Fisheries Negotiations
We come to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S3M-7498, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the annual fisheries negotiations.
14:35
I am pleased to open our annual fisheries debate, as we approach the end-of-year negotiations. At this moment, my officials, along with our fishing leaders, are in Bergen, working together to represent Scotland at key European Union-Norway negotiations. I record my appreciation—and no doubt that of the Parliament—for the role played by our fishermen and the huge contribution that the wider industry makes to Scotland in economic terms and by bringing some of the world’s best seafood to our tables.
Our fishermen work in some of the harshest conditions and, every year, some of them make the ultimate sacrifice doing the job that they love. The industry has to put up with everything that is thrown at it by distant regulators, commentators and, dare I say it, politicians. Despite the challenges, the value of sea fisheries in Scotland rose by 10 per cent last year and is now worth £443 million to the Scottish economy. Last year, 74 per cent of Scotland’s key commercial fish stocks were set in line with scientific guidance. That compares with only 40 per cent in 2001.
The Scottish industry has a reputation for being the most innovative and conservation oriented in Europe. Society needs fishermen to play a greater role in fisheries management and conservation—to demand not just the right to fish but the right to conserve. It is clearer than ever that we cannot achieve sustainable fisheries in Europe until we reform EU fisheries management. The biggest indictment of the common fisheries policy is surely the discarding of huge amounts of marketable fish. We all agree that the CFP is now a busted flush. Fishermen, politicians, scientists and environmentalists such as WWF Scotland and RSPB Scotland are all now speaking with one voice to Brussels. The CFP has failed Scotland, society and our environment.
We are all now united in a serious attempt to bring an end to discards. Last year, action by Scottish fishermen and the Government reduced discards of North Sea cod by one third—an achievement unmatched by any other European fishing nation. That illustrates Scotland’s determination to reduce discards. It is galling, therefore, that one third of cod caught in the North Sea is still discarded. That is more cod than can be legally landed by our vessels. That dreadful waste is a by-product of the common fisheries policy and the failure of the cod recovery plan, which also needs radical surgery and is extremely ill-suited to the mixed fishery that we have in Scottish waters. Under the cod recovery plan, all member states will suffer cuts regardless of their contribution to reducing mortality. That is wholly unacceptable. Scotland’s sacrifices should be recognised. That is what we seek in this year’s negotiations.
A further unworkable flaw in the cod recovery plan is the days-at-sea regime, which we have sought to mitigate over the past three years. Effort limitations only really impact on around 150 of Scotland’s 1,500 vessels. Another 300 affected vessels have a sufficient effort to allow them to fish as before. However, for those affected, the restrictions are unfair and counterproductive. Most of all, fishermen should be allowed to land more of what they catch and should not be forced to discard it.
Thankfully, a few Governments, including those in Denmark, Scotland and the United Kingdom, are working together to establish a system that can stop that disgrace—a system in which a fully documented fishery incentivises fishermen to avoid discarding. In return, they are free from the restrictive effort limits and are awarded a higher quota. Removing discards from the equation means that we can reward vessels with higher landings for removing fewer fish from the sea in the first place. It is a rare win-win situation in fishing management. Successful pilots have been run in Scotland and Denmark and more are planned or are under way in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands.
At the ministerial conference that I hosted in Aberdeenshire on 1 October, North Sea states including, significantly, Norway welcomed and promoted catch quotas as a means of reducing discards, improving stocks and helping fishermen.
The roll-out of catch quota systems is a key priority for this year’s negotiations, although it is not a magic bullet and will not solve all the difficulties. Any country that wants to adopt a regime that prevents discards and reduces mortality should be allowed to do so, and should not have to give something back in return for the privilege.
We all know that some sectors face tough times. On the west coast, demersal fisheries have experienced a prolonged period of very poor recruitment. It is clear that there is no scope for a directed cod and whiting fishery in the west of Scotland, which is now a fishery that is dominated by nephrops.
We propose to set a zero total allowable catch for west of Scotland cod and whiting fisheries, with a small allowance for bycatch of those stocks, and we are working with the industry on that at present. Our proposal will prevent the targeting of those very vulnerable stocks while reducing discards.
Much has been said about the scientific advice that has led to the European Commission proposals this year. It has been criticised by fishermen and scientists alike, and where we believe there are strong reasons for questioning the science, we will do so and are doing so.
For example, we will oppose cuts for west coast monkfish and megrim. Recent data indicate that a 15 per cent increase in west coast megrim is justifiable, and we must optimise the sustainable yield on those highly valued stocks. The west coast fishermen have few other white-fish options available.
We must ensure that we do not lose focus on the current impasse on mackerel, which is Scotland’s most valuable stock. The opportunistic behaviour of Iceland and the Faroes has been condemned far and wide, and Scotland has been the loudest voice. A solution will not be easy, but we will keep our nerve and ensure that the outcome does not compromise the viability of the Scottish fleet. I discussed that issue and others this week with UK ministers—and today with Norwegian ministers—as well as with the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
We will work as hard as we can to secure the best sustainable fishing opportunities that are available for Scotland at this year’s negotiations. The key issue is that Scottish fishermen should come away with some reward for their many achievements this year. We have led by example and we deserve to secure a good future for Scotland’s fishing communities. That is what we will set out to do at this year’s vital annual negotiations.
I move,
That the Parliament notes efforts to secure a fair outcome in the forthcoming EU fisheries negotiations; believes that any deal must respect the need to harvest fish stocks sustainably in the interests of Scotland’s fishermen and coastal communities and recognise Scotland’s fishing industry’s contribution to fisheries conservation, and urges the European Commission to support efforts to reduce wasteful discards.
14:42
It is December, so it must be the annual fisheries negotiations debate. We on the Labour benches wish the cabinet secretary and his UK counterparts well as they take part in those difficult negotiations and seek the best possible deal for the Scottish fleet. I join the cabinet secretary in paying tribute to those men and women who day and daily risk their lives to bring that high-quality product to our shops, restaurants and tables.
Only last week our colleague, Alasdair Morgan, brought home to us the real tragedies that the fleet has faced in recent years when he spoke again about the Solway Harvester tragedy. It has been refreshing to see how the responsibility of government has mellowed the cabinet secretary’s tone and actions in recent years. We on the Labour benches know that continuing to deny the science was not in the long-term interest of the viability of the Scottish fleet. It was not a particularly popular position, but it was an honest one. The stocks needed time to recover from years of overfishing and we welcome the progress that has been made in the years that have passed.
