Subordinate Legislation
Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/44)
I welcome everybody back to the committee. Under agenda item 2, we have a couple of statutory instruments. The first is an order that is subject to the negative procedure. I welcome again the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, and his officials. Several members are visiting the committee for this agenda item.
I bring to members' attention the Subordinate Legislation Committee's comments on the order, which have been circulated. Members will note that that committee picked up several minor drafting errors, which the Executive has undertaken to correct in March, when it is expected that amending regulations will be required.
The committee received copies of the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the order only this week. I understand that the RIA had been completed when the order was laid, but copies of it did not accompany the order and were not sent to members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee or of our committee. That is a clear breach of the Executive's guidance. I have had to raise such an issue with the minister before. It is unacceptable that we did not receive the RIA at the right time. I record my deep disappointment that that has happened again.
We will now consider the motion lodged by Richard Lochhead, which invites the committee to recommend to the Parliament that nothing further should be done under the order.
I suggest that at the outset we have a question-and-answer session to clarify technical matters and to enable explanations of detail, while the officials are at the table with the minister. The minister will be able to participate in the debate on the motion that Richard Lochhead has lodged, but the officials will not. When points of clarification have been dealt with, we will move to a formal debate. I will invite the minister to make some opening remarks and take points of clarification and explanation before we move formally to the debate, when I will invite Richard Lochhead to move his motion. As members are clear about how the session will be structured, I invite the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to make some opening remarks.
I take the point that was made earlier about the late availability of the RIA. I raised the issue with officials, who explained that it resulted from the fact that they are working incredibly hard to deal with all the impositions that have been placed on them since the December fisheries council. I apologise to the committee for the late availability of the RIA—no slight was intended to the convener or to members.
It will be helpful—not least to counter some of the media hyperbole that was flying about this morning—if I make a few introductory points about the Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/44). I understand the inclination of some to suggest that the order should be annulled—not least because last year the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, said that the previous European measure, the now infamous annex XVII, was deeply flawed. This year's European Union measure, annex V, is an improvement, but I accept that it is neither perfect nor popular.
However, I argue that popularity is not the measure of what is right. Effort control is very unpopular, but it is essential to the long-term viability and prosperity of the white-fish sector and associated fishing communities—the paramount issue, in my view. That is why in December we negotiated a package of measures that combined more effective and equitable controls with more generous total allowable catches and quotas on key Scottish stocks such as haddock and prawns. In my view, turning our back on effort control is not a viable policy option. It is not a question of my trying to convince the partnership members of this committee to force through a measure—I know that members share my view.
The December deal was a package. I understand the linkages that are now being made between the days-at-sea provisions and the permit arrangements that were introduced for directed haddock fishing. I am pleased to tell the committee today—because I have been approached by members—that I have agreed to add Whitehills, Wick, Macduff and Arbroath to the list of ports designated for haddock landings.
Annex V is more equitable and effective than annex XVII was. Its scope has been extended to include geographical areas that were previously exempt, such as western waters and the eastern channel. It begins to bite more effectively in fisheries in the southern North sea and in industrial fisheries. It is simpler to enforce effectively, especially in the North sea. I respectfully suggest that a decision to annul our associated Scottish order would be a big mistake—for a number of reasons.
First, annex V has direct effect. Even if we were not to introduce domestic legislation setting out detailed implementation and enforcement provisions, fishermen would be affected by the measures—notably, the days-at-sea limits set out in table 1 of annex V. Failure to agree domestic—that is to say, Scottish—legislation will not mean that the EU measures will not apply to our fishermen. They have direct effect through section 30(1) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1981.
Secondly, the Scotland Act 1998 makes specific provision that requires the Scottish Executive to act compatibly with Community law. As a matter of law, the Executive cannot act in a manner that is incompatible with Community law. We cannot ignore or fail to enforce annex V.
Thirdly, and perhaps more persuasively, the order specifies a number of flexibilities that depend for their effect on the order rather than on annex V. In particular, the order provides for a choice of management periods of up to 11 months. That offers fishermen more flexibility to manage their fishing operations over that period. The order also provides for the transfer of days between vessels and it provides for derogations that release more than 320 Scottish vessels from restrictions in their days at sea when using certain fishing gear. Those important flexibilities, which are available to Scottish fishermen so that they can better manage their effort control measures, would be lost if the order were annulled.
I meet fishermen and their representative organisations regularly so I understand why they dislike effort controls. I also accept that European bureaucracy does not produce the simplest and best regulations. However, we need to make effort controls work if we are to be serious about sustainable development in our fisheries. Consequently, we require the domestic order that is before us if we are to put the most flexible interpretation on annex V. The order helps our fishermen to manage some of the more restrictive provisions in annex V.
I hope that my explanation of our overall position on why the order should not be annulled is helpful. I am happy to answer any questions that might arise.
I thank the minister for those opening remarks. I suspect that I am not alone in having received many representations about the detail, which I certainly want to test out, but I will let Maureen Macmillan speak first.
As the convener said, we have received many representations both from individual fishermen and from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The two letters that we received from the SFF each raised points that need to be clarified. The first letter, which was sent to us at the beginning of February, asserted that the smaller their mesh size, the more days at sea vessels are allowed. That assertion was not qualified in any way, so I presume that it refers to prawn fishing, for which the bycatch is less than 5 per cent. Will the minister confirm whether that is an anomaly, or is it perhaps a misleading statistic that the SFF has provided?
In the second letter, the SFF tells us that the restrictions would exclude dredgers, creelers and the pelagic sector from the cod protection areas. That has caused quite a lot of alarm among those fishermen. Is there any basis for that alarm? The SFF says that the information that it has provided is the opinion of several experts that it has consulted, although it does not name those experts. Will the minister provide some reassurance on those two points?
I have clarified with Richard Lochhead when I intend to allow him to move the motion to annul, which the Parliament's standing orders provide up to 90 minutes to debate. At the moment, we are dealing only with points of clarification for the minister or his officials. Richard Lochhead was concerned that he would not be able to speak in this part of the meeting, but any member is allowed to ask a point of clarification. Once we have started our formal 90-minute debate, the officials will not be able to participate.
I now see a forest of hands. I will let Rob Gibson speak first and I will note down who else wants to speak.
Can the minister and his team explain why the new restrictions—the cod protection zone and the haddock permit, which is required for catching the additional haddock quota that was awarded—apply only to Scottish vessels and not to foreign vessels that fish the same waters for the same stocks? Why was that agreed and what effect will it have on those stocks?
