European Union Fisheries Negotiations
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the annual European Union fisheries negotiations. I note that Claire Baker and Jamie McGrigor, the two major Opposition party spokespeople, are not in the chamber; notwithstanding, I call Richard Lochhead. Mr Lochhead, you have 13 minutes.
14:14
I am pleased to make this statement on fisheries as we approach the crucial end-of-year negotiations. As I speak, my officials are negotiating for Scotland at the European Union-Norway talks in Bergen, which precede the December fisheries council that will determine Scotland’s fishing opportunities for 2013.
No one can deny that the Scottish fishing industry has been going through extremely challenging years in a period most recently blighted by the legal quagmire of the cod recovery plan and, as always, overshadowed by the deeply flawed common fisheries policy, which we debated here back in June and which has failed fish stocks, our wider marine environment and, of course, our proud fishing communities.
I want to change that, as I know many of my colleagues in the chamber do, because we care passionately about this industry, which I have worked alongside for many years. When we look back, we cannot fail to be impressed by the Scottish fishing industry’s achievements in recent years. Between 2007 and 2011, the value of our landings increased in real terms by nearly a fifth, culminating in the 359,000 tonnes of seafood landed last year being valued at just over half a billion pounds, the highest value in real terms this century. All that was, of course, delivered at a time of recession. That is a big endorsement of the wonderful seafood that our fishermen bring ashore and to which our leading onshore sector adds value. However, we must never forget that in bringing seafood to our tables, many fishermen have made the ultimate sacrifice.
As well as increasing value, there are many other positive trends in the sector. We have seen increased quotas in recent years in a number of key stocks, including west coast haddock and nephrops and North Sea haddock, whiting and herring. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea’s advice for next year points to further increases across many of our most important stocks: up 15 per cent for North Sea haddock; up 11 per cent for North Sea whiting; up 15 per cent for North Sea saithe; up 53 per cent for North Sea megrim; up 15 per cent for North Sea herring; and up 18 per cent for west of Scotland nephrops.
However, as happens every year in the varied mixed fishery that we have in Scottish waters, the advice also points to reductions in a number of other stocks: a 20 per cent reduction is suggested for North Sea cod; a 48 per cent reduction for west coast haddock; a 20 per cent reduction for Rockall cod; a 20 per cent reduction for west of Scotland and North Sea monkfish; a 21 per cent reduction for North Sea nephrops; and a 40 per cent reduction for west of Scotland megrim.
it is fair to say that, as usual, we will have our work cut out fighting to protect Scotland’s position this December. Our approach will be guided, as in previous years, by three cardinal principles: first, science and stock sustainability; secondly, protecting the socioeconomic wellbeing of our industry and the communities who depend on it; and thirdly, acting in line with our commitment to achieve discard-free fisheries. Driving all those key principles is our conviction that conservation and stability of stocks will deliver long-term economic health for the industry.
I am sure that most members in the chamber share my view that it is immensely frustrating that the EU’s deeply flawed fisheries regulations so often get in the way of many of those aims. For example, although the cod recovery plan is about cod, it greatly impacts on our ability to fish other stocks. Members may recall that at last year’s December council, we came away from one of the toughest negotiations that I have experienced with a victory over the European Commission’s lawyers in favour of conservation measures and Scotland’s fleets. However, despite everyone, including the scientists, our fishermen and even the Commission, agreeing that the cod recovery plan is flawed, the Commission stubbornly insists on the plan’s rigid requirement to impose further automatic cuts in days at sea this year.
Commissioner Damanaki promised a review of the plan by spring this year to address Scotland’s and other countries’ demands, but she did not deliver any proposals until September, meaning that we could be well into next year before any freeze is approved by the European Parliament and the European Council. After all the waiting, we owe it to our fishermen to secure a freeze this December and we are working tirelessly with the United Kingdom Government, other member states and the European presidency to achieve just that. We are now aware, however, of a potential squabble between the European Parliament and the Council about which has the right to propose vital amendments and other technical conservation measures. That squabble could delay improvements that we desperately require and is an unfortunate example of legal navel gazing by EU institutions that we could do without. They are picking legal fights with each other while our fishers’ livelihoods are endangered and an industry is placed at risk.
