Fisheries
The first item of business today is a statement on fisheries. It is an important statement and the time allowed for it is longer than usual. I shall therefore be more lenient than usual in accepting contributions from members after the statement. [Members: "We cannot hear you."] Sorry. Was the sound system not working? I said that I shall give more latitude than usual to members who are responding to the statement, although their responses should be questions rather than speeches.
In rising to deliver a statement on fisheries, I am acutely aware—as I am sure all members are—of the absence from the chamber of a member who has a long and distinguished record of fighting for the Scottish fishing industry. I refer to Winnie Ewing. I hope that all members will join me in extending to Winnie, Fergus, Margaret and all the members of Winnie's family our heartfelt sympathy and condolences on the loss of her husband in such tragic circumstances. [Applause.]
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this further statement on fisheries. My aim is to offer a factual account of what was agreed at the December council and to make some observations on what that means in practice.
The problem that concerns us all is the new days-at-sea regime and its impact on parts of the fleet. However, we also need to be aware of other agreements reached at the council. As members know, three sets of issues were on the table. The first was reform of the common fisheries policy; the second were the cod and hake recovery plans; and the third was the normal total allowable catches and quota regulation for the year.
Let me begin with CFP reform. Our negotiations effectively secured all the Scottish Executive's objectives: inshore limits; the Shetland box; relative stability; the Hague preference; regional management; and the phasing out of distorting subsidies for new build. That is an important achievement, which will help to secure the long-term sustainability of Scotland's fishing industry.
The council agreed three new regulations. One is the new framework or so-called basic regulation, which deals with the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishing resources and the framework of the CFP. The second was an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels. The third was a measure to amend the provisions for Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.
On conservation and access to resources, the following key points were secured. First, the so-called 6 and 12-mile limits have been extended for a further 10 years and member states will have increased unilateral powers to introduce conservation and management measures within those limits. That means that only vessels that have traditionally fished there can continue to do so and that vessels from all member states will have to observe locally imposed regulations. There will be no new access to the zone for Spain or other member states. In addition, the Shetland box will remain in force. It will be subject to review alongside other conservation areas, but the Scottish Executive is determined to secure its long-term continuation.
Secondly, the principle of relative stability in the quota allocation system has been secured, which means that the quota shares that are enjoyed by each member state will continue as before. For example, there will be no quota allocations in the North sea to those who have not previously fished there. Furthermore, the council did not agree to an automatic review of relative stability next year, which sends a clear signal to the European Commission and has reduced an unwelcome element of uncertainty.
Thirdly, as part and parcel of relative stability, we have argued hard for the retention of the Hague preference, which is the mechanism that gives the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland preferential shares of certain stocks when they fall below predetermined trigger levels. The initial draft regulation that was before the council would not have secured the legal basis for invoking the Hague preference, but the regulation as agreed secures that objective, which is a major achievement from the negotiations.
The fourth key objective was to secure a more sensible way of managing our stocks. The Commission proposed a multi-annual management regime to try to secure longer-term planning. We had wanted such a regime to apply routinely to all stocks, but the regulation will apply in different ways to different stocks, depending on whether those stocks are within safe biological limits. However, that is an important step towards the long-term aspiration of sustainable fisheries.
The fifth key UK objective was to deliver regional management, for which the Executive and the Scottish industry have argued forcefully. There is now a clear commitment to establish regional advisory councils, but that must be regarded as only the first step, because the councils will be advisory and the Council of Ministers will still take decisions. However, we should not underestimate the potential of the council's offer to put fishermen at the heart of the process. Only by developing the regional advisory councils can we deliver better locally generated solutions for fisheries management.
On fleet structure, a major concern for us has been the inequity of the subsidies in other member states for the construction of new fishing boats. The so-called friends-of-fish countries had hoped to secure the continuation of such subsidies for the long term, but they were unable to sustain their argument. The general financial regime for structural funds extends to the end of 2006, but the council decided that such public aid will terminate at the end of 2004. We argued for the immediate cessation of aid for new vessels and, although what has been agreed represents a move in the right direction, I do not think that it went far enough. Aid for the modernisation of fishing vessels has also been restricted and will now be available only for vessels that are at least five years old to improve safety, product quality or working conditions, to switch to more selective fishing techniques or to equip vessels with satellite monitoring systems.
On CFP reform, a range of improvements will be made to the enforcement and control arrangements and satellite monitoring is to be extended to vessels that are longer than 18m from 1 January 2004 and to vessels that are longer than 15m from 1 January 2005.
On access to resources, the CFP reform has delivered most of what we wanted on relative stability, on the Hague preference and on inshore waters and the Shetland box. The package also delivers the prospect of meaningful change on the removal of subsidies, multi-annual management planning, the scope for improved management in the 12-mile limits and the development of regional advisory councils. We all know that change in the Community takes time, but we should recognise that, in the reform, important steps have been made in the right direction.
Of course, I recognise that those decisions—important as they are to CFP reform—have been overshadowed by concerns for the more immediate future of the white-fish sector. I therefore turn now to the cod and hake recovery decisions.
As members will recall, we went into the negotiations with two specific reference points. First, we had the international scientific advice, which proposed a moratorium on fishing for cod, haddock and whiting and significant restrictions on various other fisheries associated with cod. Secondly, we had the Commission's proposals for an 80 per cent reduction in fishing effort as an alternative to total closure. I responded at that time and made it clear that a closure of the fisheries was politically and economically unacceptable. I said that we had to give the white-fish sector and the communities that are dependent on it a viable future, although we should not ignore the scientific advice and should pursue realistic goals based on the principles of sustainable development. I also made clear my concern that any cod conservation measures should be applied equitably in all fisheries catching cod.
I make it clear at the outset that the negotiating parameters changed as the council began. The Commission brought forward an interim measure, as an annexe to the TAC and quota regulation, which had not previously been seen or discussed. It concentrated solely on cod recovery and involved a different approach to stock recovery, focused almost exclusively on effort limitation.
My preference would have been for the council to develop a recovery plan based on a wider range of measures and a more flexible approach to effort management. However, the Commission deferred consideration of longer-term arrangements until later this year. That change of tack by the Commission was not only deeply frustrating, but had a profound impact on the final outcome. In practice, the interim regime will lapse when the TAC and quota regulation lapses at the end of the year. However, a commitment was made by the council to bring forward a successor regime for agreement by the end of March and for implementation by July.
