Official Report 565KB pdf
I have made the point that a UK minister should be in the chair to represent all the parts of the UK. Otherwise, we could get into an argument about why the UK should be represented by a Scottish minister rather than a Northern Ireland or Welsh minister.
I know that the argument has been made before, but I find it a curious one. To have a Scottish minister who wants to leave the UK but who seems so eager to sit in the chair representing the UK is something that I have always found rather curious. All that I would say is that I go there to represent the whole of the UK. It is important that we do that so that we do not start getting lots of confusion at a European level about where we sit on these matters. However, be in no doubt that I regularly discuss those matters with Richard Lochhead and that our officials are in constant dialogue about the positions that we take.
For instance, in the crucial negotiations during the December council when we go in for the most important part of the discussion, which is the trilogue that we have with the European Union presidency and the European Commission, Richard Lochhead and the other devolved ministers attend that with me and, yes, do lead on the issues that matter most to them. In December, Richard Lochhead was in that trilogue alongside me and he led on some of the issues around flexibility for angler fish.
There are different ways to look at the figures. We have made it clear in England that, if we are to use the EMFF partly as a way of investing in more selective net gear and the like, the number of vessels that we are trying to support in that endeavour is not an irrelevance.
As John Robbs said, the allocations are decided by the Commission. It takes into account a lot of different factors in how it makes an allocation to member states. The bit that we control is the allocation within the UK, and I come back to what I said at the beginning: I think that we have been extremely fair. This is a great deal for Scotland. As I said, when we had 40 per cent, that was heralded by Richard Lochhead as a very good deal for Scotland. We are now at 46 per cent. That is the bit that you can judge the UK Government on, and I think that we have been extremely fair to Scotland in this allocation.
Absolutely. As I said in my opening remarks, the marine environment is incredibly complex, which means that no man-made policy will ever be perfect. We have come quite a long way with the methodology of assessing maximum sustainable yield—MSY—and there is a constant process of trying to refine that. We have the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is respected the world over for the work that it does on MSY, and in England we have the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which does a lot of survey work for us. We have survey vessels out there that monitor stocks and feed that information into ICES to help to inform its work in the area.
We have also been keen to encourage more partnerships between the scientific community and the fishing community. There have been some great examples around the country where we have managed to break down the barriers and the suspicion. I frequently come across fishermen who are suspicious of the science and claim that it is out of date. We can address that by having more partnerships whereby the fishing industry and the scientific community work together more closely to come to a consensus on the state of stocks.
We hope that, eventually, we will get on to the next stage following the creation of the discard plans, which are currently being put together. There will be a discard plan for pelagic fisheries next year and one for the white-fish fleet the year after that. At that point, the regional groups will focus their attention on multi-annual management plans. We would like to move to a situation in which MSY is at the core of informing those plans. We want to develop an ever more sophisticated understanding of things such as predation patterns between different fish species and how different stocks interact with one another, so that rather than having an arbitrary TAC for an individual species, we might have something more sophisticated that looks at groups of species and their interactions with one another. That is an incredibly complex step, but we should constantly be looking to evolve the policy so that it can address some of the complexities in the system.
The scientific advice will be really important. Under the new CFP agreement, there is a commitment to fish at MSY for all species by 2020, and for species where it is possible from next year. We are well on the way to having MSY as the key policy objective.
I will answer those questions in reverse order. On your latter point, that is absolutely the case: the UK is one of the major members of the EU and has a large number of votes. We are taken very seriously on fishing matters because we have a huge fishing industry and we are a maritime country. We also have a lot of credibility because we advocate sustainable fishing and we are serious about it. All those things mean that the UK has incredible clout in fishing discussions at the European Council.
Because Scotland represents the best part of half the UK industry—it depends on which measure is used, as people cite all sorts of different figures, but it is roughly half—it has a major bearing and influence on what we do. We go to those discussions as the UK arguing for Scottish interests, which we do routinely, and Scottish fishing interests are hardly ever at variance with the fishing interests in other parts of the UK. We are able to go to the EU and argue with a very strong voice. I do not think that that would be the case for an independent Scotland, which would have similar voting rights to, say, Estonia. The situation would be different.
On your point about UK representation, I have to account to Parliament for the decisions that I make, and if I am unfair to fishermen in Wales I will have Welsh MPs on my back. If I am unfair to fishermen in Scotland, I will have Scottish MPs on my back, and the same is true for Northern Ireland and England. That is how accountability should work. I am accountable to all those people and they are, in turn, accountable to their electorates and the fishermen in their constituencies. That is a really important principle if we want accountability to work. If a minister from a devolved Administration is in the chair, they do not have the same incentive to be fair to everyone else because they do not have all those other MPs from the other parts of the UK on their back if they feel that they are being unfair. That is an important principle. My view is that we can get a better deal for Scotland if it is part of the UK.
The concordat is simply an agreement between the four UK fisheries ministers on the details of how we manage fishing opportunities in the UK. Bearing in mind that the responsibilities are heavily devolved, we just need a few core principles and conventions about how we behave in relation to each other, in the interests of everyone.
As you say, people in the industry, who are not necessarily all great fans of the concordat, work across borders. A lot of the fish that the Scottish fleet catches are caught using quota that has been leased from English companies. It is not Scottish quota—it is English quota that has been leased within the UK to Scottish vessels. That arrangement is to the benefit of both parties, so it is fine, and it reflects the internal flexibilities that exist within the UK. If Scotland were to leave the UK, the concordat would no longer apply to Scotland and we would have a host of new arrangements to negotiate.
