Fisheries Negotiations
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08540, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the end-year fisheries negotiations.
15:39
We meet after what has been another eventful year for our important fishing industry.
We started this year by breathing a sigh of relief after the negotiations in December 2012, having avoided a further cut in the number of days at sea allowed to our vessels and having protected our vital North Sea cod quota. That soon gave way to increasing anxiety over the persistent and worrying scarcity of prawns in our waters, which lasted throughout the first half of the year.
We acted to bring the fleet through those tough times, with a jointly agreed action plan worth £6 million launched in the middle of the year. That included a £3 million hardship fund to help vessels that were suffering exceptional economic distress to get through an acutely bad patch, endured as a result of the dramatic fall in prawn catches that, as we all recall, was in the headlines.
Our fishermen are among the most resilient in the world. I am glad to say that, more recently, prawn catches have bounced back and catches of white fish have held up very well. Indeed, the industry’s dynamism was on display only last week when we saw more than 28,000 boxes of fish landed in Peterhead alone in a single week, which is one of the highest catches ever recorded in the past decade. In addition, Shetland has set—even though we have yet to reach the end of the year—a new annual record for the number of boxes of fish sold, with the figure heading towards 275,000 boxes for the year, which eclipses the previous high set in 2008 of more than 260,000 boxes. That shows how our fishermen continue to brave the elements to bring Scotland’s superb seafood ashore and help to feed not only Scots but populations around the world.
Scottish seafood cannot always compete on volume but, with its strong emphasis on provenance and sustainability, it produces the utmost quality, which overseas markets crave. That is why we are striving to expand opportunities overseas, driving up the value of Scottish produce and maximising the income for all those involved—from net to plate.
We are also supporting the industry closer to home. I am delighted to announce the latest package of awards under the European Fisheries Fund. This is the 11th round of awards under the EFF, supporting some 45 new projects with more than £3.1 million-worth of support, enabling investment of more than £11 million. Since the launch of the EFF in 2008, it has delivered an impressive £76 million of awards and £170 million of investment in Scotland.
We will make the most of the fund. However, Scotland receives only £46 million under the EFF, which equates to only 40 per cent of the funding available to the United Kingdom. That does not reflect the size of our fishing industry and pales into insignificance compared with the funding in excess of £100 million given to countries such as Lithuania and Denmark.
The industry deserves the support of the Parliament and the Government. As I stand here at the end of another topsy-turvy year—at times distressing and challenging; at times buoyant—I am struck by the constant uncertainty and the unpredictable ups and downs of this great industry. I am also struck by its steady resilience and its unerring spirit in the face of those challenges. Unflinching support for our fishermen is foremost in my mind as we approach the vital first round of negotiations in Brussels next week.
Will the cabinet secretary update the Parliament on the status of the European Union-Norway talks?
Yes. I will come on to that very important point on the shared stocks between the EU and Norway if the member will just hold on.
I mentioned that the first round of negotiations will take place next week. As Tavish Scott alludes to, we will decide at those talks only the quotas for those stocks wholly within the EU’s waters. To answer his point, the negotiations on the North Sea stocks shared between the EU and Norway, such as cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, have been postponed until a second round of talks that will take place early next year. That is not the first time that such delays have happened, but it is the situation that we will again face next year. All is still to play for.
Across many of those stocks, the situation this year, as often before, will be challenging. Unlike last year, the scientific advice for a number of stocks is for reductions in some quotas. That is a reflection not of the conservation efforts of our fishermen but of a lack of juvenile fish coming through, which is simply the way of things when dealing with a biological resource. However, within those circumstances, I am determined to negotiate the best possible deal for Scotland’s fishermen and their communities this month and to meet the many challenges coming down the line in the policy landscape in the months and years ahead.
On that note, just a few hours ago the final part of the common fisheries policy reform process was completed, when the European Parliament took its final vote. The new CFP will become law on 1 January 2014. There will be a ban on discards in the pelagic fisheries in 2016, and a ban on discards for all species by 2019. I am sure that all members are aware that that will transform fishing practices in our waters. The industry and other sectors who are involved are very much aware of that.
At last, an end to the wasteful practice of throwing dead fish back into the sea is in sight, and decision making can be brought closer to home, as we move away from the dreadful one-size-fits-all, top-down approach of the old CFP, which has been so damaging. I hope that decisions and plans will be taken forward on a more regional basis and will deliver more sensible and practical proposals for our industry.
As usual, our work will be cut out for us in the December talks as we fight to protect Scotland’s position. We will be guided, as ever, by three fundamental principles; first, our approach will be guided by the science on stocks and sustainability; secondly, we will protect the social and economic wellbeing of our industry and the communities who depend on it; and, thirdly, we will act in line with our commitment to achieve discard-free fisheries. Those principles are underpinned by our conviction that conservation and stability of stocks will deliver long-term economic health for the whole industry, onshore and offshore. That is our key message.
With a view to achieving all that, I have set key objectives for our negotiations. First, we need to minimise the burdens of the deeply flawed cod recovery plan. I will again demand a freeze in the days at sea that are allocated to Scotland. I will ask the European Commission to ensure that no more automatic cuts are permitted—otherwise our fleet simply will not have enough time at sea to catch its quotas.
Another aim is to secure a cod quota that reflects reality. In the North Sea, cod mortality is at its lowest since assessments started in 1963. Our fishers are seeing the stock in ever-greater numbers, and their findings are backed up by scientists. If we were slavishly to follow the long-term management plan for North Sea cod, which was set in stone a few years ago, we would have to agree to a 9 per cent reduction in the North Sea cod catch, which seems perverse given the stock’s increasing abundance year on year and the certainty that a quota reduction will simply serve to increase discards, which is the exact opposite of one of our key objectives and indeed of one of the European Commission’s supposed key objectives. The science shows that a modest increase in the allowable catch for North Sea cod will allow the stock to continue to grow in abundance and deliver a sustainable fishery for the long term. That is why I have pressed for the UK to make a moderate increase in the North Sea cod quota a top priority at next week’s negotiations.
Another key priority is to secure increased flexibility in where the fleet can catch its valuable monkfish quota, which will be vital in allowing our vessels to fish more efficiently and sustainably. Currently we have only 5 per cent flexibility; in my view we need at least 20 per cent if we are to make a genuine difference to how the fishery is conducted. I will work to ensure that the UK vigorously sticks to such a position throughout the talks, because it is important for a number of our fishermen.
In other areas, we need to begin the transition to a discard ban. If we are to run trials in which vessels can start to land all that they catch, which is the fundamental point of a discard ban, we need the Commission to provide fishermen with additional quota to cover the fish that they are currently forced to discard. The Commission must give us the tools to get on with the job of putting in place a sensible and practicable discard ban in our waters.
On the west coast fishery, in the talks next week I want to maximise our valuable hake opportunities and to secure the flexibility that I mentioned in relation to catching monkfish. We welcome the recent advice on increases in the Rockall haddock fishery, which is important to the west coast. In addition, we have worked hard over the past year to put in place rigorous cod avoidance measures on the west coast, to conserve stock and get it on the road to recovery.