Let me outline the interim measure. In geographic scope, it will apply to vessels that catch cod in the North sea, west of Scotland, and in the Skagerrak and Kattegat. However, its impact will be significantly different in different areas—for example, it is much less stringent in the southern North sea—and for some fisheries catching cod. Notably, the industrial fishery escapes lightly. I am therefore bitterly disappointed and annoyed that the interim measure is not equitable and I shall pursue the concerns in negotiations about longer-term arrangements.
The interim scheme is designed to limit days spent at sea by vessels catching cod. It does so by specifying the number of days that any vessel may spend at sea per calendar month. Those limits vary according to the type of gear that is carried. The intention is to bear down most heavily on the vessels that catch the most cod. Some vessels will not be affected at all. For example, the regime does not apply to pelagic trawlers, to scallop dredgers or to those using pots and creels.
Our negotiations were largely successful in respect of the nephrops fishery. Those fishing for nephrops will be allowed 25 days a month. That figure, taken together with the TAC to which I will refer in a moment, will mean that the nephrops fishery should be largely unaffected. The only danger that we will have to guard against and take measures against is the possibility of displacement on to nephrops from other fisheries.
The crucial issue is the number of days that are available to the white-fish demersal trawlers that pursue our mixed fishery for cod, haddock and whiting. At the outset, the Commission proposed a limit of seven days a month. In the end, we secured 15 days a month. Of those, nine days appear in the regulation, but we were given firm assurances that a further six days are available to the United Kingdom. That is a significant point. In effect, we have 15 days, based on effort reductions that have already been delivered by our 2002 decommissioning scheme and on assumptions about the time that is needed for vessels to reach the main fishing grounds, and subject to our delivering permanent reductions in fishing effort through further decommissioning. That was not a satisfactory outcome.
It is important to recognise that the 15 days in question are allocated on a vessel basis and apply equally to vessels that have historically fished for more than 15 days a month. The regulation will clearly impact more severely on those vessels. For that reason, we tried hard to secure tradeability in such days to enable vessel owners to transfer days among vessels of similar size. The regime also allows for days to be moved between months, which will give some operational flexibility—for example, to cope with the impact of the weather.
Let me make it clear that that is not the regime that any of us wanted or expected. We were arguing for a more sophisticated regime based on a wide range of management measures and, in the case of effort control, based—if it had to be based on anything—on fully tradeable kilowatt days. Without becoming too technical, I should explain that the significance is that kilowatt days would have provided much greater flexibility for meeting the needs of individual vessels. The interim measure with which we have to work is much cruder and bites hardest on the most active vessels, although it affords some flexibility.
Let me turn to the associated quotas. As members will know, the Commission originally proposed 80 per cent reductions in fishing mortality as an alternative to closure of the cod, haddock and whiting fisheries. In the event, what we agreed equated to fishing mortality reductions of about 65 per cent. However, that is not the same as a 65 per cent reduction in the TAC. In fact, the TAC reductions in the North sea amount to about 45 per cent for cod, 50 per cent for haddock and 55 per cent for whiting. The reductions might be less when measured against quota uptake for 2002, which was not fully taken up.
The situation is more favourable for TACs and quotas for other species. The pelagic sector can look forward to broadly stable economic returns. There has been a reduction in the mackerel TAC, but a significant increase in the herring TAC. The exclusion of the nephrops sector from the new effort-control regime and a roll-over of the existing TACs at a level higher than the Commission proposed was again an important gain from the negotiations and means that nephrops fishermen can look forward—subject to my caveat on displacement—to more stable economic returns, both in the North sea and in the west of Scotland. Taken in the round, the white-fish sector faces severe economic difficulty, but the pelagic and shellfish sectors should remain largely unaffected.
When the First Minister and I met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation after the council meeting, we undertook to carry out urgently two pieces of collaborative work with the industry. First, we will work through the operational details of the interim measures to assess how we can sympathetically manage a difficult situation in the best interests of the industry. Given the obligation on the Executive to implement the regulation, that work will help to clarify the nature of regulations that we will require to bring before Parliament. Until we have worked through the implications with the industry, I cannot speculate about the details of the new arrangements.
Secondly, we will examine port by port and community by community the socioeconomic impact of the interim measures. Let me assure the Parliament that the Executive is considering a reasonable financial package. I cannot say today what that package will comprise. However, I can say that it must include targeted decommissioning if we are to avoid a reduction in the 15 days and address particularly the underlying problem of excess capacity in the white-fish sector. We are also looking at what we can do to mitigate the socioeconomic consequences of the council's decision for the white-fish industry—both the catching and processing sectors—and the coastal communities that depend on it.
In addition, we agreed that, as it was clearly in Scotland's interests to find a more equitable long- term measure and to put that in place as soon as possible, we would give priority to developing alternative long-term proposals to put before the Commission before 31 March.
At the conclusion of the council, the presidency called for a single decision that would take CFP reform, the TACs and the interim measures as a single package. I am bound to say that that posed a serious dilemma. We had secured our objectives in relation to the CFP and the only member states that were likely to oppose the proposal were those that wanted no change to the new-build subsidy regime and those that sought access to the North sea and the west coast. We were not happy with the interim measures, but the only other member states likely to oppose the proposal were Germany and Sweden, which wanted a 100 per cent moratorium in the North sea.
We took the view that we could not risk losing our hard-earned gains on CFP reform and we could not risk an even worse outcome for our white-fish sector. Therefore, with grave reservations, we did not oppose the package as a whole. Quite simply, there was no other option.
Our negotiations had secured our key objectives for CFP reform and we had secured a positive outcome for the pelagic and nephrops parts of the Scottish fleet. However, I do not pretend that the outcome for the white-fish sector is either fair or equitable, although it is far removed from a moratorium. As soon as the Commission changed tack and proposed interim measures focused on cod recovery, Scotland, with far and away the largest mixed white fishery, became the most vulnerable party to the negotiations.
Our persistent and stubborn efforts to secure a more equitable solution and to query the efficacy of industrial fishing or the use of much smaller mesh sizes in the southern North sea ultimately only had the effect of causing potential allies to look after their own interests first, which is what they did.
I am in no doubt whatever, given that we had the active and welcome involvement of the Prime Minister, that this was the only achievable outcome in all the circumstances and that the alternative of a Commission-imposed emergency measure would have been much more draconian in its effect.
Inequitable, unfair and even crude as the interim measures undoubtedly are, we must look forward. We must stick to our objectives of maintaining a sustainable fishing industry. We have to be clear, given the scientific advice, that any plan based on long-term responsible fisheries management is not going to be easy for our fishing communities. Our challenge is to develop long-term measures that tackle the scientific challenges with measures that are demonstrably fair and equitable in their application.
