Rural Development Committee, 30 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001

Official Report 194KB pdf

---

European Fisheries Negotiations

Item 2 on the agenda is a report from the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, who is popularly known as the fisheries minister. Rhona Brankin is accompanied by officials Derek Feeley, Ben Rolles, Andrew Brown and Stuart McLean. I propose to invite the minister to make a statement to the committee. I will then throw the session open to questions. The minister will now tell us what is going on in fisheries business.

Thank you, convener. I do not know about the description "popularly known".

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the committee on the outcome of recent negotiations in Europe. The Parliament has spent considerable time on the issues, so I intend to make only brief remarks. I am happy to answer questions. Derek Feeley, Andrew Brown and Ben Rolles—a strong team—are with me to answer any more detailed questions that might arise.

To have the full picture of the outcome of negotiations about total allowable catches—TACs—for 2001, we need to go back to the negotiations that were held at the end of November between the European Union and Norway. For those negotiations, the Executive first promoted the argument that targeted cod recovery measures were possible and that we should focus on areas of high cod concentration. The successful deployment of those arguments took us from a proposed 50 per cent cut in the haddock TAC to an agreement for only a 16 per cent cut. We also secured a transfer of more than 6,000 tonnes of haddock from Norway.

The EU-Norway outcome was important in two ways. First, it broke the link in the Commission's mind between cuts in the cod TAC and a cut in haddock. Secondly, it provided an alternative to cod, by setting a haddock quota for 2001 that was above the level for 2000.

Negotiations moved on to the December council. On 19 December, I made a statement in Parliament about the outcome of that council meeting. There is no doubt that this year's discussions about TACs were among the most difficult that have been made. We cannot ignore the fact that many fish stocks are in a poor state. There is no magic solution whereby we can work towards recovery without reducing fishing effort.

Reductions in TACs were inevitable, and are essential for the long-term sustainability of the fisheries and the communities that depend on them. We had to put long-term conservation requirements ahead of short-term fixes. Nevertheless, we made some important negotiating gains without having to prejudice that general approach. For example, our invocation of the Hague preference on North sea haddock meant that the UK quota was more than 16,000 tonnes—65 per cent—higher than it was in the Commission's original proposal. Those extra fish are worth £16 million to the Scottish industry.

We also argued up the nephrops TACs from the initial proposal for a 20 per cent cut to the final outcome of a 10 per cent cut. On the subject of nephrops, I can tell the committee that we have persuaded the Commission to consider historical data as a basis for reopening the TAC, and we are now pulling together a detailed set of arguments.

We had to deal with the difficult situation of North sea whiting and the industrial bycatch. I made detailed points about that issue on 19 December and I do not want to go over that ground again. However, we did not get the split between fishing for human consumption and the industrial bycatch element that we would have liked. The industrial bycatch element remains unallocated and we will keep that position under review.

We reached agreement with Denmark to hold discussions on the possibility of reducing the TAC and adjusting the bycatch in the North sea sand eel fishery. Those discussions will get under way on 26 February, when there will be a meeting of officials in Edinburgh.

I will speak briefly about the recent discussions on a cod recovery plan, about which I am pleased that we have at last reached agreement. We wanted a programme that would deliver credible cod recovery measures without prejudicing unduly the possibility of alternative fishing opportunities for the Scottish fleet. That is what we have achieved.

The agreed proposals for emergency measures are based on seasonal closures of certain areas during the spawning season and on an agreement to develop technical conservation measures for fishing gear in the longer term.

The Scottish Executive and the Scottish fishing industry worked tirelessly to formulate a plan that would be in the best interests of our fishermen. Now that the negotiations have concluded, I can confirm that the agreed outcome owes a great deal to ideas that were developed by the Executive and the industry and which were forcefully argued by our negotiating team. The fact that the industry and we had common objectives was of considerable benefit during those discussions and I wish to pay tribute to the positive and constructive role that was played by the industry's leaders.

I should say something about the allegations about perceived inactivity that were made against the Executive. The outcome that was achieved demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth. I was pleased by the industry's recognition of the positive role that was played by the Executive during the negotiations. In my experience, it is never wise to show all one's cards before one gets into a negotiation. What matters is where one ends up and, from our perspective, the result has been fairly positive and is entirely in line with the position that we adopted at the outset of the negotiations—a targeted measure that focuses on areas of cod abundance.

