European Union Agriculture and Fisheries Council (December 2004)
Agenda item 5 is the December 2004 meeting of the European Union's agriculture and fisheries council. I welcome the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and thank him for coming. The committee agreed to take evidence from him on fisheries issues in advance of the council meeting later this month, at which I understand important decisions will be taken. The discussion is part of a series and is all the more topical because of a report that has been released this week, so this is an important time to discuss fisheries.
We do not have a detailed, finalised agenda for the council meeting, but we have a note from the Executive that lists the key issues that are expected to be considered. I invite Ross Finnie to introduce the official who accompanies him and to give us a brief opening statement, after which members will ask questions and make comments.
I am joined by David Wilson, who is the head of the fisheries and rural development group in my department.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the forthcoming talks. My department and I are in contact with the fishing industry, environmental groups, stakeholder groups and community groups throughout the year. Because tremendous importance has—rightly—been attached to the topic in recent weeks, we have intensified our consultation of those groups.
As our note says, the key issues that will be discussed at the council include the annual discussion on total allowable catches and the quota regime, any amendments to the effort control regime and what, if anything, we do about elements in last year's annex V, which included a special haddock permit scheme as part of the cod recovery plan.
The committee is well aware that the background is the state of stocks. Two important reports on that have been issued: the annual International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—report on its continuing investigation into the state of stocks and the annual review of the ICES report that the EU's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries—STECF—undertakes. That review examines some of the raw data and attempts to provide a broader picture.
From a Scottish perspective, the most crucial element is that cod stocks remain below their safe biological limits. We cannot get away from that fact. As we operate what is broadly known as a mixed fishery, that has serious ramifications in so far as latent risks exist of catching cod at the same time as we prosecute haddock, whiting, prawns and monkfish, some of which are other key stocks for the white-fish fleet.
The other message is that stocks of the pelagic fishery are in a reasonable state, but there has been some decline in terms of the scientific evidence, particularly in relation to mackerel, and there is clear guidance from the scientific reports that the total allowable catches and quotas for mackerel ought to be reduced.
On the other hand, the STECF report indicates that, on any view, some of the measures that have been put in place—to which Scotland has made a huge contribution over the past few years—are showing signs of having some effect, and that therefore there is no need for radical change or elaborate tightening up of the measures. The recommendation is rather that we should build on those measures.
On stocks other than cod, the haddock stock is in a good state, although again the scientific evidence points clearly to the fact that, even in relation to the single-year class of 1999 that supports that stock, it is now beyond its peak, and we have to be careful not simply to ramp up the quota in relation to that stock. There are, however, more encouraging movements, particularly in terms of nephrop and monkfish stocks. Therefore, although there are problems with mackerel stocks, the other pelagic species are in good order.
The deep-sea fisheries analysis is not encouraging, and we have to be careful about what we do. As part of taking that information as the baseline, we have continued as a department to meet fisher interests, environmental interests and community interests. In the past four or five weeks in particular we have had an extended range of visits. We are trying hard to construct a range of positions on which we are prepared for the December council meeting. I do not want to go into all the detail on that, because I wish to retain some of my negotiating tactics for handling the Commission.
One thing I will say is that in the next few hours we are expecting the release of a report from the Commission, the final details of which we have not seen. The report was prepared on the back of the raw data from ICES; that is unfortunate because it does not take and cannot have taken account of the STECF report. Perhaps it is just a question of timing. As we understand it—there have been extensive public leaks over the past 48 hours—the report is likely to suggest closing some areas. Regrettably, the scientific evidence for that is seriously queried by the STECF report, which is the Commission's own report. We have some difficulties with that proposition, which is why, from a negotiating stance, I am much more content to rest on the combination of the ICES and STECF reports.
We have had constructive engagement with all aspects of the fisheries. In Aberdeen, I was pleased to receive further community representations, as I also did in Peterhead and Banff. I shall be in Shetland on Monday, before I go off to the Commission for the final meetings later in December.
