The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the end-of-year fish negotiations.
15:48
It does not really feel like a year since we last discussed the annual fisheries negotiations in the chamber. Time flies by when we are really busy, and 2014 has certainly been a busy year for Scotland. We have seen momentous and historic events the likes of which we might not see again for some time—but hopefully not too long.
The fundamental significance of fishing to this country remains—year in, year out. Our communities continue to depend on our fishermen, who often operate in treacherous conditions that make fishing one of the most dangerous industries in the country. That was brought home again this year with the loss of life from the Ocean Way accident, which was a horrible reminder that too many pay the ultimate price to bring food to our tables.
Our fisheries are varied and are spread the length and breadth of our country, from small inshore vessels to the largest and most sophisticated offshore vessels. That same fleet of vessels is supporting our vital onshore processing sector, which handles and sells our fabulous seafood, with its unrivalled reputation, the world over.
I pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the resilience and spirit of this great industry and I acknowledge its contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of many of our communities.
We are in the midst of the end-year negotiations. Negotiations by their nature cause uncertainty, and the annual bun fights, which we are now used to, can act against sensible planning. All that strengthens the Government’s resolve to secure the best possible outcomes for the industry in this year’s negotiations, which culminate in next week’s fisheries council in Brussels.
I am pleased to note that we have started on a bright note with the gains that were achieved at the European Union and Norway negotiations last week. For the first time in recent years, the talks were concluded in advance of the December council negotiations, which removes uncertainty over key North Sea quotas and access to Norwegian waters.
As members can imagine, there were intense negotiations about the total allowable catches for cod and haddock in particular. Those two stocks are closely linked in the rich and diverse mixed fishery of the North Sea, where harsh limits on one stock could lead to increased discarding of the other. To force more discards on the fleet in that way would send the wrong message as the sector moves towards mixed fishery plans and the landing obligation as part of the discard bans, when our watchwords will have to be common sense, flexibility and innovation.
I am glad to say that common sense prevailed and, after much discussion, the talks delivered a much-needed and scientifically justifiable 5 per cent increase in the North Sea cod quota against a backdrop of a proposed 20 per cent cut. The North Sea saith and whiting quotas were reduced in line with long-term management plans, although, as with haddock, we continued to secure an inward transfer from Norway of additional whiting to help to mitigate the effect of that cut. Other elements were rolled over from last year in a package that was broadly welcomed by the industry in Scotland.
Given that, this year, haddock was assessed for the first time as one whole northern stock straddling the North Sea and the waters to the west of Scotland, I am confident that, in Brussels next week, we will be able to secure a significant increase in quota for the west of Scotland haddock stock.
The negotiating season moved on to the EU and Faroe Islands talks, which concluded just today. As many members will recall, that important bilateral agreement was reinstated in 2014 after a four-year pause and much angst, and it has now re-established critical access for our white-fish fleet to Faroese waters, which alone is worth more than £3 million a year. The deal provides much-needed flexibility through access to additional fishing grounds and the provision of an effort refuge from the cod recovery zone for many of our vessels.
I am pleased to confirm to the Parliament that we have managed to maintain the same level of white-fish quota and that there has been no increase in access for Faroese vessels. In line with the overall total allowable catch changes, the quota that the Faroese can fish has been reduced from nearly 47,000 tonnes to less than 40,000.
In negotiating the agreements, it is my job to balance the multiple needs across all sectors of the industry to secure the wider benefits for all our fleets. Let us be clear that the share of access given to the Faroese reduced from 43 per cent in 2010 to 30 per cent in 2014, and today’s agreement maintains that level.
I assure the Parliament—I know that the matter has been of concern to many people—that our compliance teams have targeted their resources and expertise on monitoring the Faroese vessels that fish some of their quota in Scottish waters. In the past year, we have carried out 29 inspections on 51 Faroese fishing trips. That is close to a 60 per cent inspection rate, which is a truly impressive level of scrutiny, especially considering the environment that our compliance vessels have to operate in at this time of year. I hope that those figures reassure our fleet.
I know that our fleet will benefit from the sustainable mackerel quotas for 2015 that have been agreed in the past few weeks, which yield a Scottish quota of just under 187,000 tonnes. That agreement will provide stability as we look ahead to next year, aided by our successful calls to the European Commission for increased banking provisions for mackerel in response to the Russian trade sanctions.
We are packing our bags for the annual endurance test that is the December fisheries council in Brussels, when all the talks come together with the negotiation that will take place next week for the internal EU stocks. I am told that I am now the longest-serving fisheries minister in the whole of Europe. Based on my experience, I will never be convinced that it is sensible to do business in a sleep-deprived environment that is crammed in over two days. That is no doubt what we will experience early next week.
As expected, this year’s scientific advice presented what we always term a mixed bag. The overall picture is more positive than last year’s, with some welcome advice suggesting increases for key stocks such as northern shelf and Rockall haddock, monkfish, megrim and North Sea nephrops.
However, it is still as disappointing as it is illogical that once again we will have to expend energy on fighting off proposed cuts in the days at sea that our fishermen are able to fish. It is frustrating that we are still having to struggle free of the outdated and flawed straitjacket that was imposed by the now discredited cod recovery plan. That is why, when I met Commissioner Vella last week in Brussels, I made it clear that the cod recovery plan is well past its sell-by date and needs to be replaced urgently. I was encouraged by his willingness to listen and I hope that that willingness is soon translated into action.
More generally, we shall protect our position when the advice on quotas is unclear or when we need to ensure that positive recommendations, such as those that we have for monkfish and west of Scotland haddock, are implemented next week. We will fight hard to ensure that so-called data-limited stocks are not cut arbitrarily but are looked at case by case and on the basis of the available evidence, using stock trends as indicators.
I will press hard to establish the principle that, when the science identifies a stock as being one and the same in adjoining areas, there should be an element of flexibility in how the quota may be fished across those areas. That would be available only when quota is held in both areas, to protect historical interests, and it would be key in reducing unnecessary discards by and costs to our fleet. Haddock and saith both fall into that category this year.
The wider policy context for the December council is different this year. Proposals from the Commission are translating many of the strategic goals of the new common fisheries policy. The signs are that next year’s talks, which will establish quotas for the first year of the demersal landing obligation in 2016 as part of the discard bans, will be much more difficult. Before then, we will reach a significant milestone in tackling the discarding of fish when the pelagic landing obligation comes into force in a few weeks, on 1 January 2015. Of course, the introduction of the pelagic discard ban is only the first step. From 2016, the ban will begin to apply to our white-fish and nephrops fleets, and from 2019 it will extend to all quota species.
We all know that the Scottish Government supported action to tackle discards, as did many parties across the chamber and the industry. It is a no-brainer—nobody wants to have to throw perfectly good fish back, dead, into the sea. It is not good for businesses, fish stocks and conservation, and it is certainly not good for the consumer in an age of increasing food security issues.
I know that Scottish fishermen and the onshore sector are worried about the landing obligation and the significant changes that it will bring to their day-to-day practices. We should not underestimate the challenges that they will have to face and the adaptation that will be required across our fleets. It is therefore right and proper that we work as hard as we can at Scottish and European levels to ensure that the landing obligation is introduced responsibly and pragmatically, in a manner that avoids delivering big shocks and damaging our fragile fishing communities.
It is just as important that comparable vessels fishing alongside each other all face or anticipate the same level of monitoring and control of their activities. I make the point time and again to my United Kingdom counterpart that, as we take forward the discard bans, we must have a level playing field. I will look to make sensible use of the flexibilities that are built into the regulations and to take a pragmatic approach to phasing in the new rules.
I am clear that we cannot continue with business as usual. I have spoken about the need to develop 21st century fisheries management tools to deal with 21st century problems. We should not be bound by the current structure, which was created back in the early 1980s. If fishermen are being asked to adapt, fisheries managers must also be prepared to adapt. There is an onus on managers and fishers to innovate and embrace change by balancing responsible fishing with our fleet’s viability. That is the message that I will deliver in Brussels. It is time for us all to roll up our sleeves and step forward together to meet the challenges that we face.
We always seem to face stiff challenges and difficult decisions at the end-of-year fisheries negotiations. That is why, at every negotiation, we should be able to create the best possible conditions to get the best deal for Scotland. Unfortunately, the current constitutional settlement prevents that. It is also unfortunate that the Smith commission’s recommendations barely move us forward on securing the future of fisheries in this country.
The one reference to a fisheries-related topic appears right at the end of the Smith commission report in a proposal to review the current arrangements for raising seafood levies, which have long been frustrating for the Scottish Government because they are outdated and inflexible. We have to get that right if we want to promote Scotland’s fantastic seafood and help the industry.
Believe it or not, the current arrangements stem from the Fisheries Act 1981, which predates Scottish devolution by almost 20 years. As a relic of a bygone age, those arrangements continue to tie Scotland to a dysfunctional UK levy system that seeks vainly to do the impossible job of supporting very different industries north and south of the border, including importers from other countries, which are all in competition with each other. We have to change that system. The Scottish people should have the ability to decide the extent to which Scotland participates in UK levy arrangements, with the freedom—in legislative and in practical terms—to establish separate arrangements north of the border when we consider that it is appropriate to do so.
