if indeed the stock biomass is at those levels. I do not want to teach my granny to suck eggs, but further to earlier submissions, scientists sometimes use data sets, which means that they have to repeatedly examine the same areas. Fishermen are the true experts on the nuances that affect catching and fisheries trends in different areas.
Mr Couper said that the objective of decommissioning is twofold: to reduce fishing effort, and to make the remaining boats more viable by reallocating the quota to those that are still fishing. His submission said:
I cannot describe in detail how that should happen. However, for the past 10 or 15 years our sector has advocated trading in quota whether the industry liked it or not. It was inevitable. The industry is working with a common ownership resource, and if no one owned the common, the common would go to waste. The same applies to the fishing quota.
Finally—
Very briefly, please, Mr McGrigor.
Yes. The question is for Carol MacDonald. Are you saying that, because of the 15-day regime, fishermen are being forced to go out in weather that would normally force them to stay in port? That is a health and safety issue.
Yes, most definitely. They have needs—they have to keep working and, come a mega-storm, they will still go out. That has been the case over the last two weeks.
I want to clarify two points with Danny Couper.
We must remember that, even with the decommissioning, Aberdeen, Peterhead and Fraserburgh will still be the largest white-fish ports in Europe. They may get smaller but more efficient, and it is up to interested parties such as the Scottish Parliament and the enterprise companies to foresee social and economic casualties and prevent them. At the end of the day, however, we will still have the most prominent white-fish ports in Europe, and the best fishermen in the world. We will still be landing the finest fish in the world, and we will still be able to sell it. There is market demand for Scottish produce. The outlook is not all doom and gloom. If we can get our heads round the management side, there is a future for us. It is a two-pronged attack; we must accept the downside, but recognise that there is an up-side.
I want to pick up on Danny Couper's last comment about getting the management right. Is it your view that, if we get the management right, we will not need to decommission because we will have a sustainable fishery of which the onshore sector as well as the fleet can take advantage?
No. As things are at the moment, we need scientific advice. I am not taken in by anecdotal evidence. I do not think that the scientists have got it all wrong. There is a problem. The management system of effort control will be introduced—in fact, it has already been introduced, as Fischler has limited the number of days at sea as a means of effort control. Effort control is one of two ways of managing the situation. We are going to manage by decommissioning and by limiting days at sea.
That brings me to my next question. You are clearly uncomfortable with the current proposal to use 80 per cent of the aid package to decommission Scottish boats. What aid do you think should be made available, especially to the processing sector? What impact will the deal that was struck in December have on the processing sector, which you are here to represent?
The Government must sit down with the fishermen and say, "What do you guys realistically require in decommissioning?" It must talk to them about what can be done with the rest of the money. My colleague asked what could be done with it. The money could be used for taking back quota from slipper skippers.
My final question relates to the fact that we have two new organisations represented by our three witnesses, which indicates the scale of the crisis. We have a new organisation representing the onshore sector and the Cod Crusaders representing the community along with their counterparts elsewhere in the country. We pay tribute to their cause, which has won the support of the whole of Scotland. What feedback has there been from the community about the aid package and the fact that 80 per cent of the cash has been earmarked for decommissioning of the vessels?
My answer is short and sweet: the community thinks that that is totally ridiculous. We are simply being bought off. We are faced with the same situation year in, year out. Look how much we got last year—£27 million. We were bought off again. We face the same scenario again this year, but the situation is slightly worse. We will be bought off again. We cannot continue to be faced with stuff like this year in, year out. Basically, the community thinks that the situation is ridiculous.
I have a question for John Hermse. Some of the organisations that you represent will, reasonably obviously, be affected by the decommissioning because of the nature of their business. However, an awful lot of other businesses whose income comes largely, but not wholly, from the fishing industry will also be affected. How can those businesses be identified when measures such as rates relief are being considered to support them through this?
I have sent out a questionnaire to all the businesses in our membership, asking them what the downturn in their turnover is. I am also asking them what percentage of their business relates to fishing. Because of the problems of the past three to four years, a lot of those companies have had to diversify using their own money, which has caused difficulties for them. However, I foresaw the issue of rates relief and we are addressing it.
In speaking to those businesses, have you been aware that any of them are getting help to diversify from, for instance, their local enterprise companies?
One or two have received such help, but not many. That is why there has been so much interest in the setting up of the new organisation. The businesses realise that they have had no representation and that things are getting bad. They do not seem to be consulted by anyone about the problems that they face. I am trying to address that problem by getting in touch with local enterprise companies, local authorities and the Government.
My next question is for Carol MacDonald. We have heard from John Hermse about onshore companies having to pay for redundancies because the decommissioning money appears to have gone to the boat owner rather than the crew. Is that the case?