I hope that, despite all the difficulties that we undoubtedly face in the weeks and months ahead, the Parliament and, crucially, the industry will work together to address the challenge of securing a sustainable white-fish industry for the longer term. I shall, of course, keep the Parliament informed as we develop our proposals and the necessary regulations are drafted. The Executive intends to promote a debate within the next few weeks once those matters have become clearer.
I thank the minister for making available an advance copy of his statement.
Before I begin, I would like to associate myself and the SNP with the minister's comments about our colleagues, Winnie, Fergus and Margaret Ewing, who would have liked to have been here today, and who would have been champing at the bit to ask questions of the minister on a subject that is dear to their hearts. Our thoughts are with them today.
At the most recent First Minister's question time, Jack McConnell promised the Parliament that Scotland would win in the most important fisheries negotiations in living memory. However, within 36 hours, the UK had signed up to the worst possible deal for Scotland and to the worst deal secured by any of the 15 fisheries ministers sitting around the table in Brussels. There was no victory for Scotland, only massive defeat. Every other country that treats fishing as a priority left Brussels with a deal that it could live with; many left with concessions that they had gained at Scotland's expense. Is it any wonder that there is a seething anger in Scotland's fishing communities when their counterparts in Europe have the support of their Governments, which fight tooth and nail for their national interests?
Our ministers admit defeat even before the battle begins, then they go to Brussels and refuse to rock the boat. After that, they come home to Scotland, shrug their shoulders and talk about downsizing their own industry. Is the minister aware that papers that were released under the 30-year rule show that, when the Tories took Scotland into Europe and the common fisheries policy, they considered the industry to be "expendable"? Is not it ironic that it has taken 30 years and the arrival of a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition to bring the industry to the brink?
Is the minister able to explain how the deal that he brought home promotes the conservation of fish stocks when the Scots, who use the biggest mesh in the North sea, are allowed nine days at sea per month while the Danes, who in the same waters use the smallest mesh, get 23 days per month? How can we conserve fish stocks by giving the fleets that use the smallest mesh the most days at sea? Will the minister also explain how the deal favours Scotland when measures to protect cod result in the haddock and whiting quotas, which are staple quotas for the Scottish fishing industry, being cut by more than the cod quota?
Will the minister explain why he is talking about forcing another round of decommissioning down the industry's throat? Is it because he believes that that will somehow strengthen his negotiating position? Will the minister assure us that his strategy is not to boil the fleet down to one vessel because he will then be confident that he will be able to go to Europe and get a quota that will allow that boat to go to sea? Will the minister explain why Scotland finds itself in a position in which countries such as Spain and Ireland have left Brussels with the green light to use our money to build new vessels for their fleets, while he has come back home to Scotland wanting to use our money to destroy our fleet?
I will ask the three main questions on which the minister must get to his feet and give answers to the Parliament and Scotland's fishing communities. Does he agree that we do not need a financial package that will run down the Scottish fishing industry and turn our fishing communities into ghost towns but that, instead, we need a short-term aid package, funded by Europe and the United Kingdom Treasury, to preserve our fishing communities and keep the industry intact? Does he agree that we need to support the fleet and the onshore sectors through the difficult months ahead until we negotiate a better deal? Will he secure the necessary funds from the UK Treasury and Europe to achieve that aim and ensure that they, not the Scottish Executive, pick up the tab? Will he tour the fishing communities throughout Scotland in the coming weeks and consult on putting together a comprehensive survival plan for those communities?
I have a second question that I want the minister to answer. Does he now accept that Scotland should have led the negotiations all along? Elliot Morley cast his votes against Scotland's interests and scuttled back to London leaving Ross Finnie and our fishing communities to pick up the pieces. Morley called the deal "balanced", after signing a death warrant for our industry. Ross Finnie, returning to Scotland, called it "particularly pernicious" and talked of the unequal treatment of Scotland compared with some of the other member states. Morley thought that the deal was good and he signed it—no doubt he is singing in his bath. Ross Finnie thought that it was a "pernicious" deal and says today that he was bitterly disappointed, but given his non-person status in the UK delegation, his view did not count. Does the minister agree that, if there is one lesson that we must all learn from the debacle of 20 December 2002, it is that we can never again allow a UK minister to go into negotiations on behalf of key Scottish industries?
I have a final question that the minister must answer today. What plans does he have to challenge the common fisheries policy politically and legally? Does not he realise that landlocked countries, such as Luxembourg—which is the size of Dundee—and Austria, have more influence over the fate of our fishing communities and fisheries management in the North sea than does the Scottish Executive, which represents the most fishing-dependent communities in Europe? The CFP is a noose around the fishing industry's neck, so what is the minister going to do to remove that noose? When will he do it? When will he have a long-term plan to save Scotland's fishing industry?
It was somewhat difficult to distinguish in that speech between the long-term rant that we have heard for the past three weeks and serious questions, or even to discern in it a serious interest in the issues that face our Scottish fishing industry.
I note with considerable interest that Richard Lochhead chose to ignore completely the existence of scientific evidence regarding threatened stocks in the North sea. I regard it as utterly irresponsible to promote an argument on the basis of saving our industry while completely ignoring all the scientific advice.
Let me turn to the positions of other member states. As I made clear—this is a point that other SNP members will also have to answer—we opposed industrial fisheries. The Danes took the view that, if that was our stance, we had better just get a deal for ourselves. [Interruption.] No, it is not a matter of influence. The decision to pursue some immoral fishery does not necessarily give a country the kind of—[Interruption.] SNP members seem to be suggesting that they would have wanted to do a deal that would have improved the Danes' industrial fishery. They cannot have it both ways.
If the SNP wants to oppose the Netherlands' use of 80mm mesh nets, it must say so. However, if the SNP wants to go along with the use of those nets because it wants the Dutch as its friends, it too is buying into 80mm nets. If the SNP wants the Spaniards to have more access to the North sea, it can do its deal, but its members should be honest enough to tell us what that deal is.
Richard Lochhead is asking us for something when he is not prepared to tell us what cheap and tawdry deal the SNP would have struck to secure what he thinks might have been a different outlook. Such a deal would have hugely increased industrial fishing and would have led to more use of flatfish fisheries. The SNP would have backed that, but access to the North sea by the Spanish is not something that I would have wanted to sign up to.
There is no question about it: as I made clear in my statement, we will assess what is required port by port and community by community by way of financial measures to assist those that are most affected by the decision. I am happy to confirm that I intend once again over the next few weeks to go round a number of fishing organisations and communities, as I did in the run-up to the decision.
