Fisheries Negotiations
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5119, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the autumn fisheries negotiations.
Fishing provides the life-blood for many of our communities, it provides wholesome food, and it plays an economic, social and cultural role in our nation. Of course, we cannot forget that we are debating one of the most dangerous occupations. In the past 12 months, many fishermen have paid the ultimate price to bring food to our tables.
The motion and amendments that we are considering make it clear that we are entering a crucial phase for the future viability of our fishing industry. We are not just facing the important annual negotiations; we are also entering a defining period in the future of European fisheries as, at long last, discussions begin on the future of the common fisheries policy. I am proud to say that we in Scotland are leading that debate. Only this week, I addressed a major international conference in Edinburgh on the future of the CFP. That conference was also attended by several members and industry leaders, some of whom are with us in the public gallery today.
Members are well aware that 2009 has been a tough year for the industry, which has faced many unprecedented challenges. Hard on the heels of the fuel crisis came the biggest global recession since world war two, and the fishing industry, like other industries, has felt the impact. Our lucrative nephrops market was depressed because of a collapse in demand on the continent, and the recession and related factors, such as the fact that Iceland flooded the UK with imports, undermined the price of cod and haddock. The industry tells me that low prices inevitably tempted some skippers to fish harder to pay the bills, which caused periods of oversupply and high quota uptake, to the detriment of all fishermen. It is clear, then, that the economic downturn has rocked the industry.
As if that was not enough, fishermen have had to cope with often illogical and counterproductive restrictions from Brussels, which have brought particular pain to the west coast of Scotland. The impact of the recession and restrictions meant that, at the start of the year, many skippers told me that they would not have enough effort to catch their quotas, but in the final quarter of the year the opposite is the case, as quotas are being exhausted before effort.
The Parliament must not lose sight of the achievements of an industry that produces the world's best seafood. Scotland's valuable pelagic sector is thriving, and some firms are even recording record profits. Of Scotland's most important stocks, where the scientific status is known, nine out of 14 are fished sustainably, and more than half of Scottish fisheries by value are accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council. Our award-winning eat more fish campaign has already helped to deliver a 10 per cent increase in sales of Scottish seafood this year. As a Parliament, let us remember that the Scottish fishing industry has real resilience and a real future.
Of course, between now and Christmas, we face a series of vital and difficult negotiations that will set the scene for 2010. To reflect the continuing improvement in cod stocks, the North Sea management plan will deliver a significant increase in total allowable catches for the third year in a row. There is good news on some of our herring stocks, with the decline in the North Sea stock appearing to have bottomed out and the west of Scotland quota increasing by 12 per cent. I will also be fighting hard to secure sustainable increases in the valuable monkfish and megrim quotas and sensible management measures for our west coast white-fish stocks.
We also need to take strong action to safeguard the long-term sustainability of our lucrative nephrops stocks, which are, after all, our most valuable stocks. Due to a change in methodology, scientific advice had recommended significant cuts in TACs on the west coast, but we are pleased that the European Commission is backtracking and that more realistic proposals are now on the table. We are also working hard to ensure that Scotland gets a fair deal from and achieves a level playing field as a result of the coastal states negotiations and negotiations between the European Union and Norway—negotiations that are so important to our pelagic industry and where many white-fish quotas are set.
The issue of overfishing by other pelagic fleets is high on our agenda, given its potentially severe impact on the future of our stocks, and securing a fair and long-term deal on mackerel is a hugely important priority this year. However, as the chamber will be aware, efforts to rebuild cod stocks continue to dominate European negotiations and impact on vessels that catch cod.
I said earlier that the cod recovery plan has been challenging for Scotland, and there will be further cuts in effort this year and next. We continue to seek changes to the implementation of the plan in our waters and to ensure that our fleet can buy back days by adopting cod avoidance measures.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments, particularly on megrims and monks. I hope that I am quoting him correctly but if, as he says, there are to be "further cuts in effort" next year, what exactly will our industry have to do to comply with those measures?
As the member will be aware, there has been a further 10-point reduction in effort in the cod recovery zone, with another 10-point reduction planned for next year, and we will ensure that we mitigate as much as possible the impact of those cuts on Scotland's affected fishing fleets. However, managing effort in the cod recovery zone is a tall order and will require the industry and Government to continue to work closely together.
The science tells us that we need a recovery plan because of the fragility of cod stocks. We ignore that advice at our peril, but we must ensure that existing conservation measures, such as real-time closures and selective gear, are given the credit they deserve in terms of effort buy-back. Scottish fishermen must get the rewards that they rightly deserve.
That said, we must not forget that we have already done much to mitigate the impact of effort cuts. Indeed, by adopting new conservation measures, the Scottish North Sea white-fish fleet was able to avoid more than half of the proposed 25 per cent cut.
I hope that we can all agree that we need radical changes in fisheries policy to secure additional fishing opportunities and enhance fisheries conservation. Indeed, that is why we are making the phasing out of discards a priority. In the North Sea, for every 10 tonnes of cod landed there are 8 tonnes of discards, and for every 10 tonnes of whiting landed there are 15 tonnes of discards. Although we have to be clear that there is no golden bullet, some of the marketable discards should surely be made available to the market. That would be a fair reward for our fishermen who have made huge sacrifices to rebuild stock and to reduce overall fishing effort. If we reward our fishermen for reducing overall effort on stocks by allowing them to land more of what they catch, we can reduce discards, help our fleet and help fisheries conservation. Taking discards out of the equation allows the fleet to catch less but land more.
As a result, we are urgently seeking changes to how we regulate Scotland's mixed fishery. We should not have laws that force fishermen to dump overboard and dead good-quality and valuable food resources because they only have quota for one of the species in the net. Sometimes fishermen cannot help but catch several species in the same net at the same time, and regulations should take account of that fact of nature.
We are also urgently seeking a move from regulating the time that vessels spend at sea to regulating time actually spent fishing. Under the current regime, targeting the appropriate species in the right areas becomes more difficult because the clock starts ticking when vessels leave port.
Of course, we need a fully audited fishery to give confidence that, in return for landing more of what is currently wasted, we ensure that the same levels of discarding do not continue. The on-board cameras that are being piloted by some of our vessels have been piloted in Denmark and are being considered by other nations might give us the confidence that we need in order to move from simply measuring what is landed ashore to a catch quota system.
We need changes now. Scotland is not waiting until 2013 to draw up its blueprint for fisheries management in Europe. Our independent inquiry into the future of fisheries management has already delivered its interim report and has attracted much attention in Europe and beyond. We will use the report, together with what our fisheries stakeholders have told us, as the basis for our response to the European Commission's green paper on CFP reform. Our guiding principle at all times is that decision-making powers must be returned to Scotland, where they belong. The one-size-fits-all top-down CFP has been disastrous for Scotland. Returning power to Scotland would allow us to do what is right for our communities and would give us the option of working on a regional basis with neighbouring nations.
We will fight tooth and nail for a good deal for Scotland at the negotiations but, no matter what the outcome is, the Scottish industry faces stormy waters ahead. We need to work with the industry to develop a sustainable future. We have already set in motion many initiatives, but the Scottish Government agrees with the industry that we need to do a lot more. That is why I am announcing today my intention to work with the industry in the coming weeks to develop an action plan that will set out a shared vision for the future of Scottish fisheries.
The action plan will comprise four key elements, which will reflect our experiences this year. First, we have to improve the wider framework for fisheries management. Secondly, we must manage our current fishing quota and effort allocations in a way that promotes sustainability and profitability. Thirdly, we have to work with the industry to help it to maximise the value of the catch, because that is the bottom line and it is ultimately what matters the most for the sector's economic future. Finally, we need to ensure that we have a resilient fleet that is crewed by a skilled workforce for generations to come. I have asked officials to work with the industry to develop that clear programme of action by early 2010.
This year has been tough for our fishing industry and 2010 will also be tough for some sectors, but we in Scotland are rightly seen as leaders in fisheries management, despite the constraints that are imposed by the CFP and the nature of the devolution settlement. Now is the time to start rewarding our fleet for its massive efforts to conserve stocks. The Scottish Government will build on our successes and stand shoulder to shoulder with our industry and communities to address the many challenges in the tough times ahead. I commend the motion to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government's commitment to secure a fair deal at the forthcoming EU fisheries negotiations and to continue seeking radical and urgent changes to EU regulations to help cut discards and improve fisheries conservation and the industry's profitability; calls for Scotland's fishermen's growing reputation for innovative fisheries conservation to be given due recognition, and notes the European Commission Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which recognises the failures of the Common Fisheries Policy.
I thank the minister for coming in under time. When I said that the debate was oversubscribed, I hope that other members inferred from that that their speeches must come in on time.