We knew in the years gone by that decommissioning was the right thing to do. We were derided for it, but we welcome the decommissioning scheme that the cabinet secretary has developed in recent months. Where do we go from here? Perhaps all the snow has affected my mind but I think that, when we strip away the rhetoric, there is more that unites us with than divides us from the cabinet secretary on these issues. Ah, the responsibilities of government. Perhaps when the cabinet secretary returns to the Opposition benches next year he will remember that opposition can be a responsibility too.
I turn to the areas of agreement. There is no doubt that the CFP must be reformed nor any disagreement about that, and I think that almost all members in the chamber would support regional fisheries management and decentralisation. The devolution of as much of the decision making as possible makes absolute sense. We welcome the work that has been done and the progress that has been made in that regard.
Another area of consensus is the need to end the practice of discards. We all find it wasteful and counterproductive, yet we have singularly failed to find a solution that the industry, the non-governmental organisations and the EU can all sign up to. I know that the cabinet secretary is keen to move to a system whereby fishermen can land all that they catch, but Bertie Armstrong said just this week in The Press and Journal that adopting such a scheme over the top of the present scheme would be a “suicide pill” for the industry. Others, such as WWF, say that we need to fish less but make better use of the fish.
I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify a couple of points on the scheme that he is pushing forward with. If fishermen land all that they catch, what impact will that have on the price that is achieved at market? Does the cabinet secretary have any concerns about that or about the impact on the wider fishing community and other sectors? He mentioned catch quotas. Does he believe that Europe would allow us to have no reduction in the total allowable catch—that we would simply be allowed to land everything that we catch and that there would be no repercussions from Europe, with no quota reduction? Is that his position, or is he negotiating on the basis that there would be a reduction in quota for those boats that were allowed to land everything that they catch? Maybe he could clarify that when he sums up, because those are important points.
There are clearly concerns about the cabinet secretary’s position. People in the industry said in The Press and Journal this week that they have concerns and it would be interesting to know exactly what the cabinet secretary is saying.
I must hurry you.
Our amendment seeks some indication from the cabinet secretary of what other support he will provide to fishing communities in the months to come. I ask him, when he sums up, to clarify what support packages will be available over and above what he has already mentioned.
I move amendment S3M-7498.3, to insert at end:
“, and calls on the Scottish Government to work closely with fishing communities to provide meaningful economic support to help mitigate the impacts of the current round of fisheries negotiations.”
I apologise; I got your timing slightly wrong. However, it is quite handy to have a little extra time. I am sorry about that.
I call John Scott to speak to and move amendment S3M-7498.1. Mr Scott, you have four minutes.
14:47
Thank you. Is that an exact four minutes, Presiding Officer? [Laughter.]
I declare an interest as a council member of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.
As ever, our Scottish fishing industry appears to be in crisis. Forty-one boats are to be tied up, the Icelanders and the Faroese are catching our mackerel, the Isle of Man has restricted access to its scallop fisheries, and we are still discarding more cod into our seas annually than we actually land. I note the cabinet secretary’s analysis. I support much of what he is doing and I wish him and Richard Benyon every success in the forthcoming negotiations, but the question is where we go from here.
In the longer term, we have to start addressing some of the structural weaknesses in our fishing industry that are holding back its development and preventing it from being a much stronger industry than it is at present. Notwithstanding the problems of the pelagic and nephrops sectors, the biggest problem area appears to be our mixed white-fish sector. It seems to me that we should start in the sector where the problem is the most obvious, and I venture to suggest that part of the solution to the various problems lies in the hands of the fishermen themselves.
In real terms, the Government’s four-pillar plan is a good starting point. The key element is catching for the market. The lack of trust, collaboration and communication in the supply chain is hugely damaging the end price that fishermen receive for the fish that they catch, as are the lack of standard box weights and the lack of co-ordination of landings. Our fishermen are weak sellers as primary producers in a buyers’ market. I say that not from a theoretical perspective but from a viewpoint of bitter experience I have seen at first hand the self-same problems in agriculture, and that allows me to see the problems in our white-fish industry.
Building cohesion and trust in the industry and controlling and delivering for the market would add value to our fisheries product and, importantly, reduce discards. If all that was caught was landed, the industry could again hold its head high. We all agree that the current discarding and high-grading practices cannot continue if our fishing industry is to be regarded as truly sustainable in the future. Catch quotas alone are not the answer. Better and more sustainable fishing practices might encourage UK buyers and supermarkets back as mainstream buyers of our Scottish products. What a prize it would be if European buyers were competing on real terms with our major UK retailers for the same product.
There is much to be done. The Governments in the UK, Scotland and Europe must get the policy right this year and reform the CFP for the years ahead. That said, our fishermen need to be brave and bold not just, as Karen Gillon pointed out, in their work and the hardship that they face on our seas but in the business initiatives that they take. If, as seems likely, we have more regional control, with producer organisations ultimately given more responsibility for the management of our seas, integrated and collaborative supply-chain management will provide a real opportunity for POs to work together better in the new post-2012 climate not only to deliver but to add value to basic quayside landings. Such models already exist. In the farming industry, for example, the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society has developed and delivered for those who wish them models of collaborative supply-chain marketing and management through large-scale co-operative ventures.
I passionately believe that the current difficulties present an opportunity for our fishermen, if they have the courage and skill to grasp it. They can rest assured that our party will help in whatever way it can.
I move amendment S3M-7498.1, to insert at end:
“, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the fishing industry to develop better supply chain management.”
14:51
Liam McArthur is snowbound. There is no problem in Kirkwall or Sumburgh—it is the central belt airports that seem to be struggling with winter. As a result, though, I have the pleasure of contributing briefly to this debate and moving Mr McArthur’s amendment.