Finally, I will address the impact on the industry of the recent negotiations. I am fully aware that tough times are ahead and I have made it clear that I intend to discuss with the industry how we should tackle that impact. I will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation later this afternoon to begin that process. Until we have a chance to assess carefully the effects of recent events, I will not commit myself to any particular course of action. Our minds remain open.

Thank you, convener. I will be delighted to take questions.

Thank you very much, minister.

There is a distracting sound of power tools coming from somewhere. I hope that it does not prevent members from hearing what is being said.

We now have an opportunity to ask questions. As usual when we are dealing with fisheries, Richard Lochhead is straining at the leash. Therefore, I propose to call him first.

I thank the minister for her opening statement and I welcome her to the committee.

I recognise that the minister has faced difficult times in recent weeks—they have also been difficult for the industry. I am sure that the minister recognises the fact that we are now in the most crucial period for the industry for decades. The industry has suffered two blows–quota cuts in December and the temporary closures of key fishing grounds as a result of the cod recovery plan. However, we accept that there might have to be short-term pain for long-term gain. Therefore, the temporary closures that are part of the cod recovery plan are essential.

As the minister is aware, the industry is looking for a vote of confidence from the Government, not least to keep the banks at bay and to retain crews who might be tempted to go elsewhere if they feel that they have no future in the industry. We all recognise that the fishing industry must have a future, because that is tied into the future of many of Scotland's rural communities, particularly coastal communities.

There is a clear case for the Government to implement both short-term and long-term measures. I would like the minister to give us some feedback on that short-term and long-term help. Short-term help might involve compensating skippers for tying up their boats temporarily. Otherwise, they might go to other fishing grounds that are not closed, which would simply shift the problem. I would appreciate the minister giving a response to that specific proposal.

There is a longer-term proposal to restructure the fleet to ensure its long-term viability, which will require new finance from the minister. Is the minister willing to give a commitment today that that scheme will be funded, provided that it is a proper decommissioning scheme, which decommissions the boat, the licence and the quota to ensure that it is effective?

Is the minister willing to go on record today to give financial support to the fish processing industry? The task force that is currently under way will be able to produce real proposals only if they will be funded by the Government, otherwise the task force will turn into another talking shop. Many people in the fish processing industry are expressing that fear to me.

The background is that the Government has announced £40 million to help car workers at Nissan south of the border. Our fishing industry wonders why £40 million can appear from nowhere to save 1,500 jobs at a car plant; over 20,000 jobs are dependent on the fishing sector in Scotland in many remote and fragile communities. The industry wants to know whether the minister will rule some things in and offer substantial support to the industry.

As I said, we recognise that these are tough times for the industry, but it is important that we do not rush into this. I will have initial talks this afternoon with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We have said to the federation that we acknowledge that there is a request for a decommissioning scheme. Work is on-going; we have asked the SFF to draw up figures for us and we are examining the possibilities. The meeting with the SFF is an initial meeting to consider where we are now. I am committed to working with the fishermen's organisation to seek a way forward.

As Richard Lochhead well knows, I am not able at this stage to put figures on decommissioning. We must get a clear view of the impacts and in which sectors of the industry it might be beneficial to reduce capacity. We must consider the matter carefully to ensure that, if there is a case for decommissioning, any scheme will be targeted to achieve the change that it seeks.

If we consider what happened the last time that there was decommissioning, evidence suggests that some boats were decommissioned and that money was reinvested in bigger, more powerful boats. We must be clear about what we are setting out to achieve, have the discussions, get the statistics and get the views of the industry about what it thinks is the best way forward on decommissioning.

We are aware, as are Richard Lochhead and many of his colleagues on the committee, of the possible impact on fishing communities; we take that very seriously. We must consider it in discussions about decommissioning.

A couple of questions have been asked recently about displacement. We must remember that fisheries are quota-controlled. In order to prosecute a fishery, vessels must be allocated quota in the first instance. We wanted to ensure that fishermen had alternative fishing opportunities during the closed period. We successfully negotiated the North sea cod recovery plan, which provides such opportunities—that is important. We must also recall that quotas for this year exceed last year's catches. Consequently, the displacement of fishing effort may not be as great as is feared, although we must keep an eye on that.