I will press the Commission to ensure that our fishermen have the means and the flexibility to make the transition to a discard ban, identifying the issues and the solutions. Fishermen will clearly need additional quota if that is to happen. If Brussels refuses that, it will quite simply be planning for failure of the discard ban. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why, in negotiations earlier this year, I fought hard for regionalisation to be at the heart of the reformed common fisheries policy. We cannot have an effective discard ban unless the principle of regionalisation is adhered to and decisions are taken closer to home.
I am pleased to say that the process is coming to life. Regional groups for the North Sea and our western waters were swiftly established and regional plans for delivering on the discard ban are beginning to take shape. Having pushed for decentralisation from Brussels, I am determined that the Commission should provide the regions with the tools that they require if they are to make discards a thing of the past.
We always seem to face stiff challenges and difficult decisions at the end-of-year fisheries negotiations, but what those negotiations are all about—what they will mean in the real world for our fishermen and the women who work in the industry, what they can fish, how much they can catch, where they can catch it, how much time they will have at sea to catch it and all the consequences for the onshore sector—is never out of our minds.
I will ensure that Scotland’s priorities are uppermost in the minds of the UK ministers, and we will do our utmost to fight for Scotland’s interests right across the board. Our aim throughout the negotiations will be to build and maintain a strong platform for our industry offshore and onshore—a platform that will do justice to the resilience and ingenuity that are shown by our fishermen, and which will allow them to continue to thrive in 2014, by putting premium Scottish seafood on dining tables throughout Scotland and around the globe.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the Scottish Government in its efforts to achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland across the range of ongoing annual negotiations and agrees that the negotiated settlements must have at their heart the interests of Scotland’s fishermen and coastal communities while seeking to ensure the sustainable use of Scotland’s marine environment and its natural resources.
15:50
I welcome today’s debate in advance of the end-of-year fishing negotiations. It gives us the opportunity to speak in the interests of Scottish fishing and to demonstrate the lead that Scotland is taking in delivering sustainable fisheries. Of course there is much more progress to be made, but the level of co-operation between the fishing sector and environmental organisations such as RSPB Scotland and WWF is encouraging.
Scotland’s fishing sector employs in the region of 5,000 people in the catching sector and supports key employment in supporting sectors. The fish processing sector can be vulnerable and although our produce is sent all around the world, we could do more to support our sector at home by increasing seafood consumption. Despite being an island, we are not big consumers of our produce and there could be greater promotion of seafood. This year, I supported Sainsbury’s switch the fish campaign to promote more sustainable consumer choices, and it is encouraging to see the extent to which our supermarkets support seafood.
However, more can be done. For example, I would like greater emphasis to be placed on seafood on school menus. The health benefits of eating fish are clear and more could be done to promote it as an affordable and sustainable part of the Scottish diet. Our coastline and seas produce world-class produce, and we have a responsibility to ensure that there is a legacy for future generations.
The industry has a significant base in Scotland but operates throughout the UK, with a common regulatory system and a UK network of harbours and fish processors. It is also an industry in which onshore operations and exports are dependent on Europe. The resource is shared, and the end-of-year negotiations are key to achieving sustainable management.
The lack of a resolution to the continuing difficulty with north-east Atlantic mackerel, which has been caused by the unacceptable behaviour of Iceland and the Faroes, will again delay decision making on key North Sea stocks. The situation is becoming increasingly intractable. More and more, sanctions are becoming the only option, which is not a situation that anyone wants. It is not helpful to our fleets to have such delay and uncertainty, and it is bitterly disappointing that another year has passed without a resolution to the situation being achieved. The fishing opportunities for 2014 need to be completed as soon as possible to provide some certainty, not just to the fleets, but to the onshore sector that is dependent on their business.
On the setting of North Sea cod quotas in the new year, it is important that the Scottish and UK Governments put forward a strong case to roll over the quota and not to implement the planned 9 per cent cod recovery plan cut. The cod fishery is one of our most valuable—its value is in excess of £20 million. The cod recovery plan was a response to concerning stock levels, but it needs to be reformed. Last September, the European Commission produced proposals for a new plan, but since then there has been a lack of action. The cod recovery plan is inflexible and, perversely, risks hindering conservation measures. It proposes a 9 per cent cut, but the scientific advice indicates positive stock recovery, points towards the sustainability of a rollover and identifies the potential for the quota to be revised.
We can be proud that the Scottish sector has been at the forefront of developing sustainable fishery measures. In a mixed fisheries sector, that is challenging. Conservation credits and the cod catch quota scheme have been developed successfully, with the focus on the reduction of discards. In responding to the demands of a mixed fisheries sector, there needs to be flexibility in the discards plan. The upcoming proposals for discussion on effort control or days at sea are equally important. The wrong decision could have the effect of increasing discards, which we are all united in trying to address. As the briefing from WWF and the RSPB states, although the scientific advice indicates that a rollover plus up to a 10 per cent increase in quota could be implemented, there are risks attached to any increase. Any arguments for an increase in quota must involve a strong commitment from the industry—and evidence to show—that discard avoidance is increasingly being achieved and that removals and discards will not increase. Good progress has been made on cod recovery, and that cannot be put at risk.
Going into the December negotiations, the focus will be on the west coast fisheries, nephrops and monkfish. Some of the headline figures for agreement present challenges for the Scottish sector. Although there is a proposed increase in the northern hake quota by 49 per cent and 20 per cent for the west coast, proposed cuts of 5 per cent for west coast haddock, 20 per cent for west coast whiting and 25 per cent for west coast and North Sea monkfish are all on the table. In addition, a 10.5 per cent cut in North Sea nephrops—or langoustines—is proposed alongside a reduction of 8.5 per cent in the west coast fishery.
Those are challenging proposals, which are driven by the move towards achieving maximum sustainable yield and the forthcoming discard ban. That was always going to be difficult to achieve in a mixed fishery. Although the upcoming negotiations do not address the implementation of the discard ban, it is starting to have an impact on quota setting. The conditions are challenging for the west coast and, as the WWF-RSPB briefing sets out, a greater emphasis must be placed on the need to build a vision for the west coast fleets that moves towards sustainable, high-quality catches of a mix of species.
Cod needs a chance to recover, but it is still being caught and discarded. As much as possible, we need to eliminate cod capture in smaller-mesh fisheries and make sure that it is selected out in larger-mesh fisheries. Those measures will play their part in helping to deliver a better, more secure future for fishing communities that rely on that sector.
The discard ban will require effort and planning. The public outcry over discarding at sea was understandable, but we must ensure that the ban does not lead to an increase in onshore discarding. Minimising bycatch is essential, and Scotland has been at the front of new technology. However, investment is needed in science and manufacturing. A lot of good work is going on in our universities and colleges, but we need to ensure that there are strong commercial opportunities and that knowledge transfer takes place.
As the cabinet secretary said, regional decision making will be key to the success or otherwise of a discard ban. We need a commonsense, flexible approach with a deliverable timescale that responds to the demands of a mixed fishery. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation makes a pragmatic argument that that must lead to an increased quota, but any move in that direction must be balanced with the priority of maximum selectivity and discards minimisation. That detail needs to be ironed out.
