Fisheries
The next item of business is a statement by Ross Finnie on fisheries. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should be no interventions.
I am grateful for this opportunity to report on the outcome of the December fisheries council in Brussels. When we debated fisheries prior to the council, I said that I had three specific aims: better outcomes for conservation; better outcomes for fishing businesses; and better outcomes for our fishing communities.
While our cod stocks remain outwith their safe biological limits, our white-fish sector will undoubtedly continue to face very real challenges. However, I believe that, within that difficult constraint, we have secured our key objectives and, in so doing, have secured a better balance between conservation on the one hand and increased fishing opportunities on the other. I shall begin by taking members through the key outcomes on total allowable catches and quotas and on longer-term cod recovery measures, including effort control—or days at sea—arrangements for this year.
On TACs and quotas, we have secured significant quota increases for many stocks across all sectors—pelagic, white fish and prawns—although the outcomes differ between the North sea and the west of Scotland and between stocks. In the pelagic sector, the North sea herring TAC has been increased by 15 per cent and the mackerel TAC has been reduced by 8 per cent. Mackerel is the single most valuable fishery in the United Kingdom and we accepted a modest decrease in that TAC as a prudent response to the scientific evidence. We overturned a Commission proposal to reduce the UK allocation of blue whiting from 20 per cent to 15 per cent as part of a wider international negotiation. Therefore, as a whole, the pelagic sector can—with responsible, sustainable stewardship—continue to look forward to stable economic returns and high profits.
For the white-fish sector, there remains a significant problem because of the state of the cod stocks, especially off the west of Scotland. Both we and the industry have advocated alternative approaches—so-called decoupling and spatial management—to secure higher quotas on buoyant stocks such as haddock without compromising cod recovery initiatives. I stress that. As a result, we have secured a 53 per cent increase in the North sea haddock TAC, which will be an enormous boost to the white-fish sector, particularly in the north. However, that comes with strings attached.
Let me be clear: it would have been impossible to secure any increase in the haddock TAC without more stringent control and enforcement arrangements. That reflects the need to ensure that any increase in the haddock fishery does not undermine cod conservation and the unfortunate perception of black-fish activity in the Scottish mixed fishery, which was illustrated by the Commission's recent infraction proceedings against Scotland and the UK. In the negotiations, I faced a simple choice between no increase in the haddock TAC or a potentially significant increase associated with new management arrangements. I opted for a new approach because a significant TAC increase in haddock offered a lifeline to the white-fish sector and made it easier to deliver some of the control improvements that any infraction process inevitably requires.
In practice, there are two new management arrangements in the North sea haddock regime. First, there is a spatial management arrangement. The regime is designed to encourage fishermen out of the designated cod-sensitive areas to fish elsewhere for the existing haddock stock. In practice, only 20 per cent of the UK haddock quota can be taken in the cod-sensitive areas. Secondly, underpinning that is a special permit arrangement. Fishermen who want to access the extra haddock quota will have their fishing licences amended to exclude them from fishing in the cod-sensitive areas. In practice, the permit is simply a UK fishing licence with specific conditions attached. Those conditions include enhanced controls on the landing of fish at designated landing ports and provisions to preclude the renewal of such special permits—implying loss of access—where offences have been committed or licence conditions have been breached.
I appreciate that the arrangements are new. We need to clarify the practical implications and to try to ensure that no unintended consequences arise. Accordingly, discussions with the industry begin tomorrow. However, I stress that, although we must examine the details and ensure that they are clearly understood and do not have unintended consequences, we must be clear that there is no going back on the principle of spatial management associated with more stringent control and enforcement.
On the west coast, I am afraid that there is no equivalent boost for the haddock TAC. That is for three principal reasons. First, the cod stock shows none of the signs of potential recovery that we are beginning to see in the North sea. Secondly, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has significantly reduced its estimate of the size of the haddock stock. Thirdly, we were not able to make a credible scientific case for decoupling haddock from cod in the way that proved possible in the North sea.
As far as nephrops are concerned, we secured an increase of 15 per cent in the North sea TAC by demonstrating once again that it is a relatively clean fishery. A further 15 per cent increase is agreed and will follow as soon as we are able to agree the specific management measures with the Commission.
As far as west of Scotland nephrops are concerned, we were not able to secure an increase in the TAC. Unfortunately, the official catch statistics suggest that the industry is not catching the existing TAC—that made it very difficult to make a persuasive case for an increase in difficult circumstances.