One other recommendation is relevant to fisheries. The Smith report recommends that, when there is a predominant Scottish interest and the lead UK minister does not attend the EU Council of Ministers, a Scottish minister should by default speak for the UK there. That clearly applies to fisheries and I have no doubt that it was a subtle reference to fisheries.
That proposal is the least that we should expect and it should put an end to the ridiculous situation where I—as Scotland’s fisheries minister with seven years’ experience—have been forced to sit in silence on the sidelines and watch as inexperienced UK ministers and even unelected lords have represented the UK in important discussions that affected Scotland’s fishing industry. That was the case last month, when Rupert Ponsonby, Lord de Mauley, had to be briefed on the most basic issues at the vital negotiations. The decision to draft in an unelected lord with no experience of the issues at stake was an arrogant and insensitive insult that took no account of the mood in post-referendum Scotland.
We need genuine commitments to allow the Scottish minister to lead the development of the UK negotiating position as well as to lead for the UK when appropriate—and I do not mean just when the UK ministers cannot make it or when they decide to leave for the Eurostar or their flight home early.
We were, of course, disappointed by the lack of reference in the Smith report to fisheries.
Can you draw to a close, please?
In a quintessentially Scottish sector, in which Scotland is predominant in the UK, we see devo max as a no-brainer that makes clear and absolute sense for fisheries. It is therefore frankly baffling that the Smith recommendations did not pass that litmus test.
Hands tied or not, I will of course ensure that Scotland’s priorities are always uppermost in the minds of UK ministers. We will do our utmost to fight for Scotland’s interests across the board. What is never out of my mind is what all this means in the real world of our fishermen and women who work in the industry—what they can fish, where they can fish, how much they can fish and even how much time they can spend at sea
You really must close, please.
That is why we will continue to do our utmost to secure the best possible deal for this great and proud industry next week.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the successful conclusion of the recent EU-Norway fishing negotiations, which secured a number of good outcomes for the Scottish fishing industry; notes the forthcoming annual fishing negotiations in Brussels and supports the Scottish Government in its efforts to achieve the best possible outcome for the industry; agrees that the final negotiated settlement must promote sustainable fisheries and have the best interests of Scotland’s fishermen, coastal communities and wider seafood sectors at its heart; notes that the outcome of the negotiations will be pivotal to support the fleet's implementation of the landing obligation, and supports the Scottish Government’s continued calls for it to lead for the UK in European fisheries negotiations on issues where it is clearly appropriate to do so.
We are very tight for time today.
16:02
It is almost a year since the new common fisheries policy was introduced, but the forthcoming year is when the force of the changes comes into effect. We are starting to see changes in the end-of-year negotiations that the debate refers to. There is less horse trading and fewer late-night negotiations. There is an increasing attempt to take out the politics and grandstanding and instead to focus on delivering sustainable fisheries that support employment, communities and our food sector, while not damaging stocks or the marine environment.
Conservation and stability of stocks can deliver long-term economic health for the whole industry, onshore and offshore. We need a continued commitment from the Scottish Government and the sector to deliver that. Scotland’s fishing sector employs about 5,000 people in the catching sector and supports key employment in supporting sectors. Scotland has world-renowned produce but, although our produce is sent all around the world, we could do more to support our home market. Although we are an island country, we are not big consumers of seafood, and there could be greater promotion of it, as well as a greater commitment to local sourcing. I hope for a positive outcome from the good food nation consultation that is happening.
The industry has a significant base in Scotland, but it operates throughout the UK, with a common regulatory system and a UK network of harbours and fish processors. That is reflected in some of the concerns that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation raised about the quota consultation, which I will say a bit more about later.
The drama of previous years may be on the way out, but the importance and complexity of the EU negotiations are increasing, as they are not just about allocating effort but about changing the system to meet the CFP’s environmental objectives.
We are nearing the end of the negotiations. I support the Scottish Government’s key objectives going into the negotiations and wish the cabinet secretary well in the final stages.
We are looking to amend the motion to focus on the key issues for the sector rather than sustain a debate about who represents it, when we all have a common view anyway. I have sympathy with the cabinet secretary over recent decisions on who would present the UK case but, going forward, our understanding of what is “clearly appropriate” might not always be the same as the Scottish Government’s understanding.
If the member has sympathy with the cabinet secretary, why does she want to remove the part of the motion that says exactly that—that we regret the cabinet secretary not having the opportunity to lead in the talks?
My understanding of the Scottish Government’s motion is that it does not refer to the particular incident about who represented us at EU negotiations, when I supported the Government’s concerns. However, as during the referendum debate, I am pretty clear that I believe that the UK’s strong negotiating position provides the best deal for Scottish fishermen.
Notwithstanding the UK Government’s questionable decision to bring in a member of the House of Lords at the last minute to represent UK interests, I hope that the cabinet secretary will work well with his UK colleagues in the interests of the Scottish sector, as in previous years. The negotiations are significant, and I want Scotland to support decisions that aid the effective introduction of the landing obligation, achieve fishing at sustainable levels and help to deliver good environmental status. That can be achieved while retaining a profitable fishing sector, but it will require effort and commitment from all partners. We need to keep an eye on the prize of a fishing sector that has a future, without compromising our marine environment.
As the cabinet secretary outlined, the already-agreed increase in the North Sea cod and haddock TAC for the next year is welcome. That will help to ease the introduction of the new CFP. The successful negotiation of inward transfers of haddock and whiting quota is also welcome, as scientific evidence suggests that those stocks are in good shape.
In the fisheries debate last year, Labour’s amendment called for a clear plan of action to introduce the discard ban. I hope that I can be convinced today that that is in place and that the Government is supporting the sector in the efforts that have to be made.
We should not forget why we are introducing a discard ban. Discarding bycatch fish or fish whose quality was not high enough was a practice for many years, particularly as the financial incentive increased. It took a television campaign and a public outcry to mobilise the movement against that practice, whose time was up. That can be a good thing that will respect our seas and the natural resource that they give us, and it can open up new opportunities for the sector.
Scotland has been a fishing nation at the forefront of good practice, and we should recognise the commitment of much of our fleet to achieve that. That has taken investment and tough decisions. I recognise the frustration that there can be at the behaviour of other countries and the importance of the need for a level playing field, but the new CFP is a further challenge for our sector. The nature of Scottish fishing will make it very difficult to deliver a discard plan. We need to ensure that we have robust plans in place to deliver.
Last year, the cabinet secretary spoke about the need for the European Commission to provide fishermen with additional quota to enable the landing of all fish that are caught. He argued that the Commission must give us the tools to put in place a sensible and practical discards ban. I do not disagree on the need for greater flexibility, which is crucial, but we also need greater regional decision making and planning that increasingly identify and make best use of a shared quota and resource.
We also need a plan from the Scottish Government. We need a clear indication of the measures that it expects to be introduced and of what checks and balances it will bring into the sector to reward those who fish responsibly and work to meet the new standard. If fleets are struggling to change or are resistant to change, they should be supported to adapt, or compliance measures can be introduced.
Next year, there will be huge challenges for our mixed fisheries. There will be huge difficulties. We do not have the right quota at the moment, but there will be ways to make things easier.
Scotland has been at the forefront of selective gears, but we can do more in that area. Too many vessels are not using identified selective gear. We need to consider spatial management measures if we are to focus on avoiding catching unwanted fish. We need investment in research and development to support work in our universities to develop innovative solutions.
An increased or changed quota is of course important, but we must also work hard to develop markets for less popular species. The Scottish Government’s economic analysis identifies offsetting economic benefits of that. Introducing measures that will enable the landing and selling of all fish that are currently discarded, or increasing selectivity so that no unwanted fish are caught in the first place, has the potential to add up to £200 million to the landed value by 2020.
We need more flexibility from the Commission, but that will take us only so far. The approach means changes for our fleets but, if we start planning now for the challenges ahead and if we decide on and are clear about the measures that will need to be introduced and the expectation that they will need to be delivered, there will be rewards.
By 2015, Scotland’s fleets must show that they are doing all that is in their powers to fish at sustainable levels and deliver maximum sustainable yield. That must be achieved by 2020 at the latest. We need to develop a clear road map now that will set us on the right path for the next few years. The emphasis is often seen as being on the restrictive measures of selectivity, temporal and spatial management and behaviour change, but we should also work out ways to reward the good guys—the fleets that are taking the responsibility seriously and delivering on the environmental objectives.
The Scottish Government has consulted on quota allocation policy. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the period of restriction has been problematic or detrimental for some UK operators in Scotland. I understand that there has so far been little evidence of quota being held speculatively or as an investment. However, the Scottish Government makes a case that the quota is Scotland’s national asset, and I await the outcome of its consultation.
If there are changes, they could present the opportunity to create a pool of quota, which could be used to recognise the efforts that fleets make to comply. That could be used to reward vessels that provide social and economic benefit to communities—vessels that support fishing communities, provide employment opportunities and support a local economy—as well as a vibrant offshore sector.
I move amendment S4M-11825.3, to leave out from second “and supports” to end and insert:
“; believes that the European Commission must deliver greater flexibility and regionalisation to achieve this, and calls on the Scottish Government to set out a clear plan of action to ensure that the discard ban is implemented and sufficiently monitored.”