We have tried hard to put the talks into context. I believe that there are grounds for coming away from the talks with a management regime that allows our fisheries better to prosecute stocks that are not in danger. It will still protect the environmental considerations of the stocks that are under threat, but it will allow us to improve quotas in some areas where the scientific evidence clearly justifies it.
I am happy to take questions from the committee.
Thank you. I welcome to the committee Jamie McGrigor, who has joined us as a member who is interested in this topic.
First, I wish Ross Finnie and his team of officials the very best for the important weeks ahead, particularly as they negotiate on our behalf at the agriculture and fisheries council meeting towards the end of December. Like all rational politicians, I fully appreciate the sensible approach that has been taken by Executive ministers, whereby they do not spew forth details that would betray their negotiating position prior to council meetings. I am sure that we will be subject to the usual barrage of inane requests for such details prior to the negotiations in Brussels, but I am sure that the minister is more than capable of dealing with them.
I agree with the overview in relation to nephrops and monkfish and I am sure that Maureen Macmillan and Jamie McGrigor will make similar points on the prawn fisheries. We know that prawns are being harvested sustainably and, as the minister is aware, representatives of fishermen on the west coast are seeking an increase in the quota for nephrops. I hope that there will be such an increase, which can be argued for logically on the basis of sound science, and that we can secure a good deal for our fishermen and processors while keeping the objective of sustainability at the forefront of our thinking.
I also agree with Ross Finnie's comments about stakeholders and the way in which they are able to engage in the process. There are good, robust systems whereby fishermen's organisations and community interest groups can regularly feed in their concerns and highlight areas that they want to be dealt with. That is an excellent model of sensible dialogue and stakeholder involvement.
My plea on behalf of my constituency is simply that we must try to secure an increase in the nephrops stock. My other plea is to politicians from other political parties, particularly the toy-town nationalists who have a tendency to pop up in Brussels during the negotiations. They believe that they are supporting Scottish fishermen but their efforts in the past few years have done nothing to support fishermen and everything to destabilise delicate negotiations. I hope that they will remain tied up in Scotland, that they will not appear in Brussels and that they will engage sensibly and semi-coherently in the important negotiations. As I said, I wish the minister the very best.
Does the minister want to respond?
I welcome Alasdair Morrison's support. I hope that we have a rational and sensible approach to what are difficult negotiations. He is right on the specific issue of west of Scotland nephrops in that we, the Scottish industry and others have submitted scientific data that have largely been accepted—particularly the STECF report, which recommends an increase in the TAC—and we are in advanced discussions with the industry. If we obtain an increase, there will have to be some management arrangement so that we can adequately demonstrate to the Commission that we will manage to constrain certain elements of the effort in those areas and keep to the reported minimum bycatch levels, particularly in relation to cod.
Today, unlike some other members of the committee, I will try to earn my wages as a member of this committee and a member of the Parliament and hold the minister to account.
I am sure that the minister will agree that, for fishermen and others whose jobs depend on fishing, not to know whether they will have a livelihood from year to year is no way to run a fishing industry. Their Christmas is ruined every year by the way in which the negotiations are conducted annually in the run-up to Christmas and the new year. I am sure that he is also aware that many fishing communities feel as if they are standing at the edge of a cliff and that the EU and the common fisheries policy might be about to push them over the edge. That is the last thing that we want to happen at the talks next week, and I am sure that we all want to get behind the minister and make sure that he secures a good deal for Scotland's fishing communities.
I am sure that the minister shares the objective of securing access to the many stocks that are abundant, given all the doom and gloom that we have heard in recent months, which suggested that many stocks are not in good shape. Some stocks, such as haddock stocks, are at record-breaking levels and others, such as nephrops and pelagic stocks, are extremely healthy. They are valuable to the Scottish fishing community. Perhaps we can also use today to send out not only a positive message of hope to the fishing community but a message to Scotland and consumers that there are many healthy stocks that have been looked after by the fishing fleet and which can be fished.
As well as securing access to the abundant stocks, we also have to avoid any further draconian restrictions that are unfair and unjustified and which are imposed only on the Scottish fleet and not on other fleets that fish the same stocks in the same waters.