Will the minister respond to those two sets of points of clarification? We will then keep working round so that we do not lose track of people's comments.
The restrictions to which Rob Gibson referred have nothing to do with days at sea but are concerned with haddock management, about which I will say a little more later. The fact is that the UK fleet catches by far and away the majority of the haddock that is caught in the area of sea in question.
I am happy to confirm for Maureen Macmillan that we have moved to amend the order to make it absolutely clear and to remove any dubiety about whether it applies to unregulated gear. It was always our interpretation that the order as laid applied only to regulated gear. However, I understand the need for clarity in what is a complex area of management so, lest there be any doubt, we will amend the order so that there is no question that scallop fishermen, creelers and such like will be covered by its provisions. I understand that the other issues that have been raised by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have likewise been answered satisfactorily.
I have three specific questions. Will the minister explain how the 15 days was calculated in the first place? What assessment was made of the economic viability for the industry of being able to fish for 15 days a month? I also want to raise a point about the days that will not count towards the 15 days—that is, days that could be lost because of the weather or rescue operations. I understand that this year, such days will be counted against the 15 days, whereas they would not have been previously. Why has that change been made? Does it not significantly affect the 15-day rule as it stands?
Those are good questions and we have discussed them with the SFF directly. My officials have written to the SFF—at the organisation's request—with a detailed explanation of the calculations and how the Commission came to the view that our fleet should get the five extra days. In 2003, the basic allocation for white-fish gear, which included the anticipated effect of the 2003-04 scheme, was nine days plus six days, of which only four days took account of decommissioning; the remaining two days were then awarded to all member states to aid adjustments to be made for the transition into the new effort control regime.
The calculation is essentially that decommissioned vessels accounted for one third of our fishing effort on cod by vessels using 100mm-plus gear—that is roughly half the fishing effort of the remaining fleet. Our white-fish fishermen have therefore been awarded 15 days rather than 10 days. That includes an additional 15 days and the order gives them the flexibility to fish those additional 15 days per month over an 11-month period rather than confining them to 15 days per month. They are using that flexibility to their advantage.
On the force majeure provisions, as I have said at previous committee meetings and elsewhere in public, the Executive has always said that it will consider requests—as it did last year—to discount days on the basis of special circumstances, such as a vessel going to the aid of a stricken vessel. We will not put our Scottish fishing fleet in danger. Officials dealt with more than 200 such requests in 2003. Under the current regime, we are already dealing with several similar cases that have added to vessels' days at sea; the number is already into double figures. I understand that the explicit provisions for discounting days for reasons of force majeure are to be reinstated in annex V.
So someone who goes to save someone else would get in touch retrospectively to make sure that their time was accounted for. That will now be provided for through this order.
Yes—it was always going to be; that has always been the case.
Many in the fishing community have raised that concern.
The fleet raised it with me and we told them that we would continue the practice. As I said, there were 200 such instances last year, and we are already into double figures for this year. Ewen Milligan might be able to add something to that.
Ewen Milligan (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
As the minister said, we have dealt previously—in 2000 and in 2003—with more than 200 instances in which, for example, fishermen have gone to assist a stricken vessel that has broken down and have been involved in towing that vessel back. In 2003, instances of adverse weather meant that fishermen were involved in bringing injured crewmen back to port. There were also cases of fishermen simply wanting to move their vessel from port to port without those days being counted. We have made it clear in the guidance that has been issued to the industry that, notwithstanding the lack of any formal force majeure provisions in annex V, we will continue that policy.
If I understand your argument, minister, it would be a mistake to support Richard Lochhead's attempt to block the order, on the basis that what we have at the moment is a more flexible interpretation of annex V. It strikes me that that is a bit like being between the devil and the deep blue sea. What you appear to be saying is, "Trust us. We will somehow manage to work our way, to some extent, round the regulation to make things slightly more flexible for Scottish fishermen, but if you go ahead and block the order you will be faced with the full wrath of the original European legislation." Is that what you are saying to us?
I am saying that, plus a wee bit more. It would be worse to annul the order, because that would take us back to a less favourable and more inequitable regime.
Just a second. I think that we are verging on entering the debate on the order. Ted Brocklebank's point would be a valid point to raise in the argument that we will have shortly.
I see. I thought that I was raising a technical point that the minister could explain to us in further detail, because I was not convinced by what he said first time round. I spoke to his officials yesterday, but I still find it slightly difficult to get my head round how his more flexible approach, which he believes will work, will come into force. I do not know how that will work.
Minister, could you try to stick to making a technical-sounding answer? Please make it brief. I do not want us to get into an argument about why people should or should not support the motion to annul at this point. At this stage, our discussion should really be about the technical points and what would happen, technically, if we were to annul the order.
Let me give an example. The order allows for more flexible management, as I have already said, for the 15 days at sea per month to be managed over an 11-month period rather than in any given one-month period.
Right. That is a matter of judgment for members to come back to. Next on my list is Stewart Stevenson, who has some questions.
They are indeed questions and they involve arithmetic, minister, so be ready to write.
With your indulgence, convener, I welcome the good news for Whitehills and Macduff in my constituency—which I am sure Wick and Arbroath will be equally pleased to hear—for which I thank the minister and Ewen Milligan.
I turn now to my questions. First, my calculations suggest that we have lost 11,340 vessel days through the decommissioning of 67 vessels, each of which had 15 days per month over 12 months last year. Does the minister agree that that is the reduction in vessel fishing days, or does he wish to express it as a percentage reduction in vessel capacity unit days or in some other way? What is his view of the reduction in the ability to fish that would be brought about by the EU decisions and by the order?
Secondly, the minister referred to the five extra days that are being provided this year, over and above the 10 days—that has arisen because of the recent decommissioning of 67 vessels. He made reference to the previous year's 15 days being nine plus four plus two. Does he accept that we cannot understand why the decommissioning in the previous year is not carried forward into the present year as additional days since, as far as I understand, the vessels that were decommissioned more than a year ago remain decommissioned? Perhaps he could explain the arithmetic and the logic of that.
Finally, the minister said in his opening remarks that the Executive must conform to Community law. He will be aware that the fishermen argue that the council's decisions are discriminatory—I understand that they are in the process of taking legal action to test that assertion. If Community law is incompetently drafted and illegally enforced, is it legally necessary for the Scottish Executive to conform to it?
I said that we had written to the SFF, at its request, to explain how the complex calculations that came from the Commission in December were done. I am quite happy to write directly to Stewart Stevenson as well with those details.