16:11
I am pleased to take part in this important debate on the annual EU fisheries negotiations, which commence on 15 December. The outcome of the negotiations is vital to Scotland’s fishermen—the people who risk their lives to put fish on our tables—its processors and the fishing communities along our coastlines.
We agree with the Scottish Government that our Scottish vessels need to retain the number of days that they can go to sea and that cuts are simply not acceptable. We are encouraged that last week’s EU-Norway talks resulted in an increase in quota allocations for a number of key stocks for Scottish fishermen, including cod, haddock and plaice. I am also encouraged by what the cabinet secretary told us about hopes for an increase in west coast haddock.
Those increases are in line with scientific advice. The stocks are in good health in large part due to the sacrifices that our Scottish fleet has made over the long and difficult period of the cod recovery plan and to the innovative and important conservation measures that our vessels adopted, which have been significant and have surpassed by far any other EU fleet’s efforts.
The vessel numbers in our demersal fleet have declined by around 60 per cent compared with the numbers during the first session of the Parliament. The EU needs to recognise that fact in next week’s talks. If further effort reduction is proposed, the cabinet secretary must ensure that the burden falls on other EU states and not Scotland’s fishermen, who have already done much. Our Scottish fleet must now be able to enjoy some of the benefits after the pain of the last decade and a half or more.
Fishermen and their representatives have asked me to highlight a number of the key issues facing their sectors, and I am most happy to do so.
One of the key, most pressing and immediate issues facing our pelagic fishermen is the implementation of the discard ban—or landing obligation—in their sector from the start of 2015. Scottish pelagic fishermen rightly want to ensure that a level playing field for the control, monitoring and enforcement of the ban is truly achieved across all the pelagic boats that fish in EU waters, whether the vessels are from third countries or other member states. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees with that. That level playing field is vital.
There is clearly also a huge amount of work to be done next year to prepare for the introduction of the landing obligation for the demersal sector in 2016, which will bring even greater challenges than the introduction in the pelagic sector. There are real concerns in the white-fish sector about the practical implications of the discard ban. Working out a usable scheme that does not penalise our white-fish boats must be a big priority for next year.
Bertie Armstrong, of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, has described the process leading to the landing obligation laws as
“a shining beacon of dysfunction”
that has the potential to do
“significant damage to the fishing industry and communities of Scotland.”
I agree with the sensible suggestion in Tavish Scott’s amendment that a phased approach must be considered.
The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, the Scottish Pelagic Processors Association and the Shetland Fishermen’s Association are all clear that another priority for their industry is the need to achieve a fairer deal in terms of the EU-Faroes mackerel fishery quota access agreement, which currently is totally skewed in favour of the Faroes.
Between 2007 and 2013, the Faroes never exceeded a mackerel catch of 8,771 tonnes in EU—that is, Scottish—waters off Shetland. However, in 2014, that catch was a massive 46,850 tonnes. The level of the mackerel access quota must be addressed. Why do the Faroes require a third of their quota to be fished off the Scottish coastline when the mackerel stock has become so much more abundant in their own waters? The current situation means that the Faroes are benefiting hugely from catching mackerel in prime condition in our waters while not one kilo of the EU’s mackerel quota has been caught in the Faroese zone.
The nephrops fishery remains an important and economically valuable one on the west coast of my region, and its associated jobs help to underpin often fragile local communities. I share the real concern of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association about the proposal for a significant cut in catch in the Firth of Clyde functional unit, although I note with some relief that there is a projected rise in the South Minch area. Nephrops fishermen in the Clyde area want to know what measures Marine Scotland will take to reverse the trend, and the Clyde Fishermen’s Association is urging it to look again at its proposals that the minimum nephrops tail size be raised from 35mm to 46mm, and the overall length from 70mm to 85mm.
I also want to mention the possible consultation on scallop fishing that has been pushed for by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association since 1995.
On my amendment to today’s motion, I would just refer to previous comments that have been made by Bertie Armstrong. I do not wish to be called arrogant—
You must draw to a close.
I will finish, then.
Bertie Armstrong said that the industry was very much less concerned about who sits in the seats and was more concerned, in every detail, about what is said and what is in the speaking notes of the minister or his representative. The cabinet secretary knows that the UK Government has consistently and successfully worked with him and his officials—
You must close.
I conclude by wishing the cabinet secretary the best of luck.
I move amendment S4M-11825.2, to leave out from second “and supports” to end and insert:
“; considers that Scotland benefits from the UK’s negotiating strength in Europe, and urges Scottish and UK ministers to work together to achieve the best possible deal for Scotland’s fishermen.”
16:18
I am delighted, if a little surprised, to be speaking in this debate. The detonation of a weather bomb and the consequential disruption to flights has meant that my colleague Tavish Scott is marooned in Shetland. Given the vital importance of the fishing industry to Shetland and of these negotiations to that industry, Tavish Scott’s absence from this debate is a loss. I know that he would want to extend his apologies to you, Presiding Officer, and to colleagues for his absence.
I was struck by the fact that almost one quarter of all fish that is landed in the UK is landed in Shetland. More fish was landed in Shetland in 2013 than was landed in Wales, England and Northern Ireland put together. Although I do not pretend that the figures for my constituency in Orkney match those for Shetland, it is nevertheless a sector that is vitally important economically and socially to the islands that I represent. These negotiations, and those that coincide with them, matter a great deal.
This year, unlike last, most of the deal appears already to have been done. The EU-Norway negotiations settled last week and the Faroese access agreements were settled earlier today. According to the SFF, there will not be a lot to fight about next week in Brussels. Those are perhaps famous last words, but as someone who bears the scars of the round-the-clock negotiations and middle-of-the-night compromise agreements from back in the day, I certainly welcome the situation and concur with the cabinet secretary’s description of previous processes as “bun fights”.
Of course, that is not to say that there will not be challenges. In a sector that is so varied, that has gone through so much change and that operates in such an environment, one would expect nothing less. Perhaps one of the most obvious challenges, certainly for the demersal fleet, is the implementation of the discard ban, which colleagues have referred to.
Next month, the Scottish Government will implement a discard ban on the pelagic sector. A basic minimalist plan is in place. With a clean fishery, where mackerel and herring swim and are caught in mid-water shoals, the discard ban is relatively straightforward, but that cannot be said for Scotland’s white-fish fleet.
From January 2016, the industry will have to live with a fishing practice that logic suggests is entirely correct and desirable. Landing all fish rather than throwing valuable quota species over the side is absolutely right, but the devil will assuredly be in the detail, as Richard Lochhead acknowledged. Landing everything that is caught at sea in a mixed fishery within the existing quota system is fraught with risks and could lead to disastrous consequences for some of our demersal fleet.
I recognise that Marine Scotland has changed its perspective on implementation and that the hard line appears to have softened, which is to be welcomed, but a discard ban for the white-fish fleet must be realistic. It should start not with four species—cod, saith, haddock and whiting—but instead with just haddock. Once a comprehensive assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the ban on haddock and the financial consequences for the vessels are clear, further steps can and should be taken. I urge the cabinet secretary to accept that approach and to work with the industry to deliver a ban that can work not just in principle but in practice, which I believe is a shared objective of many of the environmental non-governmental organisations.
At present, the consequences of a ban are simple. If quotas are not significantly increased, boats will go out of business, as they will run out of quota as they land all the fish in port—cod is the obvious example of that. An increase in quota and a land-all policy would have implications for vessel design, operation and capacity. Three quarters of the vessels in the Scottish fishing fleet are over 20 years old, and many are much older and need to be replaced. That is a nationwide problem, and the Government should look to assist with vessel replacement by utilising the European maritime fishing fund. The industry should be encouraged to look again at vessel design, new engine types and fuel mixes as well as other innovations that are aimed at reducing carbon burn. I welcome Marine Scotland’s acknowledgement that the issue must be addressed, although perhaps the cabinet secretary can make clear where he stands on that.
The Faroese access agreements have been finalised in London. Sadly, the unfair deal that rewards the Faroese for illegal fishing of mackerel is set to stay until 2019. No one in the Scottish pelagic catching or processing sector thinks that it is a good deal. The agreements are meant to be reciprocal, but there seems precious little gain for our fleet and processors. The Faroese said that their waters are teeming with mackerel. It is therefore puzzling that, instead of fishing in their coastal waters, the entire Faroese pelagic fleet has fished right up to the Scottish coastal limits. Imagine the outrage if the reverse was happening. There seems to be no upside for our pelagic and demersal sectors in the reciprocal arrangements, which is something that the cabinet secretary might need to take forward.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but I am running out of time. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can address the issue in his winding-up speech.
The final part of the Government motion calls for Mr Lochhead to lead the delegation, which is almost as much part of the annual ritual as the December negotiations themselves. As I have said before, what matters most is to ensure that the UK position reflects the priorities of the Scottish industry and that that is then backed up with UK votes. Ensuring that those positions are arrived at sensibly and reflect the relative importance of different parts of the sector is key.