One of my biggest concerns relates to the proposal for closed areas. We all await the announcement that the minister said the Commission will be making today and that he understands will propose closed areas. Can he shed some light on the kind of closed areas that we are talking about? Are we talking about areas that will be closed permanently, areas that will be restricted or something else? What kind of closed areas would he support and what kind would he not support? Many people in the fishing communities, conservation lobbies and so on would agree that there is a case for real-time closures when juvenile stocks are caught in the nets and that, in some cases, there is a case for seasonal closures. However, such closures have to be thought out over a period of months and perhaps that is what we should be concentrating on just now. For that reason, will the minister give us an outline of what he understands the closed areas to be and which ones he would support?
I do not think that the present difficulties of the Scottish fishing fleet can be entirely attributed to the common fisheries policy; I think that science indicates that they can be attributed to the fact that cod stocks are below their safe biological limit. It is not sensible to ignore that fact, which is exacerbated by the fact that we operate a mixed fishery. Regardless of the scientific reports on haddock, nephrops and most of the pelagic stocks—with the exception of mackerel—we have to recognise that, in the commercial fleet, we have to have in place a management system that takes due cognisance of the science relating to cod.
In terms of measures that are imposed on the United Kingdom, we have to understand that our entitlement to prosecute fisheries in the North sea equates to 70 per cent—or more, depending on which stock we are talking about—of all the available white-fish fleet. There is no member state that has more than about 10 or 11 per cent, and one or two of those member states do not prosecute that fishery. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that, in a system that is coherent and controllable, the element that has in excess of 70 per cent of the quota is also the element that has to bear the biggest brunt of the management effort.
I am not entirely clear what the proposals will be with regard to closed areas. One of the suggestions that I am not at all happy about is that we define a wholly closed area based on the earlier ICES advice. That advice does not support the location, duration or the definition of a closed area. However, I accept that there is an argument for having restricted areas, particularly real-time closures, which Richard Lochhead talked about, and closures in spawning areas. Indeed, the newly formed North sea regional advisory council will make it clear that it, too, is interested in management measures that would incorporate such closures. We can consider such measures but I find the more draconian closure, which seems to be based on the initial ICES advice but which is not supported by subsequent advice, not to be necessary.
This is the sixth year during which I have watched this process. On this occasion, I am led to ask a question that is simplistic but needs to be asked of the minister. Why negotiate at all? Is it not the case that we have some of the best science available in this country? I take the view that the minister is perfectly capable of making judgments—perhaps significantly better ones than some of his colleagues in the European Union are capable of making—based on that science. Would it not be better if we withdrew from the CFP and the minister became responsible for the decisions?
No. You quite simply make the false assumption that the fish in all the fisheries that we prosecute always reside in our territorial waters, but they do not. Fish, curiously enough, move about. They swim about in the northern North sea and the southern North sea, and we therefore cannot assume that we have the sole right to determine how we will manage those fisheries. A sensible approach to the conservation of the marine biological resource, which must be broadened over time, is not capable of being delivered by a single member state; it requires international co-operation.
Even if your dream of coming out of the common fisheries policy were ever to be horrifically imposed upon us, we would still have to negotiate as we do in the EU-Norway talks and the supplements to those about the Icelandic, Faroese and Russian waters. Our pelagic fleet operates in international concerns, so we could not even say that we would not negotiate on the activities of our own fishing fleet. We have to be part of the international negotiation, because there are swap arrangements between the EU and the Norwegians. We are part of those arrangements and benefit from them through access to haddock and, in former years, cod stocks; if the cod stocks recover, we will need access to them.
I do not agree with your proposal. Fisheries management and marine ecological management are classic cases of matters that, to be effective and controlled, require international action. I have always made it clear that some of the ways in which the EU has gone about that management have been far from perfect. I do not go into the negotiations with blind eyes saying that the EU has made a perfect job of fisheries management, but I am clear that, at the root, it is impossible to achieve management of a marine biological resource through a single member state acting on and, more particularly and more likely, in its own self-interest.