Without those technical conservation measures, the EU will find itself unable to comply with its international obligations on fisheries conservation and a number of stocks will be put at risk of serious damage. The internal dispute within Europe threatens to play havoc with our fisheries, so today I am calling again on all key players in the EU institutions to see sense and allow those technical conservation measures to remain in force next year and—this is important—allow the changes, which we want, to proceed.
As if that were not enough to contend with, the rigid rules built into the cod recovery plan some years ago now require a 20 per cent cut in the North Sea cod quota in 2013. However, that stock is steadily recovering—thanks to the huge efforts of Scotland’s fishermen it has more than doubled over the past six years. Our fishers are seeing ever greater numbers of that stock—a finding that is backed up by our scientists. Scottish fishermen have delivered Europe’s greatest reduction in cod discards, with rates plummeting from 43 per cent in 2009 to around 25 per cent in 2011.
Imposing a 20 per cent quota cut is simply a recipe for massive discards. Our fishers will not be able to avoid catching ever more plentiful cod, for which they will have no quota, and they will once again be forced to dump dead fish back in the sea. Our innovative discard-free catch quota scheme will be placed on a knife edge, which will likely force 23 of our biggest white-fish vessels to start discarding cod again. The cod recovery plan is supposed to promote conservation, but it threatens to leave long and winding trails of discarded fish across the North Sea and Europe’s seas.
Back in the real world, we have made the scientific case for maintaining North Sea cod landings at this year’s levels, which would avoid an increase in discards and still achieve a healthy recovery of the stock by 2015. A rollover of this year’s quota will be another top priority at this month’s negotiations.
I will demand a way out of the legal straitjacket that threatens to cause yet more obscene waste in our seas. Our fleet’s cutting-edge cod conservation efforts should instead be rewarded and recognised. Scotland’s innovative real-time closure programme leads the way in protecting abundances of cod and has been lauded by international scientists and others throughout Europe and beyond. This year, our North Sea prawn fleet adopted gears that ensure unwanted catches of fish are kept to an absolute minimum. Given those innovations, we want to see fundamental changes to the cod plan now, not later.
We are calling for more flexibility where there are progressive changes in fishing practices. For example, if fishermen use gears that reduce cod catches, wherever they are, member states should be able to move allocations of fishing effort from one sea area to another to reflect changes in fish stock biology.
Members may be aware that we saw the need for such flexibility this year when more plentiful prawns in the west led to greater fishing effort there while much of the North Sea effort allocation remained unused. That has led to a shortage of effort on the west coast, to the point that we could run out of days-at-sea allocations there by January. However, I assure our West Coast prawn fishers that they will be provided with options to stay active through to the end of this effort year.
We will also work in other ways to protect our west coast fisheries in this month’s negotiations. We want to maximise our valuable monkfish and megrim opportunities and safeguard the welcome recent expansion of the west coast haddock fishery. Our key priorities will be to increase monkfish flexibility in the west of Scotland and to mitigate the proposed megrim and haddock quota cuts in the west in ways that support long-term stability.
Of course, we can expect these crucial decisions to be taken in Brussels by bleary-eyed ministers at some ungodly hour of the morning, following hours of unseemly horse trading. It is clear that that is not the way in which Europe should do its business and govern our fisheries, which is why we all believe that a radical overhaul of the CFP is vital. We have got to move away from Brussels-based micromanagement and bring decision making closer to home—to those who best know how to govern and manage our rich and diverse waters.
Scotland has been the first country out of the blocks to promote regionalisation of the flawed and broken CFP. We have been lauded for taking that initiative and we will continue to champion radical reform in the months ahead. It is now vital that the Council agreement reached in June is not watered down by MEPs. We have to seize this once-in-a-decade chance for the sake of our fishermen, fishing communities and the wider marine environment.