12:30
For the allocations both within the UK and to the UK from the EU, the level of landings is one criterion but is in no sense the determinant. The point of the fisheries fund is to help member states to fund changes to the fleet and to enable them to implement CFP reform. In that respect, the number of fishermen is in many ways more important than the number of fish that are landed. As far as the criteria are concerned, England has more vessels, more fishermen and a bigger processing sector than Scotland although Scotland has a bigger aquaculture sector, more landings and more ports. We could all select one criterion and say that we wanted it to be the determinant because it would give us the most money, but the fact is that there is a mix of criteria, all of which were weighed in the balance to work out, as well as we could, what a fair distribution would be.
The result of that work was that Scotland and England were to receive increased shares whereas Northern Ireland and Wales were to receive reduced shares—after all, everything had to add up to 100 per cent. As the minister said, the reduction in the levels of allocation was very difficult for Wales and Northern Ireland and, as the UK minister, he decided to soften that reduction.
That relates to the UK, but the share of landings is equally not the simple criterion at the EU level. There are questions about the overcapacity that needs to be reduced in different member states’ fleets and there is a convergence issue relating to overall levels of population and poverty. Those factors all come into play although, in all honesty, we do not know precisely how the Commission determines the allocations.
The sums of money that are to be allocated per member state in the new fund are yet to be announced, but we expect that announcement any day now. We expect that the UK will receive more for the data collection work and the control and enforcement work, both of which are really important to the UK, especially in Scotland. We expect that our share of that funding will go up and that we will get rather more money, which would be welcome, but the process in the Commission is not completely transparent and we are waiting to find out what the numbers are.
We are currently preparing the UK programme for implementation of the European maritime and fisheries fund, which needs Commission approval. The committee will not be surprised to learn that there are four different parts to the UK programme—I am sure that committee members can readily work out what those four different parts are. They reflect the desire of the four Administrations to set their own priorities, which is totally within our devolved system.
In all parts of the UK, but probably particularly in England and Scotland, data collection is a key area in improving our understanding of the state of stocks in the seas and will become increasingly important as we implement the discard ban and move towards achieving maximum sustainable yield in all the fisheries. We will look to get maximum benefit from that funding. As Mr McGrigor alluded, the discard ban presents additional problems for control and enforcement, which require a degree of investment. We will use the additional money to help us to make the new rules operate effectively.
All of that is aimed at improving the state of the fish stocks, which will benefit the marine environment generally and will ultimately lead to increased quotas that will benefit the industry.
Throughout the EU, there are a number of regional groupings. There is one in the Baltic that has some history behind it, we have a history of co-operation in the North Sea and further groups have been created as a result of the CFP reform. The one that the UK is interested in is the north-west waters group, which stretches from the north of Scotland down to Brittany. There is another new group in the south-west waters, and other things are being done in the Mediterranean.
We are all finding our way forward. We are not quite making up the rules as we go along, but we are certainly working out how to make the rules work. Our immediate and top priority is to prepare the discard plan for the pelagic fisheries, where the discard ban will come into effect on 1 January next year. All the groups are concentrating on that because, within the reformed regulation, there are things to be set down clearly in a discard plan and agreed regionally where there is no multi-annual plan in place, as is the case now.
It is fair to say that the group in the Baltic is working very successfully, as there are a limited number of countries with a long history of working together. In the North Sea, the group is working pretty successfully, but the work is obviously more stretching in the newer groups where there is no history of working together. Nevertheless, there is a strong desire among all the countries concerned to make the process work, and we are now at the critical stage of balancing the desire to make it work with everybody’s desire to get the best possible deal for themselves. We will see where we get to in the next few weeks.
I add that, although I speak for the UK in the director-level group, a Scottish colleague has invariably been with me at the meetings and we agree our approach before we go to them. We are very happy to have a Scottish colleague with us, given the strong Scottish interest.
Anything extra will undoubtedly be welcome, but I am still struggling with the notion that the allocation is fair. You mentioned aquaculture. The fact is that the vast majority of British aquaculture is in Scotland. We land the vast majority of fish and we do a great deal of the processing, which is also a part of the industry that the fund is meant to support. I struggle to see how an allocation of less than half—let us not be churlish about the number—is fair.
Do you think that, since we had the second-lowest funding per tonne in Europe in several other measures the last time around, it will make much difference at all?
The basic principle that you have just outlined, however, is that a Westminster politician must lead for the whole of the UK because it would not be appropriate for a Scottish minister to lead, as he might have the opportunity not to be fair to his colleagues in Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is the implication of what you said a few minutes ago.
I listened to Mr Robbs’s arguments for using other factors to determine the EFF split, such as the greater number of fishermen and processors in England. The problem that I have with that is that the UK Government negotiated a 1.4 per cent share of the EFF for Scotland, whereas a number of other countries with fishing sectors that are similar in size to the Scottish sector negotiated a much better deal. For example, Denmark negotiated a 3.1 per cent share of the total fund, Latvia received 2.9 per cent and Estonia received 1.9 per cent. We are languishing near the bottom with 1.4 per cent. Do you not recognise that that is an unfair deal?
We recognise that there is a role for those funds, absolutely, which is why we will put in quite a lot of effort in England regarding where we use them. For instance, we see that they have an important role to play in investment in more selective net gear to make the discard ban work.
Your comments might have been made in the broader context of the EU allocations rather than the allocations within the UK. We have demonstrated that we recognise the importance of fishing in Scotland by making an allocation of 46 per cent, which is up from 40 per cent.
I simply return to what I said: how the European Union calculates such allocations is quite complicated. A strong element of that includes looking at things such as the convergence criteria, which means that, with this particular fund, the UK gets less than, for example, Denmark. However, as I said, if you look at the amount allocated per vessel, the UK gets considerably more than a country such as Malta. There are lots of anomalies in how any such EU scheme works.
John, is there is a bit more detail that we can give about the precise nature and the formula that the EU follows for such allocations?