I turn now to cod recovery and effort control. The fisheries council reached political agreement on the Commission's long-term cod recovery initiative, albeit with some important modifications.
First, the council agreed what is essentially a multi-annual approach to the setting of cod TACs. We secured various changes to the formula so that it does not undermine the discretion of ministers. I believe that, over time, that approach should deliver better conservation and more stable and predictable TACs.
Secondly, the council agreed effort control arrangements that will be reviewed further in the course of this year. The Commission originally proposed a commercially flexible basket of tradeable effort based on kilowatt days. The council agreed to perpetuate the current interim regime, which gives a fixed number of days to particular vessels. However, the Commission also undertook to propose the more flexible approach that we want in the course of 2004. Therefore, in effect, we have agreement to the long-term cod recovery measure, the central plank of which—effort control—will be subject to further modification this year.
This year's interim regime—annex V to the TAC regulation—contains significant changes from last year's annex XVII. Significantly, the geographical boundaries have been extended to include the Irish sea and the eastern channel. They have also been extended to the north-east of Scotland to include cod-rich areas that were previously exempted because of the French saithe fishery—the so-called saithe derogation—and further to the west of Scotland. That wider geographical coverage is a significant step forward in making the conservation regime more equitable among all the member states concerned.
As far as the effort allocations themselves are concerned, the UK white-fish sector again gets 15 days; I must point out that the 15-day allocation was calculated on a different basis from last year, but it fully recognises the 30 per cent reduction in effort that Scottish vessels have achieved as a result of previous decommissioning. The nephrops sector faces a reduction from 25 to 22 days. That should not impact on nephrops fishermen in practice, although it might be helpful in limiting unwelcome diversions of effort into the nephrops sector. White-fish and nephrops fishermen with low bycatches of cod, plaice and sole in 2002 are permitted unrestricted fishing. That derogation would be removed if the bycatch level exceeded 5 per cent.
I appreciate that some of those changes will make life more difficult for part of the white-fish sector. That is why we fought hard to secure increased quotas to counterbalance the loss of the unlimited fishing that certain larger boats were able to pursue outside the regulated area last year.
The industry should not necessarily need more time to catch the additional haddock quota: the stock is more abundant and the agreed TAC represents what scientists think can be caught with the same level of effort used to catch last year's very much smaller haddock quota. The downside is the effect on those who wish to target cod further afield, but the state of the science on cod stocks means that we must place more effective limits on fishing in cod-rich areas and provide incentives for fishermen to redirect their effort to haddock.
I believe that we have achieved a sensible outcome for conservation, because the effort control regime and our control and enforcement arrangements are more robust and equitable. That means that the prospect for cod recovery should improve. The significant quota increases for haddock and nephrops represent better outcomes for the industry and its associated communities. I make no bones about it—things will continue to be difficult for certain fishermen. However, I judge that the quota increases are on such a scale that they should significantly counterbalance the continuation of effort control.
I appreciate that there is still further work to be done, in co-operation with the industry, on how to work through the new measures. I appreciate that as long as cod stocks remain outwith their safe biological limits, our white-fish sector will continue to face difficulties. However, overall, I believe that this represents a better-balanced package for conservation, for fishing businesses and for our fishing communities.
Mr Finnie will now take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement. I will allow until about 5 past 3 for that process.
I begin by thanking the minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. However, this was another rotten Christmas for Scotland's fishing communities, thanks to the latest deal that the Government brought back from Brussels. Our fishermen regard the deal as even worse than the notorious settlement that was agreed in the previous year. Once again, team UK went to Brussels and sold Scotland down the river. The UK minister Ben Bradshaw said that it was a good result as soon as he had signed the deal. The truth is that it is a dreadful result for Scotland, which is what Scotland's fishing communities are saying.
Once again, our fishing communities are shellshocked and have suffered from a lack of political clout in Europe and a common fisheries policy that discriminates against Scotland. In his statement, the minister talks about life being made more difficult for the white-fish sector—the truth is that life will be impossible. The deal provides bigger quotas in the North sea, but not enough time and space to catch them. For the west coast vessels, the deal provides plenty of time at sea, but fewer fish to catch.
A while back, Ross Finnie said that he did not intend to preside over the destruction of our fishing industry, but he has taken it further down the road to ruin rather than put it on the road to recovery, which is what he promised to do only a few weeks ago in the chamber.