I think that Stewart Stevenson's question was about the total reduction and decommissioned vessels. Expressed in million kilowatt days, the reduction amounts to 31.7 per cent, through decommissioning and other capacity removal; that leaves the effort by the remaining fleet at 22,858 million kilowatt days, which is a reduction from 33,456 million kilowatt days in trips catching cod in 2001. I am happy to give Stewart Stevenson all the detail on the issue that I have given to the SFF.
As Stewart Stevenson knows—it is a matter on which I suspect that we agree—we favour a kilowatt hours/days method of addressing effort limitation. We are pursuing the matter with the Commission and we have secured an agreement to review the situation mid-year in relation to a prospective move to a kilowatt-day approach, which we believe to be better than the days-at-sea approach, even with the added flexibilities that we are introducing through the order.
On the legality of the decisions, as I said in my opening statement, the so-called discrimination to which Stewart Stevenson refers relates not to days at sea but to haddock management. I understood from my discussions with the SFF that it was not pursuing its legal challenge to that aspect of the December council deal because it agreed with me that our on-going discussions with the Commission—on a review of the cod recovery zone and its dimensions, the introduction of a prospective haddock box and its dimensions, and on the proportion of haddock to be caught within that zone—was a better approach. I think that Stewart Stevenson knows that my officials have been working in concert with the industry in making representations to the Commission in pursuance of that objective. There is, as I say, no question of members being asked to support measures that are discriminatory or contrary to European law—quite the opposite, in so far as annex V would have direct effect even if the order were annulled.
I have a brief point of clarification that relates directly to what the minister has said. Does the calculation of a 31.7 per cent reduction in kilowatt days include decommissioning over two years or only the most recent year's decommissioning? Is that where the five additional days come from?
As I think I just said—perhaps not in response to Stewart Stevenson's question but in response to Roseanna Cunningham's—the calculation relates to both years
As there are no further points of clarification, we now move on to the formal debate. I invite Richard Lochhead to speak to and move motion S2M-937.
I welcome the minister's statement on the ports issue, which my SNP colleagues and I have raised on numerous occasions in recent weeks. That is one step forward, which we all welcome.
I am sure that committee members will have welcomed today's headlines that the Arbroath smokie has been offered official protection by the European Union. Of course, the Arbroath smokie depends upon haddock and the motion gives the committee the opportunity to protect the future of the white-fish sector in Scotland and the future of white-fish stocks on which products such as the Arbroath smokie depend.
There are two reasons why I seek the committee's support for my motion. First, the Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/44) implements the dreadful, discriminatory, anti-conservation and unworkable deal that was signed in December by the Scottish and UK ministers in Brussels.
Secondly, the order is flawed and has a number of errors, primarily as a result of the failure of the Executive to formally consult the fishing industry on the order. The Executive confirmed that in the note that accompanies the order.
My aim is simply to urge the committee to reject the order and to ask ministers to replace it with one on which they have consulted the industry, that guarantees safety at sea and that reflects the changes in the deal that are essential to protect the future of the fishing industry in Scotland. Even ministers now accept that fishing communities cannot be expected to live with the deal as it currently stands.
The crux of the issue is that the December deal gave the Scottish fleet a bigger quota, but not the time or space at sea to catch it. The fleet has only 15 days per month at sea. That is exactly the same as was agreed in the previous year's deal. That is not enough to ensure the financial viability of the white-fish fleet.
The 15 days per month is the same as last year, despite the fact that there are fewer vessels in the seas and that stocks are healthier. There has been no reward whatsoever for the very painful decommissioning schemes that the white-fish fleet went through in recent years. The first scheme in 2001 led to the loss of 98 vessels from the white-fish fleet in Scotland. The 2003 scheme, which has recently come to a close, is set to remove 67 vessels from the white-fish fleet in Scotland. No other fleet in Europe has gone through that painful process.
As Stewart Stevenson said when speaking to the previous agenda item, that means that the Scottish fleet has 11,000 fewer days at sea in 2004 than it had in 2003, despite the fact that stocks are healthier. We are therefore in the ludicrous position that Europe allowed the Scottish fleet 11,000 more days at sea when stocks were much less healthy.
No one has adequately explained to the white-fish sector or the fishing industry how the days were calculated. I listened carefully to what the minister said a few moments ago, but we still cannot tell the difference between a political negotiation and a scientific calculation. There has been no adequate explanation as to how the days at sea were worked out for the Scottish fleet in relation to the impact on stocks. The Scottish fleet uses the biggest mesh in the North sea—120mm. The most conservation-minded fleet in the North sea took the biggest hit in the negotiations.
Another important factor that I ask the committee to bear in mind is that the fleet has lost the two pillars that allowed it to survive in 2003. The first pillar was the fact that, in its 15 days a month at sea, the fleet could go to those areas of the sea that were not covered by the restrictions. The second pillar was the aid package that was delivered by the Executive in 2003, which provided several million pounds-worth of aid to the fleet. That is no longer in place. The only change has been a huge step backwards for the white-fish fleet.
The new restrictions apply only to the Scottish fleet in the North sea, not to the other vessels that fish for the same stocks in exactly the same waters. Only the Scottish fleet has been subjected to the new restrictions, including the huge cod protection area that has been established, which includes the traditional haddock grounds. Similarly, the new haddock permit system applies only to Scottish vessels that want to fish for haddock outwith the cod protection zone. The new restrictions make it virtually impossible for the Scottish fleet to catch the haddock quota that it has been allocated in its traditional fishing grounds.
I ask all members to keep in mind, when they decide how to vote on my motion, the fact that the deal that was signed in December and that will remain in force if the committee passes the order today, is appalling in terms of fisheries conservation. First, the fact that the fleet has been given only 15 days a month at sea means that vessels will be tempted to target the most valuable species, which is cod. They will have no other choice if they want to survive economically. That means that, although the scheme was designed to protect cod, it will make matters worse for that species. Secondly, the haddock permit scheme is so complex and draconian that it will lead to fish being killed and thrown overboard despite the fact that the vessels that are doing that are within their quota and should be able to land the fish.
The crux of the issue is that the cod protection area takes in a huge swathe of the central and northern North sea. Only 20 per cent of the Scottish fleet's haddock quota can be caught in that zone, which means that 80 per cent of the haddock quota has to be caught outwith that zone. Leaving aside the fact that the main haddock grounds are within the zone, Scottish vessels that want to fish for 80 per cent of the quota have to apply for a haddock permit. In turn, that means that they are allowed only a 5 per cent cod bycatch outwith the cod protection zone.