Given that fishing is worth a couple of hundred million pounds to my Shetland constituency and employs hundreds of people, no December for me is free of the agonising wait for the outcome of the EU fisheries council. In that sense, I want to highlight two points to the cabinet secretary. First, on the international mackerel talks that will resume next week, Iceland has, as he has pointed out, acted quite wrongly in prosecuting a fishery for which there is no agreed quota, to the detriment of the Scottish fleet. I understand that the Faroes is now demanding double its agreed 4.6 per cent allocation and I ask, and indeed expect, the cabinet secretary to confirm that there is no way that his Government will sign off any such figure. This very morning, the industry told me of its worries about the Scottish negotiating position and the precise percentage that is being considered. Pelagic boats from Shetland to Peterhead and Fraserburgh expect the Government to stand on their side, as do I and this Parliament, and there can be no deal that rewards Iceland and the Faroes for their irresponsible behaviour. Indeed, I recall that when the cabinet secretary’s predecessor was involved in similar international discussions and negotiations over fishing stocks, Mr Lochhead constantly used the word “betrayal”. It is obviously a case of what’s good for the goose.
Secondly, on the 2011 fishing opportunities for Scotland’s white-fish boats, the cabinet secretary rightly mentioned the second round of EU-Norway negotiations, which got under way today in Bergen. The prospect for Scotland’s white-fish fleet gives greatest cause for concern, and boats, processors and shore-side businesses face a truly awful 2011 if the European Commission’s quota proposals are agreed. Like Karen Gillon, I find the cabinet secretary’s tone somewhat different and more encouraging than it was during his many years in opposition but, as he will certainly understand, at this stage any quota reduction is simply a negotiation or, as the Commission sees it, an opening gambit. Is he able to outline to Parliament the areas where he will argue for change and what those changes will be?
Will the cabinet secretary also allay fears heightened by Commissioner Damanaki’s comments last month about the Commission’s scepticism over the Scottish Government’s policy of introducing a new initiative every year? Fishing skippers around Scotland have pointed out that our boats have had conservation credits, cod avoidance trawls, on-board closed-circuit television and now catch quotas, each of which has been cited as a panacea for the industry’s future. However, as John Scott rightly observed, 41 more Scottish boats are being decommissioned. Many skippers have asked me why, if these policies are working, we are losing men, boats and experience from the Scottish industry.
If I understand him correctly, the cabinet secretary’s Government is now basing its 2011 fisheries policy on catch quotas. He is right that we should tackle discards, but we say no to a so-called perfect fisheries control system that locks down an imperfect management regime. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has said that without a fundamental overhaul of the single-species approach to mixed fisheries, catch quotas amount to a “suicide pill”. I agree and I hope that the cabinet secretary does as well.
Most of the 17 boats involved in the catch quota trial this year are now fishing only by renting extra quota. The system is not flexible and it cannot cope with in-year changes. The industry has also told me that it will not reduce costs to skippers and boats. Therefore, it must be reconsidered. That is why our amendment states that the catch quota proposals can be progressed only with full and active consultation with Scottish skippers and boats.
The industry is concerned that Government policy is a one-trick pony—or possibly a one-net boat. Mr Lochhead rightly used to condemn the former European commissioner Franz Fischler for his obsession with cod, but the industry believes that Mr Lochhead is in danger of making exactly the same mistake. I urge him to drop the proposals unless he can change the management system. He and I agree that that system does not work.
This year looks tough for Scottish boats. I urge the minister to look at the proposals, drop those that cannot work and work with those that can.
I move amendment S3M-7498.2, to leave out from “and urges” to end and insert:
“; expresses concern at the significant cuts to effort and quotas for key stocks being proposed by the European Commission; urges the Scottish Government to take forward its catch quota proposals only with the full and active involvement of the Scottish fishing industry at every stage, and calls on the European Commission to support these efforts to reduce wasteful discards.”
14:55
I welcome this annual fisheries debate, which is an opportunity to send the cabinet secretary to Brussels with MSPs’ comments and good lines of argument ringing in his ears.
It is regrettable that, by announcing new quota proposals to the media before the industry had sight of them, the new commissioner, Maria Damanaki, has not covered herself in glory. That is not a good basis on which to start negotiations.
How much we as a nation admire the bravery of our fishermen in undertaking such a hazardous job to bring fresh fish to our tables and to export high-quality products overseas can never be overstated. That is why the general public cannot understand why fishermen who catch good, edible fish have to discard them overboard because they cannot be landed as a result of quotas. The horrendous situation in which tonnes of good fish are discarded by fishing vessels is a direct result of the EU’s common fisheries policy being based on landing quotas rather than catch quotas.
The land more, catch less approach is a relatively new approach that is being pioneered in Scotland. With the right monitoring, it is possible to know exactly how much of a fish stock, including in mixed fisheries, is being removed from the sea. The need for effort restrictions can therefore be reduced. It is a win-win situation: fish mortality is reduced and fishermen are able to raise the value of the stock that they land by being awarded increased quotas for their compliance with the scheme. The technology is available to create a fully monitored fishery that not only gives fishermen a chance to demonstrate their compliance with regulations but creates a significant wealth of evidence on the health of fish stocks that can be pointed to in negotiations. It will also give a wealth of evidence to those in marine research. Given the cuts in budgets, it is obvious that there will have to be work with the industry in the future.
Scotland has demonstrated that a catch quota system of management can be successful. The EU now needs to back that system and take action to significantly expand its availability. The industry here has rightly received international plaudits for its ground-breaking conservation measures. It is imperative that the rest of the EU acknowledges those efforts and the need for change in practice, but the EU steadfastly refuses to see that as a basis for negotiation. It is right that the Scottish Government is putting catch quotas at the heart of our negotiating priorities, but without our own voice in negotiations, it can only be hoped that the UK Government fully understands just how important a priority they are. Given the way in which the Lib Dem-Tory Government at Westminster attempted to drop the annual fisheries debate, it is difficult to have much confidence in it.
There is no better document for the cabinet secretary to have in his luggage than “The Future of Fisheries Management in Scotland: Report of an Independent Panel”. We ought to thank Alan Campbell and his team for producing it. Among other things, it urges urgent reform of the CFP and recognises that Scotland, as a pre-eminent fishing nation, should be taking the lead in new methods and new trials.
Times have changed. Fishermen are no longer able to catch as much as they want, but we now see non-governmental organisations and the fishing industry working together. We wish the cabinet secretary well in his efforts to continue to back and get the best deal for our fishermen.
15:00
I confess to continuing to get a feeling of déjà vu all over again, as the annual debate continues. Many fish stocks remain challenged, as they were last year; CFP reform remains eternally slow; we still have problems with sand eels and their interaction with sea birds; and the economics are still difficult, and are exacerbated by the recession.