Just as the CFP has failed Scotland, I am afraid that it is a similar story with the international mackerel negotiations where we face the dispute with Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and where the same old stale talks grind on without moving forward an inch. It is clear that the process is simply not working. For five years, Iceland and the Faroe Islands have set their own arbitrary and irresponsible quotas, and for five years, the same negotiators have failed to agree while Iceland and the Faroe Islands have massively overfished the stock. The EU and Norway have made offers to Iceland and the Faroe Islands that were far in excess of their previous shares because we recognised recent changes in the distribution of the stock, but Iceland and the Faroe Islands have dug in their heels and refused to negotiate sensibly. We will not be held to ransom, and I have made it clear that we will not resume talks until they come to the table with realistic and concrete proposals on which we can have a sensible discussion.
It is also vital that the Commission makes clear to us what trade sanctions it proposes to impose on Iceland and the Faroe Islands. We have been waiting to see those sanctions for more than two years while the same old logjam festers. Believe it or not, the Commission’s lawyers now tell us that we must give up an extra share of the mackerel quota that has been allocated for 2013 over and above the sizeable reduction in quota that the scientists have already advised. Our message to them is very clear: we cannot and will not accept such an absurd situation in which responsible fishermen are hit with a double whammy to benefit irresponsible fishermen. We have to be guided by natural justice, fairness and common sense throughout the negotiations, rather than the arcane reasoning of Brussels lawyers. We simply cannot reward bad behaviour by giving up that extra share. We must also challenge ourselves to think more radically about how we can change the game to find a breakthrough. That is certainly the message that I will send to the United Kingdom Government and the Commission over the coming weeks and months.
We have stiff challenges ahead as we prepare ourselves for this month’s end-of-year negotiations. Our sights are firmly set on achieving a freeze in the cod plan’s annual effort cuts and a rollover in the North Sea cod quota, but we will not lose sight of other important objectives, mainly on the west coast, where we will work hard to mitigate potential cuts to quotas that we think are not justified. We will ensure that Scotland’s priorities are uppermost in the minds of UK ministers, and we will do our utmost to fight for Scotland’s interests across the board. Our aim throughout will be to maximise the opportunities for our fishers and thereby create the platform for Scottish fisheries and the stocks that they rely on to thrive and survive in 2013 and beyond.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
I know that there is disappointment that we have moved away from having a debate this week. The negotiations will impact on the livelihoods of many families and fishing communities, which bring much economic and social value to Scotland.
The heated and chaotic negotiations are well documented, and they are as annual as Christmas. They probably have as much confusion as Christmas, but perhaps not so happy an outcome. We urgently need reform of the common fisheries policy to bring an end to the yearly wrangle.
I understand the frustrations over the cod recovery plan. The Scottish fishing sector has made significant investment and can demonstrate returns in stocks for that effort, but there is a lack of reward from an inflexible and unresponsive plan. Time is running out. The cabinet secretary said that he is
“calling ... on all key players in the EU institutions to see sense”.
What response has he had so far?
The cabinet secretary has rightly emphasised the importance of mackerel. It is unfair that Scottish mackerel have had their Marine Stewardship Council certification withdrawn because of the unacceptable behaviour of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. How will the cabinet secretary balance Scotland’s clear commitment to sustainable fishing with the demand for fairness for that important sector? Does he believe that sanctions are the only answer? How will they be introduced? What is the timescale for sanctions having any impact? Does the cabinet secretary expect that a quota cut might be a condition of sanctions?
I thank Claire Baker for her comments and certainly agree with her sentiment that it is now time for our fishermen to be given more reward, given the trailblazing conservation measures that they have adopted in Scotland’s seas. Those measures have meant that many stocks are now fished at maximum sustainable yield, which means, in effect, that they are sustainable. That is a huge step forward, and the Commission would be wise to take that on board in this year’s negotiations.
The member mentioned the changes that we desperately need and the potential delay in getting them that may arise over the next few weeks as a result of the internal wrangling between the European Parliament and the European Council. It is certainly my view and that of many other member states whose representatives I have spoken to that we need the European presidency, the relevant MEPs on the various committees of the European Parliament, and the Commission to get into the same room and hammer things out prior to the December negotiations, or soon thereafter, so that we do not have unnecessary delays that are down to competition over who has the right to propose amendments. Everyone should put the interests of our fish stocks and our fishing industries first at this crucial stage.