I am a strong supporter of regionalisation, but could you clarify the arrangements for sharing the scientific research on the ways forward between the different regions? Are there processes for doing that?
We have recognised throughout the importance of the mackerel settlement to the Scottish fleet, not least because well over two thirds of the mackerel that we land is landed in Scotland. The industry is vital for you.
The European Commission led the mackerel negotiations, because it has competence to do that on our behalf. However, as the UK has the greatest interest in the subject and we have a lot of credibility on fisheries issues, it is fair to say that the Commission consults us closely on its plans. In turn, the UK Government works incredibly closely with the Scottish industry. Does John Robbs want to add anything?
Thank you for that explanation, which is useful. It suggests to me that an industry that is properly organised, operates efficiently and is efficiently managed—I put that all together—will get less. It suggests that those who organise themselves properly are, in effect, penalised and that public money goes to those who have failed to organise themselves properly.
Am I allowed to continue with a question on another subject, convener?
Can I ask a small question about the west coast, convener?
Does any member have a supplementary question on regionalisation?
What the minister said is absolutely right. The Commission leads on negotiations with third countries and we all have to live with that way of working. For co-ordination in the EU, member states discuss with the Commission what the EU line should be. I cannot think of an occasion when a Scottish official has not been present at such discussions, as would be expected, given the significance of the negotiations. Members of the UK team work closely together to influence the EU position, from which the Commission negotiates with Norway or other third countries.
Yes, I do not think that I can be clearer on this. It is a UK delegation so it should have a UK minister who represents the interests of every part of the UK. I do not think that you would want to get into a situation where you had just one part of the UK representing the whole. I am very much there representing every part of the UK when I attend.
All that I would say is that the agreements were very fair to Scotland in the end. Under the criteria, England should have got, if anything, a slightly higher uplift than it did. However, to facilitate an agreement with Northern Ireland and Wales, we went for a slightly smaller increase for England on the basis that it had not previously claimed the funding.
I should highlight another important point. In light of the fact that the big argument that Richard Lochhead and fishing leaders have made to me is that Scotland tends to use its allocation whereas other parts of the UK do not always do so, another part of the deal is flexibility. If we get into the year and find that other parts of the UK are not using their allocations, we can move up to 10 per cent of those other allocations to, for instance, Scotland to ensure that the money is used rather than sent back to Brussels.
That combination of a significant uplift for Scotland and flexibility in dealing with the problem of certain parts of the UK not claiming all their allocation results in a really good deal for Scotland.
We could trade figures endlessly. I mentioned Malta, whose allocation equates to around €8,000 per vessel from the EFF compared to the allocation of €26,000 per vessel in Scotland. I have also covered why some of the less-developed countries receive a greater share, given that an element of the formula calculation is similar to the convergence one. That is why Scotland would end up with a lower allocation.
The background history to the issue is from before the minister’s time, but Dave Thompson and I remember it. The last time I was before the committee, with Richard Benyon, we had a lengthy exchange on the Commission’s proposal for transferable fishing concessions. I think that that is the point that Dave Thompson is raising.
At that stage, early on in the CFP reform negotiations, we were clear in the UK that we did not like what the Commission proposed, but there were very different perspectives between Richard Lochhead and Richard Benyon, which we were working through. Over the course of the negotiations we did work the issue through and we ended up with a united position within the UK.
You have not heard about the TFC problem for quite some while, because we sorted it out in the context of the negotiations. We may start with different perspectives, but we work the problem through until we have a shared position.
Coming back to what John Robbs said, I note that we expect the EU to confirm any day now—possibly today but certainly by the end of the week—the allocation that it is making to EU member states. Perhaps that would be a time to rerun all of the formulas in terms of amounts per vessel, absolute amounts and amounts per tonne.
In developing the point a little further, I will go off at a slight tangent. In yesterday’s press release from DEFRA, there is a reference to accessing the funds for the processing sector. Can you outline what exactly the processing sector can get from the funds? Much of Scotland’s processing sector is currently finding things very difficult because of a lack of continuity of supply, for instance, and it is struggling to attract new entrants. That presents obvious problems for the future. What criteria apply to the funds for the processing sector that might allow it to get some benefit from them?
There will be another chance. We will stick to the same subject for the moment.
In Scotland, it is a question for Mr Lochhead. As John Robbs pointed out, how the Scottish Government chooses to allocate the EMFF is very much a matter for the Scottish Government. Under the old EFF, there was an opportunity for people to buy replacement engines for their boats, provided that they were either less powerful or no more powerful than the engine that was there previously, so that it would not increase fishing effort. I do not think that the fund was available for buying new boats—John Robbs may be able to clarify that—but it was available for equipping boats more effectively.
A lot of the EFF was used—as we hope that the EMFF will be used in England—to invest in more selective net gear. When it comes to the nephrops fisheries, more selective net gear has been successful in ensuring that fishermen are not getting bycatch or catching juvenile stock.
I suppose that that is a feature of any convergence-style fund. We could say the same about structural funds. Such funds are designed to support those who need help in converging with the best performers in the EU. That is the stated purpose of the funds and the purpose of regional policy the world over.
First of all, this is not a negotiation of the normal sort: it is an allocation by the European Commission. It is not like a council negotiation between the member states to reform the CFP, where the UK works very closely with the other big member states to exert maximum influence; rather, the Commission decides on the issue.
I do not have the percentages that you were reading out, convener, but I would guess that those are the allocations under the current European fisheries fund rather than the future European maritime and fisheries fund. We have yet to learn what those allocations are; we should learn about them in the next few days.