If a week is a long time in politics, a year is probably a lifetime. This time last year, the cabinet secretary was extremely positive:
"A key part of the package … must be a significant increase in the North Sea cod quota—with no unreasonable strings attached. We can catch less by reducing the amount of cod that is taken … but we should land more of what we catch, rather than force the fleet to dump overboard."
He continued:
"I will also make it a priority to think of the needs of not only today's fishermen, but future generations, which is why we have developed this year's proposals to safeguard fishing rights for future generations of Scottish fishermen." —[Official Report, 27 November 2008; c 12814-5.]
He gets 10 out of 10 for the rhetoric, but the reality is not quite there. Fortunately, the cabinet secretary's licensing regime sank without trace after being panned by the industry and not being legal.
We also had warm words from the minister on sustainability and a fair outcome for the fishing industry, but the industry has attacked his lack of action and demanded more than rhetoric. It is significant that the cabinet secretary did not mention the four-point action plan until the final minute of his speech. This year, it is pretty clear from the fishing communities that they do not want the rhetoric. The fishermen and the processors have seen through it, as have we, so the party is over. The cabinet secretary must be really worried that the Cod Crusaders have reformed. It will clearly be a rough year.
The first thing that the cabinet secretary must do is stop pretending that not all of us in the Parliament want the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen. He needs to work with members, United Kingdom ministers and the industry to develop the best possible negotiating position for the December talks. The second thing that he must do is nail the problems from last year that have arisen from the bizarre outcomes of tougher quotas and an even greater increase in discards. Despite all the talk about how last year's deal was great, the reality for fishermen is that, because of the combination of the recession and tight quotas, some boats have already landed their catches for the year and are now stuck, having exhausted their quota.
We need to know what the cabinet secretary is planning to do to take the pressure off the industry and enable it to get through the recession. My colleague Karen Gillon has raised the issue of support for the fishing industry. It would be good to hear in the cabinet secretary's summing-up speech a bit more detail about the measures that he is planning to take to alleviate pressure on the industry.
We in the Labour Party believe strongly that we need enough fish for future generations—that is the core issue of sustainable stocks. I would like to hear more from the cabinet secretary about the feedback on what has happened in the north-west. Last year, the prospect of draconian closures dominated all our discussions. I asked the cabinet secretary to put in place funding to ensure that we have a robust basis for assessing the health of our stocks in the north-west, and the proposal received unanimous support in the Parliament. Better information to track the health of stocks was to be tied into support for practical fishing measures so that conservation measures would be not just implemented but seen and accepted to be implemented by Brussels.
Again, the reality has not matched the rhetoric—in fact, it has been a million miles away, because closure has occurred on the west coast. As this year's fishing negotiations loom—although we are discussing them early this year—it is clear to me and, I suspect, other members that we do not have a proper strategy to take us from now to CFP reform.
Worse than that, the cabinet secretary's press statements from earlier this week try to suggest—
I have not yet said what the press statements were, so it might be wise for the cabinet secretary to wait to hear what I will quote from him.
The cabinet secretary suggests that CFP reform will mean that Scotland manages the fishing interests off our coast. However, I understand from this week's discussions between regional advisory councils, ministers from throughout the UK and fishing industry representatives that regional seas management will be determined not by political boundaries but—as is correct—by ecosystems that will be managed by shared interests in our seas. Fishing interests will not be managed by Scottish fishermen alone, and they do not expect that. We need a reality check and less rhetoric all round.
The cabinet secretary needs to get the fundamentals right. What role does he see for tie-ups or new ways to help the fleet to spread its catch throughout the year? Given the low prices that fishermen are obtaining, which he talked about, what solutions does he suggest to bring prices to a sensible level? It is clear that the Commission does not want to act on that. What role will the Scottish Government play?
Has the member read the briefings from non-governmental organisations that say that Scotland is ahead of the game in fisheries management? Has she read some of the comment from around Europe that Scotland is ahead of the game in thinking about the common fisheries policy's future? Has she thought at all about the impact on Scotland's fisheries of the worst recession since the second world war? She has barely mentioned that. It appears that everything is the Scottish Government's fault, whereas in fact we have received a lot of credit for leading the debate on many matters.
This is a tough year. We must reflect on what we have learned this year so that we can make a better job of it next year.
I have mentioned the recession, which the cabinet secretary will see is a core part of our amendment. He needs to do more to help the fishing industry through the recession—that is fundamental.
I have read my briefings, which is why our amendment focuses on recognising the superb work that is being done throughout Europe. Scotland is doing good work on regional fisheries management, but it is not just us. There is no point in our doing that work on our own; we must do it with other parts of the UK, with other nation states and with fishing and scientific interests. Scotland should not go it alone—we must work with others.
The key point is that common fisheries policy reform is not here yet and will not be here next year or the year after. We need action from the cabinet secretary and his ministerial colleagues now, not lofty talk about what might happen. That is the core point of our amendment and that is why we have highlighted the recession. Our amendment stresses the need for the Scottish Government to act now to help our fishing communities and our industry through the recession, to deal with the fallout from last year's negotiations and to consider that in detail.
Our fishing communities are an important part of our identity as a nation. Like our mining, steel and shipbuilding communities, they need regeneration. What is the cabinet secretary doing with his Scottish National Party Government colleagues not simply to consider what happens in the December talks year after year but to ensure joined-up government now to regenerate and to provide new support for skills, training and business development in the communities that are feeling the impact of reduced quotas? Those communities are dealing with the double whammy of the recession and the impact of last year's fishing talks. The recession is at the heart of our amendment and our world view, which is why we ask the cabinet secretary specific questions and request specific support now to help our communities and our fishing industry to get through the recession.
What I have described is needed just to get through this year. We would like to hear more from the cabinet secretary about what is being done to give assistance next year. He has mentioned the four-point plan. We would like to hear the detail of that. He mentioned it as a bit of a throwaway remark in his last minute.
My final two issues are discards and this year's talks. Last year, we all agreed on discards—indeed, the subject was a core issue in the cabinet secretary's speech last year. The point cannot be put better than Bertie Armstrong's comment that
"discards are abhorrent and the reason why it occurs must be a mystery to the public. But if there were a simple solution, then we would have solved the problem a long time ago."
It is obvious to us all now—as it was obvious to us all last year—that there is no simple solution. Given that the issue of discards was such a high priority for the cabinet secretary last year, I want to hear what progress he has made with the Commission on developing a sensible way forward to make a practical difference.
It is difficult to imagine that there will be action from the Commission on discards without there also being a complementary reduction in fishing effort. Measurable evidence will also be required. Currently, we have a lose-lose situation for fishermen: given that they cannot break their quotas, they take fish out of the sea but have to throw them back dead. We are talking about a mixed fishery; the practical measures that can be adopted are key to the issue. What trade-offs is the cabinet secretary prepared to consider in this regard?
Does the cabinet secretary accept that he has to be very careful about the use of cameras? Unless they are introduced under the right circumstances, there could be a huge impact on our fishing communities. The detail of the negotiations has to be absolutely correct. I am very keen to know the extent to which he has raised the matter with our UK colleagues. We need to ensure a core UK negotiation so that we can be successful this year.
As the cabinet secretary said, our fishing industry has rightly gained the reputation for innovative conservation measures, but—
The member must conclude.
We need to ensure that the Scottish Government supports the industry in going forward. This year's talks are crucial. Common fisheries policy reform is not—
The member must conclude. I call John Scott.
Do you not want me to move the amendment in my name?
Thank you, Ms Boyack.
I move amendment S3M-5119.2, to insert at end:
"welcomes the meeting of Inter Regional Advisory Council members, stakeholders and fisheries ministers from across the United Kingdom in Edinburgh this week; notes the growing support for ecosystem-based regional fisheries management amongst fisheries experts and interests, and agrees that the Scottish Government should put in place effective measures to support Scottish fishing communities in light of the outcomes of last year's fisheries negotiations and the ongoing recession."
I now call John Scott to speak to and move amendment S3M-5119.1. Perhaps you could move the amendment at the outset to save any problems at the end.
I move the amendment in my name.
I begin my speech in this annual debate on the autumn fisheries negotiations by recognising the particularly difficult set of circumstances that face our fishing industry this year. Not only have fish and nephrops prices been depressed and costs—particularly fuel—risen but, as Jimmy Buchan, the skipper of Amity II said recently:
"This is the worst situation the fleet has been in for decades, without a shadow of doubt … I have been a fisherman for 33 years and a skipper for 23, and I can never recall seeing so much despair on the faces of skippers."
It is tempting to lay the blame for the situation at the feet of the Scottish Government, which has promised much for our fishermen—particularly withdrawal from the discredited CFP—but delivered little. The despair that Jimmy Buchan and others have described results from the reality of trying to make a living in the extremely difficult circumstances in the demersal sector—a reality that now overwhelms that part of our fishing industry.