If vessels that want to fish for haddock outwith the cod protection zone do not take a haddock permit, all the haddock that they catch count toward the 20 per cent of the quota that can be caught in the cod protection zone. No matter where the haddock are caught, they count towards the percentage from the cod protection zone, which will be closed to the haddock fishery as soon as the 20 per cent figure is reached.
Putting that aside, I give two illustrations of why the permit system will destroy not only jobs in Scotland, but the fish stocks that we all hope to protect.
The prawn fishermen in Fife are caught in a trap. They cannot apply for a permit to catch haddock outwith the cod protection area because they use mesh that is smaller than 100mm. That means that all of their haddock bycatch automatically counts towards the 20 per cent quota for the cod protection area, no matter where it is caught. A huge fishery is now closed to the prawn fishermen in Fife because they have exceeded the 20 per cent that they are supposed to catch in that area. That means that, when they visit their prawn grounds that fall within the cod protection area, if they catch any haddock as a bycatch—as they are bound to do—they have to throw the dead fish overboard. That is what they are instructed to do by this order. They are instructed to throw haddock overboard—dead—when they catch prawns, despite the fact they are next to haddock grounds.
The situation in Shetland is even worse. The e-mail that I received from Shetland fishermen last night clearly illustrates the problem facing them. This e-mail has to be read to be believed:
"The biggest problem for a Shetland boat taking a permit will be the limitation to have a by-catch of cod of no more than 5% at any time."
Before I proceed, I remind members that we are talking about areas outwith the cod protection area.
"If you were to take a permit and get a haul of cod during your first fishing operation you would have to dump the fish over the side or risk prosecution and the withdrawal of your permit for the remainder of the year. If you don't take a permit the opposite is the case and boats can fish where they like but will be restricted in the volume of haddock they can retain as they will be fishing the smaller percentage. The average cod catch within the Shetland fleet last year ranged … between 8 and 20%. To sum up we will be dumping cod if we take a permit or dumping haddock if we don't take … a permit. Either way we lose out."
That is the message from the Shetland fleet, which is facing bankruptcy if it sticks with the rules. If it sticks with the instructions from the European Union, which will be implemented in Scots law by the order, the Shetland fleet will be instructed to dump stock overboard.
The next key issue is protecting lives at sea. Safety at sea would be completely jeopardised by the draconian system that the order seeks to implement in Scots law. There is no provision whatsoever—whatsoever—in the order or in the European legislation that it seeks to implement in Scotland that provides for safety at sea. There is no provision that says that fleets will not be penalised in terms of days if they shelter from bad weather or answer distress calls. We have verbal assurances from the minister—as one of the other MSPs pointed out—but there is nothing in the legislation.
In fact, the situation is worse than it was last year. Paragraph 13 of the so-called annex XVII, which is the European regulation from which the order flows, states:
"A Member State shall not count against the days allocated to any of its vessels under paragraph 6 or paragraph 9 any days when the vessel has been absent from port but has been unable to fish due to exceptional circumstances including mechanical breakdown or adverse weather conditions. The Member State concerned shall provide justification to the Commission of any decisions taken on this basis."
The new annex V, which succeeds annex XVII, does not have that paragraph, so the order implements European legislation that risks Scottish lives at sea, and sends mixed messages to the white-fish fleet and to other fishermen at sea. I do not believe that the committee would want to support such a situation.
Last night, an Orkney boat landed in Aberdeen, having lost four days at sea through sheltering from bad weather. The vessel concerned sheltered next to an oil rig, called the minister's department, pointed out that the weather was appalling, and asked not to be penalised for the days. Witnesses from the oil rig were on hand to verify the state of the weather conditions. I have not spoken to the skipper directly, so this will have to be confirmed, but I was told this morning that the department's response was that it was not interested in his appeal.
I draw members' attention to Hamish McPherson's e-mail, which has been circulated to all committee members. His son is at sea. He said:
"I personally am going through a very traumatic time at home every time there is bad weather … I hate to use language like this, but there is going to be loss of life out there".
Surely the committee can reject the order and ask the minister to bring forward a replacement that guarantees safety at sea.
The order is flawed. I mentioned that it contains no guarantee of safety at sea. The letter and accompanying memo from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that have been circulated to committee members highlight the fact that, due to an error, fishermen are excluded or banned from fishing in some fisheries that were not supposed to be covered by the order. I believe that to be another consequence of the fact that there was no formal consultation with the industry prior to the order's being laid.
Let me make two final points. First, stocks are healthy. I have detailed the bizarre, complex and draconian measures that apply only to Scottish vessels in Scotland's traditional fishing grounds and not to foreign vessels that fish those same waters for the same stocks. Those measures are being implemented against the backdrop that haddock stocks are at a 30-year high and cod stocks are recovering. The cod quota that was given to the United Kingdom and Scotland was even rolled over.
Against that backdrop, despite the fact that there are fewer vessels at sea due to decommissioning, the situation today is worse than it was last year. As a consequence, the economic future for the fleet at sea and for the onshore sector is bleak, and lives are being put at risk at sea. It is not as if there are no fish in the North sea. The North sea is teeming with fish, but the restrictions that the minister wants the Scottish Parliament to endorse do not allow the fish stocks off our own shores to be fished by our own Scottish fleet, which has made the biggest sacrifice of any fleet in the extent to which it has adopted conservation and decommissioning measures in recent years.
I remind the committee that its duty is not to pass bad law. All members have the duty to listen to our communities and to ensure that we take on board their concerns and respond to them. If that means rejecting a bad law and replacing it with a good law, so be it. That is why the Parliament exists. Our fishing communities are watching the outcome of today's committee meeting because they want to know whether their MSPs will stand up for them. MSPs should do their job as parliamentarians by throwing out bad legislation that endangers the economic future of Scotland's fishing industry, puts lives at risk and—ironically—jeopardises the future of the fish stocks that the legislation is supposed to conserve.
I urge the committee to support our fishing communities by supporting my motion.
I move,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2004, (SSI 2004/44).
I will not support Richard Lochhead's motion. My decision not to do so has been far from automatic because I recognise the concerns of the fishing community and the issues that the fishermen have raised.
I cannot agree with Richard Lochhead's statement that the stocks are healthy. Cod is still causing concern. The numbers of haddock may be at an apparent 30-year high, but that is because of good recruitment in one year. If that is fished out, we could be back to square one, so I have on-going concerns about the fish stocks.