On the question of a public challenge to the CFP, members will know—if they had listened—that the CFP has just been reformed. The prospect of our gaining an immediate reform is not on the agenda, but it is important—I thought that this was a point on which the SNP agreed—that we focus on the creation of regional advisory committees, which we should regard as a first step. We should put all our efforts into ensuring that we develop those committees so that they have real influence on the decisions that are taken by the fisheries council.
There can be no doubt that the lesson from the recent council is that, without the active involvement of the fishing industry and community, we will end up with the sort of nonsense that was decided in Europe two weeks ago.
I thank the minister for giving me a copy of his statement. I associate the Scottish Conservative party with the minister's remarks about the terrible tragedy suffered by Winnie Ewing and her family. Our deepest sympathy goes out to them.
I am glad that the minister said that the pelagic and nephrop sectors will be unaffected. The nephrop industry was, however, looking for an increase in quota, rather than a small decrease.
How can the minister say that the quotas for member states will continue as before if he also says that there is to be a total allowable catch reduction of 40 per cent on cod, of 50 per cent on haddock and of 55 per cent on whiting? Those are all stocks on which the Scottish white-fish industry depends. What is the point of Scotland's having quotas if Fischler can simply turn off the tap?
Given that the scientists say that any cod plan might have to be in place for seven years, how many vessels does the minister estimate will remain in the Scottish fleet at the end of this year and in future years? Will he provide an estimate of the size of the Scottish fleet at the end of the seven-year period? Can he guarantee that there will be a Scottish fishing fleet? How many processing plants will be lost this year and in future years? How many jobs connected with the fishing industry will there be at the end of this year and at the end of future years?
I ask those questions because the real test for the fisheries minister, following the appalling Brussels result, lies in managing to save the Scottish fishing fleet, the jobs that depend on it and the livelihoods of so many rural communities that depend on the fishing industry. Fishermen have asked me why, when we are dealing with Scottish fish in Scottish waters, the Scottish fleet should have to suffer the pain while other fleets go relatively unscathed.
The regulation refers to days away from port, rather than days at sea. Will the minister confirm whether the regulation means days away from a specified port or days away from any port? Does the fact that the figure of 15 days—or nine days, which we are led to believe is the real figure—relies on decommissioning, the results of which will be monitored, mean that the number of days may be altered downwards in future years?
Can the minister confirm that the six-month emergency measures will last for six months and not for a further two periods of six months each if there is no full agreement on the future cod recovery plan? What plans does the Scottish Executive have to ensure that sufficient resources will be invested in the fishing industry by the beginning of February, to ensure minimum disruption to fishing communities?
Even if the minister does not believe in our policy of national control of fisheries, does he agree that nothing could be worse than this mess, which has been orchestrated by unelected Brussels bureaucrats?
I will begin by dealing with the first point that Jamie McGrigor made. The member said that I had indicated that no reduction in quota had been agreed. That is not what I said—I said that because there was no change in relative stability there was no change in the share of quota. Relative stability does not guarantee an absolute quota figure. It ensures that once quota as a whole has been agreed, the relative shares of quota remain the same. That is a very important point, and it is very different from the point that Jamie McGrigor made. Relative stability, which was under threat in certain elements of the negotiations, was a very important goal to secure for the long-term interests of our fleet.
The next series of questions related to our knowledge and understanding of the precise impact of the measures that have been agreed. Immediately following our return to Scotland, the First Minister and I undertook to examine those matters in detail. Given that the proposals are very different from those that anyone had envisaged, a day or two more is required to work out their impact on the number of vessels and on communities.
We need to speak to the processing industry. The impact of the proposals on that industry will vary greatly because, sadly, some businesses will seek to increase the amount of import substitution. That will change the economic impact of the measures on the industry as a whole. All those variables must be taken into account.
From 1 February the absolute figure for days away from port is 15 days. The review of days away from port relates to a very small proportion of that time. I have no doubt that we will be able to meet any conditions and to obviate the need for a reduction in the figure.
The six-month period to which Jamie McGrigor referred is a more vexed question. The Council has undertaken to present proposals for agreement by 31 March and for implementation by 1 July. I make no bones about saying that I regard that as an extraordinarily tight time scale. As I indicated in my statement, because it is clearly in Scotland's best interests, the Executive is committed to putting all its efforts into developing alternative proposals and presenting them to Europe as quickly as possible.
I do not share Jamie McGrigor's view. There would have to be a complete renegotiation of treaty obligations to secure his national fishing objectives; that is an unrealistic proposition. I have made no attempt to hide my dismay at the outcome—for which the Council members, not the Commission, voted—for the reasons that I gave in my statement.
I hope that the Parliament will join me in expressing our condolences to the family of the Fife fisherman who was so tragically lost in the Forth on Monday. That was a poignant reminder of the extreme dangers that fishermen face every time they put to sea.
I first express our gratitude to Ross Finnie for his sterling efforts in Brussels in trying to save our fishing industry against the odds and, in particular, for the relatively successful outcome in relation to the nephrops quota. However, I am sure that the minister will accept that the nephrops fishermen in Pittenweem feel less than certain about their future and that they are concerned about how the new regulations on days at sea, mesh sizes, displacement and other measures will affect them.
I am sure that the minister will also accept that a one-size-fits-all approach is not acceptable and that any financial support for the industry must not only reward those who wish to leave the industry through decommissioning, but assist those who wish to remain in the industry. Any approach must be tailored to meet the needs of fishermen and the onshore industries, including processing and fish merchants. Will the minister agree to meet representatives of the fishing industry in Fife?
I want to make two points in relation to the nephrops fisheries. I have already made it clear that we are acutely aware of the need for us to develop measures that will in some way inhibit displacement from all our fisheries. I made that clear in my statement and I am happy to repeat it. We are also acutely aware that there appears to be a number of anomalies within the regulation, particularly in relation to mesh sizes; those will have to be addressed as part of formulating the regulation. As I indicated in my statement, our aim will be to interpret the regulation as sympathetically as possible and in a way that is in the best interests of the Scottish fishing fleet.
The whole purpose of the exercise that the First Minister and I put in train when we met the SFF was to assess the impact not on a one-size-fits-all basis, but by examining different communities and ports. As I said in my response to Richard Lochhead, I am happy to meet a wide range of representatives of the fishing industry, not just in the catching sector but across the industry in the next few weeks.
