Rural Affairs Committee, 14 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Official Report 211KB pdf

---

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Measures for the Recovery of the Stock of Irish Sea Cod) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/26) Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/34)

Item 2 on the agenda starts with subordinate legislation laid under the negative procedure. That means that, unless a formal motion to annul the order is agreed, the order comes into effect. No such motion for annulment has been lodged, so the purpose of today's discussion is to examine the instrument. The deadline for parliamentary action is 23 March.

We have with us David Ford and Andrew Brown, who can speak to both fisheries instruments.

Are we to be addressed by the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs on the subject?

I thought that it would be discourteous of me to walk out at this stage. Both statutory instruments arise from points that were negotiated at the December meeting of the Fisheries Council in Brussels, on the recovery programme for Irish sea cod, and on a whole range of total allowable catches and quotas.

I will now hand over to David Ford and Andrew Brown to deal with the details.

I will deal with the Irish sea cod stock recovery plan. In your papers you have an entertaining map showing a complicated horseshoe of closures. The reason for this order is the poor state of Irish sea cod stocks. The scientific advice was that they were in imminent threat of collapse, so at the December Fisheries Council the Commission and Council made a joint statement noting the situation and calling for a recovery stock plan to be introduced as soon as possible, and for most emphasis to be placed on protecting spawning stocks this year.

The Commission produced regulation 304/2000, a copy of which is included in your papers, which provides for a 10-week closure in the area that is shown on the map to prevent fisheries that are directed at cod. This order brings that regulation into Scottish legislation. If members have questions, I can provide more details.

Are there any questions about the order or the explanatory documents?

I have no questions, but I would like to make a few quick comments. I think that we all welcome these measures. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that it is the fishermen who have made much of the running on this. In January and February, there were a number of meetings of the industries of the Irish Republic, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. That was a good working model for zonal management, which is being promoted in the European Union. We should congratulate the fishermen on taking the initiative and working together. Fishermen are often criticised for not working together, but this is a shining example of co-operation.

I wish to add congratulations to the Executive for responding in such a positive way. What are the consequences of this order, which provides for the enforcement of measures and introduces penalties? The order requiring fishermen not to catch cod in these areas was introduced some weeks ago. Have any breaches of the regulations been recorded?

I am not aware of any breaches. Mr Lochhead is right. Because the fishermen were involved in the gestation of the plan, there is a reasonable level of acceptance of the measures.

Scottish fishermen never break rules anyway, do they?

It has been suggested that we should ask about the status of the map and whether it represents the closure zone accurately.

The map was drawn with crayon and is unofficial. The European Commission regulation sets out the co-ordinates and is the most accurate reference. It is not possible to be accurate on an A4 map.

I understand that the map has appeared on the website.

I think that it is acceptable as an illustrative guide, but one should not rely on it for guidance.

Ten weeks seems a very short period to allow a significant recovery of the cod stock. I am ignorant about this matter and would like to be enlightened.

I will do my best. That period was chosen because that is when cod are spawning. There is only a risk when cod are dropping and fertilising their eggs, which occurs only for a short time. For some reason, that period traditionally starts on Valentine's day.

That seems appropriate.

It is hoped that after 10 weeks, the eggs are hatched and everything is okay.

It is nice to know that cod, too, have romantic illusions about Valentine's day. Is it likely that an order like this one will be imposed annually for five or six years, or is it hoped that one year will be enough?

We would be very lucky if one year were enough. It is probable that the order will have to be reimposed next year, but maybe two years will be enough. We hope that there will not be such a rush next year and that you will have more time, to allow the 21-day rule to be adhered to, for example.

If there are no further questions, I will assume that members are content with this proposal. Is it agreed that the committee will make no recommendation in its report to Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask Andrew Brown to explain briefly what the other order is about.

This is a routine order that must be renewed annually. It flows from the regulations that establish total allowable catches and quotas, which were agreed at the December Fisheries Council. Essentially, the order provides British sea fisheries officers with powers to enforce various aspects of that regulation and the penalties that are implemented in cases of infringement.

The powers of the sea fisheries officers are analogous to those that this committee considered recently in the control order, and the penalties are analogous to those in the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967, as amended. The order establishes no new powers or penalties; it is routine. The scope of the order covers the activities of Scottish vessels and all vessels in the Scottish fishing zone, including third country vessels from the Faroe Islands and from Norway, with whom we have reciprocal access agreements.

That summarises the order, although I am prepared to answer questions if the committee has any.

It is worth noting that this is the first formal opportunity that this committee has had to touch on the December Fisheries Council, and to note that it produced positive results that received a widespread welcome in the Scottish fisheries industry. I welcome that, and hope that the committee will approve this order.

I would like to chip in with two quick points. The first follows up what Richard Lochhead said earlier about the input of the fishing industry into conservation initiatives. This order is one example of such input, and provides a useful trade-off. We have taken more haddock from the North sea than we expected to, largely because we were able to negotiate technical conservation measures, which we will consider at a future date. Those measures enable us to protect juvenile stock in the North sea. Because our industry was keen to agree to that kind of conservation initiative, a trade-off has been negotiated of an extra 8,000 tons of haddock from the North sea this year. So there is a positive story behind this order.

The second point that I would like to make, very briefly, is that you have before you two people who carry out a lot of hard work for the industry in my department, in detailed negotiations on our fishermen's access to fish stocks around our coast and elsewhere in EU and UK waters. I am impressed with them.

Thank you. If there are no further comments on this order, are members content with this proposal? Can we conclude that the committee wishes to make no recommendation in its report to Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I take the opportunity to thank the Deputy First Minister—

No, not quite.

Sorry—the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, or the minister with responsibilities for forestry and fisheries. I have now given you three titles. I also thank David Ford and Andrew Brown for giving us the benefit of their expertise in explaining the nature of these orders before we took the decision on them. Thank you very much for your assistance, gentlemen.