European Union Agriculture and Fisheries Council (December 2005)
Item 5 on our agenda is the December 2005 European Union agriculture and fisheries council, on which colleagues will remember that we agreed to take oral evidence from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. We have received a written response from the minister to a series of questions that we wanted to put to him. That response has been copied to all members. We have also received a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on quotas for 2006. I welcome the minister and ask him to introduce his officials and to make a short opening statement. We will then move to questions from members.
Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for its forbearance in not demanding that I appeared last week, after my return from the United Nations convention on climate change. Unfortunately, I made what one might regard as the mistake—it probably was not a mistake—of going to a Cabinet meeting straight after coming off the plane. I do not recommend that to anyone returning from Montreal. It is not necessarily a desirable activity.
All the officials who are with me deal with sea fisheries. They are Paul McCarthy, David Wilson, who is head of the fisheries and rural development group, and Simon Dryden. They all have particular expertise that will, I hope, enable us to answer any questions that members may have.
I will offer a few thoughts. The talks start next Tuesday and are scheduled to take place on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That means that I am probably the only Cabinet minister who will object to tonight's business motion, as I understand that it anticipates members getting off early on Thursday.
Next week, but not this week.
Yes. I could not possibly support the motion, given that I will be in Brussels.
On a serious note, a number of issues remain to be resolved, the most outstanding of which is, I suppose, days at sea. That issue is still on the table. I think that the Commission acknowledges that days at sea are a matter for political discussion. The proposals are particularly aimed at those in the cod fishery and there is particular emphasis on those who use 4a gear. The three elements of our proposals relate to the 15 per cent reduction in days; the possible tightening up of various technical gears, the importance of which is dropping off; and the reference period. My position remains unchanged. I believe that the Scottish white-fish fleet has met the requirements under the cod recovery plan, particularly in relation to 4a gear, and, as I have seen no evidence that other member states have presented that suggests that they have done likewise, I will resist the proposals.
There are proposals on beam trawlers and on effort relating to small cod that appear in the prawn and nephrops fishery. I will accept the proposal on beam trawlers without quibble, but we wish to advance—and we have advanced—technical measures that might deal with the nephrops fishery issues so that restrictions might be tackled.
One or two issues have hung over from the EU-Norway talks. We need to sign off the coastal states deal. This is the first time that we have reached a coastal states agreement on blue whiting. I regard reaching that agreement as significant because the blue whiting fishery has been overfished for a number of years and has been unregulated. One or two issues relating to allocations remain to be dealt with, but making blue whiting a regulated fishery is a significant achievement for long-term conservation. We hope that that proposal will be endorsed at the council.
We have achieved what the Scottish industry required in deals on Atlanto-Scandian herring and we have gained access to Norwegian waters at the outset, which is to be welcomed. The general allocation of pelagic stocks was expected by most Scottish pelagic fisheries; I do not think that there are any significant issues to do with that share.
Other total allowable catches will have to be finally resolved. Proposals relating to the TAC for cod—a reduction of 15 per cent, as recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—are still on the table. The reduction in the haddock stock is a carry-forward from the EU-Norway talks. If we had applied the arithmetic as of last year to the 1999 year class, a reduction of anywhere in the region of 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent would probably have resulted, but the increased amount is a direct result of the reassessment of the haddock biomass and the application of the agreed EU-Norway haddock management plan, the effects of which we have managed to mitigate as a consequence of securing a much higher level of swaps than has been achieved in the past five or six years.
As I said, a number of measures still need to be resolved. Talks at this stage are never easy. Member states begin to feel squeezed in their own way. As for whether we will support other member states, the only thing that we will not support is a proposal to reopen any industrial sand eel fisheries whose closure has been recommended. We will remain opposed to reopening them, although we may join the Danes on other measures that are more in our mutual interest.
I am happy to take questions.