Will the minister ensure that he speaks to other businesses in fishing communities that supply goods and services to the fishing industry? That might not be the whole of their business, but fishing certainly has a large impact on their business and if anything happened to that part of their business the rest of the business would become unsustainable. Will the minister outline some of the measures that he will take to prevent displacement into the nephrops fishery, which is very important to large areas of my constituency?
I am happy to make it clear that my meetings with representatives of the industry will encompass the widest possible range of interests. I will do my very best; I cannot undertake to meet every single person, but I will endeavour to ensure that as wide a range as possible is covered.
We do not have a final view on the details of how we will seek to safeguard against displacement. We have been in discussions with our technical people since the end of the discussions in Europe. There is the question of whether we should consider ring fencing. I do not want to commit myself this afternoon, but we understand the serious nature of the problem and the need to introduce regulation that would give some measure of protection or control to the nephrops fishery.
Of course the best way in which to guarantee the viability of Scottish fishing is to guarantee the viability of the fisheries. After the measures have been implemented, will there be a reappraisal by the scientific community of whether the measures will be effective over the next seven years in guaranteeing the survival of stocks? Was there any discussion about the possibility of Governments' buying back quotas on the quota market?
The first point that the member made is important. I assure Robin Harper that I took the view that we did not need to support total closure only after I had discussed the matter with our local scientific community. I asked that community whether total closure was the only option, given that its advice was directed at cod in particular. I asked whether there were alternatives, given that we have a mixed fishery. I received the response that providing that we put in place longer-term measures that would reduce fishing mortality by between 50 and 60 per cent—the closer to 60 per cent, the better—our actions could not be decried as not being credible in environmental and fisheries conservation terms. That was the basis for the line that I took.
We hope to receive some interim scientific advice during the year that will help us to discern the effectiveness of some of the other technical measures that the Scottish fleet has been deploying. We desperately need that information so that we can provide more robust support for the measures than we have been able to provide in the past. I hope that the combination of such advice and the process of keeping in touch with the scientific community will mean that any longer-term plan will be credible.
Seventy per cent of Europe's fishing grounds are within our territorial waters. Given that the Minister has negotiated the greatest cuts in fishing effort, fishing fleet and fishing quota, while other European fishing countries have negotiated gains in buying new boats and securing more quota and more days at sea than we have, why is he claiming a success? In reality, he was isolated and defeated. The chances are that he will be isolated and defeated in future farming and fishing negotiations in Europe. In other European countries, that would be a resignation issue.
Why has no other country had any cuts? The answer might be quite simple. Cod was the only stock in relation to which the scientific evidence called for total closure of the North sea. [Interruption.] Mr Lochhead suggests that such a call was also made in relation to hake. That is not the case—there was no scientific evidence that called for the total closure of a hake fishery.
Given the constituency that he represents, I understand Andrew Welsh's serious concerns. Not even an independent Scotland could overturn solid and sound scientific advice about what one should do about cod stocks. The member has referred to the size of our fleet. That is why we were the only nation that was totally exposed to the impact of—
The minister was isolated and defeated.
We were isolated only in the sense that the other member states that were interested in the matter took very unkindly to our suggestions that it might be more equitable to include the industrial fishery and that the 80mm mesh—an example of which Andrew Welsh held up in a previous debate—might be inappropriate for flatfish fisheries in which cod is caught as a bycatch. Those states did their own deal because they took unkindly to those suggestions. That left us to face the music of a scientific assessment that called for a total moratorium in the North sea. One does not have to be Einstein to work out the impossible position that that evidence put us in.
I agree fully with the minister that we need to work together to implement measures that will address the crisis in the fishing industry and which will secure and provide adequate compensation for it during the present period. He will have our support in that. I have considerable sympathy with the minister in relation to the dilemma with which he was confronted during the negotiations. It is churlish and juvenile not to acknowledge that unpalatable compromises must sometimes be made in international negotiations.
Is not it the case that within the constraints of the CFP, the minister was caught between a rock and a hard place? Is not it about time that we acknowledged that the common fisheries policy has failed and that it needs to be replaced? I appreciate that our signing up to the CFP was part of the process of our entry into the European Union—which, in 1973, was the European Economic Community. Surely 30 years is sufficient time to see that the CFP is a fundamentally flawed system that has failed our fishing communities.
I draw the minister's attention to the comments that were made at the new year by his colleague Mr Alistair Carmichael, the MP for Orkney and Shetland, who argued against—I think I quote him correctly—"blind loyalty to the institutions of the European Union" and for effective regional management of our fisheries. Will the minister accept that advice and join the Conservatives in calling for a return to national control over our fisheries, or will he follow the line that was announced yesterday in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Scotland and dismiss such advice out of hand?
Mr McLetchie will not be surprised to learn that I am not about to join the Conservative party.
What about Mr Carmichael?
I am in the same party as Mr Carmichael, as I am sure the member is aware.
It seems to me that there are issues about a lack of common purpose in relation to certain fish stocks. However, I do not have any instant solutions. Although I think that it is crucial that we have achieved the inclusion in the agreement of regional advisory councils, there is time to reflect on the impact of the overarching principles that ought to guide the allocation of stocks, irrespective of where or what they are, to obviate some of the particular interests that are pursued by certain member states.
However, I do not agree that we should simply tear up the whole CFP. To do so would have wide ramifications within the European context, which might not be in Scotland's best interests. As I said, we need to examine and address certain elements of the lack of commonality in regard to fishing stocks and interests.
As a very large number of members still want to get in, I appeal for short exchanges.
It is very clear that this year's negotiations have been exceptionally difficult. The UK Parliament and Scottish Executive ministers have fought hard to get what they could out of the negotiations and there have been some achievements, particularly in relation to CFP reform.
However, the interim measures will cause considerable difficulties, particularly for areas such as Aberdeen and the north-east and the catching and processing industries. For example, 1,600 jobs are involved in fish processing in Aberdeen city alone. Will the minister assure me that, when he consults different industry players including the processors, he will discuss the development of a smaller industry that is more viable in the long term? Will he also assist the people who will require considerable training and re-education in order to find alternative careers?
Obviously, all communities—particularly in north-east and the Northern isles, but also throughout Scotland—will be affected by the measures. I hope that I made it clear in my statement that, on the instruction to examine carefully what will be required, we are ruling nothing out and ruling nothing in at this stage. The First Minister said that to the fishing industry. Instead, we must examine thoroughly all aspects of the industry, including the communities and individuals that are affected by this most unfortunate imposition of the measures.
Does the minister recall that, in his speech in the fisheries debate on 12 December, he set a number of tests for success? He said:
"We cannot stand aside and watch the inevitable biological and economic decline."