Having said that, I also have concerns about the poor conservation measures that we have instituted in the past. I know that the common fisheries policy has not had a particularly happy or successful history and that some of its conservation measures have not had the effect that was genuinely intended. As Richard Lochhead pointed out, things such as the discarding of fish are quite unacceptable. It would be nice if the European Commission would look at what happens in Iceland, where I understand there is a policy that anything that is caught must be landed.
It would also help us to know more about what is happening out there. There are moves to improve the science on which fisheries conservation is based. For example, it has been suggested that having observers on boats would clarify for us what boats are actually catching and what they can land.
I believe that we need to limit effort at the moment, so I look to the Executive for increased funding to support fishermen and fishing communities through these difficult times while stocks recover. The UK Government simply has not given enough money to support our fishing communities. I understand that a €37 billion fund of EU money is available for fisheries aid, but zero per cent of the aid that Scotland currently draws down from that is for socioeconomic aid and support. That is poor.
We ought to consider how we can support fishermen and fishing communities while stocks recover. After all, we have a history of paying farmers not to grow crops and paying landowners not to carry out developments in environmentally sensitive areas. Temporarily paying fishermen not to fish while stocks recover would be quite in line with that. I look to the Executive to take that forward. While we are in what I consider is a crisis of fish stocks—Richard Lochhead may disagree with me—fishermen and fishing communities must be sustained. I would rather that the pressure for supporting those communities fell on the Treasury rather than on the fish stocks.
I agree with the analysis of the overall situation that Richard Lochhead eloquently and persuasively outlined. I certainly agree with him that the deal that was struck in December of last year was a bad deal for Scottish fishermen.
Beyond that, I would draw attention to the minister's own words when he came to the chamber some time after that deal. He felt that he had got a deal, but that there were unintended consequences to that deal. That has been particularly difficult for fishermen to cope with. It was one thing being faced with what fishermen saw as a catastrophic deal in December, but to discover, three or four weeks later, that the minister himself had seen certain unintended consequences has contributed to the confusion over the agreement. We have heard about some of those unintended consequences this morning. We have heard about arguments over how the 15 days were arrived at, and whether or not accidents at sea, bad weather and so on—the examples that Richard Lochhead has graphically illustrated—are taken into account. I am not sure that any of us are convinced that fishermen will have those days recompensed if they go to the aid of a brother skipper who is in trouble.
As we have heard, there are arguments over the restricted areas for cod fishing, which are also restricted for haddock fishing. They are massive new areas. We were told that those were being considered within the flexible framework that the minister outlined. The hard fact is that we have no further information—that I am aware of—that there are major changes taking place to those restricted areas. I have sent a note to the minister on behalf of the Pittenweem fleet, which finds itself in the utterly ludicrous situation, because of its particular gearing, that it is not allowed to fish for prawns in its traditional grounds, in case it takes a bycatch.
The whole thing is a fair nonsense. Despite the minister's assurances, it is extremely difficult to see how, if we stick with the order, the minister and his colleagues will be able to produce—like pulling a rabbit out of a box—the more flexible system that he has described. I have yet to have that explained to my satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of the various fishing groups that have written to me and phoned me this week. None of them has any faith in the flexibility that the minister has outlined. Since all sectors of the industry appear to oppose the measure, I cannot see why we should take the minister's word rather than theirs.
Richard Lochhead spoke eloquently, and I will not repeat what he said. I will, however, develop one or two of the points that have arisen in the debate so far.
I preface my remarks by repeating what I have said in the chamber on various occasions. No one is more committed to conservation than the Scottish fishermen. They are committed in practice, through the sacrifices that they have made, but they are also committed in their basic philosophy, because they wish to hand to their sons and grandsons a rich inheritance that can be harvested from the sea. Let us not pretend that the fishermen are contrary to conservation. Let us examine the measure before us and see whether it helps future generations of fishermen in our fishing ports. I find it quite bizarre to hear the Scottish Green Party member, who represents an anti-European Union and pro-conservation party, speaking in favour of an EU measure that is anti-conservation. She seems to imply that a 30-year high on haddocks is not sufficient for us to consider that there is a healthy stock there. She points, with some reason, to the good fortune of one particular year's recruitment.
In that connection, to what extent is the minister taking account of the experiences of the Faroese and their Icelandic adviser, Jón Kristjásson, who will be well known to many members present and who takes a different approach to conservation, and a very successful one? That approach involves managing and encouraging fishing in particular ways.
I turn to the legislation and its practical effects. The Shetlanders, denied access to the haddocks stocks in the cod protection area, are fishing inshore in the spawning ground of the haddocks and destroying future generations of recruitment to the haddock stocks, because they are forced to do so.
On a point of order, convener.
I do not think that there is a point of order. I will let Stewart Stevenson finish his point and then hear yours.
Most of what Stewart Stevenson and others have said has got nothing to do with the order that is before the committee.
Political points are being made.
I am sure that the minister will respond appropriately when his opportunity comes.
We can see the practical effect of what is happening. We are in the unusual situation of debating legislation that is, in effect, in force. Normally, we would be looking forward to an unproven effect of legislation. In the case of this Scottish statutory instrument, which is subject to the negative procedure, we are looking backwards and considering whether the effects that we can see are so unhealthy for conservation and for our industry that we should reject it. We do not like being in that position in the sense that we are already being hurt, but it is an opportunity that is normally denied us.
Yesterday in Peterhead, for the first time in 15 years, not a single haddock, cod, whiting, flat fish, monkfish, coley or any other white fish was landed. To some extent, that is the effect of the 15-days rule and of the fact that fishermen have to choose carefully when they go to sea, which leads to irregularity in supply to the market. The long-term danger of the measures that we are discussing today is that the market for high quality Scottish haddocks will be displaced by foreign haddocks. Peterhead also has a thriving export industry that is being affected by the legislation.
We have to consider whether the measure is genuinely helpful to conservation. Do we know how much discards have risen since this year's smaller fleet started to operate under these draconian measures? They have certainly risen and rising discards of cod and haddocks is hardly a pro-conservation measure.
The committee has the opportunity to withdraw the instrument and we have the opportunity to propose a better instrument. More fundamentally, there has to be a better regime from Europe. This is an opportunity for the minister to indicate that he will be able to deliver something better—as he so frequently asserts that he can.
I have three other members lined up to speak: Karen Gillon, Rob Gibson and Alasdair Morrison. I will take Margaret Ewing as well. I am then going to let the minister speak and I will allow Richard Lochhead to wind up. If anyone else wants to respond to anything that is said during the remainder of the debate, I will come back to them.