Despite what Mr Lochhead said, the Smith agreement makes it clear that the Scottish ministers should lead the UK delegation. Of course, there needs to be agreement with the Welsh, English and Northern Irish on the UK negotiating position, but in many areas, notably with pelagic and white-fish stocks, the Scottish interest will be and should be the predominant one.
Should the UK Government have sent an unelected lord to the fisheries council instead of Richard Lochhead, if he could have been there? No. That is why the Smith agreement recommends an intergovernmental arrangement that works: a Scottish lead backed by UK votes. I hope that the Scottish Government will back such an approach. After all, the Scottish National Party representatives on the Smith commission sensibly endorsed that approach in signing the agreement.
You must draw to a close.
In the aftermath of the vote in favour of the UK, the fishing industry made it crystal clear that it expects both Scotland’s Governments to work collectively and collaboratively in the interests of the industry. Parliament should expect that to be the case today and, more importantly, next week in Brussels. I wish Richard Lochhead and his officials all the best in their endeavours.
I move amendment S4M-11825.1, to leave out from second “and supports” to end and insert:
“; believes that, before the ban on discards is introduced, the Scottish Government should ensure that a comprehensive plan is prepared setting out how the ban will work in practice without damaging Scotland’s whitefish sector; notes the desire of the Scottish industry to see a phased approach implemented to the discard ban for the main whitefish stocks due to come into effect in January 2016; further notes the industry’s wish for any such phased approach to proceed initially with haddock, and recognises the strong concerns of the Scottish pelagic industry regarding the EU-Faroese reciprocal arrangements on mackerel.”
16:25
When I came to Parliament in June 2001, my very first speech was on fisheries. In that speech I harked back to the work of Allan Macartney, a member of the European Parliament, in relation to localities management. It was he who championed the change of approach that we see a little of in the progress that is being made in European fisheries policy. On that basis, I very much welcome the call in Labour’s amendment for “greater flexibility and regionalisation”. That focuses on some important things.
The very least that I can say is that all three Opposition parties have been unwise in proposing to delete what the Government motion says about our fisheries minister, the most experienced in Europe, leading the UK delegation
“where it is clearly appropriate to do so”.
The motion is not seeking an absolute right; it proposes only that the minister leads when appropriate.
Let us consider the issues for fisherman in other parts of the UK besides Scotland. It helps them to have the most experienced minister at the table. The issue is not simply about, as the Tory motion says, benefiting from
“the UK’s negotiating strength in Europe”,
but about the UK benefiting from the strength of experience that a Scottish fisheries minister would bring to the table.
I do not know the member of the House of Lords who led the UK delegation. He may be an excellent person. We address only the issue of his inexperience and the fact that he works in a very different brief. As far as I could see in my research, his sole parliamentary contact with fishing had been to answer three written questions on it on the same day in October 2013. I rather guess—as I former minister I might say this—that civil servants wrote the answers and did not draw on the minister’s knowledge. No doubt we will return to that matter on another occasion.
The SFF has provided us with a briefing, which I very much welcome and which highlights the adverse interaction between old, unreformed and as yet not abandoned legislation and the new schemes that seek to eliminate discards. It is in precisely that kind of area that an experienced fisheries minister will always sacrifice an inexperienced one.
We have heard some of the difficulties that the pelagic fleet faces, less from biological factors and much more fundamentally from political decisions vis-à-vis the relationship between the Faroes and the EU and, of course, the developing difficulties for the industry in relation to trade with Russia.
The Scottish Pelagic Processors Association points out that restrictive legislation from Tórshavn seems to be designed to distort the market and is adding burdens to our industry. Fish caught in Scottish waters by Faroese boats are required, in essence, to be landed in the Faroes. That is probably not much in the interest of Faroese fishermen because it restricts their market opportunities. More fundamentally, it is potentially restricting our processing industry’s opportunities.
We have seen many years of sacrifice in our fishing industry. The number of boats has come down, although that decline has more or less stabilised, and total allowable catches are going up this year, which is very good news. That is because of our fishermen’s sacrifices. However, where previously that quota might have been used usefully to increase economically valuable landings, it is quite likely that a lot of the quota will have to be allocated to fish that might have been discarded. Therefore, it is not clear that we have a system under the EU rules that will be of value to our fishermen to the extent that a better-thought-out fishing quota system would be.
Of course the catching sector is very important, but even bigger is the processing sector. Many people are employed in processing, packaging and promoting our food. In my constituency there are thousands of such people.
I recently attended a Seafish presentation. I was very impressed by the interaction that those who retail our fish, either as wet fish or in our restaurants, have with Scotland. We want to get more Scots eating this good-quality product, for their health but also for the health of our industry.
The SFF welcomes what has happened in the negotiations with the EU and Norway this year, which is good. The SPPA is much less happy about the Faroese tax position. Seeing cod quota and haddock quota rising is absolutely first class.
The price of fishing for the fishermen at sea is high. My very first constituency event in 2001 was to see a bravery award presented to a fisherman, who in January of that year went overboard near Greenland to fish out one of his colleagues. He said that he was more frightened going up and speaking to the audience in the fishermen’s mission at Peterhead than he was diving off the boat. Little he knows—one is easy and the other one is difficult.
I share my apologies with members here. A rather urgent matter will take me away and I will not necessarily be here for the next two speeches, but I will return for the closing speeches.
16:31
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on an issue of great importance to the Scottish economy, our fishermen and our coastal communities. Across Scotland, many people’s livelihoods are dependent on the fishing industry and we need to ensure that it is protected not only by taking short-term actions but by showing long-term vision for the sector, too. We need to protect our environment and resources by ensuring that fishing is at a sustainable level and protect our fishing industry by ensuring that it can be profitable both now and in the future and that it is able to reach out to new entrants.
As colleagues have said, 2015 is likely to be a turning point for the Scottish and European fishing sectors, with the first phase of the landing obligation coming into effect on 1 January. That represents a huge change and a challenge for the fishing industry and, in theory, it should mean that, ultimately, all catch will be landed and counted against quotas.
As Claire Baker highlighted, that is quite a groundbreaking change. It came about thanks to huge public pressure, with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s award-winning fish fight campaign gaining more than 850,000 supporters, who were united in the call to end the crazy system whereby millions of healthy and edible fish every year are caught and then thrown back into the sea due to the bizarre way that EU fishing quotas are managed. Very few campaigns succeed in changing EU law, but fish fight certainly captured the public imagination and changed the way that we think about and eat our fish.
The effective implementation of the discard ban is now absolutely crucial and that is why Scottish Labour’s amendment today calls on the Scottish Government to set out a clear plan of action to ensure that the ban is implemented effectively and monitored sufficiently.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and others have expressed concern that the European legal arrangements may not be in place on time, which creates uncertainties for fleets during the transition period that need to be addressed and managed.
Colleagues have referred to the particular challenges with white fish. The changes in that regard will become effective from 2016. In the briefing for today’s debate, RSPB Scotland and WWF Scotland highlight the need to promote more uptake of selective gear on fishing vessels and spatial management systems to avoid the catching of unwanted fish. They warn that half of the demersal fleet is not yet using the identified selective gear. We need a clear action plan from the Scottish Government on how it will work with the industry to meet those challenges.
Although it is clear that change will be very difficult for some fleets, the RSPB and WWF highlight that there are also longer-term financial opportunities. It is estimated that eliminating discards from Scottish vessels, either by landing and selling all fish or by increasing selectivity so that no unwanted fish are caught in the first place, has the potential to add up to £200 million to the landed value of those fish by 2020. Sustainable fishing will hopefully make financial, as well as environmental, sense. That is crucial, given the importance of the fishing industry to our economy and given that the livelihoods of thousands of Scots in our coastal communities are dependent on fishing continuing to thrive. Across Scotland, an estimated 5,000 people are employed directly in fishing and as many as 48,000 jobs are dependent on the sector.
The fish processing sector, which Stewart Stevenson mentioned, is vital to our economy, yet that, too, can be vulnerable and we need action to support it and improve its sustainability. Key to that must be promoting our fantastic produce to the domestic market. We are all aware that eating fish is healthy and that we should be eating more of it but, generally, many of us find it complicated to cook and are reluctant to try new fish. Much more needs to be done to promote fish as a sustainable, affordable, healthy and easy option.
The Scottish Government’s good food nation strategy offers that opportunity and I hope that we will see that as the consultation outcome. Campaigns such as Sainsbury’s switch the fish initiative are crucial in changing customer behaviour, and similar campaigns by other retailers need to be encouraged to persuade people to eat a wider range of fish and not just the big five, and to highlight that our everyday choices can secure a sustainable future for our fishing industry.
Schools have a big role to play in explaining the importance of fish in the diet and creating opportunities for children to give different types of fish a try. When I was writing my speech this morning, I looked at my children’s school dinner menu and found that, although Harry Ramsden’s battered haddock is a frequent option, that seemed to be the full extent of what was on offer. That needs to be looked at.
Given the issues that people have about how to cook fish, practical lessons in school would be of benefit. Our children also need to have a much greater appreciation of where their food is from and, in the case of fish, how they are caught and processed from start to finish. That will ensure that our children can make good choices, live healthier lifestyles and become more educated shoppers and consumers in future.