He also said:
"All fisheries that impact on cod must bear the burden of recovery measures, whether in the northern or the southern part of the North sea … It must also emphatically take account of measures that the Scottish industry has introduced this year and last year."
Furthermore, he said:
"The guiding principle in our negotiations is that there must be equity".
Finally, he said:
"we also have a clear goal: to safeguard our fisheries infrastructure; to promote stock recovery; and to give our white-fish sector in particular a sustainable economic platform."—[Official Report, 12 December 2002; c 16391-2.]
My constituents and others around Scotland have watched with dismay the failure—I use the word deliberately—of negotiations; the failure to prevent economic decline in fishing communities around Scotland; the failure to deliver recovery measures that are equitable and bear on the south of the North sea as they do on the north; the failure to safeguard our infrastructure; and the failure to reflect the conservation measures already taken by our industry.
May I direct the minister to an answer given by the EU just after negotiations ended? In May 2002, the Danish industrial fishery landed 245,000 tonnes of sand eel. Does the minister accept that, on the commonly held basis that white fish may form a 4 per cent bycatch, that bycatch was 4,000 tonnes in a single month? Based on the number of Danish fishing boats that were arrested in the past year, does the minister accept that the Danish fishing industry probably kills more cod in the North sea than our industry has done in recent years?
Will the minister acknowledge the anger of people in the north of Scotland? He used terms such as inequitable, unfair and crude. Does he acknowledge the very real anger at the political stitch-up that has happened? His bitter disappointment will be valid only if he can deliver relief to the people of the north-east of Scotland and to communities throughout Scotland that depend on fishing, and deliver that relief in early course.
I fully understand that anger. One of the difficulties that emerged from the negotiations was our implacable opposition to the Danes continuing to have industrial fisheries at the level that they previously enjoyed.
With all due respect to Stewart Stevenson—and other members of the SNP—he has utterly failed to explain at any time during the course of parliamentary discussions, or in the press or anywhere else, what he would have done to secure the Danes' support. In the negotiations, the Danes were interested only in securing the continuation of their industrial fishery. He had nothing to offer the Danes other than giving implacable support to their industrial fishery. What kind of deal is that and what would it result in?
The SNP's logic is utterly flawed. SNP members are failing to confront the problem that, despite our opposition to industrial fisheries, regrettably there was no scientific evidence that could be used to attack the Danish fishery that was similar to the clear and unambiguous evidence that led to the call for 100 per cent closure of our white-fish fisheries. That argument will therefore not wash.
Stewart Stevenson mentioned equity. I made it clear in my speech that the settlement was not equitable or fair and that it did not meet the conservation tests for north and south of the North sea. However, that leads to the same problem of trying to do a deal with those who saw cod being proclaimed as the fish that had to be 100 per cent protected in the North sea and then ducked and dived and did their own deal.
On the matters that Stewart Stevenson raised about infrastructure and communities, I repeat what I said in my statement, and what I have said in response to many other members. We are considering closely the impact of those measures on a port-by-port, community-by-community basis throughout the fishing sector. We will make proposals in due course.
Will the minister accept the disgust that I feel about the manner in which the European Commission handled the negotiations? The negotiations did not relate to science or the conservation of fish stocks. They were more a cynical buying-off of different member states.
Does the minister recognise the utter frustration that fishing communities feel because of such a process? Does he understand that 25 per cent of the productive economy of Shetland depends on the white-fish industry and the ancillary industries that support it? Does he recognise the need to build a stable future for the white-fish industry, in particular in fishery-dependent areas such as Shetland? Given the uncertainty about the interim measures and the possibility that they could run not just until July but until December, will he give a commitment to Parliament to support the fishing industry and fishing communities with financial assistance through that period, including for tie-up, in order that fishermen who are being forced into port can come through the process with a future?
We share the view that not only the Commission's but the Council's failure to do anything other than pursue entirely national interests without any real regard for a common fisheries policy or, indeed, for a common set of objectives that would embrace conservation measures uniformly across the board, is a matter to be deprecated deeply. I understand fully—and I understand from my most recent visit to Tavish Scott's constituency—the importance of the fishing industry to Shetland.
On whether the measures will run for longer than six months—a point that was also raised by Jamie McGrigor—and on into December, I can only repeat that we are looking at a port-by-port and community-by-community assessment. We will come forward with proposals on what we think will be necessary to support those communities as a consequence of the measures that will have to be put in place.
The minister rightly suggested that the negotiations were rather unsatisfactory. He was at great pains to tell us that he had at least managed to elicit some improvements. Since we have only an interim arrangement, what is he going to do differently that will help to improve the situation in the coming six months? In particular, does he recognise that the cuts in the haddock and whiting TACs are much greater than the cut in the cod TAC, and that we were not trying to achieve a haddock recovery plan or a whiting recovery plan, but a cod recovery plan? What is he going to do differently in future discussions so that we have a better arrangement for haddock and whiting? How can we produce appropriate changes in effort that will target cod, not haddock and whiting?
One thing that appears to be clear—although nothing is certain, having gone through six days with it—is that the Commission appears to be much more willing to consider, as I indicated in the opening part of my statement, a much broader range of measures as part of a longer-term plan, therefore there is the issue of bringing matters back into play.
For example, we must urgently examine separator trawls, which have been used in other parts of the world, to decouple the cod fishery from the haddock and whiting fisheries. There is the issue of technical measures and counting them in a different way in a longer-term plan—they are counted in a crude way in the interim arrangements. Management issues have been proposed sensibly by a number of fishing organisations throughout Scotland and by the SFF. Those could all come back into play. Even if there has to be some measure to limit effort, the question of reverting to kilowatt days is not ruled out in the longer term. If that measure were used, it would be a far more equitable way of dealing with the problems in the longer run.
As I indicated earlier, as a matter of urgency we have to get a range of issues back on the table as part of developing a longer term plan for cod recovery that is different in shape and different in effect to what has been put in place as an interim measure.
Does the minister acknowledge the fundamental absurdity of small-time politicians trying to sidestep the need for the conservation of fish stocks? If we fail to conserve fish stocks, the fishing industry will have no future. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation understands that, even if the Scottish nationalist party does not. The minister has made the best of a diabolically difficult job and the chamber should support him.
I have a question about the implementation of the days-at-sea rules. Will the minister give top priority to fishermen's safety needs? It is imperative that skippers should not feel compelled by those restrictions to go to sea in weather during which safety considerations dictate that they should stay in port.