I understand fully why someone who represents a fishing constituency would be very emotional about the issue and about the potential impact that it would have on constituents. I disagree with Richard Lochhead's assertion that we have a duty to represent those constituents: we have a duty to do what is right, not what we are driven towards by our emotions. We have to consider all the facts and determine the right thing to do.
Some of the statements that have been made today are slightly confusing. If Scottish fishermen are the most pro-conservation fishermen that can be imagined, why are our fish stocks in the state that they are in today? That is a genuine question that we need to ask ourselves. Clearly, our fish stock has been over-fished in the past.
The other question that needs to be asked is contradictory in nature. If we have spent money on and taken a lot of pain in decommissioning boats so that we can increase cod stocks in the long term, why give the extra days to existing boats so that they can fish the new stock? Surely that is a short-term answer to a long-term problem if we are unable to increase fish stocks.
Genuine questions need to be asked. I know that the minister suggested in his opening comments that fishermen will not be penalised if they stop to help a ship in distress—everyone who has written to us has raised that matter. I do not want to be involved in passing legislation that will put lives in danger and penalise those who stop to help those who are in distress. The minister needs to give the committee clarification of the Executive's position on that issue.
Many of us around the committee table tend to take what people tell us at face value, so if people are not telling us the whole truth, the minister has a duty to tell the committee what the truth is. I look forward to the minister's comments, which I will listen to prior to making my decision on the annulment motion.
In respect of the cod protection zone and the haddock permit system, I have yet to hear an explanation from the minister as to why only Scottish vessels—not the foreign vessels that fish the same waters for the same stocks—are affected. On that subject, the threat to a number of our fisheries comes from the part of the common fisheries policy that allows vessels from other nations to fish in a fishery that should be reserved to Scotland; indeed, some of us believe that it ought to be entirely managed and controlled by Scotland.
We have to recognise that the order does not deal with what we want to achieve in the long-term. It is another indicator, however, that the hand-to-mouth approach is disadvantaging more and more sectors of the fishery around Scotland. It is hard for people in Pentland House or Victoria Quay to put themselves in the position of fishermen in the small islands in the Shetlands—they visit those parts of the country rarely and do not understand the culture that requires that fishing be a part of the make-up of the economy of such areas.
It is not being over-emotional to say that the regulations that we are being asked to pass today include issues that are obviously contradictory. Richard Lochhead talked about Shetland fishermen moving inshore and catching younger fish. The average cod catch of the Shetland fleet has ranged between 8 and 20 per cent, which is quite close to the point at which, with a few minor tweaks, the catch could be seen to be conserving cod.
The Shetland fleet has only 20 vessels now; it has lost 40 per cent of its carrying capacity over the past couple of years. For its fishermen to say, "We will have to dump cod if we take a permit, or haddock if we do not", is a statement of desperation: they can see no way out. By passing such an order, the Government is presenting many remote communities with the threat of extinction of an important part of their economy. That is not emotion. It is fact.
I was in Shetland a fortnight ago and I saw what happened to a catch of small, immature haddock there; the market did not want it, because it wants prime fish, so the haddock were sent for fishmeal. However, the fishermen are still forced to fish in order to maintain their boats and pay off their debts. Far from creating a conservation situation, the order will, through its effects, attack the very stock that we will rely on mature fish in the future. I ask the minister to consider whether the order will serve the fleets in Scotland in any way. I refer specifically to the Shetland fleet because it is hard for people in Edinburgh to realise how important fishing is to communities such as Shetland. I am sure that if we were talking about a steel works or a shipyard in larger communities in the centre of Scotland, there would be many people in the public gallery wondering why ministers were so prepared to sacrifice an important part of our economy's future.
The Scottish Executive's "Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland: Progress Report 2004" shows that the five stocks in our area that are within safe biological limits have increased in size and are recovering, as has been said. That being the case, what encouragement will the minister give to the fishing fleets to ensure that they will have stocks in the future, without taking away the effort that must be maintained if there are to be any fishing fleets in small communities such as Shetland?
I will not support Richard Lochhead's motion and I will outline why. I listened to Richard Lochhead, to Ted Brocklebank from the Tory party and to Rob Gibson, who all damned the deal that was secured at the end of last year. However, none of them mentioned the simple fact that, as part of that deal, an additional £20 million-worth of fish stocks were secured. [Interruption.] Richard Lochhead can chuckle inanely at the back of the chamber, but that is a simple fact. There is the potential for catching an additional £20 million-worth of fish. That is a welcome element of the deal that was secured in Brussels at the end of last year.
I want to pick up on one of Rob Gibson's last points, when he made what was in my view an odious comparison between the situation that faces the fishing industry and fishing communities, with which ministers are dealing, and the situation of those who lived in former—I stress the word former—steel manufacturing and coal-mining communities. I assure Mr Gibson that the men and women in such communities who were affected by the closures of coal mines and the decimation of steel works did not receive £77 million over two or three years. I am no mathematician, but I reckon that, if the various aspects of the equation were factored in, hundreds of millions of pounds, rather than £77 million, would be due to former miners and steelworkers.
Effort control in all fisheries is necessary to protect the fishermen and the communities in which they live and work. Fishermen are hunters instinctively and the hunter, as we know, pursues his quarry relentlessly. However, as legislators, we must ensure that we protect both the hunter and the hunted. That is why we legislate as we have, and why we will continue to do so. As Karen Gillon said, our job as legislators is not to sit in the chamber and pursue favourable headlines that are here today and gone tomorrow. Our job is to act responsibly and to represent and protect fishermen and their communities.
The Parliament is a forum in which we can discuss and debate ideas such as the merits or demerits of public-private partnerships, the way we prioritise the roads structure over railways, hospitals or schools, or how we support the Gaelic language or crofters. That is all legitimate knock-about stuff on which different parties have different legislative or manifesto commitments. However, it really sticks in my craw when I hear members saying in the chamber and outside that Karen Gillon, Maureen Macmillan, Sarah Boyack, Nora Radcliffe, the minister and his officials and I come to the chamber to pass legislation that will put Scottish lives at risk. That is a ludicrous and outrageous assertion. I urge members who intend to make such charges to pause before doing so. Are they seriously saying that we as legislators—who belong to different parties—come to the chamber to create acts of Parliament and to agree to statutory instruments that will put the lives of fishermen who go to sea at risk? The charge that we endanger and sacrifice lives is scandalous. I hope that members will reflect on that.