I have three specific questions for the minister. First, he talks about the strings that are attached to the haddock quota, but does he not realise that there is a noose around the industry's neck? Will he explain why he supported a deal that foists on his own white-fish fleet extra, unworkable restrictions that will not apply to fleets from other nations that fish the same waters for the same stocks? That is the first question that the minister must answer today.
Secondly, given that the minister said that any new deal would reward the fact that Scotland has decommissioned half of its white-fish fleet, will he explain why our fleet has been limited to the same number of days at sea as it had last year, even though the fleet is much smaller and there are more fish in the sea? Can the minister answer that question, too?
Finally, will the minister give a commitment to tear up that ludicrous and unworkable part of the deal, take the first plane back to Brussels and bring back a better deal for Scotland, which will allow our fishermen access to stocks off their own shores and which will deliver an aid package to help the fleet and the onshore sectors until that is achieved?
The minister said that he wanted to ensure that the new arrangements had no unintended consequences, but the unintended consequence might be the end of Scotland's fishing industry, unless he acts now.
Mr Lochhead's apocalyptic language and his talk of the end of the fishing industry really do not take seriously the issues that are involved.
Let us consider the number of days at sea. There are two reasons why there has been no change. First, last year we got credit for a decommissioning scheme that had not yet taken place. We argued that it would be possible to reduce fishing effort by a further 15 to 20 per cent. That was taken into account last year and we had credit for it last year, as Mr Lochhead knows. In the calculation for this year, he will see quite clearly that effort is not reduced by 65 per cent, which is what the starting point was, but by 35 per cent. The other 30 per cent is clearly accounted for by the decommissioning that the Scottish fishing fleet has undertaken in the two decommissioning schemes.
On the reason why there are conditions for haddock, one has to accept—and I hope that Mr Lochhead does so—that the fact that there is more haddock does not mean that the cod problem has gone away. The much-improved state of the haddock stock means that there is a scientific base on which to argue coherently that it is possible to decouple the traditional one-to-one relationship between haddock and cod and to engage in a scientifically based argument for better spatial management to allow access to higher quotas of haddock. The reason for the conditions is that we cannot allow people free rein to fish haddock when they are in the middle of a mixed fishery. We have to face up to that fact. The conditions are capable of being met and will result in a far higher level of quota being achieved.
I am not about to return to Brussels to tear up a deal the basic principles of which—both the spatial element and the decoupling element—were being argued for by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We have secured those principles and Mr Lochhead should accept that.
Despite his assurances, will the minister accept that the Scottish white-fish sector feels cruelly let down by the recent settlement? Following the halving of the Scottish fleet through decommissioning over a three-year period, the industry was entitled to expect that there would be a better deal for those vessels that were left. Is it not a fact that this year's deal of 15 days at sea a month has left the remaining fishermen feeling no better off at all? Does the minister accept that the increase in the haddock quota is virtually meaningless as there are simply not enough days each month in which to catch it, especially since there will be no allowance for steaming time?
While I welcome the increases in the east coast nephrops quotas, which were essential for beleaguered ports such as Pittenweem, does the minister accept that the December settlement on white fish will do nothing to halt the decline of Scotland's most fishery-dependent communities in the north-east and that further transitional aid will now be vital?
In the light of his most recent bruising experience at the hands of the council in Brussels, does the minister now agree with Conservative members who have long been telling him that, far from the task of reforming the common fisheries policy having begun, the reality is that the situation has become even more intensive and complicated, that the ludicrous end-of-year summits work against a complex fishery such as the United Kingdom's and that the situation is likely to get worse with the enlargement of the European Union?
On Mr Brocklebank's first point, I would say that the only people who feel cruelly let down are those who were led up the garden path by the likes of the Conservative fisheries spokesman, who talked—in the face of continuing scientific evidence of a decline in cod stocks—of an increase in our fishing opportunities, an increase in our fleet and an increase in fishery size. That is the kind of unrealistic assessment that leads to people feeling cruelly let down.