I agree with John Home Robertson. The safety element is not entirely satisfactory. We will have to translate provisions on that when the rough agreement is transposed into a regulation. We hope that the flexibility that we negotiated for moving days backwards and forwards between relevant months will help to avoid putting an imposition on fishermen to go to sea in highly unsuitable weather. We will have to translate that in a way that obviates that problem, which is a risk of having such a restricted days-at-sea regime.
I take the minister back to the commitment on compensation that he gave in his statement, on which I would like a little more detail. In ports such as Arbroath, which has a high dependency on the haddock supply, many merchants and processors operate on a small scale, which includes one-man operations in the manufacture of Arbroath smokies, in fish vans and in fish shops. Will the minister give a commitment that his attempt to seek out those who require compensation will extend to the final arm of the processing and merchant industry?
I hope that I have made it as clear as I can to the member that our attempts to cover the broadest range of the industry and the implications for it will be part and parcel of the process on which we have embarked. Not just the catching sector is under consideration; other sectors must be considered. We must assess the economic impact on them, on individuals and on communities. We do not rule out anything for that exercise.
The minister mentioned potential displacement, particularly in relation to west coast communities. He will know that communities such as Oban, Skye, Campbeltown and the Argyllshire islands share the characteristic that more than 10 per cent of their employment is directly or indirectly related to the fishing industry. With that in mind, all that he has told us is that he will guard against displacement. Will the minister give more details of the measures that he has in mind to do that? If displacement occurs despite those measures, will the minister agree to include those west coast communities in any consideration of financial compensation because of that?
The minister will be aware that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation continues to consider a legal challenge to the regulation. He said that he was against parts of the agreement, so will the Executive consider such a challenge, on the bases of improper procedure, unfitness for purpose and disproportionate action? Would not that be a tangible way for him to stand up for the Scottish fishing industry?
When the minister describes the agreement as characterised by inequality, unfairness and crudity and Elliot Morley describes it as balanced, that raises a question in many people's minds. In his important and powerful role in the delegation, did the Scottish minister demur? Did he advise Elliot Morley to sign or not to sign the agreement? If he advised Elliot Morley to sign it, is not the minister tied into the shabby deal that is before Parliament?
I cannot advise the member on displacement, save only to say that I made it clear that provisions on that would form part of a regulation and would therefore be enforceable. The terms will be much clearer and more explicit. I loosely referred to the question of whether we ring fence, but I do not want to be tied into a regime. Our officials are examining closely the need for a regulation that would not only safeguard the situation, but be enforceable. As I made clear in my statement, the prospect of displacement into the nephrops fishery is a serious risk and problem. My aim is to avoid that and therefore to avoid the need to bring the nephrops fisheries into the case for financial support.
My position on the question of legal challenge is that elected ministers met in a council that was properly convened. Irrespective of the inequity of the outcome, I am not aware of anything in the process that was not conducted in accordance with the regulations. I will be interested to see the basis of the fishing industry's legal challenge. The Government does not have a grouse with the way in which the procedure was carried out, but as the industry has a different locus to the Government, others may be able to claim that they were put at a disadvantage as a result of the outcome of the meeting. No doubt in due course we will hear from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation about that.
I made it explicit in my statement that the Presidency's decision to take both measures as a single package placed us in a dilemma. Given the votes that were at stake in the Council meeting, no one should suggest that we should have put at risk what had been secured in respect of the common fisheries policy, especially given that the only serious pressure to amend the interim measures was to effect a 100 per cent moratorium. It was not an easy decision to take, but it had to be taken at the time and we did so with grave reservations. I repeat that to have put at peril an already bad deal and so make it worse was not something that I was prepared to sign up to.
Does the minister agree that to constantly raise constitutional issues on fishing [Interruption.]—
Let us hear what the member has to say.
Does he agree that that masks the total lack of serious alternative proposals to address the perilous state of white-fish stocks? Indeed, the SNP and Tory spokesmen on fisheries did not mention the need to listen to the scientists or to conserve stocks, let alone to come up with solutions. Can the minister reassure me that by agreeing to measures that fall short of the advice that has been given by the scientists he is confident that we can rebuild stocks sufficiently to ensure a sustainable future for the Scottish white-fish sector?
I agree that in trying to address the serious issues that affect the problems of the white-fish sector no serious contribution is made by constantly dancing on constitutional pins.
As I indicated in my response to Robin Harper, the Scottish Executive takes seriously the need to have proposals that are credible in scientific terms and that can assist in building a sustainable white-fish sector. I cannot give any guarantees of a recovery. All that I can assure the member is that we will not totally ignore scientific advice. We do, however, want to take a proportionate response in respect of the fisheries that are at risk.
I want to concentrate on one or two of the details of the deal that has been done. We have heard little so far in the debate about the fishing industry and all too much about constitutional matters.
The fishing industry has been placed in an invidious position. How many of its members will be able to survive in the short term until July? Even if they can survive until a long-term plan is agreed, what hope is there that they will survive under the long-term plan from July onwards?
It is essential that the minister meets quickly with representatives from the fishing industry to thrash out exactly what measures can be put in place to support the fishing industry through the initial six-month period and to get agreement on the longer-term solution.
The 15-days-at-sea measure on which the minister secured agreement seems to be predicated on a further decommissioning scheme. How great and how quickly is the requirement to decommission that will ensure that the 15-days-at-sea measure remains in force over the next six-month period?
Three paragraphs on displacement were contained in the document that was presented to the Council meeting that took place on the Friday morning. Will the minister explain exactly what measures were agreed to deal with displacement from the white-fish sector into the nephrops sector during the negotiations on that Friday?
Finally, the minister will be aware that there are great worries in the west coast that nephrops fishermen in area 6A, 56 deg north are caught by the 15-day restriction, despite the fact that they fish for nephrops. I have already raised the issue with the minister. An amendment to a statutory instrument in the Scottish Parliament is required to deal with that matter. Will the minister give an assurance that the issue will be dealt with as quickly as possible?
I will deal with the last point first. I am conscious that there are anomalies in how the 15-day and 25-day rules overlap. I do not wholly share the view that an amendment to the statutory instrument will be required, although I have not ruled that out. That is not necessarily the only route that is open to us. In my statement and in response to a member, I said that we totally recognise that there are anomalies in the regulation and I have said to the chamber that we intend to implement the regulations as sympathetically as possible, in the best interests of the Scottish fishing industry.
Although at first sight the regulation appears to have a provision that deals adequately with displacement, I do not think that it has. That takes us back to a point that many members, including Duncan Hamilton, have raised about the need to bring forward a regulation that stipulates how we would seek to protect the nephrops fisheries from displacement.