In the past, Denmark had by far the largest fleet in the EU. It has reduced its fleet by a vast amount and closed down big chunks of its industry. That is essentially why Denmark got the amount that it did. We did not make the case for being allocated a very large amount of money to close down much of the Scottish industry—we would not want to do that.
You must look at the situation in each country in order to discern what reasoning the Commission applied in determining the shares. Sometimes, it is based on convergence; sometimes, it is based on the needs of new member states, which, in this case, had to change their entire way of operating in order to introduce the CFP. That was an issue when Estonia got its share, but that has not been an issue for Scotland since 1973 or subsequently when we developed the CFP. There are therefore different reasons.
You mentioned the system of leasing quota that operates in the UK. You will be aware that the Scottish Government has a moratorium on certain aspects of that system and that it plans to hold a consultation on the operation of leasing. The driver for that is the concern of fleets and harbours about the cost of leasing—there is upward pressure on the cost of leasing. Do you recognise what has led to the decision to hold a consultation? Do you have any thoughts on how the current system works and on the operation of the moratorium?
Not at the moment. Let us try to deal with quotas first. I thought that you wanted to ask about prawns.
At the most essential level, it is done through everybody feeding in all sorts of science to ICES, which leads on recommendations. John Robbs will tell you whether there are any other partnerships between the countries in the North Sea and north-western waters group.
I will ask John Robbs to give some specific criteria in a moment. The EFF and the new EMFF allow investment in processing. Towards the end of last year, I visited Peterhead, where people are hoping to access some of those funds to upgrade their facilities. The EFF has previously funded investment in equipment and in fish-processing capacity.
Another potential implication of the discard ban is that people might land more unwanted bycatch and might, therefore, need additional capacity to process fish in some places. It is too early to know the extent to which that will happen. In many parts of the country there is a lot of surplus capacity on the fish-processing side, and that is one area that could be considered.
John Robbs may want to add something on the specific types of project that the new EMFF might fund.
We will move on to fish quotas. Claire Baker has some questions on that.
I am not aware of formal regional structures, but there are strong relationships between the scientists in the different countries, for example around the North Sea and north-western waters. They know each other pretty well, there is a lot of co-operation and there are joint projects. If you want EU funding for research projects, a key requirement is to have contributors from more than one member state. There are various means of doing what you describe, but I am not aware of a formal regional structure.
It is a matter for Richard Lochhead.
I have a question on the discard ban, which has been mentioned. The groups for the North Sea basin and the north-west waters are both submitting discard management plans to the EU at the moment—the deadline is the end of June. There is concern that the controls and rules should be the same for all member states that fish in Scottish waters; otherwise, Scottish fishermen might not be on a level playing field with the likes of fishermen from, say, Norway. Will you ensure that the rules and controls that are put in place for the discard ban are the same for all member states that fish in our waters?
I ask Mr Eustice to elaborate on that point. Officials are one thing, but has a Scottish minister or cabinet secretary ever led the negotiations on the UK’s behalf?
Again, let me be clear: flexibility is always welcome. To be honest, it is good administration whichever way it happens to go. However, if someone starts with less than their share, they will want to get more out of the deal.
I have some other figures. For example, although we land 7 or 8 per cent of the fish that are landed in Europe, we get less than 2 per cent of the EFF. How is that fair?
Good morning. In your opening remarks, Mr Eustice, you said—I hope that I am quoting you accurately—that the marine environment is incredibly complex. I am sure that everybody around the table and people beyond the committee agree with that. Will you comment on the importance of member states having to reward fishing businesses that meet environmental criteria under the new European maritime and fisheries fund? Mr Robbs has already mentioned some input from the fund into data collection. Will you highlight how that money will help the wider marine environment and the sustainability of our fish stocks?
I do not think that Denmark is less fortunate than Scotland with regard to the quality of its industry, and its allocation sits at 3.1 per cent.
Thank you for that. Minister, would you be in favour of allowing the Scottish Government to ring fence quotas in Scotland’s seas? Would you consider that approach, to ensure that quotas remain for the use of our communities around Scotland?
The way in which quota is allocated to different producer organisations is a matter for the Scottish Government to look at. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to do that, which is why it intends to hold a consultation.
We have looked at the issue in a smaller way in England. There had been some quota that was being underused by the producer organisations. We made a modest change to take some of that unutilised quota and move it to the under-10m pool, which involves the smaller inshore vessels, whose skippers felt that they were not getting a fair enough deal. Even taking such a modest step was highly contentious and controversial in some parts of the industry. It is quite difficult to unravel systems that have been set up over a long period of time.
There is no harm in having a consultation, as the Scottish Government wants to do, although there is a danger that uncertainty might be created in the industry. Producer organisations have got quite good at swapping and leasing quota in order to match the quota that they have with the fishing opportunities that are available. My view would be that people should proceed cautiously with revolution in that area, but I understand that there will always be anomalies that the Scottish Government has a right to look at.
Agenda item 3 is marine and fisheries issues. I welcome George Eustice MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Farming, Food and Marine Environment, who is here to give evidence to the committee on marine and fisheries issues. I also welcome his official, John Robbs, the director of marine and fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK Government. I invite Mr Eustice to make an introductory statement.
Do you not accept that a Scottish minister could represent the whole of the UK in a fair way?
I see. That perhaps might explain why Spain got 25 per cent of the fund in the previous period—although it does not seem to have reduced its fishing effort that much.
Well, I have another question.
Good morning and thank you very much for the invitation to come here. It is great to have this opportunity to talk about the common fisheries policy and the reforms that we are implementing.
The final agreement that we got on the common fisheries policy has the potential to be a really radical reform of the CFP. For decades, the CFP has not worked properly and there has been the scandal of good fish being discarded back into the sea. The combination of a discard ban, flexibility in the way that quotas work and a much stronger emphasis on regional decision making could produce quite a radical reform. Although we will never have a man-made fisheries policy that is perfect, because the marine environment is incredibly complex, the agreement that we have got is a major step forward. That is why we are keen to roll up our sleeves and get on with implementing it effectively.