We are also aware about the problems of fish processors and we have set up a working group to consider that sector; we must be able to consider the industry as a whole. We must take account of the fish processing industry further down the line, when there might be change and restructuring in the industry. As members know, I should get the report from the fish processing working group very shortly.

I thank the minister for her comments.

Before I ask my final question, I must say that it is difficult to discern a difference in the minister's position today compared to before the quota negotiations began in December. It would be welcome if the minister was able to make a commitment to making a ministerial statement as soon as possible, giving a vote of confidence in the industry through financial support—that is what the industry is crying out for.

Finally, because of the difficulties that face the Scottish industry, it is imperative that, as far as that industry is concerned, the negotiations over the common fisheries policy are spot-on. There is a great deal of concern about last week's vote in the European Parliament, where that Parliament voted against some of the founding principles of the policy, such as relative stability and the six and 12-mile limits, and for amendments to the Shetland box. Will the minister outline the Executive's response to that vote and indicate its status, with particular regard to the forthcoming green paper? Is it the minister's understanding that the vote, which would place the Scottish industry—indeed, the Scottish Government—on the back foot, may be incorporated into the green paper on the CFP that is about to be published by the European Commission?

Richard Lochhead's first point implied that the Executive has been rather slow off the mark. To respond to that, we have just had the result of the cod recovery plan—the industry fully accepts that, to consider things as a whole, we had to await the outcome of the plan. To have made a statement immediately following the outcome of the December fisheries council would not have been helpful—it is recognised that we needed the full picture. I do not accept any allegation that we have been slow off the mark.

On the common fisheries policy, we are awaiting the initial document from the Commission. Clearly, issues such as the Shetland box and relative stability are important to the fishing industry in Scotland. Perhaps Derek Feeley wants to say something about last week's European Parliament vote.

The vote was disappointing, because it went against a number of our arguments on the CFP review. The European Parliament must be consulted, but it has no decision-making powers in relation to fisheries. The Commission is required to take into account its views in formulating its proposals; no doubt it will do so, but equally it will take account of the views that are expressed by member states. That is why we must establish our arguments early and put them at the forefront of the Commission's mind. We have been doing work on the economics and the conservation benefits of the Shetland box, which we will submit to the Commission before the green paper is published.

It is unlikely that the European Parliament's vote will influence the green paper, because the paper is already at an advanced stage of preparation. We expect to see it in March—it might reflect to some extent what the European Parliament has said, but it is, by and large, a drafted document that is about to become part of internal Commission procedures.

On Richard Lochhead's suggestion about decommissioning, as I understand it, no decisions have been made. He talked about decommissioning quota but, rather than decommissioning quota, would not it be sensible to put quota from decommissioned boats into community trusts and so on? My problem is with bycatch, when boats are over quota in certain species and must throw them over the side. If quotas were held at harbours or the like, and could be bought by boats landing fish for which they were over quota, that would stop some of the wasteful practices that go on. If that were priced properly, it would encourage people not to catch over quota.

That is exactly the kind of proposal that we need to consider. There are pros and cons, but we have an open mind.

You talked about discussions with Denmark, which are to be welcomed because there is a lot of concern in the industry about industrial fishing. During the February discussions, will you speak to the Danes about fishing in closed areas? I understand that industrial fishing will be allowed to take place in closed areas but that normal cod fishing will not.

As part of the cod recovery plan, there is to be some fishing for sand eels in the closed areas. I see Jamie McGrigor shaking his head, but the science shows that the sand eel fishery is a clean fishery—I can ask one of the officials to explain the details if necessary. Inspections of industrial trawlers were undertaken in 1999 and 2000 and showed that the bycatch from sand eel fishing is often 0 per cent and almost always less than 1 per cent, which is important in terms of the cod recovery plan. Nevertheless, we need to be able to monitor the sand eel fishery closely. That is the advice that we have been given. There will be observers on the boats to monitor the situation and we will keep members in touch with what is happening.

We have been successful in our negotiations on the cod recovery plan, because fishing for Norway pout has been excluded from the closed areas. It was important to exclude that fishery, because there is evidence of a significant bycatch in it.

The other thing to bear in mind is that although there is a derogation for sand eels, it applies in only part of the closed area. In the area where the Scottish fleet traditionally fishes, there will be no derogation for sand eels. The sand eel derogation is allowed south of a line drawn at 59 deg north. That was agreed in response to requests made by the Danes during the negotiations. They wanted to fish for sand eels. They say that it will happen only during April and only in their own waters.