If there are changes from the situation last year, they have brought only more challenges, as members have said. Tavish Scott touched on the unilateral action of Iceland and the Faroes to take far more stocks than they ought to, without any agreement. Such unilateral action is, clearly, unacceptable, and this Parliament needs to make it clear that it stands with the minister in stating that view. To plunder a stock that is enjoying comparatively good health, in part because of the action of the fishermen in Scotland, is not to be tolerated. Although I accept that, as the minister says, there must be a negotiated settlement to such matters, we must be careful not to overly reward such unilateral action, or we will simply encourage it to happen again and again.
The rate of decline is another aspect that changes from year to year, as is the rate at which stocks recover. Those changes continue in this year, but the stocks still remain in decline, with the exception of mackerel and herring. That implies that there will be, yet again, a lower quota across the board. In the North Sea, there could well be reductions of 20 per cent for cod, 5 per cent for haddock, and 15 per cent for whiting. On the west coast, the quota for cod, haddock and whiting could be down by 25 per cent, and the quota for langoustine could be down by 15 per cent. The minister believes that that decline in the langoustine quota is manageable, but it is still a decline that might constrain that fleet when the recovery from the recession comes.
Rightly, all of the decisions about quotas are rooted in science and the measures that are agreed have to manage the necessary change. I urge the minister to continue to press ahead with the technical improvements that have taken place in fishing, the real-time closures and the conservation credits, as well as the catch-and-keep scheme that will be developed. Equally, he should urge the EU to urge other member states to take the same kind of actions as the Scottish fleet has been taking in recent years.
The other change that I welcome, to which other members have referred, is the continuing refinement of the minister’s position. His revelation to the committee that Scotland’s future is no longer volume fishing but, instead, quality was perhaps no more than a recognition of the reality of the science and the interaction of that science with the economics of the industry, but then this is the year in which Richard Lochhead introduced a scheme to decommission boats. I have asked myself, “Is this the same Richard Lochhead who would have died in a ditch to oppose decommissioning schemes or any notion of the volume of fishing being reduced?” Indeed, I seem to remember that, when he was in opposition, Richard Lochhead went to Brussels at least once during the fishing negotiations to demonstrate against the very proposals that he has now introduced. As Karen Gillon said, it is remarkable what a dose of the realities of government can do. Nevertheless, I very much welcome his move towards a position that we have held for many years.
Whatever the background, it is in the long-term interest of us all to have a sustainable and secure fishery. Successive UK Governments have sought that in the past and they will seek it again this year, along with the Scottish minister. I wish them well in those discussions. We will be listening closely to what is said and watching closely to see what the outcomes are.
15:04
There is, clearly, an impressive appetite for seafood, and a number of markets that the Scottish seafood industry would be able to exploit. As the cabinet secretary said, Scottish seafood exports are worth around £500 million a year. It is clearly an important industry, and there is a clear need for a fair settlement for Scotland’s fishermen in the upcoming negotiations.
The European Commission’s proposal for fishing opportunities in 2011 is concerning, particularly with regard to Scotland’s key commercial species. Our fishing industry understands the need to have a sustainable relationship with the environment, which is why the Scottish fleet is one of the most responsible in Europe. I am glad that we have in the Parliament unamity regarding discards. There are concerns over proposed cuts for prawn quotas in the west coast of Scotland and the North Sea, and we face cuts in quotas for west coast haddock and cod of 25 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. Those are extremely serious proposals that would have a significant impact. Our fishing industry must be protected and made sustainable to ensure that it continues to thrive.
About a quarter of the labour force operates from the fishing port areas of Peterhead and Fraserburgh. When the port districts of Aberdeen and Buckie are included, the north-east contains about 32 per cent of the total labour force and lands about half of the fish. Only three other port districts have more than 500 fishermen, one of which is in Ayr. In my region, Ayrshire is an important fishing area, as is Berwickshire. Only the port at Fraserburgh employs more fishermen than that in Ayr. Unfortunately, both Ayr and Eyemouth in Berwickshire have witnessed a drop in the number of fishermen operating out of their harbours. To emphasise that, I point out that, in Ayr alone, 118 fewer fishermen were employed in 2009 than in 2007.
The past 10 years have been characterised by alarming drops in the value of landings, with only some modest year-on-year increases. It is little wonder that the 2007 labour force was approximately half that employed back in the 1970s; that the number of people employed in the catching sector in 2009 dropped to an historic low of 5,409; and that the current figure of 2,174 fishing vessels is the smallest fleet size ever recorded. We must ensure that fishermen can plan for their future. Trawler skippers run small businesses, and what business owner would envy them the task of continuing to operate when they are unable to make long-term projections on turnover? That is why I welcome the comments of the UK fisheries minister, who said in June that any reform of the common fisheries policy should
“Enable and encourage fishermen to better plan for their businesses for the long-term”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 June 2010; Vol 512, c 264W.]
It was appropriate that the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the UK delegation regarding the quotas for the Faroe Islands and Iceland at September’s agriculture and fisheries council.
The UK Government has been proactive in engaging with the relevant stakeholders in the fishing industry in the past few months. Only last week, the fisheries minister met Alistair Carmichael MP and representatives of the Shetland fisheries group SHOAL—the Shetland oceans alliance—and has committed to visiting Shetland in the new year. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, also recently met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to discuss the challenges that the industry faces. I understand that the fisheries minister is in regular contact with the Scottish Government. Obviously, Maureen Watt is not aware of that.
The negotiations are vital not just for our fishing communities, but for Scotland as a whole. I remind all who are involved that at the heart of the negotiations must be the communities that are involved in the industry and which, every day, take financial and human risk to put fish on our plates.
15:08
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint Karen Gillon, although I see that she has left the chamber.
No, I have not.
Sorry—I did not see the member at the back there.
The annual decisions on fishing quotas are based on the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, with little input from the men at the sharp end, our fishermen. The science is unreliable and, in areas such as the west coast, almost non-existent. John Hermse, the secretary of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association, told me this week:
“Fishermen don’t mind being told they have to catch less if they can see this is based on a sound scientific rationale, but there are too many mistakes in the advice coming from the scientists. ICES has made numerous errors but, even when these are discovered, there is no recalculation of the stock levels, and the quota calculation based on the incorrect evidence is allowed to stand.”