I share the concerns expressed by the cabinet secretary and by Stewart Stevenson about fishing being a dangerous industry. It is estimated that one in 1,000 fishermen a year die as a result of the job—that is more than 100 times the rate of the average job in Scotland—and many more are injured in the course of their work. I understand that there has been little improvement in the fatal accident rate in the Scottish fishing industry in the past 30 years. Given that the fatal accident rate in almost every other occupation has fallen sharply during the same period, that suggests that commercial fishing has become progressively more hazardous over time. I would welcome any comments from the cabinet secretary on what action the Scottish Government is taking to make fishing a safer career. That would make the industry more appealing to new entrants and would be of benefit to families and our coastal communities.
We are nearing the end of this year’s fish negotiations. It is vital that the Scottish Government does whatever it can to ensure that Scotland gets the full benefits of the reformed common fisheries policy; that the discard ban is implemented as quickly as possible; and that those fleets that are adapting to the challenges are rewarded, thereby ensuring a vibrant and sustainable future for our fishing industry and for the jobs, families and communities it sustains.
16:37
The SNP Government fights hard in Brussels for the whole Scottish fish sector, including fish processors and producers, and it will do so next week.
At this annual review of fishing, it is important for us to think about what could strengthen Scotland’s position to back our ministers. As a member of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and having had the chance to look at some of the Smith commission proposals, I suggest that we need to make sure that the respect agenda that was talked about earlier this year is applied to the way in which Scottish ministers are engaged in representing our country when their appropriate stance would help to strengthen that approach in Europe.
So,
“presuming that a devolved administration Minister can speak on behalf of the UK at a meeting of the Council of Ministers according to an agreed UK negotiating line where the devolved administration Minister holds the predominant policy interest across the UK and where the relevant lead UK Government Minister is unable to attend all or part of a meeting”
is a suggestion from the Scottish Government on how that can be achieved. It is remarkable how some people have commented on the need for that to happen all the time.
In that regard, I refer members to the moneys that we get through the European fisheries funds. The Scottish Parliament information centre has shown us that, for the 2007 to 2013 allocation, on euro per tonne of average fisheries production, Scotland is bottom among countries that have fishing fleets; on euro per tonne of average fish catch, Scotland is second bottom; and, on euro per average gross tonnage, Scotland is second bottom. Scotland’s fishing fleet has been badly let down by our not having a Scottish minister lead the negotiations in Europe, to ensure that funds apply to our area, with all its difficulties and its wild seas.
It might be a good idea to ask why the Conservatives have been prepared to say, as Jamie McGrigor did on 12 June, that it would be wrong for fishing communities in Scotland to receive more money from the European fisheries fund, and to suggest that the Scottish fishing industry is too successful to need extra support. Indeed, Ian Duncan, the recently elected Tory member of the European Parliament, was rightly criticised for claiming that Scotland’s fishing industry should not receive vital funding. He said in May:
“The funds should go to those places which are struggling. The Scottish industry is not struggling.”
I was amazed that the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation took a similar stance during a discussion on the radio about Lord Ponsonby de Mauley. Bertie Armstrong said:
“Well, all the priorities that spread across the UK, and of course again this sounds slightly odd coming from the Scottish fishing leaders”—
or rather, Scottish fishing leader; other Scottish fishing leaders were appalled at Bertie Armstrong’s remarks. That gentleman went on to say:
“I’m thinking of Irish Sea prawns for the Northern Ireland fleet and I am thinking of the Celtic Sea haddock for the men of the Southwest”.
Yes, indeed. Our Scottish fishing leaders should be out there fighting for Scottish fishermen. We need to get off the bottom rung of the ladder of the European fisheries fund and much more.
The consultation on becoming a good food nation, which Stewart Stevenson mentioned, was discussed in more detail by Claire Baker and Cara Hilton. It is part of a long-term strategy to get people to eat better by 2025. A key theme in that unfinished business is people’s disconnectedness from their food. As the discussion document says:
“Many people in Scotland are disconnected from their food. There are considerable efforts being made in schools and elsewhere, to engage with children. Nevertheless, many people of all ages in Scotland remain profoundly unaware of how and where the food they eat—and its ingredients—are produced.”
However, on the up side, the document notes the upsurge in demand for local food and talks about
“encouraging the production and sale of locally grown food in all its shapes and sizes.”
Our inshore fleet, in particular, supplies local markets and produces much food that should be sold around Scotland. In Scrabster, Kinlochbervie, Lochinver and Ullapool there are 174 boats under 10m and 45 boats over 10m. It is up to our Government and agencies to procure fish to a greater extent and to ensure that our schoolchildren, hospital patients and prisoners, as well as the wider public, have a chance to eat the best of Scottish.
I support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary.
16:43
For anyone who is hearing me speak for the first time, let me declare that this French-born MSP has worked in the Scottish fishing industry for the past 30 years. I have been honoured to represent the many fishing communities in the north-east, from Fraserburgh to Peterhead, since May 2013.
We must await the outcome of the negotiations, but I agree with members that the talks are going much better than they did in the past few years. The main reason why the negotiations will be easier this year is that we have settled the mackerel dispute. As I said at the time, people in Scotland need to recognise that our fishing communities have nothing to gain from letting disputes in the pelagic sector run on for years. The white-fish industry, which needs our support, suffered from the dispute.
There is a lesson to be learned in that regard: what we require is fewer disputes and more partnership with our neighbours. Let us ensure that the bilateral talks between the EU and the Faroe Islands on the pelagic industry, which take place in Ireland this week, do not spill over to the white-fish industry. Jamie McGrigor did not talk about that.
I share the concerns of Ian McFadden, the chair of the Scottish Pelagic Processors Association—whom I first met 30 years ago—and thank him for his briefing.
The tone of our negotiations must show our willingness to negotiate with others. The tone that some use in talking about the challenges that are faced by the Scottish fishing industry is more about driving an anti-European agenda, which should be left to members of the UK Independence Party.
The Scottish fishing industry deserves better, as does what is left of the fishing industry in other parts of the UK. I repeat that the cabinet secretary is the most experienced fishing minister in Europe and should be sitting at the main table and speaking for the people who represent the fishing communities throughout Scotland.
Some disagree, but I will explain why their arguments do not hold water. Last month, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which is the representative body for fishermen in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, said that its members’ interests were
“in danger of being sacrificed to placate the clamour for more powers for Scotland.”
The NFFO was reacting to the Scottish Government’s submission to the Smith commission, but it does not need to worry: the suggestion is still in the background and has been very much diluted.
I understand the hostility towards further devolution to Scotland as a direct result of the democratic deficit that is experienced by the industry in England. Unlike the other parts of the UK, the English industry does not have a Parliament or devolved body that can stand up for its interests. We know that the UK Parliament is not looking out for the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland, given that the Scottish fleet has been described as “expendable”.
I was surprised to hear, as Rob Gibson mentioned earlier, that our own Scottish Fishermen’s Federation chief executive seems to agree with the NFFO. On 10 November, on Radio Scotland, Bertie Armstrong said:
“Is Richard Lochhead the best man to state those priorities? He is certainly the best man, providing he talks to us carefully and the priorities are agreed. He is certainly the best man to talk about Scottish fishing, but is he the best man to talk about the fishing for Ulstermen or people in the Southwest? I think not.”
“I think not”—that was the answer from the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to his own question. Am I the only member in the chamber to think that such a comment sounds odd coming from someone who represents the Scottish fishing industry’s interests?
I remind members of what happened last month. Westminster sent to speak in crucial EU talks for the Scottish fishing industry an unelected Conservative lord, Lord de Mauley, with no previous experience whatsoever in fishing. Is he the best man to talk about fishing on behalf of Ulstermen or people in the south-west? I think not. We can all agree that it is never appropriate for an unelected lord who knows nothing about fishing to speak for our fishermen, Ulstermen or not.
The UK Government proves again that it could not care less about our fishing communities. Fishing is never on Westminster’s radar. The Scottish Government is doing a lot for fishing and wants to do more. Fishing leaders need to support the call for the cabinet secretary to sit in the front seat, and they need to be foursquare behind him.
The member might be interested to note that Westminster is debating fisheries negotiations on Thursday this week.
I did not know about that—I will be very pleased to hear about the debate. I hope that, at Westminster, the parties will not do as the three political parties here have done in lodging amendments to remove a very important part of the cabinet secretary’s motion that says that the fisheries minister in Scotland should play a part in the talks, particularly in relation to the Smith commission.
Common sense and flexibility should be the two principles for fishing negotiations; that is what we hear all the time.
The member must draw to a close, please.
I call on the cabinet secretary to address the problem of the closure of skate and ray fisheries in the north-east and west of Scotland. We must make sure that lessons have been learned to avoid a repeat of the unfortunate situation that happened this year.
16:49
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and for the range of briefings, which I have found very informative, that I received from various organisations before the debate.