Do you agree that the 20mm mesh used for industrial fishing catches everything and that industrial fishing is the only industry in which there have not been significant cuts in quota? Do you think that we should be pushing for really significant cuts in industrial fishing? It is not something that is done a great deal by our own fishing fleet, and it is taking bycatch of very young fish and a lot from the bottom of the food chain. Would you be prepared to fight for further cuts in industrial fishing?

I have already said that we have concerns about industrial fishing from the point of view of the bycatch, which is why we argued strongly for the sea pout industrial fishery not to be allowed in the closed areas. We also share the concern of Scottish fishermen about the sand eel as a feed for other fish. We have already intimated that we are having discussions with the Danes at the end of February. We want to be able to pursue the issue with the Danes and I would like to discuss it with the Danish fisheries minister. I have given an undertaking to the Parliament to do that. As far as the cod recovery plan is concerned, I am satisfied that we have managed to exclude the Norway pout fishery from the closed areas. As Derek Feeley said, the impact on the cod bycatch of the sand eel fishery is very low.

I agree that the Norway pout is the dirtiest of all the industrial fisheries. What pressure are you putting on other countries to introduce technical conservation measures such as square-mesh panels—which our fleet is using—to protect juveniles and future stocks?

All UK boats fishing in Scottish waters are required to use square-mesh panels. There will be further discussions on technical conservation measures in March, which will cover the cod recovery plan. We will share what we have done and will further emphasise the importance of technical measures. We have already been able to demonstrate a gain, in that we have deployed conservation measures to allow other species to continue to be fished. We will deploy those arguments in March. It is an important part of the next phase of the cod recovery plan.

What is happening in the west coast fisheries in relation to the recovery plan?

Members will have seen the relevant map—I have one with me now.

There does not seem to be anything for the west coast.

During the negotiations last week and the week before, we took a conscious decision not to discuss west coast issues. There were two reasons for that. First, it was extremely difficult to agree North sea measures even without the complication of the west of Scotland waters. Secondly, the negotiations have been with Norway—Norway has joint management status with the EU over the North sea, but not over the west of Scotland. It has therefore been agreed that we will have separate discussions on west of Scotland cod stocks. It is hoped that we will get the first round under way in the week commencing 12 February.

As you can imagine, there is a perception that the cod recovery programme will move a lot of effort to the west coast. That is of concern with regard to the cod spawning grounds around Harris and Lewis. There is a large area off the Firth of Clyde that comes under the Irish cod recovery plan. There should be some mention of the west coast, given fishermen's representatives' worries about the future.

It is intended to have a recovery plan for the west of Scotland.

Soon?

As soon as possible. The starting point for the Commission will be to have measures for the west coast similar to those being applied in the North sea. That will mean concentrating on areas in which cod are in relatively high abundance and linking those with spawning areas, to protect the cod while they are spawning. Subsequently, that will be reinforced by technical measures to protect the juvenile fish.

I am concerned about the definition of a closed area. Surely if an area is closed for fishing, it should be closed for industrial fishing, not just because of the bycatch, but because of disturbance in spawning areas and the removal of food. I hope that you will take a strong line on that.

I am concerned that the technical conservation measures that we have taken in Scotland have not yet been taken in England and Wales. To what extent is there a joint approach? We hoped that there was one between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. To what extent have the two fisheries ministers been in contact with each other, progressing the same issues? Can you persuade Westminster to catch up with Scotland on some of the issues?

One of the difficulties is that if the closed areas were closed to industrial fishing, they would also have to be closed to pelagic fishermen, which would have a major impact on the pelagic sector. The issue is complex. The important thing is that we have excluded the Norway pout fishery, which was the problematic industrial fishery for the cod spawning ground.

I share your frustration about the square-mesh panels. There is always a worry about giving definite dates. However, the square-mesh panel is being discussed at Westminster and I understand that it will be agreed within the next couple of weeks. An inordinately long period seems to have elapsed; and we share your frustration.

What contact do you have with Elliot Morley to progress the agenda?

I meet Elliot Morley regularly and keep in touch with him by phone. Every time we meet, the square-mesh panel issue is raised along with many others. Officials from the Scottish Executive have played a leading role in developing the cod recovery plan, as they have done at the fisheries council.