John’s members, who represent the bulk of Scotland’s west coast fleet, have reported more whiting, cod and hake than ever before in the waters off the west coast, yet we are to get a zero quota for cod.
The size of the fishing fleet in Mallaig today—at just 20 boats—is less than half that of just a decade ago. The fleet is being squeezed further by the so-called emergency management measures that have been in place since 2009. Those measures unfairly preclude our fishermen from diversifying into the sustainable harvesting of other species such as squid and queen scallops and cause discards of dogfish, because there is no dogfish bycatch allowance.
Earlier this year, the cabinet secretary and I had a good meeting with west coast fishermen. The cabinet secretary agreed to take back several issues for further consideration, including creel management, marketing of prawns, crab and lobster and possible displacement because of offshore renewable energy developments and marine protected areas. The meeting was robust but useful. The cabinet secretary also promised to look into initiating research and sea-going trials into the viability of a west coast squid fishery. Is he in a position to tell us where he is on that?
The big problem is discards, as has been said. It is good to note that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s fish fight against that terrible waste has recognised that the problem is bad regulation through the CFP. That is refreshing as, until now, the problem has always been laid at the door of fishermen by the bureaucrats who manage the CFP. As Bertie Armstrong—who has been quoted today—said last week:
“We have been innovating with selective nets, making sacrifices in support of closed areas and rationalising the fleet but this has not resulted in any significant changes in the approach of the European Commission—almost the reverse.”
As the cabinet secretary said, review of the common fisheries policy is long overdue. I am pleased to note that bodies such as WWF Scotland and the RSPB have joined our fishermen and the Scottish Government in calling for regionalisation of fisheries management. WWF says that the reduced fishing opportunities for 2011 demonstrate the strong case for reform of the CFP in 2012, and that the CFP has an overcentralised, top-down, complex and short-term approach to fisheries management that leads to an imbalanced marine environment, depleted fish stocks and alienated stakeholders. I could not agree more.
Regionalisation would allow proper long-term management of our fisheries and would let the Government, scientists and fishermen in Scotland develop a system that was sensitive to local needs and which balanced all the competing demands on a modern fishery. Let us make that our top priority for 2012.
15:12
I get the impression from other members’ speeches that they, too, have struggled to find something new to say in this annual sea fisheries debate. I looked at my speeches from the past two years and it would have been easy to rehash one of them, but I have resisted the temptation to do so. The reason for that situation is that the subjects of agreement do not change—they are the fishing industry’s importance to Scotland and particularly to some of our coastal communities; the need to manage the industry sustainably; the need to conserve stocks and the industry; the need to reduce discards; and the need to reform the common fisheries policy substantially.
The subjects of disagreement do not change much from year to year, either. Arguments always arise about the validity of the science; whether it is possible to reach maximum sustainable yields for all stocks by 2015; and how mixed fisheries can be managed when some species’ populations are in good shape while those of other species are not, which often leads to the problem of discards.
It is clear that the marine environment is complex, so it is necessary to continue to invest in marine science, in order to improve the understanding of the factors that influence the fish population. Marine Scotland’s budget will reduce from £62.4 million to £55.9 million next year. Of course, the cuts that are coming from Westminster must be shared around, so I will make no unrealistic demands, but I am interested to know how the reduction will be managed. I was reassured by the reply that I received last week from Mr Swinney to a written question on how the reduction will be achieved. He said:
“Priority research programmes will be maintained through the scheduling of government vessels and a consensual approach to research priorities”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 25 November 2010; S3W-37666.]
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment referred to that when he gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee this morning.
However, I am more concerned that the implication in the answer was that the support for studies and gear trials that was previously provided without charge will be realigned, which I suspect means that it will now incur a charge. I hope that those charges will not be at a level that might detract from efforts to improve the reduction of discards through the use of selective gear.
I also hope that, in implementing the staff release programme, due account will be taken of the need to preserve the valuable experience that Marine Scotland currently has. The cabinet secretary, or the minister, may wish to advise how they intend to ensure that fisheries science is preserved in these difficult times.
Scottish fishing fleets have made great efforts and undergone great sacrifices to stem the reduction of the stocks that they fish, so it must be very disheartening when the ICES advice to the European Commission indicates that more pain and sacrifice will be demanded, particularly in areas such as the west coast and from fishers of some species.
As the downward pressure on fishing effort continues, the emphasis has to be on minimising waste and maximising the value of each catch. Everyone talks about the need to reduce discards—we have been talking about it for years—and great strides have been made, with Scottish fishermen leading the way through the use of selective gear and the Scottish conservation credits scheme.
The reform of the CFP presents further opportunities to tackle the problem and there seems to be a fair amount of consensus among stakeholders on issues such as catch quotas replacing landing quotas. However, as Tavish Scott pointed out, there is a need to work with people in the industry, because they are the experts and what may appear to be a particularly useful model may contain flaws.
I think that there is also consensus on the need for regional fisheries management, although, as Ian Gatt advised the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, it will not necessarily solve all the problems of the pelagic fishing industry. A case is also being made for an approach that uses days fishing rather than days at sea, which seems to be a sensible proposal.
I cannot disagree with the sentiments in the Government’s motion. I hope that Parliament can also support Karen Gillon’s amendment, which stresses the need for economic support for the communities that are affected by the restrictions emanating from the European Commission.
15:17
I will not be here next year for the annual fisheries debate. I have attended every one since this Parliament was established, and I have noted with some pleasure—particularly in this debate—that things have at last started to move on. Apart from one or two speakers, members have accepted that scientific evidence must be looked at and that scientists, by and large, do the best job that they can. Scientists work within parameters and within degrees of error that they announce before they produce their final determinations. I trust the scientists and I regret to learn, from Elaine Murray, that Marine Scotland will be given less rather than more money.
In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the Dutch fleet in the North Sea grew to between 400 and 600 boats. Each boat employed 10 men or more, so the fleet employed perhaps 6,000 people. In the time that one modern super-trawler is allowed to go to sea, it can catch as many fish as that entire fleet. The Dutch built an empire on the proceeds from that fishery; we could probably not even begin to finance a small city from the proceeds from the North Sea. The big problem is the huge catching capacity of the fleet over the years, with the damage that that has done to stocks. In many cases, the size of the stock today is a tiny percentage of the size of the stock that existed in the North Sea as recently as 200 years ago.
