Fisheries Council
I welcome Jamie McGrigor.
Tavish Scott has produced a paper on the forthcoming European Fisheries Council. I remind the committee that we asked Tavish to consider the problem, to talk to the industry and to report on what the view of this committee should be in relation to the Fisheries Council, which is meeting on 16 and 17 December. The idea is that we send the report to John Home Robertson before he goes to the council meeting and then invite him to a committee meeting in the new year so that we can hear what was discussed and agreed to in Brussels.
I thank Tavish for an excellent piece of work, which he has done in a short time, and ask him to give his presentation to the committee, after which we will consider his recommendations.
Thank you. I am grateful to all the organisations that helped me, and in particular to the Scottish Parliament information centre and Stephen Imrie. I commend to you all the brief that was provided by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in advance of tomorrow afternoon's debate, and which I think members will have received by now.
There are aspects of this issue that are pretty technical and, it must be said, quite dry, so I will have to test you all individually afterwards. [Laughter.] Suffice it to say that I have tried to write my report in a way that is understandable and not too technical. As I have an agricultural background, on these issues I am as much a layman and am on as steep a learning curve as the rest of the committee.
One of the key points to be made is that the structure and the—as it were—ritualistic way in which the process takes place are in need of reform. They will not be reformed at the next Fisheries Council, but we can ask some of the wider questions of the minister when he—I hope—appears early in the new year; I might highlight those questions at a later date.
The way that the system works is that we ask fishing businesses to plan their investment programme on the basis of a decision that is made every December. There cannot be many businesses in the wider economic sphere that have to plan on such a basis, which is why it is important that the system changes. In other words, the system must change from one that creates a very short-term business environment, to one that creates a medium and long-term environment. We should strive to introduce such a change to the system.
The other aspect of this—which I know everyone who has been involved in fishing over a period of time feels strongly about—is that fishermen themselves are not involved in the assessment of how their industry should be taken forward. That is possibly unique in a regulated industry. It comes down to how the industry is managed and regulated. However, that decisions are made about people's lives when those people cannot—other than through the political process—influence day-to-day decisions, is an indictment of the current system. There is no doubt that we will want to introduce the involvement of fishermen into the process.
My final general point concerns regional management. Getting people in the industry involved in the day-to-day processes is tied to the desire in all political parties for regional management of fisheries. Sea areas would be divided up and those who fished the areas would have a greater say in what happened there in terms of conservation.
At the forthcoming Fisheries Council, the main point to make will be about haddock—a predominantly Scottish species that is caught by the Scottish white fish fleet. This year, there has been a large uptake of young haddock, and conservation measures that are endorsed by fishing organisations could be introduced to allow those small fish to escape. In other words, the industry would catch sizeable, marketable, high-value fish to satisfy the needs of the consumer, but the small fish would be allowed to escape.
I wanted to bring two net size samples with me today, but I was not allowed to swipe them from the boat that I was on in Lerwick on Friday. Without the samples it is difficult to describe the difference between them, but it is basically the difference between a diamond mesh and a square mesh. When they are dragged through the water, one of them closes up and the small fish cannot escape, but the other—the square mesh—allows the small fish to escape. The size of the square is obviously important. The Press and Journal has reported that matter accurately in the past few days and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is striving for a conservation regime that takes account of those factors. For haddock, the introduction of technical conservation measures is a great step forward, and I would argue that the industry in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole can lead Europe in that process.
The other recommendations are pretty self-explanatory. Most people would take points 20 and 21 as read. Point 22 is about technical conservation measures. If there is one message that I want to get across, it is that the desire for and drive towards technical conservation measures are possibly the most important thing that the committee can promote. I hope that we can encourage the minister and his civil servants to work with the industry to achieve that goal. Point 22 stresses the importance of creating a long-term, sustainable industry, and points 23 and 24 follow on from that.
The wider points are included in the brief that has been provided by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which I commend to you all.
Thank you very much, Tavish. That was excellent and concise.
I endorse all the points in that excellent report. I have been privy to the spectacle of the fishing bodies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sitting in a hotel room hoping for crumbs of information, as their fate was settled in a room where the Fisheries Council was meeting. To be fair, the council did give them crumbs of information as progress was made, but their helplessness was pathetic. I endorse the idea that the fishermen should be involved.