On the long-term plan and having a meeting with the fishermen as soon as we can, we met the fishermen on 23 December and undertook that we would give priority to working out the long-term plan. I think that my officials are working with them again tomorrow. We will continue to meet the industry to develop the long-term plan and the regulations for implementation of the current arrangements.
At best, only two days of the 15 days that are available would ever be at risk in respect of decommissioning, although, as I said, I do not anticipate that they will be. We must consider that, in the longer term, it will be necessary for us to consider further targeted decommissioning to reduce fishing effort by around 15 per cent. It might be more than that, depending on how the regulation is fitted.
The minister has regularly referred to the danger to nephrops fisheries of displaced effort. I know that he has received representations from Euan Robson on a specific measure and I wonder whether the Executive is considering introducing regulations north of the Tweed similar to those that are in force off the Northumberland coast that allow fishing for prawns with a single trawl only. If the minister is not considering that option, will he advise us what other issues are being considered to protect the nephrops fisheries from displacement?
I assure the member that we are considering that proposal in considering measures that will be effective in reducing displacement, but I do not wish to commit myself until I have seen what options are available and considered what the best option would be for a regulation to give the protection that the member seeks.
The minister says that his aim is to offer a factual account. Does he understand that our aim is to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account? If he wants to hear the views of the SNP, perhaps he should have agreed to the debate that we suggested for tomorrow morning.
I have a specific question about regional management. The minister says that regional management has, in effect, been secured. My understanding is that regional advisory committees have been secured. Is there any guarantee that there will be a move and transition in respect of power as opposed to simply advice with regard to those advisory committees to achieve regional management?
Secondly, on the 15 days a month at sea, the minister says that there has been a firm undertaking. Where is that firm undertaking? Was the undertaking verbal or written? If it is not a written undertaking, why not?
Thirdly, does the minister think that the fishing crisis should lead us to reflect in the intergovernmental negotiations on whether Scotland, even under devolution, should have direct access to the European Court of Justice?
Finally, is the minister remotely aware that he and Elliot Morley had no other option, as they had no friends, no allies and, in effect, no clout?
As I am not a member of the relevant body I have no part in deciding whether there will be a debate or a statement. I think that to suggest that for a minister to deliver a statement of some 20 minutes and be subjected to 60 minutes of questioning is not holding him to account seems to be a rather strange notion on the part of the member.
On taking forward regional advisory committees, I made it explicit in my statement that I do not regard—I do not think that anybody regards—the inclusion for the first time of regional advisory committees in the common fisheries package of measures as being anything other than a first step. The challenge and task is for us to develop the regional advisory committees further. On their constitutional standing and their status for making decisions, the member will be aware that the Council of Ministers agreed at the outset of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy—this is not absolutely accurate—some three years ago that there would be no treaty change in the current negotiations. I think that that was a wrong decision. The possibility of enhancing the constitutional powers was negated at that stage, which is much to be regretted as I think that that was not the way in which the Scottish industry or most political parties in Scotland had seen the situation. The challenge for us is to demonstrate that the regional advisory committees do and can contribute within the loose framework that has been given to them and to make them as effective as possible.
Direct access to the courts is a matter for another minister.
The 15 days are available. That undertaking was given to us. We will have that confirmed, but it was given to us in a verbal undertaking. I have made the point time and again and at no point has anyone sought to challenge that. I know that what we were saying on the matter was being closely scrutinised.
On the question of being isolated, I repeat that no one in the chamber has demonstrated to me how we could have got a coalition of other member states without seriously endangering our position either on access to the North sea, on industrial fisheries or on other mesh sizes. The way in which the matter was focused on delivering the highest possible restriction on cod in the North sea meant that getting friends who were interested in that matter, as opposed to self-interest, was almost impossible.
There are three minutes left and five members want to speak. I suggest that I take each of the five in turn—they will be allowed one question each—and the minister will then reply to them.
It is sad that, as a pro-European, I have to admit that neither the Commission nor the Council comes out of this with much credit. Having said that, it seems to me that we have a great deal of work to do on getting round the fishing interests, sorting out how they can be compensated and how the situation can be tailored to mitigate the crisis that faces them. Equally important, we must get into the interim measure and get that discussion reopened. We must have something positive and constructive to take to that discussion. Does the minister agree that bodies such as the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership, which has a very wide membership, could make a helpful contribution in accomplishing the huge volume of work that must be done in short order?
I am still a bit mystified by the nine days and 15 days. My question is straightforward and simple. On 1 February this year, if there is no additional decommissioning in the Scottish fleet, how many days at sea are guaranteed?
Given the emphasis on preservation and Rhona Brankin's comment on scientific evidence, what confidence does the minister now have in the scientific evidence that seemed to ignore the basic feed stocks for the cod stock? What does he believe will be achieved by preservation? Will it not be only the long-term interests of the Spanish fleet, which ultimately will gain access to the North sea?
I will take the minister back to the shore-based industries, in particular the harbour industries. The minister is aware that such industries in Wick, in my constituency, are in an increasingly untenable position in terms of profit and loss owing to the decline in white-fish landings. The decisions that were recently made in Europe will make the situation even worse for Wick. What will the minister do? Will he encourage the Scottish Enterprise network to step in and will he carry out certain actions at his own hand to repair the situation?
According to the minister, the white-fish fleet will now have 15 days at sea every month. What mechanisms exist to amend the regulations once they are agreed by the Council of Ministers? What is the legal basis of the guarantee of 15 days?
I agree with Nora Radcliffe that, as I said earlier, we must put in place as quickly as possible discussions on long-term measures. In developing the longer-term proposals, I will have no hesitation in engaging with a range of organisations, including the North East Scotland Economic Development Partnership, which had a helpful role in formulating positions before I went into the earlier discussions.
Phil Gallie asked about scientists and conservation. We must put the matter into perspective. The work that has been done on cod has one of the longest ranges of work that has been undertaken on any species. That scientific field is one of the more difficult in which to achieve a degree of precision, but we cannot ignore such advice at will. Given the agreements that were reached on relative stability and on the inshore limits, I do not share Phil Gallie's view that there is an opening for the Spanish to gain unfettered access to the North sea. The Spanish have a legal right to access, but they cannot fish without a quota. Therefore, Mr Gallie's assertion is untrue.
Christine Grahame asked how many days at sea there will be if there is no more decommissioning: the answer is 15 days. On Bruce Crawford's question, the undertaking on the number of days at sea was given to us and is expressed in an annexe to the total allowable catches regulation and therefore is in force until December next year.