Claire Baker is quite right about the mackerel dispute: we need to balance sustainability needs with getting fairness for the Scottish sector. The best way forward is not sanctions, although they are necessary. The best way forward is for the parties to come back to the negotiating table and to be sensible. We cannot have a situation in which one side of the table is making all the offers and the other side of the table is making none. That is not acceptable; it is not fair; and, as I said in my statement, we have to have natural justice. Therefore, in that negotiation I will not allow the Commission to ask Scotland to deliver a double cut as a condition of imposing sanctions, but I will continue to urge all parties to come around the negotiating table.
I thank the minister for showing me his statement. I am glad that he will argue for a rollover of this year’s total allowable catch figure and will also push for a freeze on the annual reduction on days at sea.
The cabinet secretary says that the west coast prawn fishers will be provided with options to stay active through to the end of this effort year. Bearing in mind the fact that the Scottish Government has known about that problem since May, can he give some specific details of those options? Does he recognise that Marine Scotland’s suggestion about the fishers using flexible grids fitted to each net is not acceptable on safety grounds and because of the unsuitability of such grids in the west coast sea areas?
Also, is the cabinet secretary concerned that the “where possible” proviso for the maximum sustainable yield element of the reformed CFP has been dropped? Does he agree with the fishing industry representatives that an MSY for all stocks at the same time is simply unachievable and how will he ensure that we get practical legislation in that area?
Jamie McGrigor highlights an important issue on the west coast of Scotland. Although I can be accused of many things, I was unable to predict the lack of prawns appearing in the North Sea a few months ago, which of course led to the unprecedented amount of fishing effort being transferred from the east coast to the west coast. That gives us all a big challenge on how to manage the days at sea that were available for the west coast because the European Commission does not allow us to transfer days at sea from the east coast to the west coast. We are asking for that flexibility to avoid that problem in the future.
I assure Jamie McGrigor and other members in the chamber that we worked closely with the west coast fisheries interests and the compromise that we arrived at allowed fishing to continue. As far as January is concerned, we are working closely with the west coast sectors to make sure that there is economic activity for the fleet on the west coast and that they do not have to tie up much more than they normally would at that time of year. We are paying close attention to that and we will do what is best for fishing communities on the west coast. We will keep members across all parties informed about how we take that forward.
Jamie McGrigor quite rightly says that it is very difficult to achieve maximum sustainable yield for all stocks at the same time in a mixed fishery. That is why we are looking for the appropriate flexibility within the common fisheries policy negotiations. We are trying to persuade other member states and Europe that we have this mixed fishery in Scottish waters and that we cannot simply command biology. We have to have flexibility, because not all stocks will be at the same level at the same time in a mixed fishery. The member raises an important point.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of Ulrike Rodust’s amendment 15, which would require member states to close 10 to 20 per cent of their territorial waters to all fishing activities for at least five years. If that proposal went ahead, it would clearly go against the decentralisation agenda; it would have a devastating effect on Scottish coastal communities—in particular on small-scale boats—and harbours in those areas would in effect cease to function. What can the cabinet secretary do to impress upon all MEPs the imperative to reject that proposal, particularly when the sole Liberal Democrat MEP on the fisheries committee, Chris Davies, has in the past advocated closing down the industry completely for two years?
The member refers to the co-decision process that now takes place between the European Parliament and the European Council over the common fisheries policy, which means that MEPs now have a crucial role in shaping future European fisheries policy. It is important that MEPs table sensible amendments. It is indeed the case that there is one amendment on the table just now that would in effect close down Scottish waters at an arbitrary figure of 10 to 20 per cent for a number of years. That is a ludicrous proposal. I expect that many member states will oppose that amendment and I hope that all MEPs will also seriously oppose it, given the damage that it would inflict on Scotland’s fishing communities. I assure Angus MacDonald that we are putting a great amount of effort into putting Scotland’s case across to all MEPs who have a role in those negotiations. I have met many MEPs in recent weeks and months. Only yesterday, I spoke on the telephone to Pat the Cope Gallagher—the renowned Irish MEP—about some of those issues.