The roll-over makes a great deal of sense. The pathos of what I have described arose from the fishing bodies' fate being decided almost like a lottery every December, so no plans could be made as to the size of boats that were needed or whether boats should be replaced. That was a nonsense, and the roll-over should improve the situation.
Nobody likes the idea of discards, or throwing fish back into the sea. The public do not like it—it is a very unpopular concept. However, it happens because we make rules about the size of fish that we can market. Various television companies have made films showing that small fish are regularly sold in all the stores in Madrid. That is against the law, but nothing is done about it.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation made a wonderful underwater film proving what Tavish has said about the square mesh panel: that the squares do not close and the small fish get through. The diamond mesh closes, preventing the small fish from escaping. That expensive video from the SFF was shown in my presence to the Fisheries Council, and the European Commission ignored it. It did not seem to be interested in finding a sensible way of dealing with discards. If we let the small fish escape, they will grow into bigger fish—that is in everybody's interests.
The last act of my dear colleague Allan Maccartney was to be rapporteur on regional management. He died when he had almost finished producing his report, which was then taken on by an Irish member called Pat the Cope Gallagher, and unanimously passed by the Committee on Fisheries. That is unusual, because all the different countries and interests are represented on that committee. It would be wonderful if fishermen could be more involved in the process, as it affects their livelihood.
I, too, think that the report is excellent. It would be a good idea for the Scottish fisheries sector to give a lead. I like that thought, because fishing is so important to Scotland.
Efforts must be made to keep the water off our west coast a pristine environment. We know what has happened to scallops, although I do not see that mentioned in Tavish Scott's report. The report covers most other matters very well.
The only other issue that I would like to raise is that of cod numbers. Nobody seems to know why the cod stocks have fallen to the current levels; according to the fishermen, they have just disappeared. Scientific research should be carried out to discover what has happened to the valuable cod stocks.
This paper was useful not only in providing background information, but in its recommendations. It is interesting that, although 62 per cent of the value of UK sea fish landings in 1998 were made at Scottish ports and 92 per cent of aquaculture products for sale emanated from Scotland, Scotland has only 40 per cent of sea-fish-processing employment in the UK. That might not be within the remit of this committee, but it is an area of weakness. Would Tavish Scott like to comment on that? Does he think that it would be useful if we were to ask the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee to consider how we can maximise the benefits of landings in Scotland for downstream industry?
I endorse that.
This report is specifically for the meeting that is to take place on 16 and 17 December. What are you suggesting that we ask the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to do, Bruce?
It is a wider point. I would like the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee to bring forward suggestions about how we can better maximise the downstream benefits for industries associated with fish landings.
We cannot determine the work load of another committee. However, if we agree on this, we can send copies of the report to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and to the Rural Affairs Committee, drawing their attention to paragraph 7. It is for those committees to decide how they wish to take this issue forward.
If I may speak on behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, there are—I hope that my colleague Allan Wilson will agree—only two things in the report that would interest that committee. First, there is the potential for boosting downstream activity in industries such as fish processing. Secondly, if the Rural Affairs Committee endorses a recommendation on mesh size, that will have financial and all sorts of other implications. Perhaps we should get into the habit of noting matters that may be of interest, rather than sending whole reports. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is up to its ears in reports.
The report would go to the convener, who would determine what goes on to the agenda. We would want the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to examine paragraph 7 in particular. It would be for that committee to decide how it took the matter forward.
This is a value-added issue, which the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee would be happy to consider.
Are there any other comments on Tavish Scott's report?
Does the report cover the renewal of the fleet?
I have not covered that issue or the issue of scallops because the report is about the forthcoming Fisheries Council and I am not aware that either of those items are on the agenda for that meeting. I suggest respectfully that those issues should be dealt with by the Rural Affairs Committee.
We endorse the report and agree to send it to John Home Robertson. We will ask him to report back to the committee early in the new year. Thanks to Tavish for an excellent piece of work.
We should put him up for a plain English award.
Yes.