I compliment the minister on his faith. He is demonstrating the patience of Job in this matter.
We will not ask him to respond to that.
For the past three days, radio reports in the morning have been dominated by the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that all our fish stocks are in a very bad way and its recommendation that one third of our waters in the North sea, the Irish sea and the Atlantic be closed.
Minister, you have already said that you prefer to rely on the ICES science, but the point is that the royal commission's report could not have come at a worse time—just before the fisheries council—and that it has painted our fishing fleet in an extremely bad light. Will you go to the media, stand up for our fishing industry against the report and say what you think? The report has done much damage to our fishing fleet and, I presume, to your case in the EU negotiations.
I am sorry that Jamie McGrigor listens to the radio in the morning only. Patient and diligent radio listeners later in the day will have been bombarded by my dulcet tones on the subject.
The royal commission's report is a bit a like a football match: it is in two parts. Its first 50 or 60 pages make a case with which I do not disagree—in fact, I have been talking about it for some time—namely, that the fisheries debate should be broadened and put in the context of marine management and the conservation of the marine biological resource. It is difficult to disagree with the first 50 or so pages—that is certainly the case for me, because I happen to think that that is the way in which we should progress our fisheries management, which is too narrowly focused at the moment. It is a huge report and although it formed part of my bedtime reading, it is full of references—there are more than 700 references in it—to other reports that must be looked up to find out why certain conclusions have been reached, which makes it difficult to read.
However, there appear to be one or two inconsistencies—or there appears to be incompleteness—in the report's specific proposals. For example, in its call for further decommissioning, it does not acknowledge all the decommissioning that has taken place in the Scottish fleet. Therefore, I am not clear whether the royal commission means that the Scottish fleet should be decommissioned by 65 per cent or whether the total—using 2001 as a baseline—should be 30 per cent. I must investigate that matter further. Quoting that figure is not helpful. The report also talks about making greater use of effort management, but it does not acknowledge, or make concessions for, the fact that we are already operating a cod recovery plan that is predicated on setting an effort reduction of 65 per cent as a target to deliver that plan. There are therefore inconsistencies.
What the report says about closed areas is also in two parts. The argument as to why partially closed areas or totally closed areas should be used is very scientific, well rehearsed and well made. However, having told us that the royal commission wants to apply closed area measures to specific species, why does the report then totally ignore the fact that one must consider the whole north North sea and the south North sea and apply those measures where the stocks are wholly engaged? I made that point earlier. I am puzzled as to how a total can be arrived at that shows that 30 per cent of the United Kingdom fishery will deliver the results. I need to do more work on the matter. I have made clear those reservations, which are in the public domain, and I repeat them this morning. I have also made it clear that I wish to proceed on the basis of the solid evidence that has been produced by ICES and STECF.
I want to ask about days at sea, which were a contentious issue last time. The number of days at sea that were allowed was relaxed as progress was made over the year, but the situation was particularly difficult for the Shetland fishery, as people had a long way to travel to reach fishing grounds. I had the impression that the number of days at sea that we were allocated somehow related to the European Commission's perception of the number of our illegal landings or to people fishing where they should not fish. I do not know whether that is too simplistic a connection to make. When ICES briefed us last week, it factored in the black fish that it thought would have been taken over the year. Do we now have a better record on issues such as black fish landings? If we do, will that help in the negotiations?
The days-at-sea calculation is baselined on 2001 figures, which are then annually adjusted. Each year, all the days at sea by vessels that have prosecuted cod are added up. That total is then divided by the total number of vessels on the log sheets, which gives the average number of days at sea for a Scottish vessel. The figure is then reduced by 65 per cent in relation to the 2001 baseline in order to get to the 65 per cent effort reduction. The 35 per cent that has been achieved as a result of decommissioning that percentage of vessels is then added back.
On the implications in relation to black fish and whether things are better or worse, if I knew that, I would be able to tell how many people I had put in court. Catching black fish is, of course, illegal and therefore I am not at all certain as to its extent, which certainly varies.
