December Fisheries Agreement
This morning the Presiding Officer indicated that we would hear an emergency question at this point.
To ask the Scottish Executive what changes to the December fisheries agreement, which are being announced by the European Commission today, will be implemented.
I welcome the opportunity that has been afforded me by the Presiding Officer to inform Parliament of emerging developments on haddock management. However, I regret that I am not yet able to make a full statement on the changes that we intend to make in light of the draft regulation that was published today by the European Commission.
To avoid misunderstandings, particularly on the part of the official Opposition—which might be jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I do not know—I will briefly explain the background. The December council agreed a 49 per cent increase in the North sea haddock quota, with special permit arrangements. That was good news for Scotland's fishing fleet. Since then, I have been negotiating further improvements on the deal with the support of the industry. The Commission announced today that the Scottish fleet will have greater flexibility to fish its haddock quota in home waters, with a more generous quota for those who fish inside the associated cod protection area. That means that there will be a smaller cod protection area and a change in the ratio of quota that may be caught outside to that which may be caught inside the area from 80:20 to 65:35. That will allow the fleet to access the additional haddock quota more easily. The industry asked for that and we have delivered it.
However, the discussions continue. My officials are in Brussels today to finalise the deal. It would be premature and potentially unhelpful to make a full statement before the deal is concluded, but I am hopeful that we will achieve further improvements on the Commission's statement. I will make a statement on the details and the implications for the industry as soon as possible—perhaps tomorrow—once the negotiations are complete.
I regret that, because of the recess, I will not be able to make a statement in Parliament, but I intend to inform members and to write to the convener of the relevant committee and the party spokespersons on fisheries.
I thank the minister for his helpful statement. I also welcome at long last the first breakthrough since the disastrous fishing deal that was signed more than three months ago.
I particularly welcome the spectacular climbdown by ministers who were persuaded by the fishing communities to go and renegotiate a deal that ministers originally labelled a triumph for Scotland. Today, our fishing communities have taken a step forward, but I hope that the minister accepts that there is a long way to go. I have three specific questions for him.
First, what will happen between now and when the proposals make their way onto the statute book, which I understand might not be until mid to late April? Will the fleet that is currently at sea be able to land its hauls of white fish and the prawn fleet's bycatches at the end of this week and onwards, given that they have been informed that changes are to be made? They should not have to dump those stocks overboard.
Secondly, will the minister reassure members and our fishing communities that he is pushing for more time at sea for the fleet? The fleet needs time and space. Today's announcement is about more space at sea, but the fleet needs time to catch the quotas, otherwise it is no further forward.
Thirdly, will the minister give an insight into the nature of the other changes to the deal that he is negotiating? He says that the EC's statement today does not fully reflect the negotiations that he is pursuing. Will he shed some light on the other areas that are up for negotiation?
I had hoped for a more mature response from the SNP fisheries spokesman.
You said it was a good deal, minister.
I am, as ever, disappointed not only in the SNP fisheries spokesman, but in the leader of the Opposition. I had hoped that Richard Lochhead would welcome the improved catch quota arrangements and the improvements in the agreement, which the industry had been seeking. A good deal just got better.
On the other questions that Richard Lochhead asked, they are the subject of negotiation with fellow member states in Europe as we speak, and it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on the outcome of those discussions in advance of their being concluded. However, I can say that the discussions relate to backdating of catches in the area—to which Richard Lochhead referred—and to how we will deal with haddock bycatches on nephrops boats. Those two issues were raised with me by the industry and we hope to make significant progress that will—I repeat—make a good deal better.
I am conscious that we still have a lot of business to conclude today, but I will call Ted Brocklebank and Iain Smith.
Does the minister accept that today's proposals—although they are welcome as far as they go, especially in relation to the new special permit that will allow nephrops fishermen to take haddock as a bycatch—are, in a sense, too little and too late? In light of the new scientific data that are referred to in today's announcement, will he accept that the science has continually lagged behind evidence from the fishermen, to the effect that cod stocks are actually in better health than the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and others have constantly asserted?
Although I welcome the proposals on emergency aid not counting against days at sea, will that include innocent passage days spent steaming back from markets such as Peterhead to home ports in the northern isles? Does the minister accept that the trade-off of 10 regained triangles in the restricted areas against the loss of seven additional triangles does nothing for the conservation of cod, and puts the lives of fishermen at risk, as they are forced further afield, like skipper John Drever of Orkney, whose boat was seriously damaged and crew imperilled while fishing west of St Kilda on 14 March?
I welcome the member's welcome for the new, improved deal. As he said, the Commission's statement refers to another amendment that I sought and secured, which is the proposal that the time that is spent by a vessel that is subject to the days-out-of-port regime assisting another vessel that is in need of emergency aid should not be counted against the vessel's allocation. I gave a commitment on that to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, and I am pleased that it has since been delivered.
On the cod bycatch issue to which Ted Brocklebank referred, the proof of the pudding will be in the catching, so to speak. We will have the opportunity, based on the last three months' cod bycatch data, to make the case—if such a case can be substantiated—for improvements in the days-at-sea regime based on those outturn figures. I am told by the fleet that we might expect those figures to be favourable, although it remains to be seen whether they are. As Ted Brocklebank knows, the level of that cod bycatch—whether it is 5 per cent or less—ultimately determines the applicable days-at-sea regime.
We have been successful in securing flexibility within the days-at-sea regime, so that boats can take their days at sea over 12 months, rather than confine them to a 31-day period. That has given the fleet considerable flexibility in relation to cod bycatch.
I welcome the announcement, particularly the news regarding nephrops fishermen, which will be particularly welcomed by my constituents in Pittenweem. Does the minister agree that we have been able to negotiate the improvements to the deal only because of the constructive engagement that we had with the European Commission prior to December's council, which set the framework on which the negotiations could be held? Does he agree that we would not have been able to get today's deal had we followed the policies of Mr Lochhead or Mr Brocklebank?
I agree fundamentally. That issue formed part of the discussions that I had with Commissioner Franz Fischler when I was in Brussels. It is important that we accept that we are part of the European Union and, despite the protestations of the nationalists and the Tories, we are not about to leave the European Union. The common fisheries policy requires to be reformed to look after the interests of Scottish fishermen.
I agree that we need better regional management of our North sea fishery, but that does not mean that I endorse the policy of the nationalists and the Tories, which is that we can somehow make the process better for fishermen by leaving the common fisheries policy. To be frank, that is nonsense.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When emergency questions are dealt with in future, will you consider telling members how much time you intend to allow so that members can adjust the length of their questions to allow other members who have vital constituency interests to ask theirs?
That is a fair point and I am happy to reflect on it for the future. We do not hear many emergency questions, but we have a busy agenda today and I tried to shoehorn in as many questions as I could. I think that Mr Wilson will speak to you later.