I have heard members talk about the loss of 41 boats, which is the total reduction in the number of boats across the board in the Scottish fleet over a number of years. However, analysis of the yearly figures that have been produced indicates that the total catching capacities of the European and Scottish fleets have remained remarkably stable. In other words, the catching capacity that at any day could be unleashed on our remaining stocks is as much over what it should be as it ever has been.
I invite the minister, when he goes to Brussels, to try to initiate among all the European nations a conversation on agreeing to reduce the catching capacity of the fleets to the point at which we do not need overregulation because we have a fleet that is adjusted to the size of the stocks that it wishes to fish.
It has been suggested that the need for effort restrictions would be reduced if we had full landing—landing of all catches and no discards, which I hope we will have—but that is not necessarily the case. If the same number of boats with the same catching capacity went to sea and brought back their original target stocks, we might double the amount of fish being landed, but there would still be a crying need for effort restrictions. We have to face the realities.
Peter Peacock made the point that there is absolutely no room for complacency with regard to any stock in the North Sea or off the west coast. I hope that all members present took that point to heart.
I look forward to the minister’s response—and I thank the Presiding Officer for the extra 20 seconds.
15:21
There is an element of annual ritual to the EU fisheries talks. However, they are anything but a formality to Scotland’s coastal communities. More than anything else, the talks speak eloquently of the dismal failure that is the EU common fisheries policy. It is a failure not only for the industry, but for conservation, as the policy’s trademark—discarded fish—bears witness.
However, one thing has been changing for the better in recent years. It has been recognised that, despite the institutional failures and the reservation of key negotiating powers to Westminster, Scotland’s Government has been playing a more vocal role than previously in defending the interests of Scottish fishermen.
My few remarks today will display the west coast interests that befit my constituency, but I hope that they may also have wider relevance.
If we are to overcome the shameful situation of discards and cope with the reality of quota cuts, we have to adopt a catch less, land more approach. The European Commission must also accept that Scottish fishermen are already leading Europe in conservation measures. Those efforts deserve recognition.
West coast fishermen have particularly grave doubts about the west coast catch composition rules, although that matter may not be discussed fully until next year. I am hopeful that, in the meantime, the cabinet secretary will continue to negotiate hard for Scotland’s role in the cod recovery plan not to involve an unrealistic or unfair share of the associated pain.
For the nephrops sector, which is key to the fishing industry in my constituency and elsewhere on the west coast, it is also essential that the risks associated with the subdivision of the seas into functional units be assessed. Whatever happens on that point, there now seems to be a scientific rationale not to repeat the scale of last year’s cuts to the nephrops total allowable catch. Although the current relatively low take-up rate of the nephrops quota on the west coast would allow any cut this year to be an paper cut to some extent, we must also start to plan for the time when the sector starts to grow again and not leave ourselves without the people and the capacity to allow that.
The fisheries talks are as important this year to coastal communities as ever they were. They highlight the human cost of Scotland’s relative lack of say in decisions that need to be made more locally to a far greater extent.
I will say a word in support of the community in Barra, which continues to argue against another inflexible aspect of European legislation that will, potentially, have an impact on fishing—and much else—on the island: the proposed marine special areas of conservation in east Mingulay and the Sound of Barra.
Barra is a powerful example of the important role that fishing can have in maintaining populations in fragile communities. It is also a good case for repatriating to Scotland, and to fishing communities themselves, as much as we can of the decision-making process that affects those communities’ livelihoods.
As in every year, the next few days are essential to ensuring that Scotland’s fishing communities have the future that they deserve. I commend the Scottish Government for advancing its case and look forward to the progress that we will hear from Europe over the coming weeks.
15:25
I am a bit surprised that so many members think that these debates are the same every year. They are not; that is the whole point. There is always something different going on—
You are taking part.
There is that, but it is probably not a good thing.
This year, Richard Lochhead is dealing with mackerel negotiations and something is going on with different management techniques. There is always something different. Therefore, while we may all be disappointed in a sense, the great thing about fisheries debates is that there is always something new.
However, I remember the speech that Robin Harper made in the winter of 1999—I think that he mentioned technology creep then, too. In fairness to him, he has gone on about that bit of jargon, which my good friend Mr Finnie had to deal with, for some considerable time.
Many colleagues have made broad mention of the economic viability and importance of the industry. Some important things are happening in that regard. The Marine Stewardship Council’s accreditation of many species is a positive step forward for different parts of our fishing and coastal communities. However, rising fuel prices and the employment statistics that were cited by Jim Hume and other members highlight how tricky the situation is.
I will concentrate on the point that Dave Thompson, Alasdair Allan, John Scott and others have raised: the management of fisheries, whether on the west coast, the east coast or the North Sea. Colleagues from the different parts of Scotland have touched on their areas. Dave Thompson called the 2009 management measures unfair. However, as the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s Bertie Armstrong, who has been much quoted today, and many other representative fishing organisations have made clear, those measures highlight why the changes that are being proposed build on what is already not working. That cannot be the best way forward. I think that we are all making a broadly similar point to the cabinet secretary on the pilots that he has been running. I hope that he will define what is a successful pilot—what is working, as opposed to the many problems that are being brought to all members who represent fishing constituencies.
As many have said, the issue of catch quotas is difficult. Bertie Armstrong said in the Fishing News this week:
“Any suggestion that catch quotas are a single fix for the economic woes of the Scottish white-fish sector is wrong.”
I am sure that the cabinet secretary knows and believes that. That is why it is so important that catch quotas are not seen as a panacea. I do not want to misquote Maureen Watt, but I think that she said that catch quotas are a win-win and that enforcing control measures is the right way forward. However, on 11 November 2009, when Maureen Watt’s committee was taking evidence before the fisheries discussions last year, Bertie Armstrong said:
“my main fear is that it could be the perfect control measure. If the perfect control measure is added to a very imperfect system, the impetus for changing the system is removed—we might simply screw down participants to the imperfect system.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 November 2009; c 2079.]
That is the central point of fisheries management, whether under Mr Finnie or Mr Lochhead. That is the difficulty that we all face. We must be alive to that in proposing any changes.
I therefore hope that catch quotas, as they are currently proposed, are not what is taken to Brussels this year. I simply do not believe that they will make the future of our industry any better, nor will they end discards, as Robin Harper rightly said, given their current format. Ending discards is a shared agenda across all political parties that we all seek to achieve.