It goes without saying that we wish the minister well next week in what I think is his sixth or seventh negotiation. First, I have a general question. I ask the minister to reflect on his experiences of representing Scottish fishermen's interests since the creation of this place in 1999. Had he followed the suggestion of those who regularly advocated a free-for-all in fisheries and the building of bigger vessels with greater catching capacity, what state would Scottish fisheries be in and what kind of negotiation would he go into?
Particularly in the North sea, the stocks that we prosecute do not all spawn in what were UK territorial waters, so I remain firmly of the view that, if we are to take seriously the management of the marine biological resource, it is essential to manage it internationally and through total co-operation between all the major stakeholders. In the EU, we cannot get away from the fact that, without active and close collaboration between us, the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans and the Belgians, the results simply would not be achieved.
My view is that the common fisheries policy as a principle has not been at fault. We can certainly point to periods in the policy's life when member states have not behaved very intelligently, but the policy is not needed to make member states behave in that way—such behaviour is not necessarily a product of it.
International agreements, international relations and close collaboration have benefited us—I am thinking particularly of the benefits of having a very close relationship with the Danes, the Dutch and the Belgians. To that end, I suppose I wish that more people—particularly the Norwegians—were inside the tent. Instead of having a more serious international negotiation, it might be happier if we were all in the same tent.
During the debate in the chamber, you said that the different way of assessing the stocks in the nephrops fishery on the west coast showed that those stocks were healthy. Is securing a satisfactory increase in the TAC contingent on acceptance of the proposed new technical measures or on a mix of the new technologies and assessing the stocks?
There is a slight separation. In effect, the Commission says that it is persuaded on the science about the stock. Its related concern is the evidence that was produced in the examination of the cod stock, in which there was increasing observation of juvenile cod in the nephrops fisheries. As a result, it proposes, separately, a reduction in effort levels in those nephrops fisheries. The technical measures that we have advanced are a serious attempt to take account of that. We have suggested larger mesh sizes and the use of square-mesh panels in the cod end, with the aim of permitting juvenile cods to escape in that fishery.
The outcome will depend on how the Commission positions the debate next week. If it becomes hung up on the fact that not much is being achieved on cod, the two issues may become more closely conflated. If so, to achieve the days-at-sea proposals that we have tabled, we will have to make more of the case that we should have days back or more exemptions because of what we are prepared to do. However, I do not think that that would affect the TAC, which I hope we will be able to confirm on its own.
You will be aware that the run-up to Christmas is an anxious time for fishing communities as they await the outcome that will influence their livelihoods next year. The white-fish fleet has been through two decommissioning schemes and many processors have gone out of business. The Executive's latest figures show that the Scottish fleet has achieved its effort reduction targets for cod but still faces a reduction in its haddock quota, as well as a threat to reduce the number of days at sea even though we are starting from the position of having a part-time fishery. To what extent will you build into the talks the fact that we have achieved our effort reduction targets? What effort reduction has been achieved by the other member states that fish the same seas? Will you use that as a bargaining tool—in the same way that, in previous talks, we used decommissioning as a bargaining tool—to ensure that we get a just reward for our sacrifices?
The first thing that we must acknowledge is that, sadly, despite the fact that we have reached the targets for effort restriction, the state of the cod stock has not shown an improvement. Admittedly, its rate of decline has been arrested, but it is way below its safe biological biomass. That is significant.
The performance of other member states has to be split into two categories. Three member states—Germany, France and Norway—are also prosecuting saith stocks, which do not come within the ambit of the cod plan. The figures for the other member states that are engaged in the process are in the region of 55 to 58 per cent. Our figure is well above that, but it is not as if there are serious laggards that are wholly ignoring the requirement to make that effort reduction.
We will resist the three proposals for further reductions in days at sea. The proposed reduction for haddock is a result of nothing other than the scientific assessment of the haddock stock and, in particular, the overreliance on the biomass of that stock of the class of 1999.