Notwithstanding the fact that the cabinet secretary took the approach of blaming the Government when he was in opposition, the reality is somewhat different.
Will the member give way?
No. I have too little time.
It is only fair to recognise that, although they are doing their best, the cabinet secretary and Scottish and UK Governments are becoming overwhelmed by events. It is becoming clearer daily that many of the problems that our industry and Governments face arise from the now-acknowledged structural failings of the CFP.
Brussels now recognises that it is—and has been for many years—part of the problem and not the solution. That is to be welcomed, but we are where we are. Fish stocks in Scottish waters are particularly under threat, and we have to chart a way forward from here for our industry.
Before I turn to this year's negotiations and reform of the CFP, I say to the business managers that far too little time was made available today for me to do justice to both.
In this year's negotiations, the Government must build on what has been achieved in the past. I understand the attraction for the cabinet secretary of introducing closed-circuit television in an attempt to reduce discards to an acceptable level but, sadly, CCTV cameras will not of themselves stop the problem of discards in a mixed fishery. More fundamentally and conceptually, fishermen must be encouraged and rewarded for catching less but landing more. I share the cabinet secretary's distaste for wasting good-quality and valuable fish.
The problem of dealing with mixed fisheries remains; we can and must deal with it now. We must work harder and faster to develop selective gear and perhaps to get some of our university research and development departments on board to help further reduce cod mortality.
Real-time closures must continue to be used to reduce catches of cod and protect spawning grounds. All of that must be achieved against a background of reduced TACs in almost every stock except cod and west coast herring.
Innovative ways of supporting the industry during this period of fishing austerity and declining TACs will need to be found. As Sarah Boyack indicated, fleet survivability is of paramount importance. In the meantime, the Commission, politicians and others must get to work on reforming the CFP.
I share the cabinet secretary's concern that there is little time left to secure a sustainable future for some of our fish stocks and our fishing industry, given the parlous state of some fish stocks, especially on the west coast. Reform of the CFP must happen and be implemented very quickly after 2012. Most pundits and speakers at the interregional advisory council conference agreed on the barriers to creating sustainable fisheries, which include too much micromanagement, a lack of political will to set and keep to long-term objectives, imprecise policy objectives in the first instance, a lack of transparency in decision making, a lack of participation and ownership in decision making at local and regional level, and a lack of structure to avoid discards. For all of those reasons, and many others, there is an accepted need for reform.
Regionalisation is now accepted as the best way forward and has been supported by Conservatives for many years. CFP reform must take us to regional co-management, with shared responsibilities and ownership of the problem replacing an outdated, top-down, centralised approach. Of course, policy objectives will still need to be set by the European Commission—and now, following the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament. RACs will need to be made to work better and given a clearer role in linking policy implementation and development, as well as overseeing on the ground. Now that we have defined the problem, we must look for the detail of the structure that is applicable to the Scottish fishing industry. I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks on the four-point action plan that he intends to develop, which will, I hope, take us from now to the point at which CFP reforms kick in.
Member state delivery of high-level objectives set by the Commission will be the new way forward. Self-evidently, different regional sea areas will need to have different aims and objectives, with different fish stocks, different types of fisheries and now different climate change problems to manage. However, we must consider a new approach, and quickly, given that the old CFP is now regarded universally as being part of the problem rather than the solution, while in the meantime fishermen and fisheries are struggling.
We need more time to discuss CFP reform another day. In the meantime, Conservatives commend our amendment to Parliament and wish our Scottish and UK Government ministers every success in securing the best sustainable deal possible for our Scottish fishing industry on 14 and 15 December.
I move amendment S3M-5119.1, to insert at end:
"and believes that, in that context, a more regionally responsible approach to fisheries management is required and that, in order to achieve this, the Scottish Government and HM Government must work together in the interests of a sustainable Scottish fishing industry."
There was a time when Santa could set his watch by the timing of the annual debate on fisheries. That is not the case this year. Although members will still have an opportunity to express their hopes and concerns for the critical year-end negotiations, there are practical downsides to the timing of the debate.
As the minister indicated, coastal state negotiations are already under way. I understand that, rightly, a firm line is being taken with the Norwegians over mackerel and access rights, but that is likely to colour the Norwegians' attitude to the EU-Norway talks that will start later this month. In the past, that picture and, therefore, the prospects for the December fisheries council would have been clearer by the time that this debate took place. This year we are flying somewhat blind, but I hope nevertheless that the debate will, as in the past, guide ministers as they prepare for those important talks.
In that spirit, although I share the sentiments in the Government's motion, I feel that it fails to express the severity of the crisis that faces our fleet and lacks a sense of urgency about the immediate priorities. I believe that a bolder statement must be sent from the Parliament, and I hope that other members agree.
Like other members, I attended the meeting on CFP reform in Edinburgh this week. The array of expertise was impressive, and the growing consensus about the need for a more regional approach to fisheries management was encouraging. Even the Tories, after years of demanding outright withdrawal, appear to have joined the Scottish National Party in recognising practical realities and abandoning their unilateralism. However, despite that consensus, there is still no clear or agreed view on how regionalisation might work in practice. As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, more work is required, although much of the detail will be finalised only after the 31 December deadline that the Commission rather unhelpfully set for responses. I make a plea, even at this stage, that, where regional models and plans can be developed and agreed within an overarching framework and objectives, they are progressed. All together or not at all is not a maxim that we should subscribe to.
Let us be clear that any reform will not be finalised until 2011 at the earliest and more likely 2012. Even then, as National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations chief Barrie Deas suggested this week, big-bang changes on 1 January 2013 are not necessarily in the interests of fishermen or fisheries management—change will take time.
Of course, as the minister acknowledged, an exception must be made for discards, because the economic and environmental madness of discards has to be tackled well before 2013.
Although discussing CFP reform proposals is more comfortable territory for ministers to be on, the upcoming negotiations will be based on current rules—however much we might wish it were otherwise. Coastal state negotiations have started, EU-Norway talks begin in less than two weeks, and the December fisheries council begins in little more than five weeks. We therefore need to know what ministers are doing to prepare and what approach they will adopt.
We also need to know that, as well as working closely with the Scottish industry and scientists to marshal the case, the cabinet secretary recognises the peril of opening up needless divisions with UK ministers. That would be catastrophic and would allow the Commission and other member states to run rings round a feuding UK delegation. I hope that he bears that in mind and avoids getting caught up in the Brigadoon-fest that Mike Russell has planned for St Andrew's day.
The message from Scotland's fishermen is clear. As the Fishing News proclaimed last week,
"2010 is a ‘Make or Break Year'".
This year's talks will be tough. In part that is thanks to the deal that the cabinet secretary signed up to last December. I quote Bertie Armstrong:
"the unmistakable message from the men at sea—that the regulations controlling days at sea, worked up over 2008 and agreed finally by the Council of Ministers last December are unworkable"
and
"can be defended no longer".
The anger felt by Scottish fishermen over that deal has been made worse by what they saw as ministers attempting initially to claim that it was a success and then taking months to admit its inadequacies. However, the real concern now is that the Scottish ministers have thrown in the towel before these talks even begin. That sense is reinforced by Mr Lochhead's insistence that further cuts in effort and certain TACs are "inevitable".
Instead of being properly rewarded for the innovative steps that it has taken, it seems that our fleet is being told to accept meekly more pain. That will not do. The minister must now get together with the industry and scientists to marshal the strongest possible case. He must develop proposals for a catch-based management plan to counter the Commission's approach and he must demonstrate an appetite for the fight.
It is worrying that it now appears that the proposals for putting CCTV cameras on boats in return for more quota were being trumpeted prior to proper consultation with the Scottish industry. Although any pilot scheme can doubtless be finessed to work, the question is: at what cost? Once CCTV is hard-wired into a system that is patently failing, it will be used both to legitimise unworkable rules and to punish further those who cannot make the system work.
I do not expect the cabinet secretary to discuss in detail his negotiating position, but I offer some thoughts on what it might involve. I welcome his commitment to look for an increase in monkfish and megrim quotas based on the scientific evidence, but greater flexibility is also required in the monkfish regime. As he suggested, the picture on other stocks is, as ever, more mixed. Clearly, the hope is that the best deal possible can be struck.
In relation to effort, it is vital that no more ill-fitting restrictions are layered on top of what is already in place for cod and on the west coast. With regard to the latter, the cabinet secretary is aware of my concerns about what happened last year and how it came about. I urge him to look at alternatives, possibly involving removing haddock and subjecting it to its own management plan. I know that proposals are being worked up by the industry, and I hope that they will be given a fair wind.
As ever, the cabinet secretary is assured of the Parliament's support as he embarks on these extremely tough negotiations, but this is a make-or-break year for our fleet. Many skippers are on the brink, having leased effort and quota to cope with last year's deal. Further cuts in either or—worse still—both could signal the end for some. That is why I believe that the Parliament needs to send out the strongest possible message of support for our industry.