All the anecdotal evidence from the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and my discussions with fisheries people, industry representatives and processors leads me to believe that the problem varies depending on the species. In the case of haddock in particular, on the face of it, levels ought to be down. It looks as if we will have an undershoot of the haddock quota, particularly in the haddock permit scheme areas. That would seem to indicate a commensurate reduction in black fish landings.
The issue is extraordinarily difficult. The whole purpose of trying to obviate the system means that ministers cannot readily get a handle on what is happening. If we could, I would be much happier—it would make things much easier.
If people are arguing for higher quotas and yet under-recording their landings, the situation can become counterproductive. In certain species, the calculation for the health of the stock is crucially dependent on knowing how much has been harvested. If people under-record their harvesting figures, they are, by definition, giving the impression that the available stock is smaller than it might be. As I said, it can be counterproductive to engage in that activity.
David Wilson (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
I just want to reinforce what the minister said about black fish. The scientific advice from ICES shows its concerns about unrecorded landings, as can be seen in its report. One of the points that the minister made concerned the subsequent scientific advice from the STECF on the interpretation of black fish landings. In other words, what regard should be given to that piece of information? The general sense of the advice is that black fish landings are less of a problem than the initial scientific advice had indicated, which is good.
Over the past year, in addition to the haddock special permit regime, we have had a tightening of the enforcement controls on the industry, particularly in the North sea. We have had a number of Commission investigations and assessments in which people from the Commission have come across to look at the controls that we have put in place. The visits have gone well, in the sense that the Commission is now reassured that we have put the systems in place. One of our key arguments is that black fish landings, particularly of cod, are much less of a concern than has been the case in the past. That should put us in a good place to negotiate better arrangements and to resist some of the closed-area proposals that the Commission has put on the agenda for the forthcoming negotiations.
I welcome the Executive's general approach to fisheries management, as it does not deny the ecological reality of the state of our marine fish stocks.
I would like to push you on a couple of points, minister. The first relates to the industrial fisheries and, in particular, the fishing of small species such as sand eels. From my perspective, if the ecology of the North sea is a house, industrial fishing is the equivalent of knocking away its foundations. What approach will you take to industrial fishing in the forthcoming negotiations?
My second point concerns decoupling. Of course, the decoupling of haddock and nephrops from cod is vital in building the case for a sustainable quota. How effective has that been over the past year? I am thinking in particular of the fact that there has been a low uptake of haddock permits.
I have a further point about closed areas. I understand your reluctance on the issue, but I think that we share the opinion that closed areas will have a role to play at some point. How do we move towards the introduction of closed areas in Scotland? I am sure that, in time, the fishing community will support the use of closed areas, as is the case in New Zealand.
Minister, when you are answering the part of the question that deals with sand eels, will you pick up on the Norwegian aspect of the issue? I understand that the Norwegian fisheries and how they are controlled play a big part in all of this. I assume that Norway is also taking part in the EU negotiations.
My position has been to oppose any extension to, and to argue for reductions in, the industrial fishery. I have taken that position consistently. I find it difficult to understand how that stock can be prosecuted to the extent that it is at present, particularly when the reason for doing so is not even for human consumption. There is a whole raft of reasons—environmental and ecological—why we need to retain that source of food.
That position is shared by the United Kingdom Government and has consistently been its negotiating position. It is regrettable and curious that the nation states that prosecute the industrial fishery are almost as passionate about doing so as we are about trying to preserve a fleet that is engaged in catching fish for human consumption. However, the arguments are slowly but surely beginning to dawn and recommendations from the EU-Norway talks for substantial reductions in sand eel fishing will percolate down into discussions in Europe. We will certainly support such reductions and press the case as hard as we can.
On the evidence in relation to decoupling measures, observations of bycatch have been reasonably successful, although we have concerns about some areas. We want to minimise bycatch to try to achieve a position in which a non-targeted fishery can achieve a bycatch of less than 5 per cent of the catch. I am not suggesting that that is perfect, but we are moving in the right direction. I am quite happy about the scientific community's observations and the industry's co-operation and support for the approach.