At the moment, we have groups working on a discard plan for both the North Sea and the north-west waters. John Robbs is on the working group for that initiative. We expect that those groups will submit their plans to the European Commission during the summer—perhaps by the end of this month—so that we will be in a position to implement the discard ban for the pelagic fisheries from January 2015. We will then begin the slightly more complex process of working out how to implement a discard ban for the wider white-fish fleet, starting in 2016.
The EU regulation makes it clear that the enforcement measures that are adopted should be equivalent. The reason that the word “equivalent” is used rather than the word “identical” is that we want to move the discard ban forward and make it happen. If we insisted on total uniformity, one of two things would happen. Either we would have to centralise those decisions again back in Brussels, which is not what we are trying to do—we are trying to decentralise the decision making—or one member state that was not keen on the policy as a whole and did not really want a discard ban might make such an unreasonable request that the whole system would collapse. Although we will not say that the measures will be identical, as we want to move things forward, it is clear to us that they will be equivalent.
You are right to put your finger on the issue, as it is a concern that fishermen—particularly Scottish fishermen—put to me. They are concerned that, although they will abide by the rules, fishermen from other countries might not. I understand that, and it is one of the most contentious issues that the groups have to deal with. The focus of the groups is the discard ban, but, below that, the focus and discussion is on exemptions on the grounds of such things as survivability, methods of enforcement, de minimis derogations and the like.
I cannot say that the measures will be identical, as that is not how the regulation is drafted, but we intend them to be equivalent.
It is correct to say that there is a good deal of flexibility, and it is very much up to the Scottish Government to decide how far that is a priority within its part of the programme.
The only issue that I can immediately think of in addition to those that the minister has covered is the potential to develop new products and new markets, particularly for species that are currently not deemed to be marketable simply because there is no market for them. That is quite a promising area for some species.
At the moment, we have the right balance, with the fisheries concordat, which makes sure that we do not get vessels trying to circumvent enforcement measures that a particular UK Administration might put in place. There are benefits of having a larger pool, in which producer organisations are able to lease freely between themselves, so that they can match fishing opportunities to the fish that are available. It would not be in Scotland’s interests to withdraw from that, have a much smaller quota allocation and deny it the flexibility to trade that quota with the rest of the UK.
We will see how the time goes—the minister’s and ours. I call Dave Thompson, who has a question on quotas.
I am glad that you know what “nephrops” means.
I make the point that a Scottish minister is not in the UK Government. When I am there, I am representing the UK Government, which represents every part of the UK. That is different from having a Scottish minister who represents the Scottish Government and Scottish interests only. However, we recognise that the Scottish fishing industry is incredibly important in Scotland and it is almost half of the UK fishing industry. It is for that reason that I work very closely with Richard Lochhead when we are putting together the positions that we take to council.
It is all about how the EU allocates the funding. There is inside-the-UK allocation for which we are responsible, but the EU itself tends to allocate funds to member states along lines similar to the way in which it allocates convergence funding. As a result, less-developed countries with weaker industries tend to attract more investment.
The problem would not go away if Scotland became an independent country—unless it became substantially poorer, which I am sure no one would want. The fact that the UK gets a smaller allocation than some member states is a product of the fact that the funding is allocated along the same lines as convergence funding. However, I should note that that is not the case for all member states. For instance, Malta gets a very small sum of money per vessel compared to Scotland, whose allocation per vessel is three times as much.
I will ask John Robbs to elaborate on the formula. Although you might take the view that Scotland is starting from an unfair position, I am not sure that that is right, given that the starting point was a set of principles and criteria that were agreed by officials in all the devolved Administrations.
We have made the allocation and it will be for the Scottish Government to work out how to spend its share. Nevertheless, I will tell you a little about our thinking on that front in England.
Given the challenges of the discard ban, we envisage that the lion’s share of the so-called core funding, which is the main part of the funding that goes directly to fishermen, will support more selective fishing practices and equipment that helps fishermen to fish more selectively. That will have a big impact on our ability to make the discard ban work and, if we can make the discard ban work, will lead to a huge improvement in the environmental outcome of fishing.
John Robbs alluded to the three strands of the EMFF—nothing is ever simple at the European level—two of which support data collection and enforcement. I think that I am right in saying that both funds predominantly support Government work in those areas. John Robbs might like to say a little about how we intend to spend some of those two funds in England and might add something on the wider environmental point.
12:00
Lots of criteria are used in the allocation. One of the things that the UK Government wants to achieve more broadly at a European level is a freeze in the EU budget. That proposal has received cross-party support at Westminster. The SNP joined the Conservatives and others in voting for a freeze in the EU budget—all the parties want to freeze the EU budget. However, there are implications to that, and there are sometimes difficult choices to make on the budget.
You will find that, subsequent to Denmark having the largest fleet, Spain had a very large fleet. It had a lot of problems, including a lot of overcapacity and big issues with poor enforcement and control and losing fishing opportunities in third countries. I do not know how wisely the money has been invested, but there were reasons behind the Commission’s thinking that a lot of investment was needed in Spain.
We have already heard some questions about quotas, and I would like to ask about the concordat that has been in place for the past year. We have touched on the subject of the referendum, which obviously dominates a lot of Scottish discussion at the moment. What is the current status of the concordat and what would its status be if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom?
Am I right in thinking that the British Government wanted to have totally transferable quotas that could be sold around the EU?
No. I make it clear that I am a UK minister, not an English minister. I happen to come from Cornwall, so I do not usually describe myself as English, anyway. I represent the UK when I do such negotiations. It is important that I am fair to every part of the UK when I do that.