I echo the call in the Labour amendment for Government to stand ready to assist, depending on the outcome of the negotiations, but I recommend and have pleasure in moving my amendment.
I move amendment S3M-5119.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"recognises the need for a complete overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy and action to address the environmental and economic folly of discards; believes, however, that the Government's immediate priority must be to tackle the current crippling situation facing Scotland's fishing fleet and the prospect of further cuts in effort and quotas, and therefore urges the Scottish Government to work urgently and constructively with the fishing industry and the UK Government on priorities for the forthcoming EU fisheries negotiations to secure the best possible outcome for the Scottish fleet and the longer term sustainability of fish stocks."
It is that time of year again. As politicians we often talk about fishing from warm, dry land, using the opaque language of the common fisheries policy that can obscure the immense human consequences of the decisions that are made about fishing at this time every year. Once in a while we get a reality check, as I am pleased to say that I did recently, when I spent a day lifting creels with the crew of the fishing vessel Wakeful, from the isle of Grimsay. Let me confirm, with some respect in my voice, that nobody does a day's work quite like fishermen.
Between now and December, the Scottish Government also faces a daunting task: negotiating with Europe over the proposed cuts in total allowable catches recommended by European scientists. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment said:
"This year has been a tough one for many fishermen, with the recession and low fish prices combined with existing restrictions imposed on our fleets … Crazy EU rules mean that our fishermen have little choice but to throw away much of the fish they catch."
Scotland, which has one fifth of the European Union's seas, is responsible for some of Europe's richest fishing. The fact that Scottish landings are worth almost £400 million to the economy is important, not least in my constituency. In the Western Isles, the fishing industry provides much of the population with a source of income and, in one shape or another, supports more than 800 jobs. In 2008, 3,800 tonnes of seafood, valued at £11.3 million, was landed in the outer Hebrides, 90 per cent of which was shellfish. All that points to the unavoidable conclusion that the fishing industry deserves to be protected from the most insane excesses of the European common fisheries policy. I am heartened to hear that the cabinet secretary is going about the negotiations in exactly that spirit and that he is seeking to mitigate what European officials are proposing.
The proposals on nephrops concern me most. European Commission scientists have recommended that the total allowable catch for prawns be cut by 15 per cent. That would represent a significant cut in both the prospective catch and income for fishermen in my constituency at an economically tough time when they are struggling to make ends meet, particularly given that overheads are being driven up by continuing high fuel prices.
John Hermse, secretary of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association, said:
"The system as it is now really is a lot of nonsense and it's been like this for a number of years … the way it is now is absolute madness."
Instead of taking the drastic measures of quota cuts, at least in the form proposed by the European Commission, the Scottish Government is endeavouring to ensure that a more sensible way forward is found. I hope that that means that in future we might perhaps catch fewer fish but land more of what we catch. That would help to ensure the long-term future of our valuable fish stocks and cut dramatically the number of fish that are discarded, which would allow the fish populations to regenerate and become more sustainable.
The main goal of the European Commission's fishing policy—or, at least, its stated aim—is to create and maintain sustainable fish populations. However, Scotland has already played a leading role in meeting those objectives through good management of sustainable fishing.
We now have the opportunity to make up for previous inactivity on this front. Throughout these years—certainly the past eight years—there has been little discernible effort to maintain or protect the fishing industry in Scotland from European policies or to find a sustainable future for our seas on the basis of meaningful science, as opposed to the basest of European political considerations.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I am just about to conclude.
Like most members who represent fishing communities, I hear whole communities rightly bristling with offence at a certain Labour MEP who said:
"we have to realise that fishing is a declining industry. We should be looking to the future not wrapping ourselves in nostalgia."
The Scottish Government is looking to the future—I am sure that that view is shared throughout the chamber—and, unlike the previous Administration did at times, it sees that the fishing industry is crucial to maintaining a healthy national economy.
The chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Bertie Armstrong, said:
"Never before has it been more imperative for the Scottish industry and government to work together in partnership to reduce by as much as possible the scope, severity and speed of implementation of these"—
European—
"measures. … With the SNP in government Scottish fishing finally has an administration that will stand up for the national interest and a successful industry."
That is where the quotation closes—those were Bertie Armstrong's words, not mine.
All of us who claim to have the interests of fishing communities at heart must now back the efforts of Scotland's Government to improve the deal on the table for our fishermen. That is the very least that we can do, this side of having our own seat on the European fisheries council or a replacement for the common fisheries policy.
I attended a fishers' memorial service at the United Reformed church in Annan last weekend to commemorate the people who have been lost at sea in the Annan area over the past 150 years. Representatives from the Fishermen's Mission drew the congregation's attention to statistics that shocked and surprised me: every 17 days, a UK-registered fishing vessel is lost at sea and every 10 days a UK fisherman either loses his life or is seriously injured in the course of his work. With the improvements in health and safety in land-based industries, fishing must be, as the cabinet secretary indicated, the most dangerous industry in the country. That is one of the reasons why fishermen deserve to occupy the place that they have in the esteem and affection of not only fishing communities but the entire Scottish people.
The debate is held in the context of the annual negotiations and the consultations of the Scottish and UK Governments on CFP reform. It is widely recognised that the CFP has not been successful in fulfilling the objectives that were agreed in 2002 to achieve sustainable fisheries. Certainly, there was general agreement from the witnesses who attended this week's meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the annual round of bickering and horse trading at the fisheries council is not the best way of determining how stocks should be managed for long-term ecological and economic stability.
I was encouraged by the degree of agreement between witnesses. Persuasive arguments were made for overall strategic objectives and general principles to be set by the Commission and for the regulatory framework to be agreed at regional level, in all likelihood not only by Scotland but by groups of member and non-member states that share seas, with the involvement of the fishing industry in developing planning and management strategies.
There also seems to be a consensus that an ecosystem-based approach is required, especially in mixed fisheries where several species depend on shared food sources. Single-species quotas do not work well for such fisheries. There is a need for reliable data and monitoring and for the rules of stock management to be agreed in advance so that they do not become part of a politicised agenda in the end-of-year negotiations.
That said, it is optimistic to believe that reductions in effort will be welcomed by the sectors that are required to make those reductions, even if the rules have been agreed in advance, and there will be times when somebody has to make difficult decisions. Although there was talk of the need for a toolbox containing a range of tools appropriate to different situations, it is not yet clear what many of those tools might be. The continuing development of selective gear is clearly one of them, although it is more difficult to implement for large species that are of concern, such as cod.
Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation also pointed out that some control methods can operate in opposition to their intention. He cited the example of real-time closures of areas of sea resulting in vessels having to travel further and use up some of their days at sea, and therefore fishing more intensively when they arrive at the open fishing grounds.
There will be times when sectors of the industry are required to take some short-term pain in the longer-term interests of achieving sustainable fisheries. At such times, as our amendment acknowledges, we must offer public support for communities, not just individuals.
The Government motion expresses the desire that innovative methods of fisheries conservation developed by Scotland's fishermen be acknowledged. I was concerned to learn that the European Commission had stated in a news release that accompanied its proposals for TACs in 2010:
"real time closures and cod-avoidance schemes have not been enough to protect the stock and have had little effect on fishing patterns. Bringing about an improvement in this situation will mean stepping up conservation efforts still further and implementing the cod plan adopted last autumn."
That is extremely worrying, because it seems to imply that, in the Commission's opinion, innovative conservation methods such as conservation credits, real-time closures and cod-avoidance schemes have not worked and suggests that the Commission may press ahead with reductions in kilowatt days.
When I raised the matter with Nick Bailey of Marine Scotland at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee meeting on 28 October, he did not seem to be aware of the statement, which had been researched by the Scottish Parliament information centre. The information that he had was that the review of alternative methods of reducing cod mortality would take place next spring. Does the Cabinet Secretary have any information that would clarify the situation? It would be a matter of grave concern if the Commission made assumptions about the efficacy of alternative methods of conservation without those methods having been reviewed.
When the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee undertook a fact-finding visit to Brussels on CFP and common agricultural policy reform last spring, committee members felt that there was not the high level of recognition that they expected of the alternatives that Scottish fishermen are trialling. The cabinet secretary calls for recognition; perhaps he can tell us more about what he is doing to ensure that recognition, because I am not convinced that it is being clocked in the way that we would wish it to be.
Everybody agrees that the current situation on discards is unacceptable. I wonder, however, how much progress can be made prior to the reform of the CFP, probably in 2013. Is there a real appetite in the fisheries council to address that as a matter of urgency? Will we see quotas being set for catches rather than for landing? Will fishermen who do not discard be rewarded for that by increased days at sea or increased quotas? As others have said, CCTV is not a panacea. It works in certain types of vessel, but not in others. There are also cost implications for the fishermen.