As this year’s negotiations take place, we will move into the implementation phase of the reformed common fisheries policy. Although the headline principles have been established, much in relation to how they will be achieved is to be determined. Today, the Scottish Fisherman’s Federation raised concerns about the final decisions on regionalisation and maximum sustainable yield. I seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that we will have meaningful regionalisation and that it will be possible to test that properly.
Labour’s amendment recognises the importance of regionalisation and of reducing discards, issues that provide the backdrop to decisions that are being taken at the December Council of Ministers meeting.
I move amendment S4M-08540.3, to insert at end:
“; as part of the ongoing implementation of the reformed common fisheries policy, supports the drive toward regionalisation in European fisheries management, and believes that every effort must be taken to ensure that Scotland’s fishing industry is ready to implement the discard ban”.
15:57
I enjoy the annual opportunity to participate in this debate, with its traditional role of sending the minister off to the European fisheries negotiation with the full weight of parliamentary support behind him. I hope that we continue to do that in the way in which this debate is conducted.
I recognise a number of issues from participation in earlier such debates. We have been talking about the minister’s strong belief in regional management for a long time. I am sure that he well remembers—I certainly do—that, more than a dozen years ago, as the convener of the Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee at the time, I attended the publication in Brussels of the European green paper that originally proposed regional management committees. Of course, in the end, we got regional advisory committees.
Often, the opportunity for regional management is held up as a tempting and tantalising promise for the future. I hope that, on this occasion, the minister manages to succeed in achieving it.
A series of issues must be addressed in this round of negotiations. The minister has gone through them in significant detail, but the most profound objective is the move towards a discard ban. The plans are in place and they must be achieved.
Our fishermen should be commended for the work that they have done over many years in ensuring a reduction in wasted effort—they took more than their fair share in ensuring that—and in the number of discards, by applying technology to ensure that smaller fish were not caught at all. Through that sustainability, we have seen significant improvements in the level of stocks in the North Sea. I am particularly taken by the fact that cod numbers are on the rise once again because, in the time that this Parliament has existed, there has been considerable effort to ensure that cod recovery took place.
While this negotiation goes forward, it is important to note that there have been a number of delays. The fact that the talks with Norway will continue into the new year is not a unique situation but one that will delay the delivery of proper outcomes.
On that subject, a couple of issues have been raised with me in order that I might discuss them with the cabinet secretary. We heard extensively from Claire Baker about the problems facing the pelagic fishery and in particular about the mackerel stock in the North Atlantic. I ask the cabinet secretary to give an assurance that any future deal on mackerel, first of all will involve Norway—because, in my view, without Norway’s involvement we will not have a deal—and, secondly, will not result in Iceland in any way gaining access to EU waters. If we are to continue as part of a common fisheries policy, it is important that we have control over resources locally wherever possible. Any extension of access to EU waters, particularly our waters, would have the opposite effect.
A number of issues are crucial to the success of these negotiations but many of them are simply part of the process of progressing from where we were the year before. As the cabinet secretary said, last year was a good year: we saw limited reductions in quota and stability for our fishermen.
However, as we saw with the scare over falling nephrops numbers, things can change from one season to the next. It is important that we get a future for our fishing industry that will deliver confidence, continuity and sustainability in the long term. As I said at the start, it is for that reason that I believe that the cabinet secretary has set out the appropriate way forward in European negotiations. I hope that he, along with his UK counterparts, will be able to go to Brussels and ensure that Scotland’s two Governments, working hand in hand, deliver for Scotland’s fishing communities.
I move amendment S4M-08450.2, to insert at end:
“, and urges the Scottish Government to continue to work closely with the UK Government and the fishing community to secure the future viability of Scotland’s fishing industry”.
16:02
The EU fisheries talks next week may not agree much. The continuing failure of international discussions involving the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland will mean that agreement on stocks caught and fished in EU waters will not happen until January—if the industry is lucky. The cabinet secretary was good enough to illustrate that point earlier. I and the fishing industry are very concerned that the industry will have no fish to catch well into 2014 because it suits some countries to have no agreement. That is where we are this year, which is very different from previous years.
Iceland and the Faroes have no interest in being helpful to our fishermen. The EU sanctions in place over their illegal fishing of pelagic stocks are hurting. Those countries can block agreement on the mainstays of the Scottish fleet, which are cod, haddock and whiting. That is the current position.
Norway, which makes Machiavelli look a rank amateur when it comes to negotiations, is resisting EU attempts to give the Faroes and Iceland a larger slice of mackerel quota, and quite right too. They may do that, however, on the basis of extracting a better deal for themselves on other fish stocks.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary is clear that if there is no agreement between the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, it will lead to immense pressure for a deal on mackerel. The EU will argue that agreement must happen to allow the Scottish white-fish fleet—and indeed other fishing fleets—to sea in EU waters. The price of that deal is greater Faroese and Icelandic access to mackerel. That is what the local industry fears—it is certainly what I fear—will happen in 2014. The Faroes and Iceland will be rewarded for illegal fishing.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will confirm that that would be utterly irresponsible and unacceptable. In my view, he should resist that Hobson’s choice. It would be very wrong if our white-fish fleet could catch fish in 2014 only at the expense of cuts in mackerel quota for the Scottish industry. Those two are linked as they have never been linked before.
The most important win that the cabinet secretary can achieve next week in Brussels is, as he said, on effort—the time our fleet can spend at sea. The cod recovery plan is a shambles. Two years ago, the industry was promised by both the Commission and the Government that there would be changes to the plan. However, as fishermen said to me in Lerwick yesterday, nothing about it has changed. The SFF advise that the Commission’s proposals on cutting the time our boats will have at sea in 2014 are unacceptable. As the cabinet secretary rightly said, the Commission hides behind EU law, but that is the law that it and the Government told the industry two years ago would be changed. It has not been changed, so will the cabinet secretary assure the industry that coming from the December fisheries council with anything worse than an effort freeze is simply not an option?
Fishermen have complied with draconian EU rules, some of which are designed here in Edinburgh. Our vessels are allowed to fish for only 90 days in a year. It is possible to achieve more days by jumping through further bureaucratic hoops, but we do not ask any other business in Scotland to restrict its open trading to just 90 days out of 360. Despite sacrifice layered upon sacrifice, there appears to be no let-up in the draconian measures placed upon vessels.
If the cod recovery plan is bad—and it is—fishermen also fear the imposition of a discard ban, not because they do not believe that stopping the dumping of marketable fish is the right thing to do, but because the important thing is getting the plan to work in reality. No one—and I mean no one—has yet explained to the industry how a discard ban will work in practice. It is right to stop dumping. Every fishermen would wish to do that, and the processing industry would wish to stop it as well. However, many Scottish white-fish boats, and certainly the Shetland fleet, depend on a mixed fishery. They catch and have quota for different species. One cannot just catch one species in a net and then haul for a second species. That is not the way a demersal fishery works. So, the devil will truly be in the detail. The industry wants an assurance from the Government that it accepts that the policy must be sensible and possible; otherwise, far from reducing discards, it will increase them. I know that the cabinet secretary is all too well aware of that, but he needs to commit not just to the rhetoric of a discard ban, which we are all very good at, but to ensuring that it works in practice.