I will finish with some questions that I hope the cabinet secretary will deal with. He mentioned his officials in Bergen. Does he recognise that many fishermen and, indeed, scientists are concerned about the current system whereby all his compliance, management and science officials are in the same organisation—Marine Scotland? Trust, which is the basis of the relationship between skippers and boats and those who manage the operation, is not all that it should be. Some consideration needs to be given to that. Will he update Parliament on progress towards what is euphemistically called the licence parking scheme? What impact does he expect the scheme to have on catching opportunities? Crucially, will funding remain in our fishing communities or will it in some cases return to the banks to deal with bank debt?
This looks a very difficult year. I hope that the cabinet secretary can achieve much in December. He must be very clear about the basis on which he is negotiating.
15:30
The proposed cut of 15 per cent in the west coast prawn quota will, if ratified, devastate my fishing constituents, who are represented by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, the Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association and the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association. The chairman of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, Duncan MacInnes, said:
“it’s cuts on cuts and I think it’s beginning to tip the balance where vessels are no longer viable”.
Prawns are the mainstay of those fleets.
The Clyde prawn quota was not fully taken up last year for a variety of reasons, such as the limitation on the number of days at sea; the weekend ban, which the Commission seems to ignore; the increase in mesh size that allows the escape of marketable prawns; and the new OMEGA measuring gauge, which has forced a further increase in mesh size.
In addition, in the past 12 months we have seen a huge increase in the presence of Irish vessels, because of large quota cuts in their sector. If that trend continues, the quota for 2011 will run out before the end of the year. Those Irish vessels represent an increase in fishing effort of about 30 per cent, which, combined with the proposed 15 per cent cut in quota, will cause an early closure of the fishery. What will the cabinet secretary do to prevent that?
Tavish Scott spoke admirably about the problems in Shetland, and Orkney white-fish boats have received no reward for their past conservation efforts. The size of the real-time closures for cod is displacing fishermen from large areas of the North Sea to traditional Orkney fishing grounds and to other species. The EU Commission seems to refuse to acknowledge the benefits that the fishermen’s good efforts have already achieved.
Regarding discards, the cabinet secretary will be aware that the SFF thinks that a land-all-you-catch policy is the industry’s big hope for salvation, but what is his response to the concern of those who have participated in the trials to date that unless changes are made to the present TAC and quota rules, the policy will simply not work in reducing discards or in improving the commercial position of the white-fish fleet?
Will the cabinet secretary give the chamber an update on his talks with the Manx Government on fishing for king scallops, which my west coast constituents have traditionally harvested in Manx waters? Will he address the very real concerns of fishermen in the Hebrides who face seeing their livelihoods taken away as a result of the special area of conservation designation that is planned for east Mingulay, which Alasdair Allan mentioned, where they have fished for generations without doing too much damage to any reef?
It saddens me that, 12 years after the Parliament’s establishment, there is still such a gulf between the fishing industry and the EU Commission on fisheries management. Scottish fishermen cannot be criticised for questioning so-called science when they can clearly see the true facts for themselves. With respect to genuine scientists, I refer members to Winston Churchill’s view, which was that it is better to have science on tap than science on top.
No fleet has taken more pain than the Scottish fleet when it comes to conserving fish stocks but, as Bertie Armstrong says, the Commission proposals are a “study in arrogance” that some MEPs condone. One fishermen’s representative told me that those MEPs were as much use as a set of bagpipes tuned by Edward Scissorhands. I know that the cabinet secretary can do much better than they can, and I wish him and Richard Benyon every success in their efforts.
15:34
I believe that this is not just a repeat of previous debates. Of course we have to have a debate every year in the run-up to the fisheries negotiations, but there have been some changes. Progress has been made in our thinking on how we might deal with discards. More research has been carried out and the pilots that have been conducted over the past few years have helped us to think about how we might shape the future.
The speeches of John Scott and Jim Hume demonstrated that they have been expertly briefed by some of their colleagues—I certainly recognised one or two of the lines in John Scott’s speech and I definitely got the politics of Jim Hume’s speech.
This is not the same debate that we have every year, as things are moving on. There is a focus on regional fisheries management, and we need to discuss where we want to push the quota system and what has worked in the pilots.
We have talked about discards in the past few years. The work that is being done needs to be looked at properly. The minister set out the challenges, and he was bang on when he talked about the west coast, the stock, the economic impact on communities and the position with mackerel. Peter Peacock said that our fishermen should not have to see Icelandic and Faroese fishermen taking the benefits of their previous restraint and work. That would be an impossible situation for people in Scotland.
Karen Gillon’s questions got to the heart of the matter of this year’s negotiations on tackling discards. I am keen to hear the minister’s solution and how we can push it forward. What lessons does he think we can draw from the pilot work that has been done? We cannot expect the EU to get rid of discards by allowing fishermen to keep what they catch. None of us can see that happening. There must be a place between the pilots and that position.
The RSPB is right that there must be a way of catching fewer fish while landing more. The WWF also focused on that point. We have to bore into the reality of what has happened in the pilot. Some of the fishing organisations are less than relaxed about the possibility of what happened in the pilots fossilizing into the new position. We must be careful before we decide to take that way forward.
One of the key issues that we need to look at is monitoring compliance with the cod catch quotas. What does the minister think has happened in the experiments that have been carried out? What lessons can be applied? We need to understand the pitfalls and the opportunities.
Science must be at the heart of this. The speeches of Dave Thompson and Jamie McGrigor were not very helpful, because they just slated the science. The science must be robust, accurate and transparent. It is not above criticism, but we cannot say that we do not need it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I need to get on.
The key thing is to ensure that we get good science. The Scottish Government has a role in ensuring that we get good and transparent science that everyone can see, understand and criticise. Elaine Murray’s comments about the need for priorities in science under sustained financial pressure were bang on. We must make sure that money is spent correctly.
We need to consider sustainable fishing. The points that were made by Peter Peacock and Robin Harper were absolutely right. Progress has been made during the past 12 years in the debates between the fishing communities and the NGOs that look after the environment. Their positions have come closer over the years. That does not mean that they agree on everything, but there is far greater understanding and more of a willingness to work together than there was 12 years ago. Elaine Murray and Tavish Scott were right to point to progress.