I will support closed areas if there is a clear scientific basis for them. As I indicated in my answer to Richard Lochhead, I acknowledge in particular that partially closed areas can aid the management of stock assessments and spawning through real-time closures, particularly in areas where immature fish are found. However, the approach must not be based on the generality of the science. The RCEP report articulates the general scientific evidence well, but it does not articulate the specifics as successfully—indeed, its case becomes weak when it says, "We need to talk about specific species and specific scientific evidence."
I am not opposed in principle to limited closed areas and it is interesting that the North sea regional advisory council, which was recently established, is not opposed in principle to limited closed areas either. However, closures must be based on scientific evidence, rather than on the argument that I suspect will be put, which will suggest that, because the haddock permit regime has not gone sufficiently well according to ICES, we should abandon the regime and close areas. That would not be a good way of handling fisheries management. If we are to be successful in conserving the marine ecology, participants from across the spectrum must buy into the measures that are taken. There must be a rationale and a scientific basis for closed areas.
Is it your intention to find another means of dealing with catching cod that will enable you to scrap the much disliked permits system?
Many issues have arisen since before the summer and in the more intense discussions that have been taking place, but in relation to the issue that you raise I think that everyone at this meeting and in the industry understands the disadvantages of the system. We have had many discussions in which we have invited people to start with a blank sheet of paper. However, we have asked those people to understand that the management regime must be credible not just to the European Commission but to the scientists who advise the Commission and to member states that have an environmental agenda that is even tighter than ours.
Although the operation of the permit system has been criticised, the system was instrumental in securing a substantial increase in the haddock quota and in providing a mechanism for securing additional days at sea, on the basis of a minimum bycatch. The theory behind what the system tried to secure remains reasonably sound. The practice—the management and the enforcement of the system—is more difficult.
We are preparing a paper to submit to the Commission, which we have been working up in collaboration with the industry. For long enough, the position has been that, from one point of view, the glass is half full and, from the other point of view, it is half empty. Unfortunately, those opposing views could not be brought together to make a full picture. Although the industry is opposed to the current permit system, it is much more aware of the need to put in place a management measure that will command the confidence to enable us to secure total allowable catches and quota regimes that are more consistent with our other ambitions. However, we cannot ignore the need to address the cod problem.
My first question is about black fish. How many prosecutions have there been for illegal landings? Has the number increased or decreased over the past few years? What is the minister's understanding of the situation regarding monkfish stocks? What is the scientific advice on that and will it have implications for the Scottish fleet? How will the North sea RAC feed its views into this year's deliberations and will that have a beneficial impact on consultation with the industry?
I do not have the details on the number of prosecutions with me. We can provide the committee with a note that sets that out.
That is not one of the many pieces of information that we have brought with us. We will supply it to the committee.
I have one point to make on the subject. Although, overall, the number of prosecutions has remained at a reasonable level over the past few years, the number of referrals has risen sharply during this year, as a result of some of the tightenings that I mentioned earlier. That has not fully worked its way through the system to produce an increase in the number of prosecutions, but it might well do so. We can set that out in a separate note.
The monkfish stocks are a vexed issue for certain parts of the Scottish fleet, especially those in the Shetland area. The ICES report indicates that the scientists are extremely concerned that their methodology does not appear to be allowing them to get a better handle—to use an unscientific term—on the nature of that stock. No one who has reviewed the science or who has been part of the joint observations that have been made by science, industry and others can square the level of catching that is taking place in certain areas with the prognosis that the stock should be pursued on precautionary basis.
On the basis of that broad picture, the STECF report indicates that there is a case for increasing the monkfish quota. However, given the concerns that levels of discard have increased, we are discussing with the industry how to avoid an increase in effort in that fishery so that, if we were successful in obtaining an increase in the quota, the people who prosecute that fishery would be the beneficiaries. If we can reduce discards, we hope that monkfish fishermen would enjoy an increased income and there would not be displacement from other fisheries just because there had been an increase in the quota. That is an important management measure that we will have to deliver to the December council. On the back of that, we should be able to argue successfully for an increase in the monkfish quota.
What about the RACs?