The same charge was made when the committee debated scallop conservation some months ago. The spectre of unemployment was raised, as was the point that limiting the number of dredges that boats could tow would endanger fishermen's lives. That charge was wrong then and it is wrong today. Members should temper their language and consider seriously what they say. We saw what happened with the scallop industry last year: an armada of ships descended on the fishing grounds west and east of my constituency and plundered those grounds. A year's fishing was done in three weeks. Is that how we want to manage our scallop, prawn or white-fish fishing grounds? That is not the way sensible and mature legislators have to behave. Last autumn, we legislated in the face of fierce opposition, but it was the right thing to do. Today, the scallop stocks are being conserved, prices have increased and the men who go to sea have a good deal. Those men fish safely in dangerous waters and return to port with good catches, which means that the processors have structured and consistent work.
I genuinely applaud the three nationalists who have spoken for not urging fishermen to break the law. That is a welcome departure from the position of their leader, John Swinney. Stewart Stevenson said that fishermen are conservation minded—if only that were the case. As I said, fishermen are instinctively hunters; we have a duty to protect them from themselves and to protect the communities in which they live and work. If fishermen were conservation minded, there would be no need for laws to regulate fisheries and skippers would simply say, "Okay boys, we've caught enough for this month, let's head for port." However, that is not the situation—fishermen are instinctively hunters.
Our job is to legislate, which is why I will not support Richard Lochhead's motion. As the minister said in his short speech, a lot has been stated today that has absolutely no bearing on the subject that we are supposed to be debating.
My speech will be short and measured, particularly because I am slightly concerned about the condition that Alasdair Morrison appeared to be in when he made his speech, which was a rant. It is all very well to talk about the additional stocks that were allocated in the deal in December, but given that fishermen are denied the opportunity to harvest the benefits of that additional allocation, it is strange for Alasdair Morrison to say that everything is hunky-dory.
Karen Gillon and Alasdair Morrison spoke about emotion. Those of us who represent constituencies that are involved in fishing, which includes a huge number of members of the Scottish Parliament and members at Westminster, are talking about the economic facts of life in our communities. I have heard members such as Karen Gillon arguing strongly and with great passion about the impact of issues and events in her constituency.
As representatives of fishing and other communities, we have the right to speak strongly about the real concerns that people bring to us in our surgeries and through various lobbying representations. I speak as someone who has represented a fishing constituency for 15 years and I have seen what fishing communities have gone through every December as they have waited for the results of the fisheries council. I have seen the despair that that has been brought to those communities. There have been good years and there have been bad years, but I would say that last year's news was the worst. It is not just anger that is now seeping through the whole fishing community; a loss of confidence and despair is now in the hearts of all our communities.
I wish to pick up on some points that have been raised in the course of the debate, especially in what the minister said. Like other members, I welcome the four new ports. I am glad about that. It might be a consolation to many of the fishermen who will be attending Hugh Allen's memorial service this Saturday in Oban. The minister made a brief reference to industrial fishing, but I did not quite catch what he said about some development that will address the whole issue of industrial fishing.
The importance of the food chain in the North sea has been a hobby-horse of mine. At one time, the natural food chain was being denied to native species in the North sea because of the reduction in stock, which was caused by the practices of other countries.
The minister spoke a lot about flexibility, but the permits scheme is a bureaucratic nightmare. I have sat with skippers and gone through the process that they must observe to ensure that their permit is granted. I have been told what they can and cannot do, which ports they must report to and so on. The scheme is a bureaucratic nightmare that will use up the valuable time of skilled people.
Negotiations continue and the minister and his colleagues have found out that the devil is in the detail of the December agreement. We have heard about tweaking here and there, but when are we going to see a final package? We keep being told that everything will be agreed this week—but we then get into the next week and everything has not been agreed.
I agree with Ted Brocklebank: we are between the devil and the deep blue sea. A motion is before us, yet we are told that advances might be made that will make the deal more acceptable. The arguments that have been propounded by Richard Lochhead are important, and we need to see the full details before Parliament takes what will be a very important decision on the future of our fishing industry. I thoroughly recommend the arguments that he has put forward.
The important point is one that I sought to make in an intervention. Having been prevented from addressing some of the issues that arise from the proposed haddock management regime, I point out that most of what Richard Lochhead and other nationalist members have said has nothing whatever to do with the order that is before the committee today.
There is undoubtedly a place for political posturing in the Parliament, but I respectfully suggest that it is not in committees' earnest consideration of statutory instruments. Annex V, which the statutory instrument that is before us deals with, is nothing to do with the haddock management arrangements. It applies to all member states that are using the same gear as Scottish boats. The thrust of the argument—that the order is somehow discriminatory—is therefore simply fallacious.
As for the force majeure provisions and the important matter of safety at sea, the force majeure provisions in annex XVII were introduced only in April last year. The situation this year is no different. When Richard Lochhead abstained on the specific provisions last year, he did so in their absence. I could not be any clearer on safety at sea, and our position on force majeure is clearly stated in the guidance that we give to fishermen. Any discounting of days under circumstances of force majeure is done first by administrative provision, as has been explained. That happened on more than 200 occasions last year, and it has happened on a number of occasions—going into double figures—this year.
When and if the Commission makes amendments to annex V to reintroduce the force majeure provisions, we will duly implement them. Meanwhile, we will continue with the pre-existing administrative arrangement. There is no question of ministers or the committee jeopardising safety at sea.
The order relates to days at sea. As I said in response to the only nationalist who understands what is going on—Stewart Stevenson—some of the additional four days in 2003 were awarded in advance of decommissioning and were taken into account in the subsequent calculation. I am happy to write to Stewart Stevenson, as I will to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, to explain that process of calculation. I may not be happy with the outcome of the calculations at Commission level, but I am determined to be fully transparent in advising members how those calculations were made. We will agree that a kilowatt-day proposition is a better way to approach effort limitation in the protected area.
I could go on at great length about haddock management. As Stewart Stevenson and other members know, we have made representations in relation to the dimensions of the cod protection zone. We preferred a haddock management box. We want to ensure that the extra quota that we successfully secured at the December council is fished profitably by the Scottish fleet. Decoupling—dare I say it—was supported by the fleet as a way of getting round the proposed closure of the North sea fishery to protect the cod stock. Decoupling and the haddock management proposals that ensued are a direct result of that proposition. We have avoided closure of the North sea fishery, decoupled haddock from cod and we have additional quota for our hard-pressed fleet. Failure to reach agreement in the EU on the haddock management scheme would have led to even more draconian cutbacks in fishing effort, further decommissioning and less opportunity—financial or otherwise—for the Scottish fleet.