The cabinet secretary will be well aware that the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is for an increase in the total allowable catch for the west of Scotland nephrops. That, of course, is to be welcomed, but the Mallaig and North-West Fishermen’s Association tells me that that may be subject to a six-week closure from 21 December. It claims that that lies at the door of Marine Scotland, not its fleet. Will the cabinet secretary investigate that claim and resolve the issue before the deadline is reached?
I have worked closely with north-west and Mallaig fishermen over recent months on that issue. As I said in my answer to Jamie McGrigor, in an unprecedented situation, fishing effort transferred from the North Sea to the west coast because, for the first time in many years, the prawn stocks did not appear in the usual numbers in the North Sea and some of the bigger vessels went to fish on the west coast. Because the European Commission gives us only one pot of days for the west coast, we do not have flexibility between the east and west coasts and that, of course, gave the industry and the Scottish Government a very challenging management situation. That highlights why we need radical reform of not only the common fisheries policy, but the cod recovery plan, which is the root of the problem.
I have worked closely with the industry, which is why we reached an agreement with it that took into account its fishing patterns between now and the end of January, and they have been able to fish each week since that issue arose. As I said to Jamie McGrigor, we are working to ensure that there is economic activity for the west coast fleet in January.
The annual talks are set against the need for a radical overhaul of the common fisheries policy. What position are the UK Government and the Council of Ministers likely to take on the threat of tradeable fishing concessions? What are the implications for fishermen in Scotland in the coming years?
That highlights one of the big concerns that we have had throughout the CFP negotiations: the original proposal by the Commission to introduce individual transferable concessions. That, in my book, is individual transferable quotas, which is also the privatisation of our historic fishing rights in Scottish waters. I opposed that, as did the Scottish industry and most Scottish fishing communities. Thankfully, that proposal seems to be off the table and that threat has been removed. Scotland was in the vanguard of highlighting the threat that that posed to the future of our fishing communities.
Of course, some MEPs are tabling amendments for that to be reintroduced and to be part of the common fisheries policy. Angus MacDonald mentioned Chris Davies, the Lib Dem fisheries spokesperson for the European Parliament, who is a leading advocate of that approach as a measure to reduce fishing fleets. Scotland’s fishing fleet has paid its fair share in recent years. It should not be cut any further and we do not want to see the privatisation of Scotland’s fishing rights.
Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being present during the opening words of Mr Lochhead’s statement. I am grateful to him for an advance copy of that statement.
The cabinet secretary talked about the cod recovery plan in his statement. Is it the case that the Euro lunatics have absolutely taken over the European asylum? Is the cabinet secretary arguing that the proposal is that our fishermen need more days to catch their quota, but that a new internal European row could achieve exactly the opposite: a cut in days and, indeed, further quota cuts?
Does the cabinet secretary accept that, just the other day, the Shetland white-fish boat, Arturus, with a Marine Scotland scientist on board, caught 360 boxes of fish and that only one box was of unmarketable size, which proves that conservation mechanisms are working? Does he accept that, when he comes back from Brussels, what we absolutely need for our industry is a rise in quotas that matter financially and a rise in days at sea, too?
I totally agree with Tavish Scott’s sentiment on the danger of the lunatics taking over the asylum in Brussels, should we have a situation in which internal legal wrangling between the European Parliament and the European Council prevents what is right for Europe’s cod stocks and Scottish fishermen. That is why it is important that we bang heads together and that the various key players in the dispute get into a room and sort that out before the December negotiations, otherwise Scotland’s fishing communities will pay a potentially painful price because of factors outwith their control.
I put on record that the Shetland fishermen have made a huge contribution to the conservation of cod and other important stocks. That shows that Scotland is leading the way and that our fishermen should be rewarded, not punished, by the negotiations.
In evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 21 November, Scottish MEPs Ian Hudghton and Struan Stevenson were agreed on the need for the adoption of
“sensible rules and achievable targets”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 21 November 2011; c 1354.]
for the elimination of discards. What progress is being made towards achieving that goal?