Jamie McGrigor acknowledged the pain that has been felt and the sacrifices that have been made over the decades by people in the industry, as revolution has attached to the industry, and they have reorganised to deal with modern demands. Stewart Stevenson indicated the outcomes from those previous works and the way in which the industry is now fit for purpose, in delivering on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Stewart Stevenson also recorded that our cabinet secretary is the longest-serving fisheries minister in Europe. I am unsure whether to congratulate Mr Lochhead on the honour or to commiserate and wonder where he has gone wrong in his endeavours. It is most unfortunate that the UK Tory-Lib Dem coalition decided to allocate responsibility for the negotiations last month in Brussels to Lord de Mauley to represent UK interests, instead of relying on the evident expertise of our cabinet secretary. I hope that Mr Lochhead will reflect on the fact that the frenetic promotion of nationalism over the past few years has perhaps had some influence on such decisions and that his contribution in the post-referendum era will be more welcome at UK level and more constructively received.
I would not call Lord Smith a nationalist, but his commission has stated that the concordat on co-ordination of European Union policy issues needs to be improved. That improvement is exactly what the cabinet secretary has asked for today and it is what the Labour Party’s amendment would take out of the motion.
As the debate goes on, the nuances in the debate will bring out where our loyalty should lie in regard to the fishing industry, which is the most important part of what we are debating today rather than the language of the various amendments.
The way in which the developing conflict involving the western world and Russia is affecting our fishing industry reflects the importance of our discussions today, and the Commission’s agreement to enable the 25 per cent rollover in allocated catches from 2014-15 will help the Scottish fishing industry to cope with the import embargoes that have been instigated by Mr Putin, which are estimated to be costing the wider food industry up to £89 million in the year.
Fisheries in Scotland operate as a Cinderella industry across most of our communities. We enjoy the products that it produces but seldom consider how they are brought to our table and the pressures that are faced by the people in the industry in providing first-class fish that is fresh and safe for consumption. The policy imperatives for ensuring that the industry’s needs are met are complex but inescapable. We have a growing world population that is now in excess of 9 billion people, all of whom need food. The industry has geared up to supply what is needed with modern boats, modern technologies and professional crews who are able to deliver catches at industrial level. However, there is also pressure to conserve stocks of valuable fish in order to provide food for future generations and to provide for an industry that has a vision of sustainability.
The cabinet secretary must continue his support for the brave crews who go out on the sea on our behalf. The increases in quotas for the end-of-year agreements are optimistic, and one hopes that those agreements will be fulfilled. The cabinet secretary must ensure that the new rules regarding discards are made clear to the industry and the public alike, because discards are ill understood by the general population and seem to have been an area of conflict in previous years.
The cabinet secretary should also contribute to the continued development of new technologies, new net designs and crew education to ensure that mutual understanding is maintained about the competing demands that arise from conservation needs and consumer demands.
He must also ensure that there is no repeat of the black-fish scandal that affected the industry only a few years ago. I hope that he will give us an assurance that he will liaise with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to ensure that the good name of Scottish fishing is maintained in the years ahead.
At the same time, it would do no harm for Mr Lochhead to liaise with his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in order to ensure that young people across Scotland have a better understanding of the fish that are caught in our seas than I did in my time in education.
The Scottish industry delivers approximately 60 per cent of the total UK catch and about 7.5 per cent of the total volume of fish caught in the EU, according to the European Commission in 2014. The fishing industry is too important an industry for us not to take careful care of the future, and I rely on the cabinet secretary to give us an assurance that he will do so.
16:55
This is, indeed, an important debate that precedes the implementation in January of what many believe will be the final nail in the coffin of Scottish fishing—the discards ban.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, has done the best that he has been able to do for our fishermen for many years, despite having his hands tied behind his back by the Westminster Government and a dysfunctional EU common fisheries policy.
Baron de Mauley has been mentioned. Far be it from me to criticise him, but such was the confidence of the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation in him that it described him as “clueless” and said that it
“doubted that he had spent much time on Eton’s playing fields discussing black scabbards and the discards ban.”
I could not have put it better myself. What that episode illustrates is that, yet again, the UK Government has treated us with contempt and cannot be relied on in crucial EU negotiations that concern Scottish fisheries.
Of course, we all had a chance to untie the cabinet secretary’s hands on 18 September but, unfortunately, we did not take it. We loosened the knots, but full freedom for the cabinet secretary—and the rest of us—is yet to come. The Scottish National Party Government has done all that it has been able to do to protect our fishermen and fishing communities, but we have not been able to do so to the extent that we would have liked—not because of lack of will, but because of lack of power.
I was born and brought up in the great fishing town of Lossiemouth, whose harbour was packed with fishing boats when I was a boy and whose school delivered qualifications in navigation, such was the demand for fishermen in Lossiemouth. Indeed, one of my first jobs at the age of 12 was heading and tailing prawns after school in the fish shed that belonged to the well-known local firm, Seagull. I also led my first strike there at the age of 14, when we prawn boys walked out after a dispute over pay.
Many of my family went to sea, and some of them still go to sea. We have, of course, suffered our share of tragedy, as all families in fishing communities have. I have been to sea a number of times in the Moray Firth, the Minch and off the Butt of Lewis, but only for a day at a time. Some people, including Sandy Patience of the Fishermen’s Association Ltd, have spent their lives there. I can also lay claim to having written the SNP’s fishing policy in the 1970s, when we responded to the Opposition claim that SNP stood for “still no policies”.
Therefore, as someone who has great empathy with our fishing industry, I found it particularly galling to listen to Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, backing the better together campaign and the UK in the referendum. He backed a UK that sold out our fishermen in 1971, when the Tories signed us up for Europe; a UK that cares so little about fishing that it sent an inexperienced junior Tory to represent us in Brussels; and a UK that is currently reneging—or trying as best it can to renege—on its vow to give extensive powers to this Parliament.
I presume that Armstrong spoke on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but I am sure that he did not speak for many of our fishing communities, and it is possible that he did not speak for many of his organisation’s members. I suggest that those members need to decide whether they have the right leadership.
Armstrong is not totally uncritical of the UK, however, and has described the discard ban as a “shining beacon of dysfunction”, but he still insists, in his briefing for today’s debate, that there is a bright future for Scottish fishing. Does he really believe that, or is he wearing his rose-tinted UK specs again? I hope that he is right, but it does not look good unless we get the discards ban right.
In contrast with Armstrong, the Fishermen’s Association Ltd’s recent submission to the Smith commission backs my view that Scotland is not being served well by the UK in EU fishing negotiations. It states that, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs holds the power in all EU and UK fisheries matters, that puts Scotland in a marginalised position, which results in decisions being taken that are not in the best interests of Scotland.
FAL maintains that Scotland should be able to lead the UK in the EU on fisheries, especially given the importance of fishing to the Scottish economy. FAL rightly points to the unmitigated disaster that the common fisheries policy has been to the Scottish and, indeed, UK fishing industry. The association’s chairman, Sandy Patience of Avoch, whom I know well, told the Scottish discards steering group on 27 November that FAL has no desire to be further involved in the discards ban, which he describes as unworkable and impractical, fearing that it will crush what is left of the industry. I fear that he is right.
Although I support the cabinet secretary in his efforts to implement what is a flawed policy, I ask him to be ready to argue for its abandonment if he does not get a suitable agreement next week in these—as the motion says—“pivotal” negotiations or if the policy does not work for the pelagic fleet next year. If that means defying Brussels on this important issue, so be it.
As a Lossie loon fae a fishin toun masel, Ah’m wi Avoch loon, Sandy Patience, and FAL, as they strive to protect their way of life, heritage and birthright.
17:02
Not only have we just heard an example of referendum denial, but that personal attack on Bertie Armstrong was outrageous, and the call for him to be ousted comes in marked contrast to SNP members lining up both to praise him and to quote him in fisheries debates from 2007 onwards.
By and large, however, this has been the usual generally consensual debate, with issues of concern being raised from across the chamber. All members have acknowledged the importance of the sector not just to island communities, such as the one that I represent, and coastal communities, but far beyond. Cara Hilton made that point in her speech, and it was also alluded to by Stewart Stevenson in pointing out the importance of the processing sector. The importance of fisheries is economic, but the resonance of the fishing sector goes far beyond that in the Scottish psyche. It is an importance that cannot be measured simply in pounds and pence, or even in jobs.
The annual negotiations, being the focus of the debate, come against the backdrop of generally encouraging conclusions to the negotiations between the EU and Norway last week. The agreement with the Faroes earlier today was perhaps the best of a bad job, but it definitely still grates with many people who work in the pelagic sector; there is still great anger in the industry.
As we look ahead to next week, there is no doubting the fact that the negotiations look more straightforward than they have in the past, as was acknowledged by the cabinet secretary. He made a valid point, however, about the extreme opening negotiating positions that mean that an awful lot of effort is expended trying to row back from positions that nobody realistically expects to hold. Nevertheless, that seems to be the modus operandi of the Commission.
Jamie McGrigor and one or two other members pointed to the threat of further effort controls. I very much welcome Richard Lochhead’s strong emphasis on the need to hold the line there. That is an area where our industry has already conceded a great deal, so it is perhaps time for others to shoulder more of the responsibility.
I turn now to one of the key themes of the debate: the discard ban. As I indicated in my opening speech, it generally poses far fewer problems for a pelagic fishery that is far cleaner. From next year, that should be borne out. However, the discard ban, which is right in principle, needs to be got right in practice. In that respect, as we look to the demersal fishery and the implementation of a ban from 2016, we are not yet remotely close to where we need to be. I think that the potential for that to be significantly more problematic is acknowledged all round.