Has the minister written to the UK minister, expressing the Parliament's anger and concern? Our industry wants other nations to adopt a 90mm square-mesh panel, but we cannot ask them to undertake to do that if they can turn round and say, "Part of your member state has not done it, so why should we?"

Richard is asking whether you have anything in writing from Westminster.

I do not know what the most recent information that Derek Feeley received was, but I understand that we will receive what you ask for in the next couple of weeks. I assure you that the matter has been raised time and time again. Elliot Morley is fully aware of our concerns and the concerns of the Parliament.

The matter was raised by the minister when she spoke to Elliot Morley before the cod recovery plan got under way and I have raised the issue several times with my opposite number at Westminster. The Scottish fishing industry raises it with ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food every time it meets them, and MAFF is well aware of our anxiety for the measures to be put in place.

Clearance for the proposals has now been received from the European Commission—as might have been expected, as they are exactly the same as those we had cleared by the Commission some time ago—and the lawyers have drafted the regulation. It is now just a case of following the parliamentary procedure.

Should not the minister write a stroppy letter to the UK minister to get the matter on the record and ensure that the situation is not repeated?

There are many ways of making one's point forcibly. I assure the committee that Mr Morley is in no doubt about the feelings of the Parliament, the committee and myself on the matter.

The focus has been on the North sea. I would like us to turn to the west coast and pursue the revelation that Mr Feeley has made this afternoon. Does the minister agree that there was no justification for the substantial reduction in prawn quotas off the west coast?

We followed scientific advice on the nephrops quota. As I said, we can use retrospective data on the nephrops fishery. We have found that there is a discrepancy in how much cod bycatch there is in that fishery. As I have said before—probably at this committee—there is a disparity between parts of that fishery. For example, creel fishery produces no cod bycatch, whereas there is a significant cod bycatch from Fladden bank. We are arguing forcibly for an increase in the nephrops quota; that work is on-going. It is important that we have secured an agreement to use existing information and retrospective data. We will issue proposals as early as possible in the spring.

We all accept that it is the aim of the Executive and the industry to roll over the nephrops quota, so that it will be the same this year as last year. However, has enough work been done to obtain the logbook data to make that case to the European Commission? What further work must be done before the Commission can be asked to roll over the quota?

We have all the logbook data we need. We must now refine them and put them into a form that will be acceptable to the Commission. It is important that we have a coherent set of arguments to present to the Commission, as we will get only one chance to put our case and we must ensure that it is as strong as possible.

We must also get data from other fisheries departments on the relationship between cod catch and nephrops catch for fishermen from countries in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area 6. We are getting those data at the moment. We hope to have the well argued, fully researched case that the minister described to put to the Commission in the spring. That should give ample time before the key months for the nephrops fishery, which are the summer months and the lead-up to Christmas.

I was reassured by the first part of that answer, because you seem to have the data that you need, although I presume that you will consult the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association. However, you say that the proposal will not be put to the Commission until the spring. Given the importance of the matter, can you tell us the earliest date on which a substantial, well documented proposal could be produced?

I said that we have all the data about landings into Scotland, which are the data that we collect. However, that is not the whole story with regard to landings of nephrops from ICES area 6—it is the vast bulk of the story, but not the whole story. To get a complete picture, we require data on the combined catches of nephrops and cod that fishermen from other parts of the UK, and possibly from other member states, have landed. We are actively pursuing that information and will pull the data together as quickly as we can. I cannot give a precise date for the availability of that information. You may have thought that I was being evasive by saying that it will be available in the spring.

I did not use the word evasive and I would not make that charge. We all want to pin down the information, because we all seek the same aim. I am partly reassured by your answer, Mr Feeley.

Many fishermen from the west coast are concerned that the closures in the North sea, along with other measures, will lead fishermen who are inhibited by the closures to turn to the west. Producer organisations with west coast quotas will obviously be fishing off the west coast, rather than in the North sea. Do you know how many boats that have traditionally fished in the North sea will turn to the west and how many boats have west coast quotas?

I do not have that information with me.

Perhaps you could obtain it.

It is available to us and I could obtain it.

We could let the committee have that information. We need to consider the possible impact of the closures on the west coast industry.

Does not that re-emphasise the case for a temporary tie-up of boats in the affected areas?

We do not think that tie-ups are the way forward.