Fishing faces a very tricky problem, but the fishing industry in Scotland is very important and much valued, and solutions need to be found.
Scotland is a great maritime nation, and fishing is still extremely important for our coastal communities, despite the decimation of the industry by the CFP and successive London Governments. In 1997, there were 8,194 fishermen in Scotland, but that figure had dropped to 5,448 by 2008, which is a fall of around a third. Employment in fishing, as a proportion of the labour force, has halved, going from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent.
Fishing is even more important in the Highlands and Islands, which has around two thirds of the Scottish fleet and where fishing directly supports nearly 3,000 jobs. As has been said, the industry is worth £400 million a year. Scotland accounts for 70 per cent of all fish landings in the UK, which is why it is so important, despite what Liam McArthur said, that our fisheries minister takes the lead role in any Brussels negotiations. That is something that our unionist colleagues wet their pants thinking about, as they have neither the vision nor the confidence to back such a stance.
The CFP, of course, is a disastrous policy. It was entered into by the Tories and has been backed down the years by Labour and the Lib Dems.
John Scott mentioned Jimmy Buchan, the Tory candidate for Banff and Buchan. I, too, can quote Jimmy Buchan, who said:
"For the first time in many years I see a government actually fighting for the best interests of Scottish industry and I see a government willing to work and listen to the people at the sharp end of the industry."
That was in the Sunday Express on 8 June 2008.
Can the member tell us specifically what changes would be brought about for the Scottish fishing industry if Richard Lochhead were leading the negotiations?
We would have a man who really knows the industry and who has been in the job for many years. He would represent the vast majority of the fishing industry in the UK and would take to the negotiations a far better view than any London minister can ever do, no matter how well meaning.
The latest proposals have been described in the Fishing News as "unbelievable and perverse" and "Management Madness", which is fairly mild language to describe proposals that will further decimate our fishing industry. The fishermen themselves are far more frank. The proposals do not reflect the reality of what is happening at sea or the composite effect of the cuts and the effort control that are part of the cod recovery plan.
The proposed cuts on the west coast are particularly perverse as they will only force more boats into the North Sea. That has happened already this year, with west coast trawlers fishing for squid on the Moray Firth and south Caithness coast. In fact, I have been told that if it had not been for that fishery many vessels would not have made a pay for the past two months.
The cuts in the total allowable catches and quotas that have been recommended by the EC show decreases of 54 per cent in west coast haddock, 25 per cent in whiting, 90 per cent in spurdog and 15 per cent in nephrops. Those cuts will only lead to more discards. Spurdog, or dogfish as I know it, is a case in point. The west coast fisheries are, by and large, mixed fisheries where species under restrictive quota are caught alongside those that are not. That means that virtually all dogfish, a non-target species with a 90 per cent cut in quota, will be discarded. Where is the sense in that?
With madness like that, is it any wonder that the Fishermen's Association believes that what is happening to the fishing industry has nothing to do with the conservation of fish stocks and more to do with the destruction of our fishing industry. The year-on-year cuts in quota, changes to the number of days at sea, constant changes to the rules that have no apparent rhyme or reason and other blows to the industry, such as the application of the new OMEGA mesh gauge, all combine to scunner everyone involved. It is no wonder that many in the industry now see further decommissioning as the only way forward. I also ask, by the way, that the minister ca' canny on the CCTV.
As we have an ageing fleet with older skippers who want out but no one who wants to buy in, I hope that the minister will continue to consider with the industry what measures might be introduced in due course to alleviate the pressures that the industry faces. The fishing industry really needs stability, with a survivable quota that is maintained for three to five years to rebuild confidence. They need a system that does not constantly change. We must get away from a system in which fishermen—particularly those on the west coast—take home less than £10,000 a year from the most dangerous job in the country.
The only real solution, of course, is to get back control of our fishing. I invite all members to support the SNP Government in that aim—although, given some members' track records, I am not at all hopeful about that. As the current CFP lasts only until 2012, the Commission launched a green paper on the future of the CFP in April this year that proposes wholesale reform and concedes that there are many failings in the current policy. The Commission's new proposals will be launched in 2010 and a draft successor regulation will be published in early 2011. That presents a real opportunity to gain some control and to decentralise the CFP. However—surprise, surprise—Sarah Boyack does not like the thought of Scotland getting a say.
Running in parallel with the review of the CFP is the process of considering the application that Iceland made in July this year to join the EU. It will be very interesting to see how that progresses. Iceland's fishing industry accounts for 70 per cent of its exports and 10 per cent of its gross domestic product. In the 1970s, Iceland fought two cod wars to guarantee unfettered access to fishing grounds within 200 miles of its coastline. Iceland will not lightly give up those rights. I believe that the EU, which wants Iceland on board, will make significant concessions over fishing. That might well assist us—
You must close, please.
I am just finishing. That might well assist us in taking back control of fishing to Scotland even while we are still a part of the UK and certainly after independence.
You must close.
I am just doing so—
I am sorry, but I have no spare time in the debate.
While I confess to a certain sense of déjà vu, the context for this year's fisheries discussions is a bit different from last year's. With the CFP reform paper in the background, everyone now agrees that the CFP has not worked—a point that I will come back to. It is also now becoming apparent that the outcomes of last year's negotiations were not as good as they were proclaimed to be at the time. That is particularly true on the west coast, where the implementation of the decisions is proving to be impracticable in a variety of ways that illustrate the difficulty of annualised negotiations and short-term decision making. Quick decisions that are made in that way can bring real economic impacts and challenges—that is another point that I will return to. The recession and the problem of falling fish prices are also adding to the economic pressures. Finally, this year's negotiations will not cover exactly the same ground as in previous years because of changes in Europe's decision-making structures.
Despite the fact that the context is slightly different, the challenges remain exactly the same, particularly for the west coast nephrops fishery. Unlike what Alasdair Allan said, the scientists from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—demanded a 50 per cent reduction in the nephrops catch. The Commission's revised proposals suggest a 15 per cent reduction. Although the Commission's proposal is better, it is still challenging. Historically—this has been the case for a few years now—there has been less take in that fishery than the quota permitted, so previous quota reductions in themselves had little actual impact on the ground. This year, the take is also running at significantly less because of the impact of last year's decisions on quota and effort. With every year that goes by in which the quota is further reduced, there must come a point at which a real reduction in fishing effort will be required in that fishery. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would give his assessment of that when he sums up the debate. I note that he said that the Commission's proposals are now more realistic. Are they realistic, or will a downturn in effort be required in order to meet the 15 per cent reduction? I would be interested to hear his view on that.
An interesting point is that the scientists who gave evidence to this week's meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said that, in fisheries such as the west coast nephrops fishery, a 15 per cent fluctuation over a period of years is well within the range that might be expected. Therefore, we need to manage the effort accordingly. That is easily said, but I would be interested in the cabinet secretary's views on how it might be possible to do that. What measures could be put in place to help the industry to manage the fluctuations that happen over time? Part of our amendment recognises that such short-term challenges may, at least in part, require short-term support for fishing communities.
The minister has been banging on a lot in recent days about discards. As Sarah Boyack said, none of the parties has a monopoly on disgust for discards, but I want the minister to be much clearer about the position that he is advocating in ending the issue of discards before the completion of the reform process. In his opening remarks, he talked about the phasing out of discards, but at what pace does he want that to happen and how much can be done this year as opposed to over the coming two or three years? It would also be useful to know whether he has the full support of the industry—is it fully signed up to his proposals? He must begin to spell out the detail of those proposals. Have they been fully thought through for any unintended consequences? If anything demonstrates the need to do that, it is the outcome of last year's negotiations, in which the detail became fundamentally important.
There are also issues about how the system will be monitored. Are enough EU member states signed up to it to be able to expect a result on it in the coming year? As Liam McArthur said, these are immensely complex matters that are difficult to progress. It would also be interesting to know the minister's own assessment of the prospects for success. There is a danger that this is just negotiating rhetoric—or just plain rhetoric. We must be able to establish the facts about what the minister is proposing, and he must be up front about that.
Like Elaine Murray, I am concerned that the signals that are coming from the Commission show that it is not convinced about the conservation measures that are being pursued in Scotland. Like other members, I support those conservation measures and I am glad that Scotland is piloting such things as conservation credits, real-time closures, technical measures and other measures that are being put in place. However, are they delivering enough? It seems clear that the Commission is not convinced about that; hence, it keeps attacking the quota in order to achieve the impacts that it wants to achieve. It would be useful to hear the minister's assessment of the position. We all want those measures to succeed, but we must be careful that we do not believe our own rhetoric and get ahead of the reality. I hope that the minister will say a bit more about that and about what he thinks we all need to do collectively to ensure that the Commission understands not only what we seek to achieve, but what we are achieving, which is very important.