There has rarely been a more fraught year than this for the EU fisheries council, not because the prognosis on quotas is bad but because there is a link between what happens in international talks on the pelagic industry and what happens to our white-fish industry like we have never seen before. If there is any sell-out by the EU on rewarding those who are fishing illegally, there will be an outcry, not just in Scotland but right across the EU. Of that there can be no doubt.
I certainly support the cabinet secretary’s motion today. He goes to the talks next week with my support. However, I suspect that the talks between the EU and Norway, the Faroes and Iceland will be far more important in the longer term than what happens in Brussels in a week’s time.
I move amendment S4M-08450.1, to insert at end:
“; notes the importance of the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council in December 2013 agreeing a pragmatic implementation of the EU discard ban on the whitefish fleet; recognises the need for changes to the Cod Recovery Plan, which discriminates against the Scottish industry; supports increases in quota allocations and days-at-sea, and calls for EU international sanctions over mackerel to be given time to deliver the outcomes that the EU has agreed”.
16:08
One thing that can definitely be agreed by all interested parties is that there is a general consensus that cod stocks are recovering in the North Sea. That is good news all round, although it has to be noted that WWF Scotland and RSPB Scotland warn that any departure from the cod recovery plan in Scotland must include evidence that the counterproposal is in line with scientific advice and will deliver better—or, at the very least, no worse—outcomes for the stocks in question.
However, we also have the recent report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which states that quota cuts imposed to save cod from extinction could actually be harming the North Sea, because the species is now so strong that it is eating too many other fish. The ICES report talks about the “abundance” of cod in the North Sea. According to scientists, because cod is top of the food chain, its increasing numbers are having an impact on haddock, herring and whiting numbers. A moderate increase in the total allowable catch for cod would indeed be welcome.
What should be of concern to RSPB Scotland is the scientific evidence that sand eels, the staple diet of many of Scotland’s sea birds, are also being eaten in alarming numbers, although thankfully we no longer see the Danes coming in and hoovering up sand eels on the Wee Bankie and other areas in the North Sea as they did in past decades. As our knowledge of marine ecosystems increases, it is becoming more apparent than ever that species’ interactions are complex and if a predatory fish stock such as cod increases its numbers, there is a knock-on effect on the populations of the prey, which includes other fish and shellfish.
Although scientific evidence shows that the picture is looking promising in the North Sea, the picture is not so great in the west of Scotland, where cod biomass remains low, yet cod continues to be caught and discarded. Both the RSPB and WWF call for greater efforts to avoid cod in the west of Scotland, which they say is vital. They also call on us to place a much greater emphasis on the need to build a vision for the west coast fleets in which boats can move towards sustainable, high quality catches of a mix of species, which they say will result in the more secure future for fishing communities that Claire Baker alluded to. The west of Scotland cod stock is not recovering and is estimated to be just more than 3,500 tonnes. The target is 22,000 tonnes.
It is worth stressing, though, that Scottish fishermen have made substantial changes to help cod recover, with the conservation credits approach incentivising change by giving more time at sea to vessels that undertake conservation measures. In addition, the amount of cod discarded by Scottish white-fish trawlers has declined by two thirds since 2008.
There is good progress in the Western Isles, thanks to Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government listening to local fishermen. For the first time in a number of years squid has been caught off the Western Isles and has been available for islanders to buy. The first squid were caught in the first week of November, landed at Stornoway harbour at 8 pm on the Wednesday night, sold locally the next day and served in Parisian restaurants the following evening. Squid is mainly winter fishing in the north Minch. The boats can target it with a proper squid net and it does not affect their days at sea. That is very welcome news for fishermen in the Western Isles.
Until now, fishermen were prohibited from catching squid west of Scrabster under the west of Scotland cod recovery measures, but now the restrictions have been relaxed, which has given a much-needed boost to the local fishing industry. I am pleased to report that by using the specialised squid nets, fishermen are landing clean catches and there is no or very little bycatch.
Squid fishing in the Western Isles is just one example, but there is a great deal of potential to develop it. Although it is still at a very early stage, it could become very important to our fleet. There are further examples of the range and quality of Scottish seafood.
I had hoped to have time to go on to the issues of excessive spurdog—or dogfish—off the coast of the Western Isles and the resultant bycatch, ending discards, and the benefits of regionalisation. However, as always, time has got the better of me.
I wish the Scottish Government and officials well with their end-year negotiations next week and look forward to the outcome of the second round of EU talks with Norway in January.
16:12
There are wide areas of agreement on many aspects of the negotiations and it is right that the members who lodged the motion and amendments have highlighted them. Everyone now recognises that to catch too many fish would be the surest way to deny fishing communities a future, but to follow a prescriptive regulatory regime without paying proper heed to science can be equally damaging. That danger has rightly been highlighted today in relation to the cod recovery plan.
It is important that both the Scottish and British Governments approach the negotiations with the objectives of maintaining current effort levels and current good practice to manage fish mortality and that ministers seek to build a consensus for that approach among industry and environmental interests. Although the cabinet secretary told us the position on quotas that he proposed to ministers, it would be useful to know how far the various negotiating positions he outlined are common to both Governments.
Today’s debate is about the latest in a long line of annual fisheries negotiations, but it is also important in the context of the on-going reform of the common fisheries policy. The reformed CFP, which is due to start on 1 January, will be the third European fisheries policy to be considered in this Parliament since 1999—as Alex Johnstone reminded us—and the fifth in the past 40 years. We on the Labour benches have long supported objectives such as the regional control of fisheries and achieving long-term sustainability; other parties share those aims too. They are core objectives of the new CFP, as is an effective ban on discards at sea.
The difficulty is how such laudable aspirations can be turned into practical change in the real world. When I spoke in the CFP debate last year, I drew an analogy between how the European Commission manages its fisheries policy and the proposals that it actively promoted for a time in relation to the offshore energy industry. In the latter case, it wanted to replace a focus on outcomes and culture with prescriptive regulation, which would have increased the bureaucratic burden of box ticking but reduced the active engagement of all parties with the culture of safe working in a hazardous environment. The problem with fisheries policy reform may parallel that, as the regulatory mechanisms can become more important than the outcomes that they are supposed to deliver.
There is a broad consensus in favour of the regional management of fisheries in the European Union, but responsibility for marine biological conservation remains with the Commission in Brussels. The delivery of policy is devolved to regions such as the North Sea and the north-east Atlantic, but the content of that policy continues to be driven from the centre. That reservation of responsibility cannot be changed without amendment of the European treaties, so the question for the Scottish Government is how its impact can be managed.
Everyone wants discards at sea to end, but Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation drew an analogy this morning with having a legal ban on traffic accidents in Europe—everyone would applaud that in principle, but enforcing it in a literal way could have unintended consequences. It would be useful to know the Government’s view on the best way to move towards complying with a ban on discards by 2019. The Scottish catching sector needs to be ready for implementation, but it cannot act in a policy vacuum.