I was interested in Cara Hilton’s reference to the fish fight campaign. There is no doubt that it captured the public imagination, but I question whether it captured the complexity of the issue for those who are then charged with responsibility for developing policy on the back of that. It brought to people’s attention an issue that nobody disputes must be addressed, but perhaps it also created an overly simplistic impression of what needs to be done to resolve it.
In its briefing, RSPB Scotland points to the importance of use of selective gear and other technical measures, and of rolling them out more widely across the fleet. That has featured in fisheries debates dating back as long as I can remember, and more still needs to be done on it.
Without the fish fight campaign, the issue would surely have been much less likely to be addressed in as timely a fashion as it was addressed because of the consumer pressure.
I do not want to diminish the importance of such campaigns, but there is sometimes a risk that they paint in primary colours and leave the policy makers who are then charged with responsibility for responding with the difficult task of matching expectations to the complexity of the issue.
Finally, I turn to the political issue that ran through today’s debate—who leads the delegation. As I said at the start of the debate, the Smith agreement provides a sensible basis for implementing a set of arrangements that better reflect the industry’s needs and the political aspirations of the public. On the Scottish ministerial lead, there is no doubt, as Stewart Stevenson said, that the delegation benefits from the experience of not just the minister but the officials who support him but, by the same token, Scottish ministers benefit from having the weight of UK votes and influence behind them.
We have not got that right, and the example that was cited is a perfect illustration of that. The Government’s motion talks in reasonable terms, but some of the rhetoric that was used during the debate in order to make that point was considerably less reasonable. I think that Graeme Pearson alluded to that. The respect agenda that Rob Gibson pointed to is a two-way street.
You should draw to a close, please.
In concluding, I again wish the cabinet secretary the best of luck in the negotiations next week. Whatever seat he or his officials are in, I hope that he continues to exert influence, that he brings to bear his experience and expertise and that he will continue to promote Scotland’s interests in the negotiations.
17:08
It makes a pleasant change to be holding this annual debate in an atmosphere of—dare I say it?—some optimism about the future prospects for Scotland’s fishing industry. Usually, the debate is full of doom and gloom, with grim forecasts of further cuts in quotas and days at sea and worrying prophecies of the further demise of our fishing fleet.
What a credit it is to that fleet, and to all those who work in the sector, that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is able to conclude its briefing note to us with this statement:
“There is one overarching fact and that is that the fish stocks of concern to the Scottish industry are, with few exceptions, either in robust health or heading encouragingly in that direction.”
It goes on:
“There are some very significant challenges to be met—principle among them is the discard ban—but if these can be overcome and we look outwards to greater fishing opportunity rather than inwards towards protectionism, then there is surely a bright future for Scottish Sea Fishing”.
In recent years, “greater fishing opportunity” is not a phrase that we have heard a lot. Whatever continuing challenges remain, our hope must be that that air of optimism continues and that it is not long before discussions on “greater fishing opportunity”, and presumably a consequential expansion of our fleet, become the norm in these debates, rather than the exception.
However, as the debate has shown, there are still significant challenges to be overcome as we embark on what everyone agrees is a turning point in fisheries management in Scotland. What enables us to call it that is the first phase of the discard ban, which comes into force on 1 January for the pelagic fleet and a year later for the demersal fleet.
Although it is clear that the ban will pose more difficulties for the demersal fleet than the pelagic fleet, it must be a matter of considerable concern that, as Bertie Armstrong has put it, the process leading to the landing obligation laws is a “shining beacon of dysfunction”. That should probably not come as a massive surprise given that it is the EU that we are talking about. However, it opens up the possibility that different member states will interpret the regulations in different ways and, in doing so, fail to create the level playing field that is so essential to the success of the policy. If anyone is tempted to think that that is not much of an issue, I note that the RSPB and WWF Scotland joint briefing notes their
“sympathy for a fleet which faces potential uncertainties as to the legality of landing fish in the new year should the necessary European legal arrangements not be in place.”
That same briefing also notes the potential benefits of successful implementation of the landing obligations. Eliminating discards, either by landing and selling fish that are currently discarded or by maximising the use of selective fishing gear, could be worth up to £200 million to the sector between now and 2020. Surely that must be worth the effort. The Scottish Government is also required to do everything in its power to encourage the use of innovative and proven selective fishing gear. We also support the industry’s plea to phase in the new regime for white-fish stocks and I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary appears to be sympathetic to that approach.
Another major concern has to be the outcome of the EU-Faroe Islands agreement and its impact on our pelagic fleet, although I noted what the cabinet secretary said about this morning’s agreement. It is extraordinary that one third of the Faroese quota is caught off the Scottish coastline—and it all will have been caught—while, as Ian Gatt of the Pelagic Fishermen’s Association has said
“not one kilo of the EU’s mackerel quota has been caught in the Faroese zone.”
He asks a very reasonable question:
“The Faroe Islands were granted a hugely increased mackerel share this year on the basis that mackerel is more abundant in their waters. Why do they then need to fish a third of their quota off the Scottish coastline?”
If this morning’s agreement has done anything to address what seems to be a glaring imbalance that is leaving our fishermen increasingly disadvantaged in the global market, that is all well and good, but I will be interested to see whether fishermen’s view of the agreement is as positive as the cabinet secretary’s. Liam McArthur’s contribution suggested that it is not.
I conclude by referring to the amendments to the motion. It is noticeable that, without any collusion, all three Opposition parties have opted to try to amend the motion from the second use of the phrase “and supports”. In other words, they have sought to remove the slightly political aspect of the motion that the Government wants to and will no doubt succeed in including. Stewart Stevenson suggested that we would be unwise to remove that section of the motion and Christian Allard became positively animated about it, but the cabinet secretary’s opening speech and some of the contributions of his back benchers have shown that we are right to seek to do so.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his final minute.
I do not have time, I am sorry.
We will do everything that we can to ensure that the relationship between the UK fisheries ministers and ours is healthy and that the vital importance of the Scottish fishing fleet to the UK fisheries sector is properly recognised. The road to success is surely through working closely together, as has often been the case in the past, to achieve mutual benefit across the UK rather than through simply continuing the pre-referendum jargon that failed to persuade the Scottish voters to vote for independence just two months ago. I hope that the cabinet secretary will not be tempted to go down that route in his closing speech. The Smith commission has recognised the need for a different relationship. The UK Government has already responded by inviting Angela Constance to represent the UK at a vital EU meeting. So in the spirit of consensus, I suggest that the cabinet secretary accepts the amendments and proves that we can all work together for the betterment of the Scottish fishing industry. That is what we voted for on 18 September.
17:14
This has been an optimistic debate, not least given Alex Fergusson’s sense of optimism about future negotiations.
It is almost a year—it certainly does not seem like that—since we had a similar debate in the chamber about the end-of-year fisheries negotiations. Last year, before the cabinet secretary was due to travel to Brussels for the negotiations, we were awaiting the formal introduction of new policies that were intended to do away with many of the structural problems and bad practices. We must be hopeful that the policies underpinning the new CFP will solve many of those issues.
I want members to consider just how important the industry is to us and how often the people who are involved in the industry—certainly those who go to sea—face challenges and dangers. We should all take time to reflect on the task that is faced by those who go to sea here and around the globe. I hope that the cabinet secretary will comment on Cara Hilton’s concerns about health and safety and how fatality rates have not improved over the past 30 years—indeed, they have worsened.
I am sure that members will agree that banning the widely criticised practice of discarding is absolutely essential and will vastly improve the overall health of our shared fisheries. As always, we must be careful to balance economic interests with sustainability to ensure that a fit-for-purpose plan is in place. We will listen very carefully to what the cabinet secretary says on that in his closing remarks. That point is stressed in our amendment.
I was concerned to read that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has reservations about the effectiveness of the legislation underpinning the discard ban, or landing obligation. According to the SFF, there is confusion—as we have heard in the debate—surrounding the legislation, making it unlikely that the fleet and compliance agencies will be made aware of the precise legislation in time for implementation of the ban. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could say a bit more about that.
As we approach the final round of negotiations over fishing effort, it is of course important that all species are fished sustainably. Members on all sides of the chamber have discussed the quota allocation for various species in some detail, so I will not go into further detail, although it was good to hear of the discussions that the cabinet secretary has already had about the discredited cod recovery plan. We wish him well with those negotiations.
It is important to note that the SFF is broadly happy with the outcome of the bilateral negotiations between the EU and Norway on haddock and cod stocks, which suggests that a good deal may well have been struck. Both the industry and environmental NGOs are in agreement about the maximum sustainable yield approach, which again is a note of optimism that we can hold on to.
I also note the agreement, as confirmed by the cabinet secretary, on the EU-Faroe Islands deal. However, from what Liam McArthur has said, it appears that we need to listen carefully to the fishing industry on that—although I noted what the cabinet secretary said about there being more tonnage available to the Scottish fleets in the agreement. Graeme Pearson has highlighted concerns about the Russian ban and the loss to our economy because of that. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could comment on that as well.