I will close on the discussions on the reform of the common fisheries policy. In the past week or so, we have received good evidence from distinguished witnesses about the need to move from Brussels control to more regional control of our fisheries in order to end the annualised negotiation process and the fluctuations that that causes. We have also heard about the need to depoliticise the process, as far as possible, and to recognise how regional decision making will contribute to that. Those are important issues, and I look forward to debating them and the many other issues that I have not been able to mention in my short speech today.
One of my fishermen constituents to whom I spoke in preparing for the debate reflected on the recent UK fisheries stakeholder event at Murrayfield. Huw Irranca-Davies, the UK fisheries minister, asked the industry what it could offer in the way of conservation measures to offset the proposed cuts in the total allowable catch. The Scottish industry, quite correctly, replied with one voice that it has already done a massive amount—more than any other fishing industry anywhere in Europe—through increased mesh sizes, 120 real-time closures to protect cod, closed boxes, moving away from juvenile fish, a kilowatt days scheme that has cut effort and many other practical measures. It was frustrating to our Scottish fishermen that Mr Irranca-Davies did not seem to acknowledge all that work and still demanded further pain to be inflicted on them. That is a disgrace.
The Commission's proposals for TAC cuts in North Sea haddock, whiting and saith have caused alarm throughout the sector and are hardly offset by the increase—albeit a welcome one—in the cod TAC. How are businesses to remain viable with cuts of that magnitude? Many fishermen continue to tell me that the stocks in the North Sea are in good health and ask how it could be otherwise when the majority of Scottish producer organisations have already had an uptake of 90 per cent of their allocated quota.
I must also highlight the particular plight that west coast fishermen face. Last year's proposals, which would essentially have shut down all fishing in the area, have not been repeated, but a 25 per cent cut in west coast cod and a 54 per cent cut in west coast haddock are still draconian. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that he will work as hard as possible to mitigate those proposed cuts?
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that prawn fishermen question the scientific basis of ICES's evidence? They point to healthy stocks of nephrops. Indeed, the Stornoway nephrops trawl, which is located within ICES division VIa, is certified as a sustainable fishery by no less than the Marine Stewardship Council. I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that we need science on tap, not science on top. The Scottish fishing industry would agree with him.
The Clyde Fishermen's Association has pointed out that the cod recovery plan was designed to help cod stocks to recover and to allow vessels that are not catching cod to be exempted from effort restrictions. The European Commission and the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries are not following the plan and are ignoring those parts of it that would allow our prawn-catching vessels to be exempted. Our prawn fishermen believe that they cannot be governed by a regulator that does not follow its own rules, and they question the legality of those rules. What will the cabinet secretary do to help the Clyde Fishermen's Association's hard-pressed members to get a fair deal?
I will finish by quoting the wise words of Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. He has said on behalf of the whole Scottish industry:
"We have played a leading role in meeting the management aim of sustainable fishing; we must fight to still be here to harvest the benefits"
of that pain. We look to the cabinet secretary to help our fishermen to win that fight. The future of many of our coastal communities depends on him. I wish him luck and best wishes in his endeavours.
As everybody knows, many of Scotland's coastal communities have a long and proud tradition of earning their living from a viable and sustainable fishery. It has supported generations of fishermen and their families and encouraged them to continue to live and work in those areas. I am rather afraid that the vibrant fishing communities that we grew up with are slowly being eroded by excessive regulation and bureaucratic legislation, which are a serious impediment to fishermen's efforts to secure a viable income from their traditional fishing grounds.
Every year, fishermen are bombarded with statistics that relate to fish stock levels and invariably pave the way for another round of quota cuts. We hear much about total allowable catches. The TAC reductions that we are discussing are yet again set at levels that will damage the fishing industry on the west coast. We have already heard the figures: the proposed quotas for 2010 would reduce the nephrops allowance by 15 per cent and the allowance for west of Scotland cod and whiting by 25 per cent. Those are significant figures. To top that off, there is the reduction in the haddock catch by 54 per cent, to 1,259 tonnes. That is a substantial reduction. Where will the long-term future of the fishing industry lie if such quota reductions continue year on year? The 25 per cent effort reduction in the cod catch comes on the back of similar measures in 2008-09, which followed cuts in previous years. Such cuts have knock-on effects. I often wonder what will happen to the processing and transport jobs in peripheral areas—in the harbours of Mallaig, Kinlochbervie and Scrabster, for example, which rely greatly on the catch that is landed at those ports.
We hear a lot from the scientists, but if we rely on them too heavily without adequately consulting people in the fishing industry, we will harm fishing and communities in fragile areas of Scotland that rely on the industry. Rural jobs are difficult enough to sustain without yearly threats from the EU. A balance needs to be struck between the environment, scientists and the fishermen and coastal communities that rely on fishing for their living—and there are many of them.
Local fishermen must have a greater say in the management of their regional waters. Liberal Democrats have long called for a move to the regional management of fisheries, in the hope that it might deliver a better deal for fishermen and the environment. A small group of fishermen, scientists and politicians sitting down to discuss the way forward is a better option than the current large, unwieldy system. A system that allows for countries with no coastline to influence the future of our fishermen in the North Sea is not acceptable. Fishing must not be used as a political football. If fishing is to survive, it is vital that any future decentralisation of the common fisheries policy moves in the direction of regional management.
The Scottish fishing industry is again facing—
Order. I must ask you to stop, please, Mr Munro.
I will finish at that. Thank you.
I am sorry to have to interrupt, but we have absolutely no spare time. We come now to the closing speeches.
We have had a good debate, mostly. It has been recognised that our fishermen have worked hard to develop and adhere to sustainable fishing methods. As we know, Scottish waters are some of the richest in Europe; in many parts of Scotland, fishing is the principal economic mainstay.
There has been a substantial decrease in the level of employment in Scotland's fishing industry due to restrictions on tonnage and on the catch that may be landed. Despite that, my area of the South of Scotland retains a significant interest in fisheries, particularly in Eyemouth and coastal Berwickshire, East Lothian and the south-west. Elaine Murray mentioned Annan, in her constituency. There are fishing interests on the Solway and on the Ayrshire coast. In the coastal waters of Berwickshire, vessels are reliant on nephrops, particularly langoustines. By value, that is the most economically important species that is caught by our fishing industry.
John Farquhar Munro mentioned the related industries, which include deshelling, processing and packaging. We must not forget them. They provide direct and indirect employment, and they are vital to retaining coastal communities.
As the Government's own inquiry states,
"current policies are failing to conserve fish stocks and sustain jobs for communities."
I am afraid that the same old problem exists: we need a workable balance between economic activity and profitability. The aim should be a sea fishing industry that is sustainable and profitable on a longer-term basis. The industry must be allowed to use quotas sensibly while meeting conservation commitments. It is a difficult balance, but I repeat that our fishermen have made good strides in that regard.
Scottish fishermen have made a huge contribution regarding cod stocks through the cod recovery plan, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in his speech. It is clear that cod stocks are heading in the right direction, thanks to the significant efforts of our fleet. However, the Europe Commission has announced a significant reduction in total allowable catches, which will surely lead to increased discards and to draconian constraints on the industry, as Sarah Boyack mentioned. Simply applying large cuts is not the answer when it comes to promoting a healthy, mixed fishery. Part of any solution will surely involve sensible total catches, combined with other changes such as changes to fishing methods and net sizes—as mentioned by Liam McArthur—which we hope will reduce the volume of discards and prevent the catching of juvenile fish, spawning fish and non-target species.
Any such measures must be applied fairly. I will use an example that Liam McArthur has raised in relation to complying with rules on mesh sizes. Nets must of course comply, but new electronic measuring devices are failing nets that previously would have passed when the old devices were used. Few fishermen will be able to replace nets to comply with the electronic devices. That is an example of where Governments need to work in tandem with the industry to help, rather than simply to impose strict rules.
We welcome the interim findings of the Government's "inquiry into future fisheries management", which were released in September. The report recognised the point about greater regional control of fisheries policy—an approach that Liberal Democrats have long advocated—and highlighted some widespread concerns surrounding the current embodiment of the common fisheries policy, but it stopped well short of calling for its abolition. Withdrawal from the CFP is not an option and never was; the SNP must build on what was achieved under Ross Finnie's stewardship.
Liberal Democrats have long argued for more regional management of our fisheries, and our past involvement in setting up influential regional advisory councils under Ross Finnie was an integral part of that process. When he sums up, perhaps the cabinet secretary will state that he agrees that the regional advisory councils are of great importance.
We have consistently argued for further reform of the common fisheries policy. I note that Alex Salmond's Government has given up on its unachievable stance of exiting the common fisheries policy—a grandstanding stance if ever there was one. I understand that it was a manifesto pledge. It would be interesting to see whether it has indeed been dropped. We want to give local fishermen and other stakeholders a better say in the management of their regional matters, not talk ourselves out of influence. The SNP's 2007 manifesto stated:
"The SNP will continue to work for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy."