I assume that you will take to the talks the fact that Scotland met its targets. We achieved a 67 per cent reduction, which exceeds the target of 65 per cent. Do you know whether the other member states will produce their figures so that they can be compared with Scotland's sacrifices?
They have.
Have you asked the Commission to make sure that those figures are available?
The figures that I quoted—55 to 58 per cent—are based on the figures that have been submitted by the other member states. They exclude the three member states to which I referred. The Fisheries Research Services figure was 67 per cent, I think, although the figure from the EU's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries came out a little lower than that, at 62 to 65 per cent. We have been arguing our case with the Commission. We tabled those figures some time ago and, when Commissioner Borg was in Scotland to attend the ICES conference, we made it clear that we expected him to receive figures from the other member states. The fact that we are able to quote the figures of 55 to 58 per cent is due to the fact that the other member states produced that information.
I turn to a couple of the key stocks. We all welcome the recommended increase in the nephrops quota. On that subject, are you hopeful that you will be able to secure the increase without unworkable and draconian conditions being attached that might prevent the fleet from being able to catch it?
Secondly, on monkfish, your letter to the committee dashes the hope—particularly on the west coast of Scotland, which has enough difficulties to contend with—that there will be an increase in the monkfish quota. During the recent fisheries debate in the chamber, you said that you were hopeful of getting that increase, but your letter indicates that there is not much hope on that front.
No, that is not true; it is all a matter of timing. I will deal with nephrops first. As I indicated in my response to Alasdair Morrison, we are satisfied that we wholly persuaded the Commission of the veracity of the scientific evidence that has been advanced about the nephrops stock. We do not anticipate any difficulty in securing the increase that has been recommended.
The one area where there is still room for debate is how one addresses the criticism in the ICES advice in relation to juvenile cod in the nephrops fishery. The Commission has proposed a number of possible management measures, including a Swedish separator. That operates successfully in Swedish waters, but we have a different fishing ground with different characteristics. Therefore, that measure would not be appropriate to the Scottish fishery.
That is why we have advanced as one of the technical measures the adoption of larger mesh sizes with square-mesh panels. We have not proposed any measure that would make it impossible for the Scottish fleet to prosecute the nephrops fishery. The measure that I mention has been demonstrated in trials and, if we can get agreement on it, it would permit juvenile fish to escape, not only because of the larger mesh size, but more particularly because of a correctly positioned square-mesh panel in the rear end of the net.
As regards monkfish, the position has for a while been that, because of the uncertainty of the stock, the Commission has been keen that there should be a restriction of effort. Last year, it took a long time before we reached agreement in the Scottish industry as to what measures might be taken. Having done that, we were then somewhat stymied by the fact that neither the French nor the Irish at that stage supported the measures that we were putting in place. Since then, the Scottish industry has said that it, too, is not wholly attracted to the measures to which it originally signed up. We are now working in close collaboration with the industry on a new set of measures.
We have lodged a draft resolution for the council to approve that is clear and, I hope, unambiguous in its terms. It states that when we submit the management plan that has been agreed by our fishermen, which will not be a matter for other member states—they will have to decide in December whether they are prepared to accept it—we can have an in-year upward revision of the TAC to be implemented before the end of the second quarter. That draft resolution has been drawn up in full collaboration with Scottish fishermen. It has also been prosecuted through the North sea regional advisory council. I think that we are close to achieving that resolution, but next week will tell. Therefore, we hope that there will be an increase in the monkfish TAC this year.
My final point concerns the minister's ability to defend Scotland's interests at the talks. There appear to be two dangers. First, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs official Rodney Anderson is reported in today's press as saying:
"The convention is that the country that holds the presidency operates in a rather more muted form when representing its own interests."
The UK will chair the council in December. That quotation suggests that the UK will not be of a mind to defend the UK, or Scotland for that matter, compared with normal circumstances, which are bad enough.