The fact of the matter is that as long as the cod stocks in the North sea are below and outwith their biological safe limits and we are operating in a mixed fishery, we face a fundamental problem. We are addressing that problem by taking the scientific evidence of improvement in the haddock fishery and other fisheries and deploying it successfully to persuade the scientists that it is credible to decouple the relationship between cod and haddock and engage in spatial management. That is why we have achieved a 53 per cent increase in the allocation. The fact that that is based on the available science makes it a credible alternative to the original proposition which was, as Mr Brocklebank will well remember, to close the North sea. If we were to go against the arrangement—and there are legitimate grounds for doing so—our action would still have to be credible in relation to the science and the evidence that we adduced to support our case.
On Ted Brocklebank's latter point, his half-baked suggestion—he still has not explained to me how he would manage international stocks—does not prove that we should come out of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am afraid that the Conservatives will find no statement from Tavish Scott saying that we should come out of Europe. That is not a proposition that they will find anywhere at all. The answer to Ted Brocklebank's question is no.
Does the minister agree that we should now try to seek an all-year-round derogation that would permit pelagic fishing and the potting method of fishing in the cod box to the north-west of Lewis? Will he agree to examine the possibility of a seasonal derogation for trawlers in that cod box? As he knows, 75 per cent of cod are caught in the first four months of the year. Does he agree that, if there is no seasonal derogation, there could be significant displacement of effort to the deep-water prawn fisheries west of the Hebrides, an area of water that is fully exploited? Does he also agree that, if there is to be an all-year-round derogation, we must make a compelling case for the reinstatement of the 10 per cent prawn quota that was lost some time ago?
I am grateful to Alasdair Morrison for that constructive suggestion on how to approach the issue—
Oh.
It might surprise Scottish National Party members that Mr Morrison makes a constructive intervention, but it is no surprise to me. His suggestion is helpful and, if we are to follow it, he is right that we will need much more management and survey work to be done. I wholly accept the proposition that there is a danger of consequent displacement—as there always is when we change the arrangements and the balance—and I recognise that that could be serious in Mr Morrison's part of the world. I welcome his suggestion.
Does the minister agree that the deal that has been achieved in the council marks a significant change in the European Commission's approach to issues such as spatial management and decoupling and that that is a result of hard work on the Executive's and the Scottish ministers' part? I welcome the increase in the nephrops quota, but does the minister recognise that nephrops fishermen such as those in Eyemouth and Pittenweem have suffered from being subject to restrictions because of the haddock and cod regimes, although they have no effect on those stocks? Will he take that into account when considering how to allocate the additional quota and ensure that such communities receive a significant share of it?
I certainly agree that there has been a significant change and that, in viewing the overall picture of what was agreed in December, we should not lose sight of the fact that the principles of spatial management, decoupling and having a bycatch of less than 5 per cent—which, regrettably, few of our vessels have achieved—give access to derogations in relation to effort control. We are able to build on three key areas, and that changes the way in which the management of fish stocks takes place.
I do not think that Iain Smith would expect me to intervene on the detailed allocation of the additional quota to ports that are heavily dependent on the nephrops fishery but, with the increased quota, there is certainly an opportunity for what Iain Smith proposed to take place, and I hope that the arrangements will deal with that suitably.
Will the minister explain why, after two years of decommissioning, with the Scottish fleet's having a dramatically reduced number of days at sea, boats from Belgium and Denmark—countries that have done no decommissioning—are not subject to the restrictions in the North sea waters that apply to Scottish boats? Given that the minister said that lives will be more difficult for people in the white-fish sector, where are the support programmes to aid the people who are harmed so greatly by the rotten deal?
First of all, Danish boats have decommissioned, so what Mr Stevenson says is factually inaccurate. Not all vessels have yet had their days allocated for 2004 because the only nations whose decommissioning arrangements the Commission has accepted for the 35 per cent decommissioning are Scotland and the UK. Therefore, what Stewart Stevenson said is simply not true.
As I explained in my statement, the notion that one could have had an increase in haddock and other quotas and simply ignored—[Interruption.]. We have 80 per cent of that whole fishery. The notion that one could have argued for an unconditional increase is nonsense.
As far as support is concerned, we must first make a careful analysis. I did not say that those in the white-fish sector would be worse off; I said that they are in difficulties and will continue to be in difficulties as long as cod is in a state that is outwith its biological safe limits. We will review the position, but in the light of an assessment of how the new arrangements will impact on different ports.