I do not want to say too much more on haddock management. People who are in the know will know that it is not relevant to the order and that it will change—I expect proposals to that effect to be produced shortly. Extra haddock and nephrops will be catchable in Scottish grounds as a consequence, and the extra revenue that ensues is implied by that statement and should not be dismissed with a chuckle by Richard Lochhead, because it will help to secure the financial and economic future not just of individual boats, but of the Scottish fleet and the sustainable fishing communities to which Eleanor Scott referred.
The order provides for a choice of management periods of up to 11 months, thereby offering fishermen more flexibility in management of their fishing operations, notwithstanding the disputes that we might have about whether 15 days are sufficient for that purpose. The order enables the transfer of days between vessels, which would not be possible otherwise. Critically, the order also introduces derogations that release more than 320 Scottish vessels from restrictions on their days at sea when they use certain fishing gears. The haddock management zone is applicable to Scottish or UK boats because we take more than 70 per cent of all haddock that is caught there. In the cod protection zone, the figure is more than 90 per cent. As a result, the haddock management proposals are necessary conservation measures that have enabled decoupling of haddock stocks from cod stocks.
The derogations on permitted days at sea, which committee members will decide on today, include vessels that in 2002 had a low bycatch of cod, sole or plaice. Those vessels will get extra days at sea; indeed, they will be able to fish under an unrestricted regime. For example, there will be unlimited days at sea for white fish and nephrops fishermen whose cod bycatch was less than 5 per cent in 2002. It is clear that the provisions are directly related to conservation of the all-important cod stock.
Indeed, that is what the committee is voting on today: additional flexibility for the fleet; the transfer of days between vessels; and derogations that protect cod stocks and release 320 Scottish fishing vessels from restrictions on days at sea. That—dare I say it—provides a better way forward for the sustainable management of our fishing resource, which in turn sustains the fishing communities that depend on it. I am determined to achieve that aim, irrespective of other members' political posturing.
I call Richard Lochhead to wind up on his motion.
I will be relatively brief, convener.
Karen Gillon admitted that she did not understand the issue. She has until 26 March to annul the instrument, which gives the committee plenty time to hear directly from the industry and to learn about some of the issues. I was slightly concerned when Karen Gillon said that she appreciated why those who represent fishing communities feel strongly about the issue. That somehow suggests that those who do not represent fishing communities do not necessarily have to have strong feelings about the matter. As parliamentarians, we all have to consider the national interest; that is what the public expect us to do.
I have no intention of rising to Alasdair Morrison's bait. It is quite clear that he wants to live in a world with no Opposition parties and politicians or—by the sound of things—fishing industry.
The key point that I want to address was made by Eleanor Scott. I appeal to Eleanor as a member of the Scottish Green Party to recognise that my motion is in the interests of fisheries conservation. Indeed, I would be perplexed if a Scottish Green Party member supported legislation that forced fishermen to discard healthy fish overboard when there are quotas for those fish. The situation is bizarre and anyone who is interested in promoting fisheries conservation should think about supporting the motion. I remind Eleanor Scott and the rest of the committee that we are talking about a cod recovery plan. Although the basis of the proposed legislation is to protect cod, it will block cod recovery.
In recent weeks, the minister has made lots of promises about amendments, changes and on-going discussions. However, although the deal was signed in Brussels 10 weeks ago, fishermen still do not have a clue what is happening. The regime came into force four weeks ago, which means that the fishermen have been asked to operate under a regime that is plagued by uncertainty and potential change but which, in the meantime, is threatening to make them bankrupt. It would be much more sensible for the committee to urge the minister to introduce new legislation that contains guarantees in black and white and reflects the appropriate changes that have been agreed in Europe.
I am sure that fishing leaders, who are following this debate from the gallery, expected more from committee members. However, we must be able to send them the message that we are listening to their case—after all, such an approach is partly why the Parliament was created five years ago. I remind the committee that we are not talking just about fishermen at sea; the debate is also being followed by the onshore sector, which includes fish processors, the many harbour businesses that are directly related to the fishing industry and everyone with a family member who relies on fishing. They point out, quite rightly, that politicians take the decisions and that they are the ones who are not delivering justice and are making life difficult for them.
The roof will not fall in if the committee rejects this order. Indeed, the purpose of having the ability to lodge motions of annulment is to annul SSIs. As a result, it is perfectly legitimate for the committee to pursue that option. All that would happen is that the minister would be forced to come back in a few days' time with a better order that would, I hope, protect the industry's future. The order that we are debating was not laid until 4 February; the roof did not fall in on us on 1, 2 or 3 February when the legislation was not in place to enforce a regime that had already been introduced. It would be perfectly possible to reject the order today.
The Parliament's job is to reject bad laws and replace them with good laws. The committee has an opportunity to do that. I hope that a Scottish Parliament committee will not support a piece of legislation that discriminates against Scotland and I urge the committee to support the motion.
On a point of order, convener.
I am told that we do not have points of order in committees. What do you want to say?
I would like clarification. Do we have until 23 March to discuss the matter?
We must report to the Parliament by 15 March. If the committee cannot conclude its consideration of the matter today, it could do so at a future meeting.
Would it be possible to hear evidence? I am in your hands in respect of whether it would be good to do so.
I seek members' views on that. I think that we should put the matter to a vote, but if there is an overwhelming urge to do something different—
On a point of clarification, convener. When would we vote?
I was about to take a vote, unless members want to delay consideration of the matter and to take extra evidence, which I would be against.
I suggest that the committee should allow a period for taking evidence so that we can hear directly from those concerned in the industry.
The question is, that the committee agrees to defer further consideration of the motion in order to take oral evidence from interested parties. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Proposal disagreed to.
The question is, that motion S2M-937, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
I thank the minister and his officials and invite them to withdraw. The minister will be invited back shortly for agenda item 4.
Registration of Establishments Keeping Laying Hens (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/27)
The next item on the agenda is consideration, under the negative procedure, of the Registration of Establishments Keeping Laying Hens (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/27). This is a new statutory instrument, although members will recall that we debated the topic last month. This is the revised statutory instrument that we requested.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the instrument and drawn our attention to a number of points. Extracts of that committee's report have been circulated to members. I have read the report and am not surprised that members have no comments to make on the instrument. There are conflicting legal views.
Are members content with the instrument and happy to make no recommendation to the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
Members have a couple of minutes in which to take a comfort break while we invite the minister back. We can catch our breath before we consider reform of the common agricultural policy. We will need to have a fairly focused discussion, as we are allowed to be in the chamber only until half past 1.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—