That is the case. The business simply gets paid off. It is entirely at the skipper's discretion whether he gives the crew a simple pay-off, but I have yet to meet a skipper who has done that. I do not think that it will be forthcoming, either.
My question is for John Hermse. Your written submission says that your organisation
I will address your first points first. We were set up primarily because there was going to be yet another decommissioning scheme, rather than because of the decommissioning scheme per se. A previous decommissioning scheme, which covered the past two years, took out a substantial portion of the fleet and the onshore sector got very little money out of that. Indeed, as Mr Stevenson said, there is debt of hundreds of thousands of pounds still accruing from that scheme.
I hear what you are saying. Obviously, your interpretation of the Executive's letter is different from mine—
Our interpretations are vastly different, I would say.
Yes. I have just read the letter today.
I have just read it now, too.
You are on the distribution list, and it would seem perverse to me if you did not have an input. Why do you think you are being consulted? Your reaction to the letter seems strange. The letter from the Executive says clearly that the details have not been finalised.
Yes. Going back to your earlier comments, I note that the Catholic Parliamentary Office and the Scottish Inter Faith Council are also on the distribution list. I do not see what they have to gain by being on the list, nor what claim they can make for transitional aid.
I find your comments strange. I am not sure why you identify bodies such as the Scottish Inter Faith Council, the Evangelical Alliance (Scotland) or the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office. They deal with serious issues, as you are well aware—issues of life and death to people affected by various circumstances.
I was responding to your point about our being on the list and that, therefore, we were due transitional aid. I just wanted to illustrate that point.
As a parting shot, I want to say that I believe you have an opportunity to influence the Executive's thinking. Perhaps you should submit a detailed submission by the Thursday deadline. I think that that would be helpful.
I will certainly burn the midnight oil.
I would like Mr Couper to expand a little on the impact of the reduction in locally sourced material on the processing sector. To retain capacity, you will have to rely even more on imported raw material. In particular, what differential impact will that have on different sizes of processing businesses?
Going elsewhere for raw material will help, although that will only be a contribution. About 90 per cent of the primary processors are dependent on the indigenous fleet and on the fish that they land. We are all very supportive of our fleet. We have built our businesses round it. As I pointed out earlier, the thing about using other raw material is that we use predominantly small haddock that is landed here, which is conservation friendly. With imported fish from Norway, for example, a new market has to be opened up, which takes up a lot of time and therefore presents a difficulty. That takes us back to the time scale of change. Change has to be managed and it cannot be managed within a tight time scale.
Apart from addressing the committee, which you have done very effectively, are there any other steps that you plan to take to draw attention to the issue at the highest levels in Government? When we talk about the management of the fleet, we must also talk about the management of decisions.
Is that question for me?
It is for all the members of the panel. I am asking how you plan to highlight the implications of the package that we have been discussing for all our communities round the coast of Scotland.
If I may, I will answer first. The phrase "management of defeat" has many connotations and brings to mind some vivid pictures. I do not like to admit defeat. I would not even contemplate defeat.
I used the phrase "management of decisions", not "management of defeat".
I am sorry. I am trying desperately hard to get our onshore sector together. I want to work with the Scottish Fish Merchants Federation, with Cod Crusaders and all the other fishing organisations to produce a common aim and to fight a common battle. If we do not do that, our industry will disappear. It is going fast. As Gary Masson said during the informal session, the time for talking has passed. It is not the 11th hour; it is 11:99. I am sorry, I meant 11:59—the time has not been decimalised yet.
The success of our most recent petition shows that we have the voice of Scotland behind us. We collected more than 45,000 signatures for our petitions. We received help from many other areas of Scotland, from Shetland right down to the border. That might be the answer to Margaret Ewing's question. There are more than 45,000 people who support proper management. I still believe that we can have a prosperous and sustainable fishing future if we are given the chance.
Thank you very much indeed.
I would like to point out that the debate on fisheries will not actually be postponed until 9.35 tomorrow morning at the earliest. As the business bulletin stands, there will be a fisheries debate tomorrow afternoon. If I have anything to do with it, there will be a fisheries debate tomorrow afternoon.
Point taken. The decision to postpone the debate has to be taken by the Parliament tomorrow morning.
The Executive is trying to withdraw the fisheries debate, but some members of the Rural Development Committee will vigorously resist any attempt to cancel that debate.
No one doubts that. In the event of the debate being held on Wednesday 19 February, which is the date that will be proposed to the Parliament tomorrow, it will take place on the day after our next meeting. That makes our next meeting all the more serious, given that it has been confirmed that the UK fisheries minister, Elliot Morley, will be present at that meeting. Mr Rumbles will have the opportunity to put to Mr Morley the questions that he raised earlier.
Meeting closed at 17:01.