Secondly, given that the UK fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw will chair the council, is there not a danger that, once again, the minister has been overlooked to lead the UK delegation at the top table? For some bizarre and inexplicable reason, Ben Bradshaw has called on a junior environment minister from Whitehall—Jim Knight, whose normal responsibilities include landscape and biodiversity—to lead the UK delegation at the fishing talks. Is that not preposterous? Given that two thirds of the UK fishing industry is in Scotland, surely the minister should have been given the authority to lead on behalf of the UK.
It is preposterous for Richard Lochhead to present that as the way in which the council meetings are conducted. In the December talks, 98 per cent of council business is conducted either between member states and the Commission or between member states, the presidency and the Commission. In the many years for which I have attended these one-to-one meetings, I have never been inhibited by anybody in DEFRA from expressing the Scottish interests; nor have I ever been prevented from dominating the discussions, as we have a 58 per cent interest in the subject. The situation has been just as it will be next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and just as it was last week, when we were in Brussels and I spoke to Commissioner Borg.
The member must not confuse round-table discussions at which representatives of 25 member states nod and blink with the real work of a council at which Scottish fisheries interests are represented by Scottish ministers. There is never any attempt to muzzle Scottish ministers or to prevent them from making their point clearly.
The committee will be delighted to hear that I will not waste its time in responding to the minister's opening statement, which was prompted by a friendly question from Alasdair Morrison, by reiterating my view that the common fisheries policy has failed consistently over 30 years to do the job that it is supposed to do, which is to manage fish stocks. I leave that on the table on this occasion.
I congratulate the minister on the apparent increase in the TACs for nephrops, which I hope will be borne out in next week's negotiations. I am anxious to hear from him an assurance that the number of days that he will negotiate will allow us to catch the increased quotas, especially in areas where there is no question of a cod bycatch being taken. I am talking specifically about people from Pittenweem and elsewhere who do not take a cod bycatch. Will they be able to catch the full quota that the minister hopes to negotiate for them?
Yes. I am very confident about that, although proposals are on the table for a reduction in the number of days' fishing in nephrops fisheries where the cod bycatch has again raised its head in some of the scientific evidence. There is an issue of cod bycatch, but it is the catching of juvenile cod that is causing the Commission and the scientists real concern. Although it is good news that there are juvenile cod, there is concern that we may be damaging the stock.
My reason for being fairly confident is that very few of our inshore fishing fleets utilise even the restricted number of days that we have at the moment in our nephrops fishery. We have done a lot of work to check that, as we want to ensure, before we enter negotiations, that we are not saying, "I am very sympathetic to that, and by the way I've just screwed the whole thing up." We have done a lot of work on that. That is also why we want to have a tool whereby, if there is to be a slicing on those fisheries, there might be an opportunity to buy back on the basis that we are deploying technical measures that will mitigate the effect of where we were in the first place. That is the balance of the argument that we are trying to make in the negotiations.
You are determined not to lose any more days.
In relation to the white-fish fleet, I am absolutely adamant about that. I am prepared to have a negotiation about the nephrops TAC and I support the reduction in days for beam trawlers, as I think that they are not defensible. Taking nephrops as a whole, I am not opposed to taking account of the scientific evidence of an increased presence of juvenile cod in the nephrops fishery. I am prepared to have a discussion on that, which is why I am tabling technical measures. I am also cognisant of the work that we have done to establish the number of days that my fishermen are currently using to prosecute the nephrops fishery.
What about the possible opportunities for increasing the number of days should the UK agree to the administrative penalties that are contained in the draft Commission report on effort limit proposals? Is that an option?
I think that more effort will be devoted to resisting cuts in days. That is the more likely thing when it comes to deploying political capital. You might be arguing for Pittenweem but, if we take the North sea fishery as a whole, it is difficult to put a sensible argument for an increase in effort, first, if that ends up not being used—for example, with nephrops at the moment—and secondly, if it means unleashing extra effort in a fishery where there is demonstrable evidence of juvenile cod being present. It would not be responsible to adopt such an argument.