That issue will not be settled this month, but it is bound to dominate debate in the months and years ahead, so it is important to go beyond the detail of catches and effort in the next 12 months—although that is important—and for ministers to give a clear view on how the new common fisheries policy can be made to work in the interests of having a sustainable and productive Scottish fisheries sector in the medium to longer term.
16:16
PG Wodehouse used to have Bertie Wooster insist that Jeeves had some fish when a particularly knotty problem had to be dealt with, so I naturally had fish for my dinner today in the canteen, in preparation for the debate.
This is the most exciting time of the year for me, not because of the fisheries debate but because, in a few short weeks, that most beautiful product of the sea—cod roe—will appear. My wife does not like it—she prefers herring roe—but we share the belief that nothing beats scallop roe, which is often taken off the scallop. We also share the belief that what comes out of the sea is good for us. So obvious are the benefits that people have known that for years, without the assistance of scientists.
Scottish fishermen are the arch conservationists, because they depend on a natural resource. They know that how they treat that resource determines their future success. They are competitive and innovative in everything that they do. Central control via the CFP sits uneasily with our fishermen’s entrepreneurial spirit and generations of detailed experience.
Our fishermen are gifted with significant problems. Having a mixed fishery creates difficulties when we seek to protect one species and catch another. One fisherman’s bycatch is another’s target species, so there is often debate in the industry.
Our fishermen’s efforts in recent years in experimenting with selective gear are very much to be commended. We have not yet developed the perfect selective gear, but we are making the progress that we need to make.
The cabinet secretary referred to a key problem with developing that gear, which is having the quota available to test it. If fishermen have no quota for cod and they know where a lot of the cod are, they will avoid those areas. However, when they need to test a selective-gear net that is designed to go into an area with cod and not catch cod, they must go into a cod area and take the risk that their net—whose selectivity is not yet perfect—might catch cod. Fishermen are burning up their quota quickly by experimenting with selective gear. We need more support and more quota for that valuable work, which is being done voluntarily by many of our fishermen. We must not move to the position that we have seen in the whaling industry, which lives off the back of so-called scientific research, but we need a little more help.
Our fishermen, conservationists that they are, work with other environmentalists such as WWF Scotland. That absolutely shows that they are prepared to be driven by good science and to work with others using their local knowledge and experience. Only 14 months ago, in September 2012, a headline in The Daily Telegraph stated that there were 100 cod left in the North Sea. The author of that absurdity now says that there will be no brown crab left. That wonderful Radio 4 programme about statistics, “More or Less”, described that as
“the worst wrong number that we have ever reported”,
the correct number being 21 million cod.
I know someone who is learning Icelandic and I have a nephew who is fluent in Danish because he lives there. We will have to engage with some difficult people in difficult times through difficult negotiations. I hope that the minister can do his bit for Scotland’s fishermen.
16:21
I declare an interest, in that I have worked for the past 20 years in the Scottish fishing industry in Aberdeen, in North East Scotland, the region that I have the pleasure and honour of representing as a member of the Scottish Parliament.
I have been involved in various fishing organisations, both in the catching sector and in the processing sector and I have often heard, in many meetings, about the admiration that the members of the Scottish industry have for the representatives of other EU countries—particularly French representatives—and for the way in which they negotiate with the rest of the EU.
Richard Lochhead, the cabinet secretary, might not be a Frenchman but he is perhaps the closest that we have to one because of the skills that he has developed over the years in the fisheries negotiations. Particularly important is the experience that he has gained in regionalisation, which Claire Baker has spoken about and which is mentioned in the Labour amendment. It is very important that we have regionalisation, which has been put forward by the cabinet secretary and which the EU will implement.
Richard Lochhead has also had a lot of experience of dealing with UK ministers and EU commissioners over the years. He has persevered and has convinced successive UK Governments and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the importance of the Scottish fishing industry by briefing them and sitting behind them, hoping for the best, when he has attended EU meetings. He has all the patience that I, as a Frenchman, do not have.
The cabinet secretary comes to the latest negotiations without the backing of the UK Parliament and DEFRA, however, because of a concordat that was signed early in May 2012, of which we have not yet seen the outcome. In that concordat, the UK Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were united in demanding that DEFRA, the UK Government department that is in charge of fishing quota management, release the names of the individual companies and multinationals that have been trading quotas. Some of those are profiteering from the work of active fishermen and some are causing the same concern in the fishing industry that slipper farmers are causing in the farming industry. The cabinet secretary has been patient, but it is important that he secure that outcome at the end of this year, before we enter the negotiations in January. I seek reassurance from the cabinet secretary on that point.
The Scottish Seafood Association, of which I was a member, has stated that its members support complete transparency regarding quotas, as has the Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association and the Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation. They are all in favour of transparency regarding quotas, which is important when we talk about the negotiations next week. Transparency will be the first step in regaining control of Scotland’s fishing rights, because it will give future generations access to quotas that we do not have now. The consequences of the establishment of a publicly accessible register of fixed quota allocation holdings and transactions will be that the value of trading quotas will plunge to a level that will allow working fishermen and young fishermen to go fishing, which will mean a great future for our industry.
16:25
As a member for North East Scotland, I am glad to speak in the debate and to support the Labour amendment. The common fisheries policy was set up to address the simple collective action problem that, if each member state were to fish unfettered, collectively we would decimate our stocks, permanently harm the biodiversity of our waters and undermine the long-term economic interests of the coastal communities that depend on our fishing industry.
Co-operation is therefore the key to success. In recent years in Scotland, we have taken great leaps to demonstrate our commitment to co-operate within the UK and across Europe and to fulfil our role as a responsible nation in the common fisheries policy. From real-time closures to closed-circuit television pilots, we have shaped Europe’s approach to a sustainable fisheries policy. Those measures must continue to be developed, as they are a proportional and effective means for Scotland to continue to lead the way on responsible fisheries management.
However, in the interests of fairness, it is vital that the restrictions that we place on our industry are backed by robust and reliable scientific data. One of the most significant opportunities that regionalisation gives us is the opportunity to collaborate better and build on the science that underpins the decisions that we make. That is because good scientific data has the ability to build consensus on what our collective interest looks like. For example, on cod quotas, WWF has stated:
“A 9% cut in next year’s North Sea cod quota is on the cards not because of scientific advice, but because of the provisions under the Cod Recovery Plan. Scientific advice indicates that a rollover ... can be consistent with achievement of sustainable fishing levels by 2015 as long as current cod avoidance fishing behaviour is maintained.”
The response of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is significant, because there is a shared acceptance built on scientific evidence that, as long as we continue our leading conservation efforts, our quotas can be adjusted.
As we continue through the negotiations and on our wider journey towards regionalisation, if we are to strike the right balance between the needs of our fishing industry and the need to make our waters sustainable, I urge the Scottish Government to build on our scientific data and to collaborate with our neighbours on the collection and production of that data so that we can reach decisions about our waters that, through the veracity of fact, are built on consensus and a shared understanding of our collective interest.