Richard Lochhead attends virtually all the council meetings when fisheries are discussed. Before we go into the council, we have a detailed discussion about the exact approach that we will take. We frequently amend our negotiating position in response to concerns that Scotland raises. We work incredibly closely, but a UK minister should lead a UK negotiation, although we do so having consulted the devolved Administrations in great detail.
There is an issue with the Crown Estate’s distribution of the coastal communities fund and with access to that fund for fishing effort. Can you say anything about that now?
Thank you. Various members have issues that they want to raise. I will start. How is the regionalisation process developing so that the North Sea regionalisation can become effective?
The main thing to say is that the matter does not come within the responsibility of DEFRA. However, I am aware that some concerns have been raised about the fund. I think that I am right in saying that the Treasury and a number of other organisations are looking at the issue of transparency to address some of the concerns that have been raised. From memory, Scotland got just short of £8 million from the coastal communities fund last year, which supported about 38 projects. About 38 of the 100 or so projects in the UK were in Scotland so, on the face of it, it does not look as though Scotland was getting less than its fair share of the fund. However, I know that concerns have been raised and the Government takes those seriously, so it is looking at the issue.
They are called all sorts of things—langoustines, nephrops or prawns, depending on what part of the country you are from.
Good morning to you both and thanks for coming along. You talked about Scottish representation during negotiations. We are often led to believe that we do not have good representation, but I believe that, during the mackerel negotiations, it was a Marine Scotland representative who led the negotiations for Scotland. Is that quite common?
Thank you.
Good morning, minister. As someone with a Cornish wife, I learned long ago that introducing her as English was not in my domestic interests. [Laughter.] Welcome to the committee.
Will you clarify something that you said early on? I think that you said that the criteria for EFF funding allocation in the UK were entirely agreed by all the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments in the UK. Is that what you said?
The concordat was drawn up to solve a particular problem arising from the fact that the total allowable catch is allocated at a UK level but there is a significant amount of devolved responsibility for enforcement.
There were some particular concerns in some parts of the UK and some licensing changes—triggered by England—were made to help support devolved enforcement measures. However, it was then found that boats were trying to get around those measures by registering at ports in other parts of the UK. It was important to get some agreement on the issues that are involved, the principal one being that boats should be registered at the port at which they land most of their fish and where most of their activity takes place, or that they should have another connection with the particular part of the UK in which they are registered.
That was an important step. It is quite a recent one, as it was taken during the summer of 2012. There have been some issues and tensions around how the measure works, obviously, but it has been broadly successful.
If Scotland left the UK, the first thing that would happen is that it would be outside the EU for a period of time and there would then be accession negotiations to try to get back in. Never mind being outside the UK; Scotland would be outside the EU in that interim period. That would mean that the relationship would be very different, and the discussions would be similar to the ones that we have with Norway and Iceland.
Clearly, if there were a vote for Scotland to leave the UK, there would be a long period of negotiations during which we would try to work out that type of issue. It would be complicated. I do not have an immediate answer with regard to the concordat. I suppose that there would no longer be a need for it, in such a situation. It is uncharted territory.
I believe that, on occasions, no UK politician has been available to attend—or they have had to leave—and a Scottish minister has been there, but the opportunity to allow the Scottish minister to take the UK minister’s place has not been taken up and an official has taken the UK minister’s seat. Why do you feel that that is a satisfactory way to deal with things?
Scotland’s new Conservative member of the European Parliament, Ian Duncan, recently suggested that the European fisheries fund should be spent elsewhere than in Scotland. He justified that by saying:
“The funds should go to those places which are struggling—the Scottish industry is not struggling.”
However, as we heard from you earlier, Scotland has been using up all of its allocation of the funding. Do you not accept that that is an indication that the demand does lie here and that we are struggling?
I very much welcome the fact that Scotland is set for a bigger European fisheries fund share within the UK, and I thank the minister for that.
The subject of deputisation and who sits in the chair at EU meetings has been much mentioned by Dave Thompson. Am I right in thinking that, when Scotland wanted to manage its own levels of effort by way of days at sea, the UK negotiated that for Scotland despite disagreeing with the Scottish position and that Scotland now has that opportunity?
Am I also right in saying that, in the mackerel dispute resolution talks, it was Scotland that took the helm, very ably supported by the weight of the UK? Can you think of an instance when the UK delegation worked against the needs of Scottish fishing in Europe? Do you agree that, in EU negotiations, being a large member state is a very good thing?
I will finish this line of questioning by referring again to your press release from yesterday.
The press release says that the Scottish fisheries sector is to receive the greatest share of the UK fisheries fund. That is correct. However, I am surprised that it is said that Scotland receives a large amount of the European fisheries fund compared with other well-developed member states. You used an analogy about the allocations per vessel by country. You said that Scotland receives €26,000 for each vessel compared with €12,000 for Finland, €18,000 for Ireland and €15,000 for England. Is that not the wrong analogy? You have said that data, enforcement and the number of fishermen, the processing sector, which is part of our activities, and so on are really important. In fact, using that analogy is spin.
I think that that comes back to the point that John Robbs mentioned earlier. Some discussions took place at EU level about transferable fishing concessions, but that agenda did not go any further. That was before I became fisheries minister. I have got up to speed with all the issues that are currently being debated, but John Robbs might be able to provide additional information about the TFC debate, which took place two years ago.
To follow up on the point that you just made, Mr Eustice, I would dispute that we would be out of the EU. In September, when we get our yes vote, if the Scottish people make that decision, we will still be in the UK and the EU for 18 months, and many eminent people have said that that is more than enough time to get the bulk of the toughest negotiations out of the way.