Going back to the earlier debate, there appears to be mixed scientific evidence about the availability of monkfish on the west coast. In the paper that you have given us, you say that it looks unlikely that you will be able to secure an increased monkfish TAC.
In December?
In December—although you might do so later on. Is that related to the fact that the French, and perhaps others, want to keep up the market price of monkfish, rather than to any possibility that the monks are not there? Is it a market—
No—that argument was deployed last December, when the resolution that was adopted left it open to other member states to advance arguments as to why they might or might not agree. This year, through the motion that we have tabled, we seek to eliminate that situation and to get agreement in December that, as long as we purify certain conditions relating to a cap on effort—seeking a non-restrictive quota and, as part of the deal that we signed up to last year, having many more scientific visits and allowing many more observed positions in relation to monkfish; and, on the basis of our own increased scientific effort, continuing the monitoring process so that we develop a database—we will be granted an increase in the monkfish TAC on top of our effort cap during this year.
During this year?
Sorry—I meant during next year.
I want to wind up the discussion. Two members still wish to come in. I call Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Maureen Macmillan.
I would like to come in on this as well.
I would like everyone to have one go at this and to keep things fairly brief. We cannot go on for hours on this subject.
In the Parliament, we recently agreed the need to pursue a European fisheries fund that is innovative. What is your definition of innovation? What would you like to come out of the innovative European fisheries fund?
I have a very open mind about that. I have more of a negative list than a positive list. The one thing to which I am wholly opposed is the deployment of the fisheries fund for new build. The only innovative capital construction that I might allow would be the re-engining of an aging fleet if that meant that it increased not its effort, but its fuel efficiency. That would be for environmental reasons, as well as for cost reasons, which might be quite important.
We and the member states need to work on the question of giving funding to other developments and on the scientific issue. The real problem in getting going with the discussions on the European fisheries fund is that we have been bedevilled by the issue of new build, notwithstanding what was agreed in 2003 at the conclusion of the common fisheries policy rearrangements. Member states have been desperate about this. There has been almost no discussion of new ideas. The very first item that has come up is the desire for a major allocation of funds for new build. Any discussions on other stock developments, other scientific measures or other marine or biological efforts to broaden out the picture simply do not get started. It has been very depressing.
Any such discussions will have to come back on the agenda in early January, because the current financial instrument for fisheries guidance fund will expire at the end of 2006. We have got only six or seven months in which to have a really good go at this. As I said, the situation is very depressing.
David Wilson (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
One of the clear challenges of innovation is to ensure that regulations are sufficiently flexible; they have to be drafted in such a way that they ensure access to funding for innovative projects, as and when they come forward. It is a matter not just of writing into regulations a statement of what innovation looks like, but of ensuring that the flexibility to innovate is built in, as and when it happens. As we take things forward over the next year, it is important to have regulations in place.
To some extent, the regulations are a shift on the FIFG; they open up a wider range of possible investments in coastal communities and wider sustainability issues. The proof of their success will be measured, for example, in the number of innovative projects that come forward as a result. Obviously, we will work with potential project applicants to ensure that that happens.
I have some questions on aquaculture, in particular on the availability of veterinary medicines and their regulation. I think that the minister said that talks and meetings are going on in that area. However, I am not sure how much you can do on the issue, given that you say in your letter:
"it is in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry to obtain full approval of products".
Later in the letter, you mention what is often the big stumbling block in the use of medicine, which is the need for
"a discharge consent from SEPA".
Is the Scottish Environment Protection Agency involved in the talks with the pharmaceutical industry? If new medicines are allowed, we do not want SEPA to prevent them from being used in the sea.