16:28
I am pleased to take part in the debate. The end-year fishing negotiations are vital to many communities that I and many other members represent. The Scottish Government continues to fight hard in Brussels for Scotland’s fishing sector and I am sure that it will do so again next week. That builds on the strong record of previous Scottish Administrations doing just that. However, Scotland is ready not just to have a seat at the negotiations but to take its turn in leading them. That would be a step forward for protecting and developing our fishing industry.
It is important to recognise that these end-year negotiations come down to a number of key aspects, which I will touch on. The starting point is the issue of landing obligations. We know that we will have a big job to measure how the discard ban is brought about. The way in which fish are sorted and weighed is quite important in that process and I ask the cabinet secretary to make sure that the control orders that deal with that rely on as little handling of fish as possible and move towards weighing being done at sea, with scales that are agreed by the authorities before the boats leave, and without the need to have so much of that weighing done and sampled on shore. The landing obligation leads me to believe that it is important that it is spread over all the species that are landed at one time because, as we move towards a discard ban, the job will be more complicated.
The SFF considers that maximum sustainable yield is
“a laudable intention but the way it is now enshrined in the regulation is scientifically impossible”.
If that is so, we have to find the cabinet secretary a means of cutting the Gordian knot, but in supporting the progressive move towards maximum sustainable yield by 2015 when possible, and no later than 2020, we are taking a realistic view of moving towards the means of sustaining the many mixed fishery stocks in our seas that we have to deal with.
The next issue I would like to deal with is licensing. Our country has a tremendous record of exports and the food and drink sector has led to a large amount of fish exports. It is therefore important that the licensing process for getting stocks from here to places such as China is made much simpler than it is at present. I am afraid to say that licensing can take weeks, if not months, and it must be speeded up in order to help exports to take place.
I will move on to talk about the coherence argument. WWF and the RSPB have said:
“Thanks to the progressive approach adopted by the Scottish Government in working alongside fisheries and environmental stakeholders in the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group, Scottish fisheries can better respond to the challenges of the new CFP regulation.”
I agree with that. A couple of Mondays ago, I was pleased to attend the launch of a sustainable food festival. It will be in Scrabster next September and will be based on fish. The intention is to encourage as many people as possible to eat sustainable fish, and for our Parliament to be able to back a cabinet secretary who ensures that the potential of our fisheries to be sustainable can be achieved.
16:33
Alex Johnstone started his contribution by saying that this annual debate is Parliament’s way of sending off the minister with great support. It did not always feel that way back in the early days; I remember a few debates that were certainly not like that. I can only imagine what Richard Lochhead’s reaction would have been if Ross Finnie had squeezed in a fisheries debate between debates on human rights and sport. I will leave that there.
I agree with the priorities that the cabinet secretary set out in his opening remarks, and I agree with his point about the freeze on days. I would argue for an increase in that figure—as I am sure he would—but he has to work within the art of the possible. He has to work hard with other member states on dealing with the inherent flaws in the cod recovery plan that Jenny Marra touched on. They do not go away. We keep being told that the plan is going to go because it has no further role to play, but every year our fishermen see that it is still in place and imposing the kind of restrictions that the minister has to deal with every December. As a representative of an island that is massively dependent on fisheries, I would dearly like to see the end of an inherently flawed policy.
I also agree with the cabinet secretary’s point about monkfish flexibility.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish my point. Monkfish is the most valuable species to the Shetland fleet, being worth approximately £4 million out of the £60 million of fish that was landed in Shetland, which is a quarter of all fish landed in Scotland.
Like those of Tavish Scott, my constituents are heavily dependent on the fishing industry. I wonder whether, in light of the fact that our minister is one of the most experienced ministers in Europe, Tavish Scott might join me in seeking a bigger role—I am not specific when I say that—in fisheries negotiations in Europe, where his experience can be of benefit to all members of the European Union.
I do not in any way doubt the cabinet secretary’s involvement or his expertise, as he has taken part for many years. However, my knowledge of the process has taught me—I am sure that Stewart Stevenson, who like me is an ex-minister, will accept this—that it is the bilaterals that matter. The work that matters, and of which Richard Lochhead has huge experience, is not in the Council chamber. We may make a big song and dance about that aspect, but the reality of European negotiations is about the people whom one talks to in the coffee room—I shall keep it at that—and the agreements or near agreements that one can come to there.
I would like to make two other points about observations that colleagues across the chamber have made. First, we have talked the talk on discards, but if we look at the Norwegian experience of a discard policy we see that it is anything but a discard policy. The Norwegians describe their fishing approach as one where they have banned discards, but if we look closely at it, as I am sure the cabinet secretary has, we find that there are areas in which they have a discard ban and that they also have what is in my view an enlightened policy that recognises their white-fish industry’s needs and its catch in a mixed fishery.
That relates to the one point that I would make about Stewart Stevenson’s earlier remarks about our industry volunteering for selective gear. I am sure that, like me, he would recognise from his own constituency that when our boats were asked to put cameras on board it was because there were more days to achieve from that policy. The industry was not exactly ecstatic about it—I am sure that Mr Stevenson had the same kind of conversation on the pier as I did—so we should be careful what we say about the balance between our industry moving forward on selective gear and the reality that it has been forced to do so because that is the nature of the requirement.
My final point is on the north-east Atlantic mackerel situation, and I am grateful to other colleagues who have mentioned that. It is tied to white-fish stocks for the first time in our observations on those matters, and I wish the minister well in untangling a difficult knot.
16:37
Presiding Officer, I sometimes think that we ought to recall Parliament on Christmas day to hold this debate, such is the degree of good will that emanates from all sides of the chamber towards the minister as he sets about these difficult negotiations. I hope that you will not take that advice too seriously.
I have listened carefully to the debate, which as always has been a good one, but it is difficult not to remain deeply concerned about the international situation and the recent international negotiations, because those are the negotiations that really set the quota for stocks of mutual interest.
As has been highlighted vividly, not least by Tavish Scott, we now appear to have reached a stalemate with Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in relation to the north-east Atlantic mackerel. That will mean that total allowable catches for jointly managed stocks will not be set until well into the new year, as the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks, leaving our fishermen facing yet more uncertainty about their livelihood. It cannot be right, surely, that countries increase their allocations unilaterally year on year and simply refuse to co-operate when it is time to get round the negotiating table. The stalemate has to end, and soon.
On the common fisheries policy itself, the key issue, as other members have said, is surely how the new CFP will actually be implemented. Like everybody else, I am obviously pleased that we have reached an agreement on discards and that the ban is to be phased in gradually, but I am sure that we would all agree that there has to be a commonsense approach to the way in which discards are managed. A total elimination of discards is simply not practical in the very short term. As we have said before on this side of the chamber, simply banning discards is effectively banning the symptom rather than tackling the cause of the problem.
If the discards question is to be solved, a key element must be an increase in TAC, and in that regard we should not underestimate the importance of recognising changing scientific advice. As the North Atlantic Fisheries College Marine Centre in Shetland has recently reported, over the past decade cod stocks in the North Sea have doubled, plaice stocks have trebled and hake stocks have quadrupled, while fishing mortality rates have fallen dramatically year on year.