However, there would be a problem for the EU if your scenario was correct and Scotland was outwith the EU. When it negotiates with countries such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes and swaps quota with those countries to allow 12 European nations to fish in their waters, a huge amount of the bargaining chips that Europe has come from Scotland’s seas. If Scotland was out of Europe, Europe would not have those chips to bargain with, and the agreements that allow the 12 European countries to fish in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese waters would need to be renegotiated without the massive benefit of the bargaining chips from Scotland’s waters. It is therefore in the interests of Europe and those 12 countries in particular to ensure that Scotland is in Europe at the end of the 18 months. Otherwise, their fishing industries would suffer severely.
As I said, I and the officials who are with me represent the whole UK and do so fairly. It is an important principle that I am there as a UK minister and not as an English minister.
What you describe has not happened since I have been the responsible minister. I always make a great effort to get there. We are always keen to have proper ministerial representation for the UK at council meetings.
We will move on to the new CFP and Scotland’s share of the UK and EU fisheries funding. Nigel Don will ask the first question.
There are always challenges in the fishing industry, not just in Scotland but elsewhere. For instance, we have had an incredibly difficult winter and fishermen in the south-west have had a very difficult time because of the storms.
It goes back to what I said earlier. We recognise that Scotland has tended to use all of its allocation, which is why we have done two things. First, we have increased Scotland’s allocation from 40 per cent to 46 per cent of the UK allocation, which is a major increase. Secondly, we have added flexibility so that, if other parts of the UK are underutilising their allocations, we will transfer those funds to Scotland because we do not want them to go unused. Having that flexibility has been an important part of the agreements here. It is a good solution and a good way forward.
I think that there would be plenty of other things to worry about.
One of the key things about the new system is that, instead of the Commission initiating proposals and member states having to argue their case through trilaterals at a long, exhausting December council, we have changed things slightly. There is now a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably and the member states that have a shared interest in certain waters will initially draw up discard plans and will then draw up multi-annual plans for the management of those fisheries. We will still have the regional advisory councils that are in place at the moment, and the advice that they give will be very influential at the multilateral negotiations that take place between member states. At the end of that process, there will also need to be some kind of delegated act from the European Commission to give authority to it.
We are making good progress on the discard plans for both the North Sea and the north-west waters. As John Robbs, who is closely involved in that, is at the table, I ask him to give you an update on the details of that work.
I think that the key point is that you do not know about it, minister. [Laughter.]
In any negotiation, both sides have some chips. This is starting to sound a bit like a hustings for the referendum campaign, for reasons that I can entirely understand.
A lot of the fish that are landed and processed in Scotland are exported though the EU. I think that Scotland should want to remain part of the UK and part of the EU because that is the best outcome for its fishing industry and its industry generally. That is my personal view. Far be it from a Cornishman to tell Scots what they should decide in the referendum, but I think that there is a degree of uncertainty for the industry in leaving the UK and the EU and then going through an accession process and a renegotiation to try to get back into the EU, with 28 other member states having their lists of demands. That is not something that the country should decide to do lightly.
I thank George Eustice and John Robbs for the wide-ranging and robust discussion that we have had about the current CFP and the new one. It is useful for us to get the measure of what the UK ministry is thinking, but I hope that it is equally useful for you to hear the concerns of some of the members of the committee, as representatives of the rural areas of Scotland. We hope that we can repeat the exercise should that be necessary.
The committee will be looking at fishing quotas in parallel with the cabinet secretary’s consultation, to try to get to the bottom of how and in whose interests they are traded.
At its next meeting, on 18 June, the committee will take evidence from a round table of stakeholders on petition PE1490, on the control of wild geese numbers, and will also consider its work programme paper, as discussed earlier.
Meeting closed at 12:48.
The process that we went through was quite exhaustive at official level. There were long discussions between officials from all the devolved Assemblies and the UK Government, and I understand that we reached a position in which everybody said that they were broadly content.
I discussed the issue with Richard Lochhead at the beginning of the year at one of our fisheries councils. He understood the difficulties in reaching these agreements, as everybody wants more than they might be allocated, but he was very clear that about his preference. His primary point was the fact that Scotland had used its allocation and the other parts had not, and he wanted to find a way of addressing that. If we could get an agreement that was reasonably fair and dealt with the issue, his preference was that a decision would be made, so that we had clarity and certainty about the funds and fishing businesses could prepare for them, rather than a long, protracted process that went for many months or even years.
I thought that I would raise the matter now, so that your comments would be on the record for future analysis. Thank you for your response.
Jamie McGrigor will come in on prawns.
How very kind.
I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands region, which covers most of the grounds for prawn fishing and scallop fishing, which are both important sectors of the Scottish economy. The boats in those fleets are quite small and a lot of them are very old. The same would apply to some of your west coast Cornish fleets as well. You talked about the funds being allocated on the basis of need, and there is a definite need to get those fleets up to scratch for convergence. Will the fisheries fund be able to do that? I know that you have increased it, but will it go to the areas where is really needed and are you responsible for ensuring that, or is it a question for Mr Lochhead?
12:45
Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Thank you very much for coming. Some of your colleagues apparently do not come to committees in this place, so I am very glad to see you and grateful to you.
The European fisheries fund is of course a pot of money that comes back from Europe. It is divided across the UK and, as you say, you represent the whole of the UK—I understand that. I have in front of me figures that show that Scotland will get from now on some 46 per cent of that funding, which I believe is an increase and is, of course, welcome. However, I also understand that we have at least two thirds of the fish landed in the UK, so I wonder whether you can explain to me why even 46 per cent is fair, please.
That is fantastic. Thank you.