That stance has changed.
Greater levels of regional control would be beneficial to Scotland's fishing industry. The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an increased local emphasis, which has been echoed by the European fisheries commissioner, Joe Borg.
Regional advisory councils, the upcoming reform of the common fisheries policy, discards and the Scottish Government's inquiry into future fisheries management are all significant matters for Scotland's skippers, but although those issues are important, fishermen throughout the country will agree that the most pressing concern is the upcoming quota negotiations. Scottish ministers must accept that and work urgently and constructively with all involved to secure the best possible outcome for the Scottish fleet. As the much-quoted Bertie Armstrong has said, we are engaged in a fight for this industry that must be won if we are to harvest the benefits in the future.
Members of the fishing industry will have their eyes on Mr Lochhead in the upcoming talks. Let us hope that he gains constructive results and does not, as he has in the past, indulge in grandstanding on unobtainable issues or, as the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations stated, use the talks to pursue a separatist agenda—I was disappointed to hear him refer in his opening speech to the devolution settlement as a problem.
This annual fisheries debate seems to come around more quickly every year. No doubt that is a sign of anno Domini for me, but I think that today's debate is a couple of weeks earlier than usual. Perhaps, in practical terms, it is a little too early, as Liam McArthur said.
Every year at this time we hear of the problems that face our fishing fleet and of the difficulties that are involved in balancing the need to conserve fish stocks with the economic viability of the Scottish fishing industry. This year is no different, although the situation is considerably worse than usual for many in the industry in view of the proposals to combine further significant effort control cuts as agreed in the cod recovery plan with very severe quota cuts, particularly for the west of Scotland. Those proposals have prompted the oft-quoted Jimmy Buchan, a very experienced fisherman, to project a loss of earnings to the fishing fleet of £30 million. That could prove disastrous for fishermen who have already had to survive years of draconian quota cuts and reduced days at sea and had a particularly difficult year of economic recession and lower market prices.
As ministers prepare for this year's round of negotiations on TACs and quotas in the various fishing sectors, they know that there is serious anxiety in the many coastal communities that depend on fishing for their very existence, so there is more need than ever for them to strive for an outcome that will secure the viability of the Scottish fleet without putting stock recovery at risk. Efforts to assist the recovery of cod stocks and conserve other species of fish must continue, but there has to be a sensible balance between that and preserving our fishermen's livelihoods.
The Scottish fleet has led the way on sustainable fishing, pioneering the conservation credit scheme and the monitoring of discards using closed-circuit television. The European Commission now appears to accept that the focus needs to be on conservation measures rather than on discarding, which is a welcome change of outlook. Scottish fishermen have been instrumental in stimulating that change by showing the efficacy of the conservation approach, and they deserve the recognition for their innovative thinking that the Government's motion calls for.
The CFP has been a disastrous policy, environmentally and economically. It has allowed fish stocks to collapse and devastated our fishing fleet, destroying the livelihoods of many people around our coastline.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time—I am sorry.
The European Commission's recognition that the CFP has failed and its decision to reform it are very welcome indeed, although there are fears that 2013 will be too late for many of the fishermen who are currently fighting for economic survival.
Micromanagement of fisheries from Europe has, quite simply, not worked. It is high time that decisions on the future of fish stocks were made more locally in consultation with fishermen, who know far more about the viability of the seas than any bureaucrat in Brussels does.
The green paper on future reform of the CFP is good news and we look forward to learning the outcome of the consultation in due course. In the meantime, efforts to improve the conservation of fish stocks in our seas, in the interests of the environment and the fishing industry, must continue and increase. We need above all to reduce the shameful amount of healthy fish that is discarded as a result of the quota system. That is a cardinal failure of the CFP. We agree with the Government that that cannot wait until reform of the CFP in 2013.
We support the extension of the trial that is currently monitoring discards using closed-circuit television, but we realise that we need to be aware of its shortcomings. We also support the current cod recovery plan, which was approved by the European fisheries council in 2008 and adopts the same approach as the Scottish conservation credits scheme, whereby the number of days a vessel can spend at sea is linked to the robustness of conservation measures. Crucially, the focus of the plan has changed from a biomass-based target to a mortality-based target, which should allow fishermen to land more of the fish they catch, thereby reducing discards.
Under the new arrangement, control of how the target will be met will rest with member states and their own fishing industries rather than be centralised in Brussels as has been the custom with the CFP. In Scotland's case, the reduction in cod mortality will be achieved by a combination of measures such as real-time closures and improved selectivity gear.
The acceptance of the view that there has been too much micromanagement of the fishing industry from Brussels and that there should now be a more regionally responsible approach to fisheries management looks set to give a fair wind to CFP reform. It presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to balance the needs of our fishing communities with the objective of restoring sustainable fishing practices. We need to grasp that opportunity with both hands.
We fully support the Government's efforts to increase regional control over fisheries, but to achieve that goal it is vital that the Scottish and UK Governments work together in the interests of a sustainable fishing industry. Our amendment, which flags up the importance of joint working, will—I hope—have the support of members.
We hope that the Government's commitment to secure a fair deal for Scotland's fishermen at the forthcoming EU fisheries council negotiations will have the result that we all desire. We commend the innovative approach of our fishermen to the conservation of fish stocks and we urge Scottish ministers to work closely with their UK counterparts to secure a more regionally responsible approach to fisheries management.
We welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement this afternoon that he will work with the industry in the coming weeks to develop an action plan to take the industry forward. That is necessary, and it must be done sooner rather than later. We wish the cabinet secretary and his colleagues every success in the forthcoming crucial EU fisheries council negotiations.
The debate has shown that members on all sides of the chamber recognise that the fishing industry is an integral part of our Scottish heritage and our economy and that it is at the heart of countless communities. Protecting that vibrant industry alongside the ecosystems that our seas require needs deliberate and co-operative action within and between national Governments, EU member states and other international neighbours.
What the industry does not need is the single transferable speech from the SNP in which it says, "Oor man would be better than your man. We do not know how or in what way, but he speaks with a Scottish accent and not a Welsh accent, and therefore he would be better." What a lot of nonsense. The fantasy politics from the SNP back benches do nothing for the industry—
You had your chance to tell us what difference it would make and you could not name one.
You will have your chance in just a minute, Richard.
I ask members to use proper names, please.
It is simply a distraction from the real task of securing the best deal possible for our fishermen and for the future of our fishing communities. We all know the history of the industry and we recognise the issues that have brought us to the stage we are at today.
Our industry has led the way in securing conservation and in using observers, real-time closures and conservation credits—there have already been 125 real-time and seasonal closures this year. Our industry has demonstrated time and time again that it cares about the fish stocks, that it wants to conserve them for the future and that it will shut down fisheries to do that but, as Peter Peacock and Elaine Murray said, why does the Commission seem not to get that this year? More needs to be done to make that happen.
We are all anxious to do something—or, sometimes, anything—to help our fishing communities, but the clear and resounding message from last year and the reality on the west coast is that accepting headline measures for short-term political fixes has had a real impact on the industry. In effect, it has led to the closure of the west coast for many fishermen. This year, the headline-grabbing potential of a CCTV pilot might bring the short-term political gain that the cabinet secretary seeks, and it might even bring short-term gain to the boats that are involved in the pilot as they will undoubtedly gain extra quota, but have we thought through the potential long-term impact on the industry of an enforcement tool that is based on what many regard as flawed regulation?
It is not an enforcement tool.
The cabinet secretary says that it is not an enforcement tool. Of course it will be an enforcement tool if it works, and I am sure that we will make it work. It will be seen as an enforcement tool of flawed regulation. In a mixed fishery, it has the potential to lock fishermen into that flawed system for ever and a day. It needs to be more than just another bag of tricks. We need to see the detail of the minister's four-point plan. We need it to be fleshed out so that members throughout the Parliament can see exactly what it means, because we will need more than a bag of tricks for the coming year.
We all want to stop discards, which are abhorrent and futile, but we need to think through the full implications of any measure that is proposed to ensure that it does not have unintended, damaging, long-term consequences and fail to achieve its aims. As one fisherman said to me, "A camera is for life, not just for Christmas." We need to understand the implications.
We all agree that economic security can be secured only through ecological sustainability. That will require a long-term view, and that view has real pertinence to two key stocks this year. Langoustines are an iconic Scottish product, but the recession has brought about real market challenges for the sector. How can we use the current situation to bring about a positive outcome by putting together a long-term management plan for the sector? Similarly, the importance of mackerel to the Scottish fleet cannot be overstated. Can the impasse on the EU-Norway mackerel discussions be seen as a strong bargaining chip for us to secure a long-term management plan for that important stock too?