My apologies. Even though they are in the early stages of life, the RACs have been asked to prepare a report for the Commission on their general view of, and approach to, the December talks. We have seen only a rough draft of their report; we are waiting to receive the final version. However, from what we have seen, the report is a constructive and well-written piece of work. It makes the point that I covered earlier, that the RACs do not close their minds to partially closed and restricted areas, provided that the science supports that. It makes the case for having different regimes, which I hope will prove to be constructive. Given its tone and tenor, I think that the report will make a valuable contribution to the debate over the next three weeks. I am pleased that the RACs are up and running and that we can point not just to the scientific advice but to the input of views from a wider community.
Could the note on prosecutions be given to the convener so that it can be circulated to committee members?
Yes.
It will be distributed in the next mailing to members.
I will take brief supplementary questions, but I do not want closing statements from Opposition spokespeople.
To help the industry to become more economic and to ensure supplies for the processors, the fishermen who are fishing the abundant stock such as haddock need enough time at sea to catch the quotas. Will the minister indicate whether he is seeking more time at sea for those vessels? If they get more quota, will that quota go to the fishermen who are active at sea, rather than to fishermen on shore?
It is difficult to split out effort controls in a mixed fishery. There are issues, as there were last year, about having a carrot and a stick in relation to the demonstration of minimum bycatches. That issue is on the table. Any general increase must be considered on that basis.
During the EU-Norway talks, considerable concern was expressed at the fact that the class of 1999 is now beyond its peak. Norway sought a substantial reduction in what has become a substantial haddock quota. I do not think that there are any prospects of an increase, given that the EU-Norway talks are 99.9999 per cent settled. In fact, I think that 13 to 14 per cent reductions will flow from the EU-Norway talks. The coastal states share the view about starting to rein back on the haddock stock. The question of to whom that will apply relates to the issue of how many skippers who had been engaged in decommissioning will have to dispose of any of their entitlement or rights to quota at the end of this year. I hope that those skippers will have to do so, because that would go quite a way towards answering Richard Lochhead's question, in the sense that the skippers will themselves have to give up the quota.
I will give a bit more detail on the decommissioning scheme. The owners of the vessels that have been decommissioned as part of the programme over the past couple of years have, by the end of this year, to dispose of the quota that they used to have. Basically, that means that they have to transfer it. That might mean transferring the quota to another person or to someone in a producer organisation to work through.
At this point—at the time of the December council—we do not have any mechanism to change the way in which quotas are allocated. We will shortly be commencing a review of the quota management rules overall, which will look into the issue. The matter is not on the December council agenda, however; it is for member states to deal with. We need to go through a process to examine the issue carefully.
Why do you think that Iceland and the Faroes have thriving fishing industries, whereas ours here in Scotland is in such an unhappy state?
That is not entirely true, of course, is it? That is a nice general statement, but you are not telling me that our pelagic fishery is in a terrible state. You are not trying to tell me that our inshore fishery is in a terrible state. The only—but crucial—part of our fishery that is in a difficult state is our white-fish fishery. That is because the most cod-rich areas in the North sea are right in the middle of Scotland's traditional fishery areas. That is a fundamental, difficult problem, but we are all trying to manage it. It is not a problem that is faced by the Icelanders or the Faroese. It is most unfortunate, but it is a fact of life.
Jamie McGrigor should look at the maps of the North sea, at the landing records and at the data that tell us where the most cod-prolific areas are: they are right in the middle of Scotland's fishing areas. That is the fundamental reason for the problem, which we have to confront. It is nothing to do with who owns, runs or manages things. If there was a cod area 20km off the coast of the Faroes and the Faroese had to deal with a similar problem, they would be having a not dissimilar debate about how to manage a fishery that is below its safe biological limits.
I thank colleagues for that—I think that members applied themselves before today's meeting and did their homework. Equally, I thank the minister for doing his homework and for answering all our questions in such depth. I wish him good luck in his negotiations on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry.
I remind colleagues that we have a debate in the chamber tomorrow on a topic of which I am sure they are all aware.
Meeting closed at 12:26.