The point is that, at the moment, we have a concordat. The concordat would no longer apply, and there would have to be negotiations about what our quota share would be and how the regulatory system would work.
In my experience, the fishing fleet largely identifies itself as a UK business and has a lot of cross-border activity, whether that is in the processing sector or the catching sector.
Thank you very much.
We must move on. Claudia Beamish has some questions on research.
I certainly hope that you will change things—that is the implication of what you said. However, the fact remains that, given the huge amount of fish that we contribute to the UK pool, a Scottish minister could equally represent the whole UK. Surely it does not have to be a Westminster minister who represents the whole UK. In the past, when the UK minister could not attend but the Scottish minister could, why was the opportunity not taken to allow the Scottish minister to lead for the whole UK?
11:45
You do not agree with Mr Duncan. You recognise that there is a demand for those funds and a need for them to come to Scotland.
You will appreciate that arriving at the allocations is always difficult because, obviously, every part of the UK would say that it should have more. However, we did develop, with officials from all the devolved Administrations, a set of criteria that looked at the new scheme’s objectives. For instance, there is a slightly greater emphasis in the new scheme on things like aquaculture. You have a large aquaculture industry here in Scotland. We looked at other objectives of the scheme, such as delivering the discard ban. On that basis, they came up with a formula—John Robbs might be able to elaborate the precise criteria in the formula—that arrived at a certain allocation.
For the last European fisheries fund, which was the predecessor of the European maritime and fisheries fund, we allocated 40 per cent to Scotland. Richard Lochhead said at that point that that was a big boost and a great deal for Scotland and that he was very satisfied with it. So, if 40 per cent is a great deal for Scotland, then 46 per cent has got to be an even better deal for Scotland, as far as I can see.
As I said, these will always be difficult, contentious decisions because, of course, everybody would always like more money, but I think that 46 per cent is a fair outcome and a significant uplift for Scotland.
Minister, it is a fact that, as you mentioned, Britain has strong role to play in the negotiations, yet Denmark got 3.1 per cent of the funds, Latvia got 2.9 per cent and Estonia—that small independent country in the Baltics—got 1.9 per cent. Scotland has about 1.1 per cent: the second lowest amount of funding per tonne of fish in Europe. Is that a very good outcome for the UK negotiations?
That reflects the fact that it is no longer a current issue—it is a closed issue.
Can we turn our minds to scientific research? I am interested in your thoughts from both the UK perspective and the English perspective on what is happening, taking into account the regionalisation. How does that inform sustainable fisheries and the marine environment? The Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is now an act, came before the committee, and there are also complexities in other sectors in our waters. How does that fit with changing patterns due to climate change, and with biodiversity? I ask you those questions just to set the scene.
Thank you, Sir Humphrey.
They only tell me what I need to know.
Jamie McGrigor has a question about the west coast.
It is not about the west coast.
Recently, Scotland’s First Minister made a speech in Bruges, in which he said:
“We propose a practical, common sense approach to membership, which means that there is no detriment—none whatsoever—to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership.”
Given that there will be a negotiation, which the UK will be in charge of, regarding Scotland’s uncertain position within the EU and that, as you clearly recognise, fishing will be an important part of that, is there a risk that an end point will be reached for the Scottish fishing industry that is worse than the status quo?
That is always the case, and it will be the case on many other fronts. When a country tries to join the EU, goes through the accession process and seeks the agreement of all the other member states to its being allowed in, it suddenly turns out that all the other member states have a lot of demands. That is an inevitable part of an accession negotiation, and in my view it would happen if Scotland were to leave the UK and the EU and then seek to negotiate re-entry to the EU.
I just want to follow up on the point that Jamie McGrigor raised there. You said that the Scottish position was “hardly ever” at variance with that of the rest of the UK. That implies that it is occasionally at variance. You represent the whole of the UK. If you had to choose between voting for the position of the rest of the UK—or England perhaps—and voting for the Scottish position, could you ever see yourself voting for the Scottish position ahead of the RUK?
As I said, in those situations, I would always do something that would be fair to all parts of the UK. However, I come back to the point that I cannot remember there ever being a time when that was the case.
At the last December council, we all had an interest in getting the right deal between the EU and Norway, and we all had an interest in increasing the North Sea total allowable catch and not accepting the proposed 9 per cent cut. We all had an interest in, and argued powerfully in that December council for, increased flexibility with angler fish, which was important to some sectors of the Scottish fishing industry. I cannot remember a time when we have been on a different page on these issues.
We have shared waters, we are one UK, and we very much have shared interests when it comes to the fishing industry.
Perhaps I can pursue the point briefly, convener.
Individual transferable quotas were mooted some time ago. The Scottish cabinet secretary’s position on quotas is fairly straightforward. He does not want quotas that are allocated to Scotland being traded so that those who have the deepest pockets can buy up quotas and we end up with Scottish communities not having access to any. Is there not a possibility that that is a different position to the one that you might take?
I do not think that it is. I might ask John Robbs to come in on the detail, but I note that one of the key benefits that Scotland has as part of the UK is that we have a fluid and flexible market that allows us to swap and lease quotas between producer organisations within the UK. That is quite important. We have the fisheries concordat to deal with the way in which different parts of the UK relate to one another on issues such as where vessels are registered.
I come from Cornwall and when I talk to Cornish fishermen, they sometimes complain to me that there are lots of Scottish boats scalloping around Falmouth bay and in the channel, and that certainly concerns them. However, I do not begrudge that. One advantage is that we have a flexibility that comes with being part of the UK, and if we did not have that we would have fewer options to trade and lease quota in order to match the quota that a producer organisation holds with the fishing opportunities. That is a major argument for doing these things at the UK level.
John, do you have anything to add on the question of transferable quotas?
12:15Previous
Land Reform Review Group