I want to focus somewhat on regionalisation because, given the aim of having sustainable but economically viable fisheries, it is important that European fisheries are managed regionally. The agreement on the new CFP shows that the top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to fisheries management is, frankly, pathetically simplistic. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary will be able to say a little bit more about regionalisation going forward.
Last year, I highlighted organisations such as the Baltic Sea fisheries forum, or BALTFISH, and the Scheveningen group—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—which covers the North Sea member states. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary is involved with those organisations.
On this year’s rural affairs and environment budget, the research budget generally and the marine and fisheries budgets specifically are set to decline in real terms unless there are changes. That is of particular concern in view of the fact that performance against the national performance framework marine environment indicator is worsening. Is it plausible for the Scottish Government to place the blame for that largely on the mackerel dispute, which was resolved earlier this year, when the whole marine ecosystem is being analysed for that indicator? I seek reassurance from the cabinet secretary that he is confident that the funding cuts are acceptable in the circumstances.
Rob Gibson made a plea for the purchase of local fish, and Cara Hilton pointed out that the Scottish Government is currently consulting on “Becoming a Good Food Nation”. Many members have highlighted in this debate and previous debates the importance of being adventurous with our fish diet. Only last week, we heard of research, published in the British Medical Journal, which said that women who eat a Mediterranean-style diet may live longer than those who do not. That is according to a new study that looked at one marker of ageing.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am afraid that I cannot. I am just about in my final minute.
That diet includes fresh fish, of course. That is another way in which we can be sure that we encourage people—particularly women—to put fish in their diet.
Graeme Pearson’s question to the cabinet secretary about liaison with his education counterpart on fish is fundamental if we are to educate future generations of consumers about the type of fish that they buy.
I wish the cabinet secretary well in the negotiations and am sure that his expertise will be greatly valued in the UK delegation, which will have strength and more clout than an only-Scottish delegation would. That is my view—I know that the cabinet secretary and I disagree on that. I hope that, alongside his UK colleagues, the cabinet secretary will be able to deliver an agreement that benefits the industry, consumers in Scotland and the UK as a whole, our shared marine environment and, of course, future generations.
17:21
As I approach my eighth consecutive annual fishing negotiations, I very much welcome the comments and reflections from members across the chamber on some of the big issues that face our fishing communities and wider seafood sectors.
There is quite a strange atmosphere in our Scottish fishing industry just now. There is a mixture of optimism and deep anxiety, and those factors have been reflected in many members’ contributions.
There is a degree of optimism, and even the Fishing News, which I am sure all members subscribe to, has been relatively optimistic in the past couple of weeks. I read about the situation in Shetland and Peterhead. On 5 December, the Fishing News said:
“Local whitefish fishermen landing prime whitefish caught within 20 to 30 miles of Shetland from trips of 16 to 72 hours unanimously voiced optimistic comments about the future of their industry.”
There have, of course, also been high landings at other key ports in Scotland, particularly Peterhead. Again on 5 December, the Fishing News said:
“Last week’s achievement was only the second time that an annual total of one million boxes of whitefish has been achieved at Peterhead since 2000,”
when nearly 1,030,000 boxes were landed. There is, therefore, a degree of optimism in the fishing industry at the moment, but that is, of course, against a backdrop of anxiety.
I should declare an interest as the son of the cartoonist of the Fishing News.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the optimism in the industry will not be helped by Government back benchers launching the sort of attack on fishermen’s leaders that we heard from Dave Thompson earlier in the debate? Will he distance himself from those comments?
The industry’s optimism will not be helped by the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats not giving the power to their Scottish ministers to ensure that we address some of the deep anxieties that the fleet has.
Let us not forget that we are talking about seafood. We are talking about the product that is landed by our fishermen, who go to sea in all kinds of conditions, including atrocious weather from time to time—which of course means very dangerous conditions. That seafood is very valuable to Scotland’s economy. It makes a huge contribution to Scotland’s fantastic exports records, particularly in respect of food: our seafood accounts for around 50 per cent of food exports. We should be very grateful to our fishermen for going out in all kinds of conditions.
That food graces some of the best restaurant tables in the whole of Europe and even in places such as Orkney, where I happened to be last week enjoying fantastic local seafood—albeit that I think that it was imported from faraway Shetland. The seafood that our fishing industry lands provides an enormous contribution to Scotland’s economy, and I hope that we can celebrate it more than ever before in 2015, which is the year of food and drink. Let us ensure that healthy, nutritious seafood is at the heart of the promotion of the food and drink sector and that it is promoted in our schools, as well.
Cara Hilton and others mentioned the importance of building seafood into food education and introducing it to our children. That is why the Scottish Government funds the seafood in schools initiative, which is becoming ever more successful.
Fishing is a dangerous occupation. Some members asked me to respond to questions on what we are doing to promote a culture of safety at sea in the industry. That is crucial, as we know from recent tragic events. We can never devote enough time to safety, and we have to keep doing it.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has been working with the Scottish Government to ensure that personal flotation devices are made available to every fisherman in Scotland who requests one. More than £300,000 of funding for that came from the European fisheries fund, and the fishing industry contributed the rest of it.
To protect our seafood and to protect the jobs in Scotland that we all want to safeguard, we need sustainable fish stocks in our waters. That is also about protecting a valuable food resource. Graeme Pearson and others mentioned the fact that the world population is expanding, so we have to protect that valuable food resource. That is one reason why we have to ensure that we have the right policies in place at European and Scottish level.
Stocks are recovering and improving, which is down to the massive sacrifice of Scotland’s fishing industry, particularly over the past 10 years or so, when many good men were forced to leave the industry from time to time because of crazy regulations. Therefore, we hope that we will be able to realise the optimistic outlook for 2015 and beyond.
The Commission’s proposals for some of the stocks that will be discussed at this year’s fishing negotiations next week include a 20 per cent increase for monkfish, a 15 per cent increase for nephrops—that is, prawns—in the North Sea and a rollover for the valuable megrim stock. On the west coast, the Commission proposes a 113 per cent increase for Rockall haddock, a 20 per cent increase for monkfish and a 1 per cent increase for the valuable megrim stock.
Last week, on the North Sea stocks, a 5 per cent increase for cod, a 15 per cent increase for haddock and a 15 per cent increase for plaice were agreed.
There have been some reductions for other stocks, but there are increases in our key, valuable stocks. Of course, where there are reductions in quota for some stocks, they are part of long-term management plans that we all support. We must acknowledge that the stocks and recommendations are in good health because of the sacrifices of our fleet.
The fleet does not have to wait for discard bans. It has undertaken a lot of effort using selective gear and other measures to reduce discards. The white-fish fleet in the North Sea has reduced discards since 2007—the year in which I became minister—by 64 per cent. The prawn fleet has reduced discards of cod, haddock and whiting in the North Sea by a further 93 per cent. On the west coast, there have also been reductions, albeit that there are still some on-going serious problems that must be addressed.
Two key objectives result from the new common fisheries policy that we now have. First, we have to achieve sustainable stocks where possible by 2015 and definitely by 2020. That will be challenging for some of our stocks, although eight of our 12 key stocks are already being fished at sustainable levels.
The second objective, which has dominated the debate, is to ban discards between 2015 and 2019. I fully accept that it gives Scotland enormous challenges because of the mixed fishery in our waters, in which many different species swim together. That means that, if fishermen run out of quota for one stock, they have problems in catching the other stocks for which they have quota because they have to land their fish and are not allowed to discard them.
That is why we need to ensure that Europe modernises the regulations. We will fight for that next week and throughout 2015. It also means that we have to continue to work with our fleet in Scotland.
There are plans in place. We have a Scottish discards steering group and are working with the onshore sector—the fish processors—as well as the fleet on what the ban means for the fleet and what new measures can be adopted in Scottish waters.
My message to the European Commission is that we cannot use 1980s legislation to deliver 21st century solutions for discards. I remember going to the fisheries council for the first time in 2007 and raising the issue of discards in European waters. I spoke about how they were unacceptable and were ecological vandalism. Back in 2007, there was little interest from other member states or the UK Government in tackling discards, so we have travelled a long way. We will now tackle discards once and for all, which is in the interest of fisheries conservation, Scottish jobs and the wider fishing industry.
Could you bring your remarks to a close, cabinet secretary?
Therefore, 2015 is a big year for the industry in Scotland. However, I have to say that I am now shadowing my fifth UK fishing minister. No doubt, after May’s UK elections, I will be shadowing my sixth. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous that the UK Government should choose to send an unelected lord to represent Scotland’s fishermen at the Council of Ministers as opposed to experienced Scottish ministers. That shows absolute contempt for the people of Scotland and, in this case, absolute contempt for our fishing communities and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on that sector.
If we can get the big decisions right in 2015, we will have the opportunity to allow our fleet to sail in calmer waters. Although there is some disagreement over some of the issues, and the Government will be opposing the amendments by the Opposition parties, I hope that that is one objective that we can all rally around.
Let us get the best deal for Scotland’s fishing communities next week in Brussels, and let us allow our fleet to sail into calmer waters.
Previous
Food (Scotland) BillNext
Decision Time