Fishermen and their leaders have been lobbying all of us hard on those issues and on the Marine (Scotland) Bill. Indeed, it is probably a tribute to the negotiating skills of their chief executive, Bertie Ahern—[Laughter.] I mean Bertie Armstrong. It is a tribute to him that every political party in the Parliament could pick one of his quotations and say that it backs up their argument. Now that is what I call a politician.
This year is hard and next year might well be just as bad. The historical lesson from the mining industry in communities such as mine is that when an economic driver is lost, there is devastation. We need to learn that lesson for our fishing communities and retain the vital economic driver for future generations, but we also need to support our fishing communities now. Communities such as Lochinver and Kinlochbervie have fabulous ports, but the support services that they used to have are not there any more. How do we build up those communities again? Young people will want to enter the industry only if they see that it has a viable future in the long term. Similarly, economic inactivity encourages drug and alcohol abuse and makes communities easy prey for certain people. We need early intervention in our fishing communities.
Reform of the CFP gives us an opportunity to tackle the vulnerabilities of decreasing fish stocks and increasing ecological concerns. If the European seas of which Scottish seas are a part are to secure good environmental status by 2020, some tough calls will have to be made, but the socioeconomic health of our fishing industry cannot be unhooked from the essential protection of our marine ecosystems. Those two things go hand in hand, or hand in glove. We must do all we can to buffet the possible waves of practices that threaten the diversity of our precious biodiversity and fishing stocks and our nurturing of them.
We must certainly tackle discarding. As has been said, if there were an easy solution we would have found it and taken it forward. There is no easy solution but the industry, stakeholders and the cabinet secretary have to get round the table to secure the future that we want for our fishing industry.
I ask the chamber to support the Labour amendment.
We have had a good debate with many thoughtful speeches: indeed, I thought that the consensus was building rather well until Karen Gillon stood up to speak, although I will respond to some of her points. I will say, however, that I thought her quotation from Bertie Ahern was very impressive.
Other people were quoted in the debate, albeit with a number of contradictions. One particular Scottish fisherman, for example, was quoted regularly by John Scott; Dave Thompson quoted the same fisherman, and I have to say that I preferred his quotation, which I will repeat for the record. That famous fisherman said:
"For the first time in many years I see a government actually fighting for the best interests of Scottish industry and I see a government willing to work and listen to the people at the sharp end of the industry."
That is probably why the same individual, who was talking about the Scottish Government and not the Westminster Government, is standing for the Westminster Parliament and would not dare stand for this one.
I want to quote some Government figures to the cabinet secretary. The total tonnage of the big fishing boats—in other words, those over 20m—has doubled from 51,000 tonnes in 1990 to 100,000 tonnes in 2008. Given those figures, how can the Conservatives say that the fleet has been decimated? Does the cabinet secretary agree that part of the problem is that we have too many big boats chasing too few small fish?
I do not recognise the figures that Robin Harper quoted. Scotland has had more than its fair share of capacity reductions from Europe, so perhaps it is the turn of the other nations that fish in Scottish waters.
I will do my best to respond to some of the many issues that have been raised in the debate. First, we all agree that, because of the recession and certain restrictions, this is a tough year for the Scottish fishing industry. I do not agree with Sarah Boyack that every challenge that the industry faces this year is the fault of the devolved SNP Government in Edinburgh. She even appeared to imply that the global recession was our fault, but then went on to ask that we have a mature debate on this subject.
My point was that the cabinet secretary has many powers to tackle the recession and to help the communities that have been affected by it.
I am happy to describe some of the actions that we have taken and are going to take.
As far as the immediate priorities are concerned, I agree with many members that we have to find alternative fishing opportunities for our fleet. Liam McArthur and others highlighted the need to secure additional quotas for monkfish and megrim. That would certainly help the west coast, Shetland and Orkney fleets and is, we believe, justified by the science. We are very hopeful that the proposal will be agreed to but, of course, that will be down to success in the negotiations.
The west coast of Scotland has had a particularly challenging year, and we set up a west coast of Scotland task force to look at an alternative management regime for the area to replace the regime that was imposed on Scotland at last year's negotiations. However, I remind members that at last year's negotiations we faced what was, in effect, the complete closure of the west of Scotland fishery. Although we are far from satisfied with the existing regime, which is causing huge difficulties for some vessels on the west coast of Scotland, it is far better than complete closure.
We have to secure a good TAC for the main west coast of Scotland sector—in other words, the nephrops fleet to which Peter Peacock, Alasdair Allan and other members referred. In response to Peter Peacock, who I believe sought clarity on the matter, I point out that because of the initial scientific advice, which had been issued following what we thought was an unjustified change in methodology, we faced a 50 per cent cut. The Commission's latest proposal is for a 15 per cent cut.
At the same time, we must recognise that it is likely that the west coast fleet will catch only 70 per cent of its quota, which is therefore a 15 per cent cut. We will of course consider that, but a 15 per cent cut has to be put into the perspective of the overall share of the quota that the fleet actually catches. We should remember that the nephrops stock is the most valuable stock in Scotland's fisheries and that the big issue that has faced the sector in 2009 has not been to do with effort or quotas, but to do with the global recession. Our most valuable fishery has been affected by the global recession through loss of overseas markets, although—thankfully—those markets seem to be picking up again. We cannot simply blame the quota or effort regime for some of the big problems that face Scotland's prawn fleets.
On pelagic stocks, the mackerel stock is Scotland's second most valuable stock and it is being fished sustainably. The sector is thriving in Scotland. However, I agree with the members who flagged up some of the long-term issues that face the mackerel fishery. [Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry cabinet secretary. Would incoming members please respect the fact that a debate is going on?
The mackerel fishery is important, but it faces long-term challenges. We are facing up to those challenges in negotiations with other coastal EU states and Norway. We cannot allow overfishing by other states to continue, because it will impact on the long-term future of the fishery in Scotland.
There was not a lot of talk about science from some members of other parties, although questions were asked about the impact that our conservation measures are having on the cod stock. The cod science that the European Commission uses reiterates that the aim is a mortality rate of 0.4, but at present the spawning stock biomass is declining. The biomass is not increasing fast enough and is far too low, and at the same time mortality is increasing. Although mortality is too high and spawning biomass is too low, the measures that the Scottish fleet is taking are working, as the figures are going in the right direction. However, the scientists' view is that the figures are not going far enough quickly enough. We all accept that we need measures to protect cod stocks.
Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that it appears that the scientists have no reliable up-to-date data on west coast cod, and that the Commission is making recommendations on the basis of last year's data, without any new science? Does he agree that that is worrying? Will the minister urge the Commission to leave the quota as it is?
We are well aware of the time lag in the scientific advice from ICES and in the science that the European Commission considers. We always take that issue into account in the negotiations.
Much of the debate was about two points. The first was about the plan that we intend to produce to help the fleet and whether there is room to help the fleet in other ways. Much of the debate has, rightly, focused on TACs, quotas and the effort regime. However, ultimately, even if we get that right but the fishermen do not get a return from the market and a good price, they will not have a good bottom line and their businesses will not survive. The message that the industry is giving me is that it is time to address how we can market better the good-quality seafood that is landed at quaysides in Scotland. That will be a focal point of our action plan next year, because it is ridiculous that we cannot co-ordinate landings better for the market. The fleet this year has been unable to do that, so there must be massive room for improvement. The fleet agrees with us on that, as do the various organisations that are in charge of marketing Scottish seafood. Let us consider all parts of the jigsaw and not simply TACs, quotas and the effort regime. There is a massive opportunity to help our businesses make much bigger profits from 2010 onwards by addressing some of those issues.
I am sorry, but I have already taken interventions.
Finally, many members mentioned the common fisheries policy. I met the Faroese fishing minister in Parliament today and he told me that the reason why the Faroes will not join the EU is the common fisheries policy. The Faroes have the benefits of operating outwith that policy. The minister told me that the Faroes have 10 reasons why they will not join the EU, and seven of them relate to fishing.
The common fisheries policy is broken and has been a disaster for Scotland. We are leading the fight and campaign for change to help our fishing communities for the future. The CFP is top-down micromanagement that is detached from the industry and stakeholders. It quashes innovation and is bad for conservation. It amounts to 27 member states, many of which are landlocked, sitting round a table in Brussels and having a lot more power over Scotland's fishing communities than we do. That is not right—it is wrong and it has to change.
It is not a question of Scotland wanting to lead the negotiations on behalf of the UK every year in Brussels. We do not just want to lead the UK delegation; we want our own seat at the top table. At the talks, the UK has Malta on its left and Estonia on its right. Scotland deserves its own place at the top table in Europe.
At the negotiations, we will fight tooth and nail for the best for Scottish fishing communities. We will fight as hard as we can to bring back a fair and just deal.