Although the North Sea is, in some ways, full of fish, the quotas for cod and haddock are now so low that fishermen are sometimes catching their quota within eight weeks and then having to turn to other catches to make a living. The conservation measures put in place by the CFP are therefore in some ways now creating an imbalance in the North Sea. For example, the number of sand eels, to which I think Angus MacDonald referred, has been greatly reduced. There is also displaced effort, which is resulting in too many boats fishing for prawns, for example, while other stocks protected by the cod recovery plan remain plentiful.
The recovery is good news, however, and our fishermen deserve enormous commendation for taking the hard decisions and making the necessary changes to ensure the industry’s viability. Make no mistake: fishermen want nothing more than to make fishing sustainable not just now but for generations to come. They have given up a great deal over the years to bring that about.
We share the cabinet secretary’s concern over ICES’s advice recommending a 9 per cent cut in the North Sea cod quota, particularly when the same advice shows that a 20 per cent increase in the quota would still keep the recovery of the stock on track. I agree that a further cut in quota could lead only to more discarding, given the abundance of cod in our seas. We therefore support the call from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to secure an increase in the cod quota for 2014, for the simple reason that it can ensure the continuation of sustainable fishing while reducing discards—I think that that is called a win-win situation.
Fishermen also face a 15 per cent cut in North Sea haddock, which is a mainstay of the Scottish fleet, so it still appears that our fishermen are being penalised even though they are the ones taking the necessary steps to help the industry survive.
Time does not allow me to discuss many other issues that the debate has thrown up, so I will finish by merely quoting the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:
“The reform of the CFP has been a political process and we are stuck with it... ministers ... now have to deliver workable plans that will protect our industry and ensure a sustainable future for fishing.”
Like other members, we on the Conservative side of the chamber wish the cabinet secretary every success as he seeks to do just that.
16:41
This time last year I stood in the chamber to debate the annual EU fisheries negotiations, and I expressed concerns about the state of our shared European fisheries. At that stage, reform of the common fisheries policy was being debated. In February this year, the European Parliament finally and belatedly reached an overdue arrangement. We are now all grappling with the final details.
As has been discussed by my colleagues, the CFP reforms have signalled an end to the widely discredited practice of discarding, which is certainly to be welcomed. We on this side of the chamber have again reiterated the importance of following sound scientific advice in developing European fisheries policy, which has not always been the case in the past.
As we have heard in the debate, the SFF, the RSPB and WWF are not that far from each other on the way forward for cod fisheries. In the words of my North East Scotland colleague, Jenny Marra,
“It is therefore clear that industry and environmental experts are prepared to unite when the scientific evidence is there.”
She urges the Scottish Government to
“build on our scientific data and to collaborate with our neighbours on the collection and production of that data”.
Angus MacDonald, too, has highlighted how essential the science is as a basis for moving forward in this complex area. Unfortunately, however, bilateral discussions between the EU and Norway have again fallen through. I wish the cabinet secretary every success in January in trying to resolve that very important issue. As Tavish Scott highlighted, the issue relating to the Faroes and Iceland must also be resolved if we are to have a fair way forward.
In our view, one of the most important developments that came out of the past year’s negotiations is in regionalisation. It is now the mainstream opinion in Europe that regional groups such as the Scheveningen group or the Baltic Sea fisheries forum—BALTFISH—are the preferred model for regional co-operation. However, more formalisation will of course need to take place. As Claire Baker highlighted earlier, the SFF today expressed concerns about “exclusive competence” being held in Brussels and “enshrined in the Treaties.” However, it is hoped that the cabinet secretary and others in the negotiations will be able to resolve that so that some sense of power and decision making is felt to be held at a regional level. I wish the cabinet secretary well with that.
On today’s announcement by the cabinet secretary about the European maritime and fisheries fund, the fund is sometimes forgotten in the debate but it is an important issue in terms of diversification and support for our coastal communities, such as Eyemouth, which is in my region and that of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I am sure that members will agree with me that the fund is really important for the future of our coastal communities. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can indicate what types of projects will be proposed in this round.
As my colleague Claire Baker has highlighted, and as we have suggested in our amendment to the Government’s motion, our fishing industry must be supported to comply with the ban on discards, which will soon come into effect. With the challenge of a mixed fishery, our fishermen must be able to adapt gradually to the incoming discard regulations and, as such, they must concentrate on discard minimisation and maximum selectivity. We cannot be left still adapting to the new regulations when the legislation comes into force.
I wish to say something about fashions in fish—perhaps in an attempt to be slightly light-hearted in this Christmas period. I recall my Aberdonian grandmother telling me that she heard in her childhood, “Fresh herrin—two a penny,” in Aberdeen. Once, mackerel was frowned on by some; then, smoked mackerel became good pub fare. Cod and haddock are the staples of fish suppers, but let us not shun other species in the bid for sustainability. The BBC website tells us:
“Coley is one of the least expensive fish in the cod family and is a great sustainable substitute for cod or haddock in many recipes.”
With his delicious cooking, my Thai son-in-law has proved that monkfish is great in a Thai curry, as it holds together well. One of the other ways to be adventurous is to order a fish box, which can come out of Aberdeen. What is in it depends on what the weekly catch is. My partner is getting one of those for Christmas.
What is the cabinet secretary doing further to promote the spread of species and to encourage sustainable catches? I said to my son last night—just to carry on the family theme—“I hope you’re going to eat well the night before your exam.” He is taking the exam as we speak. He said, “Yes, of course. I’m eating fish, because it will make me clever.” We all need to be extremely clever in the support that we must give to the cabinet secretary for what are very complex negotiations, so that we ensure that sustainable development is at the heart of the way forward for Scottish fisheries in sustainable Scottish seas.
I ask the cabinet secretary whether he might be minded to support our amendment, which we have lodged in a positive spirit. We wish the cabinet secretary well in this year’s end-of-year fisheries negotiations.
Before I call the cabinet secretary to close the debate, I once again remind members that the debates this afternoon are on a follow-on basis. Members who wish to participate in the next debate should be in the chamber for the opening speeches.
I call on Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate. The cabinet secretary’s speech should be eight minutes, please.
16:48
Once again, this has been a helpful and useful debate prior to the end-of-year bun fight that takes place in Brussels every December. These annual fisheries negotiations are so important to the future of our coastal economies, our seafood sector and the wider fishing industry.
I feel the weight on my shoulders as I head out to Brussels on Sunday for a two-day or three-day marathon, no doubt overnight and without sleep at some points, as is often the case in those mad surroundings. However, it is important that Scotland is represented there, given the importance of the fishing industry and seafood to Scotland.
I thank the many members from all parties for their fine speeches today. Alex Fergusson enjoyed the subject so much that he wants to come back and debate it again on Christmas day. He may be a lone voice on that particular suggestion, but I agreed with many of the other points that he made. Claudia Beamish referred to what she was giving her partner for Christmas, which I thought rather spoiled the surprise. I am sure, however, that he never reads in the Official Report the comments that his partner makes in the Scottish Parliament.