Why was there no increase in prawn quota on the west coast, given that the stocks there are healthy? Why cannot the cleanest prawn fishery in Europe as regards bycatch be decoupled and the quota increased? Why is there no increase in the quota for monkfish in area VI off the west coast, where the monkfish TAC has been reduced by 73 per cent over the past three years? Why has there been a cut of 17 per cent in the haddock quota on the west coast while the haddock off Rockall are more plentiful than they have been for years? Why have there been all those cuts in area VI, which is so important to Scottish fishermen, while in area VII, where the Spanish and Irish boats fish, there has been a 32 per cent increase in monkfish quotas and a 27 per cent increase in megrim quotas?
Is Mr Finnie aware that the proposed complete closure of an area of 100 miles between Scrabster and the Butt of Lewis will close one of the richest fishing grounds for the north coast and west coast fisheries and will devastate the fleets of Kinlochbervie, Lochinver and Scrabster, while non-European Union boats such as Norwegian long liners will still be able to fish that area? Will the minister fight against that closure and will he immediately renegotiate a better deal for the west coast?
Mr McGrigor's question is on the reason why there is no increase in quotas on the west coast. As I explained in my statement, and as Mr McGrigor will be aware if he has read the scientific advice—I am sure that he has—there is not the same discernible improvement in the cod stocks off the west coast as there appears to have been in the North sea. There is not the same credible evidence on the west coast to advance the decoupling arguments that we successfully deployed and secured for the east coast. The argument simply was not there.
It is all very well to say that fish are plentiful; the issue is what the scientific advice tells us about the actual state of the cod stocks. Mr McGrigor knows full well that the position off the west coast was significantly worse than that off the east coast. That is why the arguments for the west coast were not capable of being developed into a credible scientific case for increasing the quotas. That is a fact. It is difficult and it is hard, but there is no point going around raising people's expectations by ignoring the scientific advice and pretending that it will all go away. We must have a credible policy that, on the one hand, takes account of the scientific evidence and, on the other hand, gives reasonable quotas where those can be credibly argued for.
I welcome the additional income that the agreement could bring to sections of the fishing industry, but will the Executive continue to press for additional days' fishing for those with less than 5 per cent cod bycatch, particularly as the ability to minimise bycatches improves?
Yes. As I said, I think in response to Iain Smith's question, as well as decoupling and spatial management, the principle appears to have been established that minimal bycatches of less than 5 per cent now qualify for derogations from effort control. We will continue to press on that. However, we must accept that our own fishing industry needs to establish a track record of demonstrating that it is managing to fish with a bycatch of less than 5 per cent if it wishes to take advantage of that.
The minister referred to an unfortunate perception of black-fish activity, which is an uneasy euphemism for the reality of illegal fishing. I want to ask the minister three questions on the subject.
You may, provided that they are quick.
Can the minister point to any measures that have worked in the past four years? When will all boats be traceable by satellite tracking? What enforcement measures does the minister identify as being effective and when will they be employed?
I have already announced to Mr Harper that we intend to assist in funding the introduction of tamper-proof satellite monitoring, which will greatly improve the situation. As I announced earlier, we will also introduce measures to regulate the buyers and sellers of fish, which will close the loophole to some extent. We will give the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency the right to access both landing records and the records of those who purchase fish. That will enable the agency to identify much more easily differences between the two that may provide evidence of illegal activity.
That concludes questions.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that the fishing industry is in crisis and that this is a major issue affecting Scotland, are you prepared to seek the approval of Parliament to extend this item of business? Clearly, a number of members wish to contribute and to ask questions, so it would be appropriate for the Parliament to allow an extension. That would show the fishing industry in Scotland that some people in this place care about it.
I appreciate that point, but I have attempted to strike a balance in selecting members to put questions. A question on the issue has been lodged for First Minister's question time tomorrow and I intend to take it there. If party spokespeople would cut the length of their questions, there would be room for more.
Presiding Officer, you will recognise that only one political party represented in the chamber has not been allowed to ask the minister questions on this issue, whereas several members of other political parties have. Bruce Crawford's suggestion is positive and would be accepted by the chamber. Even a 15 or 20-minute extension would allow representatives of all the parties and the other members who represent fishing areas to ask questions.
Mr Sheridan, you are remarkably well treated on other matters in which you and the party that you represent have shown sustained interest. I will continue to adhere to the position that I set out earlier. I must protect the upcoming debate on the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which is of some importance. Already a number of members who have indicated that they would like to speak in the next debate will not be called, so I intend to proceed. I say to Mr Crawford that there may be time for other cuts tomorrow.