The Labour amendment looks at what is to happen to the fishing communities now. We know that they have been under pressure for the past few years, and they will continue to be under pressure in the future. They need support from the Scottish Government now. Whatever the result of this year’s negotiations, those communities will need practical economic support. It is not just those who are conducting the fishing who are impacted on, but the communities in which they spend money, the supplies industry, the shops that they use, and the schools that their children go to. All the communities in our fishing areas will be under threat and pressure, and the Scottish Government has it within its power to help them out.
I hope that colleagues will support our amendment. We need not just to get maximum value from the fish that we land and to sustain stocks and the ecology but to sustain our fishing communities as they find their way through tough times. Economic support from the Scottish Government is needed, and our amendment suggests that that must be at the heart of the Scottish Government’s approach.
15:39
I believe that these annual fishing debates are very important and, unlike members in some other Parliaments elsewhere, I believe that we should continue to hold them because the speeches that we hear are extremely valuable.
I welcome the fact that we all recognise the importance of sea fisheries to Scotland in this year and throughout the 21st century and accept that we have to maintain that contribution to our economy and, of course, secure a good food resource for our people. It is also recognised that this is not just about the fleet at sea but about the onshore sector, where tens of thousands of people work in processing that fantastic food product.
We need to keep things in perspective. I noted Jamie McGrigor’s comment that it would be a disaster for the west coast of Scotland if there was a 15 per cent cut in the nephrops quota. No one is more concerned than I am as minister when such cuts are proposed but, given that the likely uptake on the west coast is about 60 per cent this year, it does not keep things in perspective to say that that cut would be a disaster for the west coast. We must also remember that, rather than declining, the value of sea fisheries rose by 10 per cent last year. We have spoken about the pressures facing the white-fish sector, but even the commercial fishery value rose by 5 per cent.
Fishing remains important to Scotland, and we must keep things in perspective, but we must not mask some of the serious problems facing particular sectors in Scotland’s fishing communities. The sectors are trying to cope with the fallout of the recent recession at the same time.
As members have said, we face an important fortnight. This week, we have the talks between the EU and Norway, where the approach to many of the key stocks of importance to Scotland will be discussed and agreed. Then we have the remaining few days of the coastal states negotiations over the mackerel stock. Scotland’s view is that we must not reward irresponsible behaviour by the Faroese or Icelanders, but we need a deal. No one will win if there is no international agreement in the years ahead.
Let us learn from what happened to blue whiting. In 2005, catches of blue whiting were just under 2 million tonnes; by 2011, the advice is that the TAC should be set at 40,000. That is a 98 per cent reduction, because the same states that are involved in the current coastal negotiations on mackerel failed to reach an international agreement about blue whiting. Does any member seriously want that to happen? I say to Tavish Scott and others that we will take a hard line, but our line will also be that we should get an agreement. That is the best thing to do for the long-term viability of the stock; otherwise, in Shetland and elsewhere in Scotland, the £335 million annual income that we receive from the fishery will simply disappear. We cannot allow that to happen.
I agree with the minister’s sentiment, but does he recognise that the concern of the pelagic industry in his constituency and in mine is that the Faroese are asking for double the percentage allocation that they had under the agreement that was in place before? That is surely not acceptable.
I certainly agree that we must not reward irresponsible behaviour, and we continue to take that line with both the Norwegians, who are a major player in the negotiations, and the EU.
I was surprised to learn that the Scottish Government and fishing industry were being attacked for agreeing initiative upon initiative over recent years. I remind members that most decisions on Scottish fishing communities are taken in Brussels. Most are completely ill fitted to Scotland’s needs and are therefore damaging to Scotland’s fishing communities. It is the duty of the Government and the Parliament to work with our fishermen to mitigate the damage from the common fisheries policy. That is why we have had a number of exciting initiatives over the past few years—to mitigate the effects of the bad decisions and to help our fishing communities to cope with them.
I say to Peter Peacock that, in opposition, I was critical of the previous Administration’s policies in some regards because, too often, I felt that we just shrugged our shoulders and swallowed what Brussels threw at us rather than coming up with some innovative solutions to ease the pain for Scotland’s fishing communities. I did not disagree with everything, but that is certainly the basis of some of my disagreement with previous policy.
Let us consider the cod recovery plan. The approach to that has been attacked as being new initiative after new initiative. The cod recovery plan proposed a significant cut in days at sea for the Scottish industry. The Scottish Government took the decision that we should introduce a new scheme that rewards fishermen with more days at sea for adopting certain conservation measures. That has worked: this year, we have managed to give fishermen 40 per cent more days at sea than they would have had if the buy-back system had not been put in place. Are Tavish Scott and the others who attacked the initiative after initiative suggesting that we should have just lain back and accepted a 40 per cent cut in days from Brussels? I take the attitude that we should use our imagination and ingenuity and do what is right for fisheries conservation and for our fleet to mitigate some of the damage from Brussels. We will do that with a range of other measures, too.
Finally, on catch quotas, we are trying to mitigate one of the biggest flaws in the CFP: discards. We all hate discards—the public, the scientists, the environmentalists and the fishermen themselves hate discards—and we are trying to do something about it. I say to Tavish Scott that that is why we have another new initiative: to do something about it and not to let year after year go by with massive discards in the North Sea.
Catch quotas are based on the fact that the scientists, when they are working out the total allowable catches, assume that there will be a significant level of discards—in the case of cod, 30 to 40 per cent. The catch quota for cod is based on allowing the fishermen to land some of that fish, which the scientists say is going to be taken out of the sea anyway, as opposed to having to dump it, in return for stopping discards overall. In other words, if we allocate a share of what is expected to be discards to landing quotas in return for having no discards, more fish are left in the sea and the fishermen benefit because they can land more fish. That is what this new initiative is about.
The 17 vessels that have participated in the cod catch quota throughout this year have had £1 million of extra income from that initiative. There is therefore a financial incentive for the fishermen, who benefit from taking part in the scheme, and it is good for fisheries conservation as well. It is not a panacea; it will not fix all the industry’s ills. However, we are pushing to expand the scheme to haddock one day soon and to increase the number of vessels that are participating in the cod catch quota this year.
This is a challenging time for Scotland’s fishing communities, but there is a lot of optimism in the fleet. It is a very valuable industry for Scotland and we must fight hard at the annual negotiation to get the best possible deal, which is what the Scottish Government will be doing.