Two or three issues are involved. First, in the United Kingdom, we have always rightly prided ourselves on the regulatory approval of medicines, after due process. It is a little disappointing therefore that some of the international comparisons that the industry has made on the access to and availability of cheaper medicines relate to cases in which only partial approval was given. In that context, I find it difficult to be sympathetic, and I think that you would sympathise with my position. However, I recognise that, on a straight comparison with our major competitor, our approvals process can put us at a price disadvantage.
Farmers need to obtain discharge consents from SEPA, but their situation has more to do with the wider issue of the location of aquaculture sites than with any view that SEPA might take. As you are well aware, we get caught by the fact that, on a hydrological basis, the scouring of the sea around a number of aquaculture sites is not good. That has been found to be the case at sites where there is a lack of natural scouring by the ebb and flow of the tide. Of course, that can result not only in high levels of faeces, but in concentrations of drug residues. SEPA has a difficult to role to play; it tries to take a pragmatic view of the need for disease control, but also to apply regulations sensibly so that farms do not give rise to concentrations of drug residues. SEPA is part of the discussions; it is involved in them. We are trying to engage SEPA in the wider industry position.
The pharmaceutical industry has control of the fully approved products. However, we are trying to extend the reciprocity agreements for fully approved drugs so that our aquaculture fishermen can access drugs—not just in terms of their availability in this country, but in other countries where they are approved. We are trying to increase the extent of that access and that might affect the market. There is not much point in our local pharmaceutical industry keeping the price of drugs higher in this country if the drugs can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere. We are trying to address what is, in some places, a slightly acute problem through a number of strains of work.
May I ask another question?
Very briefly. We are running out of time.
I am sure that the industry welcomes the new proposal for compensation when fish have to be slaughtered, but Ross Finnie said that the mechanism still had to be agreed. I assume that it has been agreed in principle, but—
No. We are consulting on whether there ought to be compensation. We are aware that, across a number of regimes, there are proposals for compulsory slaughter. There is no question of a blank cheque being written. The purpose of the consultation is to expose cases in which an acute situation may arise. We will also try to ensure through the consultation that we do not in any way upset the balance of the fish-farm owner and operator's natural responsibility for maintaining disease-free status. The consultation may throw up some exceptional circumstances in which compensation is appropriate, but the Executive has not agreed in principle to compensation. We thought that, given the high level of correspondence that we have had on the issue over the past few years, it was only fair that the matter should be included in the consultation.
Given that the December council is for both agriculture and fisheries, will the minister get the chance to discuss with his colleagues the disclosure of subsidies to recipients in various countries? Will he come back to the committee and tell us when the less favoured area scheme payments to recipients in this country will be published?
I will not get that opportunity, because the agenda for next week's council is devoted almost exclusively to fisheries—three days are allocated to those important discussions.
At the end of the day, it is for me, not for those who advise me, to make the decision on our disclosure. That is why David Wilson and others smile and look relaxed on such occasions. All that I can say is that the advice that I received drew a distinction between making an announcement on a change of regime, including the LFAS, going forward from the reform of the common agricultural policy, and the retrospective disclosure of information. After the reform, a clear statement can be made to recipients that the information that is given in an integrated administration and control system form would be disclosed under the freedom of information regime. I received advice that it was less than clear—I appreciate that the advice has been different in different administrations—that all the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 could be swept aside, because of the basis on which we had garnered the information.
My position is clear. All payments that are made as agricultural subsidies from 1 January 2006 onwards will be disclosed, but I am not about retrospectively to disclose all information. Such disclosure was not recommended in the advice that I received and I remain robust in that view.
That is on the record.
It looks as though no other members want to ask a question.
Is there time to pack in another question?
I would prefer to keep moving, because we still have another agenda item.
I thank the minister and his officials. We wish you well at the lengthy negotiations next week. Obviously, we will watch Ceefax for the results. I look forward to getting a fuller report in the new year, so that we can see how successful the negotiations were.
We move into private session to discuss our work programme.
Meeting continued in private until 12:58.