I am thankful that, in recent years, Scotland has negotiated some flexibility that has enabled us to cut discards in Scottish waters. The Scottish fleet should be commended for cutting discards more than any other country has achieved in its waters. That is a huge feather in the cap for Scotland’s fishing industry and for our conservation credentials.
As I said in my opening remarks, the biomass in the pivotal cod stock is now double what it was in 2006. That is a huge step forward. I hope that it will be fished at sustainable levels by 2015, which would be a massive breakthrough. We must now guard against ill-informed measures being adopted at the fisheries negotiations this month, which would lead to an increase in discards, not a further reduction.
I apologise for arriving late in the chamber and missing the cabinet secretary’s opening statement.
Will the cabinet secretary elaborate on how receptive other member states have been in his talks with them about flexibility on the cod quota, as a 20 per cent cut would seriously affect the livelihoods of our fishermen and, undoubtedly, increase discards, despite our discard-free quota scheme?
That is a good point. I hope that I can offer comfort to members by saying that many other member states share Scotland’s concerns about some of the proposals that are on the table because of the clear recognition that a cut in cod quota when the cod stock is recovering would make it more difficult for the fleet to avoid the fish and, therefore, discards would increase, not decrease. That would be of no benefit at all to cod mortality.
Other member states that fish the same cod stocks that we fish recognise that as well. I hope that that will be an effective alliance to help the Commission to see sense.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments on the obscenity of discards, but I am worried about his other comments about advice for the west coast. An increase in the prawn quota, coupled with a decrease in the haddock, monkfish and megrim quotas, will almost certainly mean more discards if it goes ahead.
Will the cabinet secretary tell us what he plans to do to prevent the danger of more discards on the west coast while protecting the valuable and sustainable west coast prawn fishery?
I recognise the importance of the prawn fishery to the west coast fishing communities. We have worked closely with the west coast fishermen and I commend them for adopting a number of new selective gear measures in recent months and years, which will help to cut down discards of other stocks for which they do not have quota. That is a big step forward, which should help us to strike the balance to which Dave Thompson refers.
I point out that some quota increases are happening on the west coast, which is good news. However, when we consider the west of Scotland haddock quota reduction, we must remember that that stock went up by 200 per cent last year, so it is still a substantial increase compared to two years ago.
The cabinet secretary rightly mentioned the fact that a 20 per cent quota cut for cod would greatly endanger the catch quota trials that the UK and Denmark have been running together, which have been successful in reducing discards. What representations has he made within the UK and the EU to promote an extension of the trials? How likely does he perceive any such extension to be?
I thank Alex Fergusson for highlighting the success of the catch quota trials, which are innovative and which arose through a joint initiative between the Scottish Government and the industry in Scottish waters. The trials prevent any discards but, of course, require cod quota for the participating boats.
The matter has featured heavily in the negotiations between the EU and Norway in recent years. It has been frustrating and disappointing that we have not been able to expand the scheme. It seems to me cruelly ironic that, due to other negotiating issues that are at stake, not all the negotiating partners support a scheme that stops discards and promotes fisheries conservation. That is unfortunate. We should put conservation and what is best for the cod stocks first.
The scheme remains on the table and we want to expand it. Unfortunately, at the moment, the threat of a 20 per cent cut in cod quota threatens the scheme; it does not support it.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm what role the Scottish Government has had in seeking to resolve the mackerel dispute with the Faroe Islands and Iceland?
That is a huge issue for thousands of families in Scotland whose livelihoods depend on Scotland’s most valuable fish stock, mackerel. Therefore, it is very frustrating that the international negotiating framework has virtually broken down, meaning that the previous 10-year agreement has not been replaced. Instead, we are seeing unilateral quotas being fished by Iceland and the Faroe Islands. I continue to urge those countries to come back to the table so that we can have a sensible negotiation.
If we have to go down the road of sanctions, we want those to be in place as soon as possible in order to show those countries that we mean business. It is in no one’s interest—not the interests of the fishing communities in those countries or the interests of our countries—if the stock is fished out and all our respective industries lose thousands of livelihoods. It is really important that we all get back around the table as soon as possible. As I said previously—I say it again to Stewart Stevenson because I know that it is an important issue in his constituency—we are now trying to think out of the box to find new ways that could lead to a breakthrough in the international negotiations.