I congratulate Christian Allard on his first speech in the annual fishing debate. He reflected on his more than 20 years of experience of working in the north-east of Scotland fishing industry. It is fantastic to have his experience of the industry in the Parliament and to have heard from him during the debate. As he is French, I am trying to work out how we can use his ability and his negotiating and diplomatic skills, given that we sometimes have issues with the French in relation to some North Sea stocks. Perhaps we could make Christian the hake envoy for Scotland—we are always trying to get hake quota off the French, so that is perhaps a new job that we could give to him.
Many members have mentioned the quality of seafood from Scotland. I welcome that, because when we have such debates, we should always remember that, although they are about the technicalities, quota negotiations and all the other issues and bureaucracy surrounding them in Brussels, ultimately they are about the fantastic food that we are lucky enough to have in our waters. We are also lucky enough to have people with the skills, ingenuity, attitudes and aptitude to go out in all kinds of conditions to land that fantastic seafood for our own tables and the rest of the world. Given that around 50 per cent of our food exports are seafood, it contributes to their success.
I am pleased that Claire Baker mentioned serving up that fantastic seafood in our schools. The Scottish Government has run the seafood in schools project for some time now with a lot of success in introducing many of our children to healthy and good-quality Scottish seafood. My son is just as fussy as most other children of his age. It is encouraging that, when he comes back from his school dinners in Moray, he always compliments the fish, which he says is his favourite thing on the school menu. That is good news. There are schools across the country that serve up seafood.
A number of issues have been mentioned. I want first to turn to the talks between the EU and Norway. Many members have mentioned different dimensions of those talks, but there are essentially two dimensions to them. There is an on-going mackerel dispute, which is, of course, of international significance and of crucial importance to Scotland, and there are the white-fish stocks that are shared between the EU and Norway and are often the subject of separate negotiations. Those negotiations have been postponed to early 2014, as have the mackerel negotiations.
It is fair to say that those negotiations are not completely divorced from each other. They are tangled up to a degree, but in past years the white-fish negotiations on some of the crucial North Sea stocks, such as haddock and cod, have been carried out early in the following year due to their being postponed. The guidance that I have taken from our industry is that it is better to wait for a few months—perhaps even just a few weeks—to get the right result in the white-fish negotiations than to rush and have those negotiations on the normal schedule if we are not confident of getting the right result for Scotland. I take comfort from the fact that our industry understands the situation at the moment.
There is a new minister in place in Norway, of course. She is getting to grips with her portfolio and all the complex issues that surround it, and she no doubt welcomes the extra few weeks to do that.
The mackerel dispute is, of course, crucial. I am afraid that I have a slight issue with the Liberal Democrat amendment, as it seems to take the onus off having the option of securing a deal at the right time if the opportunity presents itself. Now that we have good science for the mackerel stock, there is a new atmosphere in trying to reach a deal in the dispute, which has gone on for several years now. I do not want to be bound by Parliament’s view, if possible, to avoid any opportunity that comes along to sign up to a deal if it is the right one for Scotland, so the wording of the Liberal Democrat amendment is not helpful. If we have the opportunity to secure the right deal for Scotland in the next few weeks or months, we should grasp that and put in place a stable management framework for an internationally important stock that is crucial for Scotland and which has to be governed on a sustainable basis.
I put on record once again that I will not sign up to any deal that is unreasonable and unfair to Scotland, rewards irresponsible behaviour from Iceland, the Faroes or any other country, and does not take into account the fact that Scotland, like many other countries in Europe, has been responsible over the past years and was part of an international management regime until the agreement broke down. That regime led to the stock being so healthy in the first place and to those other countries being able to take their quotas, which, unfortunately, they have established on a unilateral basis.
I am happy to support the Labour and Conservative amendments, which add to the motion, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats and other parties sign up to the final motion so that we can move forward with one voice.
Presiding Officer, before I address any other issues, can I check how long I have in the debate?
Eight minutes.
Okay. Eight more minutes or eight minutes altogether?
Eight minutes in total.
Thank you.
The talks between the EU and Norway are therefore crucial; let me now turn to members’ comments on the cod recovery plan.
Lewis Macdonald made a very good point when he alluded to the fact that we have a regulatory straitjacket that is the cod recovery plan, which was signed up to a few years ago and reflected circumstances at the time. This Government, of course, was not happy with the particular wording of the plan back then, and here we are in 2013 looking at the current fishing biology and circumstances with a plan that was designed a few years ago—a plan that is being adhered to time and again by a European Commission backed up by its lawyers.
At the forefront of our minds should be what is best for the cod stock and a reasonable outcome for our fishing industries. We do not want a situation in which Europe implements a 9 per cent cut because that is what the plans says. The cod recovery plan leads to more cod discards in our waters, forcing our fishermen to have the abhorrent experience of throwing good-quality fish—that is dead—overboard back into the sea. It is therefore good that the scientists, environmental organisations, the Scottish Government and all other parties in the chamber back a reasonable outcome and the potential for a modest increase in that quota.
A difficulty with the cod recovery plan is that it has had a huge negative impact on fleets’ ability to catch other stocks. It has been difficult for the Scottish fleet to catch other healthy stocks, because the state of the cod stock and the related legislation that it must adhere to means that it is not allowed to visit parts of the sea at certain times. The inflexibility in the cod recovery plan is so damaging to the Scottish fleet, and we must get it changed as quickly as possible.
A number of big challenges are on the horizon. We have the short-term challenges of next week’s quota negotiations, which we have discussed at length; the mackerel dispute that forms the backdrop of the negotiations—I hope that we can get a deal on that signed up to in the next few weeks and months; and the implementation of the discard ban, which will be possible only if we have genuine regionalisation in place. We do not want the detail in our complex fisheries decided in Brussels over the implementation of a discard ban; rather, we must work in partnership with our own industries and scientists in Scotland and those in other countries in the same waters to put the right measures into place.
The cabinet secretary will be well aware that, in going into negotiations, the more priorities that one has, the weaker one’s position. A number of members have called for negotiating no further reduction in effort. Can he conceive of any circumstances in which he would sign up to a deal that would include effort reduction, or is that one of the red lines over which he will not cross?
I am happy to confirm that, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, I will not support any deal that leads to any cut in days at sea for the Scottish fleet. It is ridiculous that, in 2013, we are still in a legal quagmire given that we all accept in Europe that the cod recovery plan is flawed and does not work in the way that it should. Indeed, many countries agree that there should be no further cuts in days at sea, and yet once again we have such a formal proposal from the European Commission. We must fight against that proposal next week, but I am hopeful of a good outcome. I will be demanding the support of the UK Government in taking that approach forward.
I thank members for their contributions. As I said, there are short-term challenges to face as well as the long-term challenges that include the discard ban and implementing regionalisation. We are fighting for a valuable industry for Scotland that lands fantastic seafood for our tables in this country and throughout the world. There is light at the end of the tunnel—if we can get through some of the challenges of the next year or two, we will be talking about a prosperous fishing industry for many years to come, with sustainable fish stocks in our waters. That is a win-win situation for everyone. I ask the industry for its patience and its co-operation and to continue the resilient attitude in the years ahead, so that we can achieve that success for Scotland.