I believe that the Catalan fleet is presently laid up at European expense. Is that wrong?

I would not like to comment because I do not know the detail of what the Catalans are doing.

The Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association is also concerned about a matter that I raised on 18 January. The industry has been promised sight of a draft statutory instrument that will introduce scallop technical measures. The association has been told that the draft instrument was held up first by the Scottish Executive legal department and is now being held up by MAFF. In the debate on 18 January, I asked what the current position was and when the delay would end and progress would be made. Could you answer those questions this afternoon?

I will address your point about vessels that are registered in north-east ports fishing against west of Scotland quotas. They have always done so, so there is no difference. They will be limited in the extent to which they can do so by the fact that the west of Scotland whitefish quotas are much reduced. We are aware of the risk of displacement but we believe that it is not as severe as one might imagine.

We have had scallop technical conservation measures in mind for some time and we want to move quickly to consultation on them. We believe that there is an appetite for such measures in the industry. The measures were held up at MAFF because we were trying to obtain a definition of a "French dredge". French dredges are instruments that are used to take scallops, mainly in fisheries off the south-east coast of England. That work has been superseded by a recent decision to ban French dredges altogether, which should enable us to move with some haste on scallop technical conservation measures. I fear that Fergus Ewing will ask me again when that will happen. I think that we should be in a position to consult in two to three weeks' time.

I am pleased that those who have banned the French dredge have saved the blushes of the parliamentary draftsmen in MAFF.

Why, if decommissioning has not been ruled out, is there no reference to the possibility of a decommissioning scheme in "Working Together for Scotland: A Programme for Government", which was announced yesterday?

Given that we are at the early stage of considering the impact of decommissioning, we could not be expected to include it as a definite commitment in the programme for government. I repeat that I am having talks with the fishermen, as I undertook to do following the outcome of negotiations on the cod recovery plan. I will meet the fishermen this afternoon and we will make a start on that process. It is unreasonable to expect a commitment on that in the programme for government at such an early stage in the process.

I assure Fergus Ewing that whatever appears in the programme for government does not necessarily affect the discussions that we are holding. I repeat—I am sure that Fergus Ewing will be delighted to hear me say this—that nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in.

I am delighted to hear that although decommissioning has not been ruled in in the programme for government, it has not been ruled out—it may have been included in invisible ink. I am assured that any effective decommissioning scheme must be carefully considered. Indeed, Richard Lochhead presaged that in his question.

If the minister's discussion with the representative bodies, including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association and others, results in their calling unanimously for a decommissioning scheme, will they have her backing?

Fergus, you can ask me that until you are blue in the face, but I cannot back any particular plan at this stage. We do not have a particular plan on the table. I can only reiterate that we have asked the fishermen's organisations to present ideas supported by details and statistics, and we will do so ourselves. We are holding an initial meeting this afternoon and we will continue to work with those organisations to ensure that we have a long-term, viable fishing industry.

I am aware that the minister wants to get away because she has a meeting with fishermen's leaders today. Are there any more questions?

Will the minister propose total allowable catches for the deep water species that do not have them, so that we will avoid overfishing of those species if they are affected by diversion?

As Mr McGrigor knows, that issue will come up again next year and discussions will be held this year.

Is that thinking ahead towards—

Thinking is going on. TACs are not necessarily the only option, although clearly we have to consider protecting the deep water species. We know very little about those species and at the December council we were very concerned that no hurried decisions should be made. That is why the issue has been put back—so that we can continue to discuss it.

Mr Feeley said that it was decided not to discuss the plan for the west coast. Who decided that?

There was a discussion among member states in Brussels last week. I gave the views of the Scottish industry leaders—who were present—on the best approach. There was agreement among the member states, and between the Executive and the industry, that the best course of action was to set consideration of the west of Scotland to one side until the North sea discussions had been concluded and then, as I said earlier, to pick it up as a matter of some urgency.

Was it considered that that course of action would probably cause a diversion on to the stocks of another area?

We recognised that risk, but we thought that discussions that were targeted at the needs of the west of Scotland were likely to be more beneficial than having what is, after all, a much larger fishery in the North sea dominating the discussions of what should happen in the west of Scotland. The risk was that the prescription for the North sea would not necessarily be the best for the west of Scotland.

I thank the minister for coming along once again. I also thank her officials.