The cabinet secretary referred to the crazy process of annual negotiation and the logjam of amendments to the European legislation that would introduce a reformed policy. Does he share concerns that delaying the second reading of the legislation beyond the end of next year would compromise the introduction of the new CFP and condemn our fishermen to further years of the current failed policy?
It is right to highlight the dangers of delaying the technical regulations. If they are not renewed because they are being held up by the dispute between the European Parliament and the European Council, some existing closed areas will no longer be closed, which would not be good for fisheries conservation, and other technical measures that are supposed to be in place to promote conservation will not be in place for 2013. That will lead to damage to very important fish stocks throughout Europe, including in our waters. Also, some of the changes that we need to see to improve the current regulations, through the amendments, would be delayed. I therefore repeat that I hope that all parties will support the legislation. We need all the key players in Europe to bang heads together, get in a room and sort this out for our fishing communities and the fish stocks.
I heard the UK minister say, during a debate at Westminster the other week, that Scotland gets a good deal because we are, on occasion, allowed into the room during negotiations. Given that the talks are to be led by Cyprus, which has a population of 1.1 million, does the cabinet secretary share my belief that it is time not just that Scotland was in the room negotiating, but that we had the opportunity to lead the negotiations in the future?
The member will not be surprised to learn that I agree with his comments. No country will make our fishing industry more of a priority than Scotland, which is why we should lead all these negotiations and be at the top table in our own right. I note with interest how Europe takes some comfort from the fact that the Irish are about to take over the presidency for both the crucial stage of the common fisheries policy negotiations and the crucial stage of the common agricultural policy. The word around the Council of Ministers and throughout Europe is that it is good that a small country that knows what it is doing, has a key interest in some of the issues and makes them a priority will be in the driving seat for those negotiations. That shows the power of small nations in Europe.
I apologise for not being present for the opening of the cabinet secretary’s statement and thank him for advance sight of his statement.
If there is a rollover of this year’s quota, what additional measures will the Government take to ensure that fishing mortality in cod continues to decrease?
We are pushing for a rollover of the cod quota because a cut in the cod quota will not conserve any extra cod but will only increase discards. The fact of the matter—which I know that the member will welcome—is that the cod stock in the North Sea has doubled since 2006 and is very much going in the right direction. It is very much recovering thanks to the magnificent efforts of the Scottish fleet. However, we continue to work with all our fleets on more technical measures and selective gear. As I said, in the past 12 months we have seen new gears adopted by many of the fleets in Scottish waters. That must be welcomed, as it will contribute even more to the recovery of the cod stock.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary set out the potential threat of a 20 per cent cut in the North Sea monkfish quota. He will be well aware that that is a critical stock for the white-fish fleet, not least in Orkney. In the past, there has been a lack of scientific evidence to underpin the Commission’s proposals to cut the quota for that stock. What scientific evidence will he be able to bring to the negotiations, and how confident is he that he will be able to resist a devastating cut to large parts of the Scottish white-fish fleet?
Liam McArthur rightly mentions some of the stocks that are of high value, particularly to the industries in Orkney and Shetland. It is important that we take them into account during the negotiations.
We are not happy with the current proposals for the cut in the megrim stock. There is a proposal for a decrease in the west coast waters and a substantial increase in the North Sea. Of course, there is an arbitrary line in our waters, and we think that there should be a much more sensible split of those stocks. We are putting together a scientific case to make that argument. We recognise that fishermen in the west of Scotland in particular would suffer if there were too drastic a cut in the west of Scotland megrim and monkfish catch.
On monkfish, Mr McArthur will be aware that there is a long-standing issue around flexibility with regard to the North Sea and the west coast. The more flexibility that we have, the more the fishermen will be helped with their day-to-day activities.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. How will we explain to Scottish fishermen that we have abandoned the most important annual debate on fisheries in order to debate regulation of what fish suppers are wrapped in?
That is not a point of order. The Parliamentary Bureau had such a discussion today. I suggest that you have a word with your business manager.